Why Do Royal Weddings Get So Much Attention?

  • Thread starter Pattonias
  • Start date
In summary: I don't know, to make her feel more special or something. However, I think it's more polite to call her queen consort now.
  • #36
The bride's dress is so elegant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
I tried to care and made some approving noises to individuals around me who did, but in the end, I really couldn't. It was a pretty wedding. I would have watched it if I had the time, in the same way that I would enjoy other pretty things. I had no other emotion to it.
 
  • #38
SamirS said:
My idea:
"So it's basically an occasion to be silly in public without being reprimanded, and even more, to be silly as a group. People need a) something they can identify that is larger than their own life (consisting mainly of chores) and b) some reason to justify to their peers to break out of this from time to time. Royal weddings have come, through ages of tradition, to be widely regarded as justified reason, just as holidays do. This is because for most people, the personal judgement of their peers is very important (though professional and personal judgement share some areas) to them."

Would you agree to this? I'm trying to understand the behaviour of people here, without judgement.
Neither 'a' nor 'b' apply to me. If I want to identify with something that is larger than my own life, I only need to go outside and look around at Nature - the land, the oceans, the forests, the mountains, the stars, . . . Every time I fly across the country or oceans to another country, I ponder the world that passes by underneath - each of us is very small and insignificant compared to the world.

I never need to justify myself to anyone, nor do I need or require anyone else to justify themselves to me.
 
  • #39
cobalt124 said:
Well I thought I wasn't bothered, but I've ended up watching bits of it. It is an important occasion for traditionalists in the U.K., I thought I didn't have that tradition in me any more, but I was wrong.
I caught a bit of the streaming video. I didn't care for the gushing commentary from Barbara Walters et al and statements like something to the effect that 'Kate is the most beautiful bride . . .', or some nonsense about fairy tale something or rather.
 
  • #40
Lichdar said:
I tried to care and made some approving noises to individuals around me who did, but in the end, I really couldn't. It was a pretty wedding. I would have watched it if I had the time, in the same way that I would enjoy other pretty things. I had no other emotion to it.

My experience was the opposite. Most people around me were saying "So what?" and I fell in, but in the end I couldn't. Something I picked up in childhood, which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but possibly I haven't questioned enough, and that is respect for institutions. Something for me to ponder upon.
 
  • #41
Astronuc said:
I caught a bit of the streaming video. I didn't care for the gushing commentary from Barbara Walters et al and statements like something to the effect that 'Kate is the most beautiful bride . . .', or some nonsense about fairy tale something or rather.

I didn't have the commentary on, I'm assuming that wasn't the U.K. commentary, which is usually all stiff upper lip and formal (makes me smile). What struck me was was there a single place where a camera wasn't positioned. It seemed like they were going to follow them all day all the way into the royal bedroom!
 
  • #42
Astronuc said:
Neither 'a' nor 'b' apply to me. If I want to identify with something that is larger than my own life, I only need to go outside and look around at Nature - the land, the oceans, the forests, the mountains, the stars, . . . Every time I fly across the country or oceans to another country, I ponder the world that passes by underneath - each of us is very small and insignificant compared to the world.

I never need to justify myself to anyone, nor do I need or require anyone else to justify themselves to me.

I fall in the same category as you. I'm also of the type who just stands in awe at the complexity of a simple tree or the vastness of the sky, pondering how this vastness is so insignificant to the vastness of the universe, and the implications of this about us. When I voice this to most people it's either the "you're crazy"-look or the "are you on drugs?"-look.

This is more of a way to understand how the people that do care that much about the wedding and that do create such a fuss about it (without economic intentions) function in this regard!
 
  • #43
SamirS said:
I fall in the same category as you...This is more of a way to understand how the people that do care that much about the wedding and that do create such a fuss about it (without economic intentions) function in this regard!

I fall in the same category as well, I just never talk about it. About not killing a creature because it is hideous and you are scared of it. Think about how it was made and how it has survived instead, and leave it be. Look at a blade of grass and see what you have in common with it. Look at all the ways there are to perpetutate genes and see where you belong in Nature (there I've said it now). I can't describle how I feel about a Royal Wedding so clearly, but the two are not mutually exclusive, just different.
 
  • #44
I will say this proudly: I love the royal family, especially Queen Elizabeth, and yes, even Prince Charles. I got up early to watch the wedding, and I enjoyed every bit of it. I even recorded it for posterity. The history, the tradition in that wedding was rapturous. The beautiful uniforms, outfits, carriages, buildings, music...the lot.

I watched it on the BBC, and I couldn't stand those babbling idiotic women talking about fashion though. The one woman even said "bloomin' fantastic", or something like that, and I felt like throttling her. Otherwise it was perfect. And two kisses! They looked rather shy afterwards. Never thought I'd see Prince William blush. Continuing a tradition started by his mother and father (the kissing, not the blushing), very sweet.

Pattonias said:
If they wanted to spice it up a bit, put an American twist on it and have 4 or 5 possible brides and they have to run a gauntlet to see who the new queen will be. That would probably make it the most watched world event in history. Add Snooky as a hopeful and you might possibly set an unbreakable record...

I agree with JaredJames that Britain has more than enough American influences. And why on Earth should a British Royal Wedding have an American twist? To please you? Who on Earth is this Snooky everyone talks about?

I thought after Queen Elizabeth we will have Prince Charles becoming king, and his wife will be a Duchess (like currently we have the Duke of Edinburgh), not a queen. There is no reason to think Queen Elizabeth will out-live Prince Charles, or that Prince Charles will step down and let William become king. The crown usually only changes when the current king or queen dies or is about to die (learnt that from The King's Speech ;)). I would prefer it anyway if Prince Charles becomes the next king.

I don't really care what people who are not British have to say about the royal family; it's for the British to decide, and most of the British public are in favour of keeping them. Of course it's difficult for Americans especially to appreciate a royal family. The British royal family is a part of British culture, it's a part of Britain. Take away the royal family and you take away a very large part of British history and culture. I don't expect irreverent Americans to appreciate that.

Astronuc said:
I don't think folks attack the wedding as much as they are critical of the fuss over the wedding, and part of the criticism has to do with one's perspective on the value (and validity) of the 'royal' family, and their benefit or necessity to a modern democratic society.

Looking back in my family's history, it seems the royals were more of a liability than a benefit given the wars, particularly the English civil wars, in which they participated and/or instigated.

And I suppose for some, the recognition of royalty reinforces or acknowledges the economic and political disparity and inequity in the larger society.

Clearly there is a benefit in national pride, as shown by the continuing popularity of the royal family. Some estimates put the number of people who watched this wedding as high as two billion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your comment about the royal family being a liability is a bit off the mark. The royal family today has no real power, it is merely ceremonial, and it has been that way for quite a long time.

And I just find your last comment quite queer and incomprehensible.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
What a grand wedding, I thought it was just perfect. I must confess to getting a bit misty eyed, as Prince William looked so much like his mother, in his reserved and shy looks.
 
  • #46
qspeechc said:
Some estimates put the number of people who watched this wedding as high as two billion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.
 
  • #47
Jack21222 said:
I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.

No comment on the numbers, but you do realize that more than one person can watch per TV?
 
  • #49
JaredJames said:
No comment on the numbers, but you do realize that more than one person can watch per TV?

Yes, I fail to see how that matters. What do you think the average will be, 3 per TV? Let's say the number of televisions has increased by 33% in the past 7 years. That makes 1.9 billion televisions. At an average of 3 per television, which I think is very generous, that's about 35% of all televisions in existence were tuned to the wedding.

As a comparison, the World Cup Final was estimated to have only 700 million viewers. The claim is that THREE TIMES as many people worldwide watched some stupid wedding than the world's most popular sport's championship game.
 
  • #50
Charles and Diana's wedding had 750 million viewers, the China Olympics had 1 Billion. It's also estimated that 2.5 billion watched Diana's funeral. So I don't see how it's hard to accept the number.

"stupid wedding", really? How arrogant can you get.
 
  • #51
JaredJames said:
How arrogant can you get.

Don't underestimate me.
 
  • #52
JaredJames said:
It's also estimated that 2.5 billion watched Diana's funeral.

Exactly, and that was in 1997; live internet streaming has advanced hugely since then.
 
  • #53
cristo said:
Exactly, and that was in 1997; live internet streaming has advanced hugely since then.

I was actually surprised it was streamed live on YouTube.
 
  • #54
JaredJames said:
http://foreign.peacefmonline.com/news/201007/65135.php

If that's true, it's a very good reason to keep them around.

And why is the information in that article a good reason to keep them around? The royal family made all of that money by exploiting 3rd world countries through colonization, and instead of giving that money back, they keep it and blow large amounts of it on a wedding.

If that's not the very definition of evil (robbing from the poor and spending it on yourself), then I don't know what is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Jack21222 said:
And why is the information in that article a good reason to keep them around? The royal family made all of that money by exploiting 3rd world countries through colonization, and instead of giving that money back, they keep it and blow large amounts of it on a wedding.

If that's not the very definition of evil (robbing from the poor and spending it on yourself), then I don't know what is.

A minute a go the complaint was about tax payers footing the bill, now it's a shame they paid it themselves (they didn't, but an odd complaint indeed).

Yes, the Queen was involved in all of that. :rolleyes:

If we're going to blame the queen for that, we should blame the descendants of plantation owners strung up for what their relatives did. All non-sense.

My point about keeping it around is that it's a nice cash reserve to have associated with the country, even if the country doesn't own it.
 
  • #56
Jack21222 said:
I'm HIGHLY skeptical of that number. You're saying a solid 29% of the world's population watched this? According to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel-media-televisions which cites the 2003 CIA factbook, you're claiming that more people watched this ceremony THAN TELEVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE ENTIRE WORLD a few years ago.

You know it's quite easy to google "wedding two billion" as I did? One of the results you get is this one:

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/862021-the-royal-wedding-2011-the-biggest-tv-audience-in-history

As you will note, Princess Diana's funeral in 1997 had 2.5 billion viewers, and take into account that the world population was smaller and even fewer people had television sets in those days.
 
  • #57
JaredJames said:
A minute a go the complaint was about tax payers footing the bill, now it's a shame they paid it themselves (they didn't, but an odd complaint indeed).

Yes, the Queen was involved in all of that. :rolleyes:

I haven't read the entire thread. It's WORSE that the taxpayers are paying for it, in my opinion. If the royal family is as ridiculously wealthy as your source claims, why should they rob from the citizens to shower themselves with MORE riches? The solution is not to waste money on frivolities.

When so many people are struggling around the world, the solution isn't to rub it in our faces. I'm surprised you Brits are taking this lying down. When Marie Antionette said "if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake," the French people at least had the common decency to behead her.

My point about keeping it around is that it's a nice cash reserve to have associated with the country, even if the country doesn't own it.

Confiscate the nice cash reserve and kick the queen to the curb.
 
  • #58
Jack21222 said:
Confiscate the nice cash reserve and kick the queen to the curb.

No.

So there.
 
  • #59
Some of the guests needed remedial lessons on how to wear a hat.
 
  • #60
Jack21222 said:
I haven't read the entire thread. It's WORSE that the taxpayers are paying for it, in my opinion. If the royal family is as ridiculously wealthy as your source claims, why should they rob from the citizens to shower themselves with MORE riches? The solution is not to waste money on frivolities.

Something interesting I just found, it seems the queen and charles are footing the bill for the wedding, the tax payers are paying for transport and security.

http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/how-much-did-royal-wedding-cost-royal-wedding-expenses-2782157.html

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but they bring huge amounts of tourism to the country. It's like throwing out Disney.

You might want to look up how taxes work, it isn't theft. You're just throwing utter non-sense around now making up straw men.
When so many people are struggling around the world, the solution isn't to rub it in our faces. I'm surprised you Brits are taking this lying down. When Marie Antionette said "if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake," the French people at least had the common decency to behead her.

Did she really say that? (Not as far as anyone knows.)

Who's rubbing anything in your faces? You don't have to watch, it's only because people want to that they are broadcasting it. That's like saying "with all the poor in the world, HP shouldn't rub their computers in our faces". Supply and demand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
lisab said:
Some of the guests needed remedial lessons on how to wear a hat.

And they had etiquette lessons.
 
  • #62
lisab said:
Some of the guests needed remedial lessons on how to wear a hat.
Some needed to be told what a hat is.

http://royalwedding.yahoo.com/photos/sets/1087/Best-hats-of-the-royal-wedding-guests.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
qspeechc said:
...it's for the British to decide, and most of the British public are in favour of keeping them...The British royal family is a part of British culture, it's a part of Britain. Take away the royal family and

you take away a very large part of British history and culture.

Too right.

hypatia said:
...Prince William looked so much like his mother, in his reserved and shy looks.

He has the Windsor features though

Jack21222 said:
As a comparison, the World Cup Final was estimated to have only 700 million viewers. The claim is that THREE TIMES as many people worldwide watched some stupid wedding than the world's most popular sport's championship game.

Yes, if not more.

Jack21222 said:
When Marie Antionette said "if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake," the French people at least had the common decency to behead her. Confiscate the nice cash reserve and kick the queen to the curb.

It's different, and No!

lisab said:
Some of the guests needed remedial lessons on how to wear a hat.

And in the opinion of a mere man, how to choose one! (Evo beat me to it)
 
  • #64
I heard that the middletons are paying $100,000 of the costs, the Royals the balance, and tax payers transportation and security.

At least Kate had a beautiful, elegant dress. That fiasco Diana wore was the ugliest wedding dress I've ever seen. I was shocked and disappointed when I saw the thing, I was expecting something elegant, instead it was a gawdy creation of huge poofs on her arms and a tacky neckline.
 

Attachments

  • princess_dianas_dress.jpg
    princess_dianas_dress.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 342
  • kate dress.jpg
    kate dress.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 215
Last edited:
  • #65
Evo said:
I heard that the middletons are paying $100,000 of the costs, the Royals the balance, and tax payers transportation and security.

At least Kate had a beautiful, elegant dress. That fiasco Diana wore was the ugliest wedding dress I've ever seen. I was shocked and disappointed when I saw the thing, I was expecting something elegant, instead it was a gawdy creation of huge poofs on her arms and a tacky neckline.

So true, but that lady's beauty and shy looks wasn't letting anyone to take their eyes of off her.
 
  • #66
I don't think it's easy to calculate viewership based on the number of television sets in the world. For instance, we have 2 televisions sets and there are 3 people living here. This complicates matters. But you're still not done. QEII didn't watch it on TV so you have to subtract 1, but Kate and William brought a small portable and watched most of it before he turned it to the cricket game so you have to add 2. Anyway, in order to make a stab at a scientific number, I surveyed the members of my household, a typical family and then extrapolated to the population of the world. It turns out that nobody saw the wedding.
 
  • #67
Congratulations to them both, and best wishes to them.



lol
I surveyed the members of my household, a typical family and then extrapolated to the population of the world. It turns out that nobody saw the wedding.
In my survey, 100% watched :)
 
  • #68
its just a wedding why the big fuss?
 
  • #69
God this royal wedding crap reminds me how backward we are in Britain compared to many other parts of the developed world. Yanks and other foreigners might have been watching in large numbers, but they sure as hell weren't going "hey look, this Britain place looks like a really good example of a modern democratic country". It's all a bit of a novelty to them.
 
  • #70
Shaun_W said:
God this royal wedding crap reminds me how backward we are in Britain compared to many other parts of the developed world. Yanks and other foreigners might have been watching in large numbers, but they sure as hell weren't going "hey look, this Britain place looks like a really good example of a modern democratic country".

What you mean by the fact we removed any power they had and replaced it with what has been one of the worlds best governments, all whilst not having to resort to wiping them out in some way? Yep, stinks of bad example...
It's all a bit of a novelty to them.

And it wasn't to us?
 

Similar threads

Why do so many people hate science?
Replies
28
Views
10K
Is Alan Turing given too much credit when it comes to computers?
Replies
29
Views
3K
I How do the collider experiments measure the mass of the W boson?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
Replies
4
Views
1K
Is asteroid mining the key to solving world economic problems?
Replies
1
Views
1K
From Trade School to Nuclear Physics: My Pandemic-Induced Epiphany
Replies
2
Views
322
Was America's moon expedition a fake?
Replies
7
Views
7K
News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
Replies
6
Views
3K
The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON
4
Replies
109
Views
56K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
Replies
1
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top