..to be a tad surprised that JFK....

[KnockMeDown]

..is being totally eclipsed by Dr Who?

Both 50 year anniversaries. One a TV show, albeit a classic, long running, etc.... The other the assassination of the leader of the free world, a pivotal moment in history

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Dr Who - in particular David Tennant, and have already set tomorrow night's show to record, but the sheer disproportion of the coverage and interest just seems odd to me. Am I the only one?

[sOODdragon]

How much coverage would the assassination of a British Prime Minister

shall we try it and see?

Now, who'll be around in 50 years time...?

[RussTDaviesBear]

SOODragon - it probably did make the front page of the Times in 1812....

[FannyMcNally]

The prime minister isn't the head of our country. I'm sure if the queen was assassinated it would be along similar lines to interest in JFK.

[sOODdragon]

I rather think the assassination of a hereditary monarch is somewhat different to the assassination of someone who might only be around 4 years.

[friday16]

I rather think the assassination of a hereditary monarch is somewhat different to the assassination of someone who might only be around 4 years.

Perhaps so, but it's not as if Charles I (let's not argue about the precise definition of "assassination") has been forgotten, is it? And we commemorate a failed attempt to kill James I every November.

[SconeRhymesWithGone]

The Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964 under President Johnson, but the process was started by President Kennedy in 1963. In the aftermath of the assassination, it was widely viewed as a memorial to President Kennedy.

There is coverage in the US of major British elections (and to a lesser extent, French and German ones.) It may not be to the same extent that US elections are covered in other countries, but there is interest.

Also, we have BBC America here in the US, and some Public Broadcasting stations have BBC news programs.

[CiderBomb]

I'm sick of hearing about Dr Who quite frankly, it's just a television programme at the end of the day, and an overrated one at that. It lost its spark for me when David Tennant moved on. I suppose the BBC love to blow their own trumpet though don't they?

This is thread is a very interesting read though. The JFK conspiracy theories are the only ones I think there any truth in.

I'd like to point out to the poster that said he was groomed for office from birth that he wasn't, it was his elder brother Joe Jnr who was being groomed for presidency by their father. When he was killed in action during WW2 Joe Snr turned his attentions and ambitions for the White House onto Jack (JFK) instead. I've heard it said that Jack didn't want to go into politics at all, but felt he had no choice.

He was also a very ill man. He had Addison's Disease, he wore a back brace due to an old back injury that caused him pain and he was riddled with STD's due to his constant philandering. The American public knew nothing of this and his health always kept secret.

[FannyMcNally]

I hadn't realised until this week that the reason he stayed upright after the first bullet was due to the back brace. I didn't know he wore one.

[DidntBadWolfDragOn]

but it's not as if Charles I (let's not argue about the precise definition of "assassination") has been forgotten, is it? And we commemorate a failed attempt to kill James I every November

Yes. What I meant was that too much interest is expected for JFK, certainly outside of the US. No one outside the UK celebrates 5th Nov or has any interest in Charles I and, arguably, monarchs are more "important" as they are in the public eye all the time. Take Prince William for example - we've "known" him from a baby and known he will be king from the moment he was born. Ditto Prince George.

[BabyMummy29]

The point I was making is that most Americans I know have very little knowledgeof or interest in anything outwith their country.

I very much doubt that they'd still be showing any interest in the assassination of the Queen 50 years on.

And Fanny I used the Prime Minister as an example as he is the political leader of the country as is the president of the US.

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

That's what I thought Scone-he was definitely pushing for it.
OK, maybe "since birth" is an exaggeration, but in any case Old Joe Kennedy wanted his progeny running the white house.
He was a right old weasel, mobbed up to the eyeballs, and that is probably the thing that taints the Kennedy administration the most.

[FannyMcNally]

They might make a fuss on Princess Diana's 50th anniversary.

[BabyMummy29]

I guess they might - she was the kind of silly airhead that would appeal to silly Americans

[IfNotNowThenWhen]

Wow, that's rude babymummy29!

[SconeRhymesWithGone]

Even though I am old enough to remember the assassination, it was not until this week that I had seen the frame of the Zapruder film that shows the actual impact of the third bullet. Evidently Mr. Zapruder embargoed that frame for a time or it just wasn't shown for other reasons, but it is shocking, a huge exploding splash of blood. Seeing that has made me have even deeper sympathy and admiration for Jackie. I just cannot imagine what that must have been like to experience.

Another thing I learned for the first time was about Jackie's condolence letter to the widow of the police officer who was killed by Oswald on the same day. In it she says that the eternal flame she lit for Jack will also "burn for your husband, too."

[FrankelInFoal]

Scone, I'd never seen the full footage either, though I'm not old enough to have been around at the time . I found it totally shocking and again it, seemingly, backs up the argument that the third shot came from a different gun due to its affect.

[Alisvolatpropiis]

Yanbu.

JFK was a real person. Dr Who is the main character in a rather poor television programme.

[Alisvolatpropiis]

I've been to the book depository in Dallas. I'm no marksman but Oswald must have been an absolutely spectacular one, it looks like one hell of an angle to shoot someone in moving vehicle from.

[FannyMcNally]

Yes, you can't imagine how vulnerable she must have felt in that open-topped car with nowhere to hide. What happened she attempted to crawl along the car? Was she rescued by the security man and the car stopped? Or did the car speed off away from further danger?

[SconeRhymesWithGone]

No one outside the UK . . . has any interest in Charles I

Well, people in the US states named for him and his wife may have some interest.

[BabyMummy29]

What I couldn't get over was that many Americans had very little idea about things that went on in other states, let alone other countries.

[JapaneseMargaret]

I very much doubt that they'd still be showing any interest in the assassination of the Queen 50 years on.

I think they would.

It's not about still showing an interest in event X (say, JFK's assassination) 50 years on, per se. It's about celebrating the 50th anniversary. Small, but important, difference.

The 50th anniversary comes around, there's a flurry of interest, a load of documentaries, and discussions on Internet forums, and then it all dies down again.

Surely it's no great surprise that specific anniversaries spark a brief renewed interest in an historically significant event? It's not like Brits and other non-Americans are weeping and wailing over the death of JFK all the time. They're just briefly interested when a significant anniversary rolls around.

And so on that basis, I think the 50th anniversary of the imaginary slaying of an important royal, probably would (will) pique Americans' interest...

[SconeRhymesWithGone]

Fanny This is the Secret Service agent's account of what she was doing on the back of the car:

detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/11/20/former-secret-service-agent-gives-first-hand-account-of-jfk-assassination/

[SconeRhymesWithGone]

Speaking of British anniversaries and the US, there was a lot of coverage here of the Queen's diamond jubilee. I didn't post on the other thread about earliest childhood memories, but one of mine is watching the coronation on a tiny black and white TV here in the States. (I am indeed pretty old. )

[friday16]

I'm no marksman but Oswald must have been an absolutely spectacular one

Oswald had qualified as a Marine sharpshooter using a service weapon that is inherently less accurate (and probably less well zeroed, and using less well matched ammunition) than the one he used for the shooting. In the Marines, he was shooting over iron sights rather than the 4x telescope the gun he used for the killing was fitted with. A US broadcaster got a dozen or so shooters of about the same skill to try the same shots that Oswald made, and all of them were able to get two out of the three shots, one of them getting all three, in the time available. But they were doing so cold, not having handled or used a Carcano rifle before the day, while Oswald was known to have practiced with it. It was not an easy shot to make. But Oswald was a trained shooter, using a weapon that was very much appropriate for the task. He also, probably, got lucky: maybe he could only have made those shots one time out of ten, or one time out of a hundred. Plenty of people have shot at US presidents and missed. He didn't.