Why Are Americans Making Such a Fuss About the Royal Wedding?
What is it about royalty, especially British royalty, that causes otherwise rational Americans to get all mushy-headed and weepy, not to mention taking a decidedly unrepublican interest in the scandalous doings at the palace?
We might as well call it “King George III’s Revenge” given how much blood we shed to throw off the rule of kings and substitute the rule of law. Poor George never got over the loss of his colonies, going to his death a blind madman. I’m sure he would be comforted to know that the descendants of those rebels now sit in front of TV sets for hours, consumed with getting every last morsel of fact and fiction that can be wrung from stories about the immoral, depraved, and usually silly doings of people whose only claim to fame is that they were born to one of the richest, most dysfunctional families in England.
On April 29, one of the floppy-eared whelps birthed by the former fairy-tale couple of Charles (prince, duke, and someday king) and Diana (princess, duchess, and tragically dead) is going to tie the knot with a genuine commoner in what is promising to be the television/internet/iPhone event of the young millennium. And America is going all Lady Ga-Ga over the event.
There are so many Facebook pages about it, they could start their own social network company. Twitter is tweeting like mad. And there are nearly 18 million Google pages alone on Prince William.
But social media excitement pales in comparison to the bonanza coming to the royal family as a result of the sale of “official” merchandise. Someone called the “Lord Chamberlain” at the palace is responsible for licensing this stuff and by the looks of things, he’s going to be one busy lord. Here’s a blurb from a website selling “official” as well as “commemorative” wedding souvenirs and memorabilia:
The Royal Wedding William & Kate offers a wide range of commemorative Royal Wedding Memorabilia, including commemorative china, street party accessories, bottle openers, key rings, boxing gloves, jigsaws, baby items, coasters, comic books, rings, caricatures and coins. We are also authorised to sell Official Royal wedding china and official Royal Mint Coins.
But not T-shirts. I guess the Lord Chamberlain didn’t want some officially licensed article of clothing being worn by some unofficial hottie at a wet T-shirt contest during Spring Break at Daytona Beach.
Come to think of it, President Obama could use a Lord Chamberlain. According to Wikipedia, the LC is the “senior functionary of the court.” Sort of like a czar but even more useless.Where Obama is concerned, one more czar won’t matter much and every president should have a “senior functionary” anyway to help during those times when his administration becomes dysfunctionary.
Besides the online merchandise, there has been an infomercial produced that is selling out of “Royal Heirloom Rings” at $20 (plus shipping and handling) a pop. This one’s not officially licensed nor does it have much to do with the upcoming wedding. Instead, if you weren’t alive when Dumbo married Diana, you can share in that fractured fairy tale by purchasing a replica of the Princess of Wales’ engagement ring from 1981. What does your $20 (plus shipping and handling) get you?
This limited edition replica glitters with a simulated Ceylon Sapphire (3 carats) surrounded by fourteen brilliant, simulated diamonds (1.26 carats) and is layered in Sterling silver.
Who in their right mind would purchase a replica of the engagement ring of a dead, divorced, adulterous, clothes horse who achieved celebrity because she married into a cold blooded, vicious family of people who actually believe it matters more who you father was than what you’ve accomplished in life? What has possessed our countrymen that they care what these upper class twits do or say?
The English monarchy drips with tradition and as a conservative, I can understand the attraction. Edmund Burke was a passionate monarchist (although he also believed in the English constitution and the limits placed on the monarchy). But civilization has transcended nonsense such as kings, queens, lords, and ladies. We are beyond believing in hereditary abilities. These are people who used to breed their offspring like race horses, matching them based on the notion of passing on desirable characteristics. Some of the aristocracy, no doubt, continues this tradition.
The current incarnation of royalty who reside at Buckingham Palace are a loathsome example of giving people who don’t deserve it a lot of money and nothing much to do. Charles is a perfect example of this. The poor sot has nothing whatsoever to do except sit around and wait for mummy to die. He’s tried his hand as cultural critic, railing against modern British architecture (it is horrid but his idea of good architecture isn’t much better). He tried jumping on the global warming bandwagon but didn’t attract much notice. There were so many other more interesting people like Sting and Posh Spice who beat him to it.
Then there is his weird flirtation with alternative medicines. His “Foundation for Integrated Health” published some guides for general practitioners on how to combine traditional (scientific) medicine with alternative (witchcraft) medicine. A prominent member of the “complementary” medical community wrote a letter to the Times asking that the guides be recalled, saying “the majority of alternative therapies appear to be clinically ineffective, and many are downright dangerous.”
His very public, very naughty affair with Camilla Parker Bowles destroyed his marriage and drove his wife to suicidal thoughts. This is the sum total of the life of Charles, Prince of Wales, for which he receives not only taxpayer subsidies, but the free use of several castles, palaces, retreats, cabins, and a retinue of servants of which the Empress Dowager would be envious.
His son William — the one getting married — doesn’t appear to be a bad sort. He passed flight school and became a helicopter pilot in a search and rescue outfit. He has various charitable causes which he supports by exposing his person to the media so they can take his picture with AIDS patients, inner city youth, and endangered elephants.
But is this really all that praiseworthy? One could make the argument that by being a human photo-op, William — and his mother before him — deflected attention from where the real applause should have been directed: the workers, volunteers, and dedicated professionals who spend their lives helping others or protecting the environment. If it was as easy as simply dropping by an AIDS hospice and allowing photographers to click away, everybody would do it. It is an open question how much is actually accomplished by such drive by good deeds — especially when you consider that the royals aren’t really giving up anything to do it. These are the make-work jobs that they use to justify their existence.
Americans are probably attracted to this train wreck of a family because of some lost notion of noblesse oblige coupled with a very modern thirst for dirt on the rich and famous. The latter we can understand. But the very idea of “nobility” is anachronistic. We’ve outgrown such childish things. The fairy tales about growing up and marrying royalty or becoming a noble knight may have been pleasant reveries but they were never meant to last into adulthood.
And yet two billion people worldwide — a good number of those Americans — will watch this gargantuan media event on TV or the internet. CNN is sending 400 people to cover it (they have 50 covering the Japan disaster). All the female-oriented networks like WE, Oxygen, Oprah, and others are loading up with special programming. Billions in ad revenue, tens of millions of eyeballs, thousands of hours of TV specials and exclusives — all to cover the wedding of two rather ordinary looking young people who quite simply don’t deserve the attention. I’m sure they are both perfectly charming, but considering the fuss, they’d have to exceed the exploits of the Most Interesting Man in the World in order to merit this media overkill.
For those who are so enamored of this spectacle that they don’t think they can resist watching, I give you Sam Adams at his snarky best:
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
“Americans” aren’t. The freaking press is. I couldn’t give a flip less. See? One less. Can I have another?
Thank you.
Who/what is getting married? Where? When? I am sure I will be busy that day, and unable to watch the wonderous spectacle (freakshow) as it unfolds. I will either be working, tending my garden,cutting firewood, looking after my free-range chickens, or if I am really lucky, fishing, or sending some lead down range.
There are always better things to do than vegetate in front of the idiot box watching other idiots live out their useless lives.
There is of course some justice in what you say. But you’ve managed to turn my attitude around. It was one of boredom and indifference before reading your self-regarding, mean-spirited rant. No-one really cares what you think. I now wish the couple well, and may even raise a glass to them on the day, whenever it is.
Oh don’t lose your nerve, lefroy. I just wrote a blog about glitz and the British aristocracy as rendered by Benjamin Disraeli. Here it is:http://clarespark.com/2011/03/24/queer-disraeli-glitz-and-the-royals/. Don’t dismiss the power of spectacle to mesmerize and derail ordinary people away from deference to “their betters.”
The link didn’t work: http://clarespark.com/2011/03/24/queer-disraeli-glitz-and-the-royals/. Also, I was unclear about my last point. Do not dismiss the power of spectacle and glitter. It keeps us in a regressed, childlike state, and hence dumbstruck and tied to idealized parental figures. Plus the endless anti-puritan propaganda is both antisemitic and anti-American.
I’ll try to keep my nerve, thanks, and not be seduced by all the royal blather. You only have to remember the potato famine, in my view, to be reminded that there are still some scores to settle.
This just shows that westerners have way, WAY, too much free time on their hands if they are interested in nonsense like this. The world is literally collapsing around us with the Middle East in flames and Japan about to melt down, yet there is tons of news coverage about this stupid wedding. And you just know they’re going to get divorced in a few years, just like Diana, so that the news cycle can continue grinding endlessly about these two people who have achieved nothing and done nothing for anybody. Their sole claim to fame is that they are famous for doing nothing, just like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan. And yet we have great Americans, like General David Petraeus, who are risking it all on a daily basis and I doubt most Americans (especially the younger ones) have even heard of him. Sad, but true.
Well said.
Americans do like their reality shows. There is a great reservoir of affection for Diana in this country and some of that is spilling over to her first-born. (There will great interest in Harry’s wedding too, no one thinks he’s Charles’ son, right? Too much hair)
As a group, we’ve made a fuss over Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, The Awful Lohans, creepy Kardashians, an undocumented president, lightbulbs, Michelle’s “fashion sense”, and the judge shake-up on American Idol. Our “fuss” threshold is pretty low these days.
Oldtimers have pondered the question often in the past. American media have always worshipped celebs of all sorts, from movie stars living disfunctional lives to JFK, son of a bootlegger, being hailed as some sort of Camelot king. Probably, it’s more of the need to spin a story and sell ads. It works because many women never mature beyond their early childhood dreams. A poor girl named Cinderella (with no job skills, no education, but physically beautiful) snags a rich prince and lives happily after.
My wife and I were traveling in the US when Princess Diana was killed.
We got the breathlessly delivered news in the carpark of a National Park.
For the next couple of weeks, it was an unavoidable issue.
It even got to the point where TVs in small, off-strip bars in Las Vegas were full of the matter.
I just didn’t get that phenomenon, either.
The thing about the entire business was the urgent drumming in of “compulsory grieving” on a global scale. This struck me as being way to close the behaviour of The great Zulu leader, Shaka. Upon the death of his mother, Shaka ordered compulsory national grieving. This was accompanied by mass slaughter of cattle and abandonment of other daily necessities. Those deemed to be not grieving “enthusiastically enough” had their skulls smashed in by bands of “attitude enforcers”. Chilling stuff.
I don’t understand any American fawning over any “royal”.
I don’t give a rat’s behind about what title someone got by birth and I might not respect one given by academia. I honor that which is earned.
In my eyes if a King or Queen or Prince or Princess steps onto American soil they are just another free person. A visitor, not a citizen. They are Mr. or Ms. Nothing more.
I come from a land with no King or Queen. I will bow to no man or woman who hasn’t earned that bow.
I’m a free citizen of the United States and you don’t have enough army to make me bow. You can kill me, but not make me bow.
“I come from a land with no King or Queen. I will bow to no man or woman who hasn’t earned that bow.”
You will bow, as will we all, to the One aka the ObamaMessiah.
You have misspelled the name. It is “Obowmessiah”. He Who Bows To Those Who Insult America.
Why our fascination with British royalty? Possibly because some part of the British Isles is our motherland. Fight them off we did, to become independent. However, as children fight to leave the nest, we still have the remnants of an umbilical cord. And nowhere else in the world is there the pageantry of a British royal wedding or the coronation of a Queen (Elizabeth II). Given the Queen Mum’s longevity, I don’t believe we will see another coronation for at least 20 years, so let us have the wedding in the meantime.
And what does our fascination with British Royalty hurt anyway? I think William and Catherine are fine examples of British royalty. Both quite good looking, they should produce a modicum of beauty in children that has been sadly lacking in Elizabeth II’s and Phillip’s bloodline. I wish them well and a longevity in marriage that has also been sadly lacking in the Royals.
Decency.
“I think William and Catherine are fine examples of British royalty.”
I have to admit that William is one of the finest examples of centuries of inbreeding that I’ve ever seen.
He rarely, if ever, drools on himself in public, and considering his ancestry, I think that’s pretty impressive.
His intended, while not of “royal blood”, appears to be every bit as impressive as a true royal. As wiki puts it, her accomplishments are:
‘Middleton has attended many high-profile royal events. She has been admired for her fashion sense and has been placed on numerous “best dressed” lists.’
That’s quite a resume, and I suspect she’ll be every bit as valuable to humanity as the rest of the royal family has been.
Nicely done, Dave. Nicely done.
“Why Are Americans Making Such a Fuss About the Royal Wedding?”
We’re not. Just the hyperventilating tabloid media makes you think we are.
I suspect that the only Americans “to get all mushy-headed and weepy” are mostly confined to the concrete corridors of New York.
The rest of us out here in “fly-over”, we just don’t give a rodent’s behind about the ongoings of the inbred Hapsburgs.
The Royal Family does quite a lot of useful work. In any case, if we didn’t have a monarch, we’d have to have a president — God forbid!
Naw – tell the truth. You like them because they are your own built in reality show.
It’s because of fairy tales. Despite our Colonial heritage, we’re still susceptible to the image of the fairy tale princess. I think a fairy tale princess tugs on some deep emotional strings. We respond to perfect femininity, innocence, goodness (all summarized by one word: virgin), as well as the idea of having good fortune or being favored by Providence or having fairy godmothers watching out for you. These are wish-fulfillment fantasies that make people happy. You can go all Joseph Campbell about it – the fairy tale princess as an archetype of something or other that we’re programmed to respond to emotionally.
Anyway, in our culture the word “princess” is surrounded by magic and glamour, and we project all that onto any real-world woman who holds the title. It helps if she’s young and hot – or at least not too goofy looking. Princess Di fit the bill pretty well. Even though she was just a typical modern posh British girl marrying the jug-eared antithesis of Prince Charming, the event was pressed into the mold of Cinderella’s tale because doing so made people feel good. When she died, she became Snow White encased in her glass coffin or Sleeping Beauty in her castle. That made people feel good, too.
Politics and history, despite what this article says, are irrelevant. A princess is a princess, now and forever.
Sorry – that was supposed to be a general comment, not a reply to Oliver’s comment.
To reply to Oliver’s comment, though: Sometimes I wish our Administrations could just collapse and go away like your Governments do from time to time. When our pols screw up, we have to live with them until the next scheduled election.
Rick, it is the blood royal, didn’t you know that? I am shocked that the little prince will seemingly allow his royal blood to mix with that of a commoner. While I have always been and remain somewhat of an anglophile, as far as I’m concerned, all royals everywhere can go kinetic sexual action themselves.
What a nasty piece of writing.
Andrew, is that you dear?
Now run along and leave those silly American alone. Come along now, Mummy shan’t wait.
Well ya know up here in the GREAT WHITE NORTH we have a critical mass of anti-monarchists who denounce the cost of a ROYAL VISIT but are frustrated by the reality of the influx of US $$$$ by the anti-monarchist americans who come to wave at the ROYALs….funny that….
What a nasty, malodorous, small-minded screed.
Imagine, if you will, that a British newspaper had published a piece on the behavior of US Presidents; what a story that would make. But it would just cause unnecessary pain, and would be be as pointless as this tilting at windmills.
I have no interest in the wedding. But if that’s how they choose to do things, that’s their affair, if you pardon the pun. They seem to prefer to have a Royal family, but you obviously know better. Perhaps the British should abolish the monarchy like France did, and end up like them… would you prefer that? Let ‘em sort things out for themselves.
If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Don’t watch it. Don’t buy the merchandise. It’s that simple
“Imagine, if you will, that a British newspaper had published a piece on the behavior of US Presidents; what a story that would make.”
Nobody would care because Presidents aren’t Kings. The fact is, there is no social or political category in America that corresponds to Royalty. Royalty are (or is), by definition, posh. They’re expected to act like Royalty and not like the hoi polloi. When Royals start behaving like everybody else, what are they good for?
Presidents – they’re a mixed bag. We’ve had posh ones (Reagan?), semi-posh ones (Kennedy?), regular-guy ones (Truman?) and genuine rednecks (Jackson). Presidents represent us, so over time they tend to look like us. Can you imagine Lyndon B. Johnson as a King? Don’t think so.
For a fair comparison, you need to get off royalty and think Prime Ministers.
American don’t give [expletive] about British royal weddings. American media has a ravenous need for shlock filler, so they cover them like they were a major event. Now days, when you change the channel (surf to a different web site) you stand a chance at getting away from the nonsense. When there were only newspapers and the big 3 TV channels, you didn’t have the opportunity.
As a conservative, I respect and honour tradition. If it makes people happy to have Royal wedding fever, sobeit. However, I cannot stand the enviromental wacko and Anglo-Arabist Charles. The royal family is basically symbolic anyway, so I say, “let them eat cake.”
Am I the only one who finds it curious that the happy couple will not stop in Toronto or the Niagara region when they visit Canada this summer?
Probably not, but you are one of the many who has such an empty life that you care what these twits do on their honeymoon.
Good… it costs us a fortune for security, traffic is brutal and it brings out the usual anti-imperialist, commie rioting cockroaches from the woodwork.
The attraction to royalty is same sort of attraction we have for Hollywood celebrities. Many celebrities have minimal talent and are the offspring of celebrity parents. We just like to look at them because it distracts us from our everyday lives. It is when they start talking about things they know little about–and there is much that they know so little about–that gets irritating.
“And yet two billion people worldwide — a good number of those Americans — will watch this gargantuan media event on TV or the internet.”
Mr. Moran – you’re right in one thing but wrong in another. Yes, this royal wedding is a “media event” but that’s all it is. It’s not an event in which “two billion people” will be watching. The media is desperately hyping this wedding in hopes that we will tune in but we won’t. The reason is because William is boring and Kate is a pleasant girl with no style and not an ounce of charisma. The other reason we’re not watching is because in the 28 years since the Charles and Diana spectacle, we’ve all come to realize exactly what you have, Mr. Moran – the royal family is awful (especially Charles and his tramp of a second wife) and we no longer have any interest in them.
There’s only one reason why the media is desperately hyping the Will and Kate nuptials; it’s not love of royalty but love of MONEY! The wedding of Charles and Diana launched a money-making cash cow that mooed millions upon millions for the media – until it was tragically killed in a Paris underpass. Now the media wants that bovine to come alive again in Will and Kate – but it won’t, it can’t. The magic of the past wasn’t the royals but Diana; with her death, the magic died. Kate can’t possibly resurrect it. She’s simply a pretty girl with no charm, grace or style, a faceless entity amongst all of the other slightly dim girls with no ambition save to get married to a rich man. The world realizes her failings and that is why the world won’t be tuning in for her nuptials or the cheesy wedding doodads on sale. The media can hype all it wants but it won’t make a difference. We’re not watching and that’s that.
Face it, we no more buy the media’s hype that Kate is another Diana than we’ve bought the line that Michelle is the next Jackie O.
…. Who in his Right mind would purchase a replica of the engagement ring of a dead, divorced, adulterous, vapid, clothes horse who achieved celebrity because several generations of her family have leached off and she married into a family in a country that “collective-istly” believes it matters more who you father was than what you’ve accomplished? What has possessed our countrymen that they care what classless Limey twits do or say …?
Frankie Boyle thought it was sad, on the tenth anniversary of her death, that they had that concert for Diana Spencer. After all, he said, she didn’t have much to do with pop music and they should have have done something that celebrated what was really important about her life … by staging a gang bang in a minefield.
He also wondered if Camilla is what Princess Diana would look like if she survived the crash?
Put me on the “could not care less” list.
The 2nd sons seem slightly more useful. Andrew in the Royal Marines and Harry in the Army actually acted liked they owed some service in return for the privileges. They seemed to be decent comrades.
The rest are simply parasites.
Whoa, Rick ! You really have an festering animus towards the Royals. Methinks you are an Irishman.
“Who in their right mind would purchase a replica of the engagement ring of a dead, divorced, adulterous, clothes horse who achieved celebrity because she married into a cold blooded, vicious family of people”
Well. She may have achieved instant celebrity due to her marriage, but she was loved worldwide due to herself.
I find your list of epithets interesting. Divorced? Is that as bad as adulterous? How about dead? Is that as bad as clothes horse?
People loved her – including me – flaws and all. Not much you, Rick, can do about that, really.
“People loved her – including me – flaws and all.”
Why? Just curious. Some people love Michael Jackson. Some people loved Elizabeth Taylor. Yet they never met any of these folks, don’t know what their actual personalities were like, just watch them on the telly. Where does the love come from?
I don’t think there’s any reason to bash Diana because she was royalty. But she wasn’t the fairy tale princess, either. What was she?
I’ve given some thought to this very question before. It is strange, this love for people you don’t know. But I think it has always been with us and always will be. There is a difference between loving (or hating) someone irl and loving (or hating) someone you don’t and will never know, but both are valid forms of love (or hate).
Some people just strike an enormous chord in others, and Diana was one of those. As for myself, I loved Diana’s beauty, her sweetness, her role as a mother. (And yes, I knew about her flaws.) She was just a young girl when she first burst upon the scene, and one wished the best for her.
Some people just have that ability to touch people outside of their family or inner circle. Elizabeth Taylor was another.
But I don’t think people get well loved if they go around treating others like dirt. The stories you hear about them help shape others’ perception of them. No one expects them to be perfect, but one does either “like” or “dislike” a public person, and that can be as strong as “love” or “hate.”
In the case of Diana (and Elizabeth), most of what we heard and saw was lovable (and the rest was human). She and Elizabeth brought us pleasure, were gracious, and were involved in helping others.
Now anybody can laugh at that all they like, but it is my attempt to answer your question. I loved Diana for the human she was, albeit from a distance.
I would ask others to consider their own feelings towards people they don’t know personally: Can you honestly say you don’t like or dislike any of them, but are totally neutral in all cases? Because you can’t possibly have any feelings toward someone you haven’t met irl?
Or are there some you dislike more than others, or like more than others? My like for Diana was enough to be love – that is, as much “love” as you can have for someone you never met.
Similarly, the author of this article feels “disgust” for her – that is, as much “disgust” as you can have for someone you have never met.
It comes from not knowing the difference between childish infatuation and real love.
For myself, it’s not “in love” or romantic infatuation. It is just love of another person.
“Where does the love come from?”
In my case it comes from the realization that Barry Obama is our Dear Leader.
Not me. Couldn’t stand her.
I wish them well, and that they follow Kate’s, opps, I mean Catherine’s parents’ example more than that of Charles’ in martial relationships. (The Middleton’s are still married to each other, and I think, have only had one spouse; each other).
As to William’s military career, I think he has volunteered to go to Iraq, and was forbidden, as well as Afghanistan. If you remember, his brother was returned EARLY because his cover was blown by the press.
Being a Rescue Pilot is NO CAKE WALK, it is very dangerous work, only thing more dangerous is to be the rescue person jumping OUT of the helo and into a situation.
I wish them well, but I won’t be “glued to the telly” for it.
“Charles is a perfect example of this. The poor sot has nothing whatsoever to do except sit around and wait for mummy to die”"
Try googling The Princes Trust. Over half a million young Britons from all parts of our society given assistance in starting out in life. How many people has the Moran Trust helped? Oh, there isn’t one!
Oh. Wow.
So he’s hired some people to solicit money to give away in his name. Oh, and maybe he tossed in a few millions of his family’s money that he did nothing to earn. Wow.
Big. Fat. Hairy. Deal.
Um…it isn’t his money. He has done nothing to earn it. It is given to him because of who his mother is, not because of anything he has accomplished in his life (zero) or any idea he has had (double zero), or any deed he has performed (Looking goofy is not an answer). My pet cat can go to an AIDS shelter and get his picture taken. That makes him as good as any royal out there. And much cuter to boot.
Your cat has got Aids? What have you been up to?
ROTFL
Her! Hear!
Well said. The less I hear of these nincompoops the better.
Americans who fawn over these idiots are disgusting.
It almost makes me wish I were famous just so I could say a big “Who cares?” on some talk show.
Almost.
I know there’s a royal wedding this year, but not much more. I think the fuss is mostly in the media — they’re much more impressed with royalty and other titles than those of us in the middle class. They’d probably like it if America had a king, too.
I have never understood all the excitement over celebrities, foreign or domestic. They’re just people, aren’t they?
I’m only interested in seeing the dress and the jewels. I really don’t care who’s wearing them.
My sentiments exactly. I’ll add to that the pomp and circumstance. Fun!
I believe there’s a little bit of fascination with the ordeal because there will FINALLY be an attractive woman gracing the Buckingham Palace halls.
Kate Middleton is gorgeous, marrying a guy who is more bald than his very English looking moonbat old man is/was 30 years ago whereas Charles married an average looking woman. JMO.
People like Alana, ‘loved’ the late-Princess because of her doctored-up philanthropy photo ops, err, ‘responsibilities’. Yeah, that’s it!
The woman spent more time on boats in St. Tropez, shopping at the most elite European clothing stores, rendezvousing with a myriad of sexual trysts instead of focusing on her supposed, ahem, ‘philanthropy’.
It’s a similar bunch who subscribe to People Weekly, watch and believe Oprah and Dr. Phil are witty, intelligent and believe they’re ‘unique’ when wearing their UGG boots, spandex pants and North Face jacket. Lemmings.
Sigh . . .
I guess that people here either hate, or are disgusted by, or are completely indifferent to Princess Diana, and anyone who liked her is stupid.
I don’t tell you who to like and not like.
I ought to take names, and the next one of you who expresses a fondness for anyone I will leap on and beat soundly about the ears.
Hate the game, not the playa, just sayin.
What a nasty piece of wrighting.
You might not agree with us, but the Queen is still our head of state who deserves respect.
Prince Harry has served in Afghanistan(standing shoulder to shoulder)
with you and William is also in the forces
flying rescue helicopters.
Prince Andrew was in the navy during the Falklands War.
The Royal family brings in millions through tourism, mostly from Americans.
The huge interest in this wedding around the world shows this.
The U.S seems obsessed with our history and i am sure you have all heard of Henry 8,Ann Bolyen, Elizabeth 1st, Queen Victoria etc.
The Kings Speech has just won some oscars ,it’s this interest in the royal family that leads to
more tourism.
The Queen represents us all around the world as a non political head of state. U.S politics seems so partisan.
However the Queen has had to sit through bare arsed tribal dances when she visits countries around the world on our behalf.
We make them sit through the Royal Variety Show which is painful to watch .
“However the Queen has had to sit through bare arsed tribal dances when she visits countries around the world on our behalf.
We make them sit through the Royal Variety Show which is painful to watch .”
Now you might be on to something, dovie. But how is being a tribal dancer with a naked bum any different from playing a royal in ermine to a bunch of American suckers?
It’s all down to the “personality cult” – in the west we idolise pop stars and film stars, in the east, it’s Chairman Mao or whoever happens to be in charge. Royalty worship is just another manifestation of the same issue – perhaps it’s human nature? I hate the whole media frenzy around people – Discovery Island, Big Brother, Hello Magazine – to hell with the whole concept!
I wish them well at a personal level but that’s it. And I am a Brit and supporter of the monarch as an institution. (Gotta admit, that Charles bloke has me worried though)
Wow, how mean-spirited can you get? Two people are getting married, one should at least wish them well. Britain is the closest ally the US has; we may not want to mimic their political system, but surely we can accept that it is what they have chosen over the centuries. Prince William is a fine fellow, an RAF rescue pilot, and serves his country. He will someday be the head of state of our closest ally, along with being the king of other great allies such as Australia and Canada.
I’m sure someone who hated me without personally knowing me could have written an equally blistering article before my wedding. It would have been equally as pointless as your hate-filled diatribe.
Relax. The author is full of infantile tribal resentment at the english. The funny thing is, you only see this kind of ranting among people descended from the Irish diaspora who live elsewhere.
The people who live in Ireland – the modern Irish – are embarrassed by it.
Maybe so, lefreud, but even we third-generation Irish-Americans know you are supposed to use a capital E when referring to the English. Now that is respect for England. But the concept of royalty is and has been for over 200 years an abomination to about half of we U.S. Americans. If I ever have the good fortune to visit the UK, it is the historical, military, and artistic marvels I will want to see, not the so-called royals, and the highly civilized people there whom I would like to meet and even hope to emulate in certain cases.
Maybe so, but
1. Moran’s piece was just a chicago-tribal piece of bitter-spirited hyperbole;
2. You don’t have to admire the members of the British royal family to appreciate that constitutional monarchy, as a democratic system of government, delivers some of the most stable, peaceful, and UNCORRUPT societies in the world. Which is not to say that a republican system of democratic government cannot deliver similar outcomes. But I don’t believe you could point to a single democratic constitutional monarchy in the world – I stress, genuinely democratic – that does not deliver those outcomes. Not one (yes, of course there are a handful of 3rd world states like Papua New Guinea or Jamaica, but they are barely democracies, and I suspect, would be much, much worse if they were republics).
But there are numerous republican states where the three branches of government are corrupt and chaotic in high degree, despite being genuine democracies.
You are American. Your REPUBLICAN country started with a revolution against a monarchist Britain. I don’t see exactly why your opinion as to this wedding, (or indeed any aspect of the royal family) is important to anyone outside of the USA.
This whole snarky attack is the easy bashing by a pundit who can’t think of anything else to write about today (aside from Syria, Libya, Japan, or Elizabeth Taylor.)
Katherine Middleton is marrying the Prince of Wales in London’s Westminster Abbey, and the whole of Britain and much of the Commonwealth will celebrate. The ceremony will be beautiful and historic, without the trash rendered up daily by American movie/TV stars.
Well, if by “beautiful”, you mean, “showy”, and by “historic”, you mean, “will be noted in some history books”, yes, I suppose that’s true.
And it will all make LESS lasting difference in the world than the opening of a new mall in some mediocre town.
“This whole snarky attack is the easy bashing….”
Just because shooting fish in a barrel is easy doesn’t make it any less fun.
BTW He’s not the “Prince of Wales”, unless Kate is marrying Charles, as that is his fathers title. He is “Prince William of Wales”. Or as we know him in the states, the eighth generation of inbred sausage eaters that pretend to the throne of England.
How does one pretend to a pretend throne, anyway???
Rick,remind us what have you done to serve your country?
Away with these Hanover/Windsors…bring back the Stuarts! They were *real* kings! And queens. Sometimes, both at once.
Which Americans are you talking about? Haven’t seen anything about it. Don’t intend to see anything about it. What HeatherMC said….sheesh. Get a life.
The news media no longer reports news, it provides opinion and People magazine. You can no longer avoid “celebrities” even if you try, which I do.
I know, because I can’t avoid it. I don’t care, because I don’t know these people and I wasn’t invited.
Agree with GA Knight that the interest is media-driven, not public-driven. Ten years ago, it would not have been possible to assess public interest, and the media would be the only indicator, despite being confounded by their own profit-driven need to generate interest.
Now, we might use social networking to gauge public interest in this stuff. According to Twitter, during 2010, these two weren’t one of the top trends relating to people, although “Prince Williams Engagement” ranked at 9 in terms of news trends: http://yearinreview.twitter.com/trends/
Definitely agree that we should do away with this ancient system, and enjoyed your Sam Adams quote. Do we need to pay attention to the gossip-fodder to criticise the institution? When Charlie Windsor abuses his power to try to influence British architecture, or to undermine medicine, this should be pointed out and ridiculed. Not sure the fact that he had an affair is important though. The system can be argued against in terms of its structure, without having to wade through gossip.
I thought everyone liked the Royal Family because the Obama’s were not invited to the wedding?
If the Royal Family are so un American values,why did some think he should of been invited?
Views of the Royal Family changes with generation.
The Queen went through ww2 with the country. Buckingham Palace was hit during the Blitz .
The end of the war was celebrated in the Mall of which she was one of them.
Every Remembrance Sunday the old soldiers march and salute her,and she to them. It’s quite moving .
Prince Charles grows on you, it is unfair to not recognise his charity including the Princes Trust.
http://princes-trust.org.uk/
Remembrance Sunday is huge here, Harry layed the poppy wreath ,both princes have lost friends in Iraq and Afghanistan,
William was in Afghanistan in November to lead the service(Has Rick been there recently?)
Please watch this ,it explains our views.Its only 2 minutes,you owe us that for writing an anti British rant supported by some posters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11752407
They are a figure head to represent us all.
We had a bid for the 2012 olympic’s.
William led it .When Obama was doing the same ,some wanted him to fail .
That he doesn’t represent you if you didn’t vote for him.
“Prince Charles grows on you”
So does a tapeworm.
Well, I for one intentionally turn off any reports on royalty or sports or the stock market. I think royalty should be set afloat on coconuts, sports are just a bunch of multimillionaires who happen to be bigger or taller than everyone else, and stocks are for the guys and gals who have money to burn.
So what does that leave? Politics, history, food, women, lots of stuff to occupy the healthy mind. Let’s not forget, there was a time not too long ago when the media reported every fart made by a televangelist. Remember? Tammy Faye? Etc. Now, they’re off that kick.
As someone who went to school for broadcasting, and worked in it during the Falklands War I can assure any other reader, it is made up, almost completely, of goddamn morons. At the time of the Falklands War, the media organization I was working with in Buffalo, NY decided that the opening of a new restaurant should be the lead story that day, not the start of a war between England and Argentina. That’s when I knew I had to bail.
And just to start the weekend off with a bang, I’ve been a member of a public employee union since. Sure beats being a media whore, or a member of royalty.
Heh..’What a nasty piece of writing’..Umm..no, it’s not nasty. It’s defensive because of what we’re already seeing bits of in the comments.
Elitists: Royal Wedding! Big Event! Americans Invited!
Us: Who?
Elitists: You dumb provincial rednecks. Prince and Commoner Wedding! The whole World will be there.
Us: Good for them.
Elitists: Stupid uncultured Americans. You’re going to be left out. Everyone will hate you if you don’t come to the wedding.
Us: You still haven’t explained why I should give a damn.
Elitists: World Community! Royalty..umm..Camelot? Ack..Dumb Americans!!!
Us: F__k soccer too.
Relax people! first, this is a very mean-spirited piece of writting. You may not share the UK political system, yet it’s their system and not of the USA. When prince Charles and Lady Di got married, Ronald & Nancy Reagan were invited, they were graciously to it, not mean spirited, it doesn’t mean they suddenly became monarchist!I wish well to the couple, and may they do well to the UK.
Second: learn to separate the Media people from the normal people.
Third: Even if some normal american is fascinated with the royal family, let it be, it’s part of human nature! Nobody cares if you like Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga, there is NO rational reason to like some movie stars. OTOH, many people who -you would say, should be likeable, are just not.
Human nature.
Fourth: Sooooo, no t-shirts of the royal wedding… so what? The author wants to make an issue of it? LOL!
It seems that people outside of the UK are more interested in the Royal Wedding.
Di was ugly, her son is uglier, the royals have no political power and england is a small power in the world. Who cares.