The campaign was launched October 2015 but is just getting its full dose of publicity; it is a joint venture between Country Life magazine and Keep Britain Tidy.
The Queen's actual birthday is in April but her official birthday is celebrated in June.
The response on Twitter has been mixed with genuine interest overshadowed by funny, nasty, hilarious and cutting comments.
One story back doing the rounds is the Queen's inability in 2012 to pay her own cleaners the living wage.
There are comments about public spending budget cuts which have added to the litter problem that is now a problem across the UK; reduced refuse collections, insufficent rubbish bins and cuts to street cleaning services all add to the problem
Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne February 6, 1952 and less than one-year later this writer was born.
Childhood in 50s and 60s Britain was very different to 2016.
We played on WWII bombsites, endured homes with no bathrooms and outside toilets, stood for the National Anthem which was played in cinemas at the end of performances and put our litter in bins; if bins were not available we took our litter home.
But times change.
Our parents were monarchists and accepted the huge 'them and us' divide. We may have had a relatively basic life back then but my parents obeyed the rules and that included litter.
We were taught by them not to be litter louts; the Keep Britain Tidy campaign which came into force in the 50s backed this up.
Keep Britain Tidy was originally set up by a conference of 26 organisations in 1955.
Somewhere along the line standards dipped.
You can walk along any High Street in 2016 and observe people simply dropping litter, including containers with discarded food, as they walk.
For these people there is no attempt to find a bin.
But #cleanforthequeen will not change any of this.
In fact plenty of people on Twitter claim they will actually be inclined to litter rather than be involved in any way in #cleanforthequeen.
News days ago that fines for littering will increase, possibly to as much as £150, may have more of an impact but how many readers have ever seen a police officer challenge a litter-bug?
With police numbers on the streets cut good luck with policing that one.
Perhaps in the current cut-price Britain the jobless will be forced to work on supporting the big British clean up; maybe even issuing fines.
While some of this is not new [my husband worked on a land clearance scheme in the 80s when regular work was in short supply] this Tory government always wants something for nothing.
Whether you are a litter lout or not depends on many things including if you value your surroundings, appreciate your environment, feel you are part of the place, have a pride in your city, village or town and your upbringing.
If your parents are littler louts it is likely you will follow suit.
But #cleanforthequeen has a limited appeal.
With the country split between republicans and monarchists and British nationals and migrants #cleanforthequeen is far from perfect.
Getting Britain clean for the Queen's 90th birthday is getting a big British clean up on the cheap.
Keep Britain Tidy as it is your country and looks it’s best un-littered; discarded food encourages rats and increases their population.
A littered country is bad for wildlife and the environment.
Treat your country outdoors as you would treat your home unless you are a slob indoors.
Above all do it for you and not the Queen.
Fair enough the Queen was presented with a sponge cake but 'sponging off' someone means, as CNN puts it, obtaining money from others without doing anything in return.
The Twitter response was savage and Philip was attacked as 'the biggest sponger in the UK' daring to have a go at others. You could defend him saying 'but at 94 he is still 'working'' but he has hardly lived a life of grim hard times and health threatening work since he married the Queen in 1947 has he?
The Prince was accompanying the Queen to the official opening of the Chadwell Heath Community Centre in Dagenham but he would surely have been better left at 'home'?
According to some reports the women at the centre found him funny and said he was just teasing them.
He also asked the women "Do you meet to have a gossip?" That sexist comment undermines the work of women and those at the centre in particular.
Nicknamed Prince of the Gaffes Philip seems to have overstepped the mark too much and too often lately. A week or so ago he said to a photographer "Just take the f***ing picture!", and there were no asterisks!
In May 2013 he asked a Polish scientist "Did you come here to pick raspberries."
Have his so-called gaffes become more offensive with age? Should we excuse him because of his advancing years?
In 2002, the 91-year-old asked a group of Australian aborigines: “Do you still throw spears at each other?”
While talking to a Scottish driving instructor, he remarked: “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?” He also reportedly reduced a 13-year-old boy to tears when he told him he would have to lose weight to fulfil his ambition of becoming an astronaut.
And he famously told a group of British students during a 1986 state visit to China that they would become “slitty-eyed” if they stayed in the country any longer.
So it is fair to assume that the Prince has a cruel bigoted streak which some prefer to call 'humour' and it has little to do with his age.
But at 94 he is way past his best before date and as we should not expect him to still be 'working'.
Queen's Nazi salute as a child
The Palace has said it is disappointed that footage from 1933 of the Queen as a child, along with other family members, giving a Nazi salute has been published by Rupert Murdoch's Sun.
The Mail Online reports Saturday the Sun has sunk to a new low in reporting on the images.
But we should bear in mind that footage of the Queen's Uncle, Edward, brandishing a Nazi salute to Hitler has been in the public arena for some time.
He of course abdicated his role as King opting instead to marry a divorced American Wallis Simpson.
The 17-second clip used by the Sun could be taken out of context; the royals could have actually been poking fun at Herr Hitler. But we will never know.
Appalled reader Rachel Hawkins wrote: 'If I was the Queen, I'd ban that absolute vile individual; Rupert Murdoch from ever entering this country again. #TheSun #gutterpress.'
But the Sun remains popular with millions in the UK and helped divide the country pre the 2015 General Election and secure a Tory win. That publication demonised Ed Miliband while lauding the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon North of the border.
If you support such a publication you cannot complain when the muck being raked this time does not suit.
If you buy into 'The Sun' you probably deserve what you get.
Note: Both the Queen and Philip have strong family links abroad "Queen and Philip lunch with German branch of family once tainted by Nazi past."
Guardian "Queen's Nazi salute footage is matter of historical significance, says Sun"
Sunday update: Palace could sue over Nazi salute film
Monday: But as the row rumbles on, and the Palace tries to find the source of the 'leak' before deciding whether or not to sue, the Huff Post UK reports "Far from being stolen, the 1933 footage could in fact have been released to documentary makers inadvertently. Part of the same movie appeared in a Royal exhibition last year, The Telegraph reveals today."
"It is believed the controversial scenes that have now emerged may have been accidentally passed on to interested documentary makers, a copy of which then found its way to the Sun," The Telegraph reports.
Analysis: The Royal Family's history of legal action
Maintenance work at Buckingham Palace could cost £150m and result in the Queen and presumably her entourage having to move out while the works are completed.
But of course the Queen and other members of the British Royal Family will not be homeless as the family own many vast and often half-empty properties around the UK.
News that Buckingham Palace has not been redecorated since 1952 is shocking. Imagine leaving your home for more than 60 years between redecorating?
The Palace is large but as all householders now better to repair and redecorate little and often than face huge costs and a mountain of work.
How come Palace and Parliament renovations and repairs were not carried out sooner, during some of the boom years of the past?
In 2014 MPS reportedly said "Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes" but now we have a Tory government in office.
The new majority Tory government is showing its true blue colours in its priorities. High on the list following their election win in May 2015 has been scrapping the human rights act, overturning the hunting ban, new gagging laws, more snooping and surveillance and now major renovations works for Parliament and Buckingham Palace.
The race is on to make all these announcements before Chancellor George Osborne delivers a July budget which will successfully set people of the UK against each other and deliver unprecedented austerity measures.
Public funding of the Queen is expected to be £40.05m this year and rise by £2m next year to £42.8m.
These days the Queen is paid 15% of the Crown Estate's profits by the government under the Sovereign Grant formula launched in 2011. She is described by the Express as asset rich but cash poor; still she is not left living on the basic state pension which in the UK is just £115.95 a week for a single person in 2015/16.
As George Osborne puts together his austerity budget which is expected to include slashing tax credits using a phoney agenda that those encourage bosses to pay less is now the time to ask people to commit to long-standing works on buildings such as Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament?
April Fool, Bedroom Tax two year anniversary
Edward and Mrs Simpson, as she still was, were seen together too often. They holidayed on a cruise and more.
Edward now knew that he wanted to marry Wallis come Hell or high water. It was 1936 and Hitler's presence was being felt on the World stage. Britain needed a figurehead that it could rely on.
Edward asked to meet with the then Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin a stern man and in so many ways the opposite of Edward. On November 16 Edward told Baldwin of his intention to marry Wallis as soon as she was a free woman.
Most British people believe that losing the throne meant more to Wallis than it did to Edward but give the woman her due; she stayed with Edward even when he was in effect exiled.
They never lived in poverty though and both still lived a privileged existence.
When Baldwin rejected Edward's intention to marry, Edward came up with another plan. He hoped that he could ascend to the throne as King but Wallis would not be Queen, in real terms. She would be his 'consort'. He hoped and thought that the government would accept this compromise but the British government were having none of it.
Backed into a corner Edward did the only thing he thought he could and abdicated.
On December 10, 1936, Edward, his ministers and relevant family members, signed the papers which would allow him to abdicate.
Edward was made the Duke of Windsor. This title prevented Edward from becoming involved in British politics and more.
The matter was not easily settled and some wanted the Duke and Duchess to have nothing. The Queen Mother maintained an intense dislike of both Edward and Wallis throughout her lifetime.
War with Germany was to follow in 1939 and, as we now know, Edward played the traitor on more than one occasion. He was seen with Adolf Hitler and performing the Nazi salute. In recent years we have seen many revelations regarding Edward and Mrs Simpson.
Although they became the Duke and Duchess of Windsor for many, including myself, they will always be The Prince of Wales and Mrs Simpson.
Edward and Wallace were never welcome in England after the abdication, although they still had many fans and sympathisers. His antics during World War Two, with the likes of Herr Hitler, put the final nail in his coffin, for many. It is rumoured that he was prepared to do a deal with the Nazis in exchange for regaining the throne. Both he and Wallis approved of the Nazis early behaviour.
Although Edward was excluded from events, such as Queen Elizabeth's ascension, to the throne he did attend his brother, King George's funeral.
On the May 28 1977 the Duke of Windsor died at his Paris home with Wallace at his side. He was 77. Edward was given a state funeral in England, on June 5 1977. Wallis was to live for another 14 years.
In death she was finally accepted. She was buried alongside her husband, in the Royal Burial Ground. Her grave is simply marked as Wallis, Duchess of Windsor.
This couple lived such a complex and varied life. The only conclusion about Edward is that, in some ways, he was a silly man, he let his heart, or something, rule his head, he was weak, perhaps he would not have made a good king, he was selfish, he could be touched by the poverty of others, he was likable, he was arrogant and above all he was deeply in love.
This love affair will fascinate people for years to come.
Prince Charles and his wife Camilla have so many similarities to Wallis and Edward, that only time will tell who will be our next ruler.
The Prince and his representatives fought the release of the letters every step of the way and UK PM David Cameron has vowed to tighten freedom of information rules to offer Charles and presumably others protection in the future.
Just what Charles may or may not have communicated with Tory governments is not known.
Questions about whether the Queen will ever step aside, in a similar fashion to Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, remain dismissed as 'not going to happen'.
But sooner or later a successor will sit on the throne of England and its dominions.
Will it be Charles or could it be his eldest son William the Duke of Cambridge?
That would be a break with every tradition in the UK but William has a legion of supporters who would prefer Charles was bypassed.
One notable royal, a man who would not be king, Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David Windsor, had much in common with Charles.
You can argue either way as you only need to look at the amount of veterans living on the streets, suffering from mental health issues, to know that the military life is not for everyone.
But what galls the most is a privileged Prince trying to pretend that his military service is on a par with any other ordinary young man in the UK.
It is not for many reasons.
If Harry could not behave himself with all the family support, privilege and advisers available to him then perhaps the Royal gene is lacking.
As for talking up the military and national service while enjoying a four-week jolly to New Zealand that shows a distinct lack of diplomacy.
Still we are used to royal hypocrisy in the UK; our British royal family like nothing better than a little killing in the shape of hunting by standing in front of world news cameras to preach conservation when it suits.
Well we have news for Prince Harry and his clan; people are not as stupid as you think.
Royal hypocrisy, pleas to end illegal wildlife trade, hunting jolly earlier
Sophie Wessex Bahrain jewels furore
Did you come here to pick raspberries, Prince Philip asks Polish scientist
Prince William visits Chinese park where elephants perform