It is the kind of spectacle Britain does best. The whole country is preparing for a long weekend of street parties and parades.

At the centre of it is a woman who has been a fixture of British life for 70 years. Few can remember a time before Elizabeth II was Queen. Her platinum jubileeMajor anniversaries of coronations and other public events are called jubilees, and named after materials of increasing value. Fifty years, for instance, is a golden jubilee. is proof of the sense of continuity she creates.

Elizabeth is the fourth monarch in history to celebrate a platinum jubilee, after Louis XIVA 17th-Century French king who expanded the powers of the French monarchy and turned his country into the greatest power in the world. However, by the end of his long, 72-year reign he had squandered much of this advantage. of France, Johann IIA 19th-Century Prince of Liechtenstein who issued the country's first and second constitutions. of LiechtensteinA microstate located in the Alps, between Switzerland and Austria. It has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world. and BhumibolKing of Thailand between 1946 and 2016. He was widely respected in Thailand but also criticised by activists who accused him of repressing his political opponents. of Thailand. She surpassed Johann to become the third-longest reigning monarch.

The jubilee serves as a reminder of how devoted many people in Britain are to the monarch.

Perhaps it is no surprise that people in other countries want a piece of the action. One political scientist in the USA, Curtis YarvinAn American political scientist who has been associated with the alt-right, although he rejects the label. He holds extreme libertarian and reactionary views and has also made racist comments about Black people., made waves when he argued that the USA should replace its system with a monarchy.

He believes the USA is an oligarchy. He thinks democratic governments with a separation of powersThe principle that the powers of the government - making laws, executing laws and adjudicating in legal cases - should be exercised by completely separate bodies within it. have an in-built tendency to meddle in people's lives.

Paradoxically, he argues, we would be freer under an authoritarian, unelected government with a monarch, because they would have no interest in interfering in our personal affairs.

Yarvin is a controversial figure, associated with the far-right, accused of holding profoundly racist views. He is not mainstream.

But he is not the only American who is interested in the monarchical model. Some with more moderate political views believe it is useful to have a figure who can stand above party politics.

They think America is divided because at any given time, around half the country has voted against the head of state. They suggest a neutral head of state with limited powers could act as a unifying figure.

Some historians think America almost did become a monarchy. It is thought that some revolutionaries invited a Prussian prince to be be king of the new America.

Historian Eric Nelson argues that the American Revolution was a monarchist movement, seeking to restore powers of the British monarchy that had been usurped by Parliament. 

He claims that many on the Patriot side wanted the king to rule the American colonies directly. And after the war, these American monarchists threw their energy into developing the next-best thing: a president with powers to rival those of a monarch.

Yes: Every system needs someone who can stand above the fray. A monarch with limited powers can be a symbol of national unity even as political parties battle it out.

No: A monarchy can be just as politically divisive as an elected president. No-one is even sure if the British monarchy will last past the reign of Elizabeth. Now would be a strange time to introduce a royal family.

Or... You cannot simply transplant the political system of one country directly into another. It takes time for institutions to develop and gain legitimacy. An American monarchy would need to develop organically.