Why Do Royal Weddings Get So Much Attention?

[SamirS]

You're from Greece and speaking of the royal family being a waste? Only one of these countries has wasted tax payer money enough to bring it to the point of bankruptcy.

That's kind of an unwarranted statement. Him being from Greece doesn't in any way indicate that he endorses Greece's governmental policies, and it certainly doesn't invalidate him having an opinion on tax policy in other countries. If he's wrong in his views, he's wrong because his views are incorrect, not because he has a passport from a country which has wrong views.

You certainly have a valid point about British tradition, and although I personally find this attention nonsensical, it's for the British to decide upon it. However, your statement I quoted kind of undermines your message. It's a straw man.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm only waiting for the fly by too. Couldn't care less about the wedding.

Still don't see why people want to attack it though. You'd swear it happened all the time.

I don't think folks attack the wedding as much as they are critical of the fuss over the wedding, and part of the criticism has to do with one's perspective on the value (and validity) of the 'royal' family, and their benefit or necessity to a modern democratic society.

My mom still sees some importance, probably because it is a tradition with which she was raised. I was certainly indoctrinated into that tradition in my early years, more so in school with singing 'God save the Queen', etc. But as I matured, I questioned the whole royal thing.

Looking back in my family's history, it seems the royals were more of a liability than a benefit given the wars, particularly the English civil wars, in which they participated and/or instigated.

And I suppose for some, the recognition of royalty reinforces or acknowledges the economic and political disparity and inequity in the larger society.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah I'm with Jared here, as much as I think the craziness is a bit stupid, what kind of world would this be when nothing like this was allowed to happen? And again, it's not like it happens every year.

Looking at the crowds, how can you really say no to this? There's such an amazing, rich history behind everything going on here. Westminster Abbey is over 1000 years old! It's all an incredible sight. And sure you can whine about the cost and attention it's drawing, but in the end what makes us human is the fact that occasionally we lose ourselves in spectacles such as this.

 

[SamirS]

My idea:
"So it's basically an occasion to be silly in public without being reprimanded, and even more, to be silly as a group. People need a) something they can identify that is larger than their own life (consisting mainly of chores) and b) some reason to justify to their peers to break out of this from time to time. Royal weddings have come, through ages of tradition, to be widely regarded as justified reason, just as holidays do. This is because for most people, the personal judgement of their peers is very important (though professional and personal judgement share some areas) to them."

Would you agree to this? I'm trying to understand the behaviour of people here, without judgement.

 

[cobalt124]

Well I thought I wasn't bothered, but I've ended up watching bits of it. It is an important occasion for traditionalists in the U.K., I thought I didn't have that tradition in me any more, but I was wrong.

 

[drizzle]

The bride's dress is so elegant.

 

[Lichdar]

I tried to care and made some approving noises to individuals around me who did, but in the end, I really couldn't. It was a pretty wedding. I would have watched it if I had the time, in the same way that I would enjoy other pretty things. I had no other emotion to it.

 

[Astronuc]

My idea:
"So it's basically an occasion to be silly in public without being reprimanded, and even more, to be silly as a group. People need a) something they can identify that is larger than their own life (consisting mainly of chores) and b) some reason to justify to their peers to break out of this from time to time. Royal weddings have come, through ages of tradition, to be widely regarded as justified reason, just as holidays do. This is because for most people, the personal judgement of their peers is very important (though professional and personal judgement share some areas) to them."

Would you agree to this? I'm trying to understand the behaviour of people here, without judgement.

Neither 'a' nor 'b' apply to me. If I want to identify with something that is larger than my own life, I only need to go outside and look around at Nature - the land, the oceans, the forests, the mountains, the stars, . . . Every time I fly across the country or oceans to another country, I ponder the world that passes by underneath - each of us is very small and insignificant compared to the world.

I never need to justify myself to anyone, nor do I need or require anyone else to justify themselves to me.

 

[Astronuc]

Well I thought I wasn't bothered, but I've ended up watching bits of it. It is an important occasion for traditionalists in the U.K., I thought I didn't have that tradition in me any more, but I was wrong.

I caught a bit of the streaming video. I didn't care for the gushing commentary from Barbara Walters et al and statements like something to the effect that 'Kate is the most beautiful bride . . .', or some nonsense about fairy tale something or rather.

 

[cobalt124]

I tried to care and made some approving noises to individuals around me who did, but in the end, I really couldn't. It was a pretty wedding. I would have watched it if I had the time, in the same way that I would enjoy other pretty things. I had no other emotion to it.

My experience was the opposite. Most people around me were saying "So what?" and I fell in, but in the end I couldn't. Something I picked up in childhood, which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but possibly I haven't questioned enough, and that is respect for institutions. Something for me to ponder upon.

 

[cobalt124]

I caught a bit of the streaming video. I didn't care for the gushing commentary from Barbara Walters et al and statements like something to the effect that 'Kate is the most beautiful bride . . .', or some nonsense about fairy tale something or rather.

I didn't have the commentary on, I'm assuming that wasn't the U.K. commentary, which is usually all stiff upper lip and formal (makes me smile). What struck me was was there a single place where a camera wasn't positioned. It seemed like they were going to follow them all day all the way into the royal bedroom!

 

[SamirS]

Neither 'a' nor 'b' apply to me. If I want to identify with something that is larger than my own life, I only need to go outside and look around at Nature - the land, the oceans, the forests, the mountains, the stars, . . . Every time I fly across the country or oceans to another country, I ponder the world that passes by underneath - each of us is very small and insignificant compared to the world.

I never need to justify myself to anyone, nor do I need or require anyone else to justify themselves to me.

I fall in the same category as you. I'm also of the type who just stands in awe at the complexity of a simple tree or the vastness of the sky, pondering how this vastness is so insignificant to the vastness of the universe, and the implications of this about us. When I voice this to most people it's either the "you're crazy"-look or the "are you on drugs?"-look.

This is more of a way to understand how the people that do care that much about the wedding and that do create such a fuss about it (without economic intentions) function in this regard!

 

[cobalt124]

I fall in the same category as you...This is more of a way to understand how the people that do care that much about the wedding and that do create such a fuss about it (without economic intentions) function in this regard!

I fall in the same category as well, I just never talk about it. About not killing a creature because it is hideous and you are scared of it. Think about how it was made and how it has survived instead, and leave it be. Look at a blade of grass and see what you have in common with it. Look at all the ways there are to perpetutate genes and see where you belong in Nature (there I've said it now). I can't describle how I feel about a Royal Wedding so clearly, but the two are not mutually exclusive, just different.

 

[qspeechc]

I will say this proudly: I love the royal family, especially Queen Elizabeth, and yes, even Prince Charles. I got up early to watch the wedding, and I enjoyed every bit of it. I even recorded it for posterity. The history, the tradition in that wedding was rapturous. The beautiful uniforms, outfits, carriages, buildings, music...the lot.

I watched it on the BBC, and I couldn't stand those babbling idiotic women talking about fashion though. The one woman even said "bloomin' fantastic", or something like that, and I felt like throttling her. Otherwise it was perfect. And two kisses! They looked rather shy afterwards. Never thought I'd see Prince William blush. Continuing a tradition started by his mother and father (the kissing, not the blushing), very sweet.

If they wanted to spice it up a bit, put an American twist on it and have 4 or 5 possible brides and they have to run a gauntlet to see who the new queen will be. That would probably make it the most watched world event in history. Add Snooky as a hopeful and you might possibly set an unbreakable record...

I agree with JaredJames that Britain has more than enough American influences. And why on Earth should a British Royal Wedding have an American twist? To please you? Who on Earth is this Snooky everyone talks about?

I thought after Queen Elizabeth we will have Prince Charles becoming king, and his wife will be a Duchess (like currently we have the Duke of Edinburgh), not a queen. There is no reason to think Queen Elizabeth will out-live Prince Charles, or that Prince Charles will step down and let William become king. The crown usually only changes when the current king or queen dies or is about to die (learnt that from The King's Speech ;)). I would prefer it anyway if Prince Charles becomes the next king.

I don't really care what people who are not British have to say about the royal family; it's for the British to decide, and most of the British public are in favour of keeping them. Of course it's difficult for Americans especially to appreciate a royal family. The British royal family is a part of British culture, it's a part of Britain. Take away the royal family and you take away a very large part of British history and culture. I don't expect irreverent Americans to appreciate that.

I don't think folks attack the wedding as much as they are critical of the fuss over the wedding, and part of the criticism has to do with one's perspective on the value (and validity) of the 'royal' family, and their benefit or necessity to a modern democratic society.

Looking back in my family's history, it seems the royals were more of a liability than a benefit given the wars, particularly the English civil wars, in which they participated and/or instigated.

And I suppose for some, the recognition of royalty reinforces or acknowledges the economic and political disparity and inequity in the larger society.

Clearly there is a benefit in national pride, as shown by the continuing popularity of the royal family. Some estimates put the number of people who watched this wedding as high as two billion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your comment about the royal family being a liability is a bit off the mark. The royal family today has no real power, it is merely ceremonial, and it has been that way for quite a long time.

And I just find your last comment quite queer and incomprehensible.

 

[hypatia]

What a grand wedding, I thought it was just perfect. I must confess to getting a bit misty eyed, as Prince William looked so much like his mother, in his reserved and shy looks.

 

[Jack21222]

Some estimates put the number of people who watched this wedding as high as two billion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.

No comment on the numbers, but you do realize that more than one person can watch per TV?

 

[JaredJames]

This is where the figures are coming from I think:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42454502/ns/today-today_people/I just found this too:

http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201007/65135.php

If that's true, it's a very good reason to keep them around.

 

[Jack21222]

No comment on the numbers, but you do realize that more than one person can watch per TV?

Yes, I fail to see how that matters. What do you think the average will be, 3 per TV? Let's say the number of televisions has increased by 33% in the past 7 years. That makes 1.9 billion televisions. At an average of 3 per television, which I think is very generous, that's about 35% of all televisions in existence were tuned to the wedding.

As a comparison, the World Cup Final was estimated to have only 700 million viewers. The claim is that THREE TIMES as many people worldwide watched some stupid wedding than the world's most popular sport's championship game.

 

[JaredJames]

Charles and Diana's wedding had 750 million viewers, the China Olympics had 1 Billion. It's also estimated that 2.5 billion watched Diana's funeral. So I don't see how it's hard to accept the number.

"stupid wedding", really? How arrogant can you get.

 

[Jack21222]

How arrogant can you get.

Don't underestimate me.

 

[cristo]

It's also estimated that 2.5 billion watched Diana's funeral.

Exactly, and that was in 1997; live internet streaming has advanced hugely since then.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly, and that was in 1997; live internet streaming has advanced hugely since then.

I was actually surprised it was streamed live on YouTube.

 

[Jack21222]

http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201007/65135.php

If that's true, it's a very good reason to keep them around.

And why is the information in that article a good reason to keep them around? The royal family made all of that money by exploiting 3rd world countries through colonization, and instead of giving that money back, they keep it and blow large amounts of it on a wedding.

If that's not the very definition of evil (robbing from the poor and spending it on yourself), then I don't know what is.

 

[JaredJames]

And why is the information in that article a good reason to keep them around? The royal family made all of that money by exploiting 3rd world countries through colonization, and instead of giving that money back, they keep it and blow large amounts of it on a wedding.

If that's not the very definition of evil (robbing from the poor and spending it on yourself), then I don't know what is.

A minute a go the complaint was about tax payers footing the bill, now it's a shame they paid it themselves (they didn't, but an odd complaint indeed).

Yes, the Queen was involved in all of that.

If we're going to blame the queen for that, we should blame the descendants of plantation owners strung up for what their relatives did. All non-sense.

My point about keeping it around is that it's a nice cash reserve to have associated with the country, even if the country doesn't own it.

 

[qspeechc]

I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.

You know it's quite easy to google "wedding two billion" as I did? One of the results you get is this one:

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/862021-the-royal-wedding-2011-the-biggest-tv-audience-in-history

As you will note, Princess Diana's funeral in 1997 had 2.5 billion viewers, and take into account that the world population was smaller and even fewer people had television sets in those days.

 

[Jack21222]

A minute a go the complaint was about tax payers footing the bill, now it's a shame they paid it themselves (they didn't, but an odd complaint indeed).

Yes, the Queen was involved in all of that.

I haven't read the entire thread. It's WORSE that the taxpayers are paying for it, in my opinion. If the royal family is as ridiculously wealthy as your source claims, why should they rob from the citizens to shower themselves with MORE riches? The solution is not to waste money on frivolities.

When so many people are struggling around the world, the solution isn't to rub it in our faces. I'm surprised you Brits are taking this lying down. When Marie Antionette said "if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake," the French people at least had the common decency to behead her.

My point about keeping it around is that it's a nice cash reserve to have associated with the country, even if the country doesn't own it.

Confiscate the nice cash reserve and kick the queen to the curb.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Confiscate the nice cash reserve and kick the queen to the curb.

No.

So there.

 

[lisab]

Some of the guests needed remedial lessons on how to wear a hat.

 

[JaredJames]

I haven't read the entire thread. It's WORSE that the taxpayers are paying for it, in my opinion. If the royal family is as ridiculously wealthy as your source claims, why should they rob from the citizens to shower themselves with MORE riches? The solution is not to waste money on frivolities.

Something interesting I just found, it seems the queen and charles are footing the bill for the wedding, the tax payers are paying for transport and security.

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/how-much-did-royal-wedding-cost-royal-wedding-expenses-2782157.html

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but they bring huge amounts of tourism to the country. It's like throwing out Disney.

You might want to look up how taxes work, it isn't theft. You're just throwing utter non-sense around now making up straw men.

When so many people are struggling around the world, the solution isn't to rub it in our faces. I'm surprised you Brits are taking this lying down. When Marie Antionette said "if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake," the French people at least had the common decency to behead her.

Did she really say that? (Not as far as anyone knows.)

Who's rubbing anything in your faces? You don't have to watch, it's only because people want to that they are broadcasting it. That's like saying "with all the poor in the world, HP shouldn't rub their computers in our faces". Supply and demand.