House of Windsor

Celebrating 60 years on the throne with a crap website

It is the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee after 60 years on the throne:

Queen Elizabeth celebrated 60 years on the throne on Monday to become the second British monarch to reach that milestone.

During her reign, the royal family has faced tumultuous times and moments of plummeting popularity, above all after the death in 1997 of Princess Diana, the hugely popular ex-wife of her son and heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles.

But the royals are enjoying fresh support after the wedding last year of the queen’s grandson, Prince William, second-in-line to the throne, to Catherine Middleton.

Elizabeth II, 85, became queen aged 25 on February 6, 1952 on the death of her father George VI, while on tour in Kenya with her husband Prince Philip.

And to celebrate all sorts of things are planned:

Celebrations on Monday will be low key. The queen will spend the day carrying out formal duties in Norfolk, eastern England, visiting a town hall and a junior school.

There will be gun salutes at the Tower of London and at Hyde Park, while two specially commissioned photographs of the queen and Prince Philip will be published on a?website launched to mark the jubilee.

Including a crap website that looks like it was built by 4 year olds.

At least it didn’t say inbred and adulterous

There is a bit of an upset in the UK about a BBC documentary that has been described as misleading and offensive:

It was misleading and offensive for the BBC documentary on George V and Queen Mary to overplay the Windsors? German heritage.

The BBC documentary on George V and Queen Mary was in many ways a suitable prelude to this year?s Diamond Jubilee. Its argument that George V, however unlikely a moderniser, set the monarchy on the path it has successfully followed since, was sound. As the Prince of Wales (the future Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor) wrote to his father on November 5, 1918, the British monarchy could survive what he described as ?the regular epidemic of revolutions and abdications? on the Continent ?only by keeping in the closest possible touch with the people? ? advice which George V may not have needed, but certainly followed.

In one respect, however, the BBC programme was misleading, and annoyingly so. It placed great emphasis on the Royal family?s German roots. Now, it is true that in 1917, in response to what the historian Roger Fulford called ?a very silly outcry ? largely engineered from Fleet Street?, George V changed the dynasty?s name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, and also that on one occasion his eldest son said he was ?three-quarters German?. Nevertheless, in saying this he was mistaken, and the Royal family?s Germanness has been much exaggerated. A recent example comes in Norman Davies?s book Vanished Kingdoms. Davies states that the family were essentially German, but ?honed their upper-class English accents, threw themselves into patriotic and charitable activities, spoke no German in public, deflected awkward questions, avoided their German relatives, and, in a sustained campaign of genealogical legerdemain, massaged the family tree beyond recognition?. Professor Davies is a distinguished historian; yet even distinguished historians sometimes write what is no better than rot.

Could have been worse I suppose, they could have described the royal family as inbred and adulterous.