The speech, which sets out the Government’s agenda for the next months, took place in Parliament this morning. Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis sparked a heated conversation on Twitter when she said the Queen looked “furious”. She said: “Im sure she’s not. But she looks furious. #QueensSpeech”
Several people agreed, with one saying: “Are you absolutely sure she is not?”
Another wrote: “I agree. A very displeased look amidst the diamond glitter.”
A third added: “I’m pretty confident she’s bloody furious.”
Another simply said the Queen was giving “dead eyes” to the crowd, while another social media user wrote: “The Queen’s raging, we can all see that.”
A Twitter user, mocking the famous quote attributed to Queen Victoria “we are not amused”, wrote: “Was it me or did @HMQueen look extremely unamused.“
Another said: “Her body language is depressed despite her age and clothes.
“Poor woman. Utterly vile she had to do this.”
Other Twitter commentators believed the Queen was upset at Prime Minister Boris Johnson for dragging her into the ongoing political chaos caused by the Government’s difficulties to deliver Brexit.
One wrote: “I’m sure she is [furious].
“It’s a mock Queen’s speech by a Government that knows it can’t deliver any of its policies.
“Sooner an extension to Article 50 is obtained sooner we can have an election.
“Could be a Vote of No Confidence as early as next Monday.”
Another one claimed the Queen may be angry at Mr Johnson following his request in August to prorogue Parliament for weeks.
They said: “If she’s not being asked by the Prime Minister to prorogue she’s being asked to pretend in her speech that’s she’s pro a bloody rogue.”
In late September, the Supreme Court ruled Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was “unlawful”.
Anti-monarchy campaign group Republic then claimed the Queen should have opposed to Mr Johnson’s request.
By not doing so, she showed it was time for an elected head of state to replace the Royal Family, the CEO of the group, Graham Smith, claimed.
He said: “The Queen was given an instruction to do an unlawful thing, and she did it.
“We’re always told she has the benefit of decades of experience and yet she couldn’t see what was obvious to everyone else, that the PM’s motives were not honest.
“It cannot be the case that a head of state is constitutionally bound to do an unconstitutional thing.
“And ‘I was doing what I was told’ is no defence.
“Of course, refusing prorogation would have been dangerous territory for the monarchy, but that’s the job.
“Truth is, this whole episode exposes the monarchy as a pointless and ineffective institution.”
To deliver the speech the Government had written for her, the Queen wore an ivory dress paired with matching gloves and her diamond diadem tiara.
For the second time in 66 years of reign, the Queen didn’t wear the Imperial Crown, a heavy headpiece featuring several gemstones including the Second Star of Africa, the Black Prince’s Ruby, the Stuart Sapphire and St Edward’s Sapphire.
There are a total of 2,868 diamonds in silver mounts, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds and 269 pearls on the crown.