Why are Americans (and other foreign types) fascinated by the British Royal Family?

[owlstretchingtime]

This is partly inspired by the Charles and Camilla thread.

I’ve often wondered about this. We take it as read that Americans (and many other foreigners) are, for reasons best known to themselves, fascinated by our Royal Family. Indeed it is a reason that is always trotted out for continuing with the royals. But why is this?

We don’t return the favour. We have no interest in the Bush family; in fact most Brits couldn’t name the other members of it. Nor are we remotely bothered by any other royal family (well there was some tabloid interest in the Raniers – but that was mainly an excuse to print pictures of Princess Stephanie with her bristols out. Now she’s clocking on a bit that interest has waned).

So what is the fascination with the British Royal Family? Is it the pageantry and the whole archaic nature of the institutions? The soap opera of their lives? Jealousy? Something else?

Are you interested in other countries royals like the scandiwegian bicycling ones or the gun-toting Nepalese variety?

Or is it all a myth - and you're just not interested?

[Mangetout]

I'm guessing that the word 'quaint' is going to form a significant part of the answer here.

[bump]

My guess is that no small part of it is their fabulous wealth and prominent stature in the world. I mean, who hasn't heard of Queen Elizabeth the Second or Prince Charles?

Throw in some alien concepts such as being the titular head of a nation, hereditary titles, neat looking ceremonial duties, funky rules about their behavior (can't marry Catholics, etc...) and you get something very strange that can be perceived as truly fascinating by someone who lives where there is nothing of the kind.

There just isn't an equivalent in the US, at least not a direct one. Politicians usually don't get this kind of adulation- they're either too small-time or they're only in office for 8 years. Most business tycoons are either too common (in the sense of from the people), and/or not prominent enough.

The closest parallels I can think of might be the interest many people take in the Kennedy family (or did, anyway), the fame of Paris Hilton, and maybe the fame of Donald Trump. These people seem to get a certain amount of "royalty" like fame, I think.

[owlstretchingtime]

I'm guessing that the word 'quaint' is going to form a significant part of the answer here.

It better not!

[SentientMeat]

Britain in many ways has a cultural appeal to the world (and its former colonies in particular) far out of proportion to its size, wealth and power. I am continually amazed how much British music, film/TV, literature and the British personalities associated therewith assail me from radios, televisions, newspapers and magazines all over the world. I suspect that the eccenticity and quirkiness which makes the British popular innovators might be seen as encapsulated by this rather odd family of Greek-Germans who, with ever so much politeness and diginity, bumble along in their all-too-human lives while providing a dash of pomp and colour which grey-suited politicians, and even glamorous movie/music/sports stars, just can't manage.

Sure, they're a little silly, but they're just so nice: A rose-tinted view of the British reputation abroad, perhaps. At least, the view which foreign people want to have of the British, since the drunken, chav-centric reality they may have experienced is so unpleasant.

[Can Handle the Truth]

This American's interest in the British Royal Family is limited to those historic monarchs who actually mattered, i.e. Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, etc. I have no interest whatsoever in the present family, except that I'm looking foreward to laughing my ass off at Charles' coronation.

[Neurotik]

For the most part, it's the same reason we're fascinated by any prominent, dysfunctional celebrities. I have no reference points, but I suspect that America's fascination with the Royal Family started with Diana - and it simply grew with all of the bizarre antics that followed.

Plus, we have none of our own, so it's fancy and exotic.

[aahala]

A lot of Americans dream of being rich and famous, without a lot of heavy lifting.
We don't have enough movie stars to go around and the further someone is away from his fans, the more fans crave knowing details about him.

[spingears]

So what is the fascination with the British Royal Family? Is it the pageantry and the whole archaic nature of the institutions? The soap opera of their lives? Jealousy?
The British press lead the way.
THE Royals present all of the elements of a good soap opera.
1. A loving, patient, longsuffering somewhat reserved matriarch.
2. Love triangles.
3. Children/grand children in one scrape or brush with the law after another.
4. Murder, accidental death, or what else?
5. Jealousy, cheating, hate, greed, etc.

[Thudlow Boink]

As an American. I'm not fascinated by the British royal family. Nor, as far as I know, is anyone I know personally. I'm sure some Americans are, but I don't know if it's enough to support the premise of the OP's question.
I have no reference points, but I suspect that America's fascination with the Royal Family started with Diana - and it simply grew with all of the bizarre antics that followed.You may be right. Quite a few girls/women seem fascinated with the idea of a "princess" (look at all the "princess" movies that have come out in the past few years): it just triggers all sorts of romantic fantasies. They identify with the glamorous princess; they watch her storybook wedding; they want to be her. And then when the princess turns out to be troubled and embroiled in all sorts of soap-opera complications, it just makes her that much more fascinating.

But that's just my speculation.

[dangermom]

I think part of it is some people's natural fascination with royalty. How many little girls out there want to be a princess, for no other reason than--well, a princess! My 4-yo always wants to know about kings and queens, princes and princesses, though I've never pushed it and we don't have any Disney movies yet. She is interested in Pharaohs and all kinds, and once when I showed her a little clip of Q. E.'s coronation, she wanted to go visit. We grow up on fairy tales that all tell us that being a princess, or king, or something, is somehow better than being a peasant. But the only real-life example we usually hear of is the British royals. And they're a soap opera, larger than life.

Anyway, I think that if the British perception is that all Americans are interested in the royals, it's a pretty erroneous one. Certainly there are plenty of Americans who follow the royals, but I think it's a small minority of the general population. It doesn't take a large percentage of Americans to make a pretty big number. I don't personally know anyone who is really seriously interested in them.

And for myself, I do follow the Danish royal family slightly more faithfully (which is to say, not very faithfully at all). I have a fondness for Joachim. Were I to plan a trip to the UK--something I would dearly love to do--I would not bother with the modern royals at all, but I would plan to see a lot of historical sites: the Tower, Hampton Court, lots of cathedrals. And Bath. And Wales. And...

[Freddy the Pig]

I don't personally know anyone who is really seriously interested in them.I do--my mother. I think part of her fascination derives from the fact that it's a Royal Family--these are people whose role in life is determined by their status as parents, spouses, and children. As a woman from an era when women were conditioned to think of themselves as wives and mothers, I think my mother relates to this.

Oddly enough, I think most Americans (not among people who post to this Board, but among the general public) are only dimly aware, if they are at all aware, that other European countries besides the UK and Monaco still have monarchies.

. . . I suspect that America's fascination with the Royal Family started with Diana - and it simply grew with all of the bizarre antics that followed.
No, it has always been there. Ask anyone old enough to remember 1936!

[Neurotik]

INo, it has always been there. Ask anyone old enough to remember 1936!
Well, sure, everyone takes notice when there's a scandal. But what about during the 60s and 70s? Did anyone really care?

[scotandrsn]

My personal fascination with the British Royals is entirely limited to the Coronation Spoon.

At this point in history, I can only chalk it up to insufficient dedication to the principles of Democracy, too many fairy tales, and a dispropotionately large number of Brit, Canadian, and Australian ex-pats in positions of power within the media.

[Zsofia]

To some extent, I think we see the British royals as particularly Something We Are Not. I mean, that's the point, right? We used to have them too, and now we don't. The fact of a royal family is fundamentally alien to us, and therefore exotic and interesting. I don't really follow the royal family like some people do (I know ladies who went across the freaking ocean when Diana died and didn't do anything there except join the madding throng around the funeral.), but I can tell you who all the principal players are and I guess I have opinons on them and suchlike.

Maybe it's because we all really want to know why the hell the Queen carries a handbag. What's in it? Just gloves? (Maybe Eddie Izzard is right and it's really a brick.) I mean, it's not like she's got an extra "emergency cash" fund sewn into the lining or anything. She could put that in her hat.

Oh, that too - our great ladies don't wear hats anymore. It's fun to watch people who carry empty handbags and wear enormous hats just because Ladies Do.

[counsel wolf]

Sure, they're a little silly, but they're just so nice: A rose-tinted view of the British reputation abroad, perhaps. At least, the view which foreign people want to have of the British, since the drunken, chav-centric reality they may have experienced is so unpleasant.

How does Prince Philip fit into the above picture? I'd be really hard pushed to describe him as anything other than a frightfully racist throwback to a best forgotten past, nice is not a word I would use for him, nor for most of his barmy brood.

The queen however does an excellent job. Apart from that fellow who thinks she's a lizard and in charge of international drug smuggling (if memory serves) you'd not find many people who find her offensive. It's nice to have a representative of your nation who can truly be said to have no partisan connections and who can be relied upon to behave impeccably and keep her trap shut about controversial matters, that may be part of the appeal beyond the whole cult of celebrity thing engendered by the younger generation which several other posters have mentioned.

[Bryan Ekers]

Trivia. Name the source of this rant:

"Balls to you, Tiger! And balls again! Just because you're a pack of militant potential murderers here, longing to get rid of your American masters and play at being samurai again, snarling behind your subservient smiles, you only judge people by your own jungle standards. Let me tell you this, my fine friend. England may have been bled pretty thin by a couple of World Wars, our Welfare State politics may have made us expect too much for free, and the liberation of our Colonies may have gone too fast, but we still climb Everest and beat plenty of the world at plenty of sports and win Nobel Prizes. Our politicians may be a feather-pated bunch, but I expect yours are too. All politicians are. But there's nothing wrong with the British people - although there are only fifty million of them."



James Bond to Tiger Tanaka in Ian Fleming's "You Only Live Twice"

[Estilicon]

I suspect that it's because they are so bizarre.
Another reason, for americans in particular, is that once upon the time brits royals were theirs royals. In Argentina the Spanish Royals are news.
And, in general, people are fascinated, with monarchy specially republicans. After all ther is nothing more vulgar and ordinary than a Republic. Look at our politicians, if I had a daughter I would forbid her to marry anyone that has been elected.
As an example, a few years ago, an argentinian woman married the crown prince of Holland. Suddenly everyone was wearing orange stuff and smoking hachis :), uncommon people fascinate.

[Freddy the Pig]

Well, sure, everyone takes notice when there's a scandal. But what about during the 60s and 70s? Did anyone really care?I'd have to say yes. Meg and Tony were the Chuck-and-Di couple of the 1970's, and they were seldom out of the tabloids. Then I remember the big to-do over Princess Anne's wedding in 1974, and her subsequent appearance in the Olympics, and the Queen's visit during the Bicentennial. And of course the endless speculation over when and whom Prince Charles would marry. It's always been mostly a tabloid thing, with the legit media only jumping in when something genuinely newsworthy happens, but I get the impression that it's pretty similar in the UK.

[Odesio]

So what is the fascination with the British Royal Family? Is it the pageantry and the whole archaic nature of the institutions? The soap opera of their lives? Jealousy? Something else?


I think it has a lot to do with pageantry, the fairy tale notion of having a royal family, and of course the history the United States has with the royal family.


Are you interested in other countries royals like the scandiwegian bicycling ones or the gun-toting Nepalese variety?


Other then Princess Grace and the Emperor of Japan I can't remember anyone caring all that much about royals outside of Britian.


Or is it all a myth - and you're just not interested?

People are definately interested in the royal family over here in the states. There have been numerous teleivion programs over the years, printed articles and photos in the tabloids and more mainstream press, and Di's wedding and funeral was watched by many people over here the same time they watched it in England.

I don't really understand the fascination with the royals. Other then the whole pageantry and fairy tale thing.

Marc

[AlbertHosteen]

Quite possibly most Americans them don't care about the Royal Family, but when they're in the UK, or talking to someone from there, they might give the impression of being more interested than they really are. They're making smalltalk with a Brit and they're stuck for topics, 'so what do you think about [the most recent Royal family scandal]?' is an easy filler.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I don't really understand the fascination with the royals. Other then the whole pageantry and fairy tale thing.
Marc

It is those things, and also just the strangeness and exoticness of the whole thing. Even the way these people use their names is completely foreign to us; the Peerage shares in this aspect.

[jeffh3000]

Are you interested in other countries royals like the scandiwegian bicycling ones or the gun-toting Nepalese variety?



Wow sounds like you know more about other royal families than most americans do about the british royal family. :)

[Jackmannii]

We take it as read that Americans (and many other foreigners) are, for reasons best known to themselves, fascinated by our Royal Family.I think you take it incorrectly, at least as far as Americans go.

Beyond the fact that no one I know talks about or shows any interest in the Royals, I can cite my informal Tabloid Survey (information gleaned from waiting in supermarket checkout lines). Basic grist for our tabloid mill is movie and TV celeb doings (who's getting fat, becoming anorexic, sleeping around, marrying, divorcing, using drugs, dying of some exotic disease etc.), incredible cancer cures, conspiracy theories, Nostradamus, the latest lowdown on O.J. and so on.

It is seldom that there is much on British royal bozos. Though they try their damndest to attract attention, what with parading around in Nazi regalia, seeking alternate identities as women's undies as well as more pedestrian stuff like endlessly promoting diet plans.

When you've got Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson, who needs Prince Wannabe?



Incidentally, you are using the term "foreigner" incorrectly. That applies solely to non-Americans.

[Little Nemo]

We can't help ourselves. They're so shiny.

[LouisB]

I am an American and I have no interest at all in the royal family. In fact, I would not be distressed if I never heard another word about any member of the British royal family, living or otherwise.

[Lamia]

So what is the fascination with the British Royal Family? Is it the pageantry and the whole archaic nature of the institutions? The soap opera of their lives? Jealousy? Something else?Not really jealousy, although I can see how one might get that impression. I think the thing about Americans and the royals is that we are curious about them because they're an exotic kind of thing we don't have around here...but we're also happy it's you and not us that gets stuck with them.

Are you interested in other countries royals like the scandiwegian bicycling ones or the gun-toting Nepalese variety?American interest in the British royal family is not really very great, and interest in other contemporary royals is virtually nonexistant. The US has a much closer relationship with the UK than most other countries, so the British royal family is more important to us than other royal families. The minimal language barrier also makes it relatively easy to keep up with what they're doing.

I doubt the average American could name any living members of any other country's royal family, or correctly identify all the countries that still have royal families. Even with the Windsors I don't think your Average American Joe or Jane could do better than Elizabeth, Charles, Diana, William, and maybe Harry.

There are a fair few Americans with an interest in historic royal families, especially those that met a horrible fate. Romanov enthusiasts and the like. But again, this seems to be mostly interest of the "how fascinating...and how fortunate that it happened somewhere else!" variety.

[dangermom]

I think the thing about Americans and the royals is that we are curious about them because they're an exotic kind of thing we don't have around here...but we're also happy it's you and not us that gets stuck with them.I think we like a little tradition and pomp and circumstance, as long as it's not something we have to live with ourselves!

I don't know how much things like the televising of Diana's funeral here in the US reflects real interest in the British royals. Yes, lots of people watched it--even I took a short look--but really, how often do you see people in odd outfits parading down a street to enter an enormous cathedral? It's exotic to us, but I doubt that large numbers would have paid to see it on Pay-Per-View. Worth a quick look out of curiosity, but how many of us would actually make some sort of effort to get a look at a royal?

If you Brits got rid of the royal family, I think we'd be a bit sad to see the demise of something so long-lived and traditional and all, but OTOH we'd get over it pretty fast (give us, oh, a week), and lots of people either wouldn't care at all or would think that it's a good thing really, even though they were quaint and picturesque. I kind of doubt that the tourist trade would suffer very much, and not at all in the long run.

I agree that most Americans probably can't name more than a few royals. I probably know more than most about the UK and its workings, but I can't really tell you how people like Anne and Andrew fit in--they're on the sidelines somewhere, right? And what's Fergie's real name again? I do know who the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire are, though.

[tomndebb]

In My Humble Opinion, there is not a debate anywhere around here. I'm tempted to move this to Cafe Society for the celebrity aspect, but I guess it's more of a poll, so it's off to IMHO.

[ /Moderator Mode ]

[Jennyrosity]

I suspect that the eccenticity and quirkiness which makes the British popular innovators might be seen as encapsulated by this rather odd family of Greek-Germans who, with ever so much politeness and diginity, bumble along in their all-too-human lives while providing a dash of pomp and colour which grey-suited politicians, and even glamorous movie/music/sports stars, just can't manage.

Sure, they're a little silly, but they're just so nice: A rose-tinted view of the British reputation abroad, perhaps. At least, the view which foreign people want to have of the British, since the drunken, chav-centric reality they may have experienced is so unpleasant.

Nice? Which ones in particular?

Good ol' racist, bigoted Prince Philip?

Prince "Dressing as an officer of the Third Reich is a jolly wheeze" Harry?

Or the pheasant-strangling Queen herself?

[calm kiwi]

I'm interested because they are also my countries Royal family.

I thought Diana was an idiot.........it was a "longer she was there the more idiot she became" kinda thing.

I have a weird liking of Charley.

He wants to be Camilla's tampon! That is the kinda love that no one else understands.

I have an absolute REVULSION to my country becoming a republic. Presidents are messy and far too much effort, not too mention wasting a vote on a figure head! Long may she reign.....and then him after her.

[matt_mcl]

I couldn't tell you, really, what's at the origin of my monarch fixation, except to say that we queens must stick together. I guess I can excuse my interest in Liz & Co as a matter of civic interest (being Canadian), and for the Spanish ones as a matter of historical importance and admiration (1981 and all that). For the rest of them, I think it's the hats.

[Jackmannii]

We take it as read that Americans (and many other foreigners) are, for reasons best known to themselves, fascinated by our Royal Family. Indeed it is a reason that is always trotted out for continuing with the royals. But why is this?The British "continue with the royals" because foreigners are fascinated with them?

Just out of curiosity, has it been shown that tourism revenue traceable to this source makes up for the taxes Brits pay to support the lifestyles and properties of the royal family?

I mean, even the minute percentage of Americans who are truly keen on royal doings would likely balk if they had to fork over tax money to support them.

[matt_mcl]

Just out of curiosity, has it been shown that tourism revenue traceable to this source makes up for the taxes Brits pay to support the lifestyles and properties of the royal family?

Actually, the revenue from Crown properties, which has been turned over to the British state since 1760, exceeds the Civil List (the money used to keep the royal households and fund their state duties) by more than an order of magnitude.

[matt_mcl]

Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_List

[LifeOnWry]

I wouldn't use the word "quaint" but I might use the word "archaic." I don't have a load of interest in the royal family per se as I do with the concept thereof. I find the idea of hereditary privilege weird.

I do think Philip is something else, though. I can't WAIT to hear what idiocy is going to fall out of his face next.

[owlstretchingtime]

The British "continue with the royals" because foreigners are fascinated with them?

Just out of curiosity, has it been shown that tourism revenue traceable to this source makes up for the taxes Brits pay to support the lifestyles and properties of the royal family?

I mean, even the minute percentage of Americans who are truly keen on royal doings would likely balk if they had to fork over tax money to support them.

No we continue with them because it works for us. However there are people who would like to get rid of them (mainly hairy legged women and concave shinned men with wispy beards) and whenever we have the "should we become a republic?" arguement the revenue from tourism thing is always raised.

It's impossible to quantify if it's true or not as the only time we've tried a comparison America was just a few huts clinging to the shoreline. (The plague shortly afterwards skewed the results somewhat as well, and burning London down didn't help much either).

What is certainly true is that when visitors are asked about things they want to see when here the Royal stuff comes high up the list. Whether they would come in any case is, of course unknown, after all they go to France.

Also we don't "fork out" for the royals, it's the other way around. The income from their estates goes to the Treasury out of which they are paid an allowance - the "Civil List". This allowance is WAY less than the income recieved from the estates.

They're also considerably cheaper than a President. They also look better in a stagecoach.

We could of course just seize the estates and make them live in council houses - but that would be a bit two-bob wouldn't it?

[Annie-Xmas]

owlstretchingtime don't you ever call the Bushes "America's royal family" again. I damn near threw up my muffin and coffee. I'm hoping that in 2008 the Bushes fade back into the stink hole they orginated in. I'd even like to see it happen sooner (remember the Curse of all years ending in "0").

I think the Kennedys are (or were) our royal family. They still can't stay out of the news.

[owlstretchingtime]

It makes me laugh that a country with Kennedy's (who are popular why exactly - No really why are a bunch of losers like that popular? Is it cos they keep dying?) and who's head of state could well go: Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton think they're classless.

[Little Nemo]

It makes me laugh that a country with Kennedy's (who are popular why exactly - No really why are a bunch of losers like that popular? Is it cos they keep dying?) and who's head of state could well go: Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton think they're classless.
Because even though we have classes in the US, they aren't really important to us. In Britain, people go nuts over class; in America, they go nuts over race; in Canada, they go nuts over language; in Ireland, they go nuts over religion. Everybody's got a button.

[owlstretchingtime]

Because even though we have classes in the US, they aren't really important to us. In Britain, people go nuts over class; in America, they go nuts over race; in Canada, they go nuts over language; in Ireland, they go nuts over religion. Everybody's got a button.

Maybe the others are true, but class isn't much of an issue here. Unless I'm not getting the newsletters.

[Lamia]

How does Prince Philip fit into the above picture? I'd be really hard pushed to describe him as anything other than a frightfully racist throwback to a best forgotten past, nice is not a word I would use for him, nor for most of his barmy brood.In regard to Prince Philip, I would venture to guess that the typical American is unaware of his existence. He doesn't make the news over here. I don't think I'd recognize his face if I saw it.

This is nothing but my hunch, but I suspect that if pressed most Americans would guess that the Queen of England is a widow.

[Jackmannii]

According to a couple of sites I checked, the civil list just incorporates salaries paid to royals, and not castle upkeep, renovation/restoration projects and the like. It would seem that the estate income paid to the government more than suffices to cover all this, but I gather royal income is still controversial over there.
...class isn't much of an issue here. Unless I'm not getting the newsletters.Or hearing stuff like this. (http://www.royalarchive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=2)

The only time in recent memory that a royal popped up on my radar screen was when Prince Charles, who is apparently a big alternative medicine buff, decided to promote his view that coffee enemas are an effective cancer treatment, and got slammed by cancer specialists (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/25943/newsDate/9-Jul-2004/story.htm) as a result.

[Quartz]

Here we have a clear example of the superiority of the British system: America is pretty evenly divided over Bush; 99% of Britons think Charles is a complete tosser. :D

[Knowed Out]

To tell you the truth, when I picked up my morning paper and saw that Di got killed in a car wreck, the first thing I thought was, Good. No more stories about her.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

I don't give a flying fornication about what any of the British Royals do. They have no relevance in today's world

I am hard pressed to think of any other royal family in an English-speaking nation. That probably raises their profile here.

[DWToml815]

It's the same reason that men are fascinated with boobs....We don't have them

[F. U. Shakespeare]

I'm a first-generation American, descended from Greek/German/Irish/sheep/etc, 45 years old, a middle-class civil servant.

I don't especially care about the British royal family's antics/deeds. But I notice them, similar to the way the French were aware of when Elvis died. (Vu! Don't lie to me!)

I am very close friends with a family of Thai immigrants. As far as I can tell, all Thai people love their king in a way that we Americans can't really appreciate.

Maybe (and I'm reaching here) we Americans, living in our unstable, vote-the bastards-out democracy experiment, yearn for a universe where there's at least someone we can always rally around and trace ourselves to?

Or not.

[Shagnasty]

I honestly that this is a case of the tabloids creating a demand for news themselves by spinning all kinds of stories about different members of the Royal Family and spreading it out over time. The are creating a Soap Opera out of it and that is what appeals to some people, not the specifics of who the characters are. The Royal Family generates plenty of material that can be spun to fill their pages over time and that is what the tabloids do. You can look at a map and pick out huge areas of the country where people have very little interest in anything to do outside our borders and yet they will know something about this week's installment of "Royal Affairs" because it was presented to them in an entertaining story format.

The tabloids could slowly wind down coverage of all things Royal and pick up something else that they could spin into a story in roughly the same way and hardly anyone would care or notice.

[Kyla]

I think it's just out of sheer amazement that a modern country with a culture fairly similar to our own would have retain something as archaic as monarchy. We start learning about the Revolutionary War in the third grade or so, and when you're that young they simplify it a lot: Americans didn't want a monarchy anymore. The king was cruel and unfair. Monarchies give power to people because of their birth and not because of their worth. Look! We came up with this much better plan, see?

I submit that it's a "there but for the grace of god go we" thing that Americans feel when we look at the antics of the British royal family.

That said, although some people seem interested in them (ie, my mom), most don't really care. I was listening to BBC World Service yesterday and had to turn it off because I couldn't stand another second of people jabbering about this engagement.

[Zsofia]

To tell you the truth, when I picked up my morning paper and saw that Di got killed in a car wreck, the first thing I thought was, Good. No more stories about her.
Boy, were you ever disappointed!

[NinjaChick]

I can't, for the life of me, figure it out. My roommate was astounded that I did not, at first glance, recognize a picture of Prince William. I'd recognize the Queen, and from what I hear, she's a lovely old woman. From what I know of the rest of the family? Dear god, keep the interest in them on the far side of the Atlantic, please!

Granted, I'm also a freakish outcast from American culture who's far more likely to recognize a picture of a particularly prominant congressman than, say, musician or other celebrity.

[clairobscur]

Or is it all a myth - and you're just not interested?

I'm personnally not interested, but it's not a myth. I just heard tonight that there will be a special about Charles/Camilla tomorrow on one of the main french broadcast channels. People magazines of course cover the various european royal families, and there are even at least one, and I believe two, of them entirely dedicaced to them.


Though the british family gets the most coverage and is the most well known, others are covered to (the marriage of the heir of the king of Spain was broadcasted live over here). The second most well known royal family in France is undoubtefully the Grimaldis of Monaco. All others aren't in the same league.

[clairobscur]

I honestly that this is a case of the tabloids creating a demand for news themselves by spinning all kinds of stories about different members of the Royal Family and spreading it out over time. The are creating a Soap Opera out of it and that is what appeals to some people, not the specifics of who the characters are. .


I suspect you could be right on the money, here.

[Little Nemo]

It's the same reason that men are fascinated with boobs....We don't have them
But with royalty, unlike boobs, the appreciation increases with distance.

[Thirty-Nine]

There just isn't an equivalent in the US, at least not a direct one.

There is a kind of equivalent for us Brits: The much beloved OC. As far as I can tell, it's all about rich people who we find it hard to identify with being, uh, rich. My mother also tells me that Dallas was fairly similiar back in its day, along with a whole slew of shows that fail to capture my attention(another parallel with the Royal Family).

[LavenderBlue]

It's a delicious soap opera that the average American doesn't have to pay for.

[Dewey Finn]

Part of the fascination, at least for me, is the ancient traditions. There's another thread about old artifacts where someone mentioned something called the Stone of Scone, which has been used in coronation ceremonies for something like 700 years (and is supposed to be hundreds of years older than that). America is a relatively young country, so what little we have in the way of traditions are no more than 200-300 years old.

[Kilvert's Pagan]

I suggest that the idea that Americans are fascinated by the royals is somewhat skewed by self-selection: those Americans who like history, pageant, etc., are more likely to travel to London in the first place. (But this is just a shot in the dark.)

I have no interest in the royals.

[Scissorjack]

I think it's just out of sheer amazement that a modern country with a culture fairly similar to our own would have retain something as archaic as monarchy.

Wrong way round: your culture is fairly similar to theirs. As to why something so archaic is retained, it's because, despite all its absurdities and inequalities, it works, and has done in more or less its present form for over three hundred years, give or take a few alterations.

The English had the sense to get their Revolution and Civil War over early, late in the 17th century, decided that it didn't work, and settled on an elected Parliament checked by a hereditary monarch, and a hereditary monarch checked by an elected parliament. Irrational it may seem, but whoever claimed that political systems had to be rational? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I think you're distracted by all the tabloid fluff about the antics of lesser royals and overlooking the fact that the Queen fullfills a vital constitutional role: the Prime Minister is merely the head of the government, but the reigning monarch is the Head of State.

The American system is actually quite an aberation, given that your Head of State has executive authority as the head of government: in most parliamentary democracies the two roles are quite separate, and for a very good reason - the avoidance of tyranny.

You could actually make a very valid case for claiming that the American President, with all of his executive powers, is tantamount to an elected monarch, whereas the Queen functions as a hereditary President.

[calm kiwi]

Well said Case Sensitive.

[Scissorjack]

Well said Case Sensitive.

Thank you. I'm not a monarchist in the sense that most people use the word, and I couldn't give a damn about the whole royal circus, but the system as a whole works, more or less, so why change it? Besides, the thought of Helen "Oh, look, a camera!" Clark becoming President gives me the heebie-jeebies.

[calm kiwi]

Jeez Helen is the last person to worry about...she still has a job! I worry about President Banks, or President Peters (it scares me how he NEVER leaves the poll for PM!).

God save the Queen and all that. As long as they stay over there and don't butt in they are more then fine by me.

I'm not a "Monarchist" either I just don't want to see more fucking politicians fucking up things when Liz does the job perfectly well ie: she says nothing and we don't have to vote for some ex-MP.

Ok so I am a Monarchist in the sense that I can't see a more appealing option.

[dangermom]

The American system is actually quite an aberation, given that your Head of State has executive authority as the head of government: in most parliamentary democracies the two roles are quite separate, and for a very good reason - the avoidance of tyranny.This is why only Congress has the power to declare war; the President has no power to do so. It is not a wonderful development that the President has sort of taken over this job in some of the last few wars.

I do think the ancient traditions have a lot to do with American interest in royals. For someone from California, for example, anything over 100 years old is unthinkably ancient. We can't quite believe that anything can stick around for that long. The idea of a tradition hundreds of years old that still goes on boggles our minds.

Does anyone want to explain to me what an OC is? 'Cause that one lost me.

[ZombiesAteMyBrain]

I don't care about the Royals at all - have never bothered to go and see them when they deign to come here. On the other hand, one of my earliest memories is having a little flag stuck in my hand as a toddler, and being taken to see the parade celebrating Liz's coronation. All the kids were given 'coronation' mugs and a little tin of celebratory chocolate - the chocolate is probably why I remember it. Who could forget free chocolate, and the empty tin was kicking round in my toybox for years afterwards?

[Laughing Lagomorph]

...

Does anyone want to explain to me what an OC is? 'Cause that one lost me.


The OC. (http://www.fox.com/oc/home.htm)

[Kantalooppi]

Well, see, the Royal Family is the ultimate paradox. On the other hand, they don't give a crap, but on the other hand, they are very careful and precise.