On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 17:42:46 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> On 7/6/2014 3:11 PM, wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 13:43:45 -0400, jmcquown >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/6/2014 1:39 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>> On 2014-07-06 1:02 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Seems to me Royal marriages way back when were primarily done for
> >>>> political reasons. And for the expansion of the kingdom. Again, I only
> >>>> know what I've read about or seen on television or in movies. Being an
> >>>> American, I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What fascinates me is how Americans are so intrigued by British royalty.
> >>> While the Queen is technically our head of state, basically a
> >>> figurehead position with no real power, most Canadians don't give a damn
> >>> about her and her dysfunctional family. The current monarch is basically
> >>> harmless, but has managed to lead a scandal free life, or at least to
> >>> give them impression of being so. He kids and heirs to the throne have
> >>> not led exemplary lives.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> We're not really intrigued. We just can't help hearing about some things.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> > Then why do Americans flock to London (and always have) for royal
> > events, there were some who came up to Halifax for Charles and
> > Camilla's recent visit last May!
> >
> I can't speak about those Americans. I've never been a "Royal Watcher".
>
I don't know about Royal Watchers, but we have enough celebrity
watchers over here to support all of those magazines at the grocery
store checkout stands and the Royal Family has celebrity status over
here.


--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila