I don't get it. Who cares? It's a baby that's going to grow up rich and spoiled for no reason other than luck, and that's something for us peasants to celebrate?
The only reason this is getting so much media coverage is because it involves the royal family. The Founding Fathers would go apeshit if they saw the frenzy over something that happens millions of times A DAY, simply because this particular instance happened to be born into royalty.
Exactly. Why should we give a shit about a baby being born, just because it's being born into royalty? It's still just a baby. Why should I care more just because it might become king one day?
I think the royal haters are now even more annoying to me than the people they complain about. The royals aren't doing anything now so there's no reason to keep complaining. If some people are interested in a royal baby then let them and just ignore them.
Apparently, the people's interest and the media attention isa good thing because I read a report that says this is good for Britain's economy. I'm not sure how that works but whatever.
Well their monarchy does attract a lot of tourism and they also gave land/power or whatever and it does get really complicated. But basically the Royals do help the economy. :PAs for the issue on hand, meh. I don't know really. I for one think that it's not anything worth hating on and feel that you should at least say "congratulations" like you would to any other mother that just gave birth to a baby. And going off to say "The kid's going to be spoiled and he was just lucky" is rather rude and ignorant in a way, since you really don't know if that kid's going to grow up into someone noteworthy or a second coming of Hitler, so I feel it's not really best to aimlessly bash on the Royals.
"Oh, a future ruler is born. VERILY, THIS IS IMPORTANT! We could cover much more important things...like government conspiracies and what is really happening with the wars around the world...BUT A BABY HAS BEEN BORN! Surely, no one at all will find this news annoying to watch when they want...news! We do covering important worldly issues so good!"That is the mindset of them. I cannot answer why you humans are so shallow. I am an observer, not a philosopher...
And the term "ruler" is very relative, since while I'm not familiar with UK politics, doesn't the royal family only have a symbolic role as an obscenely expensive relic of the past?
I live in the UK so I can answer this. Yes, the Royal Family is more symbolic than political. There is only one thing that the royals do that is remotely political: the Queen signs a law when it's gone all the way through parliament and the government to make it law. That's it.
I guess it's fairly similar to Canada then, where the governor general, whose function as representative of the Queen is similarly symbolic, signs laws in the same way. He can theoretically veto any law, but it never ever happens.
Sometimes I see those magazines on the "impulse buy" shelf. I mean it's nice that some celebrity is having a baby, or losing weight, or getting divorced or something, but do I know these people? Not my business. I don't get how they sell.