Link
Interesting. I've never thought about it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Link
Interesting. I've never thought about it that way.
I agree entirely.
That about sums it up. I couldn't understand all the hype.
Yeah... I can't figure it out either.
Yep, how dare Anericans enjoy such pageantry and a chance to forget all the problems that ill the world for a brief moment to just enjoy life.
I don't understand why GB supports those welfare recipient royals, the way they do. Cut 'em off the public dole.
And all that silliness, OMG! What is really funny is how the libtard media fall all over themselves. They will impune a CEO of a private company, who has worked his/her way up with earning an MBA, climbing the corp ladder, etc...but see no issue with folks being set for life on the backs of taxpayers, just because of their family ties. Remind me again about the argument made by the libtards re: the inheritance tax.
Sure, but couldn't that also be done through any wedding? Or by taking a walk at the park? Or any other number of free activities? I think the topic is discussed because people don't understand why this particular event so interesting.Originally Posted by JuBru
Yep, how dare Anericans enjoy such pageantry and a chance to forget all the problems that ill the world for a brief moment to just enjoy life.
Do people care because they are told they should? Maybe people like to think of the Disney fantasy coming to life. Personally, I would feel better about the story if this was something attained rather than something people were born into.
Say what you want about President GWB getting elected because of his dad, he still had to be elected.
I didn't watch it and didn't want to watch it. The coverage was driving me crazy. I did watch one summary of it and I did that for historical significance. It is such a throwback to another time in so many ways. That held some interest for me. Other than that, I just didn't get it. The summary show was good enough for me. England really does nothing for me and I love the link above.
We told them what we thought about that nonsense 230 years ago.
That was a very long read, but it was spot on.
No it can't. A regular wedding, walk in the park, etc can not compare to something like this. Everyone loves pageantry, and no one does it bigger or better than England. No one. Most Americans are enamored by England already, and big events there are always attention grabbers, and not because we are "told" they are important. I think this particular event is important to many because everyone, no matter how much they deny it, wish that was them. They want the money, the titles, the properties, the clothes, everything that involves being of royalty, especially the power (though they have almost none). We may be a modern society, but we want to live in ancient social circles.
Part of it really was the "fairy tale" of a "commoner" becoming a royal (she's not a princess). So it technically is something she attained. However, it irked me a little though, that it wasn't really made known just how well off she had been her whole life. Her parents and family have humble beginnings, but are millionaires. Probably one of the real reasons so many royals were okay with this. Not all were, but what are they going to do?
Like chanpion110 said, it had historical significance. That truly is about it. Certainly only reason for my interest besides knowing a few people that were part of the ceremony and wanting to see them.
How does bush come into this?
dawg80, the royals aren't on "welfare".
What would you call it then? They sure don't work for a living.
Actually, yes they do. Only Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, and Camilla don't work, they're professional diplomats/ambassadors really. The rest of the family hold jobs of some sort in various capacities. I'll just quote RealityCheck from another thread about where they're money comes from.
I thought about that, but had never seen an economic analysis of it. Much like Disney World "attracts" people from around the world to central Florida, so too, I suppose, the royals are a tourist curiosity, and as such, serve a purpose in generating tourism which equals hard currency.
But, personally, I'd rather visit the Grand Canyon. (which I have, twice....still a big hole in the ground.)
Okay....I'll concede that point. But....what about the libtard media falling all over themselves? Still doesn't mesh with the "soak the rich" mentality of the libs, does it?
Can't really explain that. Everything I think up comes to the same roadblock.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
