Royal Baby Coverage & Local Hereditary Posts
-
Posts
-
We have just popped up this look at the Prince George royal baby coverage: https://www.wrexham.com/news/locals-give-birth-to-children-in-hospitals-34453.html
Debating the issue locally and on Calon FM (broadcast tomorrow!) it seems many do not seem to care as much as the media is making out. Most we have spoken to seem happy for the couple, but not overly bothered.
We have had some fun discussions mainly along the lines of:
– What local jobs could be made hereditary?
– If Head Of State is hereditary and ‘ok’ at a national level, why is it not ok at a local level?
– Much was made of the ‘equality progress’ in the change of law to make things better so if the baby was female it could have been Queen, despite that not being equal for the other few million people.
– People really do spend lots of mugs, pens and tea towels…!!I am pleased for the Royal couple as I would be for any new parents. The fact that they are Royal means a media frenzy. It is also summer and as we know ‘news’ is harder to find with Parliament in summer recess.
Any local job that is not elected by vote could be heredity. How about Lollipop patrol?
Heredity councillors? Please no! They take no notice now we have less chance if they don’t need our votes.
I don’t think I want equality with the Royal. I value my privacy and anonymity too much.
People do buy memorabilia and then keep it in cupboards like a deep, dark secret :D
When the Queen dies, Prince Charles is likely to become King, one would assume whilst he is in his 60’s.
If the same principle was applied at local level where sons and daughters became employed once a parent retired or died, the government could stop counting people who have a job in waiting and discount them from the unemployment figures, thus reducing social security payments at a stroke. :-)
There you go, cracked it!Ha very good!
Just a note – had it pointed out the Daily Post were nippy to announce the hospital visit as well. Was going to reference the possible page but can’t right now as giving a code 500 internal server error ( http://www.olddailypostlink.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/live-updates-north-wales-roads-3184109 )
I think the Post’s coverage has been heavier than most local coverage, a front page and a supplement. I get that there are some links to Anglesey, but as a paper which seems to pride itself on its Welsh identity (dragon on the masthead etc) I think they’ve underestimated the level of antipathy or maybe just apathy to the royal birth amongst their readership.
The new prince could be Prince of Wales in the future. It’s doubtful that I will see it though considering the longevity of the Royals!
The ‘Prince of Wales’ title has always confused me, in what sense Prince Charles has an affinity with this country I’ll never know.
It’s convention more than relevancy
According to conventional wisdom since 1301 the Prince of Wales has usually been the eldest living son of the King or Queen Regnant of England (subsequently of Great Britain, 1707, and of the United Kingdom, 1801). The word “living” is important. Following the death of Prince Arthur, the Prince of Wales, Henry VII invested his second son, the future Henry VIII, with the title—although only after it was clear that Arthur’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, was not pregnant. The title is not automatic; it merges into the Crown when a prince accedes to the throne, or lapses on his death leaving the sovereign free to re-grant it to a younger son.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
