Prime Minister David Cameron paid tribute to Queen Elizabeth II, saying "Over the last 63 years, Her Majesty has been a rock of stability in a world
of constant change and her selfless sense of service and duty has earned
admiration not only in Britain, but right across the globe."
Reuters News Service reports that "she is fairly blase about the milestone, believing it represents little more than the fact she has lived for a long time."
Reuters News Service reports that "she is fairly blase about the milestone, believing it represents little more than the fact she has lived for a long time."
"The year she became queen, the Korean War was raging, Joseph Stalin was leader of the Soviet Union and Britain announced it had the atom bomb. . . . Since becoming queen, she has seen 12 prime ministers, starting with Winston Churchill, and there have been 12 U.S. Presidents, from Harry S. Truman to Barack Obama.
"Not
only has Elizabeth reigned the longest but according to a poll in the
Sunday Times this week, Britons also think she is the country's greatest
monarch, ahead of her Tudor namesake Elizabeth I and Victoria, who was
queen for much of the 19th century when Britain built up its empire."
* * *
It's traditional to say, "Long live the Queen." But of course on everyone's mind is the question: "Who next . . . and when?" Would this milestone be the natural time for her now to step down? And is it necessary that we endure Charles and Camilla as King and Queen . . . or will they do what everyone wants and skip right over them to William and Kate and their adorable kids?
If England is going to continue the tradition of having a royal family, let them have a modern family that the people can admire and love. Not a middle-aged fuddy-duddy tainted by divorce from the beloved Diana and marrying his dowdy mistress Camilla. That might just kill off the monarchy altogether, if that's what they want to do.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment