What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
155 Comments
- SilkSteel, on 10/10/2007, -15/+73BREAKING: Dugg down for using "BREAKING".
- ScrumFritter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+51Because the largest broadcasting company in the world is being sued by the most prominent Monarch in the world?
- nofrak1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32Guess they weren't amused
- Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24Because it's labeled with "BREAKING!" That means that it's important.
- Easty, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20It's more like saying "President Bush of Texas".
- Falldog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Dugg for that dentist ad
- borninda818, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19The queen has photo shoots? This is news to me.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Not just that but the fact that the people of the UK pay a tax to fund both of these institutions - the Royal Family and the BBC. It's like a mini civil war.
- Paranoidmarvin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I think she at least deserves her proper title at least. After all, she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and not just the Queen of England
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Tonight you dine alone
- crackedplastic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Digg does not have an editorial staff to change headlines once they become stale. Thus, we're stuck with "BREAKING" no matter how old the story is. Additionally, it is just damn annoying to see.
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah sure, because the people in the UK would surely listen to Bush and Cheney.
- fpcyber, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I wonder who will win here...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17She is the Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM - not just England.
England is merely one quarter of the total nations in the UK - the UK also includes Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
It's akin to saying "Prime Minister Howard of New Zealand" (doubt any Americans will get that one) or "President Bush of Canada". It's really inaccurate. - gidd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Nonsense. Of course it's an officially defined area, with well-defined borders. It might not have its own government per se, but England and Wales, for the most part, share a legal system, legally separate from Scotland and Northern Ireland, with very real consequences at times. The UK is a single state, but Scotland, Northern Island, England and Wales are all distinct countries.
The legal division between Scotland and "England and Wales" is very clear and relevant, and has been since long before 20/21st Century devolution... since the Acts of Union in 1707 when the two kingdoms were merged. Scots Law and English Law (incl. Wales) are distinctly different and based on different principles. However, UK Parliament Laws usually/often (but by no means always) act on the whole of the UK.
The Queen is monarch of the United Kingdom as a single indivisible sovereign state, and also separately and equally, monarch of 15 other sovereign states and their territories and dependencies.
* England = a single country.
* Wales = another single country.
* England and Wales = a single legal system.
* Great Britain = since 1800, just an island: merely a geographical feature. Similar in concept to the 48 contiguous US states.
* The United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Island) = a sovereign state, kingdom, nation, and realm.
You have monarchs of sovereign states, not of countries. So, she is (accurately) the Queen of Canada, and also Queen of the UK, but definitely NOT the Queen of England, Queen of Great Britain or the Queen of Britain. Even though she is the monarch of the English people, referring to her as "Queen of England" implies a divided crown, which is not the case (and hasn't been for centuries)
The analogy of Bush being inaccurately referred to as President of Texas is an apt one. More apt than Bush being erroneously referred to as "President of Canada", which is just flatly wrong in all ways possible, and thus not analogous to the inaccuracy (as opposed to error) of "Queen of England".
(Note: I Am Not A Lawyer, or a constitutional scholar, but I read about it on Wikipedia) - Easty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why is she suing the BBC when it's the production company who created the trailer in the first place?
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Not only that but also Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
Cheers wikipedia! - dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Regardless, New Zealand and Canada don't fall under the sovereignty of those particular mentioned leaders. Analogy failed.
- mlostracco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6BREAKING: Something not particularly urgent that hasn't happened yet is set to possibly happen at some future time!!!!!!! [WITH EXCLAMATIONS]
- Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But Canada is completely different country from America.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5no they just beam her image into our heads from satellites in space.
- GeekyGerge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is way old...
- Nick22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Shes also the Queen of Canada
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Not exactly something new for him is it?
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Learn the story first- the BBC didn't do it intentionally. It was an outside body who did the trailer.
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I think she has a case here...
- zadadka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Americans mostly, at that.
- sionnach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The royal family costs UK taxpayers somewhere in the region of 60p per taxpayer annually. I'm guessing it's vastly profitable considering the tourist revenue it generates
- fluidfoundation, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Press is press, regardless of their format.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Uh....we're a democracy and the Queen has to abide by that. She doesn't have any special powers
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Tthe Queen's power doesn't amount to much anyway. We keep the royals around for fun, as figureheads of the commonwealth and the fact that they bring in so much tourism and that's roughly it.
- LxRogue, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Last time i checked, digg was a site for NEWS. Adding BREAKING not only makes the poster look retarded, but it's redundant. (and usually 12 hours late anyway)
- zadadka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Look up the word Wanker.
That's you that is. - Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Shows how much you know. Bitch can fire lazer beams out her eyes
- Lumbeekid06, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4instead of BREAKING cant we say "this just in" or something along those lines?
- scotsboyuk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm a Scot and I have a great deal of respect for HM the Queen, who is after all, Queen of Scots.
- cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He didn't say a quarter of the UK. He said a quarter of the countries. 1 of 4 is one quarter.
- Paranoidmarvin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Also, she is the Monarch of the whole of the common wealth. That's why Canada's Royal Anthem is the same as our National Anthem
- dcconz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And New Zealand
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2She's the Queen ... off with their heads!!!!!
- AndyVenus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's funded by Licence fee payers, which is most people in Britain.
I feel that it's the wrong decision by the queen. - rhylan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You can sue anyone for anything in the UK - whether you'll win or even if the case is listened to is another matter...
- Erectile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's funny, I don't even know who you are.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4it's kind of like a sane America.
- Litespeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No. The editing made it appear that way.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Whales?
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2She was misrepresented by a devious media-type. That's why.
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm in the UK. Thats why. How the ***** do I get rid of them?
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It has nothing to do with tabloid newspapers.
- sheepzilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Whatever adjective is used to indicate a new story, its use is entirely redundant since we can see how long ago a story was submitted, and misleading since once the submission becomes old news it is no longer true. What might be relevant would be a date-stamp of the linked page.
Incidentally 'breaking' reminds me of the short-lived parody 'broken news'. -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is