In only about 24 hours, Queen Elizabeth will overtake her great-great-grandmother, Victoria, as longest serving monarch of the UK. Did anyone ever expect any monarch to come this close to Victoria's lengthy reign?

Is there an option of Who Cares.


As a Aussie & someone who doesn't give a rats about the Queen Australia needs to be a republic right now & get rid of the Freakin Royal Family.

I'm an American and posting about it. It doesn't affect me per se because I do not live in a monarchy under our Constitution, but it is still a big thing to hold the longest reign over the United Kingdom.

Queen Elizabeth has asked for no fanfare behind it, which I commend and applaud...it is the press that is marking it moreso.

As a Canadian, I don't mind the fact that we still have a Queen. She's just a figurehead anyway, and has little effect on our laws other than adding her name to paper and that new immigrants swear allegiance to her (whether they know who she is or not lol) But as she is briefed on all of our "doings", sometimes I think she should step in once in awhile when our elected politicians need a kick in the pants lol)

She supports many charities here (and yes, there is the added advantage that they are tax write-offs, but still, other folks DO benefit) such as: the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Nurses' Association, the Canadian Red Cross Society, the Royal Canadian Humane Association, and Save the Children - Canada. The monarchy is/are also huge supporters of almost every branch of our military, such as it is.

I can understand that several countries don't particularly like the UK because of past perceived injustices, but the Queen, herself, really didn't have a lot to do with how things are now.

And that Americans who relish their independence, can also appreciate monarchies, even if they are British ones.

Whether one is an anarchist or a traditionalist or somewhere in between, it IS quite the "historical marker" and one not likely to be repeated anytime soon.

Oh, and a few FunTrivia questions will have to be altered lol

And long may she become it!

There is an option wwe84, but, who cares haha

I for one think it is an impressive feat of longevity, one not likely to be broken again in our lifetime. Charles will be 67 in just a couple of months, and as such, he would have to live to the age of 130 to do it, although as soon as he becomes king, he will rank up there in the ranks of oldest monarchs fairly quickly. If Queen Elizabeth lives as long as her mother did, we will see her celebrate 70 years as queen and then some (she was about 25 when she ascended if I remember correctly).

Really? Couldn't you have agreed with her request by not starting this post?

No-one forced you to either read this thread or comment on it

True, but I didn't realise that one of the rules of the forums was that they were reserved solely for those who agree with the sentiment expressed. The definition of forum in the Free Dictionary is as follows:

fo•rum (ˈfɔr əm, ˈfoʊr əm)

n., pl. fo•rums, fo•ra (ˈfɔr ə, ˈfoʊr ə)
1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and place of assembly.
2. a court; tribunal.
3.
a. a meeting place for discussion of matters of public interest or a means through which such discussion can be conducted, as a newspaper.
b. a public meeting or assembly for such discussion.
c. a discussion of a public issue or other serious topic by a select group, as of experts or specialists, esp. a radio or television broadcast for this purpose.


If it's not open for discussion, then maybe it shouldn't be here.

Yes, that option is to ignore this thread. Australia voted on being a republic not all that long ago and rejected that option.

Between Go Set a Watchman, Denali, and Queen Elizabeth II still being on the throne, the FunTrivia editors have had a few busy months.

As a Canadian I also agree with Jakeroo. I couldn't have said it better myself.

wwe, being born in a Commonwealth country is like winning the lottery of life. You don't know how lucky you are mate. You really don't. I'm sure, when you decide to exit the Commonwealth and head to, say, Syria or some quagmire of a country in Africa, she'll be quite devastated to know that you are no longer one of her subjects. Oh, just a minute, you're not leaving? No, you get to stay and live the high life just because you were born in Australia and you don't have to be thankful to anyone for that privilege. Sounds like you don't give a rats about much except perhaps wrestling?

It's obvious wwe84 also doesn't give a rats about question marks and commas. I wonder what those poor, ignored, forgotten symbols of punctuation ever did to wwe84?

Now, now, children, play nicely or you know what will happen. wwe84 is entitled to his opinion, he lives in a democracy and so do we. As does poor Dave, an innocent American venturing into the field of monarchy.

I lived in a republic for a while; when their president was paying a visit I never saw so much fuss. Every surface was painted, covered in gold cloth, and/or tarted up with banks of flowers. Even if it was brand new already, which it mostly was. I was quite grateful when I got back to the UK where a royal visit meant we could get the loos painted without any financial arguments from the maintenance department. Rumour has it that the Queen has never been in a bathroom that doesn't smell of fresh paint so in my imagination there's a guy in Buck House who races in front of her with a brush and a tin of Dulux. Or, as Her Maj is known to be cost conscious, B&Q's own brand.

Most Brits I know acknowledge that as modes of government go, royalty is an outdated concept. But the alternative is what? Changing from a parliamentary system to a presidential one? We look at how that works in other countries and shudder. The theory is good but the practice leaves much to be desired. All countries seem to need a head of state, even if only as a figurehead. But who should that be? What sort of person? A politician? A former politician? Or worse, a failed politician? We are not all blessed with a Nelson Mandela or a Mary Robinson. And if all we want a head of state to do is plant trees, unveil plaques, and open bridges, a lot of us think we might as well stick with what we've got - a symbol of continuity in a world of change.

I find it strange that the Americans, who were once so keen to get rid of the royal family that they went to war about it, are now so keen for that same family to be preserved - as long as it's only imposed on other countries.

I personally never said anything of the sort. What we went to war about was tyranny, which, unfortunately, is what we are living in now. I do, however, think it is an accomplishment to sit atop the throne for 63-plus years, even only as a "figurehead" as flopsy put it. I bet no one was thinking in 1901 that anyone would ever come close to Queen Victoria's length of reign, meanwhile, 114 years later, we see that longevity is relinquished. I think it is a worthwhile achievement worth mentioning, even if Queen Elizabeth doesn't celebrate the day with any fuss or fluff. Besides, dippo, two of your own countrymen (countrywomen) are fine with this topic.



In all honesty, we live in a constitutional republic in the USA.



I couldn't agree more with this statement.

good grief, a simple thread about longevity starts a republic vs. monarchy debate