Elizabeth II to be longest reigning British monarch

[arunsakda]

No passport or drivers license, and below the 700 room palace one's own ATM. How nice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-elizabeth-ii-to-become-britains-longest-reigning-monarch-the-many-things-the-queen-can-do-that-the-rest-of-us-cant-10485055.html

Edited September 5, 2015 by arunsakda

[robertthebruce]

Good on her....

[stoneyboy]

Long may she reign.

[vogie]

I think I would be happier to be a citizen rather than a subject, the days of yore are gone.

[evadgib]

She'll be sending herself a birthday card soon enough. The postman has even recced the post box!

Edited September 5, 2015 by evadgib

[sandyf]

At the moment she is the oldest living reigning monarch and the second longest living reigning monarch. The Thai king is one year younger but has reigned since 1946.

[emilymat]

The way I look at it is I would rather a monarch than a President Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron etc. naming a few candidates. Take your pick!

[roamer]

Don't get it, wonder how many trees were pulped for the press coverage of the latest "royal" sprog. Nothing against people of German descent but I don't see why I should be expected to kowtow to them.

[simple1]

I think I would be happier to be a citizen rather than a subject, the days of yore are gone.

Look up the British Nationality Act 1981 and you will see your wish was granted years ago.

Edited September 5, 2015 by simple1

[vogie]

The way I look at it is I would rather a monarch than a President Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron etc. naming a few candidates. Take your pick!

At least they were voted for, say no more.

[theoldgit]

Two distasteful posts removed.

[Jip99]

Long may she reign after 9th September.

[Searat7]

Her mother was 101 when she died.

[geriatrickid]

Don't get it, wonder how many trees were pulped for the press coverage of the latest "royal" sprog. Nothing against people of German descent but I don't see why I should be expected to kowtow to them.

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

[AyG]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

[Jip99]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

What a sad and jaundiced view.

Try a comparison with the country that you might now be residing in.

[BeefSlapper]

Katie is pregnet again

[stoneyboy]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

We say pot kettle black in this instance.

[AyG]

We say pot kettle black in this instance.

Please explain. I don't understand how anyone could confuse me with a fabulously wealthy woman whose family has stolen from the British people for generations. Let's not forget that Victoria was bankrupt and had to receive a handout from Parliament [basically British tax payers' money], yet Brenda has a personal net worth of $550 million, plus $10 billion worth of real estate plus Buckingham Palace (estimated to be worth another $5 billion). She also receives from the taxpayer an annual government stipend of $12.9 million. There's more, but I can't be bothered to copy and paste any more.

[stoneyboy]

This symbolic phrase became associated with hypocrisy.

Why don't you dwell somewhere like France whereby the Royals were ousted ?

Seems a strange comment from someone who lives in a Kingdom.

[simple1]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

What a sad and jaundiced view.

Try a comparison with the country that you might now be residing in.

Plus containing a number of untruths

[evadgib]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

T(rolls)rators get in for free...

Edited September 7, 2015 by evadgib

[piersbeckett]

Long may she reign.

Well, this time I'm 'shocked', wouldn't have booked you as a royalist; 'are you sure'! - the only people I've met that have been were Daily Mail readers that feel comforted by their country having a queen and them 'knowing their place', those upper middle class peeps that feel they benefit from being only one down from the aristo's and some middle classers what does aspire/pretend to be 'upper' - like they've all got to know their degree of subservience to a recognised superior in order to establish their place in society without which they're fish out of water.

Most others think that it's an outdated system built upon force rather than democracy enabling those who forced their way into power to get the best of everything to the detriment of the vast majority and build a elitist, ruling-class system.

Okay, today in Britain they bring in money, the royals, so put 'em on wages, possibly commission based - land and properties, works of art, jewelry etc., give to the state - job done!

What would Dylan say, I wonder!?

Edited September 7, 2015 by piersbeckett

[AyG]

Okay, today in Britain they bring in money, the royals, so put 'em on wages, possibly commission based - land and properties, works of art, jewelry etc., give to the state - job done!

If they bring in money (which is debatable), then why not let the royalty bring in even more money. Put the position of King or Queen up for auction every few years and sell the position to the highest bidder. I'm sure the likes of Donald Trump would fork out a few million pounds for the post if he's unsuccessful for his run for President, and King Trump has a nice ring to it.

[evadgib]

Okay, today in Britain they bring in money, the royals, so put 'em on wages, possibly commission based - land and properties, works of art, jewelry etc., give to the state - job done!

If they bring in money (which is debatable), then why not let the royalty bring in even more money. Put the position of King or Queen up for auction every few years and sell the position to the highest bidder. I'm sure the likes of Donald Trump would fork out a few million pounds for the post if he's unsuccessful for his run for President, and King Trump has a nice ring to it.

The Royal wedding netted more for the economy and attracted more viewers than the Olympics. Trumpton cannot compete with that!

[AyG]

The Royal wedding netted more for the economy and attracted more viewers than the Olympics. Trumpton cannot compete with that!

No. The Royal wedding was a disaster for the economy. True, it did raise somewhere up to £2 billion in additional spending. However, this needs to be set against output and revenue losses caused by the additional bank holiday, people taking extra days off and/or calling in sick. Some businesses were effectively closed down for as long as 11 days. This loss has been estimated by the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) at £6 billion - far outweighing the spending stimulus of the nuptials. So, that's a nett £4 billion loss

And as for Trump, he's been married 3 times already. I'm sure he'd be perfectly willing to get married a 4th time whilst King. And surely the wedding of King Donald would be a much bigger affair than that of a mere prince.

[al007]

You are not expected to kow tow to them, nor are you asked to do so.

You have the option of ignoring them, of sitting when the anthem is played, and even of insulting them. This is quite different from some other countries. I am not a monarchist, and I don't even like the concept, however, I do recognize that this woman has put her job first and has done her utmost to serve her country.She's done no harm and serves as a guardian of historical national treasures.

There is so much wrong with that view I struggle to know where to begin.

You are expected to kow tow to them. If you receive a knighthood you're expected to kneel before "her majesty". You can't even approach the woman without bowing or curtseying. Remember the fuss when an Australian Prime Minister put his arm around her?

The woman has never put her job first. She's only ever been interested in a life of luxury, performing a few perfunctory (and pointless) duties which have interrupted her life of permanent holiday. If memory serves me right, she only "works" 100 days a year. That's a damn sight less than the rest of her "subjects".

She has done immense harm to the country by being a leech, stealing from the British people. She owns massive tracts of land from which the profits go straight into her pocket - land stolen from the British people by her ancestors.

She has also done immense harm by promulgating a system of inequality - a class system where status is based upon who your parents are, rather than upon ability or contribution to society. Society would undoubtedly be far better if it were a meritocracy, rather than a system stuck in the past and headed by the inbred and the talentless.

She's hardly the guardian of national treasures. Buckingham Palace has become decrepit under her rule because she's been too tight fisted to pay for repairs from her own pocket (waiting for the British tax payer to pay). She also let Windsor Castle be burnt down.

Also, if one wants to see "national treasures", one has to pay an heft price much of which goes into her pocket. Visiting Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or the Tower of London to see the crown jewels is hardly cheap. And other "national treasures" are off bounds to the hoi polloi.

Oh dear so sorry that such a person gets under your skin

Maybe UK needs "lemajeste" laws and you on your way to the tower

It is wonderful we in the Uk are all allowed our own views, and have freedom to express them

Personally I believe the lady who has sacrificed her life and privacy to the benefit of the people, with no retirement date, is a role model others should consider following

Just an opposite opinion

[AyG]

Personally I believe the lady who has sacrificed her life and privacy to the benefit of the people, with no retirement date, is a role model others should consider following

Just an opposite opinion

Perhaps you could enlighten me. Of what benefit is she to the British people? I certainly can't think of a single way my life would have been any the poorer if she and her family didn't exist.

Or putting it differently, how are countries such as France and Germany worse off than us on account of their not having an hereditary head of state?

[AyG]

For what it's worth, I looked into what the Queen is doing this month and next. It's hardly a heavy workload. This month she's opening a railway in Scotland and visiting some soldiers - two engagements during the whole month. And for next month? It's another two: opening Surrey University vet's school and giving a reception for diplomats. If these two months are typical, then she currently only works 24 days a year. That's hardly sacrificing her life and privacy.

Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Royaldiary/Locationsandtimes.aspx

[Ace of Pop]

Perhaps AyG should be carefull, this is a Monarchy here too and well loved.