It does not help that the prose presented to Her Majesty is so awful. This address emerges from something called futureleg, a body which might sound like a charity specialising in the supply of artificial limbs but is in fact a Whitehall committee.

The individuals who staff it may be kindly souls, but the ability to craft moving rhetoric is evidently not among their virtues. This bunch could turn the Gettsyburg Address into one of those irritating messages heard when telephoning large corporations — “for ‘government of the people’, press one, for ‘by the people and for the people’, press two, for ‘shall not perish from the Earth’, press three, for all other reflections on the American Civil War, please press four”.

Consider the material that they managed to produce last year. The Queen was obliged to start with the bland: “My lords and members of the House of Commons. My Government will maintain its key commitment to economic stability and growth.” Then move on to the debatable assertion: “Education reform will continue to raise standards in all schools.”

After that, the confusing: “My Government will continue to take forward a Bill on election pilots introduced in the last session” — what on earth is an “election pilot”, a ballot box with wings or a political contest at 30,000ft? After that, a royal detour into the wholly implausible: “Legislation will also be brought forward to improve traffic flows and manage roadworks more effectively” (it must take years of training not to laugh and risk one’s crown slipping off after a sentence like that). And finally the worst sort of incomprehensible, official-speak, meaningless tripe: “A thriving not-for-profit sector is part of the fabric of a modern democratic society. My Government will introduce a Bill to create community interest companies which will enable social enterprises to meet the needs of their communities in new and innovate ways.” Not exactly Henry V via Shakespeare, is it?

There must also be sections of which Her Majesty not only disapproves but finds positively threatening. Twelve months ago she was forced to announce; “Legislation will be brought forward to reform the House of Lords. This will remove hereditary peers” — thus turfing her chums out of their club after 700 years. She had to grin and bear it while declaring that “other measures will be laid before you” — code, as it turned out, for banning her friends from hunting. She had to sound approving when remarking: “Firm action will continue to be taken against anti-social behaviour,” despite the serious adverse implications for Prince Harry. All in all, one could hardly blame the Sovereign if she privately thought that Uncle Edward might have been wise to abdicate, even if it did mean three decades with that vile Mrs Simpson.

Now let me be clear, I am not suggesting that the state opening of Parliament should occur with the head of state remaining at home, feet up in front of the television, watching Today with Des and Mel, rather than putting up with the dreadful politicians. Nor do I have any objection to the pomp and ceremony; in truth, I rather like it. I think the gold coach makes for a wonderful spectacle and am intrigued whether or not it is technically liable to the congestion charge. I do hope that the Lord Chancellor walks backwards again this year (making him try to chew gum at the same time would be a fascinating challenge). I find it touching that the speech itself is handed over to the Queen having been kept in something called the Great Purse — although since it presumably does not contain credit cards it cannot be that great a purse, really. I would not wish to abolish any of this theatre.

But the state opening of Parliament should be precisely that, the head of state opening Parliament. Her Majesty should certainly speak, offering some thoughts of her own to peers, MPs and the wider country and wishing them well for the coming session. She would do this splendidly and it would enhance and not demean her. She should not, however, be expected to make crass, partisan statements of behalf of ministers or read out a laundry list of proposed legislation, much of it inevitably contentious, and all of it written in a fashion that virtually mutilates the English language.

It should be up to the Prime Minister to articulate and defend his political agenda in the House of Commons. He could do so immediately after MPs returned to their chamber having heard the Queen speak on behalf of the nation to the nation.

Like so much of the British constitution, the Queen’s Speech as it exists today is a historical accident. Until the mid-19th century it actually was the Queen’s Speech in that no administration could be formed that the monarch did not favour. For more than 150 years, however, it has not served its original purpose. It is time to acknowledge the rise of mass democracy and the arrival of a constitutional monarchy.

I am not, I confess, much of a monarchist. My view would, nonetheless, be the same if Britain’s head of state were an elected president or an appointed equivalent. No ceremonial head of state should be compelled to act as a mouthpiece for the head of government. The Queen is not in a position to campaign publicly on this question. It is for the rest of us to adopt “Free the Buckingham Palace One” as our slogan tomorrow.

Times Recommends

• Nerdy cafés no longer maid in heaven
• Cameron will not break marriage vow
• Avatar will make the case on climate