Baffling
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.]
I agree with this poast!
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".
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".
Edited twice by Microchip08 (talk · contribs) to remove the {{w}} call.
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.
Now that's funny!
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 ;-)
To quote Dendodge: "To be honest, this is one of the nicer ways we could spend taxpayers money" - Yes, it is. But approximately £5 Billion pounds worth of it? On a wedding between 2 young people, in a time when Britain is supposed to be going through "austerity" measures? Fuck that for a lark.
They'd have been just as well finding a registry office, or buggering off to Gretna Green than wasting all that money on an event which is gonna give absolutely cack all back to the people.
The taxpayer gets the bill, the businesses get the profit. We won't see a penny of what's made from today's extravagorgeout.
£5 billion? I don't know the actual cost, but it can't have been anything near that high. Taxpayer's money was only paying for security and transport, the rest was covered by the families. I do know that the cost of security for the Pope's visit last year was about £10 million, and security for the 2009 G20 hobnob in London was roughly £7 million. The wedding would surely be a similar order of magnitude.
There may also be a loss to the total economy because of the extra bank holiday, but how much (and whether it is countered by extra tourism, memorabilia etc.) is a matter of debate: http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-much-did-royal-wedding-cost-britain-1055/
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!