Premier Dunkley Congratulates Queen Elizabeth

September 8, 2015

This week, Queen Elizabeth II will surpass Queen Victoria as the UK’s longest serving monarch and in honour of the occasion, Premier Michael Dunkley has written to the Queen extending his congratulations on behalf of Bermuda for the “incredible milestone” she has reached.

Video of Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Bermuda in 1953:

“This week, Queen Elizabeth II will surpass Queen Victoria as the UK’s longest serving monarch. Between them, they have reigned for more than 125 years,” a spokesperson said.

“And in honour of the occasion, Premier Michael Dunkley has written to HM the Queen today extending his congratulations.”

In an excerpt from the correspondence Premier Dunkley wrote, “Please allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on behalf of Bermuda and her people for the incredible milestone you have reached.

“Your reign has been one of dignity and grace, and I look forward to your continued service, by the Grace of God, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Realms..”

“Queen Elizabeth, who was born in 1926, was crowned following the death of her father King George VI in 1952, after he failed to recover from a lung operation,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“Her reign has spanned 12 British prime ministers and dramatic changes in society—including the arrival of television and 24-hour news, which has placed the royal family under greater media scrutiny.”

“British Prime Minister David Cameron will lead an hour-long tribute to the Queen in Parliament on Wednesday as part of a worldwide wave of praise for her record-breaking reign,” the Telegraph said.

“The Prime Minister will be joined by the leaders of the other political parties in thanking Her Majesty for her 63 years of service on the day she overtakes Queen Victoria as the UK’s longest-reigning monarch.”

Share via email

Read More About

Category: All, News

Comments (88)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Monarchist says:

    Long may she reign!!!

  2. Terry says:

    All those years and we made progress with ups and down.
    15 years of PLP and Ewart and nothing but debt.

    Now they blame Bob Richards.

    But we all know who the real one is.

    Enjoy your lobster.

    The season will end but the sheslls will be at your feet.

    Shalom.

    • impressive. says:

      Why Do you have to tarnish the pageantry of the Royal Family with you biased… with….. what ever you what to call it,, smh

    • Maddog says:

      What’ is this got to do with the Queen!!

  3. Reparatations for all the natives worldwide.

    • Anbu says:

      Nope

      • The European Monarchy sent out their scouts to explore and they plundered and murdered to build up their Empires
        Priceless.

    • Enough says:

      This comment, and your one above about your African Queen, would suggest your desire to go to Africa……Bermuda is such a terrible place in comparison huh?!

      Off you go then.

      • It was just fine before the Europeans polluted it.

        • aceboy says:

          BS. Africans were making slaves of each other’s tribes LONG before the Europeans showed up.

          In fact some still do.

          For someone who is so Afro-centric you don’t seem to have done any research.

  4. blowmyfish says:

    Not a single headline on this website mentioning PLP’s message to HMQ?

    • Vulcan Trash Cleaner says:

      did you expect them too

      • Family Man says:

        They’re only interested in the Queen if they get to dress up, have their photo taken and collect their awards.

        • Maddog says:

          Huhhhhhhh…sounds like your feeling our hurt…The queen don’t care nothing for what Michael Dunkey has said fool!!!!

          • Northshore says:

            Your PLP only cry to the QUEEN and the UK when their feeling are hurt and can`t get their way fool!!! Cry babies!

          • Terry says:

            Oh the irony.

            The Iraqi’s said same.
            The Iranians say similar.
            The Kurds/Shietes
            The Syria’s say same; Lybia, North Africa et al.

            Next.

    • Hurricane says:

      And I thank God for that and hope there won’t be any

  5. J Starling says:

    Ugh.

    Hopefully Mrs Windsor will be our last unelected head of state.

    That she’s sat on a throne (and nothing else) for so long is more of a sad indictment than anything to celebrate.

    • Vulcan Trash Cleaner says:

      do your homework and get her name right!

      • J Starling says:

        I have. Her surname is Windsor. If you think it’s Mountbatten-Windsor, that applies to her husband and descendants, not to her.

        • Vulcan Trash Cleaner says:

          I don’t think soooooooooooo…I KNOW SO!

          • Whistling Frog says:

            @ Vulcan Trash Cleaner: I think you better do your homework. J Starling has you on that on. The name was changed to Windsor which was before that of German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Also refers to the family of the ruling House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which played many varied roles in the dynastic and political history of Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. At one time, in the beginning of the 20th century, before the First World War, it was the family of the sovereigns of the United Kingdom, Belgium, Portugal, Bulgaria, and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
            It’s all there at the click of a button.

    • Sparrow says:

      And your hero is whom? I hope the monarchy outlasts us all. A question, when was the last time a monarch in the free world over ruled a democratically elected government and if so for what reason? JT this is for you as well.

      • J Starling says:

        What does who my hero is have anything to do with the question of a republic or a monarchy?

        Your ‘question’ similarly is irrelevant. An unelected head of state is, by definition, incompatible with any notion of democracy.

        Whether Mrs Windsor is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ monarch is not the point.

        • Vulcan Trash Cleaner says:

          you have NOooooooooooooo idea what you are talking about,
          you put your foot in your mouth everytime you comment!

          • Mr. Orange says:

            Actually it is you who have no idea as to the history and roots of this “family” of theives (and that is putting it very mildly as I do not wish to be censored).

            You can choose to be willfully ignorant of the tyranny, and plunder this family represents all you want. You are in the minority. THE WORLD knows the truth behind her family – it is a shame you choose to be believe the “revisionist” history.

            Vulcan you are an idiot, truly a “useful” idiot in the purest sense. The “royal” family are GERMAN for crying out loud! Why do you think they called the WW1 the “War of Cousins” The Windsor name now used by the “Queen” only dates back to 1917. During that war George V changed the name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor due to very strong anti German Sentiment at the time – in addition they abandoned all titles held under the German Crown and changed all “estate and properties” titles to more Anglican sounding titles as well.

            I could go on and on in regards to this topic but it is very clear that you sheep love the reality you are fed. I doubt any of you in support of this “monarch”, her ascendants and descendants to follow have ever actually opened your eyes.

        • RBKing says:

          And yet the UK is one of the bastions of democracy. Unlike, for example, Cuba, a country whose citizens have been held under a Communist jackboot for decades. Say the wrong thing there and you’re in prison.

          • J Starling says:

            And the authoritarian system in Cuba is deserving of criticism, but what that has to do with me calling for an elected head of state for the nations I was born into and remain a part of, is beyond me.

            The UK, sure, it’s a partial liberal democracy. However it’s a severely flawed one with an unelected House of Lords and an unelected hereditary head of state. It may not be the worst system, but it’s certainly not the best or even close to approaching a true democracy. Which is what I’m advocating.

            • serengeti says:

              I’m trying to think of the last time the British Monarch walked into Parliament, fired everyone, and changed a bunch of laws.
              Or the last time the monarch did anything at all, in terms of legislation, that hadn’t been passed by an elected Parliament.
              When was it? Two or three hundred years ago? More?

              • J Starling says:

                And your point? The issue isn’t whether Mrs Windsor is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ head of state, but whether or not the head of state should be elected and accountable to the people, or unelected, inherited and unaccountable.

                I agree she hasn’t done anything. Which is yet another reason I question the ‘celebration’about her. Essentially the story is just ‘old woman stays in job for a long time’. Whoopee.

                • serengeti says:

                  My point is that the existence of the Monarch does not adversely impact the democratic nature of the government. It is, in all practical terms, a true democracy.

            • Turtle Poo says:

              Give me ONE example of what you term a true democracy? perhaps I am just blind, deaf or dumb but every democracy that I know of has inherent problems as well. There is no Utopia.

          • Mr. Orange says:

            “The idea of a royal or elite class that believes they are entitled to rule over the people is an abomination and contradicts the very idea of individual freedom.” – Anonymous.

        • e says:

          “… An unelected head of state is, by definition, incompatible with any notion of democracy.”

          Among other things, the Queen of England is, by and large, popular with, and approved of by, the British public. That is to say, her symbolic reign is entirely compatible with one of the usual benchmarks of a functional democracy, i.e. freely expressed majority support.

          • J Starling says:

            As there hasn’t been a referendum on the question, I don’t think one can really say.

            As for polling, bear in mind people generally don’t question the status quo. And it depends on the question. I’m quite confident that you’ll get quite contradictory results from ‘should we keep the monarchy’ to ‘should all citizens be equal’ (by definition we’re not as long as the head of state is inherited) or ‘should our head of state be elected’ or ‘should the head of state be accountable’.

            Bear in mind that a large chunk of the people’s money given to the monarch is used for an aggressive propaganda campaign too.

            As we well know, what’s popular isn’t always democratic. Segregation, after all, was once ‘popular’…

            • serengeti says:

              “As we well know, what’s popular isn’t always democratic. Segregation, after all, was once ‘popular’…”

              So you’re not really interested in what the majority of people actually want; you’re interested in making them take what you think is good for them.

              • J Starling says:

                Oh please. The monarchy is forced on me. My making an argument for an elected head of state is an appeal for democratic change, not a threat to impose such, just an appeal to reason and democracy.

                My point was simply that not everything that is popular is also democratic, and vice versa – providing an example from our history.

                • serengeti says:

                  As we’ve seen in the past, your keenness for democracy has its limits.

                  All residents of Scotland could vote in the referendum, which you held up as a great success for democracy – a ‘paragon of democracy’, I think you called it.

                  But you’re strangely less enthusiastic about all residents being able to vote in other contexts. Like in Bermuda.

                  So you’re ok with democracy, as long as it fits within your predetermined views about who should be able to participate.

                • hmmm says:

                  you are not popular and you won’t listen to the majority.

            • e says:

              There has been no referendum on whether Britain’s polity should be a socialist state or an Islamic caliphate, but we can safely conclude that the answer to both proposals would be a resounding negative.

              If freely expressed majority support is not prima facie proof of democratic governance, it is a useful indication of consent – ergo it is quite easily compatible with, if not crucial to, several important facets of democratic governance.

              Case in point: the example provided (segregation) was an arrangement which disallowed free and forthright political discussion by the majority. The odd use of scare quotes in “popular” suggests that you don’t quite believe segregation held majority support, either.

        • Terry says:

          Hitler and your cousin Stalin were unelected.
          Your point?

    • Terry says:

      What a rash statement coming you Mr. Starling.
      I expect nothing else from a Communist Marxist Stalinist.
      “Stalinist”.
      Irony.

      • Mr. Orange says:

        Terry be quiet and go have a rum. If it were not for this place of wondrous bounty your dumb a** would have been homeless years ago. Only here can someone as ignorant as you attain so much right? I’d like to drop you off in the middle Damascus and see how long you survive.

    • Myboy14 says:

      She won’t be the last LOL

    • Bill says:

      Remember J.Starling when you return home to the UK, say hello to Her Majesty!

      • Vulcan Trash Cleaner says:

        The Lady in question may have already put him on the stop list!

        MWAHHhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaa!

      • Monarchist says:

        J. Starling – I read this one time: Sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut and be thought and idiot then open it and remove all doubt.

      • RBKing says:

        He’s quite willing to take the free education provided by the UK. Quite willing to vote there. Quite willing to live there.

        • J Starling says:

          By your argument then, one should not engage in trying to improve the political system one is born into? Just accept the status quo?

          I wonder how desegrationists and suffragettes didn’t get the memo…

        • know dat says:

          Those rights have absolutely nothing to do with the Monarchy

    • Navin Johnson says:

      Get lost comrade

    • Enough says:

      You have had no problem in living in Bermuda and Scotland all your life Johnathan. Why don’t you go off somewhere else with all your BS if you have such a problem with it.

      • J Starling says:

        This is my country. When you think your country can be improved, you seek to do so, one advocates for such change.

        If you have a problem with people doing so, with expressing their constitutional rights of freedom of expression and political beliefs, then perhaps it is you that should go to another country.

  6. Ringmaster says:

    A question to Jonathan regarding democracy.
    If Bermuda decides to have another vote on Independence, would you agree that the vote should be given to every resident of Bermuda over 16 years?

    • Ringmaster says:

      Just to clarify “over 16 years of age”

    • J Starling says:

      Not sure what this has to do with advocating for a republic. The question of the head of state is completely separate from the question of independence.

      Besides, I’ve answered this question, I believe by you, several times in other threads already.

      • Ringmaster says:

        So I’ll respond our your behalf to my question – you agree.

        Surely to be a Republic you first have to be Independent?

        • J Starling says:

          Not at all. The two are separate issues.

          One can advocate for an independent Bermudian republic or for a federal British republic encompassing Bermuda.

          Bermudian independence is a completely unrelated matter to the matter of that of a British monarchy\republic.

  7. Myboy14 says:

    Starling you might even get a knighthood. Arise SIR J Starling, better sit back down.

    • navin johnson says:

      they award Knighthood to professional students? like the rest of the PLP toadies he would rush to London to accept the award…

      • J Starling says:

        As I’m not a member of the PLP, not sure what the point of your reference there is.

        I find it amusing that certain folk like to criticise my decision to pursue further education. No doubt had I not these same folk would criticise me for being uneducated…

        As for the rest, I have zero interest in any such colonial titles such as ‘Sir’.

        • Mr. Orange says:

          Well said Jonathan.

        • TSOL says:

          Oh please how old are you? Pushing 40? Have you ever held a steady job? Why is it always the rich kids who push all this Marxist BS.

          • PBanks says:

            I always thought it was the disenfranchised who were more likely to support socialist or Marxist platforms, with wealthier folks pushing for capitalist ones.

          • J Starling says:

            I fail to see how my age, CV, bank account or the political ideology of Marxism has anything to do with the constitutional question of monarchy or a republic.

            Marxism has nothing at all to do with republicanism. In fact, British republican thought has existed prior to the birth of Karl Marx.

            Perhaps you’ve concluded support for the monarchy is absurd and turned to personal attacks out of that epiphany of yours?

            I can hear the bank laughing at any suggestion that I qualify as ‘rich’!

        • Anbu says:

          Because u sir shall never ever receive that title lmfao

        • Terry says:

          Not a member anymore.

          See how you deceive people Comrade.

        • Navin Johnson says:

          All the PLP say they have no interest and then put on their tails and zoom over …the same people who insist on adding every JP,DHUML,!etc,etc?etc……

  8. overboardhope says:

    Long may she rein. Well done.

  9. Terry says:

    Personal?
    Maybe.
    Factual?
    Yes.

    One confused young man who genes come from many

    Reminds me of many other Bermudians who can deal with family history but this guy just has it out for everyone.

    Others accept.

    Some are just radicals because they don’t want to accept.

  10. Whattsapnin says:

    ” By the grace of god’…Really? I thought he was doing ok till he had to placate the eyes closed mumblers.

  11. SANDGROWNAN says:

    I think, in principle, a hereditary head of state (a monarch) who perversely is also head of the state church would be considered by anyone with a functioning synapse to be utterly ridiculous. If you were starting from scratch, you’d never do this!

    All of that said, it works. Only progressives with their unthinking and self-regarding faith in their limited stock of reason, believe rationality should be the sole arbiter of how we should organize ourselves. For example, it’s not a coincidence that the countries which are best at equality overall (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands) also tend to be monarchies. Further, monarchies remind us that our fate in life is due not solely to merit but to luck, and thus increases public support for redistribution. Is it really an accident that monarchical Spain is more equal than presidential Portugal, or Canada more egalitarian than the US, or Denmark more than Finland?

    And what of the alternative? If we had an elected presidency, what sort of preening, self-loving narcissistic egomaniac would think they were capable of representing and symbolizing the nation?

    An elected presidency would thus symbolize – and so help entrench – our culture of ego, the belief that people are to be valued for who they are as individuals rather than for their roles. By contrast, a monarchy embodies the opposite principle – that people matter for what they do, not for who they are.

    I’m sure you’ve read this before JS, but I think the alternative if so much worse.

    Sure, it could be reformed with minor changes, in 1980 the Swedish Monarchy adopted equal primogeniture replacing its previous agnatic primogeniture system allowing the eldest child regardless of gender to inherit. Similarly the Act of Succession couold be modified to allowing the marriage of Catholics but not the sucession of Catholics to the Throne itself (due to the implications it would have for the Church of England).

  12. Smarter441 says:

    It’s time we get over the Queen. The women has no real power and is just a reminded of white supremacy that has always existed in this world. Before you get all mad just think about this. Does the queen give 2 craps about you? If you were in need would and asked for help would she even listen? The answer is no. So why do we care so much about her?

  13. ImJustSayin says:

    Your speaking for yourself M Dunkley not for me…