Britain's queen celebrates 60 years on throne

Sit for another 60 queenie.

A proud moment for all Brits. Sadly quite a rarity these days.

When she goes, the whole thing should be stopped. Monarchy is a waste of taxpayers' money and hearkens back to feudal times when people were cruelly oppressed by class divisions.

I bow to no one!

Wow. That certainly is a longer time on the throne than most people can manage.

Moderator: Please stop trying to make lame comparisons to sitting on a toilet seat.

How could anyone not like the Queen?

Other folk who live off the state (and bring their foreign spouses in to share the pickings) get pilloried by the right, but for some reason this lady not only gets away with it, she gets feted for it.

How could anyone not like the Queen?

As a person, she may be very nice. There are lots of very nice old ladies in the UK, but they don't get the state to keep them in luxury.

she gets feted for it.

I have always found that rather ironic myself.

I like the old lady - congrats to her - but her position should be up for election every 4 years.

Since 1066, most of British royalty seems to have been of Norman French or Hannovarian German descent. Europe's ruling houses seem to get traded to other countries more often than free agents in the US major leagues change baseball teams.

A Proud moment for all Brits?

Come on Nicky, dont pretend to speak for all of us. Not all Brits are proud of the monarchy.

Um. The Queen doesn't exactly "live off the state". I mean, the Royal Trust earns the government hundreds of millions of pounds, so when you take out the Civil List and security payments, she probably still earns far more money for the government than the Royal Family costs it.

"Other folk who live off the state (and bring their foreign spouses in to share the pickings) get pilloried by the right, but for some reason this lady not only gets away with it, she gets feted for it."

Cleo, surely even bleeding heart liberals can see the differences from the people you cite.

For a start the Queen works. And well past retirement age.

Does she collect a pension, and does she pay for her health insurance?

Looks like a lot of JT readers need to read up on the monarchy.

OK, that's weird, I logged in to comment & it reloaded the story, and the quote I was going to comment on has gone! It's pretty mind blowing that Madge (Thank you, Dame Edna!) has been reigning longer than her dad was alive.

the Royal Trust earns the government hundreds of millions of pounds

What 'Royal Trust'? The Princess Royal Trust for Careers? It's a charity, not a money-spinner. And has nothing to do with the Queen. If you mean the Crown estates, they are only 'her' property in her capacity as head of state, therefore they belong to the state and the income would be the same with or without a monarch.

she probably still earns far more money for the government than the Royal Family costs it.

Probably? So you have no figures. The total cost of the monarchy is estimated by the group Republic to be in the region of 134 to 184 million pounds, including 15.1 million for the Civil List, 15 million for the upkeep of royal palaces and castles, 100 million for security, 29 million lost revenue from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and 0.4 million pocket money for Philip.

surely even bleeding heart liberals can see the differences from the people you cite

Sorry, no. Would you like to point them out?

the Queen works

Don't we all. The only reason she has her 'job' is because she was born her father's daughter and didn't have a brother. She sat no exams, passed no tests, submitted to no interviews to get her 'job', cannot be sacked and is exempt from the taxes, insurance and pension premiums all other workers in the UK are obliged by law to pay. There is no reason at all for her and (especially) her hanger-on extended family to all live in the lap of luxury at the expense of the taxpayer.

I remember my gran talking about the bombing of Lonion during WW2 and how the Queen Mother walked around offering moral support and helping people. A lot of folk still admire and like the Royal Family. I enjoyed the wedding last year, even though I wasn't personally invited. All that pomp and pagetry. The British know how to put a good show on.

Sorry...'London bombings' that was meant to read.Attack of the IPhone again!

Looks like a lot of JT readers need to read up on the monarchy.

Ranger Miffy- mostly a lot of young American and I'm ashamed to say, Canadian posters who regurgitate the same boring negative platitudes about the monarchy without any idea of how popular the queen is in England, or why. Their opinion likely came from an afternoon high school social studies class ( taxes? They don't have 9 to 5 jobs??) and means less than zero.

Celebrated. I bet she bloody well did, a free ride all the way. What a joke!

Rule Britannia....

****a very gracious Lady, I wish her well and so should you all Head of some wonderful free country's and she will keep it that way

I'm no royalist but I believe the queen actually brings in a profit for the UK, starting with revenue from the Crown Estates which is quantifiable, and from the less quantifiable but still millions of tourists she draws to the UK. Thats not to mention the various trade missions and other duties they perform to support the nation. What other country can offer a head of state that represents any kind of value for money? She is a tax payer and has been for quite some time. And the institution no longer represses the UK population.

The royal family may have inherited their luxurious lifestyles on the back of land grabbing and squeezing the people, but that was in the past. Lets face it we're currently surrounded by greed and exploitation in politics and business everywhere today, nothings changed. Today the royal family pays for itself many times over. Even abolishing the institution wouldn't pauper the royals and this queen has been a pillar of continuity for the country.

I believe the queen actually brings in a profit for the UK, starting with revenue from the Crown Estates

The Crown Estates belong to the nation. Having a monarch doesn't actually affect the revenue from them.

still millions of tourists she draws to the UK

She draws? No. Close to zero of the tourists to Britain get in eyeballing distance of any member of the royal family. The tourists come to gawp at the palaces and watch the pomp and circumstance, such as the Changing of the Guard. They could still put on that show for the crowds without an extended family living high on welfare. Some would say that without a monarch with a Guard to Change, it would have no meaning. I say it has none anyways. Rollicking good show, though, what.

not to mention the various trade missions

You mean like Prince Andrew and his special business connections with the likes of Colonel Gaddafi and a series of other petty despots from countries with serious human rights violations? Or Prince Edward, who ran a TV productions company that made a loss every year of its existence bar one, and that only because Edward didn't draw a salary that year? (With 141,000 pounds a year from the Civil List, he doesn't need to be paid for his hobbies.)

The royal family may have inherited their luxurious lifestyles on the back of land grabbing and squeezing the people, but that was in the past.

No it isn't in the past - would that it were. They're still grabbing and squeezing, albeit with a bit more decorum and a bit less bloodshed than their ancestors did.

One of the funniest moments of my life in Japan was when i talked to a British about the notion of monarchy. Frankly, the guy told me that it is outrageous for a modern and civilized state such as Japan to preserve an outdated system with an Emperor as the head of state, etc. When i asked him if he also supports the abolition of monarchy in the UK, he looked at me as if i were a lunatic and said: "No, of course not. The Queen is different".

Personally, i don't see any difference between the constitutional monarchy of Japan and the constitutional monarchy of England. I can see though the need for a country to preserve its customs, traditions and "image". Yes, i can't imagine Japan without an Emperor in the same way that i can't imagine U.K. without monarchy.

The royal family dont draw tourists to the UK. This is a fallacy spouted by monarchists in an attempt to justify the monarchy. The countries with the biggest tourist draws are France, USA and China, in that order. You will notice they have no monarchy. Tourists go to the UK for a multitude of reasons and to see a multitude of different things, many associated with monarchy but not many requiring/expecting the monarch present and in sight of tourists. How many actually see the monarch? An extremely small amount is the answer. France has no monarch but continues to pull in the tourists, a lot of times to see versailles and other (former royal residences) but also to see their great museums (eg Louvre.) In exactly the same way, the UK would not see a noticeable reduction in tourist numbers were the monarchy to be replaced by an elected head of state. Buckingham palace, winsdor castle, the british museum etc etc would remain. These are the tourist draws..

Typically, those with money or who are comfortable like the queen and royal family. Where as most with no money or who live in a constant state of struggle dislike the who concept of a monarchy, because they see it as a waste of money...

As a Brit myself, I think when the queen dies I think we should have a National referendum on whether to continue or abolish the monarchy...

I personally think the queen is a lovely old bird, but as others have said the UK has many lovely old girls. I am mixed on whether the monarchy is a good or bad thing. Why? Because I cannot help thinking what does the UK have to offer or feel proud of if the monarchy is abolished. Hmmm he ponders...

Typically, those with money or who are comfortable like the queen and royal family.

There are lots of Alf Garnets with no money who support the monarchy.

I cannot help thinking what does the UK have to offer or feel proud of if the monarchy is abolished

Accepting that Elizabeth is a lovely old bird, how does having Charlie and Camilla on the throne give the UK anything to be proud of?

Cleo,"The Crown Estates belong to the nation. Having a monarch doesn't actually affect the revenue from them."

The Crown Estates were handed over in exchange for the allowances paid to the royal family. Their income far exceeds the sums paid to the queen and her retainers.

I agree it's difficult to quantify the tourist draw of the royal family as opposed to royal history but it's equally difficult to deny the monarchy's popularity. To say Britains royal history would be unaffected should the monarchy not exist is naive. Business being what it is marketing is important. The monarchy is by and large the way Britain has chosen to market itself to tourists. Rebranding would be costly and take quite some time. Although if the country were looking for an opportunity the accession on Charles and Camilla would be it.

it's equally difficult to deny the monarchy's popularity.

Yes, amazing, isn't it?

To say Britains royal history would be unaffected should the monarchy not exist is naive.

I don't think anyone's saying history would be unaffected without the royals. Of course it would be affected - probably in a good way, for a start with the affairs of the Duchy of Cornwall being open to public scrutiny and subject to freedom of information - at present ministers must ask Charles' express permission before passing any laws that might affect the running of the Duchy, whether those laws are concerned with road safety, energy, gambling or coastal access.

What's naive is assuming that an hereditary monarchy naturally produces the best person for the job, or that the interests of a small group of basically not-very-bright people should take precedent over the people who pay for their luxury, simply on account of their birth and with no concern at all for merit.

If we must have a head of state, it would be better to have an elected one chosen by the people from the people. Charles could stand if he wanted. Or better still, since elections tend to be won by people who can afford to buy them, some kind of test involving prowess in waving from balconies, smiling vacuously, launching ships, cutting ribbons and making gormless remarks about things that are none of their business would give everyone a chance to 'serve the country'. Even pulling a random name out of a hat would be better than generation after generation of inbred mediocrity.

Cleo, "What's naive is assuming that an hereditary monarchy naturally produces the best person for the job"

I think you're letting your personal feelings get the better of you. Don't see anyone that's said that. As for having an elected head of state, don't see the French leveraging Nicholas Sarkozy as a business draw. Most elected heads of state are a waste of money and if Britain chose to sever ties with its monarchy I see no advantage in voting in some failed politico looking to see out his days in luxury at the people's expense.

SwissToni, the whole idea of hereditary monarchy and the 'divine right of kings' is that God puts the best person in the job (an idea whose day has long gone). Whether Nicholas Sarkozy is good at his job or no, at the end of his term the French people can choose to have someone else have a go; they aren't stuck with a long line of inbred Sarkozies in perpetuity. As I said, better than any elected head of state would be one chosen totally at random. It could change every five years, ten years, or whatever, just so long as it wasn't hereditary.

Birtish people loves their royal family. An elderly English physician in the expat community where I live explained to me years ago that at one level all Brits are staunch royalists. It only depends on where (if outside the UK) the queen or royal in question is or who the audience is.