Talk:Wedding anniversary

Modern?

Where do these come from? I see a link at the bottom to a Chicago Public library list, but the Library's list is not at all the same as this one? Ryanneve 03:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the list is wrong. I think someone tried to parse the CPL list and just wasn't paying attention. For example, the CPL list says the 9th anniversary is "Pottery (China) -- Leather goods", but the Wikipedia page says "Pottery, Willow -- Pottery -- China", as if some text parser saw "(China") and thought that was the second entry. I know these lists are not written in stone anywhere, but any Internet search will display lists that are practically identical to the CPL list, but nothing that matches the Wikipedia list. Timur tabi 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The modern table is surely some marketing idea by department stores or similar gift retailers? Where is the evidence for it origins or the fact that people are following it? Weddings and wedding anniversaries stir feelings of stability and tradition, so it is counter-inutitive that most individuals would not go to the traditional lists if given such an option. Having the modern lable also makes it subject to change how's about the mobile/cell phone anniversary or the therapy anniversary or what about the revision to the pre-nup aggrement anniversary "There we go darling, my gift to you is to rise the ante should we divorce". Dainamo 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

According to http://marriage.about.com/od/anniversariescelebrations/a/annivhistory.htm, the "modern" list is from 1937, by the American National Retail Jeweler Association, plus later additions. The "traditional" seems to have been from Emily Post's knowledge of tradition up to her time (and I for one would consider her a reliable informant on the subject).

However, the inclusion of Bismuth on the wikipedia page seems to be a joke, and it should probably be deleted!

For one thing, nothing is now MADE out of bismuth that could remotely be considered a gift, unless you count its alloys--notably modern pewter--and compounds. Then, web-searching (Googling, specifically) anniversary gifts bismuth tungsten turquoise 16th 20th vs. anniversary gifts -bismuth tungsten turquoise 16th 20th strongly suggests (but does not prove) that all lists containing bismuth have been copied from here!

BtW: The only general list I've found that includes 4 items for the 16th thru 19th has peridot, watches, tanzanite, and aquamarine, respectively: The version of "Modern" at www.weddingfavorreflections.com/page/1197296. (There is another list, much more frequent on the Web, that focuses ONLY on gems, with cat's eye instead of or in addition to tanzanite, from which the above is probably taken to fill in the hole.)

NOTE: I'm not trying to hide; I think I may have an account here, but can't find it! My frequent User Name: GeorgeTSLC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.222.130 (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The CPL List now comes up to a 404 page. Should the link be eliminated? 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.224.98.48 (talk)

Personally, and for my ha'penn'th, the Modern List is rubbish. Even the name Modern doesn't make any sense and refers nowhere in particular. Dutchdavey (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in compleate agreement, does anyone know of a source for an acceptable "Modern" list? If not, the list should at least be renamed... perhapse "1937 ANRJA Recomended List" or something? Metatron (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the gifts back to the original Chicago Public Library list. Unless there is a definitive source, people are going to come along and add nonsense like Tungsten and Bismuth. —Fournax (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "modern"

While there is a verifiable source, there are several for the marketing of wedding gifts. Such sources are not consistant with each other. If an article regarding a reputable single source is needed this should be separate, but the lack of agreement of such sources makes it totally unacceptable on this 'generic' table. Dainamo (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think 'a notable attempt in early modern marketing to establish modern gifts to sell' should be excluded from the article. I just have not been able to find a credible source that such gifts then became widely and uniformly accepted to the extent they can be listed the "modern gift list". The only other websources appear to be gleaned from each other. Dainamo (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The confusion here is over the 1937 list. It did not invent new anniversaries. It extended the existing list. References for other anniversaries have been sought at such web sources as [[1]], but even this source read in its entirety acknowledges "there are no gemstones" for these anniversaries. They are simply 'gift ideas'. Some editors have conflated this evidence to mean that these are the names for the anniversaries when the source does not even claim this. Lists to confirm this seem to be clones of what has appeared here on this page with various edits. If logic prevails, it is easy to see that things like "real estate" or "original pictures" are not part of any tradition, but other evidence to the contrary is welcome. Dainamo (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article still says the "Modern" list came from the Chicago Public Library, but the only reference (note #19) links to the Hallmark Blog, which cites Wikipedia as its reference! Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that platinum would be a 20-year anniversary gift when silver is given for 25 years and gold for 50 years. Platinum is many times more expensive than gold. 24.91.246.166 (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: Has anyone editing this article ever heard of the "modern" gift list outside of this wiki article? I've asked people from 6 countries now, including the US, and none of them had ever heard of it. I feel the only reason the list is "notable" is because this wikipedia page gives it undue prominence. --137.71.226.54 (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Answer: This should absolutely be removed. Vendors are welcome to share their own schemes on their websites, but Wikipedia is no place for seeding one's marketing ideas to a wider audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.58.252 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: Would it be reasonable to reinstate this list if it actually came from the Chicago Public Library? There is an archived site at [[2]] which appears to be from the CPL information center, with sources cited including: Anderson, Charles. "The Exchange," RQ 25 (1985): 175. / The World Almanac and Books of Facts. Mahwah, New Jersey: World Almanac Books, 1997. / World Book Encyclopedia, 1997 ed., s.v. "wedding anniversary."

German List

Is the German list really necessary? It seems to take up more than half of the entry, and it is at best somewhat interesting, but probably useless for most people searching this entry. Also, the article doesn't include the English ones. I don't speak German, so it is entirely possible that the German version includes the English version somewhere, but I digress. I'm not saying that that said German page is a reason to remove the German counterpart from the English entry, but I just feel this is an unnecessary part of the page. Drunkasian 19:22, 2005-05-16

I have to concur; it's not only trivia but (a) arguably irrelevant trivia, as I doubt many people even in Germany have ever celebrated their 6 1/4th wedding anniversary with a gift of mutton, (b) contains enough obviously-ridiculous entries (radium? Crown jewels?) to make the authenticity of the list look dubious, and (c) seriously unbalances the article. If anyone feels strongly that this information needs a place in English, perhaps they could create an article specially for "Alleged German Wedding Anniversay Traditions"? Haeleth 21:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the 'double diamond' anniversary

As far as I know only three English speaking couples have celebrated their 75th wedding aniversary;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/3583743.stm and they chose to call it a 'Diamond Gold' anniversary

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/156640.stm who called it a 'Gold and Silver' anniversary

and

http://www.abc.net.au/milduraswanhill/stories/s784768.htm

but I can't find any reference to what is was called

No, it should be restored. Flesh out the rest of the article, don't remove things. In particular, German countries seem to have been the entire origin of the idea in the first place so their list is relevant. — LlywelynII 06:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Aluminium/Aluminum

Since Aluminium appears only in the American column, it makes sense to rename it Aluminum. Kayman1uk 11:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And again Kayman1uk 21:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As per that decision, I've changed "jewellery" to "jewelry". Bobo. 05:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that "jewelry" only appears in the "modern" column, so that decision doesn't apply. Furthermore, looking over the MoS again, it becomes pretty clear that an article should be restricted to one spelling system or the other, not mixed, even if parts of the article relate to practices in different parts of the English-speaking world. As such, since this article has always predominantly used British spellings, I'm changing the anomolous American spellings back to the British forms (including "aluminium", for consistency), in accordance with what the MoS recommends. — Haeleth Talk 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This whole article has pieces that belong elsewhere and possibly nowhere in wikipedia. I think the wedding remarks should be merged into wedding. The unsourced identification of gifts at various points is sufficiently covered in anniversary. I think we should remove the mergto anniversary tag as the redirect should most likely lead to wedding and not anniversary.Alan.ca 21:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• No merge — I was searching specifically for the topic "Wedding anniversary" and found this page. I would not have looked for wedding for the information. The topic wedding anniversary merits its own article, albeit this article could be improved. — ERcheck (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you not have then looked in the page for anniversary ?

• Merge with Anniversary would seem OK to me. That page already duplicates most of this one, though there is some non-overlap. DFH 18:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that discussions about merging with wedding are at talk:wedding and discussions about merging with anniversary are at talk:anniversary - at least that is where the merge tags direct one to. In case anyone is counting votes here rather than there - I think wedding anniversary can stand on its own, and does not need to be merged, though it should be referenced in wedding, anniversary, and perhaps wedding traditions and customs. j-beda 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

It would be great if someone could add the symbolism of each anniversary. --203.122.234.30 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Masamage 08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Britney?

Albeit it's funny, but is there a source somewhere for it?

Nevermind, someone got it...

Traditional gifts

The traditional gifts list is hardly official. I don't think it's appropriate to define the official list of wedding gifts based on one author's opinion in one published book. Further, the link provided is full of pop up and in articles ads. A dubious source at best. Alan.ca 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't call it "official," but it is certainly a well-known list and an extremely common phenomenon. It should be mentioned and explained and talked about and well-sourced. (And Bartleby is the only place I know of the find the full text of that book online; if someone has a physical copy of the book, it would make a tidier citation, but of course wouldn't be a different source.) --Masamage 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the traditional gifts section Diamond is listed twice 60 years and 75 years. Can anyone confirm which is correct? --serps 20:28, 12 August 2007 (GMT)

100th anniversary? Has any couple in history ever celebrated a 100th anniversary?--71.185.41.90 (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding 100th anniversaries: I think this likely would be used for business-founding anniversaries (which often use the silver, gold, and diamond [75th] anniversary symbolism). Just a thought. Lawikitejana (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

British vs American Tradition

On what authority were the gift items of the first two years under the British tradition swapped? Prior to April 19th of 2007, the British tradition had cotton first, and paper second, and now it's been flipped to match the American tradition. Normally details such as these would go totally unnoticed by me, except I have been trapped in the discrepancy!! Last year was my first anniversary and I followed the "British" tradition.

Some person just flipped the years around and didn't justify it (from what I can tell in my extremely limited experience contributing to Wikipedia). Can I just change it back?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadohert (talk • contribs)

1st has always been paper in both traditions Dainamo 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is annoying as I also followed the "British" tradition as it was originally posted. Can we get this confirmed? --Ben 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This change was made 07:29, 19 Apr 2007 anonymously from 209.247.22.72 without commentary. As much as I'd like to say "just revert it" - I can't authoritatively say either version is correct or not. Anyone got a British etiquette book handy? FWIW, I too followed the British cotton first anniversary "tradition" last year (Wikipaedia never lies - it changes reality to match its facts). --Mgoodhew 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I had always though it was paper in year 1 - although this may just be that I'd only heard of the American list. From a quick Google nowhere else lists cotten as 1st and plenty list paper as 1st although don't specify whether it's American or English (but are .co.uk sites). I also had a wedding planner that listed paper first, and was bought in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.170.248 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The only list I can find that references the Traditional UK gifts is at www.anniversarygifts.co.uk/list.html. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why has the British list been removed completely? Along with the removal of the German information this entry is now not just English-speaking world centric, as noted by the flag at the top of the article, but entirely US-centric. Not very informative or complete at all? When was all the previously available information removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.186.251 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I fully agree with the removal, but the "British" (not UK, and possibly should be "English") list had no credible source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Golden not Gold

Checked this through google. While google is a blunt instrument it confirms this suspission overwhelmingly. Dainamo 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the anniversary is referred to as the "golden anniversary," but the list is a list of gifts, not a list of names for the various anniversaries. You can give someone a gift of gold, but you can't give someone golden, because golden is an adjective not a noun. PubliusFL 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While you cannot give golden, you can surely give a gift that is "golden". While this inevitably includes gold, the imaginative among us might also think of gifts such as a Golden Car, a Golden Retriever a romantic day trip on Golden Pond or even a Golden Goose!!. Dainamo (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is about gifts and traditionally it is a gift made of gold rather than something golden in color. But the anniversary is also mentioned in the lede as the "gold" anniversary. I'll change that to "golden". -- SiobhanHansa 12:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed picture

I removed the picture of "a couple celebrating their paper anniversary" because there is absolutely no reference as to how it is a paper anniversary (there's no paper in the picture) and it is most clearly a home picture taken as a memento. I don't find it encyclopaedic at all, but it may have been good faith. 79.71.2.215 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excrement?!?

Why are the Traditional 21st anniversary gifts listed as Excrement? I can find no other internet reference to support it. Is it vandalism?

MatadorBID (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It has been reverted. If you're still seeing it, hard-refresh (shift+f5 on IE, ctrl+R on Firefox) and you'll get the latest version. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Traditional diamond and diamond...

...How can the traditional wedding anniversaries for 60th and 75th both be "diamond"? Have some jewellers been editing this article? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The diamond was traditionally the 75th anniversary. However, when Queen Victoria's popularity was waning because of her reclusfulness over Prince Albert's death, it was decided to stage her Diamond Jubilee 15 years early to rally support. The Earl of Sutton was tasked with putting together the jubilee pageantry for this jubilee. The format of the pageantry that he came up with forms the basis of the jubilee celebrations that have been held ever since. Also since this jubilee, the 60th has also been known asthe diamond jubilee. 86.166.68.75 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional UK list

This seems to have got very corrupted over the years beyond the original citation to Pears. I've consulted a range of editions from the early 1960s to the late 1970s that I have, and the list as it stands now is consistent. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems it's been vandalized quite a bit. Tried to clean it up today, if anyone spots other problems, help is appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly the Pears listing is different from De Bretts. I always felt De Bretts was the proper reference guide for this type of thing (Paper and Cotton are different ways around). Is the article better as a reference to Pears in the 1970s, or De Bretts in the modern day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.244.18 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2014‎

As I stated above, the Pears list is consistent between - at least - the late-1960s and the late-1970s, and is thus surely a better reflection of actual tradition. The Debrett's list appears to be a mish-mash of both it and the American list, given that Pears does not list Anniversaries 11, 13, and 14, and Debrett's merely mirrors the American list for these. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Modern editions of Pears matches DeBretts for years 1 & 2.

Search inside http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pears-Cyclopaedia-2011-2012-Chris-Cook/dp/1846143756/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1401133154&sr=8-4&keywords=pears+cyclopedia for "wedding anniversary". If both are saying this is correct, the page should reference the current british, not only a 1960's-1970's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.63.215 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the meaning of the word "traditional." If Pear's has changed, then that's "modern," and doesn't affect the previous tradition. In fact, the 2014 edition also shows changes to the eighth, ninth, forty-fifth, and sixty-sixth, so there's more reason to retain the earlier version, as well. It's also notable that Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable shows a much more minimal list a lot earlier, so there's scope to include that, as well. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the list to reflect the fact that two current sources state that the **Traditional** UK list starts Paper then Cotton. https://www.anniversarygifts.co.uk/general-anniversary-articles/list-php/ and https://www.hitched.co.uk/wedding-planning/organising-and-planning/the-complete-wedding-anniversary-guide/ As per 'no original research' I actually think a source telling us what is traditional is better than us simply finding an old source and infering that it represents 'tradition'.. but I don't think either is any more authoritative than the Pears cyclopaedia; and as there is no such thing as an authoritative source on 'what is tradition' I think the conflict between the two positions merits both being shown in the article as an 'or ...' JeffUK (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Regnal anniversaries

Perhaps there could be a mention of regnal anniversaries - from List of longest-reigning monarchs there are two monarchs (and one pretender) who reached 80+ years, 15 rulers at 70+, some 50 at 60+, and 'many more' at 50+ years' rule. (It being one such anniversary, may currently reigning monarchs enjoy many more.) Jackiespeel (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely this is off-topic for an article on Wedding Anniversary. Spathaky (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned here mainly as 'the list of terms' is here and they are applied in other contexts. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite. It seems to have started with the royals and been brought over to other weddings. It is relevant and should be mentioned. They're usually called jubilees, though. — LlywelynII 06:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

90th Wedding Anniversary/Attribution

I'm unable to find a reliable source (not in the Chicago Public Library list or other provided links) for the 'Carved Marble' entry at the 'U.S Modern'/'90th' tuple. If this is a humorous reference to gravestones, it is certainly in very poor taste. Will continue searching for a citation. 81.159.191.246 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Slim Jims and sweat pants?

Somebody has added slim jims and sweat pants as modern gifts for 35th anniversary. Seem like some vandalism to me.184.36.134.83 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Presumably 'engraved marble/granite' for 90th is a 'joke' and in very poor taste too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithuk (talk • contribs) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful links?

A number of links for people

• https://shayariimage.com
• http://anniversariesbyyear.com
• http://www.anniversarygifts.co.uk
• http://www.debretts.com/british-etiquette/rites-passage/wedding-anniversaries/british-anniversaries
• http://www.piajewellery.com/a-gemstone-to-celebrate-every-wedding-anniversary-artlanniversary_gemstones

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_precious_substances

79.79.100.92 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The Debrett's page is wrong, as the list is a mish-mash of traditional UK and US lists. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Who cares?

What notability does the Chicago public library have?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's the identified source of the US dates/gifts. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Giant metal chicken?

Is the traditional 15th wedding anniversary gift really a giant metal chicken? 142.242.18.254 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in some parts of Texas? see http://thebloggess.com/2011/06/and-thats-why-you-should-learn-to-pick-your-battles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.241.22 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Source for flowers and gemstones

Someone added flower and gemstone lists, but there are no sources. I think it's interesting and would like to keep it, but with sources if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilbot (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is still no source for flowers, and I can't find any source with the same flowers as those listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.79.247 (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Golden Wedding or Golden Anniversary?

This English reader has never heard "Golden Anniversary", (etc.), only ever "Golden wedding" (etc.) Do others agree? Herbgold (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's a golden wedding anniversary or golden anniversary, not a golden wedding unless there's a ceremony with a renewal of vows. That said, Google Books suggests you're not remotely alone in your bizarre (mis)usage. (Ngrams mistates the frequency by including results for golden wedding bands or rings but if you really dig in there are some uses like yours where people go from talking about a golden wedding celebrations to just golden weddings.) — LlywelynII 03:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

On further examination, it seems to be a historical (mis)usage brought over from German where the same word covers both weddings and wedding anniversaries. — LlywelynII 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

12th Anniversary

The 12th Anniversary lists "Star Wars Video Games & Small Bottles of Booze". Which makes me really excited for 10 years down the road. But I doubt my wife will be as jazzed as I am. Please revert.

00:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)PLS

 Resolved The UK, being far more classy of course, goes for "Downton Abbey collectibles". :D (This was quite easy to fix yourself you know, just check out the page history tab to see where this vandalism happened, then hit "undo".) OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information about 4th anniversary

I am certain that in the UK the 4th Anniversary is Linen. This is backed up by the following sources in the UK that all say the 4th is linen.

The gift experience (https://www.thegiftexperience.co.uk/anniversary-gifts-by-year/index.html) Not on the High Street (https://www.notonthehighstreet.com/search?utf8=✓&term=4th wedding anniversary&filter[category_id]=15000) anniversarygifts.co.uk (http://www.anniversarygifts.co.uk/index.php) confetti.co.uk (https://www.confetti.co.uk/occasions/anniversaries-ataglance)

In the USA the tradition is that the 4th anniversary is fruit or flowers. the following sources all agree.

https://www.anniversariesbyyear.com/4thanniversary.php http://www.alovelylifeindeed.com/2016/05/lovely-things-fourth-anniversary-gift.html https://www.allfreediyweddings.com/DIY-Anniversary-Gifts-for-Him-Her/Modern-and-Traditional-Anniversary-Gifts-by-Year

This source from AUstralia makes it clear that linen is the UK and fruit/flowers is the UK:

https://www.eternityrose.com.au/anniversary-gifts-by-year Ruby Nut (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Anniversary gift" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anniversary gift. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Etym & RFC on moves

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 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)