News & Politics - Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest monarch.

welshgirlyUK · 12-20-2007, 04:50 AM

Quote:

LONDON (AFP) - Queen Elizabeth II was set Thursday to become Britain's oldest monarch, overtaking her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria amid signs the royal family is preparing for life after 81-year-old "Lillibet".

Victoria died in 1901 aged 81 years and 243 days, and Elizabeth will mark passing the milestone with neither pomp nor ceremony, spending the day as usual with her husband of 60 years, Prince Philip.

According to Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth was to pass Victoria's record at around 5:00 pm (1700 GMT) Thursday -- taking into account times of birth and death. Other observers, counting only in whole days, put the mark as Saturday.

She is the world's second-longest living monarch, after Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej; has outlasted 11 prime ministers -- the first was Sir Winston Churchill -- and is the first to have a premier, Tony Blair, born in 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 which Elizabeth will surpass if she is still on the throne on September 9, 2015.

Despite her age, the queen shows little sign of slowing down -- last month, she and 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.

"I cannot think of any other head of an institution who has not put a foot wrong over such a long period of time.

"In those years, she has presided over the most dignified withdrawal from the superpower status, which is no bad legacy.

"The way she has adapted, without succumbing to faddish fashions, is a gift of genius."

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 in good health.

Heir to the throne Prince Charles went to Uganda last month with his parents, attending the Commonwealth summit for the first time.

The queen is head of the Commonwealth, made up of 53 mostly former British colonies, but the right of her successor to take over from her is not automatic -- instead, the organisation's leaders must decide.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper quoted an unnamed senior Commonwealth source at the time saying the question of whether Charles will become head of the body is being actively considered.

Charles's own position in Britain has become stronger 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.

"As long as she remains in good health, she will continue to be queen until the day she dies. Otherwise the system does not really work," he told AFP.

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.

Just thought i'd post something nice for once. Although, picking up on the Camilla thing, i dont feel 28% is significant enough. People just aren't really thinking about it right now with the Queen still in good health. When the time comes, i'm not sure people will be welcoming her as Queen warmly, i really dont think people want it. However, the monarchy isn't electorate therefore it's a moot point i suppose.

LittleMilkJug · 12-20-2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

Just thought i'd post something nice for once. Although, picking up on the Camilla thing, i dont feel 28% is significant enough. People just aren't really thinking about it right now with the Queen still in good health. When the time comes, i'm not sure people will be welcoming her as Queen warmly, i really dont think people want it. However, the monarchy isn't electorate therefore it's a moot point i suppose.

I think Camilla has helped the repulican (British sense ie non royalist) cause. I might just see the UK get rid of the manarchy before I die

welshgirlyUK · 12-20-2007, 09:07 AM

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a royalist, i'm not anti it either but i certainly dont like the sound of Britain without a royal family. Despite grumblings now and again i dont think the general British public are ready for a country without them either yet, so i dont see that happening in my lifetime. I'm sure it will someday but not anytime soon.

Spooky Spice · 12-20-2007, 04:40 PM

I think it's neat.

I'm such a nut about British history and this just adds to it.

**sum1** · 12-21-2007, 11:03 AM

Monarchy in the modern age is an insult to everybody who's not in the royalty. Royal status by nature says the royal person is better than everybody else. Is it justifiable in an era of democracy to have an institution that says that a particular family is better than everybody else? What about equality of citizens? The monarchy should be abolished.

And btw, Queen Elizabeth the FIRST was a monster who waged a brutal imperialist war against Ireland that cost a very great number of Irish lives. Now we have movies celebrating her. Which is an insult to everybody Irish or of Irish blood.

welshgirlyUK · 12-24-2007, 09:08 AM

I'm not insulted by the Royal family. Many years ago sure, that was what the Royal family represented and what they could achieve, but they certainly dont hold that kind of clout anymore. It's not about democracy, the Queen no longer makes political decisions on behalf of the nation, she's not even allowed to express political preference for a leader or party. Its more of a preservation of culture than anything else.

As for movies being made about Queen Elizabeth 1st, the same could be said of many movies based on true stories.

**sum1** · 12-24-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

I'm not insulted by the Royal family. Many years ago sure, that was what the Royal family represented and what they could achieve, but they certainly dont hold that kind of clout anymore. It's not about democracy, the Queen no longer makes political decisions on behalf of the nation, she's not even allowed to express political preference for a leader or party. Its more of a preservation of culture than anything else.

It doesn't matter that they don't have political power, they're still set as being better than everyone else. That's what being royal is about, by very nature. It's about the royal people being higher and better than everyone else. Which is offensive and wrong.

It doesn't matter what clout the royal family do or don't have, what matters is that the royal status by very nature declares them as better than other people. That is unacceptable in an era of democracy when we're all supposed to be equal.

And preserving what culture? The culture of the class system. There's certainly no need to go preserving that.

Quote:

As for movies being made about Queen Elizabeth 1st, the same could be said of many movies based on true stories.

Not all movies based on true stories celebrate somebody responsible for the deaths of great numbers of people in the name of empire.

welshgirlyUK · 12-24-2007, 09:33 AM

Not necessarily the class system no, i dont think that will ever truly be stamped out. More about the pomp and celebration that many British systems are carried out in, the Royal family are the very definition of that. I think people like to watch many of their pomp celebrations, the changing of the guard, the queens birthday celebrations, the election of a new prime minister and when they go to accept the duties from the Queen on behalf the nation,i dont watch it myself but the Queens speech for many is an integral part of Christmas day.

Just look at the Queen's jubile and the thousands who turned out to cheer for her and wave flags, the amount of people who took part in the celebration just shows the national pride the Queen brings out in people. We are often felt to feel ashamed of showing any national pride, but royal celebrations give us the opportunity to do so. I wish we didn't have to use royal celebrations as an excuse believe me but it is what is is i suppose.

I didn't say all based on true stories. Many war films depict a certain leader of a country as a hero, despite them being responsible for hundreds of deaths. I'm not saying we should celebrate the deaths she caused, i'm just pointing out that she's not alone in her heroine portrayal when it can cause offence.

elisheva · 12-24-2007, 09:40 AM

Aw, I kinda like the Queen. I don't think the monarchy should continue after her though - but on the other hand, that would entail some intense constitutional change for Britain (and for a bunch of other Commonwealth countries - even in Canada, our system is predicated on having the Governor-General/Queen).

**sum1** · 12-24-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

Not necessarily the class system no, i dont think that will ever truly be stamped out. More about the pomp and celebration that many British systems are carried out in, the Royal family are the very definition of that. I think people like to watch many of their pomp celebrations, the changing of the guard, the queens birthday celebrations, the election of a new prime minister and when they go to accept the duties from the Queen on behalf the nation,i dont watch it myself but the Queens speech for many is an integral part of Christmas day.

The class system will never be stamped out but it doesn't have to be celebrated and encouraged. That's what royalty is about, it's about the class system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

Just look at the Queen's jubile and the thousands who turned out to cheer for her and wave flags, the amount of people who took part in the celebration just shows the national pride the Queen brings out in people. We are often felt to feel ashamed of showing any national pride, but royal celebrations give us the opportunity to do so. I wish we didn't have to use royal celebrations as an excuse believe me but it is what is is i suppose.

It'd be easy enough to find something else to exercise national pride. Monarchy is a celebration of the class system, it's revolting and wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

I didn't say all based on true stories. Many war films depict a certain leader of a country as a hero, despite them being responsible for hundreds of deaths.

This wasn't just a leader of a country in war. This was somebody brutally oppressing another country in the name of empire and spilling a huge amount of blood while doing so. Celebrating her is celebrating an atrocity. It's like having films celebrating Hitler or something. That is quite simply not acceptable.

welshgirlyUK · 12-24-2007, 09:58 AM

The continuing of the monarchy depends for me after the Queen. I do have a soft spot for her, i cant help it. I dont think Charles being King will do any good for the monarchy, or the country, so if it were him maybe it should end after her. If it were to be one of the princes however, i'd like to see what direction they would take the monarchy in.

The abolishment of the monarchy will not mean the abolishment of the class system. There is so much more to it than that. Its debated whether the class system is still even in place, i personally think it is, although not to the same degree it once was. However i do believe that getting rid of the royal family wont change the attitudes this country has on the class system. Many people hold onto their class titlement as an identify and would with or without a royal family. Its so ingrained in this country and it's culturen that it'll be difficult to shift.

As i already stated, i dont think the heroine portrayal of her is necessarily right, nor any worship in a movie of a person who was oppressive, i just pointed out that it happens. I dont know what else you want me to say on the matter?

**sum1** · 12-24-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

The continuing of the monarchy depends for me after the Queen. I do have a soft spot for her, i cant help it. I dont think Charles being King will do any good for the monarchy, or the country, so if it were him maybe it should end after her. If it were to be one of the princes however, i'd like to see what direction they would take the monarchy in, i think they could change things.

The change we need to see is the abolishment of monarchy and the recognition that the "royal" family are just people like everybody else no better than anybody else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

The abolishment of the monarchy will not mean the abolishment of the class system. There is so much more to it than that. Its debated whether the class system is still even in place, i personally think it is, not to the same degree it once was. However i do believe that getting rid of the royal family wont change the attitudes this country has on the class system. Many people hold onto their class titlement as an identify and would with or without a royal family. Its so ingrained in this country that it'll be difficult to shift.

I never suggested that the abolishment of the monarchy would abolish the class system. The point is that royalty is about the class system. It's about celebrating and encouraging the class system, which is deeply wrong. Nobility and royalty need to be abolished. Nothing that encourages the class system should be kept. The class situation is bad enough without encouraging and celebrating it. And just because something is diffilcult to change doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to change it. Beginning with the abolishment of anything that encourages and celebrates the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

As i already stated, i dont think the heroine portrayal of her is necessarily right, nor any worship in a movie of a person who was oppressive, i just pointed out that it happens. Most likely because her ruling is often thought upon as the strongest era of British time. I dont know what else you want me to say on the matter?

Her ruling period was a period in which England was imposing its empire on others, hardly a time to be proud of.

welshgirlyUK · 12-24-2007, 10:25 AM

Well, that depends on your nationality, if your English it might be. I'm not.

Quote:

The point is that royalty is about the class system

That's a matter of opinion.

Quote:

And just because something is diffilcult to change doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to change it. Beginning with the abolishment of anything that encourages and celebrates the problem.

If people want it changed. If the country has an outcry and class for the royal family to be abolished because it makes them feel oppressed, then i'll get behind that. As far as i am aware there isn't. Why should it be changed if the general population dont want it to be changed? Because people from other countries dont understand it?

There are always going to be rich people and poor people, monarchy or none. Class system or not. Instead of being classified under Working class, middle class, upper class, people will be established as rich or poor. Does the difference in words really make a grea deal of difference. There are countries that have never had a monarchy but they still have a judgement on a persons wealth.

**sum1** · 12-24-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

Well, that depends on your nationality, if your English it might be. I'm not.

Imperial oppression is never something to be proud of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

That's a matter of opinion.

Not really. By very nature royalty is about class system. That's what royalty is. To try to say it's not is to fail to understand the nature of royal status.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

If people want it changed. If the country has an outcry and class for the royal family to be abolished because it makes them feel oppressed, then i'll get behind that. As far as i am aware there isn't. Why should it be changed if the general population dont want it to be changed? Because people from other countries dont understand it?

There's a lot of people in Britain who'd like the monarchy to be abolished. That's why the idea of abolishing it gets talked about a lot. And just because somebody dislikes the monarchy doesn't mean they don't understand it. This isn't about not understanding it. Personally I'm understanding it perfectly well and I'm seeing some implications and aspects of it that some people like to ignore why they cosily bask in the overdone pomp of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by welshgirlyUK (View Post)

There are always going to be rich people and poor people, monarchy or none. Class system or not. Instead of being classified under Working class, middle class, upper class, people will be established as rich or poor. Does the difference in words really make a grea deal of difference. There are countries that have never had a monarchy but they still have a judgement on a persons wealth.

Of course there's always going to be class problems (and I never suggested otherwise). But we don't have to have an institution that CELEBRATES the class system. That needs to go.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest monarch.