Good Queen Bess

[Babbler]

Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest monarch

15 hours ago

LONDON (AFP) — Queen Elizabeth II was set to become Britain's oldest monarch Thursday, overtaking her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria, although in discreet royal fashion no events were planned to mark the record.

"This is just another normal working day for the queen," a royal spokeswoman told AFP, adding that the 81-year-old was spending the day in Buckingham Palace dealing with routine paperwork and some Christmas correspondence.

"There's nothing the queen is doing to mark the occasion," she added.

Victoria died in 1901 aged 81 years and 243 days. Elizabeth was to pass Victoria's record at around 5:00 pm (1700 GMT) Thursday -- taking into account times of birth and death, according to Buckingham Palace.

She is the world's second-longest serving monarch alive, after Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej. She has outlasted 11 prime ministers -- the first was Sir Winston Churchill -- and is the first to have a prime minister, Tony Blair, born during her reign.

Victoria will retain the record for longest-serving monarch ever for some time, though: she ruled Britain and its empire for nearly 64 years. Elizabeth will surpass if that she is still on the throne on September 9, 2015.

Coincidentally, the youngest member of the British royal family, the newborn son of the queen's youngest child, Prince Edward, left hospital Thursday following his birth Monday.

Despite her age, the queen shows little sign of slowing down -- last month, she and her husband Prince Philip visited Uganda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and she carried out 425 official engagements last year.

"Even allowing for the improvement in medicine since Victoria, it is remarkable," Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary's college, University of London, told the Daily Telegraph.

Any sign of ageing is pored over by the media, such as when she appeared at an official engagement this week with a large bruise on her neck. Royal officials said it was the result of a knock and was "nothing to worry about".

Notwithstanding her gruelling timetable and the high respect which most Britons have for her, there are signs that the monarchy is starting to think about what will happen when she dies, even if she is currently in good health.

Heir to the throne Prince Charles went to Uganda last month with his parents, attending his first Commonwealth leaders summit outside Britain.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper quoted an unnamed senior Commonwealth source at the time as saying the question of whether Charles would become head of the 53-nation body was being actively considered.

Charles's own position in Britain has strengthened thanks to the successful integration of his second wife Camilla -- with whom he had an affair during his marriage to the late princess Diana -- into the royal family.

Thanks to her low-key charity work and seemingly warm relations with stepsons princes William and Harry, public opinion of the woman Diana dubbed "the Rottweiler" is beginning to thaw.

Some 28 percent of people say they want her as queen when Charles takes over, compared to just seven percent in 2005.

Insiders including Elizabeth's cousin Margaret Rhodes say it is highly unlikely she will step down early -- the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936, which forced her father to take over, is a painful chapter in royal history.

"Abdication I don't think is an issue, or something that's even in consideration to the Queen," said Robert Jobson, a journalist and author of books on the royal family.

So while the queen could still, in the words of the national anthem, be "long to reign over us", the royal family seems determined to make sure that when the inevitable does finally happen, the transition is smooth.

Buckingham Palace said the Queen's next public engagement is on Christmas Day (December 25), when she will attend a church service on her Sandringham country estate in the county of Norfolk, eastern England.

Thoughts?

It interesting to note the relationship between the Queen of the UK and the British Empire: Elizabeth I started it, Victoria reigned over its hight and Elizabeth II saw it dismemberment.

 

[Pannonius]

Thoughts?

It interesting to note the relationship between the Queen of the UK and the British Empire: Elizabeth I started it, Victoria reigned over its hight and Elizabeth II saw it dismemberment.

So basicaly, Britain lost its empire in her reign. That means she really sucks. You should bring back the original Elisabeth.

 

[EdwardTking]

So basicaly, Britain lost its empire in her reign. That means she really sucks. You should bring back the original Elisabeth.

Not really true.

Bangladesh, Burma, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestine
(the larger part) had all left long before she came to the throne.

And for Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand,
and the UK, it was all a very amicable demerger.

 

[bhsup]

Wouldn't it be best for Charles to step aside for his eldest?

 

[Pannonius]

Not really true.

Bangladesh, Burma, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestine
(the larger part) had all left long before she came to the throne.

And for Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand,
and the UK, it was all a very amicable demerger.

She still got pwned in many former colonies.

 

[EdwardTking]

She still got pwned in many former colonies.

Like where?

 

[Pannonius]

I have so much fun here on CFC!

 

[GinandTonic]

Wouldn't it be best for Charles to step aside for his eldest?

Will marries that girl who the rest of the royals look down on because her mother chews gum. While the people fawn over a royal marrage (and dam they do), the Queen anonces she abdicates in favor of Will.

 

[sysyphus]

And for Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand,
and the UK, it was all a very amicable demerger.

Hong Kong aside, what function has she lost in any of those countries during her reign?

The monarchy lost the bulk of its influence in the Statute of Westminster in the 1932.

 

[Angst]

To explain the British Empire (Ruled by the ladies - the housewives...)

A housewife takes forth a vacuum cleaner and takes in all filth from the Earth. That's Victoria.

Another housewife then takes the bag and empties it out of the window. That's Elizabeth II.

Land grab, land loss.

 

[Truronian]

She has 8 years to go to for longest reign...

 

[GinandTonic]

Hong Kong aside, what function has she lost in any of those countries during her reign?

The monarchy lost the bulk of its influence in the Statute of Westminster in the 1932.

De facto a lot earlier.

Certainly after Vicky went into extended morning it would have been hard for any monarch to assert 10% of their technical privilidges. Except for the bit about her banning submarines as ungallant, but I guess people just didnt have any idea how significant they would turn out to be.

Telling when you consider that Liz I+II and Vicky all essentially bowed out of the detail of politics but projected a vague sense of intimidating (maternal?) overview. Left to their own devices (but with the sense of overview) the politicos of their days did a splended job.

One of the best arguements against the monarchy is that now everyone knows it is toothless this sense of overview is blown, and therefore a PM will be just as power-crazed as a president. We may have done best when we had a passive monarch and a PM whoknew his place, but this is not possible any more. How could we best arrange a "republic" to keep the PM from becoming a short-lease tyrant without simply creating a President as the short-lease tyrant.

When looking at what do do about this it makes me realise why the whole Magna Carta isssue was so useful. It wasnt about the rights of the individual, it was about keeping the rights of the soverign on a short leash - in that case because on-one liked him but all the alternatives were more French.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Sometimes I wonder if Charles will ever be King...

 

[sysyphus]

@ G&T:

Who says though, that a republic must have an all-powerful President?

Maybe it's a bit different in the UK, but in the case of Can/Aus/NZ we could simply make a marginal extension to the powers of the Governor-General to keep the PMO under control.

 

[Arwon]

Wouldn't it be best for Charles to step aside for his eldest?

No! That defeats the purpose of having the head of state chosen by divine genetic lottery! If we're gonna have a meaningless hereditary governmental position the least we can do is stick to the bloody rules.

 

[emzie]

@sysyphus

Though the Governor-General has those powers technically, why on earth would you or any other Canadian want the Crown to have actual power?

ps: Charles, please step aside; you would not look good on a $20.

 

[Babbler]

@ G&T:

Who says though, that a republic must have an all-powerful President?

Maybe it's a bit different in the UK, but in the case of Can/Aus/NZ we could simply make a marginal extension to the powers of the Governor-General to keep the PMO under control.

Ireland, Germany, India, etc. are all good examples of parliamentary government with a president instead of a monarchy.

 

[sysyphus]

@sysyphus

Though the Governor-General has those powers technically, why on earth would you or any other Canadian want the Crown to have actual power?

The GG's real powers are few, largely because it is an unelected poistion. My view is that it should become an elected position (fixed term, separate election from Parliament).

The GG should author the throne speech and be willing to reject votes of non-confidence and perhaps even dissolve Parliament. The GG should also represent Canada abroad, not the PM.

Ireland, Germany, India, etc. are all good examples of parliamentary government with a president instead of a monarchy.

I never said a Presidency couldn't work, I just like the GG model I've outlined better.

And dear me, I've taken this thread massively off track...

 

[Babbler]

The GG's real powers are few, largely because it is an unelected poistion. My view is that it should become an elected position (fixed term, separate election from Parliament).

The GG should author the throne speech and be willing to reject votes of non-confidence and perhaps even dissolve Parliament. The GG should also represent Canada abroad, not the PM.

That seems to be more in line with the semi-Presidential systems like France.