38656356325923

father himself had not enjoyed. Furthermore, under the protective eye of Churchill,
concerned perhaps to protect the royal income from the onslaught of post-war tax rates,
she was allowed to claim back payments she had already made. 4 It had not been until
late 1991 that Elizabeth, in response to the rising strength of public opinion and,
apparently, urged on by Charles, had authorized her advisers to begin discussions with
the Treasury on the subject. According to a senior courtier, the decision that she should
pay tax on her private income and remove all members of the royal family except for
the Queen Mother and the Duke of Edinburgh from the Civil List – the Prince of Wales
had his own income from the Duchy of Cornwall – had been taken in April 1992, but the
Palace and the Treasury had moved extremely slowly, intending to announce the final
arrangements early the following year. The result was that they were caught out not
only once but twice. Palace dilatoriness made it look as though Elizabeth was moving
only in response to pressure from the Prime Minister when he visited Balmoral in
September – that indeed was the impression gained from various leaks and floaters in
the press. Then came the Windsor fire and the hostile public reaction to the Heritage
Secretary’s pledge that the loyal public would pay up.
Four days after the fire Elizabeth made a speech at London’s Guildhall at a luncheon
given to mark her fortieth (and most inauspicious) year on the throne. She was suffering
from a heavy cold and the after-effects of the smoke and fumes at Windsor. She looked –
and sounded – sad as she made a plea for understanding, although the formal language
in which her speech was couched lessened its impact, as did the fact that, instead of
making a direct appeal, she read it from a paper. (Unlike her daughter, the Princess
Royal, or her husband, Elizabeth has never been able to, or felt confident enough to,
memorize a speech.) ‘I am quite sure that most people try to do their jobs as best they
can, even if the result is not always entirely successful,’ she said. ‘… There can be no
doubt… that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life…
But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one
part or another, can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of gentleness, good
humour and understanding… This sort of questioning can also act, and so it should do,
as an effective agent of change.’ The speech also contained veiled but bitter allusions to
the press, which confirmed suspicions that the ‘Queen’s advisers’ were still not taking
the media seriously as the voice of the public; it might also have been better received
had the announcement of the Queen’s decision to pay tax been made earlier instead of
only hinted at as it was in the speech. The Daily Maileditorialized:
We sympathize with the Queen. Of course we do. But these are hard times for most people. Many of them
have had a truly horrid year. They have lost their livelihoods. Even been driven from their homes. The
Queen should pay some tax on her income. And fewer members of her family should be a charge on the Civil
List. She should offer to contribute to restoring the fabric of Windsor Castle… If we read it right, this intense
and complex speech is not only a cri de coeur, but a prologue for change.
It was dubbed the ‘annus horribilis’ speech: ‘1992 is not a year I shall look back on
with undiluted pleasure,’ Elizabeth said. ‘In the words of one of my more sympathetic