+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

  1. #1

    sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    I can't be the only one who feels sick every time a story on the royals comes up on the BBC? Today's one on Harry in Africa is particularly nauseating.

    I thought that the BBC had to be impartial, but they're clearly not on this issue.

  2. #2
    Hero member bindeweede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hertfordshire.
    Posts
    3,205

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Only slightly away from the Beeb, but I came across this from the British Council -
    www.teachingenglish.org.uk

    We all love 'em - don't we?

    http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/fi...g/royal_ws.pdf


    Sorry, it is a pdf , and I have no idea how I could convert it into something else.

    Oh, and isn't Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not "The Queen of England"?

    Does it matter? But I'd have thought The British Council might have got it right.

    But I could have got it wrong.


    [Seren, thanks for pointing out the wrong link. Now corrected]
    Last edited by bindeweede; 9th July 2008 at 06:00 PM. Reason: Added comment. Also correction.

  3. #3

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Yuk.

    and it's only going to get worse. Can you imagine what it'll be like when william gets married? I think I might have to emigrate.

  4. #4

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Do you think they'd allow a pro-republic protest outside the wedding?

  5. #5
    Hero member bindeweede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hertfordshire.
    Posts
    3,205

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by puzzlebobble View Post
    Yuk.

    and it's only going to get worse. Can you imagine what it'll be like when william gets married? I think I might have to emigrate.
    Sorry, I'm rambling now - not uncommon - but I remember I went on a day-trip to France when Charles and Diana got married. I had quite a nice time in Boulogne (spelling?). Very nice cheese shop up near the castle......

  6. #6

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Very wise.

    I went to my cousin's wedding near Strasbourg a couple of years ago. They do good weddings in france; sat all day in a vineyard drinking wine and eating cheese.

    Maybe we could suggest they have the wedding abroad. Las Vegas maybe.

  7. #7
    Hero member bindeweede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hertfordshire.
    Posts
    3,205

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by puzzlebobble View Post
    Very wise.

    I went to my cousin's wedding near Strasbourg a couple of years ago. They do good weddings in france; sat all day in a vineyard drinking wine and eating cheese.

    Maybe we could suggest they have the wedding abroad. Las Vegas maybe.
    Rather warm. Antarctica? "Cool". Hate that word.

  8. #8
    the truth is out there
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,448

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    The royals generate useful tourist revenue for the economy. Since this country makes next to nothing these days, they get my vote.

  9. #9

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by Mulder View Post
    The royals generate useful tourist revenue for the economy. Since this country makes next to nothing these days, they get my vote.
    But they could do it a lot cheaper and without so much personal privilege. I'm afraid that argument falls into the trap of the Excluded Middle 8)

  10. #10

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Bindeweede your first link is wrong, it's a for-sale domain with ads on it. I think you need to add "UK to the end?

    I have a real soft spot for the British Council so I was dreading opening that PDF. Actually, apart from the "Queen of England" thing, I didn't find it too bad. It does ask questions about the "worth" and reasons for having a royal family, it's not like it's a love letter or something.

    If you're teaching in a commonwealth country or in the UK, the royal family are going to be well-known and (urg) even loved. Random people on the street in India know about our royal family, I can vouch for that! Plus the Council is British (there's a subtle clue in the name, I realised ) and its remit is to represent and promote British culture and society around the world, not just teach English.

    For non-commonwealth countries it just seems really irrelevant, though.
    Last edited by seren; 9th July 2008 at 09:03 AM.

  11. #11

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    I don't buy the tourism argument.

    Firstly, it's taken as read to be true but I've never seen any working. Secondly, if public hanging was good for tourism it wouldn't make it right.

    Antarctica is a good idea but wouldn't we get stories about how heroic harry saved Princess Margaret from a polar bear etc?

    I think it's unbelievable that our next head of state is a proponent of homoeopathy.

    We have loads of 'royal societies' such as the Royal College of Physicians or of-course the 'Royal Society'. What exactly do these societies gain from patronage of the royals and why do the royals think they are even vaguely worthy of the association?

  12. #12

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    If we could fully open up all the royal residences such as Buckingham Palace, maybe we could even get more tourists....

    I'm far from a behead-the-royal-family type, however I think we desperately need to re-evaluate what their role is in society today. I'm sure most of them are decent people at the end of the day, despite living an entirely separate life from the rest of us. I don't think they deserve to be unfairly treated, however we do need to look at what they really do for the country as opposed for themselves.

  13. #13

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by bindeweede View Post
    Oh, and isn't Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not "The Queen of England"?
    Yep:

    Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_Elizabeth_II

  14. #14
    Sock Puppet
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Posts
    906

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Quote Originally Posted by puzzlebobble View Post

    Antarctica is a good idea but wouldn't we get stories about how heroic harry saved Princess Margaret from a polar bear etc?
    Only if someone provided a polar bear, they are not native to the Antarctic.

    Anyway, you have all been had. The proper heir to the throne lives in a small house in Australia.
    (If Tony Robinson is to be believed.)

  15. #15

    Re: sycophantic coverage of royals on BBC

    Maybe it was a republican polar bear with a strong backstroke.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. british media's coverage of atheism
    By newatheist in forum Media: news, TV, radio.
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 4th December 2008, 11:43 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •