I mean the current QE.
And by missed a step, mean really done something to hack the British people off or do something to cause a bad public reaction.
And no I don’t count giving birth to Charles 
I am not that up to date with British happenings, but it seems like she has never been out of line really and, while some British or Commonwealth citizen may dislike the monarchy, they all see united in their like of QEII.
So was are some missteps she has had during her reign?
There was an excellent BBC series a few years ago called “the Queen” which looked at 6 occassions in her reign where she really was in hot water with the public.
Watch the film ‘The Queen’ with Helen Mirren, which is entirely about the Queen misreading her people and right royally pissing them off over her lack of reaction to the death of Diana.
Well in retrospect most Briton I know think that the whole Diana death grief business was a little…excessive and seem mildly embarrassed by it.
She caused a minor controversy (now totally forgotten, it seems, because I can only find information at all by looking through news archives from when it happened) when she told King Hussein that Israeli fighter jets flying above them were “frightening,” and then said “what a depressing map” when looking at a map of settlements in the West Bank. It seems that it was pretty in line with the Foreign Office’s agenda for the visit, though, so I don’t think any criticism of her personally got very far.
For me, her biggest blunder was in her 1992 Christmas Message. The public could reasonably be on her side. Stressful events from that year for her family included (taken from Wikipedia):
[ul]
[li]In March 1992, it was announced that her second son, The Duke of York, would separate from his wife Sarah. Later in the year, scandalous pictures of a topless Sarah being kissed on her feet by her friend, John Bryan, were published in the tabloids. [/li][li]In April, her daughter, The Princess Royal, divorced her husband Captain Mark Phillips. [/li][li]In June, The Princess of Wales’ tell-all book, Diana, Her True Story, was published. [/li][li]In November, just four days before the Guildhall speech, one of The Queen’s homes, Windsor Castle, caught fire. The castle was seriously damaged, and several priceless artefacts were lost. John Major, then Prime Minister, originally indicated that the government would fund the cost of repairs (Windsor Castle, like Buckingham Palace, being government-owned). Convention requires the monarch to accept the advice of his or her Prime Minister, but there was considerable public outcry against this plan. As an alternative to relying solely on the taxpayer, the government decided to open some publicly-owned royal residences to tourists during the summer period when the Queen is not in residence, and the revenue from those tours was applied to the castle repair costs. [/li][li]In December, the Royal Family faced further difficulties when the separation of The Prince of Wales and his wife Diana was announced.[/li][/ul]
She could have rallied the Commonwealth together to support her, as we sympathized with a mother/grandmother dealing with family and natural disaster issues.
So how did she choose to describe her year? As an “annus horribilis.” Seriously. Any and all sympathy evaporated instantly. Has any normal person in modern society resorted to Latin to describe their situation? Of course not.
In my mind that was an incredibly ill-advised expression - one which only emphasised how disconnected the Royal family are from “normal” people. Such a wasted opportunity.
Really? For you someone merely using a word you don’t use yourself is enough to completely demolish any human sympathy in the face of tragedy you might have for that person?
The day The Queen starts affecting popular speach to fit in is the day she becomes worthy of ridicule. She’s never been less than honest about her education and upbringing; would we want her to be? “Oooh, yeah, guv, I iz queenie, like, ya know?”
I guess I didn’t take that much notice of it at the time but in New Zealand I seem to remember that comment being received as good natured humour.
Agreed. I don’t think that statement was publicly perceived as a misstep. The Queen is not a “normal person in modern society”, and people don’t expect her to speak like one.
I’m struggling to think of anything major. In a 60 year career that is pretty amazing. It certainly suggests she’s good at her job. (I think perhaps she subcontracts the balls-ups to her husband)
With the Diana incident, I suggest that she was far more in touch with the majority of the country than the media would suggest. In the circle of people that I know (I think they are fairly representative) for every bawling idiot that signed a book of condolence and left a cuddly toy at the gates there were at least 5 that reckoned a sense of proportion was needed.
The media were, of course, not interested in reporting that side of the story and concentrated instead on whipping up a frenzy of recreational grief.
It was pretty ridiculous. Everyone knows The Queen doesn’t have an annus.
Well, there was this.
Well she had a bit of a row over expense in the early 70’s. She (IIRC) threatened to buy a private home for her (then reletivly young) family if she was not given additional money on the list for renovations.
Then what’s she doing on the throne?
I am a little disappointed in this thread. I opened it looking for pictures of the Queen slipping and falling 
So far as I can recall, my impression at the time was that it was a misstep not only that she used the Latin phrase “annus horriblis,” but also that she used an occasion of state to say, essentially, “It was a horrible year for me personally, so it was a horrible year for the whole universe! If only my sons weren’t getting divorced and one of my houses (one that I don’t even own personally) suffered a fire, everything would be sooooo perfect!” In other words, she equated her personal disappointments with the state of the realm. That’s what made her seem out of touch. That little clip of the speech is replayed often, and my first thought is always along the line of, “You whiny little punk; this is where you are supposed to talk about your country, not about yourself.”
I agree that the Queen’s response to the death of Diana seemed to be a serious misstep at the time, perhaps the biggest of her reign (there was even polling at the time showing a sharp jump in support for abolishing the monarchy), but in retrospect - although she might have been a bit more tactful from the outset - I think she was responding to the tragedy more level-headedly than many of her subjects. In any event, The Queen with Helen Mirren is definitely worth seeing.
More humorously, due to staff errors, she did once fall for a prank call from a DJ pretending to be the Canadian prime minister: Allo! Allo! Ici the Queen. Who's This? - The New York Times
And see the last excerpt here: Home | Windsor Star
Since Charles is older than me, I would have no clue about this: was there any controversy over her naming her eldest “Charles”? The name doesn’t exactly bring to mind any endearing memories of Charles I and II. I know he can take any name he wishes and will likely be George VII, but why Charles and didn’t this cause a stir at the time?
Based on what I’ve read in this thread, the worst act she’s done is refusing to allow her sister to marry the man she loved. I forget the official reasons why he was unsuitable, but that was some cold dealings on the part QEII.
He was divorced. That was Just Not Done in the early 1950s.