Media Disconnect

E85e661a37125762_kate-and-will According to the New York Times, people don't care about Wills and Kate

How fascinated are Americans with Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s nuptials next week? According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, not very. Only 6 percent have been following news about the wedding very closely, and an additional 22 percent are following it somewhat closely.

If people don't care, why won't the media shut up about it?

My guess is that people really do care (much as it saddens me), but they didn't want to tell the pollsters that. Also, the 22 percent of respondents who responded that they were following it "somewhat closely" are probably following this news much more closely than they would a presidential election. 

18 thoughts on “Media Disconnect

  1. So we need a Kinsey Report on royal watching to get a more accurate picture?
    It does amuse me to equate royal watching with socially embarrassing/taboo sexual practices.

  2. I don’t really follow this stuff, but I’d note:
    1) William isn’t even the heir to the throne.
    2) William is kind of boring. Harry is a much more interesting character.

  3. Neither of them is particularly interesting, and neither was really a celebrity in any sense before the engagement announcement. I think for Americans, people have to spend a certain amount of time on tv before we treat them as celebrities whose marriage is worthy of our attention. Maybe if they went on “Dancing with the Stars”…

  4. Just to be snarky — it’s interesting that non-Americans are not considered “people” in this post. I would be more interested in the feelings of Canadians or Australians (or even the British), since they still maintain affiliation with the royal family as ceremonial Heads of State.
    And I also think that Prince Charles has renounced any interest in the throne (I heard that somewhere, I think), which would make Prince William the next in line. I think there is some expectation that William will be the next King of England.

  5. Are we talking about Prince Charles of “Rumania” (renouncing his throne in 1919) according to the ny times, or the 1992 tabloid report about The Prince of Wales
    William is definitely 2nd in line, not the heir.
    The newspapers also had articles about wedding fatigue in England.
    I paid attention in 1981, even though I was a teenage cynic at the time. But the fact that William is not the heir and the decidedly jaded outcome of the 1981 “fairytale” makes me pretty uninterested.
    The Vows story about the senior citizen winter king and queen’s wedding (in Minnesota?) was pretty good, though.

  6. We bought a new fridge recently. It is therefore completely uncluttered with Raggirl artwork — but the William and Kate Commemorative Magnets are up already.

  7. Being in the Commonwealth I see them as individuals and also as part of a history of more than a thousand years of monarchs, some good, some bad, some strong, some weak. But I am also a history geek.
    Hey, his grandmother’s on our money too.

  8. “We bought a new fridge recently. It is therefore completely uncluttered with Raggirl artwork”
    I thought you were going to tell us that you bought the W&K fridge (you know, the one with the bigger than life size picture)?

  9. Kate Middleton looks so much like the girls that my brother and male cousins tend to marry–tall, sporty brunettes.

  10. She’s sporty? Because I see someone that skinny and I can’t help think about bone fractures. (I have to get my petty in somehow. Although they get my sympathy as far as pregnancy goes–just ain’t no room in thar, so can’t be comfortable. My family, we got birthing hips, and my sister’s first just slid right out.)

  11. The only person who cares in my house is the 16 year old, and she just visited London.
    I think the media saturates us on all sorts of things we don’t care about, but they do. See Lindsay Lohan, John & Kate, etc.
    It’s because they don’t want to give us real news, so they manufacture “news”.

  12. Honestly, the whole bread and circuses aspect makes me a little nauseous. Britain is dealing with a collapse of their social welfare state much more serious than ours (well, they had in some ways farther to fall), and all the attention is what dress Kate will wear.
    I feel like the only place I hear about the wedding in my normal life is from the media, who is every 5 seconds writing an article on how no one is interested. If no one is interested, why not drop it already?
    Finally, to be a hypocrite, I read that the wedding will cost 34 million dollars, but the royal family will pay for it. Doesn’t their money all come from taxpayers? In that sense, aren’t the taxpayers actually paying for it?

  13. How rich is Queen Elizabeth?
    Her estimated personal fortune is around £350 million (US $525M). The Duchy of Lancaster estate, a portfolio of land, property and assets, is held in Trust for the Sovereign and worth around £348 million. She also owns properties privately that have never been valued, including Sandringham House, Balmoral Castle reputedly worth £160 million and the Castle of Mey. Her personal art collection is worth at least £10 billion, and she owns personal jewellery and a large stamp collection built up by her grandfather George V. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Jewels and the Royal Art Collection are held in trust for the nation. The Crown Estate, the royal lands dating from 1066, are worth around £7.3 billion and generate £304 million (2008/9) in revenue a year which is handed back to the Government as payment in return for the £38.2 million per year (2009/10 down 7% from £41 million in 2008) cost of running the monarchy. This arrangement dates from George III who gave up the right to the income in return for the Civil List paid to members of the Royal Family. It has been announced that this will be changed in 2013 to a Sovereign Support Grant based on a percentage of the income from the Crown Estate.
    Does the Queen pay taxes?
    Yes, in 1992 The Queen offered to pay income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis. Since 1993, her personal income has been taxable as for any other UK taxpayer.

    http://www.britroyals.com/faqs.htm
    Personally, I wish the media wouldn’t push the wedding. It’s an ad for a tourist attraction. I think the string of royal divorces made the British royals much less interesting.

  14. “I think the string of royal divorces made the British royals much less interesting. ”
    Me too. And, it especially made their weddings less interesting. Now, I’ve always wondered whether the divorces wouldn’t have been the problem they were if they’d just been allowed to marry who they wanted (i.e. if Charles had just been allowed to marry Camilla in the first place). Trading Diana for Camilla wasn’t standard trophy wife trading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s