"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2014-07-06 1:43 PM, 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.
>>
>
> American media reports a lot more of the royal doings and royal
> shenanigans than ours does. Most of us don't give a rat's patooey about
> the inbred snots.

American media reports on a lot of things that nobody is interested in,
doesn't stop them though.

Cheri