Queen Elizabeth’s subjects hope the 89-year-old will reign for another decade

HM2

Queen Elizabeth II, Prince William, the Duchess of Cornwall and many of the Queen’s household stood for individual portraits back in 2013, and Majesty Magazine has just released the photos. The pics were taken by Hugo Rittson and he employed mirrors to make it seem like everyone was been cloned. Imagine FOUR Queens. Wonderful, right? You can see more of the photos here on Majesty’s Facebook page. As I said, these 2013 photos were just released yesterday so a lot of sites are covering them.

In a little more than a month, the Queen will mark a spectacular achievement. On September 9th, she will become the longest-serving British monarch. In history. That is when she will have been on the British throne longer than Queen Victoria, who reigned for 63 years and seven months. It’s a strange occasion to celebrate, unlike the annual celebrations of the Queen’s ascension to the throne or even her birthday. So how will the Queen celebrate? On September 9th, the Queen will “travel by steam train from Edinburgh to Tweedbank near Galashiels to formally open the new Borders Railway, reviving a rail tradition dating back to the 1840s.” It’s a pretty loaded and significant event – Queen Victoria opened up her share of rail lines too, plus the event will be in Scotland and the Queen is said to be quite firmly in the camp of anti-independence for Scotland.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast had this funny write-up about the Queen’s reign and what it means:

With an indefatigability of which the Energizer Bunny would be proud, the Queen, it has often been noted, just keeps going. Incredibly, this 89-year-old lady completed 393 official engagements in 2014, and although she has given up long haul travel in recent years, 18 of these took place overseas. And the pattern has continued into 2015—just a few weeks ago she was in Germany on a three-day state visit.

The Queen thinks nothing of it, and will do no less. When courtiers beg her to slow down and commit to a less hectic schedule, she has been known to icily reply, “I have to be seen to be believed.”

“The Queen works her socks off, and she plays pretty hard as well,” the writer Robert Lacey tells the Royalist. “She is still riding horses through Windsor Great Park at 89.”

Lacey adds that the Queen still reads through her official correspondence “the boxes” every day.

“She doesn’t regard it as work. She enjoys it, it’s the essence of her being. It’s her meaning. So why should she give it up?” he asks.

Today, however, most of her subjects believe that their beloved Queen has another decade in her at least. Indeed, many ardent Monarchists hope that she can possibly carry on longer than that, thereby reducing to a minimum the worrisome reign of ‘King Charles’.

[From The Daily Beast]

If I was British, I wouldn’t be worried about King Charles. I would be worried about King William the Spoilt Baby. Anyway, it was believed that the Queen would celebrate her milestone as the longest-serving monarch quietly, but that was before the Scottish event was announced. Sources still claim that the Queen really doesn’t want the day to have a “triumphalism” feeling because that would be “unseemly.” How British!

camilla

HM1

willy

Photos courtesy of Majesty Magazine.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

53 Responses to “Queen Elizabeth’s subjects hope the 89-year-old will reign for another decade”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Momoko says:

    Poor Camilla, didn’t anyone think of training her in, “How to behave like a royal member.” before-after marrying Charles? Her posture is just ghastly…

  2. Sea Dragon says:

    I just noticed that the Queen could use a good bra fitting. Other than that, the pics are very flattering.

    • Tash says:

      Haha I thought Camilla could use one but still, both ladies look very nice…unlike “King William the Spoilt Baby.”

      • Olenna says:

        Yeah, the more one learns about William’s character, the less impressive he looks in his uniforms. He does know how to strike a pose, though. If he ever needs a real job, he could try modeling for the Army/AF Exchange Catalog.

      • NotFromHere says:

        I think everyone looks good in these photo’s. I don’t like William but I don’t think you can say he looks bad here.

        Being British I would say most younger people are concerned more by the idea of King William than King Charles. It used to be the other way around but in recent years the feeling has reversed.

        The older generations love William and Kate. They can do no wrong.

  3. BooBooLaRue says:

    Long live HRM! not liking the other portraits though too gimmicky

  4. NEVE says:

    lol no we jolly well don’t. and the old woman has been given a sneaky 18% pay rise out of the tax payer’s pocket while our government has made cuts to public spending. aka- she gets a raise while the poor get poorer.

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      Is the public wanting to do away with the monarchy altogether? It doesn’t seem like it.

    • Sixer says:

      Britons (as a whole, not me!) don’t want to do away with the monarchy generally speaking. But don’t take that as an expression of deference or any kind of subservience. Firstly, Britons don’t like change or upheaval. Secondly, they have a huge distrust of politicians, so to a Brit, replacing a constitutional monarch with another layer of politics is like out of the frying pan and into the fire. Thirdly, most Brits think ER puts in the effort insofar as work ethic goes. Etc. And even rabid republican lefties like me put constitutional change way down on our list of priorities about what needs changing in our country.

      As an illustration, approval ratings measuring how well public figures perform their roles in the UK give ratings around 50-60% for ER and Charles (up and down depending on whether they’ve wasted any money lately or done some sticking up for the plebs or whatever) pretty consistently. Look at the same approval ratings for any main politician, whether in government or opposition, including the Prime Minister and they struggle to get over 20%. Ever. If a politician here got a 30% approval rating, they’d think their ship had come in. It’s why everyone in politics hates Boris Johnson (mayor of London). He gets an approval rating of 40%. Unheard of for a politician here. Approval ratings for the leaders of the three main parties at the recent general election were 26%, 19% and 13%. Scary, huh?!

      We HATE politicians in Britland.

      • FLORC says:

        Sixer
        Help me understand. I have a friend over your way that since taking residence there has become a rabid republican like yourself. They’ve said the same as you’re saying. And say while the Monarchy is useless and a drain it’s on the backburner of things to do. Unless they make a lot of noise and bring attention to themselves they will be ignored more.
        Ultimately though the Monarchy cannot survive without the politicians to help them along.
        So…
        Cleaning up republicans is also in a way cleaning up the monarchy?

      • Sixer says:

        I mean, it’s tricky, FLORC, because we’re not homogenous, you know?

        There are Brits who are rabid monarchists (but these are VERY few).

        There are Brits who acknowledge an hereditary monarchy is a bit of a silly anachronism but think ER does a reasonable job of representing the nation, so why bother with the upheaval of change (lots and lots of these).

        There are Brits who hate politics and politicians with a passion and for them a Prime Minister is quite enough, thank you, no Presidents please (a good number of these too).

        There are committed republicans who think we should be rid of the royals at any cost because of the principle of the thing (only a very few of these).

        There are republicans like me who favour various forms of presidencies, but who see this as a long term aim, if we ever get to a point where all the things that actually affect people’s day-to-day lives (housing, health, education, yadda) are at a point when we can indulge ourselves with the decorative stuff about who is the head of state (quite a few of us but in no way the majority).

        I also think it’s a cultural thing. Generally speaking, Britons don’t define themselves in terms of a relationship with the state as strongly as Americans do. I think that’s one reason why it was so much easier to introduce strict gun control here than it is there. Britons don’t see it as an issue that changes the nature of their citizenship – IFYKWIM? And in the same way, they don’t see their existence/status as citizens changing depending on whether it’s ER or a president who is head of state.

      • FLORC says:

        Sixer
        I sort of understand that. I say sort of because it sounds like this is a very deep topic. The differences alone are tough to all process and apply. It would be tough to give an overview and do it justice. Right?

      • Sixer says:

        Yes!

        Um… I’m trying to think of practical illustrations as to why many British republicans wouldn’t put constitutional change at the top of their list of priorities. Um… um… um…!

        Ok. Most British republicans would be left of centre politically. Not all, but the majority would be. Most left of centre Brits support decommissioning of our independent nuclear deterrent. Morally speaking, they’d put disarmament above monarchy as a priority. Practically speaking, they would too. The monarchy costs £300m a year. The nuclear deterrent 10x as much at £3bn.

        Do you see what I mean about the way British republicans think? Constitutional arrangements are a matter of principle. But matters of practicality – from nuclear disarming to the number of weeks you need to wait for a routine surgery under the NHS – these are all more important to us.

      • FLORC says:

        Sixer
        I see! And agree. Overall, It would take a massive and globally shameful scandal for the Monarchy to be pushed to the top and that makes perfect sense.
        As far as money drains go they’re not the biggest. That they still struggle to hide financials and relevancy while taking funds from needed areas because they can… I’m going to side eye that as I would any group that uses a goverment/public assests as their personal bank.

  5. Talie says:

    Neither William or Charles are ideal. But times have changed and the idea of royalty has become rather archaic unless you look like a grandmother or grandpa. I mean, we know too much about Charles and William. We’ve seen Will fall out of a club. And we’ve heard Charles say he wants to be a tampon. The bloom is way off.

    • Peter says:

      To be fair to William, what man his age hasn’t fallen out of a club at some point in his life?

      As for the tampon comment from Charles, while gross, it was a private comment said in an intimate moment that never should have been made public.

      • FLORC says:

        Was posting the same until i saw your reply.

        Not 1 of us here can honestly claim we haven’t had a kink we wouldn’t want getting out. Or information from a private discussion that was never meant to be public. This is all most have against Charles. Not attacking his professional life. And there is stuff there. Still not sure how private life stuff holds greater value when judging someone’s professional worth than their actual professional history.

        And I’m no fan of William’s, but he was young. I’ve been tossed out of clubs When I was 21. Does that mean I’m horrible at my job a decade later?

        Charles having lived longer gives us more to judge on professionally. He’s accomplished and has th skills to reign as unneeded as that is in these days. When William begins his duties we can hold judgement as see what he has to offer.

    • notasugarhere says:

      We also know William’s opinion on breast size because he said it publicly. We know his size because he chose to urinate in public and was photographed. Then there’s the driving drunk and stairwell escapade videos.

      They have to have the gravitas and dedication to get through the revelation of those personal moments and do their job regardless. Charles is doing pretty well. William? Obviously not.

  6. FingerBinger says:

    The Queen’s mother lived until she was 101. It wouldn’t surprise me if she reigned for another 10 years.

    • wolfie says:

      So, are we stuck with Willnot and Kannot showing us their goods and entitlements for another 10 years?

    • Jay says:

      I remember when the queen mother died. The biggest thing about was that they cancelled east enders ((a long running bbc soap)) to show tributes!

    • FLORC says:

      Reign and living are seperate here. TQ has already passed off many of her duties because she isn’t up to them anymore. Still think they will have to pry her off the throne.
      And unfortunately, Philip is in rough shape. Wth couples that have been together that long they tend to pass away in short time with eachother.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Philip has really gone downhill since the Jubilee. The last few months it seems to have escalated.

      • FLORC says:

        Nota
        I’m curious as to what is wrong with Philip. A year or 2 ago he had exploratory surgery in his abdomen. You do not just go in there on a person in their 90’s or even 70’s unless you must. And evven then the odds you’ll survive aren’t in your favor. That he recovered and went back to work so quickly is amazing.

        And he looks far worse now.

      • anne_000 says:

        From what I read and remember, during the Jubilee, Philip and the Queen refused to sit on the throne-like chairs on the boat. They stood all those hours. Also, they didn’t wear the proper clothing for the rain and cold. Then I heard that Philip had to go to the hospital. I think he might have gotten the flu or pneumonia or a severe cold or something.

  7. Snazzy says:

    I think the day her reign ends will be the day the monarchy dies.

    • pf says:

      Completely agree. If she reigns another 5-10 years, Charles will be in his seventies and will be crowned no matter what. But Will has proved how utterly useless he is, so I really don’t think anyone wants him to be King.

      • Nicole says:

        Oh please. It’s not like there’s never been an incompetent or unliked British Monarch before.

    • Karen says:

      King John, Edward II – yep, they were really unliked. Charles and Will may join them.

  8. Tough Cookie says:

    393 official engagements in 2014!!! WOW. Well, I guess SOMEONE has to pick up the slack from Willy and Waity.
    FYI on this date (August 4th) in 1900 Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the future Queen Mother, was born.

  9. Andrea S. says:

    Yea, I came here to comment on the 393 official engagements in 2014 as well! Sixer, or LAK: do any of y’all know what the tally is on W&K official engagements for 2014? Something tells me, even their COMBINED tally is nowhere near QEII’s!!

    • FLORC says:

      http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx

      You can search about and see the events each royal did and what the event was.
      You can also find just a total number within the year span each royal did, but those are misleading imo. For example Harry’s invictus games planning were not counted as work for him.
      Visiting Downton Abbey was counted as work for Kate. That’s where details become key to true numbers. 1 royal can attend an event and it counts as a single event. Another can attend the same event. Do the same thing. And it gets counted as 2 events. I think this only applies to Kate though.

      You can also try here.
      http://www.royal.gov.uk/latestnewsanddiary/courtcircular/overview.aspx

      And…
      http://www.theroyalrecord.com

      • anne_000 says:

        And only for Kate, private meetings get counted too.

      • FLORC says:

        Anne
        Have any of those been confirmed? Am I thinking those “secret” charity meetings as not the same as your private meetings? Or are they the same?

      • anne_000 says:

        @ FLORC

        The information about the credit for private meetings is from the CB article link I posted below.

        I don’t know what type of private meetings they are.

      • Ms. Turtle says:

        Florc and/or Sixer – not sure if you’ll see this, but thanks to both of you for more info you’ve posted in these comments. My question is for either of you: do you think one possible reason Kate doesn’t do much in the public is bc William also doesn’t and she has an edict that she isn’t to be seen out more than him? I’m not trying to make excuses, but we saw how Charles was vastly overshadowed by his wife to become the “People’s Princess” and I was wondering if either William or the palace would never want a repeat of that and so she is given a pass for now?

        Also, it would seem to me William will have to step into a greatly expanded job as prince of Wales when his father becomes king.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Ms. Turtle

        I’ve read that the reason the charities got kicked out and W&K given all those 22 rooms at KP was because of expectations that William would start doing royal duties now that he was out of the military. But that didn’t go as hoped for by the BRF.

        It seems that every time there’s a line at which William would or should start working, he would just move that goal post further down the field.

        As for now, he’s basically said that grandma and grandpa can keep working while he wants to go off and be a hero or ‘good guy’ doing his med copter job (even though it’s estimated by some that he does only 2.5 days out of every 8 days).

        So I’m thinking that when Charles becomes king and he becomes PoW, he’s going to use that same excuse he has for his grandparents – that Charles can do the work while he goes off ‘supervising’ the duchy aka kicking back and letting the property managers deal with the real work.

        And I’m guessing that the only royal duties W&K are willing to do are ones in which they’re flattered, pampered, and honored by those attending. They don’t seem to like those visits in which they have to pay attention to other people, like the sick, disabled, homeless, disadvantaged, etc., unless their charities hold parties in their honor and people line up to shake their hands and thank them for coming.

      • FLORC says:

        Anne
        Thanks. I remember that now. That nothing was accomplished as we’ve now seen longterm from private meetings makes me think it was merely talking with photos and no follow through. If all it takes to get credited with work is roll out of bed and meet with people for averaging an hour that leads to nowhere someone should redefine “work” for her.

        Ms. Turtle
        Hmm…
        1st It’s been stated numerous times Kate controls her own work schedule. It is as she wants it. BP and KP have gone on record with this a few times. Regarding William’s influence on her…
        There was 1 time Kate was said to keep William waiting nearly 30minutes to an hour while she spent extra time with her charity having her team take notes. She wore a navy blue miniskirt suit if that helps.
        Another time was when Kate was a newlywed. She was training on a crew team for a charity race. She was in her element! Last minute after making nearly every practice she pulled out. Not certain if it was because of William or herself.

        I think overall it’s an unfair comparison CD to WK.Kate fell in line long ago with William. At this point she would seem incomplete without him. Not as a partner, but as a fixture in her life. So much has been constructed around him. Diana found an outlet and purpose in her work. If anything I think W&K enable eachother to be the way they are. Not to keep the other from doing something they want. At any point Kate could have done more than catered to William for 9+ years. If she wanted to.

        And Diana had presence! That woman could sway opinion like a champ! Kate is of no concern here. She won’t rock the boat if it means William will be upset. So, that’s a long answer way of saying no. I don’t think Kate has a light schedule to not overshadow William and to not repeat a people’s princess scenerio. This is just Kate.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Andrea S.

      Here’s the CB article about the 2014 royal tallies with DM as source:

      http://www.celebitchy.com/404378/duchess_kates_2014_event_tally_she_works_less_than_every_other_working_royal/

      Kate = 76 (& only royal who gets to count ‘private meetings’ as royal duties
      William = 111
      Philip (age 92) = 200
      Queen (age 88) = 375
      Charles = 450
      Anne = 419
      Andrew = 297
      Edward = 348

      • Olenna says:

        Kate = Abysmal (And, and to her supporters–pregnancy does not equal disease, disability or handicap.)

      • Deedee says:

        Kate didn’t make a lot of charity visits when she wasn’t a mom, so why start now?

      • Betsy says:

        @Olenna – Kate’s lazy, lazy, lazy, but I really take issue that “pregnancy does not equal disease, disability, or handicap.” I identify with the midwifery model of care and that pregnancy is indeed a natural physiological state, but my first pregnancy most definitely caused temporary (and some lasting) disability, and it wasn’t even that difficult as far as pregnancies go.

        Still, she’s had time before and after and ought to have racked up a better tally than that. Certainly Will should stop his “dilettante-ing” around and go do his actual job, heir to the throne. He certainly uses the perqs.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Olenna

        And CB’s commenters have been saying that the Court Circular classified giving birth and going to her own daughter’s christening as work credit for Kate.

        I don’t know if she got credit for going into (birth) labor or for putting on her clothes or brushing her hair. I’m sure Kate apologists would say she should…

      • Olenna says:

        Betsy, I’m sorry that my comments offended you. They were made in reference to Kate, only, as her pregnancies are often used by some to excuse her very light work schedule even after the first trimester. They were not generalizations meant to imply anyone else cannot have legitimate reasons for light duty, no work or bed rest.

        anne_000, the circular does list Charlotte’s birth as an engagement. Not sure about the christening.

      • FLORC says:

        Regarding pregnancy.
        It can be a factor in a temporary or lifelong disability. Though, these symptoms and the requirements to claim/provide proof of a disability. Kate didn’t show any.
        I’ve stated it enough times here. My exp/cred. I’m certain she had a rough time with morning sickess, but she maintained a tone figure and only appeared to gain muscle mass with a healthy amount of fat. Not any loss of mass at all. And was seen active and eating in public with no issue.
        Though, many women expecting do have a very hard time with morning sickness. It doesn’t last past the 2nd trimester for many and doesn’t cause them to lose significant weight to endanger the pregnancy.

        BUT! For certain pregnancy and labor can be a major factor in a disability. It’s in my experience very, extremely rare.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        Pregnancy – phone calls would have still been possible. Emails. Letters to be or to not be read out in public. Articles for newspapers.
        Kate could have done a lot more during her pregnancy and in general. She choosed to not do anything.
        For example it is customary for museums and art galleries to allow “exclusive pre-views” to donors and celebrities. Usually there are no photographers. Kate could have done that even during a difficult pregnancy and then write something nice about it. She is after all a history of art graduate.

  10. Nicole says:

    I hope so too. She wasn’t likeable until after the Queen Mother died but now I’m rooting for her to reign forever. She’s just so damn competent and hard working. Gotta love a pro.

  11. Deedee says:

    How did I miss the royal episode of What Not to Wear?