Queen Elizabeth II; Longest to reign over us

It was mildly surprising that nobody bothered commenting on this story yesterday.
It may not be grand conspiracy or grand politics, but it should at least be general-chitchat worthy.

The Queen exceeded the reign (measured in days) of Queen Victoria, and so became the longest-reigning British monarch.

This is part of a very odd set of statistics which anyone knowing British history well can't help noticing;

Elizabeth I; 1558-1603 (44 years)
George III; 1760-1820 (59 years)
Victoria; 1837-1901 (63 years).
Elizabeth II; 1952-?

In other words, four of the last five centuries have had a long reign dominating the second half of the century.
Each reign extends beyond the end of the century.
And the reigns get longer as the series progresses.
If that trend continued, someone would inherit well before 2050 and reign for a good 70 years or so.

I do have one bone to pick with Her Maj., in the interests of the English language.
She was reigning while her mother (Elizabeth the Queen Mother) was still alive, for a good half century.
So she and her mother, between them, have been responsible for convincing at least three generations of Britons that the term "Queen Mother" means "mother of the Queen".
As a result, while Princess Diana was alive, there were people (even the Times newspaper) coining the horrible neologism "King Mother" to describe her future role.
Aargh! (Quietly beats head against the wall)

Look. If the lady formerly known as Kate Middleton (until she dropped her old surname on marriage) becomes King William's queen and then lives on into the reign of her son, she will be
a) A Queen, retaining the honorary title
b) Mother of the reigning monarch.
Putting those two together, you get Queen Mother.
THAT is how the late Queen Elizabeth, nee Bowes-Lyon, became Queen Mother.
If Diana had become Charles' queen and lived into her own son's reign, she, too, would have become Queen Mother.
I suppose we must blame modern school history lessons and their apparent focus on lifestyles rather than names. Otherwise a quick survey of all the royal ladies in history who have been known as "Queen Mother" would have cleared up the point.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That lady is so evil. She just makes me want to throw up any time I see her disgusting face.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree
That's just projection. She hasn't done you any personal injury.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree
That's just projection. She hasn't done you any personal injury.

Don't see her making any decisions either. They never say, the queen has decided…

But the queen has the "reigns".

okaaay…

a reply to: DISRAELI although not a huge royal Fanof the idea of monarchy. Queen Elizabeth has been an amazing Queen. She has been a real credit to the nation and a brilliant head of state. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Long may she reign over us, because I don't really like Charles. William and Harry and Catherine are fantastic too. I wish the crown could just skip Charles.

Long live the Queen.

Good one her, she has serve the public for 63 years I hoep she continues for many more.
Oh and it is ATS what do you expect?.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
I'm not sure that Charles has done anything much to deserve unpopularity (and it isn't practical to assign the crown on that basis, anyway).
You may or may not remember that when he was the same age as Prince William he was getting the same pop-star treatment.
Popularity is a fickle and changeable thing.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Well it doesn't really affect me and dont really care about the royal family unless one of the entitled SOB pegs it and I get a bank holiday to have fun with.

I only tolerate them because they bring in enough income to offet the tax costs.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It's called modern medicine. Is it so far fetched to believe that one of the richest families in the world has access to the best medical assistance?

a reply to: intrptr
Quite true. She does what her ministers have "advised" her to do.
That's what confuses Americans, because they take the descriptions of her "powers" so literally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
The minor puzzle is the way these advantages have been concentrated in the second half of the century.
Would Victoria have benefited from medical expertise not available to her successors, Edward VII and the two Georges?
The two main factors are probably gaining the throne at an early age, and having a fairly healthy lifestyle.
Charles II (1660-1688) might have lasted to the end of his own century, like his brother, and added himself to the list, if his lifestyle had been a bit more reasonable.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Women have also traditionally lived longer than men.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is true.
The former Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands was born in 1938 and is still alive (though their habit of abdication obscures the length-of-reign question).

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: intrptr
Quite true. She does what her ministers have "advised" her to do.
That's what confuses Americans, because they take the descriptions of her "powers" so literally.

Here in the states we understand figure heads. So empires and empire building are dead, huh?

The Queen is dead, long live the queen. In the US we elect Dynasties to rule over us.

Patriotism, the ultimate tool of control. Backed up with the motif of a regal head... God Save the Queen.

Because she sure saves the poor and suffering in our country doesn't she?

Now, I know the Royals are born into it and have no choice. As a few of you know - I've got real close links with a couple of royals, so by default I'm not entirely against the royals.

However...

Why are we praising a woman/family who could end so much poverty with clever spending and action... ... ... Yet they don't.

a reply to: DISRAELI there are some people you like others not so much, but this the problem with monarchy. There is no choice. With new advances in medical and biological technology Charles good go on for a hell of a long time. With no end in site.

a reply to: woodwardjnr
And if he does, public opinion might become comfortable with him again, and be sorry when he finally goes.
Especially if the younger generation has no memory of Diana.
That's one of the side effects of longevity.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Why would anyone celebrate the longest reign of probably the most inbred welfare family in the world?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: DISRAELI

I only tolerate them because they bring in enough income to offset the tax costs.

No they don't:

Palace fear over Queen's tax bill

If the Queen can’t pay the bills

Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace

The British Royal Family is financed mainly by public money.

A reverse Robin Hood.

Jude

a reply to: DISRAELI

The English Monarchy is redundant.

'Let us pay respects to an elderly corgi breeder that is somehow relevant despite the fact she is an aging octogenarian that has no power since the serfs were called serfs.'