# Queen Elizabeth celebrates 60 years as monarch **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 5, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896 "2012-02-05T21:56:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wedgehed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@wedgehed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wedgehed)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/41 "2012-02-07T03:23:56Z")
I don’t know if this is worth a new thread, BUT… if Prince Charles ever gets promoted, do you think he will be Charles III or will he choose another name? ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/42 "2012-02-07T04:11:18Z")
I remember the Silver Jubilee in 1977. Lots of gobbing going on and people with green hair with safety pins through their noses as well. Well done Lizzie! For the record, this UK-raised Yank thinks she’s an asset. You have the Queen, we have Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/43 "2012-02-07T05:17:53Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > I don’t know if this is worth a new thread, BUT… > > if Prince Charles ever gets promoted, do you think he will be Charles III or will he choose another name? His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, and he has indicated that he would use the last of those, making him George VII. But he can always change his mind, up until he is crowned. ---
**Author:** ![jabiru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@jabiru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jabiru)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/44 "2012-02-07T05:35:47Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > I remember the Silver Jubilee in 1977…( And the Jubilee in 2002. I thought Diamond was 75 years. When did that change? ---
**Author:** ![jabiru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@jabiru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jabiru)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/45 "2012-02-07T05:37:07Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, and he has indicated that he would use the last of those, making him George VII. How boring. Charles III would be great. ---
**Author:** ![Sparky812](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Sparky812](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparky812)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/46 "2012-02-07T05:46:41Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > A workshy parasite and her family have managed to screw taxpayers out of literally millions of pounds for 60 years. > > She’s not even good at her job. Literally all she has to do is go to places and occasionally make a speech, and she is rubbish at delivering speeches. > > A total waste of space and a very, very dull person as well. > > Nothing to celebrate. > [@ianzin](#): > > Why would you think that? There is no meaningful way to separate ‘royal-oriented’ tourism from the rest of tourism, or to calculate what percentage of tourism receipts may be ‘caused’ by the fact that we have a so-called royal family. People come to London because it’s a big city that’s been around a long time with lots to see and do. They go to lots of other cities too, including ones that don’t have a royal family. > > Also, even if one suggests it’s desirable to have a royal family because it’s good for tourism, it would suffice to have one family living in one moderately nice palace on a modest salary. We don’t need the whole extended family, we don’t need to give them enormous tracts of land, they don’t need to eat up literally millions of pounds that could be spent on useful things and more deserving people, and we don’t need to give them umpteen different homes to swan around in. > > They are parasites living very expensive lives paid for by hard-working people like nurses. They are an anachronism, and they aren’t even good at doing the job they are supposed to do. They also abuse their privileges on a regular basis, such as Prince Andrew using a military helicopter just to fly him up to Scotland to see his friends, all at great expense to the taxpayer. > [@ianzin](#): > > 1. Watch her broadcasts and speeches. ‘Dull’ is actually a kind verdict. One could use harsher terms. > > 2. She’s been doing her job (badly) for 60 years. Apart from just existing, her only function is to make speeches. Yet she has never said anything interesting or memorable. I think it’s therefore fair to describe her as ‘dull’. The only quote anyone can remember is when she used the phrase ‘annus horribilis’ in 1992, and even then it was only because it gave comedians something to make simple jokes about. Not a lot to show for 60 years, is it? > > 3. I haven’t met the queen but I have met other members of the royal family. ‘Dull’ seems to me to be a fair verdict. Geez, threadshit much? Long Live the Queen! BTW Charlie’s not getting even a sniff of that throne! ---
**Author:** ![Quint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/76d3ee/32.png) [@Quint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/47 "2012-02-07T06:03:14Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > …enormous tracts of land… My dad told me about seeing her in her youth outside a hotel. He was indeed impressed with her “tracts of land”, but I think “enormous” is a bit of an exaggeration. Left an impression nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8797f3/32.png) [@The\_Universe\_Lashes\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Universe_Lashes_Out)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/48 "2012-02-07T08:25:35Z")
> [@Sparky812](#): > > Geez, threadshit much? It’s not a “threadshit” to express an opinion. Having a queen in 2012 is fucking ridiculous. If someone were to start a thread on the wonders of witch-burning, I’d also expect a few differing opinions to pop up. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/49 "2012-02-07T09:39:02Z")
Sorry for the hijack, but I can’t let these slide… > [@ianzin](#): > > Why would you think that? There is no meaningful way to separate ‘royal-oriented’ tourism from the rest of tourism, or to calculate what percentage of tourism receipts may be ‘caused’ by the fact that we have a so-called royal family. People come to London because it’s a big city that’s been around a long time with lots to see and do. They go to lots of other cities too, including ones that don’t have a royal family. I agree, the tourism argument is fairly weak for monarchists and republicans. > [@](#): > > Also, even if one suggests it’s desirable to have a royal family because it’s good for tourism, it would suffice to have one family living in one moderately nice palace on a modest salary. We don’t need the whole extended family, we don’t need to give them enormous tracts of land, they don’t need to eat up literally millions of pounds that could be spent on useful things and more deserving people, and we don’t need to give them umpteen different homes to swan around in. I don’t think you quite understand how the monarchy is financed. The only ones who receive taxpayer’s money are the Queen and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. All others only receive reimbursements for services they do for the state – and even then the Queen stumps that up for them. Otherwise, they have to find the money themselves. There are plenty of republics where the Head of State has numerous residences on taxpayer’s money – in fact many which outdo the British monarchy in terms of residences. France and America come to mind. > [@](#): > > They are parasites living very expensive lives paid for by hard-working people like nurses. They are only parasites in the same manner in which the Presidents of Germany or Italy are parasites, i.e. they get money for doing the same job as the Queen (more in fact – the Queen doesn’t get a salary!) > [@](#): > > They are an anachronism, Irrelevant, and subjective. > [@](#): > > and they aren’t even good at doing the job they are supposed to do. Again, your opinion, I think? Overall the Brits seem to think she’s done spectacularly well. And as for her family, they’ve done no worse than anybody else would have done. > [@](#): > > They also abuse their privileges on a regular basis, such as Prince Andrew using a military helicopter just to fly him up to Scotland to see his friends, all at great expense to the taxpayer. Could you provide a link for this? In any case, I can provide links to certain liberties taken by many presidents 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/50 "2012-02-07T12:14:28Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > A workshy parasite and her family have managed to screw taxpayers out of literally millions of pounds for 60 years. > > She’s not even good at her job. Literally all she has to do is go to places and occasionally make a speech, and she is rubbish at delivering speeches. > > A total waste of space and a very, very dull person as well. > > Nothing to celebrate. Nasty; but predictable. 25 posts. Took longer than I expected. Only a C-, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/51 "2012-02-07T16:09:58Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > I don’t think you quite understand how the monarchy is financed. Yes, I do. I understand it perfectly, thanks. > [@](#): > > The only ones who receive taxpayer’s money are the Queen and her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh. They, in turn, give it to other members of their family. Whether you give 20 parcels of £1m to 20 people or one parcel of £20m to two people who then share it with their family doesn’t make much difference to the taxpayer. > [@](#): > > There are plenty of republics where the Head of State has numerous residences on taxpayer’s money – in fact many which outdo the British monarchy in terms of residences. France and America come to mind. So what? I am not arguing that the situation in some republics you refer to is right. I am arguing that the Queen and her family of parasites have done nothing to earn the vast wealth given to them by the British taxpayers. Also, while you can cite exceptions, most non-monarchical heads of state have to actually do something to achieve that status, such as win an election, and they can also be deposed. The Queen has never had to win an election nor can we get rid of her. This is also why the ‘she does ever such a good job’ argument is weak and irrelevant - we’d be stuck with her even if she didn’t. > [@](#): > > They are only parasites in the same manner in which the Presidents of Germany or Italy are parasites, i.e. they get money for doing the same job as the Queen (more in fact – the Queen doesn’t get a salary!) You are trying to obfuscate the issue, but not very successfully. Presidents are generally not presidents through hereditary principle, which means they to do something to attain their status. As for the ‘Queen does not get a salary’ argument, I have never suggested she does. A salary is something you have to earn, and something that can be stopped if you turn out to be incompetent. She receives a Civil List payment of many millions of pounds and also receives income through ownership of land. > [@](#): > > Again, your opinion, I think? Overall the Brits seem to think she’s done spectacularly well. Which Brits? I’m one, and I don’t think she’s done well, and I know many more who feel exactly the same way. How many Brits have you discussed this with? It is true that opinion polls in the UK consistently show a majority in support of _having a monarchy_. However, this isn’t the same as saying the current Parasite In Chief has done a good job. It’s possible to be in favour of the institution without necessarily thinking the current Monarch is any good. Nor does it explain or justify why the monarchy needs to be as expensive as it is nor why these people need to have vast wealth bestowed upon them. They haven’t done anything to earn it or to deserve it. What’s wrong with the idea that if someone wants to be paid a lot of money they should have to do some work to earn it? > [@](#): > > And as for her family, they’ve done no worse than anybody else would have done. There is no way of ascertaining if this is true or not, so it’s a meaningless assertion. > [@](#): > > Could you provide a link for this? Well, I could use Google to find the relevant press coverage of the story, but you can do that for yourself just as easily. > [@](#): > > In any case, I can provide links to certain liberties taken by many presidents As above, I am not discussing any presidents or justifying their actions or behaviour. I am expressing my opinion that the Queen is a disgusting and anachronistic parasite who soaks up vast amounts of money that could be better spent elsewhere, and on people who deserve it, and that she doesn’t even do her job well. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/52 "2012-02-07T16:52:53Z")
[quote=“ianzin, post:51, topic:611896”] Yes, I do. I understand it perfectly, thanks. > [@](#): > > They, in turn, give it to other members of their family. Whether you give 20 parcels of £1m to 20 people or one parcel of £20m to two people who then share it with their family doesn’t make much difference to the taxpayer. Do you have evidence for this? > [@](#): > > So what? I am not arguing that the situation in some republics you refer to is right. I am arguing that the Queen and her family of parasites have done nothing to earn the vast wealth given to them by the British taxpayers. Also, while you can cite exceptions, most non-monarchical heads of state have to actually do something to achieve that status, such as win an election, and they can also be deposed. The Queen has never had to win an election nor can we get rid of her. This is also why the ‘she does ever such a good job’ argument is weak and irrelevant - we’d be stuck with her even if she didn’t. We can get rid of her quite easily – Parliament simply passes an instrument declaring her no longer monarch. And the absence of her election is the whole _point_ – as someone earlier pointed out, the alternative is vicious attack ads and elections to a largely ceremonial role. There is a reason most countries don’t elect such a position. > [@](#): > > You are trying to obfuscate the issue, but not very successfully. Presidents are generally not presidents through hereditary principle, which means they to do something to attain their status. As for the ‘Queen does not get a salary’ argument, I have never suggested she does. A salary is something you have to earn, and something that can be stopped if you turn out to be incompetent. She receives a Civil List payment of many millions of pounds and also receives income through ownership of land. You’re right – presidents generally don’t inherit. But as the job is largely ceremonial, why bother electing it? Instead, people in general prefer having the position inherited to prevent the squalid competition and appeal to the lowest common denominator that election entails. > [@](#): > > Which Brits? I’m one, and I don’t think she’s done well, and I know many more who feel exactly the same way. How many Brits have you discussed this with? > > It is true that opinion polls in the UK consistently show a majority in support of _having a monarchy_. However, this isn’t the same as saying the current Parasite In Chief has done a good job. It’s possible to be in favour of the institution without necessarily thinking the current Monarch is any good. I can ask you the same question – who have you been talking to? You’re quite correct, of course, that you can like/hate the institution while liking/disliking the office-holder, but the general consensus is that Elizabeth has on the whole handled the position rather well. > [@](#): > > Nor does it explain or justify why the monarchy needs to be as expensive as it is nor why these people need to have vast wealth bestowed upon them. They don’t – any more than the President of Germany gets vast wealth bestowed upon them. Their personal wealth is theirs and is not supported by the taxpayer. It comes from personal investment portfolios. > [@](#): > > They haven’t done anything to earn it or to deserve it. What’s wrong with the idea that if someone wants to be paid a lot of money they should have to do some work to earn it? This gets into the messy question of whether elections are meritocratic 😉 > [@](#): > > There is no way of ascertaining if this is true or not, so it’s a meaningless assertion. I could say the same in response to you… > [@](#): > > Well, I could use Google to find the relevant press coverage of the story, but you can do that for yourself just as easily. I’m afraid a cursory scan hasn’t shown up terribly much, so unless I’m inept with Google I’ll have to ask you kindly to provide a link. > [@](#): > > As above, I am not discussing any presidents or justifying their actions or behaviour. I am expressing my opinion that the Queen is a disgusting and anachronistic parasite who soaks up vast amounts of money that could be better spent elsewhere, and on people who deserve it, and that she doesn’t even do her job well. And yet you _are_ by the sidelines justifying their behaviour while holding the Queen to a different standard: you claim she soaks up money better spent elsewhere, and yet haven’t demonstrated what she doesn’t do that the President of Germany does. There wouldn’t be any cost saved, as the cost of maintaining the Head of State would be the same under a republic. And please stop saying it’s anachronistic. It doesn’t impress me. Just because something is old does not make it a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/53 "2012-02-07T19:24:29Z")
> [@Hypno-Toad](#): > > It’s also sort of sad that by the nature of the position that she doesn’t get to see her sons coronation. Something that a mother would most want to see. Am I mistaken to think that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, could step down at any time, if she wanted to? I thought she could. > [@alphaboi867](#): > > Actually the King’s mother did _not_ by tradition attend her son’s coronation (at least if she’d been queen herself). Mary of Teck’s attendance at George VI’s coronation broke centuries of tradition. She only broke tradition to underscore support for her son after the Abdication Crisis. Monarchs do not normally attend coronations other than their own, and the same applies to their consorts. I’m pretty sure Queen Victoria’s mother attended her coronation, but she was only the Duchess of Kent, never queen-consort. Did Edward (the abdicator, Duke of Windsor, etc.) go to his brother’s (George VI’s) coronation? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/54 "2012-02-07T20:01:36Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Seriously, though, one can argue that a Canadian prime minister with a majority government is much more of an ‘elected dictatorship’ than the Queen. Party discipline ensures the back-benchers vote along party lines when it counts for the purposes of the PM; and the biggest counteracting action, a vote of non-confidence against the government, is much harder to achieve thanks to that party discipline. They said that about Trudeau, and they’re saying it about Harper. Well, there’s, you know, the rule of law. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2012, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/55 "2012-02-07T23:48:35Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > Am I mistaken to think that Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, could step down at any time, if she wanted to? I thought she could. She could, but there’s very little possibility of it happening. ‘Abdication’ is a dirty word for the British royal family. > [@](#): > > Did Edward (the abdicator, Duke of Windsor, etc.) go to his brother’s (George VI’s) coronation? No - he high-tailed it to southern France. He was never really welcome back in Britain ever again, and only ever came back in exceptional circumstances, such as his last days when he was rushed to hospital in London. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/56 "2012-02-08T00:15:41Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > No - he high-tailed it to southern France. He was never really welcome back in Britain ever again, and only ever came back in exceptional circumstances, such as his last days when he was rushed to hospital in London. The then-Duke of Windsor was ASSIGNED to France as a military attache. When his alleged Nazi Sympathies came to light he was sent to the Bahamas as governor. It’s often forgotten that Edward has a lot of personal issues aside from Wallis Simpson; he was almost universally regarded by everyone who knew him as a flake and an impulsive, immature doofus, and members of their own family expressed regret that Albert (George VI) hadn’t been born first - including, I should note, by his own father, King George V, who loved his children and all, but wasn’t stupid. It was remarked of Edward many times that he seemed to remain a teenager his whole life. An interesting bit of trivia is that he defied long custom by not have his portrait on coinage face the opposite way of his predecessor; George V faced left, so he should have faced right, because he didn’t like the way it made his hair look. When he abdicated a lot of people were extremely relieved; frankly, a lot of them were glad he’d met Wallis Simpson. As to whether or not he was a Nazi he wasn’t really (although he was a casual racist.) The truth is that he was just a complete buffoon. A moron. Stupid as a rock. Fascism found an admiring ear in Edward in large part because it’s simple and doesn’t require a lot of thought, and Edward was very simple indeed. Anyway. Her Majesty isn’t going to abdicate, ever, because to her _that means being like her idiot uncle_, and not like her grandfather and father, whom she adored (the feeling was mutual) and who set the example of service she seems to feel is her responsibility. Abdicating would be an awful betrayal. For the same reason, though, Charles will not step aside; he’d be betraying his mother. He’ll take the throne if he’s 85 and can wear it for just a few years, just because he’s probably afraid his mother will come back from the dead to kill him if he abdicates. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/57 "2012-02-08T01:49:19Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > It is true that opinion polls in the UK consistently show a majority in support of _having a monarchy_. However, this isn’t the same as saying the current Parasite In Chief has done a good job. It’s possible to be in favour of the institution without necessarily thinking the current Monarch is any good. I’d assume that the opinion polls that reflect support for the monarchy are supporting the current monarch. All of those younger than 60 years and two days have only known one monarch. Why do you not believe that she has not done a good job as Head of State? ---
**Author:** ![Candyman74](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Candyman74](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Candyman74)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/58 "2012-02-08T02:27:09Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > Which Brits? I’m one, and I don’t think she’s done well, You don’t speak for all of us. > [@](#): > > and I know many more who feel exactly the same way. Ditto but vice versa. Ain’t anecdotal evidence grand? ---
**Author:** ![Dublin11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Dublin11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dublin11)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/59 "2012-02-08T18:36:36Z")
If enough people in the UK were interested in overthrowing the monarchy and creating a republic, surely some political party would be running with abolitionism as part of its manifesto. This doesn’t seem to be the case. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but the only actual republican party I’ve ever heard of who had members elected to Westmister were Sinn Fein. Stood to reason for them, obviously. But they don’t get elected to there any more, of course. Is there a credible political British republican movement that I’ve just not heard about? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896/60 "2012-02-08T18:56:00Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The then-Duke of Windsor was ASSIGNED to France as a military attache. When his alleged Nazi Sympathies came to light he was sent to the Bahamas as governor. This, plus the note upthread about how consorts do not generally attend coronations…I wonder if these customs and traditions are remnants of a general uneasiness about usurpation. It’s been a while since the War of the Roses, and Bonnie Prince Charlie et al…but there may still be a general uneasiness amongst the royals about having more than one potential claimant to the throne around at the same time. (Most of my knowledge of British royalty comes from movies and PBS documentaries. I noticed in The King’s Speech, how on the death of George V, the first thing his survivors did – including his grieving widow – was to make obeisance to the new king.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/queen-elizabeth-celebrates-60-years-as-monarch/611896.md?page=4)