04-29-2011, 06:43 AM
I don't get it. Why would anyone here (in the U.S.) care? What possible logical reason would you have for watching it? Yet, it's all over the television. Why don't we get more Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, or Laurel and Hardy?
(04-29-2011 07:28 AM)ByrdDogX Wrote: [ -> ]Complete waste of time.
(04-29-2011 06:43 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get it. Why would anyone here (in the U.S.) care? What possible logical reason would you have for watching it? Yet, it's all over the television. Why don't we get more Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, or Laurel and Hardy?
(04-29-2011 11:08 AM)MemTigerFan Wrote: [ -> ]My girlfriend recorded it. Sunday morning I have to make her waffles and sit and watch the wedding with her. Now she's just trying to avoid as much about it as possible until she can see it.
(04-29-2011 09:52 AM)Tigerbert Wrote: [ -> ]In the historical context of the British monarchy I think it's pretty interesting even though they have no governing authority.
Just like any media sensation the press is getting worked up and over-hyped into a frenzy over the story lines. In a way, this is what Charles and Diana were supposed to be. Charles was to be the first King of England since 1952 but after the grandeur of their globally televised wedding followed by the disappointment of their marriage and then the death of " The People's Princess" the monarchy was embarrassed and in tatters. Now, you have Diana's oldest son in line to be the next King as he marries a woman "of the people" although a non-royal which makes her all the more endearing to British citizens. The similarities are striking.
Media is going to take to that like a moth to the flame. All that said, I slept in this morning
(04-29-2011 06:43 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get it. Why would anyone here (in the U.S.) care? What possible logical reason would you have for watching it? Yet, it's all over the television. Why don't we get more Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, or Laurel and Hardy?
(04-29-2011 06:43 AM)oldmangrizz Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get it. Why would anyone here (in the U.S.) care? What possible logical reason would you have for watching it? Yet, it's all over the television. Why don't we get more Three Stooges, W.C. Fields, or Laurel and Hardy?
(04-29-2011 12:40 PM)99Tiger Wrote: [ -> ](04-29-2011 09:52 AM)Tigerbert Wrote: [ -> ]In the historical context of the British monarchy I think it's pretty interesting even though they have no governing authority.
Just like any media sensation the press is getting worked up and over-hyped into a frenzy over the story lines. In a way, this is what Charles and Diana were supposed to be. Charles was to be the first King of England since 1952 but after the grandeur of their globally televised wedding followed by the disappointment of their marriage and then the death of " The People's Princess" the monarchy was embarrassed and in tatters. Now, you have Diana's oldest son in line to be the next King as he marries a woman "of the people" although a non-royal which makes her all the more endearing to British citizens. The similarities are striking.
Media is going to take to that like a moth to the flame. All that said, I slept in this morning
Charles is still in line to be the next king...FWIW. William would assume the throne after Charles.
(04-29-2011 01:02 PM)oakland steve Wrote: [ -> ]Royal wedding? Queen Latifah got married?