The Queen is advertising for a employee who must be willing to travel for up to three months of the year around her palaces - including Balmoral - to do the dishes.

The successful applicant will be based at Buckingham Palace but must be prepared to travel to Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh when the household moves around.

Travel to the various Royal residences has been made a "mandatory requirement" for the £14,200-a-year job.

The General Catering Assistant (Wash Up) - as it has been formally described - will mainly work in the staff restaurant of the Royal Household but also wash other Royal dishes too.

"You must be willing to work away from London for up to three months of the year," says the job advert on the Royal website.

"You will join the team responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of the staff restaurant, wash-up areas and equipment in accordance with the Health and Hygiene Regulations to ensure the smooth operation of the staff restaurant."

The successful applicant must be "punctual, reliable, able to work well in a team and have a flexible and willing attitude."

Although based at Buckingham Palace, they must "be happy to travel and work at other Royal residences in the UK and at weekends."

The 40-hours-a-week job is an official position paid for from the Civil List.

The job does offer accommodation and has a closing date of January 15. Experience of a similar job is "desirable."

Please follow Advertising on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It is a face known throughout the world, but the public will see a different side of the Queen today as a portrait banished for 61 years goes on display.

The controversial painting was once banned from Liverpool town hall because it looked nothing like the Queen and her neck was "too long”. Embarrassed council chiefs ordered it to be hidden from public view in the vaults.

But now the artwork, which councilors have tried to hide for more than half a century, will hang in the city’s St George's Hall.

The painting was rejected when it was commissioned for the Queen's Coronation but has been salvaged to commemorate the event’s 60th anniversary.

Even the artist John Napper, who created it in 1952, famously said it was "a beautiful painting of a queen, but not this Queen".

Originally the Liverpool Corporation refused to hang it in the Town Hall. It hung briefly in the Walker Art Gallery instead, but has spent much of the last 61 years in storage.

But today, trustees at St George's Hall announced that the portrait will be permanently shown there to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee.

Liverpool's deputy Lord Mayor Gary Millar, a trustee of the hall, said: "We are very proud that Liverpool now has the original first painting hanging in St George's Hall, which has been rehung to celebrate the anniversary of the Queen's Coronation.

"It will be the first thing people will see if they come to get married or have a civil partnership or attend a citizenship ceremony."

The painting is Napper's second portrait of the Queen to be put on display in Liverpool.

After his first version was rejected by the council, he painted a second with a smaller neck, which was finally accepted by Liverpool town hall and still hangs there today.

Cllr Millar said: "It strengthens the link between the city's two civic buildings.

"The second version of the John Napper painting is hanging in the town hall and we have the original here.

“It is an honour for us to work with the friends of the hall, the staff there and the city council to rehang this beautiful painting."

The controversial portrait was unveiled just days after the Duchess of Cambridge's first official portrait by Paul Emsley was unveiled at the National Portrait Gallery to mixed reviews from the art world.

A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: "We do not comment on any of the portraits of Her Majesty The Queen."

Mr Napper’s widow Pauline said today: “I remember the painting well. He was disappointed with the angle at which he painted it, he only had one sitting.

“I was due to be hung up high so that you would look at it from below. If you looked at it from that angle it looked normal.

“Then when they showed it they didn’t put it up high and then it didn’t look like the Queen.

Speaking from the home they once shared in Ludlow, Shropshire, she added: “It is a beautiful painting, obviously he would have been pleased that it is going on display. I am pleased too, it is a beautiful portrait.”

Mr Napper, who died in 2001 aged 84, painted both the Queen and Lady Churchill during the 1950s.

Prince Charles, whose portrait he painted in 1996, was an established fan and collector of his works

SEE ALSO: A Look At The Incredible Crown Jewels Of Major Countries Around The World

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Buckingham Palace has told reporters that the Queen of England has been taken to hospital as a precaution after a stomach bug.

The 86-year-old Queen is reportedly suffering from gastroenteritis, the BBC reports, and has been taken to King Edward VII Hospital in London.

It is the first time in 10 years that the Queen has been hospitalized. All official engagements for the next week have been cancelled, a rarity for a Queen who rarely fails to meet her obligations, Sky News reports.

The Queen's bout of gastroenteritis was confirmed by Palace officials earlier this weekend, and had led to speculation she would have to cancel engagements, especially an upcoming royal trip to Italy.

Gastroenteritis is more commonly referred to as the stomach flu, though it has no link to the influenza virus. Symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea and dehydration. The UK has recently seen a large-scale outbreak of one strain of Gastroenteritis known as the norovirus.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

If you think the beauty myth is oppressive nowadays, picture what it was like to be a woman in Renaissance Europe.

The Renaissance created a cult of female beauty so all-pervasive that it shapes western perceptions and fantasies right down to today.

From Botticelli's Venus to Titian's Flora, the greatest artists dedicated their genius to imposing impossible standards of beauty on a world that, in reality, was scarred by pox, ravaged by poverty and untouched by hygiene.

No wonder the tiny minority of women who got to control their image instructed painters to preserve their youthful good looks, or fabricate a finer face than they ever had. Only the handful of women who ruled states had any such power.

Titian's portrait of Isabella d' Este, marchioness of Mantua, which hangs in Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum, shows her as a twentysomething beauty, soft skin unblemished by wrinkles, in the bloom of youth. In reality, she was about 52 when Titian painted it.

Elizabeth I ruled a much bigger territory than Isabella, and got a law made in England prohibiting the circulation of unflattering portraits of her. Elizabeth's portraits are notoriously fictitious in always showing her as a pearly-skinned icon of Renaissance beauty even when she was old. This is what makes a newly revealed portrait of her from the workshop of Marcus Gheeraerts so remarkable.

The portrait shows an unmistakably ageing Elizabeth, her wrinkles unconcealed by makeup, with heavy, dark lines under her eyes. The reality of fleshly deterioration and melancholy age is revealed almost as brutally as in a notorious portrait of the present Elizabeth by Lucian Freud. The glittering crown on Elizabeth I's head in the 1590s painting, the extravagant lace collar and jewels seem almost ironic surroundings for a face that is not just time-marked but miserable. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, as one of her subjects wrote.

Marcus Gheeraerts, whose studio seems to have produced this portrait, usually gave Elizabeth a far more idealised aspect. In his glittering Ditchley Portrait, she stands in a silver dress on top of a map of southern England, a beautiful colossus seen against a stormy sky in which the sun is breaking through. The story behind this painting reveals the culture in which Elizabeth had to be beautiful. It was commissioned by the courtier Henry Lee after Elizabeth got angry with him for taking a mistress: the painting commemorates her forgiveness. She is the fairy queen, taking pity on Lee.

It is part of a game called courtly love: to be one of the unmarried Elizabeth's favourites you had to participate in a chivalrous ritual courtship of her. A miniature portrait in the V&A, by Nicholas Hilliard, shows a handsome young man sporting emblems and symbols of Elizabeth as he poses, lovestruck, in a garden: clearly to justify such love the Queen had to be seen as beautiful.

So it was not vanity that made Elizabeth insist on beautiful portrayals of her such as George Gower's that was painted to celebrate the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Daring sailors who participated in that battle, like Sir France Drake, flirted with their Queen and played the game of courtly love with immense dash. Of course, their love object was a beauty. This was fundamental to her ability to rule such men.

And yet, when you look at the beautiful portraits of Elizabeth more closely, they tend to smooth and whiten her face rather than radically reinventing it. Realism was burned into the British idea of art by Hans Holbein, who was court painter to Elizabeth's father Henry VIII. Portraits were expected to look like the person they portrayed. It was a fine line an artist had to walk, between flattery and fact. A portrait must please the sitter and – in the case of royalty – promote a public image without obviously being fantastical. In Elizabeth's portraits it is actually her clothes, jewels and hairstyles that create glamour. Holbein himself perfected this trick.

In the new, unvarnished portrait of Elizabeth I, wrinkles-and-all, the artist has stepped over a fine line. All the accoutrements of her glamour are there, but the painter has gone just that bit nearer to the reality behind the myth than was required to give a portrait plausibility. The result is a cruel unmasking of power. Could this have been a deliberately subversive image, hidden away in the house of some rebellious lord? Here is the fairy queen, her spell broken.

SEE ALSO: The Incredible Lives Of The World's Richest Royals

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II on the birth of her great grandchild, Prince of Cambridge George Alexander Louis, who is third in line to the throne.

Whoever comes after Elizabeth II will have big shoes to fill. Her reign of 61 years is currently the second-longest for a British monarch after Queen Victoria, her great-great grandmother, who reigned for 63 years.

Below, we have profiled the greatest kings and queens of in British, English, and Scottish history.

Alfred the Great, King of Wessex from 871 to 899, led the Anglo-Saxon resistance against Viking invasion. He was the first to adopt the title of King of the Anglo-Saxons, and his heirs would go on to be the kings of England. Alfred significantly improved the country's legal system and military structure.

Cnut the Great led an invasion of England in 1015, which ended with a treaty to let him rule part of England in 1016 and eventually all of it until his death in 1035. He also ruled Denmark, Norway, and parts of Sweden, in what was called the North Sea Empire, and was seen as an effective leader across the realm.

William the Conqueror led the Norman conquest of England in 1066 and ruled until his death in 1087. During his reign, he put down multiple rebellions and took measures to secure the kingdom, building many castles and mottes, including the infamous central keep of the Tower of London. He also ordered the first major census of England.

Edward I ruled England, Ireland, and Aquitaine from 1272 to 1307. He was known as "Edward Longshanks" for his unusual height and "Hammer of the Scots" for the brutality of his campaigns through Scotland. He reestablished the authority of the crown in the wake of his father's ineffective leadership and is credited with solidifying the authority of Parliament.

Henry V ruled England and Ireland from 1413 to 1422. During this time, he led a campaign against France in the Hundred Year's War, nearly conquering the country and signing a treaty that made him heir-apparent to the French throne. Featured in three Shakespearean plays, he is portrayed as a brave leader, crying "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more."

Henry VIII ruled England and Ireland from 1509 to 1547. His greatest victory was separating the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, during his campaign to annul his first marriage and marry Anne Boleyn. Henry beheaded two of his six wives and divorced two others in his quest to produce a male heir.

Elizabeth I ruled England and Ireland from 1558 to 1603. The daughter of Henry VIII, the "Virgin Queen" rose to the throne at age 25 and was beloved by her subjects. Her navy famously defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588. She reigned over a golden age for art and science.

James I ruled Scotland from 1567 and England and Ireland from 1603 until his death in 1625. Trade through the British East India Company increased dramatically under his rule, and art and literature continued to flourish.

Victoria ruled Great Britain and Ireland from 1837 to 1901, the longest rule in British history. After 1867 she adopted the title of Empress of India. During her 63-year rule, the British empire made up one quarter of the earth's land. Her strict standards of personal morality came to define the era.

Elizabeth II has ruled from 1952 to the present, closing in on the longest reign in British history. She has maintained the popularity of the monarchy during a turbulent time, including vast social changes as well as the Falklands War, conflict in Northern Ireland, and several wars in the Middle East. 

MONARCHS OF THE FUTURE: 17 Royal Heirs And Heiresses Who Will Someday Rule The World

Join the conversation about this story »

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Not many men call Britain's Queen Elizabeth II "Elizabeth", much less dare to comment on her dress style or weight.

Nelson Mandela was one of them.

As global leaders gathered to pay homage this week to South Africa's anti-apartheid legend who died on Thursday, one former close aide recalled the cheeky lese majeste of a statesmen who charmed enemies, celebrities and ordinary people alike.

"When he paid visits to Queen Elizabeth, it was always very entertaining to see their interaction, because he called her 'Elizabeth'...no one else in the world, I think, calls her 'Elizabeth'," Zelda la Grange, who was Mandela's personal assistant for more than a decade, told Reuters.

"He would comment on her dress and her weight, you don't do that with the Queen," said la Grange, who accompanied Mandela on his trips and meetings with foreign leaders.

Far from being offended, la Grange recalled, the British sovereign "quite enjoyed it".

"She really adored him," she added.

Queen Elizabeth will not be attending the state funeral for Mandela scheduled for next Sunday at his ancestral home of Qunu in the Eastern Cape, but she will be represented by her son, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales.

(Reporting by Pascal Fletcher and Shafiek Tassiem; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Join the conversation about this story »

The Queen was “furious” after royal protection officers helped themselves to Bombay mix and nuts left out for her around Buckingham Palace, a court heard today.

Palace officials sent a memo to royal protection officers warning them to “keep their sticky fingers out”, after Her Majesty noticed the snacks were disappearing, jurors at the Old Bailey were told.

The Queen became so incensed that she even began marking the bowls to check if the levels were dropping, it was suggested.

The extraordinary claims were revealed during evidence at the phone hacking trial, in which jurors were shown a memo sent by News of the World’s former royal editor, Clive Goodman to its then editor Andy Coulson.

Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, explained that in the email Mr Goodman had claimed the Queen had been irritated after discovering snacks left in the corridors around the royal apartments had been going missing.

Mr Edis said: "They were all being scoffed by police. That irritated Her Majesty apparently."

In the email, which was sent by Mr Goodman in 2005, he wrote: “The Queen is furious about police stealing bowls of nuts and nibbles left out for her in the apartments in the BP [Buckingham Palace] Queen’s corridor.

“She has a very savoury tooth and staff leave out cashews, Bombay mix, almonds Etc. Prob is that police on patrol eat the lot.

“Queen is no narked she started marking the bowls to see when the levels dipped. Memo now gone around to all palace cops telling them to keep their sticky fingers out.”

As laughter broke out among jurors, the judge, Mr Justice Saunders quipped: “These are unproven allegations.”

In the same email, Mr Goodman claimed to have an inside track on the preparations for the royal wedding between the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, telling his editor he had a source who was in charge of vetting those invited.

He wrote: “Only person to accept so far is Tony Blair.”

Mr Goodman also claimed there was a “bit of friction” between Clarence House and the Church of England over the ceremony and claimed he was hoping to see an order of service.

The jury have already been told the Mr Goodman was jailed in 2007 after pleading guilty to hacking the phones of members of the royal household.

Today they were told he received a payment of £84,600 from News International, after being released from prison.

Mr Goodman, 56, from Addlestone, Surrey, is charged with Mr Coulson, 45, from Charing, Kent with two counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office between Aug. 31, 2002 and Jan. 31, 2003, and between Jan. 31, 2005 and June 3, 2005.

It is alleged Mr Goodman, with Mr Coulson’s approval, purchased two royal telephone directories from an unidentified police officer.

Mr Coulson is also accused of conspiring to hack phones between Oct. 3, 2000 and Aug. 9, 2006.

That charge is also faced by Rebekah Brooks, 45, of Churchill, Oxfordshire, Ian Edmondson, 44, of Raynes Park, south west London, and former managing editor Stuart Kuttner, 73, of Woodford Green, Essex.

Mrs Brooks also faces two counts of conspiring with others to commit misconduct in public office – one between Jan. 1, 2004 and Jan. 31, 2012, and the other between Feb. 9, 2006 and Oct. 16, 2008 – linked to alleged inappropriate payments to public officials.

She also faces two allegations of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – one with her former personal assistant Cheryl Carter, 49, of Chelmsford, Essex, between July 6 and 9, 2011, and a second with her husband, Charles Brooks, and former News International head of security Mark Hanna and others between July 15 and July 19, 2011.

All the defendants deny all the charges.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Queen’s household finances were at a “historic low” with just £1 million left in reserve, MPs said on Monday. Her courtiers were advised to take money-saving tips from the Treasury.

A report by the Commons public accounts committee found that the Queen’s advisers were failing to control her finances while the royal palaces were “crumbling”.

MPs said her advisers had overspent to such an extent that her reserve fund had fallen from £35 million in 2001 to just £1 million today.

The Royal household had made efficiency savings of just 5 per cent over the past five years compared with government departments, that are cutting their budgets by up to a third.

MPs on the committee said the Treasury must “get a grip” and help to protect the royal palaces from “further damage and deterioration”.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour chairman of the committee, said: “We believe that the Treasury has a duty to be actively involved in reviewing the household’s financial planning and management — and it has failed to do so.”

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are reported to be in urgent need of repair. Staff must catch rain in buckets to protect art and antiquities, while the Queen’s old boilers were contributing to bills of £774,000 a year.

Mrs Hodge said: “The household must get a much firmer grip on how it plans to address its maintenance backlog. It has not even costed the repair works needed to bring the estate back to an acceptable condition. Again, the Treasury has an oversight role here.”

In April 2012 the Sovereign Grant replaced the old way of funding the Royal family through the Civil List and various Government grants.

The Sovereign Grant represents 15 per cent of the net surplus income of the Crown Estate, land holdings that generate money for the Treasury.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said the sovereign grant had made the Queen’s funding “more transparent and scrutinized” and was resulting in a “more efficient use of public funds”.

He said that repairing the royal palaces was a “significant financial priority”, and that the Royal household had almost doubled its income to £11.6 million since 2007.

The spokesman said: “The move to the Sovereign Grant has created a more transparent and scrutinised system, which enables the Royal household to allocate funding according to priorities. This has resulted in a more efficient use of public funds.”

A Treasury spokesman said: “The new arrangements established by the Sovereign Grant Act have made the royal finances more transparent than ever while providing the long term stability necessary for good planning.”

Read more

Queen's advisers wasting money while royal palaces are 'crumbling'

Royal adviser enjoyed £7,000 pay rise

Join the conversation about this story »

Blimey, this isn't good! Queen Elizabeth II's award-winning horse named Estimate has tested positive for morphine, the Telegraph reports.

Buckingham Palace announced the news on Tuesday, July 22. The Queen's bloodstock and racing advisor, John Warren, also gave a statement.

"On Thursday, July 17, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) announced that a number of post-race samples, obtained from recent race meetings, had been found to indicate the presence of morphine, which is a prohibited substance on race days. Five horses, under the care of various trainers, were affected."

"I can confirm that one of those horses was Estimate, the five year-old filly trained by Sir Michael Stoute and owned by The Queen. Initial indications are that the positive test resulted from the consumption of a contaminated feed product," he continued. "There will be no further comment until the BHA announces its considered findings. Her Majesty has been informed of the situation."

Estimate's trainer Stoute will be "working closely" with the feed company to find out how the horse's food could have been contaminated with the performance enhancing drug.

Estimate won first place in the Gold Cup in 2013, and could be stripped of its second place award from this year. If so, Queen Elizabeth would have to forfeit her $80,625 prize winnings.

More From US Weekly:

• Queen Elizabeth's Guard Performs the Game of Thrones Theme Song
• Prince George Celebrates First Birthday With a Party and Visit From the Queen
• Royal Family Tree: A Guide to Queen Elizabeth II’s Kids and Grandkids
• Kate Middleton, Prince William Childhood Photos: The Duke and Duchess as Kids
• Prince William’s Funniest Quotes

SEE ALSO: Prince George Turns 1: A Glamorous Year In The Life Of The Royal Baby

Join the conversation about this story »

Over the past week, the polls leading up to the Scottish referendum on Thursday have held remarkably steady. Each of the past four polls has the "no" vote at 52%, while "yes" for independence has hovered at 48%. 

The "yes" vote has gained considerable momentum over the past month, but at least for the moment, it appears that it has halted. And if things continue to turn and the "no" vote ends up winning by a considerable amount, one electoral prognosticator thinks there might be a simple explanation: The queen.

Queen Elizabeth waded into the discussion about the possible breakup of the United Kingdom last weekend, making a passing comment that Scots should think "very carefully about the future" before they case their vote. Observers took it as a clear sign of where she stood in the debate.

Sam Wang, a professor at Princeton University who maintains an electoral forecast mainly geared at US campaigns, thinks if the "no" campaign shifts the momentum and comes out with a big win on Thursday, it could be evidence the queen's words played a big part. She is one voice who is consistently popular in the polls.

"Of all these people who are involved," Wang told Business Insider, "the one person who's popular is the queen. She's stayed above it all."

If the results hold steady and "no" only wins by a narrow margin, then it won't be clear if the queen played a part. But "if it’s wider margin, then maybe she did," Wang said.

Wang estimates the referendum will be "extremely close," but "no" is still clearly favored. Those favoring independence have about a one-in-four chance of pulling the upset, Wang said.

In an interview with Business Insider, Wang mused about the difference between the subject he has followed closely this year — the midterm elections — vs. the Scottish referendum.

"I mean, holy s—!" he said. "Here we are, gassing on about the Alaska Senate race. ... What happens in the Senate is only for two years. What happens in Scotland is forever."

Join the conversation about this story »

British Prime Minister David Cameron was overheard saying the Queen "purred" on the phone when he told her that Scotland voted No in the independence vote, Sky News reports. 

Cameron, who was in New York for the UN Assembly, made the remarks to former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg while apparently unaware that his microphone was still on. The recording was picked up by Sky News as TV cameras followed the duo.

Revealing details from a private conversation with Queen, especially while surrounded by members of the media, breaks the decorum of keeping discussions with the monarch private. 

"Some may say the conversations [Cameron] has with the Queen shouldn't be passed on no matter who you are," Sky News Royal Correspondent Paul Harrison noted. 

At one point, Cameron was heard saying that the vote "never should have been that close." He added: "I find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through."

Cameron waged a hard campaign against Scottish independence in the lead-up to referendum on Thursday. He was even reported to have joked that "assassination" would be preferable to continuing to deal with the vote. 

Officially, the Queen held a neutral position, although there's evidence to suggest that she was rooting for a No vote. 

The proof is in the purr. 

Here's video of the conversation from The Telegraph:

SEE ALSO: Face It: The Queen Is Not Telling The Truth About Scottish Independence

Join the conversation about this story »

In May, Google bought an enterprise app called Divide for $120 million in cash and stock. One of its founders was based in New York. Another was based in Hong Kong. And the third, Alexander Trewby, was based in London.

Trewby says getting acquired by Google in England is so rare that he was invited to meet Queen Elizabeth II one week later.

"In California, if you get sold to Google you better get in line," Trewby told Business Insider. "In London, it's less common. I believe it was the following week I met the Queen. So the acquisition was somewhat rare."

Divide is a mobile productivity app that allows employees to carry one device instead of two to work. Once downloaded, the app splits a phone into two modes: work, which can be controlled and monitored by a corporate IT department, and personal, which IT departments don't have access to, for regular enjoyment.

For more on how three first-time founders built a $120 million business and turned one-third of its employees into millionaires, read: 

Google Quietly Bought A Startup In May For $120 Million — Here's The Biggest New York City Exit No One Knows About >>

NOW WATCH: The Most Important Thing I Learned About Business From Hugh Hefner

Join the conversation about this story »

In a visit to the Science Museum in London on Friday, the Queen of England sent her very first tweet. 

The monarch has had a verified Twitter account for some time now, but this is the first tweet that she sent herself. It was sent to mark the opening of the Science Museum's new "Information Age" exhibit about technology and the internet.

The Queen didn't actually type the tweet, though. Instead it was prepared for her on an iPad at the Science Museum, and she tapped "Send" to post it to Twitter.

Here's a photo of the man who actually typed the tweet and prepared the iPad for the Queen.

Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho also posted a behind-the-scenes photo on Instagram showing the Queen about to press "Send" on her royal tweet.

Queen Elizabeth II was previously the first monarch in the world to send an email, sending one during a visit to an army base in 1976.

SEE ALSO: It's So Rare For Google To Buy A Startup In London That This Founder Met The Queen

Join the conversation about this story »

In a new book, The Telegraph's Scottish editor Alan Cochrane claims that the Palace staged an "accidental" intervention by Queen Elizabeth II in the Scottish referendum campaign, just four days before the vote on Sept. 18. 

Talking to a well-wisher after the Sunday morning service at Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Scotland on Sept. 14, the Queen was reported to have said that she hoped "people will think very carefully about the future". The comments were overheard by nearby press and widely reported as a rare, if unintended, intervention by the monarch in the political sphere.

In his diary of the referendum campaign, The Telegraph's Cochrane now claims that the whole event was staged by the Palace. He writes:

This was a completely deliberate and put-up job by the Palace.

My old pal Jim Lawson was the only reporter outside Crathie Kirk when the royal party came out, and, as usual, he and the photographers were corralled some way away from Her Majesty and the usual crowd of royalists who gather there every Sunday. But on this occasion, the police were told that the press – Jim and the snappers – could go over to where they could hear what was going on, and that’s how the story about the Queen’s remarks got out.

(Business Insider suggested that the Queen was stumping for the "No" vote the day after it happened.)

In the end, 55% of Scots voted against independence. Although the size of that margin suggests any intervention so close to polling day is unlikely to have made the difference, these new claims, if true, are likely to stoke anger among Scottish nationalists who have complained about the tactics of the pro-union campaign.

At the time, the leader of the independence campaign, Alex Salmond, dismissed coverage of the comments saying that "the Queen is absolutely impartial in this referendum".

He added: “Nobody seriously, apart from some of the more frenetic unionist press, would seek to persuade or tell people otherwise.”

However, Cochrane has cast doubt on that assertion as he describes the Queen's intervention as "a bit of a coup" claiming that she "knew exactly what the effect would be".

Join the conversation about this story »

The Queen's New Year's Honours List was released last night, which recognises over 1,000 people who have performed extraordinary service in 2014. 

Among the actors like John Hurt and James Corden, there are three well-known names in UK tech on the list. 

Richard Moross, CEO and cofounder of Moo

Moross, the CEO of London-based business card company Moo, is made an MBE for services to entrepreneurship. His company produces stylish business cards from its London offices, letting people design them online themselves. Moross has been at the heart of London's startup scene, holding regular events to help connect tech entrepreneurs.

Jamal Edwards, Founder and CEO of SB.TV

Edwards is the man behind multimedia company SB.TV, the business that produces videos and recordings for upcoming rappers in the UK. He receives an MBE in the New Year's Honours List for his services to music.

SB.TV is a social media powerhouse, sharing its videos to millions of followers on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. The site's earliest videos come from 2007, covering emerging stars including Dizzee Rascal, Wiley and Tinchy Stryder.

Brent Hoberman, Founder lastminute.com, made.com

Prolific tech entrepreneur Hoberman receives a CBE for his services to entrepreneurship. He cofounded travel business lastminute.com in 1998 at the height of the dotcom boom, becoming CEO of the company until 2006. Hoberman didn't stop there, though, becoming Non-Executive Chairman of travel network wayn.com, a Non-Executive Board Director of Guardian Media Group and Chairman of online furniture retailer made.com

Join the conversation about this story »

The Queen is now the world’s oldest monarch following the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Abdullah, who was 90, was two years older than the Queen, who will be 89 in April.

She is one of eight octogenarian monarchs in the world, with others including the King of Thailand and the Emperor of Japan.

Her 62 years on the throne still leave her some way short of being the world’s longest-reigning current monarch. That distinction goes to Thailand’s king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, who will celebrate 69 years on the throne in June. He was just 18 when he became king.

The longest-reigning monarch of all time was Sobhuza II of Swaziland, who was on the throne for 82 years from 1899 to 1982, though the Egyptian pharaoh Pepi II is said to have reigned for up to 94 years, having come to the throne at the age of six. Some historians, however, believe he reigned for 64 years.

If he reigned until he was 100, Pepi II may also have been the oldest monarch in history, though Abdul Momin, Sultan of Brunei until 1885, was either 99 or 100 when he died, the exact date of his birth being unknown.

The Queen is the second-longest reigning monarch in British history, behind her great-great grandmother Queen Victoria, whose record she is due to surpass in September this year.

Join the conversation about this story »

The UK just got a new version of the Queen's face on its coins.

The Royal Mint unveiled the design on Monday, and it's only the fifth time in the Queen Elizabeth II's 63 years as monarch that the portrait has been redone. 

Here's how it looks:

The UK's current coins mostly carry the portrait which was done 17 years ago, in 1998, so the new one is the first of the 21st century. 

The artist who did the work is called Jody Clark - you can see the "J.C" gracing the coin just below the head. 

This from the Royal Mint on the changes:

There are some noticeable changes to The Queen’s image in the new portrait by Jody Clark. Her Majesty is seen wearing the Royal Diamond Diadem crown worn for her Coronation and earrings, similar to those in the portrait by Raphael Maklouf, are included. The Inscription ELIZABETH II – DEI – GRA –REGINA – FID – DEF hasn’t changed, however its position has, encompassing the effigy entirely.

Unlike in previous iterations, the new drawing was done entirely digitally. If you've got £3,700 to spare and are that way inclined, you can get the new coins struck in 22 carat gold. 

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This Video Of The Largest Breakage Of Ice From A Glacier Ever Filmed Is Absolutely Frightening

Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, is not going to live forever.

Since ascending to the throne in 1952, the monarch has seen 12 Prime Ministers serve Britain, and lived through another 12 US Presidents. She's now 88. At some point — not for many years yet, we hope — Queen Elizabeth II's reign will come to an end.

But what happens then?

For at least 12 days — between her passing, the funeral and beyond — Britain will grind to a halt. It'll cost the British economy billions in lost earnings. The stock markets and banks will close for an indefinite period. And both the funeral and the subsequent coronation will become formal national holidays, each with an estimated economic hit to GDP of between £1.2 and £6 billion, to say nothing of organisational costs.

But to focus on the financial disruption doesn't begin to describe the sheer magnitude of it. It will be an event unlike anything Britain has ever seen before. There will be trivial disruptions — the BBC will cancel all comedy shows, for example — and jarring cultural changes. Prince Charles may change his name, for instance, and the words of the national anthem will be changed, too.

The deaths of Princess Diana and the Queen Mother both brought on waves of public mourning and hysteria. But the Queen, due to her longevity and fundamental place atop British society, will be on a whole new level above that.

The vast majority of British people have simply never known life without the Queen.

It will be a strange, uncertain time.

The early hours

Much depends on the manner of the Queen's passing. If it's expected (from a long illness, say), then detailed plans will have been put in place for handling it and making the announcement. These plans are already being made: Inside Buckingham Palace, arrangements for after the Queen's passing and the subsequent succession are known as the "Bridge."But if it's sudden, unexpected, or even in public — as was the case with Princess Diana's death in 1997 — then the news will get out immediately, in an unplanned, uncontrolled fashion.

Either way, the majority of staff at the Palace and associated institutions will be immediately sent home. The Royal Court has a staff hotline for distributing news and instructions to employees in the event of occasions like this. (Many of the details in this story were provided to Business Insider by a former staff member of the Palace.)

Assuming the Queen's passing was expected, the news will spread at first via the main TV channels. All BBC channels will stop their programming and show the BBC1 feed for the announcement. The other independent channels won't be obligated to interrupt their regular programming. But they almost certainly will.

This is how the BBC initially announced the death of the Queen Mother in 2002:

At the BBC, anchors actively practice for the eventuality of the Monarch's passing so they won't be caught unaware on their shifts. The BBC's Peter Sissons was heavily criticised for wearing a red tie to announce the Queen Mother's passing (as seen above), and the BBC now keeps black ties and suits at the ready at all times. Presenters also run drills in which they're required to make sudden "spoof" announcements that are never broadcast.

All comedy will be cancelled

The last death of a Monarch was in 1952, and the BBC stopped all comedy for a set period of mourning after the announcement was made. The Daily Mail reports that the BBC plans to do the same again today, cancelling all comedy until after the funeral.

CNN has pre-recorded "packages" on the Queen's life ready to be aired at a moment's notice, we're told — and so will every other major news channel.

The London Stock Exchange will likely close if the announcement happens during working hours, and other businesses may too. The protocols government bodies will follow will emanate from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (though they may also originate from the Palace). But the immediate government response beyond official statements of condolences will be hard to predict, the former palace employee we spoke to said. The last monarch died in 1952; procedures that seemed apt then may be woefully antiquated today.

Whatever happens formally, the shock on the day of the Queen's passing will see Britain effectively cease to function. The day of the funeral, around two weeks later, will be declared a bank holiday, but "shell-shocked" mourning will continue throughout this time.

A brief resurrection of the British Empire

Given the Queen's international significance, it will almost certainly be the top news story across the entire world. It will trend globally on social media. After all, Britain has a massive overseas presence — not just via its embassies, but also former colonies and the Commonwealth, which swears loyalty to the crown, and more informally in any country where English is spoken. The British Empire once covered a quarter of the earth's landmass and for a brief, surreal period it will feel as if the Empire still exists, as all its former subjects will turn toward Britain for the news.

A former ambassador we spoke to said what will happen overseas depends on the manner of the Queen's passing. If it has been long-expected, there will be detailed plans and procedures in place. If it's sudden, overseas posts will look to the Foreign Office for urgent guidance.

A few things will definitely happen overseas: Social functions will be cancelled. The Union Jack flag will be flown at half-mast until after the funeral (this will also happen at home in the UK). Officials will enter a period of mourning, and dress appropriately. Condolence books will be prepared for visitors to leave messages in.

But the ambassador also stressed there is a massive amount of uncertainty as to what will actually happen. It has been more than 60 years since the last monarch died. Society has changed a huge amount in that time.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. What will happen inside the Palace?

Behind closed doors at the Palace

Once the majority of the staff are out the way and the public tourist attractions are closed, an Accession Council will be held at St. James's Palace to declare the successor formally — Prince Charles, barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Accession Council will be attended by Privy Councillors, Lords, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, and High Commissioners of certain Commonwealth countries, amongst others.

This council is not required to make Queen Elizabeth II's successor "official" however — Charles will become the monarch from the moment of her passing. There is never not a Sovereign on the throne. This is also why the the Royal Standard is never flown at half-mast (unlike the Union Jack).

Charles could change his name

It's also worth discussing the possibility of the crown "leapfrogging" Charles in favour of his son, Prince William — a possibility that has been discussed in the media repeatedly.

This would cause a constitutional crisis, and definitely will not happen. Prince William himself has said there is "no question" of it happening. Instead, Prince William will become the new Prince of Wales — Charles' current role.

At the council, the new Monarch (presumably Charles) will swear loyalty to Parliament, and to the Church of England. He will also become the new Supreme Governor of the church. (Catholics cannot ascend to the throne.) The council will also make a "Proclamation of Accession."

This was the most recent Proclamation, from when Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne:

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George the Sixth of Blessed and Glorious memory, by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary:

WE, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim that the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her lieges do acknowledge all Faith and constant Obedience with hearty and humble Affection, beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess Elizabeth the Second with long and happy Years to reign over us.

Charles won't necessarily become "King Charles," however. Upon ascending to the Throne, royals may pick their "regnal" name from any of their Christian or middle names. Arthur Bousfield and Gary Toffoli write that when Queen Elizabeth II was asked, she opted for "my own of course — what else?" But if Prince Charles felt inclined to change, as Charles Philip Arthur George, he could also be "King Philip,""King Arthur," or "King George."

The Queen will lie in state

As these discussions are ongoing, the Queen's coffin will be prepared to lie in state — that is, to be presented for public viewing so people can pay their respects.

Before this, however, both Houses of Parliament will sit, or be recalled if necessary. Members will have the opportunity to take a new oath of allegiance to the new Monarch. All MPs must swear allegiance to the present Monarch — though some republican MPs will cross their fingers when making the 500-year-old oath. Members of both houses will also present addresses of condolences and loyalty to the new Sovereign, a House of Lords spokesperson told me, in a format that is yet to be determined.

After this, both Houses will be suspended until after the official State Funeral.

The Queen's body will lie in state in Westminster Hall. There will be a short ceremony to mark the coffin's arrival, after which the public will be able to file past and pay their respects. The Hall will be open all but a single hour a day for the duration, the spokesperson says.

When the Queen Mother lay in state for three days, her grieving grandsons relieve the official guard to stand guard over the coffin for a short period; it was called the Vigil of the Princes. Something similar happened for George V. While not a formal ceremony, it's likely a similar act of remembrance would be accorded to Queen Elizabeth II. More than 200,000 members of the public paid their respects as the Queen Mother lay in state; the scale of mourning for the Queen should easily eclipse this.

Here's footage of the Queen Mother's coffin lying in state:

Throughout this period, there will be a massive, hysterical outpouring of public grief. It won't just be sombre dress and a minute of silence at sports games — it'll be a punch to the gut of the national psyche. When Princess Diana died, the public turned out in their tens of thousands to lay flowers outside Buckingham Palace — by some estimates as many as 1 million bouquets were left.

A memorial appeal raised £20 million. People queued for ten hours or more to sign memorial books. "Everything closed, saturation TV coverage, no one at work" on the day of the funeral, recounted one witness to the BBC (despite it not being a national holiday). There were "scenes of unbelievable grief," said another: "It was as though all of these people had lost someone incredible dear to them and their emotion was genuine. It worried me hugely — especially after days of mounting hysteria on the streets of Kensington, people walking into the road blinded by tears, etc. — people appeared to be losing their grip on reality."The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland writes that many Britons felt "forced to close their shops or cancel sporting events on the day of the funeral, lest they feel the rage of the tear-stained hordes outside."

Given the Queen's stature, and how intrinsically she is woven into the fabric of modern Britain, it's likely there will be even greater public mourning for her passing.

Here's a photo of flowers laid 5 feet deep outside Buckingham Palace for Princess Diana in 1997:

A star-studded funeral

Queen Elizabeth II's body will continue to lie in state until the day of the funeral, which will be a public holiday. The Daily Mail believes this will be 12 days after the death. The coffin will then be transported to Westminster Abbey by gun carriage for a State Funeral.

It will probably be the best-attended funeral of all time. World leaders from across the globe will flock to attend. She's one of the most senior heads of state in the world, second only to King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand, who has ruled for five more years than her.

On the day of Princess Diana's funeral, "more than a million people lined the route of the funeral cortege,"according to the BBC, with 30 million Brits tuning in to watch it. Worldwide, there were as many as 2.5 billion viewers.

The service will be led by Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the second-most senior figure in the Church of England (after the Monarch).

The Queen's final resting place

Once the funeral is concluded, it'll be time for the burial. Queen Elizabeth II may well have already decided this — in which case it could either be Sandringham or Balmoral in Scotland. These two properties are unique in that they belong to the Queen in a personal capacity, rather than to the crown.

Alternately, she could be buried at St. George's Chapel at Windsor, the site of the grave of King George VI — her father.

After a certain appropriate period of mourning — up to a year or so — there will be a coronation. It's a highly ceremonial affair, although the new monarch technically has the ability to do whatever he wants — after all, he is already the King. Charles' authority as sovereign does not derive from the ceremony, so he could choose to eschew it altogether, should he desire.

But assuming Charles does not wish to totally break with tradition, it will — again — be held at Westminster Abbey. And, again, it will be officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Here's archive footage illustrating the pomp and ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation:

The entire event will be broadcast on television (and also streamed online), and there will be parties up and down the country. After the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in 2011, there were thousands of street parties celebrating. The same will be true of the coronation. As a national holiday, the Royal Wedding in 2011 lost the economy between £1.2 and 6 billion, and the Coronation will be similar — in addition to the direct cost to the taxpayer of holding the largest British ceremonial event since the 1950s.

Decorations along Victoria Street in London, ahead of the 1953 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II:

The little things

The Queen buried, a new King on the throne... is that it? Of course not.

There will be hundreds of changes taking place up and down the country in the weeks and months ahead.

First off, new currency will begin being printed and minted immediately. The portraits of Charles will already have been made in preparation. They won't seek to replace the entire stock of currency overnight, however — it will take several years to do so, much like how older notes and coins are gradually removed from circulation today.

Of course, the national anthem, "God Save The Queen," would change too. Here's Dame Julie Andrews singing "God Save The King" for George VI in 1948.

Even Trafalgar Square will change

Another change: Police will need new insignia on their helmets. They currently display the Queen's initials and regnal number. Likewise, a great deal of military insignia will require updating.

Passports too will need a refresh. The British passport currently "requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance." Stamps will also need updating so that they show the new King's head rather than the Queen's.

These changes matter more than you would expect. After the current Queen was crowned, her regnal number — II — caused controversy in Scotland, which she also rules, as there was never a Scottish Elizabeth I. When postboxes bearing her cypher were erected in Scotland, some were attacked and vandalised.

As signs of the Queen's reign are slowly erased, she will also be memorialised. The fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is currently dedicated to temporary statues and works of art, but former London Mayor Ken Livingstone says his understanding is that"the fourth plinth is being reserved for Queen Elizabeth II."

It may end the Commonwealth

The Queen's passing may have far more profound and long-lasting consequences than just new postage stamps, however. It may well spell the end of the Commonwealth as we know it.

The 53-country organisation includes 16 countries where the British Monarch is officially the Head of State, including Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand, and Barbados. It's a remnant of the British Empire which today exists mainly as a trade and political organisation. It has few formal powers but carries the weight of symbolism: Many of these countries were part of the Empire against their will, and almost all of them declared independence long ago.

With Queen Elizabeth II out of the way, some may choose to end this union with Britain once and for all.

Australia, for example, has already held a referendum on becoming a Republic once before, in 1999. It was a relatively close-run thing, with the republicans ultimately losing 45% to 55%. But much support for the Monarchy arguably derives from personal affection for the Queen herself. With her gone, many Commonwealth nations may decide the time has come to separate.

This also depends on the time of the Queen's death. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper are both staunch Monarchists, and certain to try and block any attempt at Republicanism on their watch. But if the Queen's passing comes later, after they have left office, resurgent republicanism may find a more receptive audience.

A republican Britain?

Depending on Charles' reign, republicanism may grow in prominence in Britain too. But there's no chance of Britain becoming a Republic in the near future. Support for the Monarch is deeply entrenched in the nation's psyche, with 66% of respondents in one survey saying Britain is better off as a Monarchy, and with just 17% opting for a Republic.

But right now this is all academic — and hopefully a long way off yet. On September 9, 2015, Queen Elizabeth II will break the record set by Queen Victoria, her great-great-grandmother: She'll be the longest-reigning British monarch ever!

Join the conversation about this story »

redirect

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is what happens to your brain and body when you check your phone before bed

People forget just how historically long Queen Elizabeth's reign has been.

She is the second-longest-serving, still-living monarch in the world today, having been Queen for 62 years. And she will overtake Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning British monarch ever if she is still on the throne by September 9, 2015. 

The graphic below shows the Queen's reign compared to the periods in power of the leaders of the United States, France, Germany, Russia and the British prime ministers.

In her time, she has waved goodbye to Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Thatcher, Kennedy, DeGaulle and Brandt.

When Adolf Hitler became chancellor in 1933, Queen Elizabeth was already in Buckingham Palace, as Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary. Churchill was the fifth prime minister of her life.

Margaret Thatcher, Britain's most iconic politician of the last 50 years, was in office for just one fifth of the Queen's reign, and US president Ronald Reagan for less than a sixth.

Compared to the leaders we hear the most in the news these days, the Queen is just so much bigger: Nicolas Sarkozy, arguably one of the most influential leaders in Europe in the last few decades, is the second to last square in the fourth line of the graphic. He is almost invisible next to the Queen.

To the Queen, other world leaders must feel like temp workers. Here one day, gone the next.

PS: Among the US presidents, President Kennedy is the small light blue square between President Eisenhower and President Johnson. He was in office for just two years, and his name does not fit into the tiny space available.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We went inside the top-secret tunnel under Grand Central that only presidents use