queen's speech in 1992

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

‘Annus Horribilis’: Why Queen Elizabeth II Called 1992 a Horrible Year

By: Jessica Pearce Rotondi

Updated: May 17, 2023 | Original: October 28, 2022

Queen Elizabeth II called 1992 her “annus horribilis,” or horrible year, in a speech marking the 40 th year of her reign, saying: “1992 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 '.”

The marriages of three of her four children ended; there was a fire at her beloved home, Windsor Castle; and the publication of a racy book and leaked phone conversations from Princess Diana and Prince Charles to their lovers—known as the “Squidgygate Tapes” and “Camillagate,” respectively—added scandal to a year when taxpayers were questioning the cost of the royal family. Media scrutiny on these matters exacerbated the Queen’s private pain.

Divorce and Separation

1992 was a bad year for royal marriages. In March, the Queen’s son Prince Andrew separated from Sarah Ferguson. Ferguson would reappear in headlines in August when the tabloids published topless photos of her having her feet kissed by American businessman John Bryan in the South of France. “The worst part to the British public was that her young daughters were present and a taxpayer-funded policeman was disporting himself on a lounger close by,” says former BBC royal correspondent Michael Cole.

In April, the queen’s only daughter, Princess Anne, divorced Mark Phillips , her husband of 18 years. And in December, Prince Charles, heir to the throne, separated from Princess Diana following a year of tabloid coverage that broadcasted their marital troubles to the world in a media blitz known as “ The War of the Waleses.”

The royal separations and scandals became fodder for critics of the monarchy like then-Labor MP Dennis Skinner, who said: "It's high time we stopped this charade of swearing allegiance to the queen and her heirs and successors when we do not know from time to time who they are .”

Andrew Morton Releases 'Diana: Her True Story'

Andrew Morton’s Diana: Her True Story caused a sensation when it was published in 1992. It named Camilla Parker Bowles as Prince Charles’ lover and detailed Diana’s struggles with mental health and bulimia. 

“Morton’s book effectively shattered the mystique of the monarchy,” says Carly Ledbetter, a senior reporter at HuffPost who covers the royal family. “One could easily conclude that The Firm was messy, it was human, and it wasn’t as impenetrable as everyone thought.”

It wasn’t until after Princess Diana’s death in 1997 that she was revealed to have cooperated with Morton on the book, providing materials and recordings to him via Dr. James Colthurst.

Leaked ‘Squidgygate’ and ‘Camillagate’ Tapes

In August 1992, The Enquirer published transcriptions of a private phone conversation between Princess Diana and car dealer James Gilbey from New Year’s Eve 1989. The intimacy of the conversation and his referral to the married princess as “darling” and “squidgey” ignited a scandal… alongside comments Diana made about “all I’ve done for this f***ing family.” “Audiences and royal watchers around the world couldn’t get enough of the intimate details,” says Ledbetter. “People were split between horror and fascination.”

“ Squidgygate ” was quickly overshadowed by the November reveal of a private call between then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. It was nicknamed “Camillagate,” then “Tampongate” for a particularly intimate wish Charles expressed to Camilla over the phone. “He was an object of ridicule internationally,” Cole says. “The royal family became less popular in the public’s esteem.”

“Tampongate and Squidgeygate had—and continue to have—an enormous impact on the credibility of the royal family,” says Ledbetter. “The recorded phone calls greatly impacted the public perception of the heir to the throne and called into question Charles’ ability to one day be king.”

Windsor Castle Fire

On November 20, 1992, a fire broke out in Windsor Castle that burned for 15 hours and caused about $47.5 million worth of damage . The historic royal home was first built by William the Conqueror in 1070. Valuable works of art and furniture were saved from the blaze by a human chain that included palace staff and Prince Andrew.

The Windsor Castle fire was devastating to the Queen, who had spent much of her childhood and formative teenage years there. “She regarded it as home because she spent most of the Second World War there,” says Cole. “She was not evacuated to Canada. The Queen Mother famously said, ‘The children won't go without me. I won't leave the King. And the King will never leave [England].’” Windsor Castle was also the site of Elizabeth’s beloved Royal Windsor Horse Show , which she attended every year since its inception in 1943.

The fire renewed public scrutiny of the cost associated with the upkeep of the royal family. Windsor Castle is owned by the crown, not the monarch personally, and the question of who would pay for repairs sparked debate—especially Prime Minister John Major’s suggestion that the public foot the bill. Labour politicians like Alan Williams, a member of the House of Commons public accounts committee, implored the Queen to pay for it from her untaxed income, arguing the fire was an example of the "inconsistency of the relationship between the monarchy and the taxpayer."

Queen Elizabeth acted quickly. To fund repairs, she opened parts of Buckingham Palace to the public for the first time. In another shrewd move, she volunteered to start paying income tax—a tax the sovereign had been exempt from since 1937 . She also reduced the civil list, the number of royals whose expenses are paid by parliament . To make up the difference, she used her income from the inherited Duchy of Lancaster . “She’s always believed in keeping up with the times,” says Cole. “It was a token effort to join the real world.”

Queen Appeals for 'Gentleness' and 'Good Humor'

The “Annus Horribilis Speech,” as it has come to be known, marked the close of a difficult 40 th year in power for Queen Elizabeth II. She closed with a plea for kindness: “No institution…should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't. But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and…scrutiny…can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of gentleness, good humor and understanding.” 

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Steals & Deals: Up to 86% off jewelry, skin care, more gifts for her

• Black Friday
• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show
• TODAY Plaza

Why did Queen Elizabeth II call 1992 her 'annus horribilis'?

The fifth season of "The Crown," featuring a new cast , will focus on the the royal family's challenges in the 1990s — including 1992, a year the late Queen Elizabeth II deemed her "annus horribilis," or "horrible year."

She uttered the phrase in a speech on Nov. 24, 1992, in honor of the 40th anniversary of her accession , or formal confirmation as monarch.

“1992 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,’” she said during the speech.

“1992 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,’” she continued.

So, what made 1992 so ... "horribilis"? We're breaking it all down for you.

Princess Diana was the subject of a tell-all book

Andrew Morton’s bestselling biography, “Diana: Her True Story ,” was released in February 1992. The book contained revelations about Princess Diana's marriage to Prince Charles and her struggles with mental health and eating disorders.

When the book was published, both Diana and Morton refuted claims that she was involved with the book. But after her death in 1997 , Morton revealed Diana had been his primary source, per the New York Times .

Three of her four children separated from their spouses

In 1992, three of the queen's four children separated from their spouses.

Prince Andrew and his wife Sarah Ferguson announced their separation in March 1992. The couple, who share two daughters , finalized their divorce in 1996.

After announcing their separation in 1989 , Princess Anne and Mark Phillips finalized their divorce in 1992. Anne remarried the same year, marrying the queen's former equerry Timothy Laurence in December.

Then, on Dec. 9, 1992, news broke that Prince Charles, now King Charles III, and Princess Diana were separating .

“It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. The Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce, and their constitutional positions are unaffected,” British Prime Minister John Major said in a statement at the time.

The queen recommended Charles and Diana divorce in 1995; the divorce was finalized in 1996.

Windsor Castle caught fire in 1992

On top of her children's marital woes, Queen Elizabeth II also experienced a fire at her home, Windsor Castle, in November 1992.

Per History.com, the fire broke out in her private chapel and spread to 100+ rooms. It took 15 hours and 220+ firefighters to extinguish the flames.

Prince Andrew worked with staff and soldiers to save artwork from the castle during the fire, which ruined a few pieces from the queen's collection. It took five years to fully renovate the castle.

More about Season 5 of 'The Crown'

• Princess Diana and Prince Charles' relationship timeline
• How the cast of Season 5 of 'The Crown' compares to the real life figures
• 'The Crown’ Season 5 time period: The events and years it'll cover

Chrissy Callahan covers a range of topics for TODAY.com, including fashion, beauty, pop culture and food. In her free time, she enjoys traveling, watching bad reality TV and consuming copious amounts of cookie dough.

Meghan Trainor says getting a ‘boob job’ is going to be ‘huge for my confidence’

Pop culture.

Composer Stephen Schwartz on how that electric ‘Wicked’ cameo came to be

Is there a post-credits scene after ‘Wicked’?

‘Gladiator II’ ending: Who lives, who dies and where's Maximus? 

How ‘Wicked’ the movie compares to ‘Wicked’ the musical

Kendrick Lamar, Lil Wayne Super Bowl halftime show controversy, explained

Lizzo fans react to singer’s dramatic new appearance: ‘Beautiful’

Khalid confirms he's gay after being outed: ‘I am not ashamed’

How does ‘The Piano Lesson’ end? Stars John David Washington, Danielle Deadwyler break it down

Listen to Jason and Kylie Kelce harmonize in sweet Christmas song

• Entertainment
• <i>The Crown</i> Depicts 1992 as the Queen’s ‘Annus Horribilis.’ Here’s What Happened That Year

The Crown Depicts 1992 as the Queen’s ‘Annus Horribilis.’ Here’s What Happened That Year

Warning: This post contains spoilers for The Crown.

Queen Elizabeth II marked the 40th year of her reign with a surprisingly vulnerable speech. The usually taciturn and steady monarch stood up in front of 500 guests at a Corporation of London Guildhall luncheon on Nov. 24, 1992 to declare the past year the lowest point of her tenure.

“1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure,” she said. “In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an ‘Annus Horribilis’.” It was a plea that the New York Times called “about the only public utterance that ever betrayed any inner turmoil.”

It was, indeed, a horrible year. Queen Elizabeth II suffered through a series of disasters both personal and symbolic: Three of her children separated from their spouses; the family was plagued by scandal in the tabloids; and her beloved childhood home caught fire. The scandals and mishaps shattered the royal myth. Just four days after the fire, she gave what would come to be known as the annus horribilis speech .

In her remarks, Elizabeth asked for empathy from her subjects as she struggled through a difficult time. “No institution, city, monarchy, whatever, should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t,” she said. “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 humor, and understanding.” She received a standing ovation.

Here’s everything that happened in that difficult year that brought even the most stoic monarch nearly to tears.

Read More: As King Charles III Sets Out to Win Hearts and Minds, The Crown Dredges Up His Darkest Chapter

Three of the queen’s children separated in the same year

Royal marriages suffered quite the blow in 1992. Three of the queen’s four children separated from their partners in a single year.

In March, Prince Andrew separated from Sarah Ferguson. In April, Princess Anne divorced her husband of 18 years, Mark Phillips. And though the official announcement was not made until Dec. 9, after the annus horribilis speech, Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, separated from Princess Diana.

In his book Queen of Our Times: The Life of Queen Elizabeth II , author Robert Hardman writes that the Queen took each breakup as a personal blow. “Outwardly stoical, as ever, the Queen was finding the divorce talks deeply upsetting,” Hardman writes. “Another former member of the Household recalls that, every now and then, there would be a glimpse of her despair.”

“It distressed her much more than she let on,” a former staffer told Hardman. “I said, ‘Ma’am, it seems to be happening everywhere. This is almost common practice.’ But she just said, ‘Three out of four!’ in sheer sadness and exasperation. One shouldn’t underestimate the pain she’s been through.”

Read More: How A Sprawling Drama About Elizabeth II Became Netflix’s Crown Jewel

The Diana biography

The various separations and divorces were preceded by seedy tabloid stories that dragged the royal family through the mud. Andrew Morton’s biography Diana: Her True Story made headlines when it was published in 1992 for its revelations that Charles had been cheating on Diana with Camilla Parker Bowles and that Diana had struggled with mental health issues and disordered eating.

At the time, Diana denied cooperating with Morton on the book. Only after her death did Morton reveal that the princess had supplied him with tape recordings detailing her struggles. The book seemed to break a dam in the royal public discourse. Of course the perfection of the royal family was a facade—there were surely many unhappy marriages preceding those of three of Elizabeth’s four children. But the family kept up appearances, and the public seemed happy, for the most part, to buy into the illusion.

The exposure of Charles’ infidelity, and descriptions of emotional cruelty at the hands of royal family members, rendered the lofty beings in the palace knowable and thus open to critique. In her biography of Diana, The Diana Chronicles , Tina Brown marks the publication of Morton’s book as a turning point for the royal family. Never again would they seem untouchable.

“The storm, when it broke, did more than make the teacups dance. It blew through the House of Windsor and every assumption of Establishment consensus—discretion, deference, and mutual protection. Its assertion was that Diana wouldn’t settle for the system of structural infidelity that maintained royal marital facades of the past,” Brown writes. “If the royal family was as imperfect as every other family in the kingdom, it might as well be treated as such—an idea that had implications beyond the soap opera of the moment.”

Read More: Why Princess Diana Is So Hard to Get Right Onscreen

Tampongate, Squidgygate, and Sarah Ferguson’s photos

In August of 1992, The Enquirer published the transcript of a private phone conversation between Princess Di and her friend James Gibley, which took place on New Year’s Eve 1989. Gilbey referred to Diana multiple times by the nickname “squidgey,” suggesting an intimacy to the call. Diana complained on the phone about “all [she’d] done for this f—ing family.”

That same month, the Queen’s newly-separated daughter-in-law Sarah Ferguson appeared in tabloid photos topless having her feet kissed by American businessman John Bryan.

But both of those incidents would quickly be overshadowed by “Tampongate.” In a very intimate 1989 conversation, Charles told Camilla over the phone that he wished he could live “inside her trousers.” When she teased him that he would be reincarnated as “knickers,” he joked that it would be just his luck to return as a tampon instead. The conversation was recorded by an amateur radio enthusiast and sold to the tabloids. First teased in the papers in the fall of 1992 and published in full in January of 1993, “Tampongate” seemed to not only confirm Charles and Camilla’s affair but undercut Charles’ authority as the future king.

Read More: The 7 Best Movies and TV Shows to Watch About Princess Diana

The Windsor Castle Fire

On Nov. 20, 1992, a fire broke out at Windsor Castle and burned for 15 hours. A royal residence first built by William the Conquerer in 1070, Windsor Castle was home to the Queen during World War II. The royal family had had the option to evacuate to Canada during the war, but refused to abandon England.

Elizabeth was personally devastated by the destruction of her childhood home. The blaze burned for 15 hours and destroyed nine apartments and an additional 100 rooms, though many priceless works of art were saved by the staff. Nor was the symbolism lost on the media.

“The graphic destruction of the ancient stronghold after which the dynasty was named reverberated eerily with the catalogue of royal disasters of the previous months,” writes Robert Lacey in his biography Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II .

The fire caused $47.5 million in damage, and royalists clashed with the public over who would foot the bill for repairs. The crown, not the monarch, owns Windsor Castle, and when Prime Minister John Major suggested the public could pay to restore the castle, he was met with an outcry. “The immediate response was outrage—a popular revolt of astonishing unanimity and power,” writes Lacey. “While people might feel sorry for the queen as a person, the misadventures of her children in the previous months had left even her most loyal supporters embarrassed and angry.”

To fund repairs, Queen Elizabeth II opened parts of Buckingham Palace to the public for the first time. She also volunteered to start paying income tax for the first time in her reign.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Why Trump’s Message Worked on Latino Men
• What Trump’s Win Could Mean for Housing
• The 100 Must-Read Books of 2024
• Sleep Doctors Share the 1 Tip That’s Changed Their Lives
• Column: Let’s Bring Back Romance
• What It’s Like to Have Long COVID As a Kid
• FX’s  Say Nothing Is the Must-Watch Political Thriller of 2024
• Merle Bombardieri Is Helping People Make the Baby Decision

Write to Eliana Dockterman at [email protected]

The Royal Watcher

Queen’s ‘annus horribilis’ speech, 1992, embed from getty images window.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'wiqjydtlrntif8sxz3mekq',sig:'5aro3pjvuhihsoju_fcthco7ma-2felhwx9jckh2qqs=',w:'594px',h:'373px',items:'498668862',caption: false ,tld:'com',is360: false })});.

Queen Elizabeth II delivers her ‘Annus Horribilis’ speech, describing her sadness at the events of the year including the marriage breakdown of her two sons and the devastating fire at Windsor Castle at the Guildhall in London on this day in 1992:

My Lord Mayor, Could I say, first, how delighted I am that the Lady Mayoress is here today. This great hall has provided me with some of the most memorable events of my life. The hospitality of the City of London is famous around the world, but nowhere is it more appreciated than among the members of my family. I am deeply grateful that you, my Lord Mayor, and the Corporation, have seen fit to mark the fortieth anniversary of my Accession with this splendid lunch, and by giving me a picture which I will greatly cherish. Thank you also for inviting representatives of so many organisations with which I and my family have special connections, in some cases stretching back over several generations. To use an expression more common north of the Border, this is a real ‘gathering of the clans’. 1992 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. This generosity and whole-hearted kindness of the Corporation of the City to Prince Philip and me would be welcome at any time, but at this particular moment, in the aftermath of Friday’s tragic fire at Windsor, it is especially so. And, after this last weekend, we appreciate all the more what has been set before us today. Years of experience, however, have made us a bit more canny than the lady, less well versed than us in the splendours of City hospitality, who, when she was offered a balloon glass for her brandy, asked for ‘only half a glass, please’. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. A well-meaning Bishop was obviously doing his best when he told Queen Victoria, “Ma’am, we cannot pray too often, nor too fervently, for the Royal Family”. The Queen’s reply was: “Too fervently, no; too often, yes”. I, like Queen Victoria, have always been a believer in that old maxim “moderation in all things”. I sometimes wonder how future generations will judge the events of this tumultuous year. I dare say that history will take a slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary commentators. Distance is well-known to lend enchantment, even to the less attractive views. After all, it has the inestimable advantage of hindsight. But it can also lend an extra dimension to judgement, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion – even of wisdom – that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small. No section of the community has all the virtues, neither does any have all the vices. 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. He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic. There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution – City, Monarchy, whatever – should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t. 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. This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change. The City is a good example of the way the process of change can be incorporated into the stability and continuity of a great institution. I particularly admire, my Lord Mayor, the way in which the City has adapted so nimbly to what the Prayer Book calls “The changes and chances of this mortal life”. You have set an example of how it is possible to remain effective and dynamic without losing those indefinable qualities, style and character. We only have to look around this great hall to see the truth of that. Forty years is quite a long time. I am glad to have had the chance to witness, and to take part in, many dramatic changes in life in this country. But I am glad to say that the magnificent standard of hospitality given on so many occasions to the Sovereign by the Lord Mayor of London has not changed at all. It is an outward symbol of one other unchanging factor which I value above all – the loyalty given to me and to my family by so many people in this country, and the Commonwealth, throughout my reign. You, my Lord Mayor, and all those whose prayers – fervent, I hope, but not too frequent – have sustained me through all these years, are friends indeed. Prince Philip and I give you all, wherever you may be, our most humble thanks. And now I ask you to rise and drink the health of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London.

Share this:

One thought on “ queen’s ‘annus horribilis’ speech, 1992 ”.

Oh, my, I remember this one. Prince Philip’s expression as he listens to the Queen’s speech says it all. It’s a look of sad acceptance of the bad things over which neither of them has control. But, they adapted. They kept calm and carried on. 🙂

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from the royal watcher.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Queen's real 'annus horribilis' speech in full - how her actual words compare to The Crown

The queen's infamous 'annus horribilis' speech features in season five of the crown - but how accurate is their version of events we look at her real 1992 speech.

• 15:09, 11 Nov 2022

On November 25, 1992, the late Queen gave one of her most infamous speeches. In her address at Guildhall to mark the 40th anniversary of her accession to the throne, she admitted the year wasn't one she would look back on with "undiluted pleasure" and said it was her 'Annus Horribilis'.

The 12 months saw the collapse of three of her children's marriages, including her heir Charles, and a devastating fire at Windsor Castle.

The famous speech is recreated in the latest season of The Crown, which sees actress Imelda Staunton take on the role of the Queen. But with huge controversy around the accuracy of the latest series of the Netflix show, how much of the speech did the late Monarch actually say? Let's take a look...

Queen's 'Annus Horribilis' speech in full

My Lord Mayor,

Could I say, first, how delighted I am that the Lady Mayoress is here today.

This great hall has provided me with some of the most memorable events of my life. The hospitality of the City of London is famous around the world, but nowhere is it more appreciated than among the members of my family. I am deeply grateful that you, my Lord Mayor, and the Corporation, have seen fit to mark the fortieth anniversary of my Accession with this splendid lunch, and by giving me a picture which I will greatly cherish.

Thank you also for inviting representatives of so many organisations with which I and my family have special connections, in some cases stretching back over several generations. To use an expression more common north of the Border, this is a real 'gathering of the clans'.

1992 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. This generosity and whole-hearted kindness of the Corporation of the City to Prince Philip and me would be welcome at any time, but at this particular moment, in the aftermath of Friday's tragic fire at Windsor, it is especially so.

And, after this last weekend, we appreciate all the more what has been set before us today. Years of experience, however, have made us a bit more canny than the lady, less well versed than us in the splendours of City hospitality, who, when she was offered a balloon glass for her brandy, asked for 'only half a glass, please'.

It is possible to have too much of a good thing. A well-meaning Bishop was obviously doing his best when he told Queen Victoria, "Ma'am, we cannot pray too often, nor too fervently, for the Royal Family". The Queen's reply was: "Too fervently, no; too often, yes". I, like Queen Victoria, have always been a believer in that old maxim "moderation in all things".

I sometimes wonder how future generations will judge the events of this tumultuous year. I dare say that history will take a slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary commentators. Distance is well-known to lend enchantment, even to the less attractive views. After all, it has the inestimable advantage of hindsight.

But it can also lend an extra dimension to judgement, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion - even of wisdom - that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small.

No section of the community has all the virtues, neither does any have all the vices. 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. He who has never failed to reach perfection has a right to be the harshest critic.

There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution - City, Monarchy, whatever - should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't.

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.

This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change. The City is a good example of the way the process of change can be incorporated into the stability and continuity of a great institution. I particularly admire, my Lord Mayor, the way in which the City has adapted so nimbly to what the Prayer Book calls "The changes and chances of this mortal life".

You have set an example of how it is possible to remain effective and dynamic without losing those indefinable qualities, style and character. We only have to look around this great hall to see the truth of that.

Forty years is quite a long time. I am glad to have had the chance to witness, and to take part in, many dramatic changes in life in this country. But I am glad to say that the magnificent standard of hospitality given on so many occasions to the Sovereign by the Lord Mayor of London has not changed at all. It is an outward symbol of one other unchanging factor which I value above all - the loyalty given to me and to my family by so many people in this country, and the Commonwealth, throughout my reign.

You, my Lord Mayor, and all those whose prayers - fervent, I hope, but not too frequent - have sustained me through all these years, are friends indeed. Prince Philip and I give you all, wherever you may be, our most humble thanks.

And now I ask you to rise and drink the health of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London.

MORE ON Commonwealth The Queen Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh Victoria of the United Kingdom Royal Family

Get our daily royal round-up direct to your inbox.

SUPPORT OUR JOURNALISM: Please consider donating to keep our website running and free for all - thank you!

• Meet the team
• Privacy Policy
• Royal Weddings
• Media & Commentary requests
• Breaking News

Milestones of a Monarch: The ‘Annus Horribilis’ Speech

Queen Elizabeth II celebrated the 40 th anniversary of her reign—her Ruby Jubilee—in 1992, though you wouldn’t have known about it unless you knew the context behind her now infamous ‘Annus Horribilis’ speech.

What may have ordinarily been a celebratory event, The Queen’s Ruby Jubilee passed with relatively little fanfare. She and Prince Philip undertook tours of Canada and Australia; but the biggest event in the United Kingdom may have been the luncheon at Spencer House attended by The Queen and all of her living Prime Ministers (which included Prime Minister John Major and the former Prime Ministers Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, James Callaghan and Margaret Thatcher).

But in 1992, what dominated the headlines wasn’t the length of The Queen’s reign, it was all of the personal strife taking place with various members of the Royal Family.

That year alone, Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales separated, as did the Duke and Duchess of York; Princess Anne and Mark Phillips divorced in April, and she remarried Timothy Lawrence in December; Windsor Castle caught fire on her wedding anniversary in November; the bombshell biography, Diana: Her True Story, was published by Andrew Morton and was later revealed to have been a collaboration between Morton and Diana; and Sarah, Duchess of York was photographed in compromising situations with another man.

By the time The Queen was due to attend a lunch marking her 40 years on the throne on 24 November, she couldn’t have been in a less celebratory mood. At Guildhall in London, she used her speech to illustrate this, remarking that “1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure.”

She continued: “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. This generosity and whole-hearted kindness of the Corporation of the City to Prince Philip and me would be welcome at any time, but at this particular moment, in the aftermath of Friday’s tragic fire at Windsor, it is especially so.”

The Queen, cannily enough, also spoke about how 1992 may be viewed in the future, telling the guests: “I sometimes wonder how future generations will judge the events of this tumultuous year. I dare say that history will take a slightly more moderate view than that of some contemporary commentators. Distance is well-known to lend enchantment, even to the less attractive views. After all, it has the inestimable advantage of hindsight.

“But it can also lend an extra dimension to judgement, giving it a leavening of moderation and compassion—even of wisdom—that is sometimes lacking in the reactions of those whose task it is in life to offer instant opinions on all things great and small.”

In a speech that touched upon the hardships and the hospitality afforded to her by the City of London, she reflected very briefly on the 40 years she spent on the throne: “Forty years is quite a long time. I am glad to have had the chance to witness, and to take part in, many dramatic changes in life in this country.”

The ‘Annus Horribilis’ speech was immediately listed amongst the most important of her reign, and put a capstone on the year that should’ve been celebratory, but wasn’t. The Queen wouldn’t publicly celebrate another milestone anniversary until 2002’s Golden Jubilee.

About author

Latest posts, queen camilla shares kind words with dame maggie smith's son, new portraits of king frederik and queen mary unveiled, why james, earl of wessex will never become duke of edinburgh, the cost of the king's coronation revealed, never miss the latest, most popular, the queen watches on with pride as lady louise drives prince philip’s carriages at windsor horse show, an annus horribilis in monaco a difficult year for albert and charlene finally winds to an end, the duchess of cambridge wows tv audiences with a musical piano performance on christmas eve, latest blogs, want to send the king a christmas card all you need to know about sending royals some festive cheer.

Queen Alexandra: the original royal fashion influencer

The duchess who had more titles than kings and queen.

The ultimate floral symbol of love that starred in Queen Elizabeth II's royal wedding bouquet

The simple and unexpected gift Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip gave to royal guests at their wedding