Options
American TV Network Coverage of the Royal baby
RussJ
Posts: 206 Forum Member
✭
It seems that the American TV networks have gone overboard for this Royal baby. It sometimes make me wonder why they ever fought the war if they love our Royal family so much.
However, one British pop star currently touring the States was not impressed with one of the reports he has seen where the reporter is unclear who the father of the new baby is!
:eek:
However, one British pop star currently touring the States was not impressed with one of the reports he has seen where the reporter is unclear who the father of the new baby is!
:eek:
0
Comments
''The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have given birth to a son''
a remarkable medical achievement I haven't seen anywhere else.
He looked quite well considering he'd just given birth
Try talking virtually continuously all day, I am sure you will make the odd mistake. The newspapers manage it all the time even though they have time to check and correct things.
Well, this is interesting. That is, your commenting on it is interesting. It makes me wonder if the UK has been spared something that I notice happening more and more among "politically correct" middle class married couples in the US and Canada, and that is for the husband and wife to talk like they are BOTH pregnant (saying things like "We're pregnant"), as if making a point of the whole thing being a shared experience rather than a wife's burden.
That annoys me to regarding Queen of England. It would be easier if we were known by one single name - the Olympics annoyed me as it should have been Team GB+NI. I do wonder what the people of NI think when people address us all as Great Britain.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And they wouldn't want a monarchy in the US either.
By the way, I spotted on an American news web site that they were calling us British folk Subjects. Correction US media, we are citizens.
Northern Ireland competitors are not hard done by! They can choose if they want to participate for Ireland or GB.
Have you ever looked how much POTUS costs them?
He has several 'palaces' and of course a fleet of aircraft and helicopters. I would not be surprised if his car, The Beast, with its backup vehicles costs more than the total cost of all the ones in the garage at Buckingham Palace.
No, we are subjects! REPUBLICS have citizens!
Didn't Thatcher say "we are a grandmother!"?:)
According to the British nationality act 1981 we are now citizens and not subjects
Precisely.
If you were born in the UK before 1 January 1983, you are almost certainly a British citizen. The only exception is if you were born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity.
If you were born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983, you are a British citizen if at the time of your birth one of your parents was:
a British citizen; or
legally settled in the UK.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/Britishcitizenship/borninukorqualifyingterritory/
Be a subject if you wish. Most of the rest of us are citizens.
Personally, I couldn't care less.
I suppose we could pay lots of money to some design consultants to come up with a completely incomprehensible single word name but I have no problem with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Many countries have a longer formal name and a shorter one that is normally used.
That is true, but when some Americans pick England as that name it is insulting to the rest of the UK.
This reminds me of a few days ago when I was listening to (the very left wing I must say) Australian Broadcasting Corporation's radio broadcasts on the subject. They kept on saying "the British Royal Family" and the "British Queen", it got me thinking, hold on she is your Queen too so they should instead be saying the Royal Family and the Queen. In contrast the CBC in Canada addresses them "Her Majesty" and so on.
She's the head of the Commonwealth.
I don't think that she's Empress of India anymore, although he is the Duke of Normandy.
But the President`s relatives do not draw income from the state the way the Queen`s family do. Plus the President is elected.
She is head of the Commonwealth. But not Queen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not a state therefore it cannot have a Monarch.
The POTUS does NOT have several "palaces", fleets of aircraft and helicopters to call his own!! The White House is not the Presidents own place, as opposed to Buckingham Place which will always be the home of the Royal Family, as he will have to vacate it when he leaves office in 3 years time, as well as he will have to relinquish all the Air Force One fleets and Marine One fleets, even The Beast, when he leaves office!! He probably has a place in Illinois, where he was a Senator before he became President, and he, obviously, has a place in Hawaii, where he was born. Also, Camp David does not belong to him exclusively as ALL Presidents go there!! But in no way does he have mansions and palaces scattered throughout the country, exhausting citizens taxes, like the Royal Family does here!!
When he leaves office, he will probably have a scaled down security team, as all Presidents do when they leave office, but, for the most part, he will go back to being a normal citizen, like everyone else!!:D:D