Who or what do you blame for the nations general apathy towards the Royal wedding?

[Tyrone Biggums]

Can we get past the issue of ca$h please, it's not the only thing that matters to people.

Cheers.

A rich guy marrying a rich chick.

Living off the profits of illgotten gains and taxpayers money, that's what it comes down to

 

[The Spanish]

A rich guy marrying a rich chick.

Living off the profits of illgotten gains and taxpayers money, that's what it comes down to

and to top it all he gets to own your country when his dad dies

 

[magoo]

Is it me, or does Nick Clegg look really uncomfortable in that picture?[/QUOTE]

lol yeah if you see the whole clip you can see him internalising the implications of Cameron's actions. As in "Oh for f***'s sake..."

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

and to top it all he gets to own your country when his dad dies

They get nothing out of us.

The Pope gets more.

 

[The Spanish]

They get nothing out of us.

The Pope gets more.

in fairness if they get nothing then anything is more. the dogs home gets more as well then.

getting a globally respected head of state for free is not a bad deal. paying out to a man who thinks he has a hotline to a man on a cloud is less smart.

 

[PaoloRossiJohnson]

I reckon if you polled 20 people in the street very few would be interested.

Well I polled my class of thirty 9, 10 & 11 year-olds yesterday. I gave them 3 choices:

A) interested, keen & will watch the wedding

B) not interested, can't be bothered with it & won't watch

C) a bit interested, can take-it-or-leave-it & might watch a bit...

(or words to those effects).

The results were (and there was no AV by the way...!):

A) 6

B) 16

C) 8

And although that's obviously only a tiny sample (and of children, not adults), I reckon that's probably pretty reflective of the general public.

 

[Simster]

in fairness if they get nothing then anything is more. the dogs home gets more as well then.

getting a globally respected head of state for free is not a bad deal. paying out to a man who thinks he has a hotline to a man on a cloud is less smart.

They're both dumb. Having an unelected head of state is bad enough, but having to be represented by the head of state from an entirely different country is positively tin pot.

 

[The Spanish]

but having to be represented by the head of state from an entirely different country is positively tin pot.

wont argue with that

 

[magoo]

Well I polled my class of thirty 9, 10 & 11 year-olds yesterday. I gave them them 3 choices:

A) interested, keen & will watch the wedding

B) not interested, can't be bothered with it & won't watch

C) a bit interested, can take-it-or-leave-it & might watch a bit...

(or words to those effects).

The results were (and there was no AV by the way...!):

A) 6

B) 16

C) 8

And although that's obviously only a tiny sample (and of children, not adults), I reckon that's probably pretty reflective of the general public.

I'm not a royalist but i do find it a shame we can't be more proud of our Royal family. As others have alluded to, it's their own doing i suppose.

 

[daveinprague]

Definitely a big difference between the way we look at the royals compared to the Dutch.. ... dont think the families are much different, other than I think I read somewhere that the Dutch have more money, but they also have not been immune to scandal... Queens night (Hague) and day (Amsterdam) are massive events every year

 

[shaun_rc]

The devine right of Kings does not really go hand in hand with the idea of a liberal democracy.

This.

So, we're over in Afganistan and places showing people how they should embrace democracy, and we're not even a democracy ourselves!

We have an unelected Head of State, and unelected Upper House, complete with unelected Bishops (why is that different from Muslim clerics?). We are in no position to tell anyone else about democracy.

 

[The Spanish]

And although that's obviously only a tiny sample (and of children, not adults), I reckon that's probably pretty reflective of the general public.

not being funny but that bit really cracked me up.

 

[Superphil]

[yt]VImAGUVd8_4[/yt]

 

[Albumen]

Audioboo / Melvin in MK is the angriest caller I've ever spoken to! Talking about #royalwedding.

Brilliant.

 

[Superphil]

The Apathy is building

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Just a case of overkill,every TV,Radio,Newspaper and Media outlet is ramming "Wills and Kate" down our throats.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

Clearly there are people who care, as someone else has said, the sort of people who will camp outside Wimbledon to see Andy Murray, or Timmy back in his day. The sort of people who will buy commemorative plates from M&S.

I'm sure most people are quite happy with the day off, some will watch on TV because it's a bit of a novelty, and even get sucked into the party idea because it's a good excuse for a piss up. But it's not 1981, most people aren't actually EXCITED about it like they were then. They're not sat at home just dying to see what the dress is like. The royal family today are a totally different proposition to what they were thirty years ago, and there isn't, outside the offices of the Daily Mail/Express, that fawning, unquestioning subservience towards them

Yes, the media have lapped it up and are quite obviously attempting to convince us that the world is going to come to a halt tomorrow morning. When in fact most of us might take a passing glance at the TV, or will be out shopping, or sat in a pub, or playing golf, and enjoying the long weekend. Me, I'll be sleeping after a night shift, & I certainly won't be waking up early for it.

I make you wrong there Edna, there is a massive interest, I can't get away from it and I am stuck in a kids disco in the middle of South Australia and it has 5 screens of it in the adult room. Also it is not just a certain group of people, loads of different people enjoy a wedding. I will say I am not one, but plenty of people do. If 30% of the population watch something or read about it, that is pretty massive, alright 70% arn't interested, but 20+ million people (3 in 10 which I reckon is about right) would be big. Also as I can testify and those in the States etc, it is massive here as well.

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

This.

So, we're over in Afganistan and places showing people how they should embrace democracy, and we're not even a democracy ourselves!

We have an unelected Head of State, and unelected Upper House, complete with unelected Bishops (why is that different from Muslim clerics?). We are in no position to tell anyone else about democracy.

Major differences (MAJOR)
* A head of State with no power
* An upper' house with no power '
* Bishops v Muslim Clerics ... Bishops have no power
* 4-5 year terms and free and open elections
* Free speach (even if people don't like what you say)
* I have not seen our army shooting up protestors in central London recently.

You neglected the part about arranged marriages for aristocracy and royals (oh hold on, I don't think this one was arranged)

The major difference is that Church and State are seperate.

 

[daveinprague]

Managed to avoid it so far fairly successfully, although ive managed to con colleagues into bringing in cake

Shit, didnt clear my post with discosuit boy or simster, hope its ok.....

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Well I polled my class of thirty 9, 10 & 11 year-olds yesterday. I gave them 3 choices:

A) interested, keen & will watch the wedding

B) not interested, can't be bothered with it & won't watch

C) a bit interested, can take-it-or-leave-it & might watch a bit...

(or words to those effects).

The results were (and there was no AV by the way...!):

A) 6

B) 16

C) 8

And although that's obviously only a tiny sample (and of children, not adults), I reckon that's probably pretty reflective of the general public.

Look forward to your post wedding poll when I bet hardly any will answer B. And why aren't you teaching them something anyway?