If you have previously recommended this thread, you should see a tick / check mark on the recommend button. Click the tick to undo the recommendation (the tick may appear to change to a cross as you do this.) If you added a comment with your recommendation, you will need to delete that from your facebook wall separately.
We watched the wedding on the BBC. Cos that's what you do. Huw Edwards was boring, got no atmosphere going at all, all pomp and ponderous. He didn't have the requisite endless supply of fascinating facts and figures. Studio guests weren't terribly interesting either. The beeb seemed to keep taking their eye off the ball and were so desperate to cover anything/everything that they missed bits eg W&C emerging onto the balcony. THe roving reporters were dire - they were constantly sticking microphones in front of random members of the public and getting monosyllabic non-answers.
We switched over to ITV afterwards and Paul Scofield was much better, much more human and interested in what was going on.
So it may be treasonable to think this, but did ITV do a better job than the BBC?
I started watching on Sky News, cos they were doing better pre-coverage than the BBC, but when the wedding started, the picture and sound were out of sync so we switched to BBC and didn't think to switch back. I guess I should have switched back, cos it was pretty boring. But at least the sound and pictures matched....