Prince William, a contrarian view

[Noble Dreg]

Not wishing to cause a thread war but I am curious...Does anyone else despise the whole royal family shtick as much as I?  I admit I have a very "Americentric" viewpoint.  We tossed the king and his tea into the harbor over two centuries ago and never looked back.  Why does a "western" civilization such as Great Britain tolerate bowing to a man solely based on what womb he popped out of?  So many disadvantaged citizens of that country but they choose to spend millions per year for a wholly dysfunctional family.  Estimated cost of the wedding...40 million bucks.  I will confess, I don't understand.

I do understand we all are a part of a greater biological lottery, yet it's one thing to be born of a rich man/woman and completely another to be one of the world's richest welfare recipients.  Where is the honor in that?

Prince William engaged and it's world news...Now if he denounced the throne and went on to marry his true love...there is a man worthy of respect (sadly even Edward VIII lived off the dole throughout his "retirement").

Admittedly I am in the minority on this.  I enjoy playing "Renaissance" on the weekend but thank God almost daily that I don't have to live it.  I bow to the "King" at MNRF but am just as likely to cut him off on the freeway going home.   

Anyone else?

[Lady Nicolette]

I agree to a great extent.  I think that many people feel sorry for the children who lost their mother and indeed, no amount of wealth or status of birth can make that really any better for those young men, especially since she was obviously a warm person compared to the ones they were left with after she died so terribly young (and as a result of overzealous invasion of her privacy).  So it's nice to have a positive sort of story, and I'm all for love...but in America especially this should really only merit a few moments of our newscasts. 

And would like to extend the coverage ad nauseum that we must endure of all of today's celebrities, most of whom are famous for being obnoxious and flaunting their wealth and special privileges in a time when so many are suffering from true hardship. 

[Welsh Wench]

In my opinion, by rights the Hanoverians never should have inherited the throne. The first of their Kings, George I--who never even bothered to learn English--was only 52nd in line to the throne, but the nearest Protestant according to the Act of Settlement. Two descendants of James II, the deposed Stuart king, threatened to take the throne, and were supported by a number of 'Jacobites' throughout the realm. All other successors were Catholic and could not inherit the throne,so the Hanoverians inherited the crown.

But I digress.
I just hope the publicity surrounding them isn't as extent as that of his parents.
Maybe a lesson has been learned.

Yeah.
Right.  

[Lady Kett]

Well, to a certain point I agree. I cannot imagine America in a monarchy. But that's our history so it's sort of trained into us, isn't it?

But what little girl doesn't want to be a princess and meet a handsome prince? It's nice to have happy news in the world.

I don't study the Royals in detail but they do seem to be very philanthropic - involved in charitable work and promoting peace. They don't have a lot of power, Royal or not, in this time in history but they are fun to watch and it's not my tax dollars involved.

[Athena]

And would like to extend the coverage ad nauseum that we must endure of all of today's celebrities, most of whom are famous for being obnoxious and flaunting their wealth and special privileges in a time when so many are suffering from true hardship. 

Oh, I so agree.

I really have no opinion on the Royal family, but I do agree with Dreg that it's silly to hold people up on a pedestal because of the circumstances of their birth. I have to give Queen Liz and family credit for one thing, and that is that they seem to have some class and humility, unlike several of the celebutards we have in this country (Britain seems to have its fair share too). Yep, the press have gotten ridiculous in the coverage of the engagement, but at least it takes some of the spotlight off of the Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, and their ilk. For now, anyway. Welcome to the age of infotainment, folks. 

[Anna Iram]

Have you looked at the costs of a Presidential Inauguration?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/economy/inauguration_costs/index.htm

I'm torn between loving the showy pomp and circumstance of any of these grand occasions, and wishing for a simpler ceremony and all those millions going to education or homes for battered women or...gosh I can think of lot's of way to spend all that cash.

I wouldn't say I hold the royals up on a pedestal, but I really do appreciate the lineage of this family. I'm fascinated by it just as I am by royals of any country. What an odd life to be given. While I'm sorry for the bride as she'll surely be as hounded by the press as Diana was, I still look forward to the fantasy show of a wedding we'll all be given, and I look forward to seeing how and to whom the throne will pass. It's history in the making.

[DonaCatalina]

I'll play the devil's advocate here.
Even if the cost of the wedding is $40mil, that money will be spent in Great Britain. Think of the number of people who will have honest employment from this money.
Caterers, dressmakers, florists, tailors, photographers, dry cleaners, chefs, waiters, busboys, maids, etc, all will have a chance to make more money than they might have otherwise. Extra pay for polieman, guards, coachmen, horse handlers, musicians will be truly welcome to the people getting paid. This will be not only the money spent on the wedding but the thousands and possibly millions of tourists who will flock to catch a glimpse of the couple.
I don't honestly believe that Royal birth makes anyone better than me, but I can tell you that what I mentioned will have a lot to do with not them not having a small private wedding.

[Lady Nicolette]

Good point, Dona.  And I agree with Ann, I haven't a problem with viewing this as a bit of history at all (I think that would be pretty common with most of us on these forums!).   And with points everyone have made in this thread thus far. 

I do think our media being in such a tizzy over it is a bit much and believe that every person is entirely as important as the next one, no matter what social strata you come from, or who your parents are.  Being a contributing person to the world on whatever level one is capable of, whether we can do it in a grandiose way or just make someone's day better by a small kindness is what all of us are here for regardless of our circumstances of birth or life's fortunes afterward.

[Rowan MacD]

[but at least it takes some of the spotlight off of the Kardashians, Lindsay Lohan, and their ilk. For now, anyway. Welcome to the age of infotainment, folks. 

There isthat....
 

[SethB]

The celebrity of the British royal family is a matter of culture and heritage only, as they have no actual power. They are a symbol and an icon, much the same as the First Lady.

[William_MacKean]

It is a big deal to them.  It means nothing to us.  It means less than they think it does.  And it is pretty annoying that they make a big deal of her being a commoner and are still comparing her to Diana.  BFD.  A guy born into a title is marrying a hottie.  Funny how some celebrate nepotism in government, but decry it in businesses of all size.

Good for them.  I hope they're happy.  I am already annoyed at what the media will do about their kids.  I would not be surprised if the media begins speculating on their fertility and the minutae of their eggs and sperm.  You know someone is hoping to get a reality show going about all this.

[Noble Dreg]

The celebrity of the British royal family is a matter of culture and heritage only, as they have no actual power. They are a symbol and an icon, much the same as the First Lady.

True the first lady has "symbolism" but no power.  Britain is a constitutional monarchy, the royals do indeed have significant power...The queen appoints the Prime Minister and accepts his resignation.  She could challenge it if she chose but this would trigger a constitutional crisis.

Mrs. Obama does get tax payer assistance in living expences and security services but for the most part only while Mr. Obama is in office.  This does not get past on for generation after generation, only term to term.  Her progany will not get the same benifit of living in a castle with servents answering to their becon call (once they leave the white house).  They serve at our pleasure, the Britains serve at the pleasure of their Queen.

Prince Charles "purchased" the engagement ring for Lady Diana for $40,000USD, can you imagine Pres. Obama buying his wife a $40,000 cocktail ring using tax payers money?

[serenamoonsilver]

Prince Charles "purchased" the engagement ring for Lady Diana for $40,000USD, can you imagine Pres. Obama buying his wife a $40,000 cocktail ring using tax payers money?

I think Diana (and to a lesser extent Fergie) along with the current economic crisis has forced the British Monarchy to re-evaluate itself.  Back in the 1980's, it was actually a bit of a minor scandal that Diana picked a relatively "inexpesive" ring from a catalog rather than having a more expensive one custom made.   Today however, the royal family is very budget conscience.  As heads of state, they do entertain foriegn dignitaries and a large part of the their current budget goes towards this and security.  In their private lives, they've tried to scale back including the famous "Queen riding the train".

As for the ring you mentioned, William gave it to Kate as her engagement ring.

[SirRichardBear]

obama give is wife a 3 million dollar European vacation at tax payer expense.  He give her a 1 million dollar theatre and dinner night in NYC at tax payer expense.  Obama and all his family including the children will recieve 10 years government security use to be for life but that was changed under bush.  So $40,000 for a ring seems pretty small potatoes.   President recieve $400,000 a year in retirement pay, $50,000 for misc expense, $200,000 for staffing, plus the best medical care in the world free plus  Secret Service protection for a maximum of 10 years at a cost of cost to a million dollars a year.   Our former presidents don't hurt even if they are total failures in office like that fool carter.

As for the Brits I don't care one way or the other its their country and they can make a mess of it any way they choice from the news it look like they have choosen several creative ways to wreak the country over the years th royal being way down on the list of problems.   I think its damn silly that the American media is making so much of it but the American media has been a joke for three decades and no one with any sense pays attention to the mainstream media.