Is The Queen A Lush?

8AM: This champaign pairs well
with rubies.

Is the Queen a lush? It's a question that's been weighing mightily upon me since reports popped up last July that Elizabeth II, England's longest reigning monarch, likes a wee nip with breakfast. And lunch. And dinner. Oh, and after dinner. 

One might wonder how she has the stamina to rule an empire while also slinging back the gin & Dubonnet, the wine, the martinis and the champaign every day. I'm frankly awed by her sheer stamina. One little six-pack with breakfast was usually enough to render me useless all morning, which I suppose is why I'm just a queen and not the Queen. 

9AM: It's good to be the Queen.

Anyhow, this has me wondering about the slippery parameters we use to define "alcoholism." Consider this from NIH:

NIAAA’s Definition of Drinking at Low Risk for Developing Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD): 

For women, low-risk drinking is defined as no more than 3 drinks on any single day and no more than 7 drinks per week. For men, it is defined as no more than 4 drinks on any single day and no more than 14 drinks per week. NIAAA research shows that only about 2 in 100 people who drink within these limits have AUD.

So by packing away some 42 units of alcohol a day, is the Queen a boozer or not? It's confusing, because:

Binge Drinking:

• NIAAA defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels to 0.08 g/dL. This typically occurs after 4 drinks for women and 5 drinks for men—in about 2 hours.
  
  
• The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which conducts the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), defines binge drinking as 5 or more alcoholic drinks for males or 4 or more alcoholic drinks for females on the same occasion (i.e., at the same time or within a couple of hours of each other) on at least 1 day in the past month.

I used to wonder why people who enjoyed their Bloody Mary's and their champaign brunches would look down on me for knocking back a few before noon. Same difference, amirite? 

10AM: A quick nip
while no one's looking...

Well, no actually. For starters, the typical champaign brunch isn't held by oneself on a Tuesday morning before work. Also, (for normal people at least) the Eggs Benedict typically play a more central role than the champaign. 

My point is that it can sometimes be difficult to pin down whether or not someone is an "alcoholic" based solely on the times of day when they drink, or (I'll go out on a limb here) even by how frequently or how much they drink on any given day. I know that sounds like heresy, but does any reasonable person really think the Queen is a lush? All snark aside, I don't think so. 

This is because I've come to define my own alcoholism by one very simple fact: Once I start to drink, I don't want to stop. I'm envious of people who can nurse one drink through an entire dinner. I'm annoyed by people who can leave a glass half full on the table. I'm mystified by people who can have a couple beers once or twice a week, and then not think about it again. Because it doesn't work that way for me, and never has. One is never enough, and neither are three. Or four... Or five...

11AM: Drink up, it's almost noon!

For me, it had less to do with the time of day, or even how often I drank, than with the simple fact that I had no off switch for it. That, coupled with the fact that there was no time when I didn't want it made it a real problem. 

So in answer to my question, no, I don't think the Queen is a lush as I define it. Because even though she likes her gin & tonic in the morning, she's able to walk away from it long enough to get to her next ribbon-cutting. Like other normal people, it doesn't seem to be a central preoccupation of her day, and she seems quite content with not getting plastered at lunch, thank you.  

We are not amused.