|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Go to - FDNC NEWS FORUMS > FAKE NEWS > Is This Really News?|
|Posted by: Charles May 18 2018, 10:17 AM|
| Royal wedding: Why some people are sick of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
Photo: Will you be tuning in to the royal wedding, or do you not care at all? (Reuters: Eddie Mulholland, Graphic: Phil Scarano)
It feels like the whole world has Royal fever as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle prepare for a lavish (and televised) wedding.
Yet there's a sizeable group of you who just want to scream, "Oh my God, who the hell CARES!?"
We asked this latter group what they made of the #RoyalWedding. Here's what they had to say:
Many said there were bigger issues to worry about:
Photo: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle made their first public appearance at the Invictus Games. (Reuters: Mark Blinch)
The world is in flames around us and people think two welfare-recipients' marriage matters in the slightest — Becky Young
It's not news — it's tabloid nonsense. It's got nothing to do with politics or the economy, or even current events — Eunsil Clements
There are better things to be spending important news time on, like the current issues in Palestine or Syria — Chris Simpson
I'm sick of hearing about every ridiculous detail. There must be more news going on in the world, but we'll never know because of the media's obsession — Deb McLean
Deaths in Palestine or royal wedding? The wedding wins all the time because it's easily digestible news, sadly — Paul Davison
How stupid are people watching the filthy rich live out their self-serving lives? — Christos Aristidou
Others are simply not fans of the Royal family and their ilk:
Photo: The Royal family has been a fixture of fascination for decades. (Reuters: Stefan Wermuth)
Australia is almost as loony as the British over the parasitic royals! Time to grow up and become a republic — Chris Coates
They're pretty much just the English equivalent of the Kardashian's. Gossip, money, people waiting for the next disaster, all over the magazines — Casey Hedley
The idea of monarchy, of princes and princesses etc. is ludicrous in my eyes. The Brits obviously want it, so good luck to them, but spare us all the hype — Judith Jon
I think the royals are an anachronistic leftover from the Middle Ages. They may be a tourist attraction for the English, but they contribute nothing to us, nor have they ever — Karl Daniels
The idea that someone is special by birth is totally against my beliefs. Royal weddings are designed to dazzle the masses without adding anything of use to the world — Geoff Mackenzie
They are just another family like anyone else that happen to come from a lineage of royalty. Big deal, they are only important because people make them important — Julien Cohen
For some the whole thing had become too commercialised:
Photo: Political Cereals' take on the Royal wedding between Harry and Meghan. (Supplied: Political Cereal)
It's all about TV ratings and advertiser income. It's a bit tawdry really! Buy a mug, buy a tea towel, buy a commemorative pin — David Walton
Should be a private matter. Not a freak show to boost sales of media outlets, souvenir shops nor a way to maintain the popularity of an outdated monarchy — Jé Ré
I'm a royal family person but am over all the commercialisation that has come about now — Tracy Finlayson
Others took issue with the reported $57 million price tag:
The taxpayer money spent on the decadent royal wedding should rather be put towards thousands of other more worthy causes — Hannah Rapaport
Public money being used by a very rich family. Celebrity weddings aren't news there is a lot happening in the world that needs to be covered — Brad Gray
I love dogs and never get to see the corgis included in the ceremony. Otherwise it's just a big waste of $$$ — Alan Mayer
Many said the hype by a self-serving media killed it:
Photo: Photographers follow the Royal family wherever they go, especially if there's a baby or wedding. (Supplied: Windsor Palace)
I was excited for it the first time I heard about it, then all channels droned on and on about it and now I am not interested — Lucy Francesca
If it hadn't been for the zillion and one pre-wedding stories and hype I might actually have watched the wedding, but I'm thoroughly sick of it and it is now of no interest — Barbara Easthope
They need to have a function on the TV that allows a person to have certain topics shut off or at least muted — Dave Lindhorst
It is nice to have some fluff, but it's just getting to the mind-numbing stage on the royal wedding as it was with the royal baby. We don't need to see it every half hour — Lois Saedder
I'm a monarchist. But this celebrity, paparazzi driven coverage of the wedding is completely unnecessary. The value in monarchy is the removal of personality politics and personal mandates from the executive — Ben Tobin
I think the uncomfortable level of scrutiny of Megan Markle's family is too much and contradicts with the weird level of reverence held for the royal family — Tom Whitby
Some had a very personal take on the whole issue:
I won't be watching this as Charlie didn't bother to come to mine. Who the hell does he think he is? — Ben Kerr
A significant event will occur on the 19th of May, which will be celebrated worldwide. My birthday, that's all — Sean Carver
Many were just BORED by the whole thing and didn't get it:
Photo: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle meet fans in Birmingham in March. (AP: Rui Vieira)
I don't know why we need to broadcast their personal lives so thoroughly. I'm a millennial and even I don't need that much information about someone's life — Jacinta Halls
It's like a bad reality TV show I'm forced to watch when I turn on the news. It's not important and has zero impact on my life — Xav Ol'Halloran
I don't wish them any ill will, but I don't know them, and they are just another couple getting married — Tony Horn
Why the hell do we care about an event that is happening half a world away, to a couple who, let's face it, don't live in the real world like the rest of us? — Michelle Erica Sparrow
Good luck to them and I wish them a happy life together. BUT we don't have to hear about it time and time again — Dani Allan
People get married every day. Nothing to see, move on — David Joseph Moore
Still, some defended it as an antidote to other news:
Photo: More than 2 billion people are expected to tune in to watch Prince Harry marry Meghan Markle at St George's Chapel. (Supplied: Kensington Palace)
I'd much rather wake up every day to news about this wedding than yet another terrorist attack or mass murder of more school children in the US. It's a very welcome change — Ellie McNiece
Sadly, we need fluff news because the world is full of enough sadness and death. Why not celebrate something happy and wish them all the happiness and lots of babies? It's not hard to wish someone something kind. The world needs more niceness really — Bonnie Eernisse
Some light relief from Donald Trump, Aussie pollies, the budget, the tragedy that is Syria. Why wouldn't I be watching the wedding? — Wendy Young
It doesn't matter to me who it is, I just love all the pomp and ceremony — Frances Dimond
Royal Weddings and other events such as Royal babies are blown out of all proportion. This isn't the fault of the Royals themselves, it's the fault of the tabloids, commercial TV and the magazines that go into a frenzy over such events and the fault of those who support these outlets.
It's a case of supply and demand. There are those who can't get enough of Royal and Celebrity News and there are large sections of the media that cater for that demand.
I won't be watching any televised cover of the wedding and I gloss over so called "News" about the event. However, I wish them well. I can't imagine what it must be like to be constantly in the public eye with invasive paparazzi wanting to invade ones privacy.
|Posted by: scepo May 18 2018, 12:01 PM|
| I think my thoughts are much the same as Yours Charles.
I have nothing against the royals and wish them well, but ignore all the hoo ha and gossip about them. I will not be watching the wedding.
|Posted by: Alicia May 18 2018, 02:08 PM|
|I feel most sorry for the Markle family, especially the father. The media have hounded people who are probably trying their best, poor dad of the outfit appears fairly naiive about the whole shebang. It has been hijacked by people hoping to profit in some way from this wedding. Shame on them.|
|Posted by: Phillip J. May 18 2018, 02:10 PM|
| My thoughts exactly, scepo & Charles, and everyone else's, it seems!
The thing is, a young man is marrying his girl. Anything after that is the media picking it up and running with it like it's earth-shattering news!
It's definitely not the couples fault, the same as the massive overkill of "My heart will go on" is not Celine Dion's fault. She didn't do it, the mixed media did that!
Prince Harry can't help who he is, so there will be a bit of interest in the whole thing, but,,we can't blame him and his wife! It's all the magazines, TV, etc. pushing it all with all the stories (true AND false!)
until even I don't want to see another "When Harry met Meghan" article emblazoned across everything! I repeat, the innocent ones are the wedded couple (soon to be...) and yet, in some ways, they are copping the flak!
|Posted by: Flin May 18 2018, 07:19 PM|
|One good thing about this wedding is that the bride won't be overcome by media attention.|
|Posted by: Bill May 21 2018, 11:42 AM|
| Bugger - I missed the 'royal marriage'. Once again the media failed to do it's one job. i.e. to inform us about important events happening in the world..
Actually, I only turned my TV on over the3 weekend for the Thursday, Friday and Sunday NRL games on free to air.
Weren't the 'baby Broncos' great. Now, if only Milford could do a knee injury, (not that I'd wish that on him)
Harry and 'Sally' is a beautiful love story, and I wish them well. I can't wait to hear the pitter patter of little brown feet around the Palace......and Phillip's wildy inappropriate first response.
The Royal family are bigger than the Kardashians.
|Posted by: Bear May 21 2018, 07:51 PM|
| "I can't wait to hear the pitter-patter of little brown feet around the Palace......and Phillip's wildy inappropriate first response."
Only our Bill could turn (twist - that 'white guilt' thing) a nice fairytale wedding into another of his sick racist slurs, you certainly have a few issues there Bill - I genuinely feel sorry for you ole mate.
As for the old Greek Duke, if his opinions are as Bill claims then who would pay attention?
Personally, I wish them well, may they have many happy years together, and heaps of kids - that should keep Harry busy.
Why do you refer to Meghan as 'Sally' Bill? I find your reference to Meghan as 'Sally' to be offensive, but then I am used to your derogatory posts.
|Posted by: Phillip J. May 22 2018, 10:39 AM|
| 'Little brown feet?' I personally feel as though that could be looked upon as offensive!
But, you do have the freedom to express yourself that way, as we all do. One day, we won't have that freedom when we're under the Muslim yoke. By that, I mean, future generations will not have any rights at all, thanks to immigration programs in every country! Amazing, when you think about it. The planet is gradually being overrun and ultimately being destroyed because of slack, greedy governments that are supposed to look after it!
|Posted by: scepo May 22 2018, 04:14 PM|
| Q&A: ‘The royal wedding has killed off the idea of Australia becoming a republic’
THE royal family has been described as “sick to its core” and the Prince Harry and Meghan’s wedding a “strategic marriage” during a fiery Q&A.
news.com.auMay 22, 20186:58am
THE ROYAL wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle was one of the most watched televised events in the world’s history.
But what was it about this real-life fairytale that captivated some two billion people around the globe and 2.5 million Australians?
It was a topic that the ABC’s Q&A panel discussed on Monday night’s program, prompting fierce debate about whether or not the couple’s undeniable popularity signalled a collective desire for Australia to shun the notion of becoming a republic once and for all.
Panellist from The Australian, foreign affairs editor Greg Sheridan, described the royal wedding as “genius PR by the British royal family” because it had greatly improved its public image.
“I’m sure Harry loves Meghan and Meghan loves Harry, but this was a strategic marriage,” Mr Sheridan said.
“It makes the monarchy multicultural, hip, and suddenly people of colour can identify with the royal family.”
Victoria Liberal party senator Jane Hume said she was initially concerned about the wedding “turning into a bit of a circus” because of the “Markle debacle” that plagued the family in the lead up to Saturday’s ceremony. But her fears were soon allayed.
“I was really proud and had a little tear in my eye, along with most Australians, on Saturday night,” Ms Hume said.
“I was watching it and the football at the same time. I love the fact Harry and Meghan do tend to bring a more contemporary edge to the monarchy and make it more relevant for young people.
“They feel more accessible and more approachable. I think they take their humanitarian work very seriously. It’s a terrific addition to the monarchy.” It was a sentiment echoed by thousands of Australians who declared their admiration for the royals on social media while watching the royal wedding.
But according to Ms Hume, intense interest in the royal wedding did not equate to the concept of Australia becoming a republic having been “killed off”.
“I think it’s an entirely separate issue and an awful lot of republicans were watching. Had a tear in their eye,” she said.
“I think you could have enjoyed the royal wedding without being a monarchist.”
Opposition minister for ageing and mental health, Julie Collins said Australia was a “free and independent country” and should have its own head of state.
“I’ve always believed that,” she said.
“The royal wedding hasn’t changed my mind and I don’t think it will change many other Australians minds.
“[The royals aren’t] relevant to Australia anymore. Yes, it was a lovely wedding. Yes,
they’re clearly in love.”
Q&A panellist Randa Abdel-Fattah, an author and academic, told viewers that Meghan Markle’s wedding dress should not have been the focus of worldwide attention.
Author and academic Randa Abdel-Fattah was less sentimental. She told the panel that the monarchy represented “an institution of imperialism and racism”.
“It has been enriched by that: by corruption, imperialism, racism, slavery and for me it’s not just suddenly we have a bi-racial bride and that diversity politics erases the history of that institution,” she said.
“For me, we need to be critical and we shouldn’t lose our critical eye when we look at these things and not be seduced by the pomp and ceremony and recognise what this institution stands for.”
Ms Abdel-Fattah said that royal wedding enthusiasts had their priorities askew.
“The fact that homeless people were taken away from the streets [and] the Grenfell fire people have not been compensated: These are the real issues,” she said.
“Not what Meghan was wearing and whether or not she’s now reformed an institution that is sick at its core.”
Last week, University of Sydney researcher Luke Mansillo — who has analysed trends in Australia’s sometimes wavering support for the royal family during the past few decades — said the royal wedding was expected to provide the monarchy with a popularity boost.
Based on research he had published in 2016, Mr Mansillo found support for the monarchy in Australia began to wane in the 1960s and crashed to a low about the time of the republic referendum in 1999.
However, since then, there’s been a slow but steady improvement aided in part by events including Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding in 2011 and the births of their three children.
“Events such as royal weddings contribute to improvements as people get to witness the grandeur, the splendour, the pomp and ceremony and this self legitimises the institution,” Mr Mansillo said.
“After Kate and William’s wedding I found that there was a pretty big bump in the number of people who saw that royalty was important, a seven to eight per cent increase in how many people who thought that what these people do for Australia is important.” Mr Mansillo’s research, published in the Australian Journal of Political Science, found support in Australia for the monarchy hit its lowest point about the turn of the century.
During the 1990s, the royals were rocked by scandals leading up to the 1996 divorces of Prince Charles and Princess Diana, and Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson.
It was also the decade that debate about Australia becoming a republic ramped up before the 1999 referendum.
At the same time, there was a sharp dip in support among Australians for retaining the monarchy and those who believed the Queen was important, Mr Mansillo’s research found.
However, that fall in support bottomed out about 2001 and 2002 and has risen steadily ever since.
Mr Mansillo attributed that to many young Australians, particularly Generation Y, having no memory of the royal scandals of the 1990s.
“And because we don’t have royal scandals (the Australian Republican Movement’s national chair) Peter FitzSimons can’t get up and complain about it with a really, really big megaphone,” he said.
“So there’s fewer bad media images and stories about the royals coming out from London and more good stories which make it very difficult to campaign against.” The most recent Newspoll on support for an Australian republic, published in April, found support for the monarchy was at 41 per cent — its highest level in 18 years.
Fifty per cent said they wanted a republic, with nine per cent uncommitted.
Addressing the Q&A panel on Monday night, philosopher Peter Singer said the push for Australia to become a republic had lost its momentum long before Harry and Meghan had even met.
“Republicanism goes off the agenda when the former head of the Australian Republican Movement becomes the Liberal prime minister and doesn’t show any interest in pursuing [it],” he said in a reference to prime minister Malcolm Turnbull’s past role as Chair of the organisation.
I would strongly suggest that Ms Randa Abdel-Fattah take a good hard long look at her "rotten to the core" (so called) religion before she worries about criticising other institutions.
|Posted by: Bill May 22 2018, 04:46 PM|
| Why do you refer to Meghan as 'Sally' Bill? I find your reference to Meghan as 'Sally' to be offensive, but then I am used to your derogatory posts
You are reading too much into it mate. I was referring Harry and Meghan's love story to that classic love story "When Harry Met Sally".
|Posted by: Bill May 22 2018, 04:55 PM|
| I'm frankly surprised that anyone could possibly take offence at my reference to the pitter patter of little brown feet at the Palace.
That's reality - it's gonna happen.
|Posted by: Bear May 23 2018, 04:24 PM|
| I am not reading too much into your click bait Bill.
You are always quick to pin your usual far leftist labels on members when it suits you - racists, Islamophobes, white supremacists, neo-Nazis etc etc.
Yet you see nothing wrong with posting your racial attacks, your hatred of certain people is obvious, you just have not realised it yet.
"I'm frankly surprised that anyone could possibly take offence at my reference to the pitter patter of little brown feet at the Palace."
|Posted by: scepo May 23 2018, 04:59 PM|
| The reference to the pitter patter of little brown feet at the Palace does not offend me at all.
However I am very surprised to hear it from a PC progressive, as this is the sort of thing they do take offence from.
Or are you not really a PC progressive as you claim to be? Or is it just a matter of "do as I say, not as I do"?