Once in a lifetime

What three royal jubilees reveal about Britain

See article

Readers' comments



Down here in Africa - Uganda to be more precise, everything seems to change.. fortunately these days a little less so..
But people like a constant.. people need to believe.. people need to remember who they were/are..
The Kabaka(King)does that for us.. I believe that it is his role, I believe that is your queen's role.. be there for her people.. her interests are your interests.. her land is your land.. her hopes for England are your hopes for England..
Have a great Diamond Jubilee, Nabagekereka(Queen)!

Bob Kenyon

I was in Canada during the two previous jubilees and there although the head of the state is the Queen of England it was very foreign for them and general interest was very low.

I have no interest with this jubilee either, actually I've already booked flights to and hotel in the country where the Guillotine was invented... It was not made on purpose but I won't cry if English monarchy comes to an end.

gffdss in reply to Bob Kenyon

Canada's head of state is not the "Queen of England" but the Queen of Canada, of course. You may scoff at this distinction, but the role she (and her Governor-General) performs and the institution she represents within Canada is wholly Canadian and wholly for Canadian purposes. It's a stable, proven, functional democratic system that features rock-solid checks and balances. Democratise or abolish of the unelected Senate, yes; but leave Canada's constitutional monarchy alone.

An Drew

This is the time for the British to be proud of their achievements, however dire the current state of the country is.

They should pride themselves on being among the handful of the most democratic, prosperous, and advanced countries, all while preserving the relics of the past, without having gone through Continental-style violent swings of radicalism and reaction.


Royal asxes!

Tomorrow is the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Should the royal families be loved? My short answer is No and they're the parasites of societies. They have no useful functions for any society today. They are sucking up the resources which should be given to the poor. How dare of them asking for raises in a recession for doing nothing? It is like Robin Hood in reverse.

Chinese have suffered a lot from the decisions of the 'royal' families.

Opium Wars. How outrageous a nation pushing drugs to another nation? They burned the summer palace and looted like barbarians. The loots are being displayed in museums in London and Paris. Even after many hand changes, loots are still loots. It led to China's centuries of humiliation and bankrupting China.

WW2. The Japanese thought they're loyal to their ambitious and wicked emperor to rule Asia. These soldiers are war criminals killing babies, looting, raping... Many of them are being paid respect by high officials in the 'shrines'.

The two A-bombs should have been dropped on the royal palace instead of killing innocent citizens. I'm sorry for the recent tsunami esp. on the suffering of the current generation who has nothing to do with WW2. It could be a late punishment from God on their war crimes that they want to ignore history with their own fantasy.

We should not spread hatred. However, if we do not learn from history, most likely we will repeat history.

Bob Kenyon in reply to TonyP4

I understand that monarchies are symbolised by the monarchs, however absolute monarchs stopped ruling UK long ago. At the time of the shameful Opium war, UK had already a parliament and a prime minister who had more powers than the Queen Victoria. Actually if UK had been a Republic at that time Opium war is likely to have happened though.

Regarding Japan, the Japanese army leaders had more power than the emperor. Japanese imperialism was not related to the monarchy aspect of Japan.

new student 2009 in reply to TonyP4

well said indeed, particularly on the Japanese part.

for war crimes, forgive by all means, to forget------never.

american loves royalties, any royalty (did you see movie 'coming to america'?), as long as they are not america's own.

TonyP4 in reply to mike2R

To let the whole world know the truth that has been blinded for years and not to waste my time in writing the truth.

Wake up and decide for yourself. Only the biased have a hard time to face reality.


I don't know a lot about the queen, but didn't she roll up her sleeves and get to work during WWII? Anyone from the generation who supported the war effort deserves to be recognized.

Cutters in reply to rewt66

Go on, name other sons and daughters of presidents that have served when the country has gone to war.

Your disrespect for those that have worn uniform is typical of republicans.

Kings and queens were always weird, killing each other, feeding poison, son making war against father, and yet they also made some fantastic buildings like the Taj Mahal, or some mean majestic looking fort. They wear funny hats, ride horses with velvet skins, they find Cinderella or love Anarkali. Their faces can sometimes launch a thousand ships and Brad Pitt makes a nice movie about it. We love them as legends which is exactly where they should live.
Minhaj Arifin
Author of
How Desis Became The Greatest Nation On Earth


I remember the Beano’s special jubilee edition, even Dennis and Gnasher it appeared were unflinchingly steadfast loyal subjects; and the organized party in our schoolyard and the free novelty mug given out afterwards. I remember us all singing God save the Queen and I remember how even at the tender 7 years old how much I and most of ‘my mates’ hated the monarchy, Thatcher and the Tories and what we then only dimly perceived they were about to do to our village and country.

35 years later is it? Whatever 35 years later I've long forgotten where the mug went and most of my mates names but the raging hatred is just as strong as ever and especially since I now know JUST WHAT they were planning to do to my village and my country.


People of UK are blessed with a long reigning Monarch in Queen Elizabeth II whose ordinary yet regal ambiance has won the admiration of many ordinary people from around the world of various even opposite political dispositions.

UK may not be the No 1 superpower on earth, but HM is truly a Queen without sunset, a model citizen for every nation, and well liked I am sure by so many, within the Commonwealth and outside of it, where I live.

Congratulations for the jubilee!


Long Live the Queen!!

As most of you know, I'm a natural human rights person who doesn't really believe in monarchies.

BUT, it seems to work for you guys so, enjoy guys and Long Live the Queen!

Giant Tortoise iawmaij

It is rare in any time in world or family history to have anything 60th anniversary (even with people living longer nowadays). I knew that personally - my grandparents had their 60th anniversary a couple of years ago, and sadly there won't be a 70th (one of them had passed away). The 60th became a moment of life who devoted their life for their family, their career, and their friends.
The Queen is not a perfect person (who is anyway?), but she certainly tried to be good. She lived a life worth celebrating, and she just happened to be much more important than my grandparents. While the world may be struggling with many problems, it is important to celebrate and be positive when it is due. Being overly negative (even indeed many things are indeed that negative) does not help to reduce social problems.


Give me a politically toothless democratic monarchy anyday. The Republican alternatives (I have experienced the French, American and various other models) are too awful to contemplate!

E.P.G. in reply to mikeinwarsaw

Don't forget the great democratic monarchy of Italy, which enabled Mussolini. The problem with so-called "constitutional" monarchy is that you have few guarantees that it will remain so. Monarchy offers no advantages that you can't enjoy with a proper, written, republican constitution.

Cutters in reply to E.P.G.

And the republic of Germany did so much better, or the French republic for that matter.

Republics offer no guaranty that they wont become vehicle for extremists, the Monarchy is far better at keeping the country united at least, not even the SNP want to go the way of a republic.

E.P.G. in reply to Cutters

"Republics aren't better" is a different claim to "republics are worse". All the evidence in this discussion points to the first claim's being true. None of the evidence suggests the second.

Cutters in reply to E.P.G.

If a Republic is no better, then why bother. The system works as it is, and while even I will admit it is not perfect, I see no reason to change it for something that could end up worse for the sake of changing it.

The UK was a republic for a while, and look how that ended up.

E.P.G. in reply to Cutters

Why bother? Because republics don't pretend that some people have magic blood that makes them better than us. The Cromwell Commonwealth was mainly a disaster because of its Irish policy, and that question no longer arises in the modern United Kingdom.

mike2R in reply to E.P.G.

"Monarchy offers no advantages that you can't enjoy with a proper, written, republican constitution."

No disadvantages either though. A written constitution isn't worth squat if the people don't respect the liberties it guarantees. As they say, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Having a constitution doesn't change that.

At the end of the day, the form of government is far far less important than the state of mind of the people it governs. Maybe having a constitutional monarchy even helps, since you know at the back of your mind you might one day have to rebel if the incumbent starts getting ideas...

Cutters in reply to E.P.G.

Oh dear, another one that does not know what they are talking about. Cromwell's Commonwealth was a failure because it was totalitarian, it had little military support (the Army declared independence from the government) and was finally put down by it, due to the intolerable regime. Frances first republic was not all that different to Cromwell's Commonwealth.

Cute Dog in reply to Cutters

Don't take people's religion away from them. That is the mass delusion they live off.
Monarchy is like a religion which cannot hold itself to a logical argument but may find unreasonable support from either vested interests or those who think of themselves as better off with it.

Cutters in reply to Cute Dog

Vested interests such as keeping the nation together, having a leader who has served in the Armed Forces (All the current heirs to the throne have served) and have diplomatic ties the world over.

I would say that such is a vested interest for the entire nation.

Seek Justice to Find Peace

It is ironic that the country which boasts of having long standing democratic traditions still celebrates anachronistic institutions like monarchy. Today's political leaders might not inspire people much. But, that is hardly the reason to cling to outdated monarchy. It gives false comfort to people. The world has changed much and it is time for England to stand for republican ideals.

So, essentially, you're a closet republican, Cutters? You seem to hunger for a directly-elected, rather than representative, constitutional settlement...Sounds an awful lot like the US or French constitutions, rather than your cherished constitutional monarchy.

I find it a good advert for evolved rather than designed government.

No it doesn't make a great deal of sense by today's standards, but it works. Radicals always want to throw things out and start from scratch - there's a need for this type of thinking, but there is also a need for good old-fashioned small 'c' conservatism. Good government comes from the fight between these two influences.

The monarchy is a symbol of the fact that you don't have to change just because someone tells you it is inevitable.

This is the first rational articulation of a traditional, small 'c' conservatism I have read in a long time- thank you. It's not that I agree with the politics- I don't- but I do appreciate the intellectual substance, even political wisdom, that informs your reply.

As for the monarchy, I understand your reasoned perspective, but contend that constitutional deference to an arcane and anachronistic inheritance is increasingly irrelevant- indeed, contradictory- in relation to the on-going political, cultural, constitutional etc. development of the UK. The more democratic we become (and there's still room for improvement on this front), the less relevant the monarchy remains; I would actually suggest to you that, with an appropriately balanced constitution, having a President with nominal powers such as those of Germany and Israel is infinitely better than the present scenario of parliamentary supremacy, as represented through the Crown-in-Parliament. The former may result in yet another careerist, pestilent politician, but this method actually affords the means to dismiss the Head of State- where, and when, appropriate- that our supposedly constitutional monarchy does not afford except, perhaps, through violent revolution à la Russe. Whilst I'm more than happy to avoid the bolshevism, I'd just prefer it if there were credible non-violent ways to achieve such a democratic objective, if need be. Not all change is inevitable- you are correct about that- but where conservatives sometimes get things wrong is in the belief that all change is bad (the inverse is true of progressives). There is much wisdom in finding the right balance, as you say...

On the other hand, many of our G20 peers are vastly better governed, and better off, than we are. That some of them happen to be members of the Commonwealth of Nations has less to do with any inherent virtues of constitutional monarchy, and more to do with the good governance afforded by their own formulations on the general theme. Even so, an excellent example of a republic doing better than the UK (according to many key indices making international comparisons measuring freedom, human development, quality of life etc.) is Germany. Even the US, for all its various encumbrances, measures more highly than the UK on most of these measures. I'm afraid that, as much as I love our country, in many respects, we could be doing so much better for ourselves if only we had the political will to make the changes necessary to do so. Some of this will naturally be subjectively-defined according to political creed, but most of what constitutes successful public policy can be empirically measured in accordance with international comparisons. And, if Bastille Day is anything to go by, the pomp and pageantry might not necessarily suffer for want of monarchy. Just a thought.

There are 3 Constitutional Monarchies that share the same Head of State in the G20, 4 the have Royalty, and 4 Commonwealth of Nations.

Going by those Same measurements, Canada is doing better than both of your examples. As they share the same head of state, it comes down to the politicians not being up to task.

the clapham ominbus passenger

Dear oh dear. What an imbecile Bagehot is.

Throughout the Blair government he couldn't take his tongue out of Blair's nether regions. And now, when he could join in the celebration of an almost faultless reign (I would say Anthony Blunt was the only false step) all he can do is chose a set of pictures to ridicule the Queen.

He should be ashamed of himself.

R Sui Generis

My view is that this jubilee is an opportunity to say 'thanks' to the Queen. Whether you believe in monarchy or not, this lady has given a lifetime of service that deserves to be applauded. We're grateful to her, and this is a chance to say so.

The more interesting question is what happens next. The idea of a hereditary monarch in a modern, democratic country is obviously anachronistic as a principal of governance. And the monarch only provides a sense of identity if you like the idea of a society where 'everyone knows their place'. Thankfully the UK has moved on from this medieval mindset to become a more meritocratic place. The Queen manages to bridge this contradiction because she commands respect for what she's done, as much as who she is - like everyone else.

So what happens when Charles and Will get the throne? Deference is dead, national identity is democratic, and they don't have any personal respect in the bank (arguably a deficit with Charles in fact).

I agree with the comments that they are unlikely to be abolished (what would we do with them, get them jobs at Tesco?), but they are likely to slip ever further into the background of public life.

jdcooper in reply to R Sui Generis

Yes. Even as the staunchest of staunch Republicans, I have a great deal of respect for Elizabeth Windsor as a person, far more than I have for most British public figures. I should hope that other Republicans feel the same. She has undeniable dignity and gravitas.

Charles, while not without qualities of his own, does not. I am anticipating a plummet in support for the monarchy upon his ascension to the throne. We are often told that support for the monarchy has been consistent for decades, but this is unsurprising, seeing as the monarch has been the same person for decades. I agree that in meritocratic modern Britain, the queen passes the test but the monarchy itself probably wouldn't.

That aside, interesting observations as ever, David Rennie. British people are highly amusing to reflect on and you regularly seem to capture their idiosyncracies perfectly.

Mr. Marcus

Ahhh the number of times the end of the monarchy has been predicted in my just the span of my own lifetime. Given a long enough timeline then I agree that the current consitutional set-up will dissapear and then all the clever folk like Venkat et al can crow that they were always right.

What they fail to understand is how our consitution actually functions, since it isn't written down on a single piece of paper for the learned to pour over and uncover the "meaning". Our consitutional arangements are in heavy flux and with the kick off of the Scottish Independence campaign this weekend they will continue to be in flux for sometime. Other matters include unfinished business with the House of Lords, local assemblies and mayors, the supreme court, the bill of rights etc etc etc.

The year of the Jubilympics is a great year, especially if this weather holds, for having a good old piss up wrapped in a flag. My block of flats is organising a bbq on the Thames so we can watch the boats go by. Ask all the residents on their views of the Monarchy and most will probably say that in all honesty it doesn't hugely concern them but that they respect the Queen.

That is the secret to her steady authority in this nation. No one knows her politics and she keeps herself extremely well informed. I wish a few other power mongers out there would do the same.

ahmed limam

What does TE mean by saying that “the LAST [Diamond Jubilee] was achieved by Queen Victoria in 1897”? Actually it is the first one in British history since Victoria was the first (and only one until Elizabeth II this year) British queen to celebrate 60 years on the throne. Actually, the term Diamond Jubilee was coined for her since that was a first (other English kings had celebrated their 50 years on the throne, all strangely enough #3’s: Henry III, Edward III and Victoria’s grandfather, George III).
Since the current Queen is in good health it is not inconceivable that she will be around in 10 years’ time (at age 96). What will you call 70 years on the throne? Platinum Jubilee? And should she live, like her own mother, until age 101, what would we call 75 years of reign? Are we running out of precious metals?
Here's a blog about about the monarchy:
@ Kursato: no problem with you being a Republican (I'm not crazy about inherited privileges myself, either), but why on earth would you insist on calling a republican Britain, "Republic of the United Kingdom"?

Venkat Warren.M.D.

Since the 70's, the Monarchy has become irrelevant ; the Brit's look at this institution as a "necessary evil!" ; the world looks at it as a "passing fad !" . The UK is in a double dip recession and the coalition Government of the liberal-conservatives are struggling to maintain the majority in Parliament before getting booted out in the next elections ,which scenerio appears very likely at the moment ! This Monarchy will come to an end like all the Kingdoms of the past ; time is NOT on their side ! Cheers. Venkat Warren.M.D.

many types of govt are 'fads' and fade

Communism for example

monarchies have been with us for thousands of years -- some better than others

this formula of having parliament along with a constitutional monarchy to prevent political excesses has worked well -- however greatly depends on the role played by the monarch (preferably responsible advisory and the ultimate guardian of the public)

if it doesn't 'work' it will likely be the failing of the person not the concept/institution

IMO think the Chinese said it best:
The good prince deserves the good ppl and the good ppl deserve the good prince


[apologies -- tea on my keyboard so till replaced no comma or period keys; decided not to wait till new keyboard installed]]
Interesting article (esp since The Economist is republican)
A constitutional monarchy provides us with a safety valve in case the politicians get out of hand -- wch has happened on occasion in this world
Not often needed -- like fire insurance -- but essential; guardians
There's often an advantage to having a figurehead as head of state rather than a politician some of whom have scrambled in not always so honourable ways to the top
We have been extremely fortunate that our present monarch HM Queen Elizabeth II has been exceptionally dedicated and has fulfilled the role admirably -- apolitical and quietly polite/wise
In Australia (1970s?) the Gov-Gen did not sign a (money) supply bill and that brought down the govt -- the ppl were glad
In Spain King Carlos diffused an explosive situation avoiding impasse and violence
Probably partly a result of 'Will and Kate"'s wedding and their visit to Canada last year [comma] Prince Charles's visit to Canada just completed was much better received than the one (his) in 2009
No doubt their ease [comma] demeanour [comma] and sense of humour have engendered more respect and appreciation
If royal representatives do not act in ways we can look up to we all will lose; the initial pressure is on them and the hope is that we will be inspired to play our parts in volunteering and valuing the overall community
There is a place in our social fabric for pomp and circumstance and celebration of our nation/countries -- impartial and not tainted by political partisanship so we can all feel good about the place where we live
May I add that we were thrilled that the Queen requested our RCMP guard the palace the other day (and that she peeked out the window to see them)
btw we are celebrating the bicentennial of the War of 1812 in wch local 'Canadians' and FIrst Nations and Metis and British successfully defended our territory setting the stage for establishing a country to be called Canada in British North America
In my travels I've enjoyed and benefited from the intangible delightful feeling of kinship/connection meeting others of former colonies facilitated by a sense of some shared history and family thus promoting harmony and friendship in the world
We don't strive for flash or dominance; we greet others in the spirit of equality and friendship not dominance -- all striving to do our best while keeping our distinctive identities
No problem if others choose to have republics or dictators or oligarchies or whatever -- our choice happens to be to keep some of the symbolic features of the state mostly devoid of 'political' power but appealing to cohesion
Think of siblings/cousins (not rivals) -- perhaps (grand)children to (Grand)Mother Britain -- steeped in history and tradition with a backbone of democratic govt and rule of law
with some decorations of royalty
and the multi-coloured richness of tapestry
representing our diversity as individuals but woven together
Have a great Diamond Jubilee!


All human societies need celebratory events of their togetherness.

Nations or unions of nations are no exceptions.

Hurrah for Britain and all her peoples, however differently they think or feel, and congratulations on her many successes in History.

May she repeat them over and over again.


The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution but also unrepresentative of modern Britain.

So long live the Republic of United Kingdom...!



Products and events



