Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it's human nature and doesn't keep me up at night.
I agree - I could care less about celebrities, etc. I make it a point Not to click on any of these kinds of articles on newspapers online - my single voice is just that but if more like-minded people do the same, it sends a message. I 'vote' by selectively selecting the articles that I read online.
Human nature - Humans need to get a grip and live their own lives instead of fantasizing about the lives of others.
I have no personal interest in the monarchy and I'm sure that many people that follow them around the world (including Canada) do it because they are more like celebrities and not because of the institution itself or the history behind it. It's human nature to be enamored by glamorous, rich and famous-types via entertainment news and this is more than just a Canadian thing. We also don't have an equivalent celebrity culture within Canada so it doesn't shock me that we follow others in the English-speaking world (UK or US) when "big" news occurs. I personally look up to and would go out of my way to follow the lives of people who contribute to and change the world like a Nelson Mandela or Steve Jobs, I feel these people have "earned" any type of celebrity status they have. But like I said, there will always be a huge market within the general populace for those who are famous for the family they are born into or strictly by the way they look, it's human nature and it won't keep me up at night.
Some of the 'obsession' might be regional. Haven't found a hint of obsession about the monarchy around here. I like babies. I'm sure it is a nice baby. I think that Diana kind of started the whole celebrity aspect of the British monarchy. Before Diana, they were just odd looking people in bad clothes who apparently didn't squeeze their own toothpaste. And I think her early death was tragic in the way that it is always tragic when young people die. And to a large extent, when her marital problems became public, people empathized with her - the monarchy became more 'real' to people. And all of it coincided with the rise of the internet.
But I don't buy into the idea that Canadians have a particularly strong obsession about the monarchy at all.
I'm happy enough to have the monarchy mostly because I'd be watching very closely to see what exactly the government would want to change it to and what that would mean. But I wouldn't join the Monarchy Society or stand in line in a crowd to shake their hands.
If you did away with the monarchy, I don't believe this obsession would recede much. My country began the doing-away process in 1775 and completed it in 1783, and our media and its consumers still go completely gaga over the royal baby bump, just as they did Princess Diana. That's closing on 2.5 centuries of rejection and it hasn't taken.
Again, a perfect counter-point to the O/P's use of the word "obsession" to describe the birth of a Royal.
The major networks of the U.S., a Federal Republic that is probably the most indicative of nations violently shrugging off the yoke of Monarchy, all having news teams camped outside the various Royal habitats with time slots devoted every hour on the hour at the least to this birth event.
There is simply a market for it which will remain regardless of affiliation being at arm's length or even more remote.
It is a British thing for the vast majority of human beings on earth, no matter how desperately one wants to associate Canada with those glamous Kings, Queens, Dukes and Lords.
Do you think some Japanese would think, wow, she will give birth to the future King of India? Do you constantly associate the royal family with India?
... Guess so. Same applies to Canada.
No; most emphatically not. The Japanese have their own royal family to think about.
Canadians are only slightlly more entranced over the royals than any other nation on the planet.
I certainly don't think excessively so, given the fairy tale worshipping by the masses over anything that serves as a distraction, like whether or not Brad and Angelina are adopting another one.
If you did away with the monarchy, I don't believe this obsession would recede much. My country began the doing-away process in 1775 and completed it in 1783, and our media and its consumers still go completely gaga over the royal baby bump, just as they did Princess Diana. That's closing on 2.5 centuries of rejection and it hasn't taken.
I'm fine with the monarchy, it's the gossip magazines and soap opera digests and tabloids I want to do away with. Not because of this, just in general.
I have generally stopped watching the news and only sometimes will I go on bbc to see what's happening in the world but that isn't often. So I don't care about the royal family or the wedding or the baby, it isn't of any interest or concern to me. But it is a lot better than the usual depressing stuff news agencies spew out(which is why I stopped watching the news). So congrats to them, a newborn is uplifting and happy, something unfortunately uncommon for media.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.