kalniel
Because their language is truer to historical English than ours is?
Oh, I'd say not. Ever read any classic literature, from the Middle Ages? Chaucer, for example, let alone Beowulf? And I mean in the original idiom, not modern translations.
I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of ‘modern’ Brits (or Americans) would regard historical English, even only going back as far as Chaucer, as a completely foreign language. In comparison, the variations between British English and American English are very minor, really limited to little more than differences in dialect, and some minor spelling and vocabulary differences, such as you'd find between London and Yorkshire, let alone London and Cornwall, or Cornwall and Glasgow.
But it begs the question …. exactly what is “historical English”? Is it the Germanic forms of ‘Anglish’, as spoken by Anglo-Saxons. Is it the Brythonic English which, in truth, bears more resemblance to modern Celtic dialects than it does to modern English? What about the influence of the Normans, or the Roman invasion?
If you look at the differences between American English and modern British, they're almost inconsequential compared to the way “English” has evolved over that portion of our history before we even knew of the existence of the Americas.
In fact, going back to my regional variations, I'd say the American English ‘dialect’ and the modern Southern English variants were probably closer than London and Glasgow …. or for that matter, New York and deepest Alabama. Once you get past the Americans not being able to get what a pavement is or chips are, or not being able to spell colour or centre, the differences are actually very small indeed.
Note - for any of our colonial cousins reading this, more than a hint of this post is very tongue-in-cheek ….. just in case you don't get our humour (sorry, humor) either. ;) :D