A Royal Wedding [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gaelbert

2011-04-29, 01:11 AM

Outside of political discussion? Welp... hmmm...
This is about all I've got. (http://www.mensflair.com/news/the-last-pocket-squared-king-of-england.php) For those too lazy to read the link, basically William doesn't dress as snazzy as Charles did.
It does bug me how the UK media won't cover anything else. Shouldn't surprise me, but I need my news fix and royal gossip doesn't cut it for me.
Other than that, I hope they have a long and happy marriage.

Zevox

2011-04-29, 02:01 AM

(usual political discussions are forbidden :-D

To be honest, I am totally disinterested in this event except the interest it provokes in the media.

Somebody wants to talk about it? :smallredface:
:smallconfused: If you're not interested in it, why start a thread about it?

Zevox

Lord Seth

2011-04-29, 02:19 AM

Well, NBC had a special on Wednesday about the royal wedding that did pretty poorly in the ratings (granted, that's nothing new about NBC, but...), so it doesn't seem like it provoked much interest.

What's funny is someone from the UK at TV By The Numbers commented on the ratings and said that people there care even less about it than people in the US do.

Killer Angel

2011-04-29, 03:49 AM

:smallconfused: If you're not interested in it, why start a thread about it?

Discussing the funny hats of the wedding guests? :smalltongue:

Trazoi

2011-04-29, 04:12 AM

:smallconfused: If you're not interested in it, why start a thread about it?
Because the media has been going bananas over it for weeks. It's been bizarre. I can understand why it's an important story, but I can't see why it requires an entire month of special reports. What's there to report other than "William and Kate are getting married. Good for them."?

Innis Cabal

2011-04-29, 04:29 AM

ZombyWoof

2011-04-29, 04:38 AM

Woah. RICH PEOPLE? Getting MARRIED?

WHERE?

Oh wait I don't care. I mean good luck to them and all, and pip pip cheerio fish and chips and all that. If you'll excuse me, I'm not going to make sly comments about your damn wedding ring that could bloody pay for room & board & tuition for ALL OF MY COLLEGE CAREER.

Eldan

2011-04-29, 06:03 AM

I'm sure it's wonderful for the Brits but as an American I can honestly say...we broke away a long time ago. We stopped carrying about the royalty a lot earlier than that. Big whoop, two rich people are getting married.

And then we get world-wide coverage whenever two hollywood stars marry :smallwink:

Volthawk

2011-04-29, 06:05 AM

Meh, I don't care about the royals, personally. I do appreciate the free two days off, though.

And then we get world-wide coverage whenever two hollywood stars marry :smallwink:

Eh, priorities of the modern world, I guess...

Innis Cabal

2011-04-29, 06:05 AM

And it's just as obnoxious and utterly pointless though honestly there hasn't been a wedding between two actors on this scale...at least in 20 years. Probably more if ever.

Archonic Energy

2011-04-29, 06:22 AM

Meh, I don't care about the royals, personally. I do appreciate the free two days off, though.

Only one. the other is, as you should know, May Day.
still it was nice of them to pick this friday! :smallamused:

Volthawk

2011-04-29, 06:29 AM

Only one. the other is, as you should know, May Day.
still it was nice of them to pick this friday! :smallamused:

Yeah, this making the four-day weekend is what I meant.

>.>
<.<

Archonic Energy

2011-04-29, 06:32 AM

Yeah, this making the four-day weekend is what I meant.

it's the 3 day working week i was most happy for! :smallbiggrin:

Volthawk

2011-04-29, 06:34 AM

it's the 3 day working week i was most happy for! :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, and that. Been nice for me: 2 week holiday, 3 day week, then a 4 day week.

Trazoi

2011-04-29, 06:34 AM

Darn, why didn't we get the day off? Granted, that would make it a two-day working week since we had Monday and Tuesday off, but still - it's the princple of the thing!

AtlanteanTroll

2011-04-29, 06:36 AM

And then we get world-wide coverage whenever two hollywood stars marry :smallwink:

And gods forbid it's a funeral.

Androgeus

2011-04-29, 06:57 AM

Big whoop, two rich people are getting married.
Hey, Kate Middleton is common as muck, her farther is only a multimillionare!
Serroiusly, there are articles which call her a commoner (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/royal-wedding-2011-prince-william-marries-commoner-kate-middleton/articleshow/8117691.cms).

Volthawk

2011-04-29, 06:59 AM

Hey, Kate Middleton is common as muck, her farther is only a multimillionare!
Serroiusly, there are articles which call her a commoner (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/royal-wedding-2011-prince-william-marries-commoner-kate-middleton/articleshow/8117691.cms).

Nah, when they say 'commoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoners_in_the_United_Kingdom)', that just means she isn't a peer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage). Or the queen.

_Zoot_

2011-04-29, 08:01 AM

Well, I'm going to start with the positives then:

I thought it was fantastic, there was a real atmosphere about it, and the couple looked so happy with each other. Also, I thought that it was in good tastes, or at least the wedding party was, some of the hats the guest had were... Interesting. :smallbiggrin:

That and the House Hold Cavalry. They looked awesome. As ever! :smallbiggrin:

Androgeus

2011-04-29, 08:29 AM

Nah, when they say 'commoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoners_in_the_United_Kingdom)', that just means she isn't a peer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage). Or the queen.

yhea, I know. Should have seen the number of people up here who got annoyed when someone called Kate a typical St. Andrews girl.

Gaius Marius

2011-04-29, 08:39 AM

:smallconfused: If you're not interested in it, why start a thread about it?

Zevox

Because, as I said, I am interested in the people's interest in it.

I hope you understand, seriously.

pendell

2011-04-29, 08:50 AM

The Glyphstone

2011-04-29, 08:51 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Isn't that also how you generate your porn star name, minus the 'Lord/Lady'?:smallconfused:

pffh

2011-04-29, 08:55 AM

Nah, when they say 'commoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoners_in_the_United_Kingdom)', that just means she isn't a peer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage). Or the queen.

Since he's marrying a commoner does that exclude him from being able to become king?

Psyren

2011-04-29, 09:08 AM

Because the media has been going bananas over it for weeks. It's been bizarre. I can understand why it's an important story, but I can't see why it requires an entire month of special reports. What's there to report other than "William and Kate are getting married. Good for them."?

During slow news cycles, the more inane pieces take center stage.

It's just how the media works. They always need something to talk about, even during times when there isn't anything.

LCR

2011-04-29, 09:23 AM

OMG, why did he wear the Irish Guards uniform?
This is so exciting!

ThePhantasm

2011-04-29, 09:25 AM

I find the hooplah silly, but I understand the appeal that it brings to some people. It seems like a modern day real-life fairy-tale. Doesn't matter if it actually isn't one, that's just how it all seems. Its an outlet for people. So I say hey, let the people who soak this stuff up have their fun. Its better than most of the trash the news reports anyways.

Zevox

2011-04-29, 09:32 AM

I can understand why it's an important story,
That makes one of us. Myself, I can't see why it's "important" any more than I could see why anyone would consider the wedding of Clinton's daughter "important." They're people who happen to be related to people who can make some claim to being important (and not a terribly good one in the royals' case), they're not actually important themselves, nor is their getting married actually important for anyone but them and their families.

During slow news cycles, the more inane pieces take center stage.
Yeah, I can think of quite a few much more important things that have been going on recently that the news could be talking about. They're not focusing on it because it's all they have to talk about, they're doing it because they're never going to get another chance and they think it'll get them ratings.

Zevox

Leecros

2011-04-29, 09:33 AM

During slow news cycles, the more inane pieces take center stage.

Except between Japan and Libya and probably 100 other things that are more important than two people getting married...

There was a line of devastating storms that went across the east in the last couple of days. It killed 300 people and our(The U.S) media are still spending more time on this wedding.:smallannoyed:

GrlumpTheElder

2011-04-29, 09:48 AM

Since he's marrying a commoner does that exclude him from being able to become king?

No, he'll still be the king.

I, personally, like the fact that there is so much coverage. I feel it gives the country to feel good about. Then again, I like the royal family.

I would apreciate the day off more if I weren't on my easter holiday at the moment.

SaintRidley

2011-04-29, 09:58 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

If I go with the first street I can remember the name of that I lived on, that makes me Lord Angel Scrappydale.

Also got rid of the hyphen. The name works better without in this case.

ZombyWoof

2011-04-29, 11:32 AM

Isn't that also how you generate your porn star name, minus the 'Lord/Lady'?:smallconfused:
Suddenly British nobility makes so much more sense!

EDIT: Lord James GeneralScurry-Rogers?

Lord James Zoe-Rogers sounds better but still :smallwink:

Gaelbert

2011-04-29, 11:33 AM

I'm sure it's wonderful for the Brits but as an American I can honestly say...we broke away a long time ago. We stopped carrying about the royalty a lot earlier than that. Big whoop, two rich people are getting married.

You'd be surprised. A lot of Americans really care about royalty and royal gossip for some reason.

Psyren

2011-04-29, 12:27 PM

Except between Japan and Libya and probably 100 other things that are more important than two people getting married...

Japan and Libya have been all over the news for a month, though. Sure they're important, but there's such a thing as burnout.

I'm not saying the media is right to focus on a wedding this much - but I understand.

Mazeburn

2011-04-29, 12:46 PM

I've been pretty bored of all the coverage when Libya and Syria is a lot more interesting. But I walked into the computer lab this morning to find my classmates had the royal wedding blaring on the projectors... My reaction was basically 'Really? Really?-- OMFG PRETTY HORSES OMFG SPITFIRES COOL'. Then I shut up and watched.

At least, till Fearne Cotton came on. >___> No amount of pretty horses will make me abide her.

Nameless Ghost

2011-04-29, 01:06 PM

My reaction to today's Google image change was 'oh, that's today?'.

Which pretty much sums up my interest in the wedding.

Trazoi

2011-04-29, 04:59 PM

That makes one of us. Myself, I can't see why it's "important" any more than I could see why anyone would consider the wedding of Clinton's daughter "important." They're people who happen to be related to people who can make some claim to being important (and not a terribly good one in the royals' case), they're not actually important themselves, nor is their getting married actually important for anyone but them and their families.
The difference is that barring tragedy or political change William is going to be my head of state one day.

It's definitely news worthy, and important if you're in a Commonwealth country. But spending endless weeks discussing the preparation was waaaaaay too much.

Lord Loss

2011-04-29, 07:05 PM

Me and most of my male friends don't see the big deal about it. Our general stance is "It's just a wedding...". My British friend (he moved to Canada a few years ago) and most of my female friends have been freaking out about it. A group of them is having a party where they watch the whole thing, wearing tiaras and whatnot... :smallconfused:

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm in Canada (Quebec, to be precise).

deniel

2011-04-30, 02:38 AM

Actually only girls have interest to watch the wedding.
The wedding doesn't mean me.

Fifty-Eyed Fred

2011-04-30, 06:05 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

"Lord Maurice Chivers-Iden" would be an amazing name! I wish I had remaining Facebook names, so I could switch it to that immediately!

The difference is that barring tragedy or political change William is going to be my head of state one day.

It's definitely news worthy, and important if you're in a Commonwealth country. But spending endless weeks discussing the preparation was waaaaaay too much.

This sums up my feelings on the whole thing rather accurately. Though there was a pragmatic solution - my republican friend was whinging about the coverage, to which I replied "don't watch the news, then."

Elder Tsofu

2011-04-30, 06:49 AM

Except between Japan and Libya and probably 100 other things that are more important than two people getting married...

There was a line of devastating storms that went across the east in the last couple of days. It killed 300 people and our(The U.S) media are still spending more time on this wedding.:smallannoyed:

Well, news need variation - its not good for business to just cover every possible disaster in the world. And I mean, as long as the Libya-incident doesn't kick of something like world-war III it isn't particularly important to me as a person* - if it wasn't on TV and in the newspaper I wouldn't have heard of it and never would.

And aren't the south of US getting those storms every year, basically making this one old news come again? (to be a bit crass)

Personally I can see why the wedding is popular to report about, it only happens about once every generation and it is usually quite unusual from the daily routine. It is grand, it is flashy and it is costly in a way normal people (even rich American people) could only dream about. Being royalty also adds a bit of history** to the event and a romantic tone which is hard to beat in your ordinary wedding.
(But having a month of reporting is a bit much, I remember thinking so when the next queen of our kingdom married last year)

*Me being a person not living in Libya, by Libya and don't have any friends or family living in that area.
**One of the things royalty have bucketfuls of when the ordinary citizen would have hard to trace their ancestry beyond a few generations. They just need to open the history books!

Adlan

2011-04-30, 07:43 AM

OMG, why did he wear the Irish Guards uniform?
This is so exciting!

He is their Colonel. He worse his RAF wings, being a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot (like his uncle). His medal was only the Jubliee medal, awarded to every serviceman at that time. His brother wore his afghan gong too. Saw some properly impressive campaign collections yesterday, especially on the NCO's and Some Generals.

Dienekes

2011-04-30, 10:44 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lord John Triceratops-Rockwell. Well, that's an interesting name, I'll give it that.

HalfTangible

2011-04-30, 10:48 AM

Other than that, I hope they have a long and happy marriage.

Famous people never have long marriages :smalltongue:

Imperial Psycho

2011-04-30, 10:49 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Lord Simon PussPuss-Edinburgh?

Thats more weird than anything....:smallconfused:

As for the Wedding, at least it's over. It is kinda funny seeing the banal shows they put on. Has anyone seen that movie about it?

Mauve Shirt

2011-04-30, 11:00 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lady Joyce Sam-Diamondback? Except I've heard that Sam-Diamondback is my porn star name...

Mewtarthio

2011-04-30, 11:07 AM

Lord Carl Katy-Bob o'Link

That just sounds silly. It really breaks down when your street name has two or more words in it.

tomandtish

2011-04-30, 11:10 AM

I remember someone came up with a "royal wedding guest name generator" as follows:

1. Lord (or Lady)
2. Grandfather's/Grandmother's first name.
3. hyphenated name first pet's name - first street you lived on.

Thus I would be Lord Jesse Gold-Hackberry.

Quite funny, I thought :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lord William Valium-Tiegs..... hmmmm

The Glyphstone

2011-04-30, 12:10 PM

Lord Robert Pheffer-Lull?

Marillion

2011-04-30, 12:40 PM

Lord Nicholas Loki-Murdock?

Gaelbert

2011-04-30, 12:48 PM

Lord Thomas Scruffy-Red Pine
I can live with that.

Eldan

2011-04-30, 05:33 PM

Lord Anton Andreas-Bleiche?

That doesn't really work.

KnightDisciple

2011-04-30, 06:15 PM

I'm a bit amused by all these people who keep harping on how there are all these terrible things going on, so why should we have any news time for a happy event? Since, you know, so many people complain about how the news is "nothing but negativity" a lot these days. I've seen news mention of both the storms the last few days in the US, and the wedding.

Trazoi had an excellent point; this wedding is determining the future royal couple of England (at this rate, they'll just directly succeed the Queen, with how she's still going strong, and her son's not a young man, but who knows with England). While they're not the sole facet of government, there is some genuine reasoning to be interested.

But yeah, some of the hype was pretty ridiculous. :smalltongue:

Zevox

2011-04-30, 07:03 PM

I'm a bit amused by all these people who keep harping on how there are all these terrible things going on, so why should we have any news time for a happy event? Since, you know, so many people complain about how the news is "nothing but negativity" a lot these days.
Speaking as someone who posted earlier that he didn't consider this important, I am not a member of the latter group. Quite the contrary, I feel that complaint is just silly. The vast majority of the time the most important things going on in the world for people to be made aware of are the negative stuff, and the purpose of the news is to let you know about the important things going on the world you should be aware of, not to make you feel good.

Zevox

Elder Tsofu

2011-05-01, 12:41 AM

the purpose of the news is to let you know about the important things going on the world you should be aware of, not to make you feel good.

Zevox

Nope, the purpose of the news (at least on a competitive market) is to tell you interesting news/stories so you don't switch channel/paper. And because you seldom have enough money to fund your own news-channel it has too be interesting to a lot of different people at the same time, which mean that they might report less interesting news in your opinion.

And I for one can't really see why the storms in the US would be of any more importance than the wedding in the UK, if you live in London. But if you lived in London you would probably not need the news to tell you much because you could just look out of the window and see for yourself. Then the storms in the US would be more interesting to the viewer even though it has ~0 effect on him/her personally.
The same but reverse goes for people living in the south of US.

---

Lord Sigvard Forest. Sounds quite classy.

Zevox

2011-05-01, 01:12 AM

Nope, the purpose of the news (at least on a competitive market) is to tell you interesting news/stories so you don't switch channel/paper.
I was speaking about it more idealistically - as far as many news outlets these days are concerned, you are correct, however. That, unlike the "negativity" thing, is something I would use as a criticism of our major news media.

Zevox

Renegade Paladin

2011-05-01, 08:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kav0FEhtLug

That is all. :smallbiggrin:

Nameless Ghost

2011-05-01, 09:13 PM

Indeed. Newspapers exist because they can make a profit from selling advertising. If it's more profitable (more appealing to more readers, so more people buy the paper, so they can demand more money per ad) to run lots of stories about a wedding, those stories will be given priority over other headlines. Even if those other headlines are 'more important'.

Providing the populace with information about local and global events is a secondary concern, unfortunately.