to want to understand why people are so interested in the Royals?

[Lludmilla]

OK, I know this kind of thing can be incendiary but I'm honestly not trying to be goady, it's a genuine question. (I'm a longstanding member btw, not a journo.) I see how heated people get in discussions about the Royals on here and elsewhere around the web, and I'm currently parked in front of Jeremy Vine where callers and panellists alike are getting very worked up about a Royals-related topic. And it just bemuses me.

I've never been a Royalist as I don't believe in the concept of some people automatically being more important or of greater worth than others simply by dint of titles they have been born or married into. I wish them no ill whatsoever, I'm just not interested in their lives. It puzzles me why people who aren't personally connected to the Royals find their lives interesting – I mean, I'm not interested in what the people who live down the road from me get up to, so why would I be interested in what the Royals do? Just because they're royal? Or are there other reasons why? I accept that we're all different, and interested in different things, but I'm genuinely curious as to why the Royals mean what they do to a lot of people.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking why people feel the way they do about Harry and Meghan, and this isn't about Prince Philip either. What I'm trying to understand is the more general question of why people find the lives of the Royals interesting.

YABU = I'm interested in them
YANBU = I'm not interested in them

You're welcome, PersimmonTree. As a committed republican I can't in fairness claim to be impartial, but at least I try to stick to what seems evident rather than gulping down the spin like a starving gannet

That should read : ‘The extent of my interest in royalty....’

We need an edit button...

@Puzzledandpissedoff

an elderly woman with serious resting bitch face with 'I'm here because it's my duty' writ large upon it, stumping about uttering platitudes as she cuts ribbons on a new industrial estate ...

Not any more; the boring stuff like that gets palmed off on the underlings now, which is actually fair enough at 94

Pity they'll have no more weddings to flog for a while though ...

Fair enough. But does that actually increase the glamour quotient by much? The choices of 'working royal' now seem to be horsy workhorse who looks visibly impatient at how much of a cock-up everyone else is making, heir apparent visibly tapping his watch as mummy's life continues and his 'finally accepted into public favour now that we've got over Diana' wife, the balding one in a suit who has long outgrown his teenage good looks, the one that isn't a probable frequenter of trafficked girls and his inoffensive wife, and a woman with nice hair who is worn by her own eyeliner. And the two who left because it was all too hard.

Am I missing a whole squad of glamorous 'working royals'? Sarah Ferguson's two with the strange dress sense aren't, are they? Is Princess Michael of Kent still alive?

I'm mildly interested and certainly prefer a monarchy than going down the route of a presidency. I'd hate to have a President Trump of Sturgeon.

What I don't get is why people are interested in the Kardashians?

Sorry x-posted with you, @MsMarch. I remain uncomprehending, but I admire you for owning your own illogicality.

I am a total insomniac and did once fall down an internet rabbit hole about royal tiaras once no idea what it was, but I think it was linked from Style and Beauty, and may have been a blog but at any rate fantastically detailed accounts of individual royal tiaras down the years, when they were worn, by whom, and which fascinated me how they were taken apart and put back together differently, or could be broken up into hair clips and brooches etc.

(The only royal family who used to compulsively fascinate me were the Abu Dhabi and Dubai royals (we lived in the UAE briefly some time back), but that is entirely because, frankly, they're power-crazed and villainous, and, having a stranglehold on the media, things circulated largely via the rumour mill, and in some cases were proven true, years later, by foreign media reports. The abduction and imprisonment of Sheikha Latifa is pretty standard for the Dubai royals.)

Am I missing a whole squad of glamorous 'working royals'?

Not as far as I can see, though I loved your summary of the current lot

For those who perceive glamour, I can't imagine Eeyore will provide much if his time comes, to say nothing of his partner who wasn't called the laziest woman in England for nothing. Considering her habit of bunking off tours early, the starry-eyed won't even have the clothes to look at

I am a total insomniac and did once fall down an internet rabbit hole about royal tiaras

Might that have been this?
orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/p/jewel-central.html

Have fun

I understand interest but not hysteria. The response to Diana's death was ridiculous and embarassing in my option. I also understand enjoyment of the pagentry of special occasions and wanting to take part, but not the rabid little flag wavers, desperate to prove how worthy they are to their overloads.

meh, I am just nosey, I like to see how the other half live.

What is wrong with Phillip?

@GintyMcGinty

I'm mildly interested and certainly prefer a monarchy than going down the route of a presidency. I'd hate to have a President Trump of Sturgeon.

What I don't get is why people are interested in the Kardashians?

But @GintyMcGinty, you're confusing two entirely different types of office. The American presidency would bear no resemblance to an elected HoS in the UK, assuming the abolition of a monarchy and some decision process on what to replace it with the person elected would probably hold purely ceremonial power, ribbon-cutting, opening parliament, possibly signing off successfully-passed bills and the like. It would have no political power or much money attached, and would thus be entirely unlikely to appeal to either a career politician like Nicola Sturgeon, or to a power-crazed maniac like Trump. AND you would be able to vote to elect them for a finite period do you really think the UK electorate would choose either?

There's no reason why the person elected would have to be a politician at all. In Ireland all you have to be to be nominated is an Irish citizen of over 35 years of age who gets the backing of a minimum number of county councils or members of parliament in order to run. Political parties do put forward candidates, but many people run as independents, and candidates in the past have included academics, civil rights activists, lawyers, journalists, campaigners for various causes etc. The salary is pegged to the top of the civil servant scale, so no one's in it for the dosh, and you can peg the election to another regular election process to cut costs.

And you get to choose, rather than get stuck with whoever's next in order, like the current UK monarchy. (I see so many people expression affection for the queen, but implying they're less than thrilled with the prospect of Charles, but if you have a monarchy, you get what you get.

Whereas, if you don't like the current elected HoS, they're only in office for four or seven years or whatever, and you get to vote on their replacement.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I am a total insomniac and did once fall down an internet rabbit hole about royal tiaras

Might that have been this?
orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/p/jewel-central.html

Have fun

Thank you, that is exactly what it was! When I am awake and grinding my teeth at 3 am, I will meditate on 'Readers' Top 15 Tiaras Ever' and thank you.

Thank you for your well-balanced, flawlessly researched, unbiased, non-fawning, credible and thought-provoking contributions on this and other monarchy threads. A fine service to the nation

Thank you for proving my point about your sneering derision so eloquently and promptly.

You're very welcome, Tureen

@VinylDetective. Was the least I could do, it's been fun. Diehard monarchists are always great entertainment value. But now I'll exit the thread so you can plan the next royal visit for the eager throngs.

Sorry x-posted with you, @MsMarch. I remain uncomprehending, but I admire you for owning your own illogicality.

Would people be keener on an elected Head of State if he or she had to wear tiara (or the entire Crown Jewels, let's not stint) at all public occasions?

@FrankButchersDickieBow

I cant believe people are using the word 'love' about someone they have zero access to. It weird.

The monarchy should be abolished. Lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, princes and princesses. It's all antiquated elitism and it's all bollocks.

BOLLOCKS TO THE MONARCHY

I was reading the posts to see if someone made this point as before I came on and said the same thing.

I don't understand it either.

People talking about the 'love' that people have for the Queen.

How does that work? I love my children/grand children, I love my dog.
I really can't work up any love for some old woman who I've never met.

Her life is as irrelevant to me as mine is to her.

*People talking about the 'love' that people have for the Queen.

How does that work? I love my children/grand children, I love my dog.
I really can't work up any love for some old woman who I've never met.

Her life is as irrelevant to me as mine is to her.*

I hear you. But I think famous people of all types have a tendency work their way into people's lives in a an odd way - see the genuine (if somewhat odd) grief when famous people die (musicians, sports people, actors) etc. Individuals identify with these people on some level and that drives this emotion.

@MsMarch

*People talking about the 'love' that people have for the Queen.

How does that work? I love my children/grand children, I love my dog.
I really can't work up any love for some old woman who I've never met.

Her life is as irrelevant to me as mine is to her.*

I hear you. But I think famous people of all types have a tendency work their way into people's lives in a an odd way - see the genuine (if somewhat odd) grief when famous people die (musicians, sports people, actors) etc. Individuals identify with these people on some level and that drives this emotion.

I see that, genuinely, but usually because the person has made or done something the fan finds deeply meaningful, like music, or a beloved film (and of course with both, you have the magic of eternally returning to that period of their life when they were young and astonishing on screen, or made that album you love) -- but the royals are not makers in that way. They can't do anything the rest of us can't (and in fact being a royal would be a fairly disastrous accident of birth for a talent actor or singer-songwriter... ). Their lives are so far removed from most of their subjects there's not much purchase for 'identification', I wouldn't have said. The only thing they seem to have going for them is their permanence.

No interest whatsoever.

I find those that are defensive about the RF are usually not quite the full ticket. The RF don't give a hoot about you so why are you so invested in them

BOLLOCKS TO THE MONARCHY

MsMarch

Yes, that's a good point. And with people who have created or done something that is meaningful to others, such as a musician who has created or sung songs that touch people, or actors or sportsmen and women who have given people hours of joy or entertainment, I can get it.

But the Queen, what has she done to engender love and emotion in others other than be the head of state.

She's had absolutely no impact on my life, and I suspect on most other people's lives.

I just find it interesting that we have a family history for them going so far back. I can see Victoria in Beatrice and Eugenie, and in William (but not Harry), too. We don't have easy visual history to other genetic lineages in this way. I would be interested in any family in this way though. The royal-ness is of no interest to me.

In a few hundred years, technology permitting, we'll all be able to see our families generations and generations ago. How amazing. We are it! I found a picture of my great grandad the other day, never seen it before, never met him. Even just that is amazingly historical, these days.

I find those that are defensive about the RF are usually not quite the full ticket

I wouldn't presume to comment on them all, but this has been my experience too
When discussing the RF, the ones I know use a lot of "Ooooooo's" and beatific smiles, and even bounce gently in their chairs when speaking of an upcoming event or a TV programme about a favoured royal - a couple even went to London for Diana's funeral and tear up to this day when talking about it

Odd really ...

@Tureen

A certain type of British person — and opinion polls suggest frighteningly high numbers — likes the idea of a class hierarchy with a massively privileged woman who has uttered nothing but infrequent platitudes since her coronation in the top spot.

I don't know - TBH I think that recognition of this kind of hierarchy is just realistic.

Countries which ostensibly have little class system and are meritocracies also have some pretty strong hierarchies. Wealth and power and family connections are as evident in countries like the US as they are in even very marked constitutional monarchies. There is an element in these meritocracies of pretending everyone is on equal footing, but almost everyone knows it is a big fat lie. The few that believe it are insufferable and tend to exploiters - they believe the people are at the top because they earned their way there.

One of the more comforting things about a class system in a place like the UK is that everyone knows luck has a lot to do with it. Everyone is born having to play a role, at some level, and with relative advantages and disadvantages that they have little control over. There is some possibility of movement - we can see it happens at times - but most of us don't move that far from our parents's positions. Lots of us are happy with that, too.

So far no one has really figured out a system where all of us are functionally equal, and it seems a doubtful prospect. There is a real argument for saying that those who through luck end up on top have significant obligations to society as a whole, and also to limit their political influence. The Koche brothers and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world exploit more people, game the system for their enrich themselves, and use their political influence to their own advantage more than the Royal family could ever get away with under the current system.

People like to get close up to them so they can brag about it to other people. Just why it is braggable is the puzzle. I did go to watch King Gustav of Sweden being driven in a carriage through Edinburgh - out of curiosity and I thought it would entertain my mother who was staying with me. Afterwards I realised that other people making up the crowd were probably there for similar reasons. Not even our own King.