Why do people care so much about the UK Royal Wedding?

[Canada EH]

12 hours ago, Stix67 said:

Why

 was wondering the exact same thing

 

its meaningless

 

what are they good for

 

what I wonder about is what % of brits actually care

 

[Guest]

Its Tradition. The Royals biggest business is selling themselves and thus ensuring their survival, though as new generations come those that revere them do so more out of curiosity and gossip then out of respect, as their parents might have done. I'm happy that the two boys have found someone to love and care for, despite being born into privilege William and Harry seem like genuine men, no doubt as a result of their mothers influence. Diana is another reason why people take interest in The Royals and would be there to show their support for her children.

[Canada EH]

the big one is her death

she is old

its soon

i dunno if she will break 100

[Monkey Dust]

12 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed, it's a circular form of "nothing happens", and that's by design.

 

The Queen and the other monarchs know that the UK people (and government) tolerate them because they don't interfere. Even though they still have some legal powers to step in.

 

But, let's say a Nuclear Bomb went off in London, and killed the Prime Minister and senior government officials? The Queen (or more likely, Charles, since he acts on her behalf most of the time these days due to her age and health) could step in and make decisions, and help a new government be formed and setup.

 

Or, a government gets elected that starts doing things truly illegal and/or corrupt - same deal. The Prime Minister forms a government with the blessing of the monarch. Take that blessing away, and a new government must form.

 

If you mean as an American? I think it's more a morbid fascination with them. I don't think most Americans would want a Monarchy back.

Your over estimating the Monarchs power somewhat. Technically the Queen does have the power to dissolve a government, but convention dictates that she can only do so if requested by the Prime Minister. And that isn't a 'soft' convention, it's a 'handed down from heaven on stone tablets' convention. The Monarch's role is as an apolitical head of state, and the wider Royal family's as part of Britain the brand.

 

In the event of the Prime Minster and the senior cabinet being wiped out, it would fall to the remaining senior civil servants to help the remaining elected members of parliament form a new Government. If an attack took place during an important vote and wiped out all our members of Parliament, I suspect control over what was left of the country would be entrusted to the Welsh and Scottish governments, not the Monarch. The Monarch in this doomsday scenario being quite possibly newly appointed, formerly 10569th in line to the throne, and a plumber called Geoff from Hereford. I sense I may have gone slightly off topic...      

 

Back to caring about the Royal wedding; I think there is a pretty heavy gender divide between those who care and those who don't. I reckon about 60-70% of the women in my office were super excited, compared to 0% of men. Generalising, weddings aren't something that get most men's interest, with the possible exception of the weddings of close family members. Didn't interest me personally, but hey at least the news outlets shut up about Brexit for a bit.     

[Nicnac]

cause its f@cking cute

 

Also, pls don't be Jealous, that's the german thing to do okay.

[Canada EH]

Imagine the security measures in place for the wedding. Probably cost the family 10's of millions of pounds.

[RyomaSJibenG]

because people have preference on things they want to care? like us here caring about Intel, amd, nvidia, apple, blablabla and nobody questioning us like you questioning them

 

people have reasons to invest their time and power in

[Andreas Lilja]

21 hours ago, Canada EH said:

the big one is her death

she is old

its soon

i dunno if she will break 100

Hopefully Canada goes republican after she passes. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Probably cost the family 10's of millions of pounds.

You mean the tax-payers, not the family?

[davrosG5]

It's a distraction from how sh!tty people's lives are. It's a spectacle and also in this case a bit of a fairytail.

<Plus, it gives the government and businesses an opportunity to push out bad/controversial news.>

 

Didn't watch, was thoroughly sick of hearing about it every five minutes in the run-up. Mind you, there was a different distraction when I went into town on Saturday - Morris Dancers, Morris Dances everywhere  

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

Hopefully Canada goes republican after she passes. 

While some Canadians might want to abolish the monarchy (it's especially prevalent in Quebec), it's next to impossible. It's not technically impossible, but the chances of it happening are essentially near zero.

 

Why?

Because it would require a major constitutional amendment, with unanimous support from all provinces, plus a majority support from the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament.

 

Good luck getting that many people to agree on anything, let alone the monarchy.

10 hours ago, Some Random Member said:

You mean the tax-payers, not the family?

Yes and no.

 

So, yes, the tax payers pay for security, among other things. But the Queen, and most (all?) royals voluntarily pay taxes on their government salaries.

 

But also no. Why no? Because the UK government pays the Royals about... ~$50m GBP a year - let's say $100m GBP this year because of the cost of the wedding plus the cost of security. However, the Royal Family also willingly pays the UK Government over $300m GBP per year in revenue from properties and businesses owned by the Crown Monarchy (these properties are not owned by the Government).

 

This is part of a deal made by King George III (I believe), who created a lot of debt fighting the American revolutionary war. He basically made a deal with the UK Parliament that said his debt was forgiven, and he was to be paid a salary, in exchange for giving up income from the Crown Monarchy properties.

 

So on one hand, yes, the Tax Payers are funding this event. But on the other hand, the Royal Family is paying the tax payers multi-fold more money then they receive.

[redsquirrel0249]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:21 AM, Stix67 said:

they haven't worked for it

That's the way popular people are. They're people that just got lucky, for the most part. At the same time, a Cuban plane crash shouldn't be a top story, either. News should inform for the sake of the improvement of the lives of the listeners. That's why I follow LTT, because product info, technological development, and reviews help me make decisions and develop a more clear perspective of our advancing world.

 

On 5/19/2018 at 9:35 PM, Donut417 said:

its something happy for once

Happy news is only available in non-political flavors. But who can blame a group for trying to get a public opinion advantage over the opposition? If you're talking about TV news, they're just being negative for views, to support someone they like, and for sake of being incendiary.

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

On 5/19/2018 at 9:49 PM, Canada EH said:

 was wondering the exact same thing

 

its meaningless

 

what are they good for

 

what I wonder about is what % of brits actually care

 

As a quasi-brit myself I couldn't give a shit

[killcomic]

It's baffling to me, like American's fascination with guns, except you can't take the prince to a school and kill half the students there.

[wasab]

I believe royals still has its use. I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does sound better than the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 

 

[ItsMitch]

9 hours ago, killcomic said:

It's baffling to me, like American's fascination with guns, except you can't take the prince to a school and kill half the students there.

Savage

[userzero]

Y'ALL JELLY.

 

Nah srsly tho, its all shit I know. However, it is a lovely place, see some celebs, beautiful surroundings... and I wouldn't kick Mrs Markle out of bed so well worth a watch!

 

Better than X factor or BGT that's for sure.

[Tcrumpen]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:21 PM, Stix67 said:

Why do people support them so much? The royals are mostly born into wealth and fame, they haven't worked for it. They probably don't have an easy life being unable to do "normal" things but I can almost guarantee it's far easier and nicer than almost everyone else. They basically do whatever they want. You could argue they raise money through tourism and for charity, but they don't actually do anything to do that other than show their faces occasionally so why do people line the streets cheering at them and headline after headline talks about it. I don't get it.

 

And it's sad that in the UK news, the wedding takes top spot while the Cuba plane crash comes second.

In the UK the Royal Family although has mixed views across the UK is almost a point our pride and how we identify with our country; it's directly linked to our patriotism. Think about how American treat things like flag burning (Being unpatriotic)

 

We are the only country (again to my knowledge) that actually change their national anthem when a new monarch is crowned (Well unless the monarch is the same gender as the previous)

 

Before Kate and William got married there wasn't a Royal wedding (at least to my knowledge) so it's like the dawn of a new era. It's the British way, it's part of our culture to celebrate things like the royal family

 

Granted yes they are born into wealth however it's not like they are spoilt brats. They do A LOT of charity work; for example for the aforementioned Kate and William wedding instead of Gifts one would normally get at a reception they instead requested people to donate money to various charities

 

It harken's back to our historical heritage. Also you're missing a key point. You may think they don't do a lot of work but your mistaking lack of press coverage to lack of actually doing something. The royal family are a very private family. It's not easy for paps to go up and take photo of royal family members at star studded events. The Queen herself is also a very private person she has a sort of unspoken agreement with the papers in that "You don't bother me and i won't bother you"

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Keith W said:

 

There were a few more before Kate and William 

I feel like there was this woman named D-something, Dana?  Yeah. Dana and it was KINDA a big deal...  But then she died in a car accident in France maybe?

[ItsMitch]

9 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I feel like there was this woman named D-something, Dana?  Yeah. Dana and it was KINDA a big deal...  But then she died in a car accident in France maybe?

The one where the press may or may not of inadvertently got her killed? thinking

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

The one where the press may or may not of inadvertently got her killed? thinking

Nah, we're probably way off.  Everyone knows that the British Monarchy was only established in 2010.

[Ezzy-525]

On 5/19/2018 at 3:21 PM, Stix67 said:

And it's sad that in the UK news, the wedding takes top spot while the Cuba plane crash comes second.

That particular part is because they're the British Royal Family, and Cuba is not part of Britain. You can't be that surprised that British news favours stories regarding British people.

 

If the news cycle in other countries puts the Royal Wedding above the plane crash then yeah, that's pretty sad.

 

Also, it's just the same as American's celebrating independence day. It's a point of national pride for us Brits.

 

Every country has something that they see as being "their thing", for us it's our Royal Family.

[Ezzy-525]

On 5/20/2018 at 12:39 PM, Monkey Dust said:

In the event of the Prime Minster and the senior cabinet being wiped out, it would fall to the remaining senior civil servants to help the remaining elected members of parliament form a new Government. If an attack took place during an important vote and wiped out all our members of Parliament, I suspect control over what was left of the country would be entrusted to the Welsh and Scottish governments, not the Monarch.     

 

It's worth noting that the UK Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown...not the government. So in the result of a complete obliteration of the government, the Monarch can still rule. The actual government is really only allowed to rule once the monarch gives permission (in theory they could say no.)

 

So if anything did happen that could lead to the fall of Britain as a nation, the armed forces are at the disposal of the monarch not Parliament or the Government of the day. The only branch this doesn't apply to is the Royal Navy, although given their name...they'd likely support the monarch over government. A little tidbit for you, its well known that our nuclear capable submarines have a standing order to go to friendly nations (US, Canada, Aus etc.) and place themselves under allied command should the country fall. (Not stick around for whomever rises to the top.) But at that point who cares 

 

The British monarchy isn't as dead as people like to think.

[Tcrumpen]

3 minutes ago, Ezzy-525 said:

It's worth noting that the UK Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown...not the government. So in the result of a complete obliteration of the government, the Monarch can still rule. The actual government is really only allowed to rule once the monarch gives permission (in theory they could say no.)

 

So if anything did happen that could lead to the fall of Britain as a nation, the armed forces are at the disposal of the monarch not Parliament or the Government of the day. The only branch this doesn't apply to is the Royal Navy, although given their name...they'd likely support the monarch over government. A little tidbit for you, its well known that our nuclear capable submarines have a standing order to go to friendly nations (US, Canada, Aus etc.) and place themselves under allied command should the country fall. (Not stick around for whomever rises to the top.

 

The British monarchy isn't as dead as people like to think.

Yeah the Monarch actually holds a lot of power Queen Elizabeth II just never uses it; i believe she has final say over laws get passed in the UK, apparently she can also declare war/peace on any nation

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Keith W said:

 

 

Her name was Diana

 

Princess Diana was married to Prince Charles and was the mother of Prince William and of course Prince Harry who married Meghan Markle on Saturday. 

 

Diana divorced from Prince Charles and stuck up a relationship with Dodi Fyed 

 

On the night of the 31st of August 1997 Diana and Dodi left a hotel in Paris and were pursued by the press, their car crashed in the  Pont de l'Alma underpass, in Paris.

 

Investigations by French and British police concluded that their chauffeur, Henri Paul, was driving under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs; the press chasing the couple are also believed to have contributed to the accident.

 

 

Joke: ->

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You: ->

 

@AshleyAshes @SC2Mitch