Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest-reigning monarch ever

Blackleaf · 12-20-2007, 14:31 PM

Queen Elizabeth II has overtaken her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, to become Britain's oldest-reigning monarch ever. Though the Queen will still have to be on the Throne in September 2015 to overtake Victoria as Britain's longest-reigning monarch ever.

Only three British monarchs have ever become octogenarians - Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria and King George III.

Record ... Queen

ONLINE REPORTER
20th december 2007
The Sun

THE Queen reached a new milestone today when she became the longest living British monarch.

She overtook the record set by her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria.

Victoria, who was born on May 24 1819, died on January 22 1901, having lived for 81 years.

According to Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II, who was born on April 21 1926, beat her ancestor’s record at around 5pm (British time).

This takes into account the time of Victoria’s birth and death, and the time the current Queen was born.

Queen Victoria still remains the longest-reigning British monarch.

But Queen Elizabeth II is set to break this record on September 9 2015.

It was business as usual for the Queen today. She did not officially mark the milestone.

She had no public engagements or audiences, but spent the day continuing with other duties, such as dealing with documents from the red boxes in which she receives her official papers.

thesun.co.uk

Ray · 12-20-2007, 22:17 PM

A great monarch indeed!

A real graceful lady with a wise head!

Expat Canuck · 12-20-2007, 22:30 PM

I'm proud that she's my Queen.

Sworn two oaths to her so far, 3 I think actually if you count Beavers when I was little.

Blademaster · 12-20-2007, 23:13 PM

After the Queen has gracefully passed away, would Canada and Australia continue to support the English monarchy as their head of state?

By the way, do Canada and Australia ever compensate the English monarchy for the duties of being head of state of those two countries?

Expat Canuck · 12-20-2007, 23:31 PM

1) yes
2) Not really sure, I think we pay the Governor General?

smilingassassin · 12-21-2007, 00:19 AM

I'd support the English Monarchy, simply because its part of our heritage, that and their "head of state" title is really just simbolistic at this point. The Queens successor should in theory be not to bad, afterall they where raised by Diana and coached by the royals as how to act. William/Harry seem to be quite mature at this stage.

As far as I know the Governor General is the only solid link we have to England and even that is becoming symbolistic as well. From Wikipedia...

Quote:

Contrary to common misconception, Canadians do not pay any money to the Queen, either for personal income or to support the royal residences outside of Canada. Only when the Queen is in Canada, or acting abroad as Queen of Canada, does she draw from Canadian coffers for support in the performance of her duties. This rule applies equally to other members of the Royal Family. Usually the Queen's Canadian governments pay only for the costs associated with the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors in their exercising of the powers of the Crown on behalf of the Queen, including travel, security, residences, offices, ceremonial occasions, etc.

wabpilot · 12-21-2007, 20:45 PM

I don't usually post about politics outside the USA. But, I would like to comment on the Queen. It strikes me that she is the last of the world's heads of state or government who served in WWII. It must have pained her greatly to send her son and so many other subjects off to war in the Falklands and later into war in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the Balkans and a few other places. Lots of people say that military service is critical for a politician in time of war. I think the converse is true. Military service is more critical for a politician in times of peace. That way they know first hand the cost of war. It's a lot easier to take a pass when you understand the consequences. And, when a warrior weighs the benefits of war against the known consequences and says we need to go to war, it is definitely time to go to war. Tony Blair and Margret Thatcher both had to go to the Queen and ask her to take the country to war. Those must have been pointed conversations.

Dreadnought · 12-26-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

After the Queen has gracefully passed away, would Canada and Australia continue to support the English monarchy as their head of state?

By the way, do Canada and Australia ever compensate the English monarchy for the duties of being head of state of those two countries?

There something I never knew. Thanks it explains alot.

My hats off to the Queen!

12-20-2007, 14:31 PM	#1 (permalink)
Blackleaf Regular Join Date: 05-02-05 Location: Britain Posts: 101	Queen Elizabeth II becomes Britain's oldest-reigning monarch ever Queen Elizabeth II has overtaken her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, to become Britain's oldest-reigning monarch ever. Though the Queen will still have to be on the Throne in September 2015 to overtake Victoria as Britain's longest-reigning monarch ever. Only three British monarchs have ever become octogenarians - Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria and King George III. Record ... Queen ONLINE REPORTER 20th december 2007 The Sun THE Queen reached a new milestone today when she became the longest living British monarch. She overtook the record set by her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria. Victoria, who was born on May 24 1819, died on January 22 1901, having lived for 81 years. According to Buckingham Palace, Queen Elizabeth II, who was born on April 21 1926, beat her ancestor’s record at around 5pm (British time). This takes into account the time of Victoria’s birth and death, and the time the current Queen was born. Queen Victoria still remains the longest-reigning British monarch. But Queen Elizabeth II is set to break this record on September 9 2015. It was business as usual for the Queen today. She did not officially mark the milestone. She had no public engagements or audiences, but spent the day continuing with other duties, such as dealing with documents from the red boxes in which she receives her official papers. thesun.co.uk

12-20-2007, 22:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,382 Country:	A great monarch indeed! A real graceful lady with a wise head! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier	VarSity	Naval Forces	32	12-17-2007 19:21 PM

12-20-2007, 22:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
Expat Canuck Homesick Fool *Military Professional* Join Date: 05-17-05 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,020 Country:	I'm proud that she's my Queen. Sworn two oaths to her so far, 3 I think actually if you count Beavers when I was little.

12-20-2007, 23:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Blademaster Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,277	After the Queen has gracefully passed away, would Canada and Australia continue to support the English monarchy as their head of state? By the way, do Canada and Australia ever compensate the English monarchy for the duties of being head of state of those two countries?

12-20-2007, 23:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
Expat Canuck Homesick Fool *Military Professional* Join Date: 05-17-05 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,020 Country:	1) yes 2) Not really sure, I think we pay the Governor General?

12-21-2007, 20:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
wabpilot *Military Professional* Join Date: 12-05-03 Location: Commuting between Dresden and Ft. Worth Posts: 558 Country:	I don't usually post about politics outside the USA. But, I would like to comment on the Queen. It strikes me that she is the last of the world's heads of state or government who served in WWII. It must have pained her greatly to send her son and so many other subjects off to war in the Falklands and later into war in the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the Balkans and a few other places. Lots of people say that military service is critical for a politician in time of war. I think the converse is true. Military service is more critical for a politician in times of peace. That way they know first hand the cost of war. It's a lot easier to take a pass when you understand the consequences. And, when a warrior weighs the benefits of war against the known consequences and says we need to go to war, it is definitely time to go to war. Tony Blair and Margret Thatcher both had to go to the Queen and ask her to take the country to war. Those must have been pointed conversations.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)