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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
No, it has always been there. Ask anyone old enough to remember 1936!
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.
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.
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.
“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”
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.
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.
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.
Other then Princess Grace and the Emperor of Japan I can’t remember anyone caring all that much about royals outside of Britian.
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.