I sympathise with this article. 57 million people will die this year - 157,000 every day. Each week, more than a million die, and tens of millions are bereaved. People cope, as they have to, we could not have such outpourings for all.

Death is the inevitable consequence of life, and though Hughes' death was unfortunate, sad and regrettable, I can't understand the extent of the response to it. As a Pom, accidentally emigrating in 1979, I could not believe the outpouring for Princess Diana - it didn't seem to reflect the country I'd left. But life goes on, and things change, including responses to celebrity deaths.

Can someone please advise how to stop the media from day after day carrying on as though Phillip Hughes is the only ever person to have died young, most people seem to be saying as per these OLO opinions, enough is enough of reading daily of a cricketer's death, three weeks later it is still daily news, when will it stop and get on with life.
Likewise we are not interested in the goings on of Corby in Bali, but this person also has the media in a frenzy, as though we all want to read about her, which we do not.
Perhaps if people stopped buying daily papers the editors may get the message, but like politicians their brains are a bit thick.

Jaylex correct, but why do people stand for hours waiting to wave their hands to them, when in actual fact that person is no different to them, except their wealth and what the media makes of them, as we all know death is the leveller of all mankind, rotting or burnt up the order of the day. No escape from that.

Surely it was simply a beat up by the corporate owned presstitude to distract from the government's budgetary woes? Embarrassing, though, all that weepin' and wailin' and gnashin' of teeth... like living in a nut house. OOps...head challenged, or whatever the correct euphemism is.

Jaylex,

".... for the sole male offspring of the English monarch ] was nauseating ...."

ER II had other male children, Edward, Earl of Wessex and Andrew, Duke of York come to mind.

It's a bit OT but as you mentioned finances, taxpayer funding for the Royal Family is probably off-set by the interest earned on the billions {in today's dosh) that the British Government got from from the family when they gave most of their wealth to the Government of the day, there is also the considerable tourist money that is positively affected by Britain having a Monarch etc.

Meant to add to the above:
Fine post Rhrosty, it says it all and in perspective.