Maybe the others are true, but class isn’t much of an issue here. Unless I’m not getting the newsletters.
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.
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.
Or hearing stuff like this.
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 as a result.
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. 
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.
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.
It’s the same reason that men are fascinated with boobs…We don’t have them
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.
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.
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.
Boy, were you ever disappointed!
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.
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.
I suspect you could be right on the money, here.
But with royalty, unlike boobs, the appreciation increases with distance.
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).
It’s a delicious soap opera that the average American doesn’t have to pay for.
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.
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.
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.