UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Purgatio]

The British Monarch is the Sovereign, she is the Head of State, she is literally the symbolic representation of the British State and nation and all that that entails. So when the Monarch's prestige is impaired, because the actions of a senior royal and his spouse are dealing blows to that prestige, it hurts the honour and prestige of the British nation by extension.

And how exactly does any of that actually harm the average British citizen? Because the loss of a nations “prestige and honor” is purely symbolic and not that harmful to citizens.

If the British Prime Minister made crude jokes during a diplomatic summit, resulting in multiple foreign news outlets discussing and debating the disrepute or disgrace of that behaviour, that also entails a humiliating loss in Britain's "prestige and honour", even if those crude jokes and the mockery and debacle in the foreign press that it results in may not have any immediate effect in the lives of an individual member of the British public, it still wounds British national pride and prestige more generally, and hence would be worthy of critique.

[Nuroblav]

And how exactly does any of that actually harm the average British citizen? Because the loss of a nations “prestige and honor” is purely symbolic and not that harmful to citizens.

If the British Prime Minister made crude jokes during a diplomatic summit, resulting in multiple foreign news outlets discussing and debating the disrepute or disgrace of that behaviour, that also entails a humiliating loss in Britain's "prestige and honour", even if those crude jokes and the mockery and debacle in the foreign press that it results in may not have any immediate effect in the lives of an individual member of the British public, it still wounds British national pride and prestige more generally, and hence would be worthy of critique.

As someone who has hardly any national pride and whatsoever, I don't see that as particularly a worry...

[Novus America]

Umm “periods of transition” while of course limited in duration imply an intermediary status from going to one thing to another very different one.
You would not refer to a temporary sabbatical or vacation as a “period of transition”.

If you revert to the same status after the period as you had before it is NOT a period of transition.

What this means is after the period of transition ends their status will be very different than it was before and they will no longer be “full time royals”.

I misread Her Majesty's quote, when she spoke of a "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" my immediate assumption was that this meant the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be transitioning from their present state, as estranged royals seeking to part with or extricate themseleves from the other senior royals, to a state of returning back to their usual duties and responsibilities as full-time royals not in a state of attempting to extricate themselves from that position. In retrospect that does seem like a very non-intuitive interpretation of that quote, which is why I replied to NCR's reply stating I had misunderstood the quote and conceded it makes more sense to interpret "period of transition" to mean a transition to a state of not being full-time royals, but I think the reason I immediately jumped to that interpretation of "period of transition" is because of all the recent news about Her Majesty having been blindsided by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's surprise announcent, her personal dissatisfaction and unhappiness about that decision (according to the royal experts that appeared on ITV's This Morning and on the BBC, anyway), and so when I read the quote about "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" I jumped to assuming this meant the Duke and Duchess would enjoy a 'temporary break' from being full-time royals before transitioning back into becoming permanent full-time royals (as opposed to their current state of being full-time royals presently attempting to extricate themselves from that occupation).

Although, like I said when I replied to NCR, there are a lot of details that the short BBC article still doesn't tell us, because the details about this transitional agreement are not yet out to the public. We still don't know what state they will be transitioning to after that period, whether they will be part-time royals or not participate in any remaining royal engagements and charities thereafter, whether they will retain their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex and all the other titles they hold (Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel etc.), what restrictions there will be on their ability to market their royal status or capitalise on their title for private profit (if any), whether there will be any remaining personal expenses of theirs still to be paid for by the Treasury (like travel expenses, if they become part-time royals and so take part in some royal engagements), the status of Frogmore Cottage, whether they will have access to revenues from say the Duchy of Cornwall, that sort of thing. So I agree with you that "transition" means to transition out of the state of being full-time royals into something else, what that something else is however, is less clear at the moment.

You say very little in a whole lot of words here.
Such over the top writing does not actually make you argument stronger.

Quite often it is better to go straight to the point in concise, clear and colloquial language rather than writing something that sounds like a parody of an academic dissertation.

[Purgatio]

Its not immoral and inexcusable oppression, we all have our roles to play in an organised social community,

I was not assigned a social role at birth. I rather suspect you weren't either. In a free country, people get to find their place in their community themselves. The royals are denied this freedom. Theirs may be a gilded cage, but it is a cage nonetheless, and if we value freedom we must tear it open and set them free.

the role of the British royal family and its senior royals is to embody and represent the highest ideals of British cultural heritage, and that comes with the responsibility of heavy involvement and regular participation in apolitical parts of British public life, especially in the cultural, artistic, and charitable sectors (the royal engagements and charities tend to be heavily involved in these specific areas). That's what it takes to remain continuing symbols of the nation who inspire love from the people. But it also comes with privileges too - the adoration and love of much of the British public, personal expenses maintained through public financing, access to the Crown Estates (with its revenues turned over to the Treasury) and proceeds from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall, noble titles, a position of social privilege and prestige. As with all things, you have to take the rough with the smooth, the nobility and privilege that comes with being born into the royal family carries its attendant responsibilities and duties that you cannot just shrug off and burden the other senior royals with at a whim, just because you and your wife aren't willing to do your job.

Why not? Every other person is allowed to quit their job if they want to do something else.

Because the Duke of Sussex, in his chilhood and until this moment, reaped all of the benefits of being born into a family with access to the Crown Estates (revenues turned over to the Treasury), the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and whose security and travel expenses are paid for by the Treasury, and all the privilege and socio-economic implications of being born into those circumstances. That carries corollary responsibilities and obligations to give back to the British public by performing their symbolic role and function as living embodiments of Britain's legacy and heritage. You can't just reap all the benefits of being born into the royal family, and all the privilege that entails, and refuse to give back to the British public thereafter, that's called being a free rider.

[The New California Republic]

I misread Her Majesty's quote, when she spoke of a "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" my immediate assumption was that this meant the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be transitioning from their present state, as estranged royals seeking to part with or extricate themseleves from the other senior royals, to a state of returning back to their usual duties and responsibilities as full-time royals not in a state of attempting to extricate themselves from that position. In retrospect that does seem like a very non-intuitive interpretation of that quote, which is why I replied to NCR's reply stating I had misunderstood the quote and conceded it makes more sense to interpret "period of transition" to mean a transition to a state of not being full-time royals, but I think the reason I immediately jumped to that interpretation of "period of transition" is because of all the recent news about Her Majesty having been blindsided by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's surprise announcent, her personal dissatisfaction and unhappiness about that decision (according to the royal experts that appeared on ITV's This Morning and on the BBC, anyway), and so when I read the quote about "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" I jumped to assuming this meant the Duke and Duchess would enjoy a 'temporary break' from being full-time royals before transitioning back into becoming permanent full-time royals (as opposed to their current state of being full-time royals presently attempting to extricate themselves from that occupation).

Although, like I said when I replied to NCR, there are a lot of details that the short BBC article still doesn't tell us, because the details about this transitional agreement are not yet out to the public. We still don't know what state they will be transitioning to after that period, whether they will be part-time royals or not participate in any remaining royal engagements and charities thereafter, whether they will retain their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex and all the other titles they hold (Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel etc.), what restrictions there will be on their ability to market their royal status or capitalise on their title for private profit (if any), whether there will be any remaining personal expenses of theirs still to be paid for by the Treasury (like travel expenses, if they become part-time royals and so take part in some royal engagements), the status of Frogmore Cottage, whether they will have access to revenues from say the Duchy of Cornwall, that sort of thing. So I agree with you that "transition" means to transition out of the state of being full-time royals into something else, what that something else is however, is less clear at the moment.

You say very little in a whole lot of words here.
Such over the top writing does not actually make you argument stronger.

Quite often it is better to go straight to the point in concise, clear and colloquial language rather than writing something that sounds like a parody of an academy dissertation.

"Less is more" and all that.

[Purgatio]

I misread Her Majesty's quote, when she spoke of a "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" my immediate assumption was that this meant the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be transitioning from their present state, as estranged royals seeking to part with or extricate themseleves from the other senior royals, to a state of returning back to their usual duties and responsibilities as full-time royals not in a state of attempting to extricate themselves from that position. In retrospect that does seem like a very non-intuitive interpretation of that quote, which is why I replied to NCR's reply stating I had misunderstood the quote and conceded it makes more sense to interpret "period of transition" to mean a transition to a state of not being full-time royals, but I think the reason I immediately jumped to that interpretation of "period of transition" is because of all the recent news about Her Majesty having been blindsided by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's surprise announcent, her personal dissatisfaction and unhappiness about that decision (according to the royal experts that appeared on ITV's This Morning and on the BBC, anyway), and so when I read the quote about "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" I jumped to assuming this meant the Duke and Duchess would enjoy a 'temporary break' from being full-time royals before transitioning back into becoming permanent full-time royals (as opposed to their current state of being full-time royals presently attempting to extricate themselves from that occupation).

Although, like I said when I replied to NCR, there are a lot of details that the short BBC article still doesn't tell us, because the details about this transitional agreement are not yet out to the public. We still don't know what state they will be transitioning to after that period, whether they will be part-time royals or not participate in any remaining royal engagements and charities thereafter, whether they will retain their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex and all the other titles they hold (Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel etc.), what restrictions there will be on their ability to market their royal status or capitalise on their title for private profit (if any), whether there will be any remaining personal expenses of theirs still to be paid for by the Treasury (like travel expenses, if they become part-time royals and so take part in some royal engagements), the status of Frogmore Cottage, whether they will have access to revenues from say the Duchy of Cornwall, that sort of thing. So I agree with you that "transition" means to transition out of the state of being full-time royals into something else, what that something else is however, is less clear at the moment.

You say very little in a whole lot of words here.
Such over the top writing does not actually make you argument stronger.

Quite often it is better to go straight to the point in concise, clear and colloquial language rather than writing something that sounds like a parody of an academy dissertation.

You challenged my interpretation of "period of transition" and so I explained my immediate interpretation of "period of transition" as meaning a transition from being dissatisfied full-time royals estranged from other senior royals seeking to extricate themseleves from that occupation, to full-time royals who will permanently remain in that capacity, with a temporary break or transition period in between those two points, conceded that NCR's interpretation and yours, in hindsight, is more intuitive (transitioning from being full-time royals to something else), explained the background news and the surrounding context to explain why I jumped to the less intuitive interpretation than the more intuitive one, then clarified what we still do not know about the agreement to be reached in Sandringham. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I read over my comment again just to give it a second look, and I thought these four specific points that I was making were all fairly clear, but hey if you see it differently then that's fine, you do you.

[Purgatio]

If the British Prime Minister made crude jokes during a diplomatic summit, resulting in multiple foreign news outlets discussing and debating the disrepute or disgrace of that behaviour, that also entails a humiliating loss in Britain's "prestige and honour", even if those crude jokes and the mockery and debacle in the foreign press that it results in may not have any immediate effect in the lives of an individual member of the British public, it still wounds British national pride and prestige more generally, and hence would be worthy of critique.

As someone who has hardly any national pride and whatsoever, I don't see that as particularly a worry...

Thats fine, but most people do carry a sense of national pride and a desire not to see their nation's honour and dignity tarnished in some way, and that tends to occur when a major crisis or scandal overtakes the Head of State and his or her family.

[Andsed]

And how exactly does any of that actually harm the average British citizen? Because the loss of a nations “prestige and honor” is purely symbolic and not that harmful to citizens.

If the British Prime Minister made crude jokes during a diplomatic summit, resulting in multiple foreign news outlets discussing and debating the disrepute or disgrace of that behaviour, that also entails a humiliating loss in Britain's "prestige and honour", even if those crude jokes and the mockery and debacle in the foreign press that it results in may not have any immediate effect in the lives of an individual member of the British public, it still wounds British national pride and prestige more generally, and hence would be worthy of critique.

You have not explained how the loses of national pride is actually harmful. And a member of the government acting stupidly and a celebrity retiring from public life are to very different things. There is nothing about Prince Harry’s action that are wrong here or are some big deal. It is just some celebrity being done with being hounded by press and thus leaving the public eye.

[The New California Republic]

As someone who has hardly any national pride and whatsoever, I don't see that as particularly a worry...

Thats fine, but most people do carry a sense of national pride and a desire not to see their nation's honour and dignity tarnished in some way, and that tends to occur when a major crisis or scandal overtakes the Head of State and his or her family.

I still think you are seriously overplaying how much people actually give two shits about this.

[Purgatio]

If the British Prime Minister made crude jokes during a diplomatic summit, resulting in multiple foreign news outlets discussing and debating the disrepute or disgrace of that behaviour, that also entails a humiliating loss in Britain's "prestige and honour", even if those crude jokes and the mockery and debacle in the foreign press that it results in may not have any immediate effect in the lives of an individual member of the British public, it still wounds British national pride and prestige more generally, and hence would be worthy of critique.

You have not explained how the loses of national pride is actually harmful. And a member of the government acting stupidly and a celebrity retiring from public life are to very different things. There is nothing about Prince Harry’s action that are wrong here. Unless your trying to say the wealthy are obligated to serve the public at their own expense.

The overwhelming majority of wealthy families do not also embody Britain's cultural heritage, and the head of most wealthy families are not also Britain's Sovereign and Head of State. That's the difference.

[Purgatio]

Thats fine, but most people do carry a sense of national pride and a desire not to see their nation's honour and dignity tarnished in some way, and that tends to occur when a major crisis or scandal overtakes the Head of State and his or her family.

I still think you are seriously overplaying how much people actually give two shits about this.

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

[The New California Republic]

I still think you are seriously overplaying how much people actually give two shits about this.

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

Because it's something different that's happening? People on average will not be concerned by this whole thing.

[Vassenor]

I was not assigned a social role at birth. I rather suspect you weren't either. In a free country, people get to find their place in their community themselves. The royals are denied this freedom. Theirs may be a gilded cage, but it is a cage nonetheless, and if we value freedom we must tear it open and set them free.

Why not? Every other person is allowed to quit their job if they want to do something else.

Because the Duke of Sussex, in his chilhood and until this moment, reaped all of the benefits of being born into a family with access to the Crown Estates (revenues turned over to the Treasury), the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and whose security and travel expenses are paid for by the Treasury, and all the privilege and socio-economic implications of being born into those circumstances. That carries corollary responsibilities and obligations to give back to the British public by performing their symbolic role and function as living embodiments of Britain's legacy and heritage. You can't just reap all the benefits of being born into the royal family, and all the privilege that entails, and refuse to give back to the British public thereafter, that's called being a free rider.

Maybe the press should've thought about that before hounding his wife just for existing then.

[Andsed]

You have not explained how the loses of national pride is actually harmful. And a member of the government acting stupidly and a celebrity retiring from public life are to very different things. There is nothing about Prince Harry’s action that are wrong here. Unless your trying to say the wealthy are obligated to serve the public at their own expense.

The overwhelming majority of wealthy families do not also embody Britain's cultural heritage, and the head of most wealthy families are not also Britain's Sovereign and Head of State. That's the difference.

The cultural aspect is irrelevant here. Prince Harry is under no more obligation that any other celebrity to be in the public eye and it is just absurd to act like him wanting to live a quiet life without his and his family's action being constantly observed and judged is wrong.

[Ifreann]

I was not assigned a social role at birth. I rather suspect you weren't either. In a free country, people get to find their place in their community themselves. The royals are denied this freedom. Theirs may be a gilded cage, but it is a cage nonetheless, and if we value freedom we must tear it open and set them free.

Why not? Every other person is allowed to quit their job if they want to do something else.

Because the Duke of Sussex, in his chilhood and until this moment, reaped all of the benefits of being born into a family with access to the Crown Estates (revenues turned over to the Treasury), the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and whose security and travel expenses are paid for by the Treasury, and all the privilege and socio-economic implications of being born into those circumstances. That carries corollary responsibilities and obligations to give back to the British public by performing their symbolic role and function as living embodiments of Britain's legacy and heritage. You can't just reap all the benefits of being born into the royal family, and all the privilege that entails, and refuse to give back to the British public thereafter, that's called being a free rider.

Every child reaps some degree of benefit from the family that raises them. This does not confer a responsibility on us to follow the dictates of our parents and grandparents when we are adults.

[Purgatio]

Because the Duke of Sussex, in his chilhood and until this moment, reaped all of the benefits of being born into a family with access to the Crown Estates (revenues turned over to the Treasury), the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and whose security and travel expenses are paid for by the Treasury, and all the privilege and socio-economic implications of being born into those circumstances. That carries corollary responsibilities and obligations to give back to the British public by performing their symbolic role and function as living embodiments of Britain's legacy and heritage. You can't just reap all the benefits of being born into the royal family, and all the privilege that entails, and refuse to give back to the British public thereafter, that's called being a free rider.

Maybe the press should've thought about that before hounding his wife just for existing then.

Just to be clear, you've made this exact same point three times in a row, even though I responded when you said it the first time, with no reply (https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36624049#p36624049). It's honestly a very strange debating strategy, saying something, then when your opponent replies, you just repeat your same first statement, two more times.

[Purgatio]

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

Because it's something different that's happening? People on average will not be concerned by this whole thing.

Maybe that's true, but the more cultured and refined elements of British high society will certainly care, given the senior royals play vital roles as patrons of the arts and founders of charitable organisations, with the prestige and attention that that brings to those organisations whose events they attend as part of regular royal engagements.

[Purgatio]

The overwhelming majority of wealthy families do not also embody Britain's cultural heritage, and the head of most wealthy families are not also Britain's Sovereign and Head of State. That's the difference.

The cultural aspect is irrelevant here. Prince Harry is under no more obligation that any other celebrity to be in the public eye and it is just absurd to act like him wanting to live a quiet life without his and his family's action being constantly observed and judged is wrong.

He is though, because unlike private wealthy individuals who made their money through normal private transactions, the Duke of Sussex was born into a family with immense social and economic privileges, precisely so that when he grows up he can fulfill his duties and his responsibilities that go along with being a full-time royal. Being a member of the royal family is a position of public service, which is very different from the social status of most wealthy families that are simply regular private households whose activities have no bearing on British national culture and overall social prestige.

[The New California Republic]

Because it's something different that's happening? People on average will not be concerned by this whole thing.

Maybe that's true, but the more cultured and refined elements of British high society will certainly care, given the senior royals play vital roles as patrons of the arts and founders of charitable organisations, with the prestige and attention that that brings to those organisations whose events they attend as part of regular royal engagements.

So a minuscule minority will care. Possibly. Maybe. Watch as I cry a river over this tiny minority possibly maybe caring about this.

[Purgatio]

Because the Duke of Sussex, in his chilhood and until this moment, reaped all of the benefits of being born into a family with access to the Crown Estates (revenues turned over to the Treasury), the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and whose security and travel expenses are paid for by the Treasury, and all the privilege and socio-economic implications of being born into those circumstances. That carries corollary responsibilities and obligations to give back to the British public by performing their symbolic role and function as living embodiments of Britain's legacy and heritage. You can't just reap all the benefits of being born into the royal family, and all the privilege that entails, and refuse to give back to the British public thereafter, that's called being a free rider.

Every child reaps some degree of benefit from the family that raises them. This does not confer a responsibility on us to follow the dictates of our parents and grandparents when we are adults.

Maybe not the dictates of your parents and grandparents, but if those privileges were conferred on you precisely so you can give back to the nation as a whole, by conferring on the public all the cultural and social benefits of having living embodiments of Britain's historical legacy play active roles in the apolitical aspects of British public life, then I think you owe a basic moral obligation to give back to the public and discharge those responsibilities, after decades of reaping all the economic benefits and privileges of being born into the royal family in the first place. Even if you want to argue that children born into the royal family don't choose to be born into that family, the Duke of Sussex could have made this decision immediately after he attained the age of majority, but he's in his 30s and so reaped the socio-economic benefits of remaining a full-time royal between then and now, and should not in good conscience renege on his responsibilities. And the argument that children cannot choose to become royals (with all the burdens and responsibilities that entails) definitely does not apply to the Duchess of Sussex who joined the royal family with her eyes open as to all the implications and responsibilities involved.

[Andsed]

The cultural aspect is irrelevant here. Prince Harry is under no more obligation that any other celebrity to be in the public eye and it is just absurd to act like him wanting to live a quiet life without his and his family's action being constantly observed and judged is wrong.

He is though, because unlike private wealthy individuals who made their money through normal private transactions, the Duke of Sussex was born into a family with immense social and economic privileges, precisely so that when he grows up he can fulfill his duties and his responsibilities that go along with being a full-time royal. Being a member of the royal family is a position of public service, which is very different from the social status of most wealthy families that are simply regular private households whose activities have no bearing on British national culture and overall social prestige.

Nope. Prince Harry never asked to be born as a royal and never agreed to any kind of contract stating he is in debt to serve to public or his family. And being a part of the royal family is not(as far as I understand) an official job of some sort. He is under no obligation to be in the public eyes and do what the royal family's ask of him. There is no difference between him not wanting to be in the public eye and the child of a celebrity not wanting to be in the public eye. He has every right to not give a single shit about the royal family and doing what he wishes just like you or I have the right to do what we wish.

[Novus America]

You say very little in a whole lot of words here.
Such over the top writing does not actually make you argument stronger.

Quite often it is better to go straight to the point in concise, clear and colloquial language rather than writing something that sounds like a parody of an academy dissertation.

You challenged my interpretation of "period of transition" and so I explained my immediate interpretation of "period of transition" as meaning a transition from being dissatisfied full-time royals estranged from other senior royals seeking to extricate themseleves from that occupation, to full-time royals who will permanently remain in that capacity, with a temporary break or transition period in between those two points, conceded that NCR's interpretation and yours, in hindsight, is more intuitive (transitioning from being full-time royals to something else), explained the background news and the surrounding context to explain why I jumped to the less intuitive interpretation than the more intuitive one, then clarified what we still do not know about the agreement to be reached in Sandringham. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I read over my comment again just to give it a second look, and I thought these four specific points that I was making were all fairly clear, but hey if you see it differently then that's fine, you do you.

Although I was able to interpret what you were trying to say, the point is that you could have made the point in far fewer words. And that it is usually better to do so.

I could say something like “I took hold of the slide and exerted force to draw it toward towards me, relocating the firing pin against its spring, storing potential energy via the primer. After some time had elapsed I depressed the trigger, releasing said potential energy and subsequently imparting it on the primer. Ergo the primer then initiated a chemical reaction which converted the chemical energy stored into the cartridge into an expanding gas, which propelled the copper jacketed literally leaden projectile forward at high velocity in the direction of my target who in my anger and rage I would describe metaphorically as one who fornicates incestuously with his maternal parent. This projectile then struck the craninium of said target, imparting energy such that it caused catastrophic damage to his cerebellum causing his nervous system to catastrophically fail, and involuntary life sustaining functions such as the heart pumping to cease...”

Or I could say “I shot the mother fucker in the head and killed him”.

The second makes the point much better.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I still think you are seriously overplaying how much people actually give two shits about this.

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

Because the new series of Love Island hasn't got going yet.

[Novus America]

I still think you are seriously overplaying how much people actually give two shits about this.

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

Because people find the drama interesting compared to their dull and nihilistic post modern existence.

[Kavagrad]

Then why are private media companies in the UK, US and other countries covering the Sandringham summit so heavily? With the exception of the BBC, most media companies rely on consumers to remain profitable, so the amount of attention and coverage they are giving to this royal crisis suggests that there is public interest in whether this unbecoming scandal will come to its proper and dignified conclusion.

Because the new series of Love Island hasn't got going yet.

Don't compare Love Island to the Royal Family, that's abhorrent.

Love Island is a far better representation of British identity.