Thumbs Down

I thought we fought a war to rid us of queens and kings ??

As an American I find all the BS about this stupid and boring.

The unemployment rate in Britain is over 20% fr the young. There are only two classes left and we know how rich the "royals" are. The queen is an old bag... end the monarchy !!! It is SO yesterday.

It remains a "mystery" how ANY single British person could give a damn about any member of the "royal family", the ones who slaughtered so many hundreds of thousands of the ancestors... of all those "commoners".

In the History of Civilization, the British Monarchy represents one of the most Barbaric ruling families ever.

The royal family deserves NOTHING... and ZERO notoriety from their British "subjects".

The fact that ANY "British commoner" pays ANY attention to the Queen speaks volumes to the staggering ignorance and pure stupidity of ANY single individual "British commoner" who does so much as "wave" at the Queen.

It is a sad statement to know that ANY group could be "trained like dogs to sit up" whenever the Queen strolls by. Seeing pictures of the "throngs of British commoners" turning out for this "dog and pony show" should cause EVERY American... and ANY "self-respecting individual" to shake their heads in disbelief.

In other words,

"Look at us! WE have all this because WE brutalized, victimized and murdered SO MANY of YOUR ancestors...

THANKS SUCKERS!!!

Hannah it's very easy to throw things away thinking that you have something better. We have had this system for a very long time and it's served us well.

If you don't like it or find it stupid or boring then don't read the article.

Long live the Queen.

Hannah:

Sour Grapes. Too bad you cannot appreciate Traditional British History.

It was a spectacular accumulation of Patriots in an upbeat mood, loving/proud of their Country.

Too bad. America needs some uplifting and joy like the Diamond Jubilee. Everyone coming together as one.

"United We Stand", Divided We Fall".

Speedy:

There must be millions upon millions who still love the "Queen" and it's Monarchy"

The entire Jubilee was packed with British citizens having a grand time. They were not ORDERED to be there. It was Voluntary--Britain is not North Korea.

Today is Today. Please do not downgrade the British people. Very insulting.

Marchant, you hit the nail on the head with "SOUR GRAPES". Whenever there are any news stories re:Brit monarchy the haters go into a frenzy, but keep on reading every story and posting that is displayed on the news sites. Then in a rabid rage they do their postings.

These anti-royals couch their real point by going on about archaic, corrupt traditions, stupid commoners, etc.. It would be more open about their actual gripes. I suspect most of them are descended from some land absorbed in the former empire, ie:Ireland. Another suspect group: those who's arses have been kicked such as Argentina or France. Others can't stand to see that there are still white people who command, not demand, respect.

If someday the brits don't want a monarchy, they can and will end it. Until then, haters SHUT THE F@#K UP!

@ Hannah,

More than anything Queen Elizabeth loves her country. She served during the 2nd world war as a mechanic/driver. Now how many queens can tear a motor apart, rebuild it, and drive military trucks?

Queen Elizabeth is a woman who has dedicated her life to serving her country, and the people of Great Britain love her. And before you bash them again, remember, they are one of our greatest allies.

@ Speedy,

I'd just crawl back into my cave if I were you, and let your hatred consume you.

Frank:

Good comments. I cannot understand the jealousy and hatred for the British Monarchy.

In real life, they also must detest many of their peers or Countrymen who love to have a good time, or have the means to party it up.

In the meantime, Queen Elizabeth was very humbled by the participation of British people who want something to be good about their lives. She "thought no one would show up"; quoted by CNN reporter.

The Monarchy has come back to a Modern World with Prince William, and his wife Catherine now, the Duchess of Cambridge, due to Princess Diana's exposing her sons to the real world as children.

Only good things can come from this.

I fear that our President has damaged America so badly that Americans no longer feel that they can hold their heads up proudly and be Americans, united, working together-according to the Commander in Chief, everything is bad, everything is broken, we are a collection of factions only united in our resentment and hatred of each other......From this perspective, national pride and unity must appear to be unattainable and hence envied. As Aesop's fables taught us, envy usually culminates with trying to tear down, or minimize what we do not have.

"It would be more open about their actual gripes. I suspect most of them are descended from some land absorbed in the former empire, ie:Ireland."

And if they continue to spew their sour grapes, will have to "shoot 'em for the Orangemen they are!". *wink

Let the British have and support their monarchy, I suppose. That's up to them. I am surprised they still care and put up with them, though. I am even MORE surprised that some on this side of the pond seem to care, too.

You're a BUZZKILL Speedy. I like them and like watching them too.

To all the royal haters who have posted here, it is no wonder that Americans are not well received in some foreign countries.

Funny how Americans continue to bash the current president for prior presidents mistakes and stupidity. Every one leaves a mess for the next guy to clean up and you vote them in so, deal with it. Besides, I bet if the same ones who are on here leaving their yappy comments against the royals went on to some ancestry website and came to find that you are linked historically in some way to royalty, your tune would certainly change.

In the same sense, it happened for the royals of England. Henry VIII was a power hungry royal who lopped off the heads of women he'd dallied with and then had enough of, does that mean the current royals should be painted with his brush? Not a chance.

My grandmother (rest her soul) was a royal follower in her youth and even had tea with the Queen when she was yet a princess. I am not the avid follower my grandmother was (hailed from Scotland) but I thought that it was really neat that she had an opportunity that many didn't. Also found out some really cool stuff about my Scottish ancestors that is linked to the "establishment". Makes for some great reading!

Since Prince Phillip married into the Queen's family, he is still considered to be Prince rather than King as he would outrank the Queen. I believe that he is of Grecian decent and was a Prince there before marrying. Now when William rises to the throne, his wife will be Queen because the Queen is still a rank under King.

Technically, he would be King Consort, just as William's wife will be Queen Consort (Elizabeth II is a true queen). But, in the world of protocol, even as King Consort he would outrank the Queen. But, since the sovereign is the highest-ranking person in the country, we'd enter a weird catch-22 situation. Therefore, he's not a king of any type. He was made a prince by the Queen (Phillip gave up all his previous titles before marrying Elizabeth).

Queen Victoria's husband was also a prince.

Queen Victoria is the great-great-grandmother of both Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II.

Queen Alexandra is the great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Philip's grandfather, King George I of Greece, was Queen Alexandra's brother.

Look - one has to keep things in the family because it is in the blood of some families to rule.

Philip is the prince consort, which means he will not ever be in line for the throne. Similarily, Elizabeth's mother (also named Elizabeth) was the Queen Consort to Elizabeth II's father.

She too was never in line to inherit the throne.

George Foreman named all five of his sons George.

"In this career, you have to prepare for long term brain damage." ~ George Foreman

Stupid headline - THe Queen cuts a fine figure without her husband. You know it is 2012. She looks perfect and happy to me.

Sandra, the article didn't say that she "needed" her husband beside her to be "complete" or to cut a fine figure. Even in 2012, strong, independent women are still allowed to look and feel sad or pensive when a loved one is in hospital, and at the concert the other night, the Queen looked exactly that. I have no doubt that she would have loved to have had her husband beside her, as it's "their" jubilee in many respects.

There are two kinds of Queens under current British law. One is Queen Consort.....simply the wife of the King....the King being the ruling monarch.....the Head of State. The other kind of Queen is the one who is the ruling monarch and head of state by inheritance. "Queen Elizabeth II" is the ruling monarch. The Roman Numeral II simply showing that she is the second monarch to rule with the name Elizabeth. Philip is a Prince of Greece, but his highest title in Britain is Duke....he is "Duke of Edinburgh."

Note that the late Queen Mother, was "Queen Elizabeth" when she was Queen Consort, as the wife of King George VI. Normally she would have continued to be called "Queen Elizabeth" as his widow......(as Queen Mary, wife of George V was always called Queen Mary).......but then there would have been TWO "Queen Elizabeths" in Britain after her daughter took the throne as the monarch Elizabeth II. So Parliamant came up with the style "Queen Mother Elizabeth" to avoid confusion.

Now it wasn't always this way. There was once in British history a time when a Queen ruled with her husband the King -- the two of them ruling jointly as co-monarchs and dual heads of state. In 1689, the monarchy was passed by Parliament to Mary Stuart and her husband William, Prince of Orange, after Mary's father James II fled the country. They ruled in a joint monarchy as Mary II and William III. The college of William and Mary in Virginia is named for them. After Mary died, William III continued to rule as the sole King and monarch.

Monarchy is a thing of the past, its all for show and tell. Maybe they should put as much emphasis on there people.

In the UK, the title of the consort of a sovereign queen is up to the ruler (witht he government's consent). Contrary to previous posts, if he had been granted the title King Consort he wouldn't have outranked the queen, as she is soveriegn and he only a consort. There have been, though, only a handful of regnant queens. The husbands of both Mary I and Anne bore the title king. Elizabeth I never married. The husbands of both Victoria and the present queen are titled prince consort (Philip gave up his Greek prince's title when he married, but his wife made him a prince after her succession; like many British princes, he often goes by his Ducal title).

The rules for a soveriegn king's wife are more simple - they automatically become queen consort.

Just to throw a bit of extra confusion into the mix. The current queen is known as Queen Elizabeth II only in England and Wales but not Scotland. Scotland was still an independent country when Elizabeth I reigned, not becoming part of Great Britain until May 1, 1707.

So even though she's Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, she's the first Elizabeth to reign over Scotland.

"Monarchy is a thing of the past, its all for show and tell. Maybe they should put as much emphasis on there people."

All systems of government make use of pageantry and display, including the American one. Such things embody national pride, strength, history, and aspirations. The British Royal Family, as an institution, connects a people to its collective heritage, history, and national ideals, even as a constitution does in other countries. No emphasis is taken away from the needs of "the people" by virtue of its existence. Honors shown to a monarch and his or her office, are honors shown to the state, which they embody, and such honors make noble in a very real sense, those who are "ruled" as well.

A King is superior in rank to a Queen. If a queen is the ruler (not a consort), her spouse cannot be superior to her in rank. If he's a king, that would make her HIS subject.

Ok this getting to be like reading vacuum cleaner instructions. Can someone explain then what happens if Queen Elisabeth kicks the bucket. who leads then?

thenight....I believe that is when Charles would become King and take over from Queen Elizabeth II, just as she took over the throne when her father passed and her uncle had abdicated to marry a commoner.

Ok this getting to be like reading vacuum cleaner instructions. Can someone explain then what happens if Queen Elisabeth kicks the bucket. who leads then?

Her eldest son Charles is next in line. When she dies, or if she were to abdicate for whatever reason, then he will be king. Next after him is his eldest son William, who's wife Kate would then be queen consort.

One would think that if you didn't actually care at all, then you would have passed over the headlines referencing Kings, Queens, Princes, Emperors, Presidents, etc., and moved on without comment.

@salah.jax

Thanks for 'your contribution'. As we can see, "the lights are on but no one's in the trailer home". Indeed NO ONE BLOODY CARES what you think.

Small matter of this being A THOUSAND YEAR OLD WAY OF LIFE (a little older than the Paul Revere stories) and you wouldn't 'get it' but she serves so many different purposes on top of being 'Queen' to quite a few people and not just the ones in Britain.

READ A BOOK (preferably on history) You might learn something. Widen your mental experience sort of thing, simpleton that you are!

The fact that British royalty has existed to this day at all is a kick in the teeth to all freedom-loving people, and not just in England. They are a bunch of coddled, pampered, slavishly-worshipped-by-the-peasantry parasites, and unapologetically stupid inbred dolts, whose fortune is the accumulated proceeds of centuries of English colonization, plunder and murder around the world, as well as the taxes willingly paid to support their disgustingly lavish lifestyle by large numbers of fawning British citizens.

I've read some books, laddybuck, and none of them seem to justify the existence of a monarchy of any kind in the twenty first century. In many respects, the doe-eyed adoration given the royals by the hypnotized English populace is not much different in its zeal and rationale from the Islamic fundamentalists, and anyone who dares challenge the legitimacy of it is a pariah and enemy of the state. The term "constitutional monarchy" is quite the oxymoron, or as close to it as one could get. Your legitimizing this hypocritical charade by citing its duration alone is indicative that the real simpleton here is you.

God save the queen? Not on my account.

Mymomdidnot--apparently she did. Since the days of Prince John, who signed the Magna Carta (ring a bell?) the royals have served only at the whim of the British people. And since the US withdrew from the British Empire, we TOO have had "royalty' that are 'worshipped by the peasantry, and are also parasites.

Not only just in ex pols, but in worthless folks like John and Kate + 8, the whole Kardashian-Jenner clan, et al.

The 'disgustingly lavish lifestyle includes living in drafty palaces, with your food arriving COLD to the dining room, it involves being in a fish bowl, and being on 'call' for every 'opening' that needs a celeb.

As for the so called 'cost' of the royal family, what would YOU propose? Tearing down all the Castles/palaces? If the royals didn't live there, the Brits would STILL need to staff them, maintain them, and pay for utilities for them as TOURIST attractions.

As for the WEALTH of the monarch, you DO know that prior to Queen Victoria, the monarch was beholden to parliament for all expenses, and it was not until a crusty old bachelor from the US decided that it was a SHAME for the Queen of England to have to go hat in hand to parliament for candle money, and LEFT Victoria his ENTIRE fortune. With it, she and Albert invested wisely, bought property Like Balmoral in Scotland, and primo real estate all over England. The Queen PAYS taxes on her income, and she also reimburses parliament for the money they spend on the 'distant royals'.

And without the royals, many tourists could not be bothered to go to England. Her worth, (and her family's) to the tabloids alone is immeasurable.

God Save the Queen.

Salah, get back to us when your stairway goes all the way to the attic.

Its not the Royalty. Its about the traditions of a country. Its about the culture and traditions that they hold so dear. This is about the English culture. I am a critic of England, a major one, but you owe it to them, to their fine grace and elegant manner of demonstrating this some very fantastic pageantry. Its a great celebration for the English people, and this one, I would not think of denigrating it in any way!

Hey, salah.jax, what they DON'T do is post senseless and inane comments on a news blog because their life sucks and they can't find a job!

Who cares? Let's see....Oh about 54 countries-worth = 2 billion people.

Well fortunately in the British empire at least, they stand as a figurehead of dignity, foreign policy gone right, nobility in a time where there otherwise is none, and stand strong against the tides which would do them harm. As an American and an ally, I can say God Save the Queen! Bless Her and Her family (except that pig Camilla, I'd like to see her under the wheels of a bus).

As for all the Americans who resent Her status, (and I am NOT saying all Americans do) I would remind you of our own recent leaders---liars, cowards many of whom have never served in the military, adulterers, pilferers, ineffective administrators, and those who would throw all our military strength into lose-lose battles to secure their own re-election.

This way of government in Britain has been open to change as the world changed, and is a 1000 year old institution that works. Parliament runs the country; Queen has a say in Parliament. Instead of having a new idiot with new stupid ideas every four years, who lie their way into office and walk on the backs of the working poor to get there, the British Empire has one figurehead who remains.

Hey I know many of you in the States don`t think outside of the U.S. But a few points. First it is not England it is Britain. Secondly we don`t bend the knee to the woman that is Elizabeth, but to the office of state she represents. In this country politicians - at least in public- play second fiddle to the head of state. We do not have a head of state that rigs elections like Putin, abuses their power like Nixon or slaughters their citizens like Assad. The British monarchy is far from perfect, but our head of state has not put a foot wrong in Sixty years. If it is seen as oppressive to some then that is their fault for only seeing what they want to see. Personally I think we have the best system that is available. A head of state that is above everyday politics and can meet and visit other heads of state without everyone wondering what they are cooking up behind closed doors. Rant over.

Obviously, lots of people care - witness the million or so Brits who joined in the festivities, and the millions of people worldwide who will watch history in the making on TV and internet. There is a lot to be said for the stability and continuity of the Bristish monarchy.

Just a couple of things I'd like to add:

-The Monarch only rules by the consent of the British people - we've lopped off the head of one monarch (Charles I) and deposed another (James II). If public opinion turned sufficiently again they would be gone again.... but it hasn't and they haven't. And I'm rather glad about that.

-The Monarch is not about the person but about the symbol and meaning of the office (is pledging allegiance to a Monarch any stranger than to a flag?) and means that many key organizations (police, military, etc.) do not swear loyalty to any transient politician as commander-in-chief but to the Nation as personified in the Monarch. Moreover, it means that no politician is Head of State and therefore no politician is above the law. The Head of Government knows they are merely a custodian rather than a permanent fixture and as one recent Prime Minister observed having to go to the Palace and explain what their Government is doing to the Monarch (who cannot intervene) focuses the mind on their activities, reminds them that they do not have an absolute mandate for tyranny and is a humbling experience that reminds the PM that they are only transitory and a servant of the people.

(It could be pointed out that the British police also only do so by consent - as exemplified by their being largely unarmed: one of only four in the world that are unarmed. A country that trusts its people doesn't need to appear like guards in a nationwide prison.)

I know full well that a Monarchy is an absurd, bizarre, utterly ridiculous concept in a 21st Century democracy and would never be set up now. On the other hand, it serves us British rather well and there's no major appetite for change (tried it, didn't like it, sewed King's head back on). We're free to say down with the Queen or hoorah for her; we don't lock up political prisoners and we don't have endemic political corruption (like Italy, Russia, etc.)

If non-Brits don't care for it then that's fine, don't live here; but it's our culture and tradition and we like it.

And anyway without the Monarchy we'd have to have the country name on the stamps and coins and lots of boring ordinary everyday stuff like that..... And the Royal Mail would just become the Mail; the Royal Marines would become just Marines; the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy would become merely the Air Force and the Navy.... how very dull. :)

"except that pig Camilla, I'd like to see her under the wheels of a bus"

LOL

And maybe Ireland would be free. But look folks. Queen Elizabeth II deserves her title and the respect she recieves from her people. Take a look back folks. Listen to the voice a young princess who spoke tirelessly to the frightened young people of Britain as the bombs rained down. Remember the shy young girl who was never supposed to be queen in the first place. She was not a volunteer.

The War of the Roses, Cromwell, these are still hot topics in my family. Watching my English Grandmother and my Irish Grandmother go at each other in the kitchen was always an interesting sight to see. The only thing that could turn them from Cromwell was their discussion over whose ancesters got out of dodge and made it here to America first. A fight that only two Daughters of the Revolution could have.

"my English Grandmother and my Irish Grandmother"

I know what you mean, Josephine.

(oops sorry. didn't mean to make a rhyme.)

I think the yellow ear plugs was the funniest thing I have read in a while - also proves she is not a dumb woman - ear plugs at rock concerts are not a bad idea -

I'll never again see Uncle Teddy without ear plugs.

My ears are still ringing.................

I don't think she hated the music that much. It's just that it's loud.

Well of course...

ALL women are lonely and insignificant without a man by their side and telling them what to do.

Women, by most part, are retarded and need a man to guide them.

"cutting a lonely figure" does not mean being lonely without a man at your side. Were the situation reversed, where Philip is King and the Queen was absent, "cutting a lonely figure" would still have held true. It simply means that after 64 years of a marriage where Prince Philip has always been by her side, it was odd, and a bit sad, that he was not there. Get a grip.

Mary--it was a tactful way of saying that Prince Philip was in the hospital.

I'm pretty sure if it were a King who's wife was in the hospital they would just say that "King attends ceremony sans so and so.

Cuts a lonely figure - they said lonely, not without, not handling cermonies solo, not alone - LONELY

Here is one of the most powerful women in the woman with a distinguished 60 year reign - and the HEADLINE of the article is LONELY

Its a disgrace

I have been with my wife for a mere 16 years and I couldn't imagine a day without her. If god grants us 64 years together I could only imagine how I would feel then. I wish Prince Philip well and a quick recovery and the Queen many more years of service to her country. May God bless them!

And may her 17 countries serve the Queen.

Now what would Elizabeth I say about that? She never needed a man at her side. She was one of the most successful queens throughout history. Remember her other title was "The Virgin Queen."

I don't think it's that 'a woman needs a man'. I think it's more along the lines that it's hard to go to an important event without your partner of decades.

Gina, the Virgin Queen was Elizabeth the 1st. Read a book....

Kathy, that's what Gina said: Elizabeth I.

I am an independent woman, capable of doing many things on my own. In fact, I do many things on my own. But if my husband were not with me for a special occasion, I would feel a little sad and lonely, especially if it's because he's in the hospital.

I don't think we need to refight the Revoluntionary War here. Citizens of the United States are not subject to the Queen of England, or in fact, any part of England. That doesn't mean that the English system of government is somehow inferior to the U.S. system. Nor is it superior. It's just different, and that's OK.

I admire Queen Elizabeth for her ability to remain a calm and steady force in all public situations, particularly when she sometimes must feel, as a mother, like knocking her children's heads together. :D

Maybe she just missed him. Love does that sometimes.

But I did say Elizabeth 1. I have read all of the books. And I probably know more history about England than you know about the US of A.

Our history goes not go back as far as the kings and queens.

Hail Queen Elizabeth II! May you live long and reign - until it's time for William to take over!

Bonnie Prince Charles and his horse-faced wife I pray never gets to be king and queen.

I must apologize for my lack of understanding I have no idea how this women or the monarchy came to be.

Read up on British history. The Queen can trace her royal lineage back to before the Norman invasion. But, ultimately, she is the queen because Parliament says that she is.

she is the queen cause she owns the Parliament, the royal family foundation counts their money in trillions, not billions

You do understand that Queen Elizabeth didn't just "wake up one morning" and proclaim herself Queen? She inherited the Monarchy from her father, King George VI. He inherited the Monarchy when his father, King George V died, who inherited from ... and back in time it goes for a thousnad years. An elementary school education should have made that all very clear.

Respect for those holding political, professional, religious, etc., office (if you like the person or not) is something your parents would have taught you. There were likely consequences if you didn't show them any respect. At less lofty levels, your wanting someone showing you respect is a natural expectation in civilized society.

To understand anything requires a desire to explore the subject in greater detail beyound "wondering" about it. To "text or tweet" just won't cut it.

Charles--actually, Elizabeth's father did NOT inherit the throne from his father. He only became king, as the second son, because Edward the VIII abdicated the throne so he could be married to Wallis Simpson.

George VI was NOT, as the oldest usually is, prepared by training to be the heir, much less the King. He was incredibly shy, and stuttered.

He took the throne right before the Nazi's ran amok, and led England very nobly in a very trying time.

He died very young for his family, and Elizabeth ALWAYS Blamed her Uncle for that, which she attributed to STRESS. She basically BANISHED Edward and Wallis--they didn't live in England, and were never included in family gatherings.

Thanks, MOmaid. I had completely forgotten all about the abdication of Edward the VIII. The shame of it all still haunts me.

She is the Queen because her blood is Royal. This is an inheritance. Canadians know that nobody born in Canada has what it takes to be head of state in Canada - and never will. Only Royals can rule Canada.

Charles - you came close - and before you suggest others read history you might fact check your memeory-as Momaid has already said the Queens father was second in line for the throne, his bachelor brother fell for a woman who was unacceptable as Queen Consort, he chose to abdicate thus thrusting George VI onto the throne, and ELizabeth in line to be Queen. It is this series of events that - and I am expressing opinion here- is why ELizabeth will never abdicate unless she has a very severe health crisis that prevents her from serving.

No matter your opinion of the British Monarchy and the House of WIndsor itself, Elizabeth has lived her life with one primary goal and that is service to the people of Britain. The stereotypical view of selfish kings and queens was essentially true until the time of Edward VII (Elizabeths Great Grandfather) who started a lot of the tradition of royal sponsorships of charities and service (not military) to the country, this tradition was furhter carried on by George VI during WWII and now by Elizabeth and her family. We live in a democratic republic, do we see our 'royalty' serving our country to the extent and manner that the British ROaylty does - when was the last time Kim K did anything for the people, or other than the FIrst Lady where does the Presidents family step out, heck we dont expect it and wouldn't expect it if the kids were adults.

Actually, Mom, Queen Elizabeth's father died of lung cancer from years of smoking, but her mother blamed Edward VIII for killing him with "stress."

Ok, I use to watch Today every morning before work. BUT after that dam wedding last year that took up the whole programming, Now this, taking up the whole morning coverage, you lost me to CBS morning news. WHO THE HELL cares about this @!$%#. I WANT News not all morning coverage about some royal whatever 1/2 way accost the word. Bye Bye NBC, i guess im a CBSer full time now, morning and night. no wonder NBC Sucks so bad

oh no, Jon...NBC is never going to enjoy a good night's sleep again after hearing that...and of course they heard you because they listen and they care about every single one of you, just like in Romper Room.

So change the channel.

"The Queen can trace her royal lineage back to before the Norman invasion."

All the way back to William the Conqueror.

@ Barry-NJ

She is subject to Parliament only because she agrees to be. There is no written constitution in Britain. The Queen has the absolute power to dissolve parliament and rule in her own right anytime she wants to.

@ Miss Deanna:

In fact, she can trace her lineage back to the House of Wessex, long before the conquest. Duke William of Normandy was related to Edward the Confessor and the Anglo-Saxon royal house. The Norman "Conqueror" had to invade England to take the throne, but he had a better claim to the throne than Harold did.

Thank you, Daniel! Her royal blood goes back even farther than I thought.

William the Conqueror, reigned from 1066 - 1087.

Alfred the Great, reigned 870 - 899.

Hugs!

Miss Deanna (3.13)- Except the British people no longer feel that way. Where have you been? I've come to the conclusion that Charles and Camilla should have married all those years ago. They were seeing each other and he entered the military. For whatever the reasons were, she did not wait and married someone else. All we saw when he married the first time was the "fairytale of a marriage," not the real thing. Well as it turned out, a fairytale is a figment of one's imagination. Did you watch any of the four day festivities? Have you seen the interactions she has with other family members? Come into the real world.

Mary Ann, go and read a book!

@Geri,

Go look at it again. If you had half a brain in your head, you would realize that I was qouting another poster. Like this:

"Come into the real world."

Stop listening to the voices in your head. They just make you look foolish.

Charles--that line was the lead in on MSN's homepage today.

And matched their stellar headline writing.

:{

George--read much? Didn't think so.

If you want to blame a Brit for the oil spill, try one who owned BP, or a member of their congress.

She's only half white.

& she sucks.

I do like Ann but she is NO Meredith.

Cassandra -

"The queen was cheered as she arrived partway through the show, wearing a gold lame cocktail dress under a dark cape. It was decided before Philip's illness that she would watch only part of the concert."

Since you are assuming so much, might we also assume that she went to the hospital to see her husband when she was not at the concert? Maybe she does understand that "American thing" after all.

Cassandra, NO, that would be a DUTY thing, which evidently you wouldn't understand.

This whole thread abounds with some very stupid as well as ignorant comments.

Momaid - you said in one word what explains the royal family - DUTY - thank you.

Mom, maybe this IS just an ignorant American thing...but I still can't help feeling that her first duty was to her husband.

She is the queen - her first duty is to her subjects...

Well, Kathy, we might just have hit on the big difference between Americans and British people. It makes me remember what an American visitor said about a Queen Consort..."Her artificial glory as a queen was eclipsed by her natural glory as wife and mother."

wichasha--I agree. And she watched her 'mum' be a lonely widow for decades. It must give her a shiver, as Philip (who is older than the Queen) has not been in 'robust' health for several years.

What a fool. This is joyful news about a life well lived in unselfish public service.

Dock15. If this is not news then why read it. You just take care of your American business, we will take care of ours. God save the Queen

For the same reason "peasants" have a curious fascination with entertainment and sports celebrities ... they are bigger than the mundane life of the "common man."

"Why do peasants still have a fascination with royalty?"

Because we are not ordinary. Yes, you may now bow.

(snicker)

Did you realize we are not talking about your trailer park?

The trailer park gibe? That's your best shot?

Well said. Now perhaps Stuart Vaa-a-aaney will go home.

I totally agree with you. Some folks on this side of the pond get married today, get divorced the next. Marriage is treated like a joke in this country. I appolaud those who remain married for a long time. Marriage in this timeframe, is a sham, a joke, which people discard like yesterday's garbage.

Correction, please. Formerly great country. Unless you count a few small islands scattered about the globe the sun has set on the empire

A country’s greatness is not measured by its territorial possessions. It’s about its people, its history, its institutions, its culture. By any measure Britain is great.

Did you expect an intelligent headline from MSNBC?

Speaking of headlines - CNN news did not know the difference between the words "cavalry" and "calvary" . . . .

@ carolart:

Very good comment! But sadly, CNN is just following modern spoken usage. People almost always say "calvary" when they mean "cavalry." It's not a confusion of definition, it's just that most people don't seem to recognize the difference in pronunciation.

Give the Brits a break. They're in a double dip recession, jobs (except royals) are few and far between. Let them have their bit of history. I still want Stuart Va-a-a-aney to go home however.

Right, if the English want to cling to this nonsense fine but to see our media in the U.S. with their noses so far up the royals butts makes me wonder what country I'm living in. I've yet to hear a single bit of criticism of the institution and concept of nobility let alone mention of the fact that our country was founded in opposition to it. As the English would say "complete bollocks!"

Thank you Spaceapeman! The way the media is going, we will soon have a king or a queen and trash our constitution or what is left of it into the dustbin of history.

Just one minor thing: Britain is only sort of in a double-dip recession - the growth figures are being pulled down solely by the sluggish nature of property-building and housing market - however manufacturing and high-tech companies such as BAE Systems, Jaguar-Land Rover and JCB are now landing large orders and hiring workers; UK unemployment is around 7.5% while in the US I've read it's more like 10%.

As for the Jubilee itself, well, it's a British celebration of a British institution and we have no expectations of Americans to celebrate it - any more than the Americans expected the British to celebrate the Bicentenniel or any other annual July 4th holiday (but the Queen visited you to wish you all the best). That's your party.

Although you might be amused to hear that more than one American company has in recent years been trying to convince Britain to celebrate July 4th without explaining why. Maybe if they rebranded it 'Cheerio Day'..... ! :)

Job growth figures will take a slight upturn with all the short-term jobs related to the Olympics . . ...

Like Rodney Allen Rippey once said, " a lot has happened".

So that you will click through and be a troll.

What a joyless person you must be. Elizabeth II has had an honest decent rule and brought her country through a very rough half century. Now her country is using her anniversary as an excuse to throw a giant party for itself. It's great for the entire country and creates a feeling of unity.

Congrats, England!

You mean like the Obamas?

What a joyless person you must be. Elizabeth II has had an honest decent rule and brought her country through a very rough half century. Now her country is using her anniversary as an excuse to throw a giant party for itself. It's great for the entire country and creates a feeling of unity.

Wow, so because I'm not ecstatic over the long and meaningless reign of some monarch who has lived off the public dole her entire life (talk about a welfare queen), then I must be joyless. That's just rich. And what very rough half century are you talking about? QE2's reign began in 1952. I didn't realize the British had it so rough these past 60 years.

Since she's been my Head of State for sixty years, I'd hardly call her reign "meaningless". Everything she represents is intricately woven into my nation's system of democratic government, and her history is part of the living tapestry of my country's history and culture.

As for your silly and prejudiced comment about the public dole, she pays her share of taxes and raises much of the money needed for the upkeep of her homes from wise business activities. When Windsor Castle burned down, she personally paid to fix it, not the taxpayer. Members of the royal family raise millions of dollars every year to support important public charities that help the homeless, the sick, young people trying to get a start in setting up businesses, the arts, environmental causes, and much, much more. Even the river pageant this weekend was paid for by business sponsorships, not the government.

As for your silly and prejudiced comment about the public dole, she pays her share of taxes and raises much of the money needed for the upkeep of her homes from wise business activities.

You're kidding right? She pays her share of taxes how, from her weekly paycheck cleaning toilets at the local pub? Please. The woman - and her entire clan for that matter - hasn't worked an honest day in her entire privileged life. They are parasites revered by many just because it has always been so. I'm glad she's your head of state and not mine.

@ Gaithersburger:

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Read a book. Or just Google a little bit. Funds for the personal use of the monarch and royal household are paid from the "Civil List," which in turn receives the revenues from the "Crown Estate," NOT general tax receipts. George III turned over the Crown Estate to Parliament in 1760. Since then, the royals have lived off of a yearly allowance from Parliament which is now just a fraction of the fabulous receipts from the Crown Estate. THINK the receipts from prime London real estate as one tiny example of the way that the royal house has given its income to the people, not the other way around, after Parliament took over the Crown Estate.

So just give the Crown Estate back to the royal family, and they won't ever ask for that yearly stipend from Parliament again. And Parliament and the people will be very much poorer for it.

Get a clue. Try to discover the facts before you shoot your mouth off about the royals living off tax receipts. They DON'T!

And Gaithersburger, when you consider the duties of a modern Head of state, and the grueling schedule that this old woman pursues in service to the nation, would it occur to you that she might properly receive some sort of salary for that? Well she doesn't. She receives no salary whatever for what she does outside of the Civil List receipts for the use of her and her household. So through the Crown Estate income which goes to Parliament for Civil List use, and which would otherwise be hers, SHE is in fact paying the taxpayers of the nation to work for THEM. And work hard! And receives your condemnation about living on public tax money. Shame on you! Get the facts! get a clue!

You royal defenders are comical. She works hard? What a sick joke. You act as though this poor woman has to get up at the crack of dawn every day and ride a bus for two hours to earn minimum wage at some hideous job. The old fossil lives in Buckingham Palace and has servants attending to her every need. I need to get a clue? I think you need to get your heads out of your asses and think for just a moment of whom you are defending. I don't give a damn about some pampered woman who has lived a life of privilege due to an accident of nature. I care about the poor, the homeless and those who are struggling to make ends meet. The British should have long ado done what the French did to their royalty. It's not too late.

My fav Beatle wrote a book? I've got to check this out!