True but the fact is still over all the majority don't care but yes enough care to have them do the story but when they say the entire nation gripped a major exaggeration when in reality not even a quarter care
Yet again, so what?
The death/funeral of Maggie Thatcher. The wedding of William and Kate. The Olympics. The Ashes. The Jubilee. The Champions League.....I could go on, but all these events are big newsworthy events, but in the same breathe, will no doubt garner the support/interest from only a minority of the population. This isn't a new phenomenon which I again suspect you know.
Like it or not, the birth of a future King or Queen (who will reign over something like 16 countries) is big news and it will garner a lot of interest.
Ahh, you know what, we're going around in circles...
The death/funeral of Maggie Thatcher. The wedding of William and Kate. The Olympics. The Ashes. The Jubilee. The Champions League.....I could go on, but all these events are big newsworthy events, but in the same breathe, will no doubt garner the support/interest from only a minority of the population. This isn't a new phenomenon whilst I again suspect you know.
Like it or not, the birth of a future King or Queen (who will reign over something like 16 countries) is big news and it will garner a lot of interest.
Ahh, you know what, we're going around in circles...
And that was my point that most don't care I never once said it wasn't newsworthy
Sure I am. Both couples are celebs with a high media profile encouraged by their PR people and clearly what the Beckhams name their kids is not less news worthy because it creates yards of column inches in just the same way that the naming of the Windsor kid does. You said that the naming of the Windsor kid was on the front page and it was a big story, well the Beckham kids names make front pages too. I don't know what needs explaining actually. That you consider state sponsored celebrities more news worthy or important than football or pop celebrities doesn't come into it really.
Erm, no I didn't.
And, the birth of a monarch likely to reign over 16 countries IS much bigger news than the naming of a footballers child.
"State sponsored celebrities" - oh, that's so funny and silly at the same time.
The death/funeral of Maggie Thatcher. The wedding of William and Kate. The Olympics. The Ashes. The Jubilee. The Champions League.....I could go on, but all these events are big newsworthy events, but in the same breathe, will no doubt garner the support/interest from only a minority of the population. This isn't a new phenomenon whilst I again suspect you know.
Like it or not, the birth of a future King or Queen (who will reign over something like 16 countries) is big news and it will garner a lot of interest.
Ahh, you know what, we're going around in circles...
The narrative is that the royals are very important because the world's media have been camping out in London and the Windsor kid is on front pages. The narrative should be, we live in the age of 24 hour broadcasting and news channels need to fill time in a way that is a) cheap and b) enough people will accept without turning off. They will do this by camping out wherever celebrities are and celebrity weddings, kids, naming of kids etc are sold, and accepted by enough people (for the time being at least) as newsworthy.
It doesn't make the objects of the media focus intrinsically important. Some will attach their own importance to the birth of a child that might at some point in the future become the unelected and ceremonial (celeb) head of state, and others will be more breathless with excitement at the thought of the Jolie-Pitts get married or whatever.
Well, the royal wedding etc was predicted to boost the economy too. It didn't. Let's be honest, a few people will buy a teatowel or a cup with royal nonsense on but the rest of us are unlikely to rush out to buy a nappies unless we already have a baby to look after.
Post 84: "Front page of NBC news this morning....yep, "Prince's name to be revealed 'in due course'". Like it or not, it's a pretty big story."
Erm, that's a little out of context. That was me responding to an FM stating the birth is not a big story. It is a big story and my link to a US news site served to highlight this point. The headline itself wasn't relevant per-se, so long as it was about the Royal birth is all I was looking for.
Well, the royal wedding etc was predicted to boost the economy too. It didn't. Let's be honest, a few people will buy a teatowel or a cup with royal nonsense on but the rest of us are unlikely to rush out to buy a nappies unless we already have a baby to look after.
So which naming of which footballers child was followed by a prediction of economic growth from it?
True but the fact is still over all the majority don't care but yes enough care to have them do the story but when they say the entire nation gripped a major exaggeration when in reality not even a quarter care
I am one of those that don't care, I have been reading some of the articles (being very selective) but there is an awful lot of tripe being printed even in papers such as the Times and no doubt the Telegraph(i've not seen it yet). I do look at some of the pictures and think what sad losers go and stand outside a palace to cheer the birth of a baby they don't know and will never know. What sort of people believe that one family is better than everybody else. But it is news even if you or I don't agree with the Monarchy.
I think it was predicted that tourism would increase over the following years, to the tune of £2bn. Whether this happens is another matter.
Events like this will undoubtedly make people from other parts of the world think 'we should go there on holiday'. I don't go along with the view that just as many people would come to see the buildings even if there was no longer a monarchy. Some would, but I'm sure things like this help to boost tourism.
Erm, that's a like out of context. That was me responding to an FM stating the birth is not a big story. It is a big story and my link to a US news site served to highlight this point. The headline itself wasn't relevant per-se, so long as it was about the Royal birth is all I was looking for.
It's what you said.
You: Front page of NBC news this morning....yep, "Prince's name to be revealed 'in due course'". Like it or not, it's a pretty big story.
Me: You said that the naming of the Windsor kid was on the front page and it was a big story
You: Erm, no I didn't.
Well, you did. There's no context to consider here, certianly not one that would change the meaning of the above.
I think you'll be in the minority.
No one knows for sure.
So which naming of which footballers child was followed by a prediction of economic growth from it?
No idea and I wasn't making a point that this happens. My point is that the last royal economic boost prediction didn't pan out.
Sure I am. Both couples are celebs with a high media profile encouraged by their PR people and clearly what the Beckhams name their kids is not less news worthy because it creates yards of column inches in just the same way that the naming of the Windsor kid does. You said that the naming of the Windsor kid was on the front page and it was a big story, well the Beckham kids names make front pages too. I don't know what needs explaining actually. That you consider state sponsored celebrities more news worthy or important than football or pop celebrities doesn't come into it really.
You can't compare the media ***** that are the Beckham's to Royalty. I know the Beckham's like to think they are royalty but most of the world couldn't give a stuff what they named their child. Only the celebrity obsessed of the world cared.
You can't compare the media ***** that are the Beckham's to Royalty. I know the Beckham's like to think they are royalty but most of the world couldn't give a stuff what they named their child. Only the celebrity obsessed of the world cared.
Same can be said for the Royal baby most don't give damn what they call it
Events like this will undoubtedly make people from other parts of the world think 'we should go there on holiday'. I don't go along with the view that just as many people would come to see the buildings even if there was no longer a monarchy. Some would, but I'm sure things like this help to boost tourism.
I don't understand the logic of the BIB. Why would it make people want to come here on holiday? They're hardly going to see this infant, are they? If you mean it serves as a reminder that there is a monarchy here, well, yes, but don't they know that already?
You can't compare the media ***** that are the Beckham's to Royalty. I know the Beckham's like to think they are royalty but most of the world couldn't give a stuff what they named their child. Only the celebrity obsessed of the world cared.
Personally I don't care about either, but the point is that all kinds of celebrities have the world's media hanging on their every move and we get front pages informing us of all kinds of tripe. The royals are only *more important* to some people. Others would trample over Willy Windsor to get to Harry Styles.
You can't compare the media ***** that are the Beckham's to Royalty. I know the Beckham's like to think they are royalty but most of the world couldn't give a stuff what they named their child. Only the celebrity obsessed of the world cared.
I rather suspect globally more people have heard of David Beckham than Prince William. Ergo, I'm calling cobblers.
I don't understand the logic of the BIB. Why would it make people want to come here on holiday? They're hardly going to see this infant, are they? If you mean it serves as a reminder that there is a monarchy here, well, yes, but don't they know that already?
I'd also argue against the point that more tourists wouldn't come here if we had no Monarchy. I think opening all the state-owned residences for viewing, especially with regards to all the art-work would greatly increase tourism. It hasn't done Versailles in France any harm.
I don't understand the logic of the BIB. Why would it make people want to come here on holiday? They're hardly going to see this infant, are they? If you mean it serves as a reminder that there is a monarchy here, well, yes, but don't they know that already?
It's simply a great free advert. Instead of looking in a brochure and seeing pictures of London alongside Paris, Madrid, Dublin and dozens of other locations they see TV pictures of people moving about around our great tourist attractions. There is always an extra little bit of excitement in going somewhere you've seen on TV - maybe standing in the spot you've seen someone else standing in to celebrate something like this.
It will just help to tip the balance when people aren't too sure where they'd like to go.
I am sure I cannot be the only one who has watched less TV News than usual in the last 24 hours in order to avoid these unedifying scenes of sycophancy.
For me this would be physically impossible.
According to my elderly mum's mate in New York the old biddies she knows over there are crying with excitement over this news. Reminds me of the ancient ladies on the news broadcasts shovelling multiple copies of Candle In The Wind '97 into their shopping baskets to give to their families and friends as presents.
Comments
Yet again, so what?
The death/funeral of Maggie Thatcher. The wedding of William and Kate. The Olympics. The Ashes. The Jubilee. The Champions League.....I could go on, but all these events are big newsworthy events, but in the same breathe, will no doubt garner the support/interest from only a minority of the population. This isn't a new phenomenon which I again suspect you know.
Like it or not, the birth of a future King or Queen (who will reign over something like 16 countries) is big news and it will garner a lot of interest.
Ahh, you know what, we're going around in circles...
And that was my point that most don't care I never once said it wasn't newsworthy
Erm, no I didn't.
And, the birth of a monarch likely to reign over 16 countries IS much bigger news than the naming of a footballers child.
"State sponsored celebrities" - oh, that's so funny and silly at the same time.
Edit: I wonder if the naming of a footballers child is ever predicted to boost the economy? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/23/royal-baby-economy-boost_n_3638066.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
But you did say it's not a big event, which it is.
No I said most people don't care which is true
The narrative is that the royals are very important because the world's media have been camping out in London and the Windsor kid is on front pages. The narrative should be, we live in the age of 24 hour broadcasting and news channels need to fill time in a way that is a) cheap and b) enough people will accept without turning off. They will do this by camping out wherever celebrities are and celebrity weddings, kids, naming of kids etc are sold, and accepted by enough people (for the time being at least) as newsworthy.
It doesn't make the objects of the media focus intrinsically important. Some will attach their own importance to the birth of a child that might at some point in the future become the unelected and ceremonial (celeb) head of state, and others will be more breathless with excitement at the thought of the Jolie-Pitts get married or whatever.
Ah, yes you did. But since when has an event garnered interest from the majority, especially in todays climate?
Post 84: "Front page of NBC news this morning....yep, "Prince's name to be revealed 'in due course'". Like it or not, it's a pretty big story."
Yes, I know, and that we tolerate this in a democracy in 2013 is the biggest joke.
Well, the royal wedding etc was predicted to boost the economy too. It didn't. Let's be honest, a few people will buy a teatowel or a cup with royal nonsense on but the rest of us are unlikely to rush out to buy a nappies unless we already have a baby to look after.
Erm, that's a little out of context. That was me responding to an FM stating the birth is not a big story. It is a big story and my link to a US news site served to highlight this point. The headline itself wasn't relevant per-se, so long as it was about the Royal birth is all I was looking for.
I think you'll be in the minority.
So which naming of which footballers child was followed by a prediction of economic growth from it?
I think it was predicted that tourism would increase over the following years, to the tune of £2bn. Whether this happens is another matter.
https://www.adoberoyalbabycard.com/
Have not read the whole thread but I for one would like to wish Will and Kate a big congratulations.
I am one of those that don't care, I have been reading some of the articles (being very selective) but there is an awful lot of tripe being printed even in papers such as the Times and no doubt the Telegraph(i've not seen it yet). I do look at some of the pictures and think what sad losers go and stand outside a palace to cheer the birth of a baby they don't know and will never know. What sort of people believe that one family is better than everybody else. But it is news even if you or I don't agree with the Monarchy.
Events like this will undoubtedly make people from other parts of the world think 'we should go there on holiday'. I don't go along with the view that just as many people would come to see the buildings even if there was no longer a monarchy. Some would, but I'm sure things like this help to boost tourism.
It's what you said.
You: Front page of NBC news this morning....yep, "Prince's name to be revealed 'in due course'". Like it or not, it's a pretty big story.
Me: You said that the naming of the Windsor kid was on the front page and it was a big story
You: Erm, no I didn't.
Well, you did. There's no context to consider here, certianly not one that would change the meaning of the above.
No one knows for sure.
No idea and I wasn't making a point that this happens. My point is that the last royal economic boost prediction didn't pan out.
You can't compare the media ***** that are the Beckham's to Royalty. I know the Beckham's like to think they are royalty but most of the world couldn't give a stuff what they named their child. Only the celebrity obsessed of the world cared.
Same can be said for the Royal baby most don't give damn what they call it
I don't understand the logic of the BIB. Why would it make people want to come here on holiday? They're hardly going to see this infant, are they? If you mean it serves as a reminder that there is a monarchy here, well, yes, but don't they know that already?
Personally I don't care about either, but the point is that all kinds of celebrities have the world's media hanging on their every move and we get front pages informing us of all kinds of tripe. The royals are only *more important* to some people. Others would trample over Willy Windsor to get to Harry Styles.
I rather suspect globally more people have heard of David Beckham than Prince William. Ergo, I'm calling cobblers.
I'd also argue against the point that more tourists wouldn't come here if we had no Monarchy. I think opening all the state-owned residences for viewing, especially with regards to all the art-work would greatly increase tourism. It hasn't done Versailles in France any harm.
It's simply a great free advert. Instead of looking in a brochure and seeing pictures of London alongside Paris, Madrid, Dublin and dozens of other locations they see TV pictures of people moving about around our great tourist attractions. There is always an extra little bit of excitement in going somewhere you've seen on TV - maybe standing in the spot you've seen someone else standing in to celebrate something like this.
It will just help to tip the balance when people aren't too sure where they'd like to go.
According to my elderly mum's mate in New York the old biddies she knows over there are crying with excitement over this news. Reminds me of the ancient ladies on the news broadcasts shovelling multiple copies of Candle In The Wind '97 into their shopping baskets to give to their families and friends as presents.