Aren't the networks going a little overboard with this King and Queen Coronation stuff?

[kentuck]

As someone that has read a little bit of history, it makes me slightly uncomfortable, to see the way some people adore royalty?

Perhaps there is more than we see?

[marmar]

1. YES.

[NotVeryImportant]

2. Yes, and it has to do with white supremacy.

Makes people feel all good and nostalgic and icky inside to some "better era/time."

It effects even non-whites who have been colonized (including some who haven't).

[Hortensis]

41. Actually, billions of people of all races around the planet are watching this.

You probably don't mean grave insult to all those who aren't "white" for supposed admiration of their own victimization. Just maybe interest in this over-1000-year-old spectacle comes from a whole host of things.

And just maybe planetwide interest indicates this, like many treasures and events of the world, has become a piece of of the human race's heritage. People travel from nearly 200 countries to visit the pyramids in Egypt, and it's not out of admiration for and obeisance to Egypt's history of slavery.

[PatSeg]

49. Yes, it is a historic moment

I can understand people's interest whether they agree with a monarchy or not. Personally I'm not terribly interested in the actual ceremony, but I am fascinated by the history behind it. Certain rituals give us a sense of continuity and create threads to the past.

[Hortensis]

55. Same here and most watching are interested, which his nice,

and balanced. Guess taking an occasional 1000-year view is good for that.

[PatSeg]

57. I think so

I am fascinated with British history. All my ancestors came from the British Isles, which makes it even more interesting.

[Ocelot II]

3. They wouldn't be broadcasting it if people didn't want to see it.

But you don't have to watch if it makes you uncomfortable. I'm watching because it's an interesting slice of history, not because I care about the royals and their soap operas. I'm also amused by all the harrumphing by people who proclaim they aren't interested and can't understand why others might be, and have all sorts of heartburn over a ceremony conducted by a foreign country and that does not affect us in the least.

[scarletlib]

4. They always do.

[BlackSkimmer]

5. It is a historic occasion.

Whatever one thinks of the English monarchy, it is historic.

Many of us love history.

The networks do this same thing anytime there is a large historic event. Surely you've had enough exposure to American TV over the years to know this?

If it makes you uncomfortable, simply turn it off.

[PCIntern]

6. I happen to agree...

All my life I was told how he would someday be King. And here it is. That’s a personal note.

Centuries of tradition occurring in an unquestioned ally of the US. This is history and is a very big deal. We don’t have many true allies in this world.

[piddyprints]

8. You beat me to it.

How many people lived and died during Queen Elizabeth's reign? I have siblings who were born and died during that time.

You don't have to buy into the whole monarchy stuff in order to enjoy the history. Then there's the music, which is absolutely the best for such occasions.

As is so with so many other things on tv: If you don't like it, turn it off. No one is forcing you to watch it. I appreciated that DUers posted live streaming links.

[orthoclad]

16. The cynaobacteria outbreak in Alaska is more historic

Disney made us into fantasy-subjects.

[underpants]

19. I agree

[yaesu]

7. Idk, I never watch the networks. I get enough entertainment on YouTube. Nt

[Mysterian]

9. Totally agree

I think it's disgusting to dignify the abhorrent concept of royalty.

[Sympthsical]

10. Has President Biden commented on the ongoing hostage situation?

Where roving gangs of Beefeaters have apparently broken into American homes and tied families to their couches, turned on their televisions, and hidden the remotes unless their demands are met?

It's gin. Just give them gin. It's fine.

[Celerity]

24. just give them their daily tot

(naval rum daily ration)

For ages the British navy was fuelled by rum, sodomy, and the lash.

[Sympthsical]

26. I feel like I've been to that party

Usually at the end of July, no?

Pogues are always a good choice. Short childhood story. I'm Irish-American and grew up in a mainly IA area of Chicago. Every year there was a very big Gaelic festival across the corn field. They played traditional music and things that just went on for days through my bedroom window. One year, someone recommended the Pogues. The people in charge of the festival music liked the sound but never listened to the lyrics. My friends and I were teenagers, and as it dawned on us what they were playing . . .

It eventually dawned on the other adults, too. Particularly once Fairytale of New York got going . . .

[Celerity]

28. lololol

I feel like I've been to that party

Usually at the end of July, no?

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. Because I'm watching history being made.

[Botany]

12. Stuff:

* People like to watch that crap

* There is no such thing as royalty or royal blood

* King Chuck has done some really good work as per the environment

[PatSeg]

50. Royalty aside, Charles gets very

little recognition for his work on the environment and many social issues. Had he never become King, his contributions still would have been noteworthy and commendable.

[CTyankee]

62. He didn't treat Diana well at all and the public fell in love with her and felt badly for her.

It's a shame that his good works in life were not celebrated because he screwed it up so badly. So both he and Camilla look like evil characters.

[PatSeg]

66. It is really difficult having such

a public relationship where the press is reporting on your every move. How many marriages could stand that kind of scrutiny? It is sad being Elizabeth married for love as did her father before her, yet Charles was not permitted to do the same. That does not excuse his treatment of Diana, but she was so young and immature and he was apparently incapable of being sympathetic. That is not uncommon in a marriage, but for most people, the whole world isn't watching and judging you for the rest of your life.

[Tomconroy]

13. You'd rather be watching a town hall with Trump?

[dweller]

35. Same

Same

The MSM decides you WILL watch what they deem newsworthy

😐


✌🏻

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. What do they normally broadcast at this time on a Saturday morning?

I'd guess they know they'll get some people watching specially for this, and their ratings will be higher than their typical programming in this slot.

[nycbos]

15. It's a historical event.

Since it hasn't happened in 70 years, they are going to milk the ratings for all it's worth. However, if you have had your fill like I did you can always change the channel. I am now watching SportsCenter.

[eShirl]

17. it's just filler, in-between mass shootings

[delisen]

18. I find it sad

I admit I do not watch any of it. I know the times of my life are limited and I prefer watching a hummingbird or reading Billy Budd.

[Skittles]

20. first time in over seventy years

let it go

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

25. YEP, HISTORY, the coronation of William the Conqueror in 1066 would have been a good one to see!

[Ocelot II]

31. His funeral would have been even more interesting.

He exploded.

[bamagal62]

21. I turned on the TV right when

They were reciting that stupid oath. 🤮
Changed the channel immediately.

[doc03]

22. My ancestors left England for America centuries ago to escape authoritarian

rule. I couldn't care less about the f---g King of England or the Royal f---g family.

[Xavier Breath]

37. Couldn't agree more.

But some need the distraction until the next round of Hallmark Channel Christmas movies are ready.

[hlthe2b]

23. The pageantry is interesting. The American commentators cringe-worthy. Truly uninformed, fawning,

and cringe-worthy. I watch a lot of it with the sound muted. I enjoyed the choirs within the cavernous Westminster Cathedral. There is history in it--even as I suspect the monarchy is not going to survive in the not-so-distant future.

One can watch history and other cultures-- without fully supporting the choices they make. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for some.

[Ocelot II]

32. The PBS broadcast was excellent - it was the BBC feed

with very little commentary. I figured both CNN and MSNBC would be kind of obnoxious.

[kairos12]

27. I'm honoring it by watching

Hamilton, again.

When I hear Royals, I think 1776.

[Kaleva]

29. Many here are enthralled with it. Numerous threads dominate the 1st page

It's as if not much else is going on in the world

[Emile]

30. Right now I'm watching the Weather channel.

[Cobalt Violet]

45. I'm streaming eagle and hawk nest cams.

Way better, no commercials.

[brooklynite]

33. Perhaps ask that of the multitude here posting about it.

[Ocelot II]

34. You know the rule: You have to post about something you aren't interested in

and why you aren't interested in it, and ask what's wrong with all those people who are interested in it.

[Sympthsical]

47. I watched about five minutes of the coronation

Woke up. Zipped back and forth through the BBC youtube channel to the salient bits. Moved on.

Then spent way, way more time watching people be all pissed off about it.

It is, by several orders of magnitude, a much more entertaining spectacle.

[LoveTheDU]

53. Indeed!

[Joinfortmill]

36. It's become more about 'celebrity' than anything else.

[Hortensis]

38. This spectacle is over 1000 years old. We don't have anything like it.

There's always incredibly more than people who get their information from "TV" see. Why not spread into the social sciences aspects of a spectacle that is being watched by much of the human race, the huge majority non-Brits?

[Cobalt Violet]

43. There are ceremonies still going on here that are a lot older than 1000 years.

The media isn't invited.

[Retrograde]

60. Maybe

In broad strokes the basics may go back to William the Conqueror but there's been , a lot of tweaking over the years. Henry VIII's rejection of the Catholic Church changed the religious parts, and most of the crowns, jewels, and other regalia used in early times was destroyed or lost under Cromwell. I suspect that like most British traditions they make it up as they go along

We have presidential inaugurations, which is a similar rite stripped of religious trappings and leaving just the basic pledge to uphold the Constitution for the next four years.

[Hortensis]

63. :) "The King has stripped back a lot of the coronation in recognition

that the world has changed in the past 70 years.” Uhuh, getting rid of some of the whims and fancies piled on by various previous crownees, sure, but cutting ancient rituals that have lost all function if they ever really had any? Oh, no! What were they? Silly, but there's the fascination just little hints of the richness of history triggers.

[MissMillie]

39. I imagine that the networks really think people want to watch it

And, that the advertisers will pay for commercials during the broadcast.

Let's not forget, Saturday morning TV isn't exactly filled with "must-see" programming. Whatever it is they're bumping to air this... probably not a big deal.

[Paladin]

40. Easy solution (what I do with Bill Maher's show):

If you don't like it, don't fucking watch it.

[Cobalt Violet]

42. yes.

They are.

[Snarkoleptic]

44. Yes!

Fugg the royals.
Everything they own/control is stolen and results in oppression, hunger, poverty, despair.

[David__77]

46. The British Empire committing such monstrous crimes.

That’s good to bear in mind when contemplating such ceremony.

[msfiddlestix]

48. I feel the same.

I'm not a scholar, but have learned that loyalty to the Crown was rather significant
before and during the "Revolutionary" War among the Colonies.

That was true throughout the colonies but particularly so in the South.

Whenever I'm reminded of this, I find it a wonder that Continental Army managed to claim victory given the popularity to the crown.

Observing the media worship-covering the Royalty over the course of my lifetime has always confounded me earlier in my life until I learned more about some of the history (before and after) related to trade and geopolitical interests outside of the continent.

As with so much in history, it's complicated, but at the end of the day, our collective obsession and fascination seems to be deeply rooted in that history, imo.

[housecat]

51. and orange traitors

[Mysterian]

52. Billionaires want to bring back royalty and serfdom

That's why reporters are gushing about it on TV.

[ripcord]

54. I have to laugh at people who say this is somehow evil because we threw off the monarchy

The U.K. is without a doubt the most firm and loyal ally the U.S. has, the special relationship is as strong now as it ever has been, buy a calendar and check the century.

[GoCubsGo]

56. They go more than a little overboard on that family, in general.

I guess a lot of folks just enjoy the soap opera aspect of it. The whole thing strikes me as just more reality TV, something of which I have never gotten into.

As for "history," some are acting like this is the first moonwalk or something. Whatever. It's some guy inheriting a job from his parent, who inherited the job from her parent, who got it from his parent, and nobody outside of that family is ever going to hold that position. I just can't scrape up even one fuck to give about it.

[stonecutter357]

58. yes fuck the king !

[Retrograde]

59. Spain got a new king a few years ago.

So did the Netherlands. I don't recall the US media going so fawningly ga-ga over either. So yes, I think they're going a lot overboard on this coverage*. Heading off comments that the US shares a common heritage with Britain - most of what is now the United States was never a British colony, and immigration patterns over the last century mean that a smaller and smaller percentage has British ancestry. So why the days of media hype?


*my personal theory on news coverage: the closer an event is to good hotels and restaurants the more coverage it gets. London has plenty of those (and they speak a language most US so-called reporters can understand) so something happening there means and excuse to run up the old expense accounts. Plus, events concerning the British royal family are easy to cover - just regurgitate the official handouts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. The other European monarchies don't hold coronations any more

Coronations in Europe were previously held in the monarchies of Europe. The United Kingdom is the only monarchy in Europe that still practices coronation.[1] Current European monarchies have either replaced coronations with simpler ceremonies to mark an accession (e.g. Norway and Denmark) or have never practiced coronations (e.g. The Netherlands and Belgium). Most monarchies today only require a simple oath to be taken in the presence of the country's legislature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronations_in_Europe

or a long time, the art of royal spectacle was for other, weaker peoples: Italians, Russians, and Habsburgs. British ritual occasions were a mess. At the funeral of Princess Charlotte, in 1817, the undertakers were drunk. Ten years later, St George’s Chapel was so cold during the burial of the Duke of York that George Canning, the foreign secretary, contracted rheumatic fever and the bishop of London died. “We never saw so motley, so rude, so ill-managed a body of persons,” reported the Times on the funeral of George IV, in 1830. Victoria’s coronation a few years later was nothing to write home about. The clergy got lost in the words; the singing was awful; and the royal jewellers made the coronation ring for the wrong finger. “Some nations have a gift for ceremonial,” the Marquess of Salisbury wrote in 1860. “In England the case is exactly the reverse.”

What we think of as the ancient rituals of the monarchy were mainly crafted in the late 19th century, towards the end of Victoria’s reign. Courtiers, politicians and constitutional theorists such as Walter Bagehot worried about the dismal sight of the Empress of India trooping around Windsor in her donkey cart. If the crown was going to give up its executive authority, it would have to inspire loyalty and awe by other means – and theatre was part of the answer. “The more democratic we get,” wrote Bagehot in 1867, “the more we shall get to like state and show.”

Obsessed by death, Victoria planned her own funeral with some style. But it was her son, Edward VII, who is largely responsible for reviving royal display. One courtier praised his “curious power of visualising a pageant”. He turned the state opening of parliament and military drills, like the Trooping of the Colour, into full fancy-dress occasions, and at his own passing, resurrected the medieval ritual of lying in state. Hundreds of thousands of subjects filed past his coffin in Westminster Hall in 1910, granting a new sense of intimacy to the body of the sovereign. By 1932, George V was a national father figure, giving the first royal Christmas speech to the nation – a tradition that persists today – in a radio address written for him by Rudyard Kipling.

The shambles and the remoteness of the 19th-century monarchy were replaced by an idealised family and historic pageantry invented in the 20th. In 1909, Kaiser Wilhelm II boasted about the quality of German martial processions: “The English cannot come up to us in this sort of thing.” Now we all know that no one else quite does it like the British.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

[pinkstarburst]

61. It's a historic occasion

I'm not watching. Not interested. But they do their research and they wouldn't have it on if there wasn't an audience for it. Just change the channel.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

64. I refused to watch this event

[GenThePerservering]

67. Turn off the TV and read a book. NT