Queen Elizabeth II Becomes Longest Reigning British Monarch: September 9, 2015


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They did the family photograph for the Queen's 60th wedding anniversary with everyone bar Lady Louise present for the photograph. The family has expanded since (James, Kate, George, Charlotte, Isla, Savannah, Mike and Mia) but they could still add them all. It could be the same people from the previous photo plus the new additions. It could be done - bigger family photos have been taken successfully!

Only time will tell if we get a new photo next year. I would even be happy if it was a photo of the Queen and Philip with their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is a great milestone... I would expect at least a great photo/portrait of the queen... and for once, the whole family could appear too!
 
Royal Norway, thanks for posting the great cartoon.
 
Well, this is a great milestone... I would expect at least a great photo/portrait of the queen... and for once, the whole family could appear too!

As this is something she has accomplished, I think we won't see a family portrait. It is a rather singular effort. JMO, though.
 
As this is something she has accomplished, I think we won't see a family portrait. It is a rather singular effort. JMO, though.

I'm willing to be too that HM would rather it all just be another day in the life of being The Queen.
 
As this is something she has accomplished, I think we won't see a family portrait. It is a rather singular effort. JMO, though.

I just think he would be nice, but I tend to agree that a new portrait of only the queen will likely be released!:flowers:
 
What would be really nice, if we saw a picture of The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh, her children, grandchildren and spouses. Or just a picture with Philip, Charles & Camilla, William and Catherine and Harry.

I don't think they take enough family pictures.
 
What would be really nice, if we saw a picture of The Queen & Duke of Edinburgh, her children, grandchildren and spouses. Or just a picture with Philip, Charles & Camilla, William and Catherine and Harry.

I don't think they take enough family pictures.

The Windsors definitely do not take enough family pictures. They used to to take a lot more when the Queen's children were small and even Anne, Charles and Andrew released family photos a lot during their children's childhoods. Only Edward has been very private with photos of his family and his 50th birthday photo remains my favourite family photo so far, purely for its unexpectedness!

I think the Windsors could release more group family photos, just like their European counterparts do. I am not saying do an annual family photoshoot - there are simply too many family members of the Windsors to do that. They could, however, be more open at releasing photos of the family at times of the year. I think it would work in their favour and the press may leave them alone more.

Back to the topic of the thread - I think it's good that the Queen will be seen on this day of her reign as it's a huge piece of British and royal history and will be nice to see the Queen doing her thing on this monumental day.
 
Or maybe the Queen , Charles , William and George. I don't know ther is already such a photo?


That photo was released after George's christening.
 
It would be nice to get an official picture of though. I don't know, I'm American but I think everything about Elizabeth II is historic, so an official portrait of her on this historis day would be great. Then again, her 90th is coming up (Gods willing) so she could do it then.
 
I don't think they take enough family pictures.

I trust they take plenty, they just don't share very many with the public.
 
I trust they take plenty, they just don't share very many with the public.

Private family pictures are one thing, but releasing official pictures are another. I think they should start taking official and unofficial pictures a little more often.
 
Borders Railway boost expected when Queen passes Victoria's record | News | The National
On September 9, Queen Elizabeth will surpass the record of her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria who reigned for 23,226 days, 16 hours and 23 minutes. The problem for those organising her “record” day is that no one knows precisely the second when the duration of Victoria’s reign will be overtaken.

Though she will certainly be in Scotland, the exact moment that the record is set will be unknown, which has forced Buckingham Palace into a ‘guesstimate’ that will become the official record time.

According to long-held tradition and what passes for the British constitution, a monarch ascends the throne at the instant his or her predecessor dies, hence the cry: “The Queen (or King) is dead, long live the King (or Queen).”

In the case of the present Queen’s father, King George VI, the exact time of his death is unknown, because although he was suffering from lung cancer, he died peacefully in his sleep from a coronary thrombosis. He was last seen alive around midnight before his body was discovered in his bed by a servant bringing him a cup of tea at 7.30am on the morning of February 6, 1952.

Most historians date the Queen’s rule from that time of the day, but given the interest in the new record reign, The National can reveal that Buckingham Palace has decided to calculate an approximate time when the record will be beaten and the time agreed is 5.30pm on September 9.

Royal Household experts passed this written statement to The National: “Her Majesty came to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI, on 6 February 1952.

“The exact time of his death is not known: he was seen at his bedroom window around midnight on 5 February, and is thought to have died in the very early hours of 6 February in his sleep (so exact minutes become somewhat academic in the calculation).

“Assuming the time was around 1.00 am that morning, The Queen will (God willing) pass her great, great grandmother’s record around 5.30 in the evening of 9 September 2015.”


The Royal Household has gone to considerable lengths with its calculations – the records of King George VI’s death show that doctors were able to say that he had died some hours before the discovery of his body, and that is why the 1am has been chosen.

They have also calculated every day and minute of both the current Queen and Queen Victoria’s reigns.
 
Last edited:
calculating the exact time of crossing is a bit over the top. Marking the day would be good enough. JMO..
 
Actually, today her age is no big deal. M<y Mothe5r who was in gre4at shape just passed away at 100 and QE Mother died at over 100. That Queen Victoria, little, stout queen last until she did at that time was a greater feat.
 
Actually, today her age is no big deal. M<y Mothe5r who was in gre4at shape just passed away at 100 and QE Mother died at over 100. That Queen Victoria, little, stout queen last until she did at that time was a greater feat.

The Queen is 89, and that is a big deal. Most people who are at that age would not have been able to do what she does, and most people don't live till they are 100.

If it is the picture discussion you mean, then I agree with you. Neither she nor Phillip is too old / frail to sit for a family photo.
 
Actually, today her age is no big deal. M<y Mothe5r who was in gre4at shape just passed away at 100 and QE Mother died at over 100. That Queen Victoria, little, stout queen last until she did at that time was a greater feat.


Actually, it is.

The average lifespan for a woman in the UK is 83 years (79 for men, with a average of 81 overall). The Queen has that beat by almost 7 years.

That your mother lived until over 100 is great because it's almost 20 years over the average lifespan of an American woman (81 years; with the average lifespan of an American in general being 79 years), but it doesn't take away from the fact that any person living into their late 80s is still a feat, especially if they do so and are still as capable as the Queen.

The Queen at the age of 89 is still able to stand for long periods of time, walk without a mobility aid, drive, see enough to be able to read a TelePrompTer and presumably print (she does still do the red boxes), hear without a hearing aid. She's also of sound mind and has had fairly few serious health issues - while at an age where the majority of those born the same year as she was have passed. Sure she has had the advantage of a lifestyle and access to medical care that many others have not, which have helped her, but to a huge degree the lack of serious health problems is in itself a feat for the Queen.

The DoE is doing even better, as at 94 he's 15 years older than the average lifespan for a British man, and while he's had more major health problems than his wife he's still able to see, hear, drive, stand for long periods of time and walk without assistance, still has his wits. That's a big deal for someone in their 90s, even more so given as he has had health issues.
 
Actually, it is.

The average lifespan for a woman in the UK is 83 years (79 for men, with a average of 81 overall). The Queen has that beat by almost 7 years.

That your mother lived until over 100 is great because it's almost 20 years over the average lifespan of an American woman (81 years; with the average lifespan of an American in general being 79 years), but it doesn't take away from the fact that any person living into their late 80s is still a feat, especially if they do so and are still as capable as the Queen.

The Queen at the age of 89 is still able to stand for long periods of time, walk without a mobility aid, drive, see enough to be able to read a TelePrompTer and presumably print (she does still do the red boxes), hear without a hearing aid. She's also of sound mind and has had fairly few serious health issues - while at an age where the majority of those born the same year as she was have passed. Sure she has had the advantage of a lifestyle and access to medical care that many others have not, which have helped her, but to a huge degree the lack of serious health problems is in itself a feat for the Queen.

The DoE is doing even better, as at 94 he's 15 years older than the average lifespan for a British man, and while he's had more major health problems than his wife he's still able to see, hear, drive, stand for long periods of time and walk without assistance, still has his wits. That's a big deal for someone in their 90s, even more so given as he has had health issues.

My great-grandmother is currently 89. her Lifespan has been pretty amazing due to the fact the fact that over the last couple decades she has had a back hip (She fell in her mid 60s and broke a rib) and has not been capable much for since then very mush and need a walker. Her health has been failing last couple years. I hope I live as long as her.

Even so we came a long way, better health, eating better, better diets, etc. The average lifespan now is only 71-73 (World average). Queen Victoria lived past the lifespan for her time much like Queen Elizabeth has down now and Her Mother did.
 
I never meant to say what she is doing isn't wonderful. But, there are many other who are as active as she, at older ages, and as the times go, Queen Victoria lived well passed those average. That is all I am say. I think she does her job admirably.
 
Did Charles snub offer to honour the Queen?
Death-fall tycoon Scot Young's ex-wife Michelle promises 'explosive' film* | Daily Mail Online
The Queen overtakes her great-great-grandmother Victoria to become our longest reigning monarch next month, and the landmark will be celebrated with a biography by Tory grandee Douglas Hurd.

Given that he often accompanied HM abroad, Lord Hurd’s tome will be seen as having the approval of Buckingham Palace, particularly as it will include a royal foreword.

Intriguingly, the tribute has been written by Prince William rather than his father, the long-suffering heir to the throne. ‘The decision was made by the Palace,’ a publishing source tells me.

Charles paid a glowing tribute to the Queen Mother in a book devoted to her, but has yet to pen one for a biography of his mother.

Clarence House sources deny the decision is a sign of Charles’s frustration at waiting so long for the throne. ‘Impatient? Me?’ he said in 2013. ‘What a thing to suggest. Yes, of course, I am. I’ll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it if I’m not careful.’

That Seb guy is starting to irritate me. Everything he writes is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I do not think there would be a multigenerational photo.

You have to take into consideration the ages of the Queen and Prince Philip.

The Queen currently hosts her entire family twice a year. First for the Trooping the Colours and the second time six months later, at the Christmas lunch.

It may be too much for the Queen and Prince Philip to host another large gathering.


They undertake foreign tours, so hosting family shouldn't be a problem.
 
"Long-suffering heir"?? From my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Well, pre marriage to Camilla, he did appear more dour, unhappy, impatient in general. He was not as hopeful in his public communications. Today, he does not appear to suffer and I credit the Duchess and the balance he has found in life. But it did take decades for this Charles to emerge in print, word and pictures. IMHO.
But, I agree, no reason to bring up the past to sell news. Because that's the point and Seb's goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom