IN AN unprecedented speech, the Queen yesterday bared her soul over
her ''annus horribilis'' -- a horrible year.
The Queen's frank and deeply personal message came in a speech to more
than 500 invited guests at a Corporation of London luncheon at the
Guildhall to mark her fortieth year on the throne.
In a voice cracking through the effects of a heavy cold, the Queen
spoke about the distress felt by the royal family in a year blighted by
the separation of the Duke and Duchess of York, the alleged marriage
troubles of the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the fire which ravaged
Windsor Castle.
She acknowledged that the monarchy should not be above criticism but
effectively pleaded for a fairer hearing from both press and public. To
this she allied a pledge to work for change while maintaining the
institution's stability and continuity.
The Guildhall guests, who included the Prime Minister and Labour
leader John Smith, rewarded her with an enthusiastic standing ovation.
Away from Guildhall, however, MPs and royal commentators reacted with a
mixture of surprise, enthusiasm, and even scorn.
The Queen told the Guildhall guests: ''Nineteen ninety-two is not a
year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of
one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an
'annus horribilis'. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking it so.
''Indeed I suspect that there are very few people or institutions
unaffected by these last months of worldwide turmoil and uncertainty.''
The Queen said criticism was ''good for people and institutions that
are part of public life'', adding that the monarchy should not expect to
be free from scrutiny.
''But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and
that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is
made with a touch of gentleness, good humour, and understanding.''
At a time when opinion polls suggest the monarchy is suffering from
growing unpopularity, the Queen did little to defuse the row over who
should pay for repairs to Windsor Castle. She referred only in passing
to the ''tragic'' blaze, saying it made her and the Duke of Edinburgh
all the more grateful for the hospitality and welcome extended by the
City.
In a passage which some observers interpreted as an open plea for
understanding, the Queen said: ''I dare say that history will take a
slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary
commentators.''
The 10-minute speech, brought forward from the end of the luncheon to
the beginning to help save the Queen's voice, was widely welcomed by her
audience.
Mr Smith said: ''I think it was very interesting. She is entitled to
defend herself and she did it rather wittily and rather charmingly. It
is probably true that she has had a horrible year.''
The former Tory Minister and leading constitutional expert, Lord St
John of Fawsley, said: ''It was wonderful, just the right sort of speech
and the right sort of tone. She showed tremendous courage and
determination.''
Away from Guildhall, the speech met a mixed reception.
Author Andrew Morton, whose book about the Princess of Wales provoked
a storm of speculation about her marriage, defended his role in the
Queen's unhappy year by saying he was ''just the messenger''.
As he picked up the London Press Club's Scoop of the Year award for
Diana -- Her True Story, he said: ''I have merely chronicled what was
going on inside the House of Windsor.''
Romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland, step-grandmother to the
Princess of Wales, was ''disappointed'' there was no mention of how
ordinary people, who were expected to foot the bill for the Windsor
fire, were suffering from high unemployment and the recession.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article