# The Queen's Diamond Jubilee



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

My friends in the UK, Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth realms,

Congratulations and best wishes to you, your nations, and Her Majesty, The Queen. 


Best regards,

Alan


----------



## CdnTrad (May 27, 2012)

As a descendant of United Empire Loyalists and a fervent royalist, thank you for the kind words.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

@arkirshner: Thank you very much, sir.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Best wishes to Her Majesty, long may she reign.

A question which is probably best asked here as anywhere... usually a "diamond jubilee" for people is at sixty years, and for organisations at seventy-five years. If Her Majesty lives as long as her mother, then there will be a Jubilee for seventy-five years on the throne. What would that be called?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> My friends in the UK, Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth realms,


Yeh... congratulations to Queen Elizabeth II from the Commonwealth realm of China. Long may she reign over us.



arkirshner said:


> Congratulations and best wishes to you, your nations, and Her Majesty, The Queen.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Alan


Best regards... Michael.... now to organise a Xilinhot street party.



Miket61 said:


> Best wishes to Her Majesty, long may she reign.
> 
> A question which is probably best asked here as anywhere... usually a "diamond jubilee" for people is at sixty years, and for organisations at seventy-five years. If Her Majesty lives as long as her mother, then there will be a Jubilee for seventy-five years on the throne. What would that be called?


I believe jubilee naming is the same as wedding anniversary naming. Diamond & Gold Jubilee for 75 years?

......oh.....what?......China is not in the British Commonwealth?!?!


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

arkirshner said:


> My friends in the UK, Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth realms,
> 
> Congratulations and best wishes to you, your nations, and Her Majesty, The Queen.
> 
> ...


As an Australian descendent of Irish and French Catholics all I can say is Bring on the Republic.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

ajo said:


> As an Australian descendent of Irish and French Catholics all I can say is Bring on the Republic.


As an Irish Catholic brought up in London I can only agree.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As an Irish Catholic brought up in London I can only agree.


Can't see it happen. These days the monarchy as an institution is nothing more than a grand show for tourists. The monarchy generates more in revenue than the Royal Family cost. One could argue that they would still come anyway as the attractions are already there and perhaps that's so, but I think they would be somehow less authentic if say 'Buckingham Palace was just somewhere the Queen once lived'.

As a fellow who fully believes in the literal sense of the Republican ideology, I'm very happy that I live in a Republic. Nobody is my better by birthright. Achievment over bloodline.

Also, I don't buy into the principals of patriotism as I find it anachronistic and something of a fallacy. It's a tool used by the few with interests that need protecting to dupe the many into protecting them. Samuel Johnson once remarked, "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels". The Monarchy and the Royal Family in general are however (currently) an excellent cultural and patriotic touchpoint and motif for all things British - for those who see things that way.

Now with that said, as I watched some of the pageantry on TV over the weekend, I would assert that the one person who would really rather not be there was the Queen. She looked tired and weary. Especially at the concert last night. She no doubt takes her job very seriously and I respect her wholeheartedly for that.

Anyway, to be somewhat more provocative than I may already have been, if the UK became a Republic - it its current 'sovereign state' - what might it be named?!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> Anyway, to be somewhat more provocative than I may already have been, if the UK became a Republic - it its current 'sovereign state' - what might it be named?!


Short form: Britain: (cf. Ireland, France, Finland, Germany)
Long official form: Republic of Britain (cf. Republic of ... as above)


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

ajo said:


> As an Australian descendent of Irish and French Catholics all I can say is Bring on the Republic.


Australia can declare a republic any time it likes. That would not affect the status of the UK.



VictorRomeo said:


> As a fellow who fully believes in the literal sense of the Republican ideology, I'm very happy that I live in a Republic. Nobody is my better by birthright.


I don't think that anyone says that the monarch is "better", though I think it is the Queen, rather than the monarchy, that is respected by the people. And I hope (but expect) that you agree with me that her visit to Ireland last year was a great success; may mutual goodwill and reconciliation continue! 


> ...I don't buy into the principles of patriotism...anachronistic and something of a fallacy...Samuel Johnson once remarked, "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels".


I have a lot of sympathy with this point of view; but the phenomenon of patriotism does not depend on the form of the state.


VictorRomeo said:


> ...if the UK became a Republic - it its current 'sovereign state' - what might it be named?!


_Pace_ the good Earl, it would surely be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

williamson said:


> Australia can declare a republic any time it likes. That would not affect the status of the UK.
> 
> I don't think that anyone says that the monarch is "better", though I think it is the Queen, rather than the monarchy, that is respected by the people. And I hope (but expect) that you agree with me that her visit to Ireland last year was a great success; may mutual goodwill and reconciliation continue!.


Indeed. There is no doubt the symbolism was profound. I was happy that as the Head of State of our nearest neighbour she was warmly received and it all went off without issue. Our history and broad culture is so intertwined, it was only right and proper that her visit should happen. The timing was spot on.

On the point of 'betters'; there is no doubt there is a very deeply rooted class system in British society that believes them better by blood and/or birthright. It's not as intense as it once was but it is still there none the less.

It also astounds me that so many modern nations - Australia, NZ and Canada included are not republics.



williamson said:


> I have a lot of sympathy with this point of view; but the phenomenon of patriotism does not depend on the form of the state.


Absolutly! The ""State is something of an ephemeral term in this context. I - as mentioned above - prefer "the few who have interests that need protecting"



williamson said:


> _Pace_ the good Earl, it would surely be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


That's what I thought but it's something of a mouthful! Actually, I reckon Scottish independence is not far off and it's also conceiveable that they'd declare a republic first. Unlikely that Northern Ireland ever would given the demographics. I'm not sure if Wales ever could too. So, the United Republic of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I swear, I'd pay any amount to be in the company of the average Daily Mail reader on that day!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

williamson said:


> _Pace_ the good Earl, it would surely be the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


No, because the united in UK refers to the uniting of the kingdoms of England and Scotland and later with Ireland; and as the 4 "countries" are currently all one state anyway i.e the UK, the old monarchy word "united" isn't needed.

Great Britain is, as you know, the island. The term Britain therefore, employed as I would suggest as a state name, can easily therefore include Northern Ireland. 
For example, the state name Spain also covers The Canaries. And Portugal also covers Madeira.

https://www.republic.org.uk/What we want/In depth/The British Constitution/index.php

To spin the conversation off into another interesting area, I think that when/if the day comes that the monarchy are abolished in Britain that the ties of the old united kingdom with Scotland and Ireland (N. Ireland of course nowadays) are automatically severed and as such Scotland and Northern Ireland should have the right to an immediate public referendum and immediately be cut free if the motion is carried.

Wales has legally been part of England since the middle ages, but a referendum there also should decide.

Ultimately we may be looking at the Republic of England, Cornwall and Northumbria  Unless of course Cornwall joins the Republic of Wales 

But think of the twists and possibilities, Wales having seceded from the Republic of Britain now readopts the monarchy and offers the Crown of Wales to the Prince of Wales, "the Kindom of Wales once again, we've been waiting for 800 years boyo!" 




(Footnote: I knew several men from the Borders in my military and police days, who claimed to be Northumbrian and NOT English)


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

I take your first two points - the question was asked by another and is at present hypothetical.

The links between the monarchy/republic question and the relations between the nations of the United Kingdom are indeeed complicated. I think that if the UK broke up into its four components, the question of monarchy would arise after, not before, that breakup, in each component separately. You will know that when the Sweden/Norway union was dissolved in 1905 there were two referenda in Norway- one concerning the dissolution, the other to decide whether Norway should be a monarchy or a republic. 

Wales has, in fact, been united with England since 1536; after independence was lost in 1282 it was effect a colony (or rather colonies) until the Act of Union.

It's interesting that there is a positive correlation between opposition to "devolution" and Euroscepticism - the anti-devolutionists were very frequently also Eurosceptics. UKIP, for example, wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales; there are ultra-unionists on the political left as well. There is less Euroscepticismm in Wales and Scotland than in England.

My own preference is for a federal Britain, with historic divisions like Northumbria (and the whole of Yorkshire) as units along with Scotland and Wales, and with some device to preserve English identity. And though I cannot see a philosophical justification for monarchy, I am certainly NOT going to campaign for a republic. I accept that the Jubilee has shown great (and I think deserved) respect for the Queen.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> My friends in the UK, Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth realms,
> 
> Congratulations and best wishes to you, your nations, and Her Majesty, The Queen.
> 
> ...


No good deed goes unpunished!!

Nice try.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Also, I don't buy into the principals of patriotism as I find it anachronistic and something of a fallacy. It's a tool used by the few with interests that need protecting to dupe the many into protecting them. Samuel Johnson once remarked, "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels".


Of course, Johnson was a fierce patriot. He was speaking of false patriotism used as for personal gain. Properly ordered, love of one's country and countrymen is a noble thing.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> He was speaking of false patriotism used as for personal gain. Properly ordered, love of one's country and countrymen is a noble thing.


Of which today it most certainly remains true; it is by and large used for personal and State gain. The flag draping fallacy and donkey braying whoopin' an' hollerin' that is modern day patriotism infuriates me - much the way it infuriated Johnson. The self-professed patriot that Johnson so despised has for centuries twisted the notion of patriotism to 'you're either with us or agen us'.

So while I don't consider myself in any way patriotic for the Ireland that the leadership of this island would like me to have, patriotism is not about the flags, the stupid lapel pins, the size of one's missiles, the prettyness of the countryside, or the remenisance of past and faded might and glories. In other words, today it seems to meen a severe dislike - when the time is right and the spin is needed - of other nations, their peoples and their culture. Remember Freedom Fries? Cheese eating surrender monkeys? Catholic vs. Protestant and 800 years or repression in my country? All jingoism.

I'm all for loving one's country and loving one's people, but as the composer Pablo Casals once said " Why stop at the borders?".


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Of which today it most certainly remains true; it is by and large used for personal and State gain. The flag draping fallacy and donkey braying whoopin' an' hollerin' that is modern day patriotism infuriates me - much the way it infuriated Johnson. The self-professed patriot that Johnson so despised has for centuries twisted the notion of patriotism to 'you're either with us or agen us'.
> 
> So while I don't consider myself in any way patriotic for the Ireland that the leadership of this island would like me to have, patriotism is not about the flags, the stupid lapel pins, the size of one's missiles, the prettyness of the countryside, or the remenisance of past and faded might and glories. In other words, today it seems to meen a severe dislike - when the time is right and the spin is needed - of other nations, their peoples and their culture. Remember Freedom Fries? Cheese eating surrender monkeys? Catholic vs. Protestant and 800 years or repression in my country? All jingoism.
> 
> I'm all for loving one's country and loving one's people, but as the composer Pablo Casals once said " Why stop at the borders?".


What a mishmash of nonsense and a confusing conflation. You start talking about Ireland but proceed to take your shots at the US. You should probably be aware that the expression Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys started in a TV cartoon - and, in context, it's a damn funny line. I'm at a loss as to how this relates to jingoism - but you've written such an incoherent and rambling stream of consciousness (US Jingoism reflected in Freedom Fries? Really? - yes, it was stupid, but reflective of jingoism? and that's akin to IRA bombings of women and children?) - If you're from Ireland - then stick to Ireland. Don't go making jabs at the U.S. while at the same time bemoaning dislike for other peoples, cultures, etc. Pathetic.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. There is no doubt the symbolism was profound. I was happy that as the Head of State of our nearest neighbour she was warmly received and it all went off without issue. Our history and broad culture is so intertwined, it was only right and proper that her visit should happen. The timing was spot on.
> 
> It also astounds me that so many modern nations - Australia, NZ and Canada included are not republics.


 At the time my country became a republic the king had quite a bit to do with setting policy, and so becoming a republic resulted in a change, not just in the form, but also in the substance of how we were governed. In becoming a republic we went from being governed by others to becoming governed by ourselves. On the other hand, in Canada, Australia, and NZ people transitioned peacefully from being governed into governing themselves, becoming republics in substance if not in form. Today if the UK or any commonwealth country were to become a republic the actual government would not change at all.

The one thing my country lost in becoming a republic ,(something we had to do as we were not allowed to transition into governing ourselves), is that we no longer had a unifying head of state. For decades, almost half my country has not approved of our head of state. The half that does not approve changes when a president of a different party is sworn in. Because our president sets policy, as my country has taken on a large role across the globe much of the world's population has strong feelings about our head of state, some positive , but many negative.

On the other hand, those countries that retain a monarchy that no longer sets national policy, that is to say reigns but no longer rules, have a head of state not tainted by politics. Such a monarch can be received in other countries as head of state with respect and without incident, by both those who agree with, as well as by those who oppose the policy of the monarch's current prime minister. To those who now live in monarchies I can say that it does my country no good and it offends my fellow citizens when our president is overseas and people in other countries throw things at his car. A monarch who is treated with respect by those in other countries is for ceremonial and symbolic purposes a far better representative than a politician.

At home unlike politicians who serve to divide, a non political monarch, serves to unify. For example, on Remembrance Day when The Queen lays the ceremonial wreath the solemnity and significance of the occasion is far more unifying than in my country where when the President performs a similar act on our Memorial Day close to half the population find themselves interrupted by thoughts along the lines of " that no good so and so, he's ruining the country."

In short, both at home and abroad, a non political monarch can serve as the flag in flesh, a living embodiment of his or her country. Apart from our personal respect for the way she has conducted herself the 60 years, IMO the concept of monarch as flag in the flesh is the underlying structural reason, so many of us in the US have such great admiration for the Queen. After all our government, that is to say the idea of constitutional representative government, came from the UK. The foundation of our law, that is to say the common law, came from the UK. Our language came from the UK. Many of our customs and traditions, including most of men's clothing, came from the UK. If not for the UK, what today is the US, would be something quite different, and almost certainly not for the better.

The best government is probably a republic. But those living in constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch reigns but no longer rules, have all the substance, and thus all the advantages of a republic. In addition they also have a non partisan head of state which in and of itself has advantages both home and abroad that should not be given up without very good reason.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> What a mishmash of nonsense and a confusing conflation. You start talking about Ireland but proceed to take your shots at the US. You should probably be aware that the expression Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys started in a TV cartoon - and, in context, it's a damn funny line. I'm at a loss as to how this relates to jingoism - but you've written such an incoherent and rambling stream of consciousness (US Jingoism reflected in Freedom Fries? Really? - yes, it was stupid, but reflective of jingoism? and that's akin to IRA bombings of women and children?) - If you're from Ireland - then stick to Ireland. Don't go making jabs at the U.S. while at the same time bemoaning dislike for other peoples, cultures, etc. Pathetic.


Jesus wept! My intent is to discuss the broad topic of patriotism - the logical fallacy that it is today - as opposed to specific nations. You interjeject with your own logical fallacy of personal incredulity. You know, even though you might find my late night ramblings incoherent and and appear sensitive to be using not just American but British examples, it does not make my point and opinion any less relevant. I reference my own nations failings as much as I referfence others. Also, where on earth to I bemoan other cultures or dislike other people. There is a context here in this discussion and from my perspective it transcends peoples and borders. Play the ball, not the man.

Oh, and I'll bite on this one.... before you go throwing rocks about the bombing of women and children, you don't have to look that far past Washington, do you now? Shall we compare body count? But let me guess, those who died by American bombs deserved it. Right?

Freedom Fries, a perfect example of jingoism. At that time - albeit a sensitive time - things boiled over, stuipid things were said France was a mockery in the American and British press and then we all got over it and France are back in the tent.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

williamson said:


> Australia can declare a republic any time it likes. That would not affect the status of the UK.


Not really its quite complicated process that has to go to public referendum and has to approved by a majority of states. In 1999 we the people tried and failed mainly due to the issue of President, would they be popularly elected or appointed by parliament. And I seriously do not see such a vote happening soon in Oz. Most likely the Republic issue will gain traction once Betty Windsor shuffles off this mortal coil.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> At home unlike politicians who serve to divide, a non political monarch, serves to unify.


That is an excellent point......


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> The one thing my country lost in becoming a republic ,(something we had to do as we were not allowed to transition into governing ourselves), is that we no longer had a unifying head of state...For example, on Remembrance Day when The Queen lays the ceremonial wreath the solemnity and significance of the occasion is far more unifying than in my country where when the President performs a similar act on our Memorial Day close to half the population find themselves interrupted by thoughts along the lines of " that no good so and so, he's ruining the country."
> 
> In short, both at home and abroad, a non political monarch can serve as the flag in flesh, a living embodiment of his or her country. Apart from our personal respect for the way she has conducted herself the 60 years, IMO the concept of monarch as flag in the flesh is the underlying structural reason, so many of us in the US have such great admiration for the Queen...
> The best government is probably a republic. But those living in constitutional monarchies, in which the monarch reigns but no longer rules, have all the substance, and thus all the advantages of a republic. In addition they also have a non partisan head of state which in and of itself has advantages both home and abroad that should not be given up without very good reason.


There are republics where the head of state is not head of government, but the only cases I can think of where the head of state has played a distinguished role above politics are (a) the two female Presidents of Ireland and (b) President Richard von Weizsäcker of Germany. And as far as the form of goverment is concerned, in many ways France is monarchical, while Sweden, whose king has no residual powers, is republican.

You make very good points and you make them very graciously. I echo Balfour's thanks to you at this special time.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Miket61 said:


> Best wishes to Her Majesty, long may she reign.
> 
> A question which is probably best asked here as anywhere... usually a "diamond jubilee" for people is at sixty years, and for organisations at seventy-five years. If Her Majesty lives as long as her mother, then there will be a Jubilee for seventy-five years on the throne. What would that be called?


At 70 years she will celebrate the Platinum Jubilee.

As quite the anglophile myself, best wishes to Her Majesty as she celebrates this occasion.

This was posted by HRH Prince William to his facebook:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

williamson said:


> My own preference is for a federal Britain, with historic divisions like Northumbria (and the whole of Yorkshire) as units along with Scotland and Wales.


Yes, I favour that model as well, which ironically is what the EU wants all countries to do, so as to be able to deal with natural regions in countries rather than a single governing state for numerous regions with very differing conditions. Sweden is currently dividing into such regions. The UK started the process a few years ago but it seems to have stalled - West Midlands, East Anglia, The West Country, Lakes & Peaks, Home Counties, Wales, Scotland, and so on.

The only problem with that model as I see it is that Enlgish identity would be diminshed even further because Wales, Scotland and NI would remain intact but England would be divided into 6 region (9 regions was the proposal on the table a few years ago)

Thus a very exciting and off the wall idea would be in the event of the abolition of the monarchy for England to secede from the Federal Republic of Britain and set up a purely English Parliament for the Republic of England.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> This was posted by HRH Prince William to his facebook:


First photo Phil thinks "God, you're lovely"
Second photo Phil thinks: "Who are you?"


----------

