Having grown sick to death of hearing about a ship that sunk (sank? sinked?) 100 years ago (never really sure why that is making headlines still), we now need to endure days and days of coverage on UK TV channels of the jubilee!

Aside from the fact that I personally feel that monarchy is a trifle outdated, incestuous and pointless institution - why do we need to put up with blanket coverage of.....well, of what exactly? Fawning, sycophantic programmes by the broadcasters including tonight a tribute to the Queen by her own son - why the hell does that even need to be televised? Charles - pop by her house (its the big one with the roundabout outside it) - and tell her yourself and don't block up my TV with it. And then parades, retrospectives, concerts, more parades.....

If we need so much coverage - where is the famed "balance" of the BBC? Where are the critical shows? Can we have a show about the famed intelligence of the Windsors (eg the Queens sister once went to hospital with two burned feet from stepping into a hot bath. Who burns TWO feet getting into a hot bath? What about Andrews dealings with the Libyans?)

Anyway - I feel better now.

(PS don't say "go for a walk" - stuck in with a sick baby )

Whilst you're not interested in the monarchy, plenty of people in the UK, and indeed outside, really are and want to witness the event. The parades etc are special to some poeple.

No one said we 'need' this, it's just that such an event only takes place once every ten years so you have to expect the media to make a big deal out of it. To be honest, if it means we hear a bit less about how 'ed the economy is etc then why not. If it brings communities together at street parties I think that's great for the UK. If you're not interested you don't have to watch it, channel the channel, put on a DVD.

But I do agree that in general the BBC and ITV seemed to have dumbed down/lost quality quite a lot over the last few years, probably partly due to not having decent budgets.

I agree that the Parade might be quite grand but on ITV tonight we have On BBC1 we have

On BBC2 we have

Thats three of the four main terrestrial channels.

Its not about what I plan to do this weekend, its about why we can't make decent TV shows and instead wallow in the comfortable warm bath of nostalgia in quite such an all-encompassing manner

As far as l can tell that would be "Punk Britannia " on BBC 4 tonight. Although I'm sure they won't cover "God save the queen" until episode 3 which l'm sure will be safely after the jubilee.

At least your not paying for it all anymore.

Still, any excuse to get drunk at the pub on Sunday and act all british like. Might be able to get a few from the colonies to join too.

Why don't they just set up "Jubilee TV", sort of like CSPAN, CourtTV, ESPN so if you like that kind of thing, you can spend all day watching all the minutia?

You watch ITV? How common.

I'd rather have that than the endless repeats of garbage programmes that we normally have at this time of the year.
The old lady has been on the throne for 60 years after all and, although I'm far from being a royalist, I think she's done a pretty good job and deserves the accolade.

Accolade for what? Not dying???!!!

But I agree that the alternatives (My Family, Old Tricks, Holby City....god help us) aren't any better - fair point

Just wait for the saturation TV coverage when Betty does pop her clogs. I suspect this Jubilee nonsense will pale into insignificance next to a dead monarch jamboree -- and of course its consequences (King Whatever-he-will-choose-to-call-himself).

Oh, He gets to change his name does he? Does he have to do it by deed poll?

Meanwhile in other news: Britain won the second world war - this needs more coverage in the UK media...

I want a tampon signed: with love, Prince Charles.

Lol -- he'll be king! He can chop people's heads off if he wants!

Betty's given name was Elizabeth, but her father, King George VI, was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George (AFAG, but he turned out not to be one); he chose his father's name, George, as his regnal name. (He was a little unprepared for the throne, given that his brother flounced unexpectedly, so he didn't have enough time to think up a cooler name, like King Brad, or King Messi.) There have been other monarchs who have chosen to rule under a name other than their "own" -- Victoria was the first of the UK monarchs to do so, and her son Albert chose Edward (his middle name) to avoid being known as King Albert -- his late father's name. Actually, this was the same rationale used by George VI -- he wanted to avoid the name Albert.

ESPN is showing major league baseball right now ....

I wish I had it

No it didn't.
The Russians did.

Ha. That's why they called him "Bertie" (not, Birdie. Apparently I've messed that up for some time.). King Brad I would be wicked!

The problem with him going with King Charles is the whole spaniel thing.... But I'll bet 2p he'll go with Charles III.

I'd rather poke needles in your eyes or watch the jubilee thing than watch baseball on TV.

Well that remark might have been relevant for the Silver Jubilee, but since Digital Terrestrial and Satellite channels have been around for at least 5 and 25 years respectively, that kind of makes your point irrelevant.