'The King going soft on immigration is really a bit much,' says Jacob Rees-Mogg

No doubt not mentioning that it was founded in the blood of the terror of 1792 when Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were so brutally murdered.

However, we are also to expect a more political line from the speech. The briefing suggests he will highlight the shared multitude of complex threats we both face, and that as allies, we must face them together: ‘that these challenges know no borders, no fortress can protect us against them this time.

It's rather feeble compared to his time honoured ancestor John of Gaunt who called England: 'This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself, against infection and the hand of war'. He forgot to mention a fortress against illegal immigrants too.

Nonetheless, it's a highly political remark to make. And why would the King claim there are no borders between the United Kingdom and France? Why would the King say no fortress can protect us?

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• 'There's a solution to the migrant crisis that Keir Starmer is not willing to do - to deport'
• 'The war on drugs is a war that we never fought,' says Jacob Rees Mogg
• 'After another four years of Labour, we will all be in tears,' says Nana Akua

Clearly, this refers to the channel migrant crisis. The question is, was this line included at the instruction and approval of 10 Downing Street?

There are generally two types of speeches made by constitutional monarchs: The King's speech in parliament is made on behalf of the Government.

It is written by the Government. It is an inherently and explicitly political speech.

On the other hand, the King's Christmas speech is a personal, apolitical one. So is tonight's speech a personal one or a political one on the advice of No10?

In the lobby earlier today, the Government refused to comment on whether it agrees with the King's forthcoming remarks and refused to say whether the speech was agreed by No10.

In other words, His Majesty's Government is distancing itself from His Majesty, making the King responsible for the speech which means they are leaving the king to swim in political waters in a way the late Queen would never have done.

We're all used to the green obsession, which some of us find a bit tiresome, but the nation's grown used to it. Going soft on immigration is really a bit much.

The King's impartiality is crucial, it's not mere tradition. It's the quiet anchor of the Constitution. He stands above politics, not to wield power, but to remind us that authority must serve all, not some.

In his silence, there is stability. In his restraints, the enduring trust of a nation of differing political values so remarks like this are controversial.