Comments:Prince William marries Kate Middleton—live updates
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Comments from feedback form - "very factual about the royal w..."||0||17:19, 11 July 2011|
|Baffling||19||05:17, 2 May 2011|
|Disappointing...||6||06:31, 1 May 2011|
|Congrats!||0||06:54, 30 April 2011|
|MIERDA||4||00:42, 30 April 2011|
|Comments from feedback form - "So far the entire presentation..."||0||21:05, 29 April 2011|
|The right idea||1||17:00, 29 April 2011|
|Comments from feedback form - "Hundreds of thousands of peopl..."||0||14:55, 29 April 2011|
Last edit: 16:02, 30 April 2011
I will never understand the world's obsession with these affairs... There are three wars going on, UK, NATO & US service men and women are fighting and dying around the globe, and we are all swooning over some tart's dress... What a pity. Such is the human condition I suppose.
- [Re-added as a thread by Brian McNeil.]
Yup:P. It's weird. I've gotten to the point where I unplug the radio at work the moment they start to mention the royal wedding.
At least it isn't another Fergie!
"Here comes the bride! Forty feet wide".
Last edit: 17:06, 29 April 2011
Well, the BBC World on the radio said the coverage of the bride was a classier version of Paris Hilton, meaning it was a "celebrity" story and not "news".
Don't get me wrong, I understand that the wedding of any head-of-state (or equivalent) will make the news, but this week long non-stop coverage is simply insane. The other thing I don't undersatand is why Americans care so much! We fought a revolution to get out from under a crown, and now we seem simply enamoured with it. It's all bollocks if you ask me. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually it seems that the United States is more interested in the wedding than the British themselves.
I know! And that's what baffles me. The average American doesn't know the first thing about how the Brittish Monarchy works, yet for some reason, our women are just going bonkers over this wedding. Why?!Tadpole256 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Your average American actually wants royalty.
So,... Make us an offer for the Sax-Coburgs; we'll keep the jewels to sell to cash4gold.com, you take the Germans and the Greek.
Indeed it is. As someone from Britain who went on holiday to New York last week, I can tell you they're incredibly crazy—certainly more so—than the British. I would imagine this is because the idea of a monarchy is something incredibly exciting since they don't have one, and the stereotypical 'Englishness' of the event—the Abbey, the cavalry, the carriages—gets them excited.
I have a feeling you are spot-on. I think it all seems so old fashioned and romantic to most Americans. Frankly, it seems like a collosal waste of money and resources to me.
It's doing no harm. These people get a nice wedding, and the tourist industry will get a boost. I would be very surprised indeed if, in total, the tourist income from the event were less than the cost of the event itself.
To be honest, this is one of the nicer ways we could spend taxpayers money - I'd rather this than spending it on MPs' expenses, bankers' bonuses, or killing people in the Middle East.
I've always been of the opinion that the royals do little good, but certainly no harm. They attract tourists, and would hopefully act as a last resort to block a total government takeover by a lunatic - I doubt the queen would give assent to that - but that's an unlikely event. But tourism gets a boost. And since my town was built entirely out of fish and tourists, I'm not going to say anything bad about tourism ;-)
I happen on the other hand to have enjoyed this completely.
We all know you're a royalist, Brian. ;-)
When is the NZ government going to pay for Buck House, and all the Royals, to be shipped down under?
But, seriously, I'm saddened because this reduces Charles' chances of actually sitting on the throne. Seeing as he's really an old hippy with a posh accent, I can well imagine him putting future PMs in awkward positions.
I still say the royal family should intervene on the MPs 2nd homes issue; keep 'em all in the Tower of London!
I am quite disappointed that we went through so much trouble to do a "live update" article on the royal wedding. It was a wedding. That's all. No one walked away from the alter etc. This was totally a non-news event. There were/are more important things going on in the world, and we wasted our time with this. So disappointed.
I certainly refute any allegations I "wasted" my time in writing this article. Although several reviewers accepted revisions throughout the day—to these people I am incredibly grateful—but as the only author (apart from some spelling mistakes I made corrected by other people, to whom I also extend my gratitude), I must say I enjoyed spending my day writing this. Since I am only a volunteer on this project, I choose what I want to write about and make no apology for doing so. There is a mixed verdict on the live blog from the community; personally I think it went very well. Whether the view of the community is that it was a success or not, I know I certainly did not waste my time writing this yesterday.
5 stars and a gold trophy for making an excellent point go to Dragonfire1024. I couldn't agree with you more if I was paid to agree with you. There were much better places to do this, Wikinews is not part of the blogosphere, and although done well, was done entirely in the wrong place. While stuff is happening elsewhere, we basically turned into a twitter feed. Volunteer or not, we're a news site, not a blog. If it'd been done as a news article, maybe not such a bad idea.
And so the Guardian, Metro, Channel 4 News, Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, Scotsman and NPR are also not news websites? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the live blog was a test for a new format which I thought would be more inventive than a simple article. If the community says they don't want me doing it again, I won't do it again.
One of the biggest security operations London has ever seen, the attendance of all three main political party leaders and countless foreign leaders, the attention of a huge chunk of the population of Britain and indeed the globe, blanket media coverage in the UK for weeks, hundreds of street parties, and the declaration of a public holiday for the entire country. Whatever you think of the Royal Family, this was not "just a wedding".
Sure there probably were more important things going on, but I don't see how the existence of this article stopped anyone writing about them.
This is complete shit. Who in the first place "appointed" the Kings and Queens of Europe and the other monarchic lands? Maybe somebody clever enough to piss over everyone and say "I am the King! Goo goo G'job!" thousands of years ago, then the "royal" descendants continued with the great lie, and no plebe opposed to this (nobody but France). I don't see the point of monarchic governments. Even the King of Spain seems awkward.
+1 Diego, I couldn't have put it better myself. Mierda just about describes the whole thing we saw today. Nothing calls for a wedding that lavish and outstandingly expensive. Monarchy is a joke. Let's go the Irish route, President and a PM.
I can't speak for the other countries, but Britain's a constitutional monarchy Diego, and they do rule with the consent of the people. Perhaps not all of the people, but certainly a majority - polls on this are pretty regular and hover at around 70%.
And the royal succession in Britain isn't as simple as you might think. Several times Parliament has stepped in to influence it - the Restoration, w:Glorious Revolution, and abdication of Edward VIII spring to mind.
Brits are stupid then (no offense intended, though). Do it the French way!