"The Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II is the international celebration throughout 2012 marking the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II to the thrones of seven countries upon the death of her father, King George VI, on 6 February 1952. She is today queen regnant of 16 sovereign states, 12 of which were British colonies or Dominions at the start of her reign."

http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_II

How are our British GOG'ers celebrating?

Sleeping through it

Hipster!

Hey! I was sleeping through things long before it was cool to do so. I'm pretty sure I slept through the Queen's Silver Jubilee too! (Being 1 or 2 at the time)

I thought only the Canadians cared about the Queen these days.

There's more than just one Queen out there you know...

Why is 60 the magic number? 50 seems more ... round, for lack of a better word.

"Long before it was cool.'

Isn't that what hipster means? :D

Congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II.

On a related note I always find it strange that Sweden is one of the oldest monarchies in the world but we swedes doesn't really act as we like it and there always seems to be talk in the media about citizens wanting a republic. On the other hand we're told how proud other nations are about their monarchies.
I guess Sweden is a odd nation regarding that. :P

With all due respect to monarchic nations, I fail to see why anyone would be proud of having a king/queen. Aren't most first-world monarchies basically republics with kings for show, anyway?

I certainly wouldn't want my tax money to pay for the luxuries of a family that I probably wouldn't ever even see persoally. Of course, I may be wrong somewhere here.

Sort of. The way I understand it (at least in Britain), no piece of legislation can become law without Her Majesty's signature on it. Mileage may vary with other monarchies.

Speaking for myself, I've tried to work out why it is I'm basically happy that the UK has a constitutional monarch without much luck.

I mean, logically, it makes no sense whatsoever. Britain is a democracy, and ultimately the monarch does not fulfil any major governmental role that could not be done by someone with a lower salary and less of an entourage.

But if it ever came to a referendum, I doubt I'd tick the "Republic all the way!" box.

Basically, I think (for me) it boils down to two main things:
1) I kinda like the tradition of it all. The pomp, the circumstance, the pageantry... Having a monarch gives it all some meaning, even if it is now (for the most part) mainly a tourist attraction. Plus, you get random days off when weddings, coronations, and jubilees happen :-)

2) Given the succession of smarmy bastards we keep electing, there's a part of me that likes the fact that the nominal head of... well... everything... DOESN'T have to win a popularity contest every few years.


But I do get why some (many?) think it's a ridiculous waste of cash. It just doesn't bother me.

Hey Batman, did you hear that the Queen has a Diamond Jub...
Freddie Mercury's DEEAAAAAD! [slaps his face]

True enough.

But many republics have heads of state that are in effect not elected by the people but chosen amongst the political circles ( Italy; Greece f.i ) And there is in the end very little difference in the content of the function.

On the other hand, the Monarchy is a truly long standing institution in some European countries. For Denmark or the UK this eventually matters a lot. In other countries, monarchies were somehow imposed to the people by the powers of the time ( both Belgium and Netherlands have monarchies because in post Napoleon Europe, the word republic seemed.... indicative of some form of nostalgia ) , so it matters less ( at least as far as Belgium is concerned ). But in all cases , monarchies provide a form of neutrality towards the political parties and Europeans as a whole start to be really distrustful of the political elites.

In addition, your chances of meeting your President are not better than the chances of meeting your king. Nor will be the kind of access you'll get ( except if you live in Luxembourg, where the Grand Duke is veruy accessible compared to others ). Nor is the kind of luxury they enjoy. Except that for Presidents you pay the luxuries during their office and after it , till they die.

Eventually, you may want to note that there has been and are "Republics" whose heads of state are far froim being models of virtue.

You may want to note that, per citizen, the cost of the British Monarchy, is lower ( and I mean lower as in 1:2) than the cost of France's Presidential office.

So, if they play their role , if the people are attached to the concept, there is nothing objectionable to this form of democracy.

I'm not even that sure of this. When George III signed for the transfer of the Crown Estate to the State, this was very beneficial to him. But 3 centuries later, things have changed a lot. The Crown estates revenue is around 200 Mn GBP. Only a partof it is eventually used to fund the Monarchy. And part of the living is actually paid by their own income ( not like ours ). . And the UK gets a solid income flow from that institution ( not like ours again )

If you had a President, not only you'd risk having a system in which it is the ruling party of the time that appoints a long standing friend ( à la Italy / Greece ) , you would pay a bit less for his salary, but you'd be paying it during his term and after it ( See the French, they keep paying for Giscard, Chirac and Sarkozy above Hollande ) . The cost of the whole show around the person would be the same or worse ( The worst cost comes from change. A new president changes a lot of things that are still functionnal . Obviously , H.M. has been much more conservative over the years ) .

True enough, thanks for the information, guys.

I still believe monarchs to be unnecessary, but I can see why they are at least acceptable.