Her Majesty The Queen will address the UK and Commonwealth on Sunday

Screenshot_2020-04-03 (7) The Royal Family - Posts

“On Sunday 5th April at 8pm (BST)‬ [3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time] ‪Her Majesty The Queen will address the UK and the Commonwealth in a televised broadcast.‬ As well as television and radio, The Queen’s address will be shown on The Royal Family’s social media channels.”

One presumes that this will be in regard to the ongoing coronavirus situation. It is sad that Her Majesty has had to deal with so many crises and controversies in recent years, and now this. She’s 93 years old, for goodness sake! But as the comment above aptly noted, she is an inspiration to us all. God save The Queen! Health and long life to Her Majesty.


Author: The Anglophilic Anglican

I am an ordained Anglican clergyman, published writer, former op-ed columnist, and experienced outdoor and informal educator. I am also a traditionalist: religiously, philosophically, politically, and socially. I seek to do my bit to promote and restore the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, in a world which has too-often lost touch with all three, and to help re-weave the connections between God, Nature, and humankind which our techno-industrial civilization has strained and broken.

3 thoughts on “Her Majesty The Queen will address the UK and Commonwealth on Sunday”

  1. My wife and I were speculating the other day as to what would happen if Her Majesty developed cough, cold, flu or fever symptoms and tested positive for coronavirus antigen. I imagined she would make a speech to the nations and the Commonwealth explaining that she had requested, if she didn’t survive the illness, a quiet funeral for close family only, rather than the state funeral planned for years when she passed away, followed (when safe) by a memorial service not only for her, but for all her subjects who had died to, whose families had also been deprived of great, solemn and joyful funerals in which their loved one’s lives had been remembered and celebrated before God.

    She could make that speech even if she wasn’t ill and I think it would be just as well-received. I’d like that better. I’d like her to survive long enough to send herself a telegram. (God save The Queen. Long live The Queen.) But acknowledging that she is as vulnerable as any of her subjects wouldn’t come amiss.

    Perhaps she will downsize and asset-strip the firm she heads up (the Royal Family, not the Church of England, I mean), releasing funds to help to pay for all the protective clothing, ventilators and coronavirus testing kits the NHS is short of. Or, better, to fund the health services of Commonwealth countries that are in the same pickle.


    1. John, I doubt that anyone, from the Queen herself to the most avid republican, has any doubt that Her Majesty is “as vulnerable as any of her subjects.” Speaking as one of her admirers from the other side of the Atlantic, I am all too aware of this; and if anyone were not, surely the illness of HRH The Prince of Wales corrected that misapprehension.

      Nor can I imagine that anyone thinks Her Majesty herself has any doubt as to her own mortality, and vulnerability. One cannot live for 93 years, and through such experiences as she has, and doubt that. And I am quite sure that no one would expect there to be – God forbid! – a Royal state funeral in the midst of a pandemic shutdown.

      Rather I am sure there would be, as you say, a “quiet funeral for close family only,” with any further services postponed until a more opportune time. For surely the longest reign by an English Monarch in history – and one as devoted in her lifetime of service as Her Majesty – deserves more recognition than simply a quiet family service in St. George’s Chapel.

      As to asset-stripping and downsizing “the firm she heads up,” I cannot agree with that. While the funds thus “liberated” might well assist with the immediate crisis, there would be many more crises, down the pike, long after those funds had been expended; but the “assets” in question would be gone forever, to the great cultural impoverishment of Britain, and the world.

      Even if one cares nothing for the symbolic, cultural, and historical significance of the physical assets of the British Monarchy – which I, for one, do – more than one study has been done which demonstrates conclusively that the Monarchy brings in far more in tourist dollars (or rather, I should say, pounds sterling) than it costs the British taxpayer.

      And a good deal of that tourism is driven by the fact that those assets are not mere empty shells – historical relics or curios – but part of the institution of a living Monarchy. Can you honestly think that they would have the same appeal, if they were owned by corporate CEOs, or celebrities – even if they allowed the public to view them? No, to this Anglophilic Anglican, the assets belong with the institution!

      But thank you for your perspective on the situation. And emphatically, yes: I hope she does indeed live long enough to send herself a telegram! I like that image… *delighted chuckle*

      Liked by 1 person

    2. When I spoke of downsizing, I wasn’t referring to EIIR disposing of any of the trappings of royalty accumulated by the crown, which political act would not be allowed, but of her majesty’s personal wealth. Not irreplaceable treasures like jewellery and paintings and gifts from visiting heads of state and palaces and castles, which belong to the British state and are held by the monarch in trust for the nation as a whole. Parliament would not allow Her Majesty to sell off assets like that. They don’t belong to her as an individual. Rather I was speaking of stocks and shares, bank balances etc, in her own name, as one of her own private, individual subjects so-to-speak. She can do whatever she likes with her own money. By all accounts, she has a lot of it to spare, even though the state of which she is head will always take care of her, so she could be as poor as a church mouse without suffering any deprivation at all if she so chose.

      It is entirely possible that Elizabeth is already a secret benefactor of all sorts of good causes, of course. And, she pays a lot of tax to EIIR’s government on her unearned private income – unearned in the sense that that is return on
      investments rather than wages from moonlighting I hasten to add.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s