Why all the negativity regarding the Royal family?

Does apathy count?

How are they a burden on the tax payer? I’m not familiar with how the royals affect civilian society.

@FutureMemory As far as I am aware, a certain amount of taxes go towards the up keep of palaces/castles and the general lifestyle of the Royals. However, the Queen pays taxes herself.

I have not heard a lot of negativity. I heard man-on-the-street interviews on NBC that all seemed very positive.

“Judging by this special wedding announcement, the Commonwealth, at least, is still excited about Britain, even if it is the story of (as The Australian put it): “How Babykins won the heart of Big Willies”. Their romance is discussed in somewhat more delicate terms in India, too. ” The Telegraph

“But while a few callers to talk back radio shows in Australia were expressing “who cares?” about the news of Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton, there were plenty who were delighted.” The Sydney Morning Herald

There are a whole bunch of “Likes” on the Royal family’s Facebook page as well.

Well, the Queen seems more like an Ice Queen, and Charles is such a douche who’s weak and just kinda taking up space… But the kids I like. I have no feelings towards the larger issue of The Royal Family, I just don’t like certain members of it.

Because there is so much more going on in the world that is more important. Plus as stated above, they are a burden on the tax payer for doing nothing more than being born into a particular family. Outside of belonging to this family, what have they done that is so remarkable to deserve this attention?

@marinelife That’s nice to hear. Everyone I know or have spoken to/overheard talking about have been quite negative. I’m glad the world wide reaction seems to be a bit more positive. If nothing else, this news of the engagement is a positive change to the doom and gloom that is usually all over the news.

Because people like to complain about things. Them getting married isn’t something that I care about (because Im not British) but it is certainly more newsworthy than some hollywood celebrity’s wedding. The Royal Family is part of British culture as I am sure you know that more than I would.

I love the idea of the Royals in England. Why not??? My mother is british and she was pregnant with me at the same time Dianne was expecting William. When I was a child she used to say he was my perfect match in good humor. I love the fairytale aspect of the Royals also I respect the lineage of the family. I don’t care how really important it is to the world. They represent England and it’s history. They represent a culture… good or bad… I know it’s dying… I romantise the past, and they are the last of it. Why kill it??? That’s why they are still respected and still around. They aren’t fascist. The Royals don’t even run the country. They represent the past. Why kill that? Besides Kate is hot.

Many Brits think the wedding is going to cost the taxpayer a small fortune. I tend not to agree with this as I think that many thousands of people will flood into England to witness this spectacle and whilst here put much more money back into our economy.

@Mat74UK Brits spend more on their Rockstars then this wedding will pinch their wallets.

I haven’t heard any negative comments either. I did see a “man on the street” type of interview where they were asking people what they thought of the upcoming wedding. Men and women alike were absolutely excited about it. I think it’s a positive thing and Kate and William seem like a lovely couple. I’d rather hear about them than someone like Lindsey Lohan who doesn’t bring positive insights to the celebrity world in the U.S.

@Mat74UK I agree. The Royals have bought a lot of money into the country for years and even more so when there’s a wedding in the pipeline!

@chyna Was this “man on the street” interview focusing on Americans or English? From what I have noticed, the Americans are far more excited than the British.

What would happen if William married and procreated with some trashy, ugly woman? Just wondering.

@Blackberry I don’t think that’s acceptable..;p

I don’t get the negativity either. I saw some on a Q on fluther recently, and watching Lawrence O’Donnell a few days ago he was rather sarcastic and snarky. I don’t see anything wrong with the tradition, although I can see why some might be upset that tax dollars might go to pay for parts of the wedding, or maintaining security. Still, I think it would be sad to completely get rid of royalty in England. I am looking forward to Prince Willam’s wedding.

My disagreement is not with them personally, though I get the impression I wouldn’t like them very much if I knew them,but with the absurd principle of a hereditary head of state. I wouldn’t go to a hereditary dentist, I wouldn’t trust my car to a hereditary mechanic.

And don’t get me started on the insane level of celebrification around them.

@Leanne1986 English.

@chyna That’s refreshing to hear.

Jake Gyllenhaal was just on Live With Regis and Kelly talking about how excited he was about the royal wedding.

Without being British, I can’t exactly say how I feel about the royal family still being around. Personally, I don’t care too much, but I do think it’s interesting to have that bit of history preserved. My mom is an Anglophile and would never want the royalty to disappear from Britain.

@DominicX Funny, I never heard the word Anglophobe until I joined Fluther but now I hear it all the time.

I have British relatives who are much against the monarchy as being an outdated institution and a drain on the British economy, a sentiment I can understand. In America, I think people enjoy the romance of the monarchy and don’t reflect on the economic consequences. We would probably be the first to be screaming about “pork” if it were on our dime!

@Leanne1986 you wrote anglophobe, but @DominicX wrote anglophile.

@JLeslie Haha..I meant angloPHILE. Sorry, I don’t know why I said phobe!

I’m currently fairly indifferent to the royal wedding. Once the media has harped on about it for several months, I suspect I may develop a certain level of antipathy.

I’m indifferent in general. Though I like William and Kate a lot better than I ever liked William’s parents.

On the whole though, this sort of thing has a positive effect on the nation. It raises morale and the income from foreign interest offsets the tax costs.

I woke up early when I was a little girl to watch Diana and Charles’ wedding on TV in Milwaukee. Loved every moment of the spectacle. Whether I’ll watch this one is up for debate, but I would think the Royals are England’s Disneyland, so this can’t hurt the national coffers, can it?

Public demand for negativity. If people stopped buying tabloids and gossip magazines it would soon end.

@downtide I actually think that William and Kate’s relationship is a lot more genuine than Charles and Diana’s appeared.

@Leanne1986 I agree. I think Charles was under a great deal of pressure to marry just anybody by that stage.

To get slightly off topic: Why did Diana have to be a virgin and Kate doesn’t?

@chyna good question… Britain was a bit more repressed 30 years ago compared to now. Plus the fact that William’s been dating Kate for seven years. If she was still a virgin after all that time, there’s got to be something medically wrong with the lad…

@chyna Because William isn’t quite the sexist douchebag Charles is?

I think Charles wanted his son to marry someone he loved, and not someone who just sounded good on paper. Virgin, royalty, etc.

@papayalily Why is Charles a sexist douchebag? I don’t think it was him that made the rules about girls having to be virgins to marry future heirs.

Yeah, I think Charles was just trying to be compliant, or obedient to the expectations given to him. There were rules for who could be his wife, but the rules probably did not include being faithful to her only. I don’t blame him, he was the last of the royal dynasty to be willing to do it I think. To marry someone he was not truly in love with for the sake of the bloodlines and outdated rules.

I found out a possible reason why Diana had to be a virgin to marry Charles. My dad seems to think it was to stop/reduce people going to the papers with “I screwed the Princess/Queen before she married Charles” stories. If she was a virgin it meant that she had less skeletons in her closet that could later haunt the house of Windsor!

@Leanne1986 I would say pretty much all Christian cultures expected women to be virgins before marriage. If not they had a scarlet letter. But what your dad says makes some sense too.

personally i don’t care for the wedding but i find it astronomically hillarious that it was shown on several channels in my country and that afterwards everyone on the news was ranting about how crazy the britts are. And then just to topp it all off southpark made an episode making fun of the wedding. of course they didn’t use the brittains but everyone knows what is going on..XD
I do actually feel kind of bad for the prince and princess though because they didn’t get to choose who they have to spend the rest of their lives with. That has to be pretty harsh.

@jumpenpro Huh? They chose each other. If the Queen had chosen it would have been another Royal, not someone with such a common family history.

OH… I thought it was an arranged marriage.