Long To Reign Over Us
David Bowie once said we’ve got five years. Well, we’ve got five days now. No, don’t worry; I haven’t received advanced warning of a meteorite poised to crash into the planet. I’m referring to the fact that, unless she unexpectedly conks out before next Wednesday, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will overtake Queen Victoria on September 9 and become this country’s longest-serving monarch. Ever. We’ve all grown-up with the knowledge that Victoria was the yardstick by which other reigns were measured and, like the No.1 singles tally of Elvis and The Beatles, the thought that the record could one day be beaten has always seemed remote and…well…wrong. But it’s about to happen.
At 89, Brenda is already the oldest sovereign Britain has ever had; she was 25 when she ascended to the throne in 1952, seven years older than Victoria had been when she became queen in 1837. But her maternal genes are made of strong stuff; the Queen Mother was over 100 when she died, lest we forget, so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that there could even be an unprecedented Platinum Jubilee on the horizon. I don’t suppose anyone anticipated this when Princess Elizabeth was informed of her father’s death whilst on a royal tour of Kenya. George VI had reigned for just sixteen years. In fact, anyone over, say, fifty-three the day we entered what was trumpeted as the New Elizabethan Age would have already seen five different monarchs occupying the throne; by contrast, to have been born just before the reign of Elizabeth II began, one would now be within a year or two of retirement age.
The longer the reign, the more potential for change in the wider society, and it could be argued the changes that have taken place since 1952 are on a par with those that took place during the Victorian Age. When Victoria became queen upon the death of her uncle William IV, she was the only legitimate living child sired by any of her grandfather George III’s notoriously rakish sons. She was born into a transitional era that had seen both the end of Napoleonic domination of Europe and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, with the pendulum of power swinging away from France towards Britain. The woman who ended up being associated with a strain of prudish Puritanism was actually a product of the Regency and was in possession of all the hedonistic frivolity that went with it during her spell as Europe’s most coveted marital prize. It was strait-laced husband Albert (the son of a philandering rake himself) and his determination not to repeat his father’s mistakes that redesigned the image of a battered brand and turned the royal household from a hotbed of disreputable debauchery to the nation’s moral barometer.
With Victoria as the figurehead, Britain spread its imperial wings and was ruling over almost a quarter of the world’s population by the time of her death aged 81. Its navy acted as the maritime world police and its language, culture and industry circumnavigated the globe. After Bonaparte, Victoria became one of the first internationally recognisable public figures, with her iconic properties as the reincarnation of Britannia the nineteenth century’s equivalent of the Che Guevara poster that used to be an obligatory addition to the bedroom walls of every campus dormitory. When she celebrated her 1897 Diamond Jubilee, the event was marked everywhere from Calcutta to Cape Town, from Sydney to Singapore, and from Montreal to Malta.
During Victoria’s reign, transport went from horsepower to steampower and then the internal combustion engine. Advances in industry built railways and laid cables under the ocean to open up a new lines of communication, whilst advances in science and medicine saved lives and (in the case of Darwin) rewrote the history of mankind; social reformers attempted to do something about the kind of poverty we’d now associate with the Third World; the working-class was given a voice with the formation of trade unions and extension of the voting franchise; demands for women’s rights became organised; and the flourishing of the Arts in particular helped establish Britain as the cultural capital of the world. Dickens, Thackeray, the Brontes, Eliot, Gaskell, Trollope, Hardy, Lear, Carroll and Wilde all produced their literary masterpieces on Victoria’s watch; the Pre-Raphaelites rocked the galleries and Elgar embarked upon his distinguished musical journey, whilst photography and then moving pictures brought us one step closer to the twentieth century. The formation of police forces and improvements in street lighting via gas and, eventually, electricity made the streets safer, the Gothic Revival gave dramatic new architectural skylines to the towns and cities in which those streets were situated, and rising literacy levels, not to mention civic museums, libraries and swimming baths as well as the codification and new professionalism of sports such as cricket, tennis, golf, association football and both strains of rugby aided in the intellectual and physical improvement of Victoria’s subjects. When she finally passed away in January 1901, the country that mourned her was very different to what it had been in 1819.
And what of the country inherited by Victoria’s great-great-granddaughter half-a-century later? The slow recovery from the ravages of war was still a work-in-progress with many of the new queen’s subjects living in housing that had been condemned as unfit for human habitation decades before, the class system had been temporarily fractured by conflict and was attempting to revert to its pre-war distinctions, television had yet to supplant radio or the cinema as the medium of the masses, corporal and capital punishment were still enforced, National Service continued to interrupt male civilian lives, homosexuality and abortion remained illegal acts punishable with prison sentences, illegitimate birth was a social stigma, mass immigration from the colonies hadn’t yet altered what was a predominantly white society, and the nation’s Prime Minister, Churchill, was approaching eighty. Sixty-three years later, the same monarch presides over a different country in a different century.
The year of Elizabeth II’s Coronation saw Crick and Watson discover the structure of DNA, an early sign that the new queen was about to begin her reign on the cusp of changes that would radically transform the monochrome kingdom in ways comparable to those that Elizabeth’s great-great-grandmother had overseen. These changes are perhaps more evident and within living memory, so don’t necessary need to be recited like the ones that occurred during Victoria’s reign; but even those of us whose lifetimes haven’t yet spanned fifty years have witnessed dramatic alterations to everyday life that in many cases would have been pure sci-fi in 1952. The technology that enables me to write this piece as well as enabling you to read it, wherever on the planet you happen to be, is just one.
As those nice people at Guinness are prone to reminding us, records are made to be broken, but this is one I never quite imagined would be, especially as Victoria had a seven-year start on Elizabeth. Prior to Victoria, the title had been held by George III, even though he spent the last decade of his reign as a mentally ill prisoner of his own palace; he does, however, remain the longest-reigning male monarch in British history, a record Prince Charles is not destined to break. Had the self-styled James III not had his intended reign aborted by the Glorious Revolution, he would have been king for 64 years; Elizabeth will also beat that titular record if she’s on the throne next May. As it is, she’ll still be the longest-reigning female monarch in not only British, but world history come next Wednesday.
Whatever one’s opinion of her or the institution of monarchy in general, Elizabeth II is about to write herself into the history books and the woman who has held that record for more than a century will be pushed down to the No.2 slot. Longevity may have made Victoria the royal family’s Bryan Adams, but I liked the fact that she was unchallenged. She still could be, of course. Best use the Buckingham Palace stair-lift for the next five days, Brenda – just in case…
Petunia Winegum
TRACK CAPTAIN RACCOON DAY 6: http://jst.org.uk/track-our-ships/
-
September 4, 2015 at 9:52 am -
Great piece, but pedant alert: James III? Not of England…
-
September 4, 2015 at 10:30 am -
Oops, sorry, spotted my misunderstanding… I think it was the word “aborted”. In the case of “James III”, his reign was more of a still-birth.
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 10:12 am -
Excellent piece, Petunia!
-
September 4, 2015 at 11:49 am -
Cheers. I felt something a little lighter and reflective was needed today, with all the doom and gloom in Europe at the moment.
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:51 pm -
Indeed. Yesterday evening’s German TV news was particularly poignant: Train Carriages full of semite refugees in Eastern Europe, demanding to be allowed to travel on further to Germany, whilst shouting ‘No Camp No Camp!’ . Sometimes, just sometimes, I feel maybe humanity has infact learnt something from history.
I hope every Greek who recently applauded the pictures of Merkel dressed as Hitler feels throughly ashamed of themselves. I bet there are no adverts for ‘Help The Refugees Charity Alliance’ on, and in the middle of, the Brit TV News nor the Greek. Every night the Anchorfrau chugs : “If you would like to donate to help the refugees here & abroad you can donate here *insert telephone numbers and heart rending photo on screen*”. http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b116/horta/vlcsnap-2015-09-04-14h48m56s768_zpsocfxyw8c.png
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 11:36 am -
It is remarkable how weak the Republican movement is. Denis Skinner and who else ?
-
September 4, 2015 at 11:51 am -
September 4, 2015 at 11:55 am -
Michael Mansfield QC, the well known barrister, is I believe also in favour of scrapping the monarchy in favour of a republic.
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 12:03 pm -
Despite not being at heart a ‘monarchist’, I’m quite happy with Brenda in place as Head of State and consider that she has accomplished a difficult role extremely well throughout all but the first year or so of my life. We may occasionally gripe jealously at all the wealth and privilege but a whole life with little or no privacy, lived out in the increasingly intrusive public domain, is something which deserves some compensation, and I’m not sure that the wealth & privilege deal would be enough for me.
Brenda’s performance record in office will stand comparison with any elected Head of State anywhere and, for sticking to her knitting, she would come out on top. The alternative, President Blair (with First Lady Cherie ….. or Wendy) or even President Mandelson (with First Ladyboy Ronaldo) would be a quite horrific prospect. If and when Chuck succeeds to the top of the pile, he will have the most difficult act to follow for his relatively brief period there – I fear he may become somewhat more divisive, thus fuelling the currently-stilled republican call, after which Ronaldo may be encouraged to start polishing his best tiara. With that in mind, ‘Long may she reign over us’ may be a good thing to wish for.
-
September 4, 2015 at 12:04 pm -
If it does indeed come to pass, and QEII becomes the longest-serving monarch, it is a record that is now highly unlikely to ever be broken. Members of the royal family no longer die young, nor are they killed in battles. They receive the very best of everything to ensure long and healthy lives. Long live the Queen.
-
September 4, 2015 at 12:38 pm -
Petunia, your writing just gets better and better! Thank you.
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:28 pm -
Thanks. Surprised nobody’s mentioned the accompanying illustration, actually. All my own bloody work! To be honest, it is an old one, done during the Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
-
September 4, 2015 at 3:52 pm -
I’d just like to mention the accompanying illustration. Feel better now, Pet ?
-
September 4, 2015 at 4:15 pm -
Is that the German flag across her boat and a copy of the Female Eunuch on her lap? (if you wanted it to be appreciated then you might have embiggen it so us Old Folks what has weak tired eyes from years down the Diamond Mines might see it clearly).
-
September 4, 2015 at 4:45 pm -
I’m sure you were warned as a teenager about things which could damage your eyesight, none of them featuring diamond mines.
-
September 4, 2015 at 5:39 pm -
I’m sure you were warned as a teenager about things which could damage your eyesight, none of them featuring diamond mines.
I was cruelly forced to spend my early teenage years in Norfolk where the usual “make you go blind” admonishment has the additional caveat “and anyways, ‘hat’s waa thur Lord God gan yow sis’ers, cousins and a yaard full f lives’ock for, boo-i
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 6:07 pm -
Full size image (in the vein of large-print books for those whose eyes were damaged by youthful indiscretions)…
-
September 4, 2015 at 6:26 pm -
Ahh it’s a ‘KISS’ thingy-the makeup I mean? I thought it was a subtle-for-Pet comment on her genetic heritage.
*insert Mr Alexei Yuri Gagarin Siege of Stalingrad Glorious Five Year Plan Sputnik Tractor Moscow Dynamo Back Four Balowski tones*
Have you ever noticed how many of our monarchs are named after cakes? There’s your Victoria ‘Empress Of India’ Sponge, yer Battenbergs and your Diana Queen Of
HeartsTarts…..-
September 4, 2015 at 6:42 pm -
KISS!??? Step outside now, sir. Aladdin Sane, I’ll have you know!
-
September 4, 2015 at 7:02 pm -
I was knee high to a Paddington bear when that album came out (and so were you) , I also forgot your slavish devotion to the White Duke, the Baron Samedi of disco (not such a Bowie fan-can you tell?).
-
September 4, 2015 at 7:27 pm -
Your stature as compared to that of a toy bear notwithstanding, how can such an inimicable cultural reference point have passed you by?
Even in Norfolk: 21st May 1973, two shows at the Theatre Royal, Norwich.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 12:39 pm -
I think she is doing one last service to us. Keeping alive to keep Charlie off the throne until William can take over.
Very interesting post. Always learning one thing or another on this site.
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:37 pm -
I don’t think Charles will cause trouble in practice. Everyone knows he is a bit of a crank, but his foibles are so familiar that he will just be ignored.
-
September 4, 2015 at 3:49 pm -
Yes I agree, I don’t think Charles will be too bad at all, like you say, his views and beliefs are already well known, so no nasty surprises in store.
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 12:57 pm -
Completely O/T – and apologies for that – but just seen this and found it unbelievable, but sadly not surprising. Another way to enlarge the dragnet:
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:26 pm -
A UCLA study headed by a female academic – a nice, balanced and unbiased agenda behind that, then!
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:33 pm -
Well, precisely. Doesn’t mean it won’t be used to “inform policy making decisions” does it?
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:34 pm -
As one of the local bell ringers I am all ready to join the local band to ring the church bells next week.
-
September 4, 2015 at 2:48 pm -
-
September 4, 2015 at 7:13 pm -
I’ve never seen her in real life. I did see the Queen Mum once.
And Churchill.-
September 4, 2015 at 8:06 pm -
I saw Princess Margaret once. Don’t know if that counts?
-
September 4, 2015 at 9:58 pm -
About 25 years ago I had the misfortune to work at a company where Princess Margaret was coming to waste a couple of hours between two more attractive appointments – the preparations for a whole month before and security on the day were quite ridiculous, so much so that most of my crew found excellent reasons not to be anyhere near the office that day, catching up on remote-site work, a bit of extra-curricular cross-jostling, working from home, anything but be at HQ.
After Mustique Maggie ran a grinning gauntlet of some hand-picked ‘diversity’ staff as she passed through the main lobby, her real requirement was just a toilet and a room with an ashtray, where she could pass the requisite time (and motions, probably) until her next vital hand-shaking opportunity elsewhere. It probably cost the company more than 1,000 man-days of wasted output, just so she could have a pee and a fag or two in private.
As you may guess, I arranged to be elsewhere that day, so Pet’s got one up one me, I never saw her.
-
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 3:10 pm -
Vicky The
VikingGerman was the last true Queen. Brenda is harmless enough and a good egg but she’s purely the Monarch, a plastic shrunken head dangling by it’s long fake hair over the remnants of the cooking pot of their Lordships house. She has never reigned, merely inhabited that gothic traffic island at the bottom of the Mall. Blame the Parliament Act. And even the Princes of The Realm are but a mere shadow of their forefathers. The measure of a prince was always how many bastards he could sire, how much sack he could drink. Dear god, one of them even married a commoner. Either we have a proper ‘We are not amused, Mr Blair.’ Head Of State or just don’t bother.-
September 4, 2015 at 4:01 pm -
Maybe it’s because Brenda is just a harmless good egg that she enjoys such widespread support and why there is no feasible republican mood in the land. All countries need someone to carry out all the ceremonials and rituals of state and it seems better to have someone doing those who does not have any agenda, other than turning up with the right outfit and manner. That enables ‘state ritual’ to be separated from the grubby world of everyday politics, ensuring that both sombre and celebratory national occasions are not sullied by the second-rate, sound-bite politicos who are forever ‘feeling the hand of history on their shoulders’.
-
September 4, 2015 at 4:11 pm -
who are forever ‘feeling the hand of history on their shoulders’.
and the weight of their heads on their shoulders…a tiresome burden any PROPER Queen instinctively knows how to alleviate.
-
September 4, 2015 at 7:10 pm -
Yes, the ceremonial Head of State should not also be the Chief Executive (or Executioner).
This is, I think, a fault in the US Constitution — which is otherwise very good indeed. It was certainly a fault here in Henry VIII’s time.
-
-
-
September 4, 2015 at 8:14 pm -
As an O level British Social & Economic History(failed 1959) I appreciate every lesson. (who was Lord Shaftsbury?)
I don’t care if we wouldn’t set up a country this way today.
Some of the post Imperial democracies have shown to be sadly lacking despite grand ideals. Like the Lords, ruined more by appointments than by heredity, the monarchy & our society is a work in progress.
This is still the place to live, getting more popular by the day it seems.-
September 4, 2015 at 10:06 pm -
It must have got much easier by the time I passed it at A Level in 1967, that’s grade-inflation for you.
Apparently we’re currently not nearly as popular as Frau Merkel’s Germany, although it’s quite telling that the meandering migrant masses always seem to chant “Germany, Germany” in English, rather than in the language of their apparently chosen destination. Funny that.
Not that any would ever dream of acquiring EU residency rights in one country, then using that status to migrate again quite freely to where they really wanted to be…..-
September 5, 2015 at 1:07 am -
then using that status to migrate again quite freely to where they really wanted to be…..
You say that like it is a bad thing and not one of the (fairly few, admitted) GOOD things about the EU. It means that maybe one day in the distant future i can re emigrate to a country that does have ‘dry’ sunshine (unlike the ‘liquid’ variety we have here in Norfolk incessantly). It means, should you feel the desire, that you can take your pension and go live somewhere where it will allow you to live in a style to which you and Mrs Mudplugger might easily become accustomed.
No doubt a few thousand of those refugees (and if they come from Syria they are indeed refugees not migrants) that receive Asylum in Germany will travel onto pastures new…maybe even unto these green and pleasant lands although the owner of those feet what-in-ancient-times only knows why anyone in their right mind would want to come here.
-
September 5, 2015 at 4:06 pm -
It flags up the question of Frau Merkel’s apparent generosity. German has a looming population crisis in that, if nothing changes, it needs around another 15 million over the next two decades, as its current population profile is both ageing and not breeding – encouraging youthful immigration helps to address this – that’s OK for Germany. Not all EU states have that problem, the UK certainly deos not, as it has already re-populated with more than enough fast-breeders to cover all its future needs.
But Phase 2 of Frau Merkel’s plan, the more disturbing part, is that, having apparently taken in a wide range of incomers, she will then become deliberately selective in those whom she chooses to retain, ‘encouraging’ by the full gamut of tricks-of-state those not considered ‘fit for purpose’ to move on to another EU country, any other EU country she doesn’t care which one, leaving others to pick up and support Germany’s unwanted, unproductive rejects via the EU’s freedom of movement trick. Wonder where that might be ?
-
September 6, 2015 at 7:57 pm -
We could always learn to live with transformation to a smaller population.
In a closed environment we’d have to.
It’s the only solution that works, & though no tree-hugger, it’s green!
We really can’t be taken in by the weasel words of the CBI & others who want the easy profits path of endlessly recruiting the pretrained & educated from elsewhere; low wage employees trained by others. Doesn’t really matter if they’re nurses or plumbers.
GDP goes up, but it’s like pyramid selling.
Just a view.
-
-
-
-
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }