|
|
Post by vittoria on Feb 3, 2009 23:53:03 GMT
Some visitors to this site may be interested in the fact that ABC News (the U.S., not the Australian) network, has been running stories on various royal families for a week or two. These are not in-depth; anyone interested in royal families will be familiar with much of the information. However, the posts in response, which come not only from Americans but also from people in other nations, including the nations in question, are interesting. They represent a cross-section of views on monarchy, from people who are well-informed and people who know nothing about the subject.
Americans aren't as interested in royalty as, for example, the British believe, and the number of foreigners also isn't large in the comments sections, but there have been enough posts to provide some fuel for thought and discussion.
Today's offering concerns the Dutch royals. Just type "abc news" into Google, scroll down a bit on the home page, and you'll find it. If you have trouble, try adding "Glamorous Dutch Royals Break the Mold with Progressive Politics," or simply "Dutch Royals."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Feb 3, 2009 23:58:52 GMT
I haven't been able to find a homepage for that series, but I've been linking to the articles from my blog (scroll down to the late January and early February posts that mention ABC news). worldofroyaltyblog.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Feb 5, 2009 15:37:35 GMT
Sounds interesting, I wish I'd watched this series. Vittoria, are you referring to the comments here? abcnews.go.com/International/AroundTheWorld/story?id=6433211&page=1Americans aren't as interested in royalty as, for example, the British believe Do you think 35 comments in that article is an accurate reflection of how Americans feel about royalty? I'm also not sure that the 100+ comments across the articles for Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Swaizland, Middle East, give an accurate reflection of how Americans feel about the topic either. |
|
|
|
Post by vittoria on Feb 7, 2009 0:09:56 GMT
As I said, IBIFT, the number of comments on each article was limited, but they did include responses from several of the nations involved. I was especially interested in the views from Spain, in response to the article on Spanish royals.
The very fact that the posts were limited is an indication that Americans aren't that preoccupied with royalty. I regularly look at the ABC news site, mostly for current events, and it is not uncommon there to see two or three hundred posts in response to a story. So, yes, indeed, I believe that when a story about royalty is posted on that site, and only 35 posts ensue -- many NOT from Americans -- that small number is, in and of itself, a reflection, if not a scientific one, of American interest (or lack thereof) in royalty. Some Americans love royalty and gobble up any stories on the subject, but we are in a minority. Most Americans are not interested. And why should they be? How does royalty truly inflect American lives?
Moreover, human beings have widely-varying hobbies. For some of us, royal-watching is a hobby, but for others, the preferred hobby is something quite different. It's not an insult to people who love royals stories to be honest about the lack of interest among most other people. I doubt that philatelists and numismatists care much about whether anyone else adores stamp or coin-collecting. Nor should they.
I might point out that there are few American publications that run stories on royals. The only one that does, with some regularity, is People Magazine, which may publish a brief, 1-2 page story every couple of months. However, we are a country with a population of 300,000,000, and People's circulation is well under 4,000,000 -- not to mention the fact that most buyers of People aren't purchasing it for royals stories. American royals fans must seek out foreign publications and online sites to get their fix, because the base of royals fans isn't large enough in the U.S. for American publications to address it with any serious attention. Vanity Fair runs the occasional royals story -- but only about once a year.
I once ran an unscientific poll among Americans concerning their familiarity with the British royals. This resulted from a conversation I'd had with a British colleague. I bet that if I asked 10 random Americans to name the members of the British royal family, most of them wouldn't be able to do it, beyond stating that the Queen's name was Elizabeth. My subjects (all female) were a condo building security employee; a lawyer; a social worker (my own sister); a university dean; a drugstore cashier; a psychologist; a dental hygienist and a dentist; a professor of Art History; and a nurse.
I was right that everyone could name the Queen, and I was interested to find that 7 people could name her heir, Prince Charles. Things went downhill from there. Only three people could name the Queen's husband, and only one could also name her other three children. Interestingly, three people who couldn't name Prince Phillip or the other children came up with Prince William as the second in line to the throne but not his brother's name. The one person who could name everyone I asked about was the university dean, but she turned out to have done her doctoral dissertation on an aspect of British royal history. I shouldn't have included her.
But we don't need to justify our interest in royals by claiming that many other people are interested. They are not, but why does that matter? Justify your interest simply on the basis of your own proclivities. Nothing more is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Feb 9, 2009 14:57:22 GMT
The very fact that the posts were limited is an indication that Americans aren't that preoccupied with royalty. I regularly look at the ABC news site, mostly for current events, and it is not uncommon there to see two or three hundred posts in response to a story. So, yes, indeed, I believe that when a story about royalty is posted on that site, and only 35 posts ensue -- many NOT from Americans -- that small number is, in and of itself, a reflection, if not a scientific one, of American interest (or lack thereof) in royalty. How do you know where the posters are from? I don't see a location listed for any of the people who comment. I might point out that there are few American publications that run stories on royals. The only one that does, with some regularity, is People Magazine, which may publish a brief, 1-2 page story every couple of months. However, we are a country with a population of 300,000,000, and People's circulation is well under 4,000,000 -- not to mention the fact that most buyers of People aren't purchasing it for royals stories. I don't think you can base whether people are interested in royalty on the circulation on certain magazines. There are very few magazines specifically devoted to royalty - Majesty, Royalty, and Hello tend to have the most coverage. Comparing their circulation to the population of the world, you'd think no one was interested in the subject. I think a better indicator of American interest in royalty is royal blogs. Where does the majority of their traffic come from? If you look at the people who post comments (and if you look at royal blogs like Royal Anecdotes and British Royalty Wedding, those blogs have very active comment communities) you can see that there's a very strong interest in the subject. In my case, my main blog: Marilyn's Royal Blog - the majority of traffic comes from the United States. Same for The Kate Middleton Report. Don't you think that says something? American royals fans must seek out foreign publications and online sites to get their fix, because the base of royals fans isn't large enough in the U.S. for American publications to address it with any serious attention. Yes, you're right. Americans do need to look to foreign magazines for coverage. But you may be interested to note that their market is more fertile in the US than in their home country: New York Times: U.S. Magazine Readers love British RoyaltyGranted it's an old article, but I sincerely doubt interest has gone down. If anything, with Charles and Camilla, the death of Diana, Prince William and Kate Middleton, interest is probably much higher now. But we don't need to justify our interest in royals by claiming that many other people are interested. They are not, but why does that matter? Justify your interest simply on the basis of your own proclivities. Nothing more is needed. It doesn't matter. But why would we need to justify our interest in the subject? If anything, they don't know what they're missing!  |
|
|
|
Post by vittoria on Feb 22, 2009 0:29:19 GMT
IBIFT, I was talking about American interest in royals. The magazines you mentioned are not American, which is an indication of interest -- or lack thereof -- in and of itself. My local bookstores, in the very large and cosmopolitan city of Chicago, have stopped stocking "Majesty" and "Hello". When I asked why, the response was, "Almost no one buys them."
So, if Americans who are interested must go to online blogs, and not to magazines that cater to their interests, that is a clear indication that most Americans do not care. This is not an insult to you, IBIFT, since I, too, enjoy royals stories. However, I am quite realistic about the fact that most Americans do not share my interest. We really don't have to pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Feb 22, 2009 20:10:57 GMT
IBIFT, I was talking about American interest in royals. The magazines you mentioned are not American, which is an indication of interest -- or lack thereof -- in and of itself. My local bookstores, in the very large and cosmopolitan city of Chicago, have stopped stocking "Majesty" and "Hello". When I asked why, the response was, "Almost no one buys them." Vittoria, you can't define an interest in the subject by whether a magazine sells at your local bookstore or not. Or even how many times the royals are reported on in the media. It's too narrow a criteria. There are many people who are interested in Elvis, how many times is he reported on? Other than the anniversary of his death or retrospectives of the history of rock and roll, almost never. Yet his following and the people who go to Graceland are numerous. So, if Americans who are interested must go to online blogs, and not to magazines that cater to their interests, that is a clear indication that most Americans do not care. You can't possibly be serious, are you? Please go out and count the amount of royal blogs that are out there. On my royal blogroll I have listed about 20 - and that's not all of them. Look at the amount of comments that some of them receive, like Royal Anecdotes and British Royal Wedding. Why would people buy magazines, even Hello or Majesty, when they have some of the best online resources out there focused specifically on the topic? People go online for practically everything now - to shop, to talk, to read, etc. Magazines and newspapers are not the only options for people out there. Many publications have online versions - Hello! and People, for instance. I've read that some newspapers even feel they're losing ground to online news. But I don't think it's a lack of interest in magazines or newspapers, it's the convenience of finding the information online faster than you can walk to the store to buy it. If people go to royal blogs, or buy a subscription to a non-American royal magazine then it doesn't and shouldn't dimish the interest people have. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Feb 22, 2009 21:26:42 GMT
You could both be right. There are so many people in the US that even if only a small percentage are interested in a topic, that's a big potential audience.
I'm constantly impressed by how well-covered the topic of royalty is online -- there are tons of excellent royalty sites out there, and their quality is much higher than the quality of most celebrity gossip sites, for example, in my opinion. Maybe it's hard for traditional publishers to compete with that, or maybe they just aren't trying hard enough to reach that audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Feb 23, 2009 15:32:20 GMT
I think it's like anything the media covers, it has to be newsworthy and interesting. The last major event was the wedding of Peter Philips - lots of interest there (more so in Canada because Autumn is Canadian). An estimated 2.5 billion people watched the funeral of Diana. People magazine (American publication) second best selling issue is their cover of Diana after she died. It's not that the interest isn't there, it's situational - like anything the media covers.
|
|
|
|
Post by vittoria on Mar 6, 2009 0:15:28 GMT
IbelieveinFairyTales, you've hit the nail on the head: newsworthy. No one in the U.S. cosidered the marriage of Peter Philips and his Canadian fiancee to be "newsworthy." The Canadians were interested, of course, because the bride was Canadian. But here in the U.S., no one cared. No one, beyond those few of us interested in royals, has the slightest idea who Peter Philips is.
I'm sorry, but I think you are pushing the issue because YOU are interested. You want to believe that far more Americans care than actually do. Why bother? Why is this so important? If you care -- if I care -- that's fine. It's not necessary to inflate the level of interest beyond what actually exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Mar 6, 2009 14:49:25 GMT
I agree that there's a lack of coverage - I'm all for hearing about the royal family. But just because the coverage isn't 24/7 doesn't mean you should infer that there's a lack of interest amongst Americans. Although when I think back on it, Brian Williams, an American anchor, was the first to broadcast the news of Diana's death in the US. That was a big story, wasn't it? Everyone knows who Diana is, right? The wedding of Charles and Camilla was a big story, right? What about the Queen's visit to Jamestown? Or am I just inflating all of that to prove my point? It depends on the person. Of course people are not going to know who Peter Philips is. He is so far down the food chain that it doesn't matter. It's not a good example. Now when someone major dies (the Queen, Prince Philip..) , or when William gets engaged, there will be a LOT of American coverage. Why? Because people know who they are. Unfortunately royal marriages, births and deaths don't happen very often. Would you, as an American royal watcher, be happier and satisfied if they did? I'm sorry, but I think you are pushing the issue because YOU are interested. You want to believe that far more Americans care than actually do. Why bother? Why is this so important? If you care -- if I care -- that's fine. It's not necessary to inflate the level of interest beyond what actually exists. Vittoria, if I'm as you say 'pushing the issue' it's because, based on your criteria for the level of interest in the topic (Majesty magazine not being sold at your local bookstore) it's very narrow evidence to judge American interest. You're generalizing. I'm not the only one who's interested in this topic - take a look at Cinderella's Network, over 700 members. (It's invitation only so let me know if you need an invitation). This is not about me. Again, look at the dozens of royal blogs out there. I know for a fact that many of them are run by Americans. You can ignore that. Or you can take your American interest in the topic and join other likeminded Americans at the various message boards and royal blogs out there. It's YOUR choice. |
|
|
|
Post by briar69rose on May 8, 2009 23:35:07 GMT
I just think its awsome that people do actually read
|
|
