Comments:Prince William marries Kate Middleton—live updates

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form - "very factual about the royal w..."017:19, 11 July 2011
Baffling1905:17, 2 May 2011
Disappointing...606:31, 1 May 2011
Congrats!006:54, 30 April 2011
MIERDA400:42, 30 April 2011
Comments from feedback form - "So far the entire presentation..."021:05, 29 April 2011
The right idea117:00, 29 April 2011
Comments from feedback form - "Hundreds of thousands of peopl..."014:55, 29 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "very factual about the royal w..."

very factual about the royal wedding needs updating a tiny bit more but no worries what so ever. need some facts,photos(more than already is)etc this is not a form of complaint! (talk)17:19, 11 July 2011
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 16:02, 30 April 2011

I will never understand the world's obsession with these affairs... There are three wars going on, UK, NATO & US service men and women are fighting and dying around the globe, and we are all swooning over some tart's dress... What a pity. Such is the human condition I suppose.

  • [Re-added as a thread by Brian McNeil.]
Tadpole256 (talk) [original timestamp: 12:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)]12:41, 29 April 2011

I agree with this poast!

Brian McNeil / talk12:42, 29 April 2011

I agree also.

Mattisse (talk)12:49, 29 April 2011

Yup:P. It's weird. I've gotten to the point where I unplug the radio at work the moment they start to mention the royal wedding.

Gopher65talk13:37, 29 April 2011

At least it isn't another Fergie!

"Here comes the bride! Forty feet wide".

Brian McNeil / talk13:48, 29 April 2011
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 17:06, 29 April 2011

Well, the BBC World on the radio said the coverage of the bride was a classier version of Paris Hilton, meaning it was a "celebrity" story and not "news".

Edited twice by Microchip08 (talk · contribs) to remove the {{w}} call.

Mattisse (talk)13:53, 29 April 2011

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the wedding of any head-of-state (or equivalent) will make the news, but this week long non-stop coverage is simply insane. The other thing I don't undersatand is why Americans care so much! We fought a revolution to get out from under a crown, and now we seem simply enamoured with it. It's all bollocks if you ask me. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tadpole256 (talk)14:26, 29 April 2011

Actually it seems that the United States is more interested in the wedding than the British themselves.

[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]])14:29, 29 April 2011

I know! And that's what baffles me. The average American doesn't know the first thing about how the Brittish Monarchy works, yet for some reason, our women are just going bonkers over this wedding. Why?!Tadpole256 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tadpole256 (talk)14:35, 29 April 2011

Probably because it seems like a fairy tale.

[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]])14:36, 29 April 2011

Your average American actually wants royalty.

So,... Make us an offer for the Sax-Coburgs; we'll keep the jewels to sell to, you take the Germans and the Greek.

Brian McNeil / talk14:35, 29 April 2011

Now that's funny!

Tadpole256 (talk)14:38, 29 April 2011

Indeed it is. As someone from Britain who went on holiday to New York last week, I can tell you they're incredibly crazy—certainly more so—than the British. I would imagine this is because the idea of a monarchy is something incredibly exciting since they don't have one, and the stereotypical 'Englishness' of the event—the Abbey, the cavalry, the carriages—gets them excited.

wackywace14:36, 29 April 2011

I have a feeling you are spot-on. I think it all seems so old fashioned and romantic to most Americans. Frankly, it seems like a collosal waste of money and resources to me.

Tadpole256 (talk)14:39, 29 April 2011

It's doing no harm. These people get a nice wedding, and the tourist industry will get a boost. I would be very surprised indeed if, in total, the tourist income from the event were less than the cost of the event itself.

To be honest, this is one of the nicer ways we could spend taxpayers money - I'd rather this than spending it on MPs' expenses, bankers' bonuses, or killing people in the Middle East.

I've always been of the opinion that the royals do little good, but certainly no harm. They attract tourists, and would hopefully act as a last resort to block a total government takeover by a lunatic - I doubt the queen would give assent to that - but that's an unlikely event. But tourism gets a boost. And since my town was built entirely out of fish and tourists, I'm not going to say anything bad about tourism ;-)

DENDODGE19:48, 29 April 2011

I happen on the other hand to have enjoyed this completely.

Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal06:32, 1 May 2011

We all know you're a royalist, Brian. ;-)

When is the NZ government going to pay for Buck House, and all the Royals, to be shipped down under?

But, seriously, I'm saddened because this reduces Charles' chances of actually sitting on the throne. Seeing as he's really an old hippy with a posh accent, I can well imagine him putting future PMs in awkward positions.

I still say the royal family should intervene on the MPs 2nd homes issue; keep 'em all in the Tower of London!

Brian McNeil / talk09:17, 1 May 2011

We pay for them...when they are doing the odd act as the NZ head of state. Which happens every so many months. Otherwise we get a good deal, a bacially free Head of State :P

Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal05:17, 2 May 2011


I am quite disappointed that we went through so much trouble to do a "live update" article on the royal wedding. It was a wedding. That's all. No one walked away from the alter etc. This was totally a non-news event. There were/are more important things going on in the world, and we wasted our time with this. So disappointed.

DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon)13:42, 30 April 2011

I certainly refute any allegations I "wasted" my time in writing this article. Although several reviewers accepted revisions throughout the day—to these people I am incredibly grateful—but as the only author (apart from some spelling mistakes I made corrected by other people, to whom I also extend my gratitude), I must say I enjoyed spending my day writing this. Since I am only a volunteer on this project, I choose what I want to write about and make no apology for doing so. There is a mixed verdict on the live blog from the community; personally I think it went very well. Whether the view of the community is that it was a success or not, I know I certainly did not waste my time writing this yesterday.

wackywace18:25, 30 April 2011

5 stars and a gold trophy for making an excellent point go to Dragonfire1024. I couldn't agree with you more if I was paid to agree with you. There were much better places to do this, Wikinews is not part of the blogosphere, and although done well, was done entirely in the wrong place. While stuff is happening elsewhere, we basically turned into a twitter feed. Volunteer or not, we're a news site, not a blog. If it'd been done as a news article, maybe not such a bad idea.

BarkingFish (talk)18:37, 30 April 2011

And so the Guardian, Metro, Channel 4 News, Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, Scotsman and NPR are also not news websites? I've said it before and I'll say it again: the live blog was a test for a new format which I thought would be more inventive than a simple article. If the community says they don't want me doing it again, I won't do it again.

wackywace18:58, 30 April 2011

Wikinews exists specifically to provide an alternative.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)21:07, 30 April 2011

I just want to say fantastic. This is a really good article - I thought that this was a credit to Wikinews! Well done Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal06:31, 1 May 2011

One of the biggest security operations London has ever seen, the attendance of all three main political party leaders and countless foreign leaders, the attention of a huge chunk of the population of Britain and indeed the globe, blanket media coverage in the UK for weeks, hundreds of street parties, and the declaration of a public holiday for the entire country. Whatever you think of the Royal Family, this was not "just a wedding".

Sure there probably were more important things going on, but I don't see how the existence of this article stopped anyone writing about them.

the wub "?!"19:51, 30 April 2011

Regardless of whether you think the media attention or cost is warranted, I think we should all wish the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge a happy and long-lasting marriage!

Edp318 (talk)06:54, 30 April 2011

This is complete shit. Who in the first place "appointed" the Kings and Queens of Europe and the other monarchic lands? Maybe somebody clever enough to piss over everyone and say "I am the King! Goo goo G'job!" thousands of years ago, then the "royal" descendants continued with the great lie, and no plebe opposed to this (nobody but France). I don't see the point of monarchic governments. Even the King of Spain seems awkward.

アンパロ Io ti odio!17:40, 29 April 2011

+1 Diego, I couldn't have put it better myself. Mierda just about describes the whole thing we saw today. Nothing calls for a wedding that lavish and outstandingly expensive. Monarchy is a joke. Let's go the Irish route, President and a PM.

BarkingFish (talk)20:54, 29 April 2011

I can't speak for the other countries, but Britain's a constitutional monarchy Diego, and they do rule with the consent of the people. Perhaps not all of the people, but certainly a majority - polls on this are pretty regular and hover at around 70%.

And the royal succession in Britain isn't as simple as you might think. Several times Parliament has stepped in to influence it - the Restoration, w:Glorious Revolution, and abdication of Edward VIII spring to mind.

the wub "?!"22:59, 29 April 2011

Brits are stupid then (no offense intended, though). Do it the French way!

アンパロ Io ti odio!00:28, 30 April 2011

Been there, done that. Ended up with Cromwell et al, who did such wonderful things as genocide in Ireland, and cancelling Christmas (seriously).

the wub "?!"00:42, 30 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "So far the entire presentation..."

So far the entire presentation is Wonderful! (talk)21:05, 29 April 2011

The right idea

μchip0816:51, 29 April 2011

Thats funny.

[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]])17:00, 29 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "Hundreds of thousands of peopl..."

Hundreds of thousands of people flocking to London today? That should help prop up the British economy... maybe that would offset the costs of such an unnecessarily lavish event? (talk)14:55, 29 April 2011