Jump to content

Talk:Diamond jubilee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sometimes 75 years in Australia too

[edit]

It says here that in Diamond Jubilee is 60 years in Australia (etc.) and 75 years in America. Yet, this year the Sydney Harbour Bridge at 75 years old (as documented in its Wikipedia page) celebrated its Diamond Jubilee (also documented on its page). The bridge is located in Australia. The NYE bridge effect involved a coat hanger and a diamond even in its honour. --124.184.252.56 10:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 60 versus 75 question, I think the answer is as follows:

If we are talking about an event that depends on a person's longevity (e.g. length of time two people have been married, length of time a person has reigned as king or queen, etc.), then the Diamond Jubilee is celebrated at 60 years. The very practical reason for this, is that they might not be around by 75 years!

On the other hand, if we are speaking about the founding of an institution (e.g. a college or a university), the Diamond Jubilee of its founding will be observed at 75 years.

The example cited above is consistent with my view. The Diamond Jubilee of the erection of the Sydney Harbour Bridge would be celebrated at 75 years, because the occurrence of the jubilee does not depend on anyone's longevity.

Therefore, the article should be corrected to reflect this.

130.13.4.81 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.81 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it adds anything, there's a Simpsons episode of Itchy and Scratchy where they describe their 75th anniversary as a diamond jubilee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.237.59 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it changed from 75 to 60?

[edit]

I don't really understand the following sentence:

This changed when, due to national unrest when the British Queen Victoria following her withdrawal from public life after her husband's death, it was decided to bring the diamond jubilee forward to the 60th anniversary in 1897.

I'd re-word it if I new what it was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.62.233 (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Someone has managed to mangle it with a long rambling sentence that loses its way part way through. Hopefully, my reword makes more sense. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it still makes little sense: why would national unrest in 1861 influence an event to be held 36 years later? There must be another explanation IMO - e.g. (my OR) that Victoria was not expected to live to her 75th anniversary, as indeed no British monarch yet has.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, QV's withdrawal from public appearances turned public oppinion against her, particualarly, the often vocal republicanists who questioned why the public were paying for a monarch that was rarely seen. This was not immediately apparent in 1861, but opposition to the monarchy increased steadily as time went on. What I do know is that it was the then Earl of Sutton's idea to hold the diamond jubilee 15 years early and to dress it in pomp an ceremony the like of which had never been seen before (to return a sense of pride in the monarchy - largely worked as well). The jubilee celebrations since (not to mention coronations) have been directly modelled on Sutton's lavish ceremony.
Queen Victoria's coronation was a travesty of errors and cock ups. The Archbishop of Canterbury turned over two pages of his order of service by mistake and shortened the whole coronation service by around 6 minutes. One lord tripped on the platform around the throne while paying his homage and landed in Queen Victoria's lap. The ceremony was also completely unrehearsed at that time (which may be why the archbish failed to notice the error). 109.145.21.107 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the UK

[edit]

TBH, I don't see the need for Lilliebet's entry at this article. Yes, I know plans are being made for her Diamond Jubilee. But, for these last few yers, rehersals for her funeral have also been occuring yearly. Shall we put her entry in a 'state funerals' article or create a Funeral for Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article? GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to keep it given that there is a definitive date for the future event (if it occurs). The comparison to the date of her funeral is inappropriate given that date cannot be predicted (regardless of the fact this it is infinitely more inevitable). Toby Sullivan (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be preferable to add something on the only Diamond Jubilee ever actually celebrated, in 1897, for Victoria...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it has been changed to the past tense ("marked her Diamond Jubilee between 2 and 5 June 2012".) While I agree that Elizabeth II's jubilee should be mentioned, as it is planned to be held and the year has already begun, it seems very odd to write that it was "marked" when it's only February still. In a strict sense, that sentence is just false, as we can't say anything has happened in June 2012 since it's not June yet! After all, there's a 99.99% chance that the London Olympics will occur (barring, I don't know, an alien invasion) but the article still says they "are scheduled to take place" versus "took place" in June.
(If anything, Elizabeth's jubilee is marginally less likely to take place than the Olympics, as her death (though I don't wish it!) would end that, versus some sort of catastrophic disaster or war for the Olympics...) 67.52.194.18 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion arises because the diamond jubilee itself is in the past (having occured on the 6th February 2012), though the official celebrations have not yet taken place (June 2012). 109.145.21.107 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language in this paragraph isn't that neutral 'The Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen is a truly special occasion. To have reigned for so long and with such dignity and devotion to duty is a wonderful achievement.' this is odd.. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.195.66 (talk)

Possible pic

[edit]

Painting of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/queen-victorias-diamond-jubilee-service-22-june-1897-51041

Author died 1920.

©Geni 21:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60 = Diamond Jubliee; 75 = Platinum Jubliee

[edit]

Incorrect usage of the 60 years and 75 years to mark the jubilees. Check this with the Oxford dictionary, which is the primary reference for English as a language.

60 = Diamond Jubliee; 75 = Platinum Jubliee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staryash (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing a 75=Platinum jubilee definition to Oxford is itself incorrect...75 is traditionally Diamond if anything,though "Golden Diamond" has been proposed for QE II if she makes it that far,with 70 suggested as "Platinum".
The article is misleading in saying a diamond jubilee was "originally celebrated on a 75th anniversary",as no monarch has yet held a 75-year-of-reign celebration in Europe...the point is the diamond word has been used for 75th anniversaries before 1897 though marriages that long have always been extremely rare (Prince Mikasa having the only royal one in history).--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved without opposition. bd2412 T 04:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Jubilee → Diamond jubilee – According to dictionaries. iyouwetheyhesheit (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etym & RFC on moves

[edit]

From the discussion at Talk:Golden jubilee:

Yes, there should be a much better treatment on the origin of the idea. Currently, the only thing Wikipedia has is an offhand mention on "Anniversary" that Emily Post had a rump list of materials in her Etiquette. Surely she was merely reporting on the usual conventions in upper class society at the time, though, and there should be something from before that on where this specific connection between gold and 50 came from. Wiktionary entries and OED cites seem to suggest that the original English usage was jubilee for 50 years; that the Germans started having family celebrations at 25 and 50 years distinguished as the silver and gold jubilees, feasts, or "weddings" (one German word for "wedding" being inclusive of anniversary celebrations); that these were known to the English but uncommon except as descriptions of German habits until the 1850s or so, presumably becoming more common through the German connections of the monarchy; and developed into something of a hierarchy by the end of Victoria's reign (her 50th year as queen was the Royal Jubilee but the 60th was the Diamond Jubilee) and by 1922 Emily Post had a full list in Etiquette for 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50, 75. (Ignoring that Vicky's diamond was the 60th anniversary, she marked the 75th as diamond.)

Kindly fix the historical and etymological parts of this page here but direct other replies there. — LlywelynII 06:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond_jubilee&oldid=1201504928"