Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

Kate Middleton, future Queen??

Chris Wilson

By Chris Wilson
in Off Topic

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 190
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Tannhauser Newbie

Tannhauser

Posted
Posted
Your own post contradicts Mr T. How is there zero significance if it increases sales. That in itself is a significance.

 

Whether you like the fuss or not, to state it has zero significance is utter rubbish. It has an impact whether you like it or not.

 

It depends on what you mean by significance. Clearly, you think the fact that it makes money in itself makes it 'significant'. The FTSE varies every day, adding and subtracting millions from the nation's collective portfolios. That's not significant to me because it's an economic change that - huge crashes aside - spells nothing different politically, socially, culturally, artistically and so on.

 

 

 

Front page of the Metro paper* this morning: Increase sales expected of £600m, demand for copies of diana type ring increase by 800% over night. All an impact from the engagement.

 

600m is a drop in the bucket measured against the current financial predicament. The fact that a lot of people will copy the latest thing in the news by buying a ring - this is significant? In what way? Last year it's what Cheryl Cole is wearing,this year it's Kate Middleton. Plus ca change.

 

Are you serious with the above? How is the head of state not an influence? Whole debates in Australia and Canada take place on whether they should provide lip service to the Queen or not. Every law has to be signed off by the queen. I accept that her role is primarily significant

 

The Head of State is not an influence if that role is purely a symbolic one.

 

I agree: debates take place in Australia and Canada over whether to pay lip-service to the queen. Unfortunately, this supports my conclusion, rather than yours. They are debating over whether they should make some sort of a token gesture to acknowledge the past (i.e. lip service), or none at all. On a day to day basis, why should a country like Australia, 10,000 miles away, with economic interests focused on the Pacific Rim, listen to the UK government, let alone the purely symbolic figurehead.

 

In your final sentence, I presume you meant to write ' I accept that her role is primarily symbolic ' rather than significant. otherwise it doesn't make sense. If so,then you've said it yourself: the fact that she 'signs off' laws makes her no more significant than a franking machine.

 

Really, this was all settled in the English Civil War.

 

I wonder how many TV channels in how many countries will have the wedding live. Also, if people were not interested why would it be in the media. People are interested but certain individuals are not and thus moan about it.

 

A great many, I'm sure. The issue about why it's in the media is not a simple cause and effect in either direction. Undoubtedly, there is a public interest, and the broadcasts will be a response to this. However, the media largely create that interest by carpet-bombing newspapers, TV and radio with coverage of every aspect of that event. To me, its no different to the X Factor: if you tell someone that an event is the next big thing often enough, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

I'm not sure what you're driving at in your last sentence as it seems a simple truism.

 

 

No one watched it? No one?

 

Not as far as I remember. I had my own life to lead, and so did my friends, and for us, the royal family was just something that old people were interested in. As for my parents, I don't think they had any interest in it either.

 

I note the change of wording from zero significance to total irrelevance.

 

Good for you. I suggest that observation is a total irrelevance, and of zero significance.

 

Contradictory one might suggest?

 

One might suggest it, if one was prone to conjuring contradictions out of thin air.

 

You don't agree with a monarchy, I get it. It doesn't mean a wedding has zero significance. Ripple in a pond.

 

No, actually, you don't get it. Your inference is incorrect, though I would agree that my feelings about them has no impact on whether the wedding has no significance. Rather, it's based on the following:

 

1) Despite what the media say, a huge number of people in the UK have no interest in the wedding. This is the same globally. There would be even more who weren;t interested if not for the unrelenting need to fill up air space with Shiny Things.

2) A celebrity event rarely has any lasting impact on history. It doesn't alter international relations, it doesn't alter the balance of power locally or nationally, it doesn't affect the environment (except marginally), it doesn't alter social policy. It's just entertainment.

3) Furthermore, neither of the parties has yet had anything to say on any major issues. So even if they had any political influence, which they haven't, they have no interest (unlike, say Charles) in broader issues. That makes them entertainment figures, whose job is to be famous and meet dignitaries (before those dignitaries get on with their proper jobs).

4) The economic impact is short-lived, and in the scheme of things, unlikely to change very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbleapple Newbie

marbleapple

Posted
Posted
It depends on what you mean by significance.

 

How about the dictionary definition? - importance: the quality of having importance or being regarded as having great meaning, - meaning: implied or intended meaning, - value as statistical pointer: status as a statistical value that is not accidental or random

 

You said it had zero significance. I disagree with that simply because it has some significance. You don't agree with my point but concede that there are consequences that would otherwise not occur. That according to my understanding means there is some significance.

 

Good for you. I suggest that observation is a total irrelevance, and of zero significance.

 

Hardly. My point was that you seem to be moving from a position that the wedding has 'zero significance' to an argument that the wedding is totally 'irrelevant' to you. Whole different argument is it not?

 

The rest of your post appears to be arguing that the wedding is irrelevant to you. I never suggested it was so won't respond.

 

Personally I don't buy into celebs etc, I rarerly watch TV in fact because of all the rubbish. I just think the wedding could cause interesting developments both socially and culturally, even if they are caused by the media's approach to the wedding.

 

 

At that I am out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevie_b Apprentice

stevie_b

Posted
Posted

Let's extrapolate from Charles and Diana's wedding: out of 57 million in the UK in 1981, 28 million (source) watched it. That's 1 in 2 people. It wasn't significant for those who didn't watch it, but it was (at least for that day) for those who did.

 

The royal wedding taken in isolation has little lasting impact on UK and world events. But taken in the context of a continuing royal family, I think it has a huge significance and impact. It's difficult to measure the cause-and-effect that having a royal family produces, and thus it's difficult to measure the cause-and-effect of a royal wedding.

 

The royal family is part of the UK's heritage, and by continuing to exist it retains a certain amount of relevance. Weddings are necessary for the royal family to continue to exist.

 

Tannhauser, in your view what would the wedding need to bring about in order for it to have significance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevie_b Apprentice

stevie_b

Posted
Posted
Can't believe that anyone thinks that Kate's face will end up on notes :D she would just the bride of the King. The Queen is not much when there's a King in the mix. Which is why Our current Queen's husband is not a King, just a prince.

 

I think that's what Gaz said in post 152. :) It's the monarch who appears on notes/coins: at the moment the monarch is Liz not Phil, if/when Wills gets to the throne it'll be him not Kate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tannhauser Newbie

Tannhauser

Posted
Posted
How about the dictionary definition? - importance: the quality of having importance or being regarded as having great meaning, - meaning: implied or intended meaning, - value as statistical pointer: status as a statistical value that is not accidental or random

 

But using a dictionary definition doesn't help, does it? Discounting the scientific, statistical sense of 'significant', we're left with 'importance' and 'meaning' -two equally subjective terms that don't advance your argument at all. Earlier, you operationalised what you meant by significance in terms of political, social and economic impact. I've addressed those in turn and explained why I think they are nothing of importance.

 

You said it had zero significance. I disagree with that simply because it has some significance. You don't agree with my point but concede that there are consequences that would otherwise not occur. That according to my understanding means there is some significance.

 

Only some? I thought you actually were saying that it was a major event in the space-time continuum, as the royals have such power over the Commonwealth :).

 

Above, you are now defining significance as 'something that causes consequences that otherwise would not occur'. The problem with this is that now any event is significant, including me putting my socks on this morning.

 

 

Hardly. My point was that you seem to be moving from a position that the wedding has 'zero significance' to an argument that the wedding is totally 'irrelevant' to you. Whole different argument is it not?

 

Yes, you seem very exercised by the difference between the two words. That which lacks significance can also said to lack relevance. The relevance is to the issues already cited. In addition, it's also of personal irrelevance to me.

 

The rest of your post appears to be arguing that the wedding is irrelevant to you. I never suggested it was so won't respond.

 

Even a casual reading of the rest of my post reveals that it does nothing of the sort. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tannhauser Newbie

Tannhauser

Posted
Posted

Tannhauser, in your view what would the wedding need to bring about in order for it to have significance?

 

Steve

 

Here's where I am with this. The issue of whether the royal engagement/wedding is 'significant' is an interesting but ultimately unresolvable argument. Significance depends on the frame of reference in terms of: (a) time (b) space and © area of influence. On a grand enough scale in (a) and (b), very few events are significant. The Telegaph blog that I originally responded to, however, provided the frame of reference for me, by suggesting that the event was of significance for all UK citizens, and involved changes to our personal and national identity.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I understand significance to mean something of lasting influence. So, for me, if 28 million people watched Charles and Di, that's not significant, because two years down the line, and nothing is materially different about their lives. As you say, it was significant at least for that day. By that token, a roast dinner I had two years ago was also a significant event.

 

If 9/11 was watched by 28 million, to me that is significant, because it represented a sea-change in how people view the world. The spheres of influence I've considered are political, social, cultural, artistic and economic. I can't see what large scale impact it will have on any of those: it doesn't represent anything new.

 

I don't really understand your point about 'the context of the royal family'. I guess if the royal family were to disappear completely, I would be hard-pressed to argue this wasn't of historic significance and economic significance (I think of all that land that would be sold off). But is the royal family likely to disappear without them? I confess to my ignorance on that, but there's an apparently interminable list of people in line to the throne', so I would imagine someone else would step up to the plate. This being the case, does it matter if they take the throne or some other suitably connected person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.