In some ways, the Queen’s Speech is brilliant. For those who have never watched it, Her Majesty reads out whatever it is the government of the day wishes to do. Naturally, as this year’s speech was written by David Cameron’s Conservative government, it contained the various slogans and platitudes that anyone who followed the recent General Election will be painfully familiar with. The result is an 89-year-old woman, sitting on a golden throne, telling the country that Her government will be "helping working people get on, supporting aspiration", "reducing the deficit, so Britain lives within its means" and "helping to build a northern powerhouse".

Two things are clear from her body language; the first is that she is traditionally-minded enough to appreciate the ridiculousness of the political language that has become de rigueur since the election of Tony Blair in 1997. The second is that she seems close enough to the modern world to realise that the whole procedure of the Queen’s Speech is both anachronistic and rather silly. Yet while her straight-faced approach to delivering political platitudes and emphasising the need to "ban the new generation of psychoactive drugs" makes for some entertainment, the out-dated silliness of the whole affair ultimately makes for a farcical spectacle.

Let me highlight what happens on the State Opening of Parliament in the run-up to the speech. The Queen is driven by carriage, to Parliament, with a crown symbolising her power in a not-in-any-way ostentatious display of the authority that the hereditary monarchy of ours still holds over us. When the Queen and the House of Commons are ready, an official known as Black Rod (stop sniggering at the back), in a party of 16 that includes people with titles such as ‘Fitzalan Pursuivant Extraordinary’ and ‘Norroy and Ulster King of Arms’, summons the Commons. Of course, he has to knock on the door to gain permission to enter. The MPs are then led from the Commons to the House of Lords to attend the speech.

The reason for knocking is because, apparently, Charles I entered uninvited sometime in the 1640s and obviously, such protocol would have been sufficient to stop Charles back then. Similarly, there is clearly the possibility that Elizabeth II would also march in and arrest 5 MPs were she given the chance. Either way, in a week when an op-ed for the Washington Post declared that "after an extraordinary 300-year run, Britain has essentially resigned as a world power", the whole proceeding seems a useless piece of tradition-for-tradition’s sake that is of no benefit to Britain.

I do not identify with the Left and I certainly have nothing against tradition, if it is beneficial. If I ran things, Latin would be taught in every school, especially those in more disadvantaged areas to give those children the cultural capital to level the playing field. Test cricket would be the dominant form of the game, with the recently concluded match at Lord’s showing beyond doubt why this should be so. I have no problem with heraldry and inherited aristocratic wealth, although it should not automatically entitle anyone to a position of public power within the country.

However, these monarchic hangovers do not appear beneficial. Ideally, I would replace the hereditary monarchy with an elected president, whose position, like the Queen and the President of Ireland, would remain ceremonial and apolitical for the most part. I concede that the monarchy remains extremely popular, but when Elizabeth passes away and Charles accedes to the throne, support for the monarchy may well fall.

So, let us imagine the normality of the President’s Speech in the hypothetical United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not implausible that if there was an election for President, certified national treasure Stephen Fry would be the winner. So let’s momentarily elect him. At the State Opening of Parliament, President Fry would announce the government’s legislative programme for the year ahead in a similarly deadpan style to that of the Queen. He’s good at jokes, and in showing similar disdain for the political spin employed by the governing party he could capture the best bits of the Queen’s Speech. He, however, could just walk in to the Commons because everyone would be expecting him. Instead of the anachronism we have at the moment, we would have a State Opening of Parliament that made sense, was modern, and matched Britain’s place on the world stage. And parliament would function just as well, if not better than ever before.

@OliGarner1