It has been revealed that the Queen's #Speech will now take place on Wednesday 21st June, which is next week. Whilst this may seem to be a fairly regular announcement, in truth it is anything but. I want to analyse the situation and address a number of issues as the article progresses.

Context

As reported in the Independent newspaper, the Queen's Speech is effectively "a list of all the laws that a government wants to pass over the course of a parliament". It is "read out by the monarch" and voted upon in the House of Commons. It was expected that the speech would take place on Monday 19th June but, as stated, it has been delayed.

Advertisements
Advertisements

The reason? Because Theresa May's government are still in talks with the DUP in order to form a coalition. This was necessary due to the hung parliament that followed the Conservative's inability to secure a majority in the recent general election.

For and against

Moving on, in analysing the situation, what should be made of the decision to delay? In all honestly, I think it is a lack of respect. This is not some ordinary situation with some ordinary member of society; this is #The Queen, our own Head of State and one may say that we are her subjects. There are those who do question such a line of thinking and even feel that we should not even have a monarchy. Let us consider this for a moment. On this side of the aisle, as reported in the Economist magazine, it is argued that the Royal family are "incompatible with democracy".

Advertisements

Another issue is that with hereditary succession, "you never know who you're going to get" next in sorts. Although we know it will be #prince Charles and then Prince William, the fact that the role is not democratically elected is, I think, why that point is made. Furthermore, related to this last point, in theory, the ruling Monarch does still have considerable powers. Although not exercised very often anymore, they can still "wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament" for example. However, what is often argued to be the biggest argument against the Monarchy is the equality aspect. We are equal under the eyes of God; nobody is better or more special than another. However, this is not the case. We have a family who live in a palace who are treated differently and more superior to others individuals. However, despite such points made, let us remind ourselves that there are a number of advantages of having a Monarchy as reported in the Word Press article. One key point is history. The Monarchy have been around for a very long time.

Advertisements

They also do not cost very much money. They only cost 57p a year for the taxpayer. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister "costs the taxpayer far more". And then there is the tourism aspect. It is estimated, according to the Telegraph newspaper, that the Monarchy attracts five hundred million pounds sterling a year from overseas tourists.

Understanding the situation

Overall, despite such complaints, the fact that the Monarchy is a 'national treasure' and such a presence in the UK and around the world, it is understandable the criticism labelled at the government for delaying the Queen's Speech. However, it must be said, it is also understandable the actions taken by government in delaying the Speech. British politics has changed nowadays. It is not what is was. What I mean is that the power of the ruling Monarch has changed drastically and is now more a symbolic figure. Although good for the economy, it is now the Prime Minister and the elected Members of Parliament who pull the strings nowadays.

And so as a result, although it does seem to be disrespectful the treatment afforded to the Queen, the priority is to form a government so that they can begin to operate and run the country. It is unfortunate to delay the Speech, but it shows the different political reality that we are living in now.