Do the lives of the royals interest you?
Posted at 5:00 AM on April 28, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(55 Comments)
Filed under: Culture, International affairs, Politics/Government
There is speculation that the wedding of Britain's Prince William and Kate Middleton could draw an even bigger worldwide audience than that of William's parents in 1981. Today's Question: Do the lives of the royals interest you?
Comments (55)
I take no interest in the lives of "the royals" separate from "the commoners". However, celebrating unity and having a great time together is wonderful.
Being a sovereign individual, the lives of others interest me because they show the range of experiences that arise from choices made and perceptions held by people.
May we each come to know the royalty that is closer than hands or feet and nearer than the breath.
Noooo...can't say I am.
As I understand it, Britain avoided the turmoil of a revolution like the French had by promising the royals that they could keep all their status, so long as they gave up their power. They're still making good on that promise by supporting today's royal family at public expense. Would that this country had such a track record of keeping its word!
...no....
To me it should be only a legacy honorary title, nothing more. For England it really is a pointless role other then bragging rights.
I am sure those in England feel differently, but I do not recall the King or Queen really playing a role in their country... at least lately.
Might be nice to know they have the so many millions, in in trade for this, be the key diplomat, and maybe lead the country. Minus this I think England can continue in its growing up and becoming a normal country.....
As far as weddings?
The Royal Wedding such as we will see is a WASTE of money, bragging rights, and OVER-KILL.
Those who are treated this way may say otherwise, but ask your selves why? Do you get a kick out of having a wedding others can not? Are you that much more saintly?
Sorry in my book all must humble themselves...
And this ain't humble.
And it sure is not Minnesotan.
They have slightly more dignity than American royalty, i.e. Hollywood celebrities, but are still fodder for schlocky tchotchkes. You know you've made it in popular culture when you're a Pez dispenser. I sometimes follow the fashions the women wear because they're so bizarre, otherwise, meh.
No, they're English, not American. We won our independence from this type of royalty worship over 200 years ago.
Nowhere near as much as it appears to be interesting the media and the publc in general. There are endless things more valuable to focus on than the tabloid details of the royals' lives.
I'm thoroughly enjoying every moment. Painful news is always here in abundance. The royal wedding and Gabrielle Giffords' progress are news features that I don't tire of hearing about or reading.
Wow. An awful lot of people who couldn't care less took the time to respond. I see the royals as a constant in our lives. They were here when I was born and will be here when I die. Nearly every society has had some sort of royalty so apparently it's in our genes. I don't go out of my way to learn about them, but it's hard not to miss their trials, tribulations, and triumphs so we end up knowing as much about them as we do some of the members of our own family. It's the ultimate soap opera. I'll be watching the wedding tomorrow with a smile on my face wishing William and Kate all the best.
Not unless I could be a missing heir and there's some money or a title involved.
Not in the least. "Royalty" is just a farce left over from much less enlightened days. It is a pompous joke.
Hey, I don't care. They're attractive kids, seem like decent, intelligent people. I wish them the best. And Harry too. It must be tough being William's little brother!
And honestly, what is so declasse" about enjoying the royals for one brief shining moment? Do any of you stop to ponder on the slobbering adoration we give to someone who can hit a ball, or run fifty yards with a ball, or knock a ball (well, a puck) into a net? And the amount of money spent on these neanderthals. And yes, some of it, indeed, tax money? Many of whom can't put a sentence together coherently?
Stop being so smug, people. Llve long and prosper, Kate and William.
No
You guys - please read Dan Rather's current article on Huffington Post. Puts everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - in perspective.
No, but I do realize that the wedding is a big deal in England by tradition and that their royalty is important to many of them. Royalty in the modern world seems so anachronistic to me. I'm much more interested in the Endeavor's final flight tomorrow, and happy that Gabrielle Giffords is able to be there to watch the take off.
((Boy, did I have a hard time finding this feature on your website!!))
Compared to my own two kids, I can't deny that many others are born richer. Many others may be born smarter, more talented or better looking -- though I take issue with that. But no children are born more royal, The notion of royal birth is disgusting to this American. Isn't that what we rebelled against in 1776? "Royals" can do whatever they like -- they will anyway. But don't expect me to follow their antics.
Nope
Have a good life together…move along.
∑
DTOM
I like English history, so from that stand point, yes. Otherwise, it would likely just be a passing interest, much like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.
The only value in this question is that it brought out some really witty responses. The rest of 'em here in cube central are wondering what I'm laughing at.
Not really. That's an aweful lot of national wealth to spend on a family wedding in a time when their economy is in the tank.
While I wish them well, I've never had much of an interest in that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan.
Good one Matt. The Royals back in their hey day!
Amos Otis, Freddie Patek, George Brett, Hal McRae, Brett Saberhagen, Charlie Liebrandt,
U. L. Washington, Bo Jackson, John Mayberry
Now those are Royals worth following!
I haven't been excited about the Royals since George Brett flirted with a .400 batting average back in 1980.
Off with their heads! :-)
The fact that MPR is covering the wedding events tomorrow as well as other fluff and artsy junk is a primary reason why I don't contribute.
I come here for news, not celeb worship.
no
I thought I was the only one who couldn't care less. Now I wonder where those people are who ARE interested.
Not in the least. *yawn*
Constitutional monarchy is a system of government. It's not about celebrity. Rather, it's about having a non-partisan chief of state who models dignity and civility that is above politics. By contrast, everything is political in the U.S. system. Americans live in political squalor. Paul Jasmer, member of the Monarchist League of Canada
Not really. The lives, and birth certificates, of our royalty over here don't interest me much either.
No but I would like to see their birth certificates
I am not even interested in the question "Do the lives of the royals interest you?"
God no. The fact you're even asking makes me wonder if its a real slow news day.
What's missing from all this coverage of the royal wedding is a Minnesota Connection. Surely there must be a way we can claim Miss Kate as one of our own?
I couldn't care less. Weddings are boring, so I anticipate Prince Williams' wedding to be a ROYAL bore.
i am very excited about it it is the wedding of the century and a way of getting away from all our troubles and stresses in life the devastation it is a good thing-i have a daughter who i will probably marry off in a few years so i am taking notes!
Not really. However, it's kind of nice to see a "feel good" story once in awhile. A little overplayed though.
Who?
No way -- celebrating one family's "superiority" enhances a culture of dualism that not only doesn't serve us, but hinders humaity's progress.
I thought I was interested, but it turn out it was just gas.
The whole monarchy world is like watching a never ending play/soap opera. I would rather watch something more interesting such as my dog sleeping.
Not even one tiny bit. I've been lucky to avoid all the hoopla, it feels like.
Actaully, yes! A little celebration in the midst of all the devastation is a good thing. I wish them well.
This is a rhetorical question, right?
not at all. bored stiff.
Not much interest at all, the same sort of interest as finding an old pot or tool in the attic or tool shed would generate - sort of a 'I wonder what this is all about ' sort of attitude. The royals seem to be so completely self absorbed (common these days) that they hold little interest.
No, very bored by all the breathless anticipation, assuming I am riveted by all kinds of meaningless details. No stories about anything interesting, just an endless "US magazine" story. Nobody asks the people involved interesting political questions.
Nope, not one bit.
I'm not quite sure why people are so interested in this or why the media makes such a big deal in this. Someone please explain to me why this is so important?
Monarchy? Talk about a concept that jumped the shark centuries ago! So, tell me again why do they have more rights and privilege that other Brits?
And really, the Windsor family is really German after all.
That's why my radio and TV have a remote control, so I can change the station the first moment any talk of this royal wedding starts.
Not at all. I am tired of the media coverage and I can't wait for it to be over! There is so much else going on in the world (libya, egypt, japan tornadoes the war) that should have the media colverage, it is just silly to spend so much time and money on a wedding.
The media certainly is banking on it.
No.
No. We fought two wars so we wouldn't be burdened by royalty and all that goes with that form of government.
Not even a little bit. I can't wait for this wedding crap to be over.
Not one bit. In fact I find it disturbing that they are taking up so much of the medias time. If terrorists were to bomb the royal's wedding, it would be no more sad than any other attack. They are NOT special people. We as a society are much to interested in celebs and "star athletes".
Nope. Less coverage please!
| April 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock