Good point - I’m still uncertain on how the new system works, but I think the Speech still carries that weight. But, certainly open to correction.
It would be interesting if the standard motion on the speech were to be voted down, and an immediately following motion with the the wording required by the FTPA (if it were ruled necessary) were then also voted down.
In such circumstances, any PM ought to have the nous to say “Stuff this for a game of soldiers”, but the situation could still gum up the works completely.
As always informative, but can the Queen decline to agree with the contents of her Government-written speech?
ETA: or even decline to read it?
She’s perfectly free to do either of those things, but not if she wants to remain Queen. Or potentially for the UK to remain a monarchy.
The snap election of 2017 led to a scaled-down Queen’s speech - no carriages, relatively informal dress etc. This led to what many consider an interesting fashion choice by Her Maj…
Agree with Wolfpup. The views in the Speech are that of the Government, not Her Majesty’s. It is not appropriate for her to try to interject her own political views (if any). She acts on the advice from her ministers.
I am not disputing your helpful answer but am just curious - is there a law or constitutional requirement that demands she acts on the advice of her ministers?
If not, then presumably she is compelled to abdicate? By what (formal) mechanism?
If the Prime Minister’s advice, formally tendered, were to be rejected then his government would have to resign, as he lacks the confidence of his Sovereign.
The last time that happened was with William IV and Earl Grey. William refused to take Grey’s advice and dismissed Grey.
However, Grey had a solid majority in the Commons and William’s choice for PM, the Duke of Wellington, reported back to the King that he could not form a government and advised him to send for Grey.
That established the principle that the monarch has to take the advice of the person who controls a majority of the Commons. It’s impossible for the Crown to have a gouvernement that does not have the confidence of the Commons.
Has the Prime Minister become a man? 
Which is just another example of (a) the folly of the fixed term Act, changing the well-established rules of confidence, and (b) the incompetence of PM Cameron, letting such an ill-thought substantive constitutional change go through simply to retain power (hmmm, I’m starting to see a pattern with recent Tory PMs …)
Has the prime minister had a bar mitzvah yet?
It’s not an essential requirement that she personally read it (she didn’t the two times she was pregnant during her reign). It would be a big problem if it were known that she was shrugging off because of a disagreement, but there are plans in place for if she is unable for whatever reason. Someone else just reads it for her; this happens at the end of every session, where there’s also a Queen’s Speech setting out what Parliament did during the session.
Whether she agrees or not is neither here nor there, since it’s always couched as a dry list of announcements of what “my ministers” propose to do with the parliamentary session. It’s not a “State of the Union” speech promoting a point of view.
This would be unthinkable, but of course she could always have diplomatic flu, and someone else could do it, or some other ceremonial could be invented.
That’s the longest Parliament (although I think the big gap from 1653-9 is cheating a bit, let alone the Rump’s instigation in 1649) but not a comment on the length of sessions…
Although I have no idea how the Parliaments of the 17th Century organised their business, they might well have had a single decade long session!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Historically, what Brenda has done when she sees her government about to do something spectacularly stupid is to summon a senior civil servant to ‘explain the matter to her’. Government backtracking is usually suspiciously quick.
Well, she’s commonly considered at least HUman, which is close enough for legal writings like these.
I have my suspicions, though. She just looks too much like a Disney villain to be real.
Do you have an example of that?
My impression (from Peter Hennessey’sThe Hidden Wiring is that awkward enquiries like that are dealt with from her private secretary to the PM’s private secretary. Going direct to the lower echelons would look like going behind the PM’s back.
Note that while Parliament is in session, the Queen and the Prime Minister meet weekly. Those meetings are (mostly) confidential. If the Queen wishes to provide advice to the Prime Minister, that’s when she’ll do it.
Gordon Brown wanted to introduce something particularly stupid. I forget what - it was a good few years ago. Brenda summoned Carney or King to explain the matter to her and the policy was pretty much immediately withdrawn.