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

@Rupertbeartrousers

I’m not overly invested, but I actually like that they’re part of the history and fabric of our country for better and for worse, a kind of touchstone for where we are and where we come from. The Queen’s speech at Christmas and during covid seems to reflect our common feelings in a way politicians and celebrities have failed to do. I do think the younger royals will have a harder time finding a place of relevance to modern generations or commanding the same love and respect that the Queen has though.

I agree with this.

Really interesting reading these responses! For my part, I have no antipathy towards the RF but no strong positive feeling either. I can't imagine Britain as a republic, and we'd lose a big part of our identity as a nation if the monarchy abolished, but for me that just doesn't seem to translate into having any interest in their day-to-day lives. It's interesting to see other perspectives though.

I've sort of wondered about this ever since Diana's death. I actually missed much of the media frenzy as I was on a boating holiday that week and we couldn't get a TV reception, so I heard about the mass grief etc second hand. I felt really sad to hear the news, but it was more of a sadness for a life cut so short and 2 little boys robbed of their mother - i.e. a sadness in human terms, but the fact of who Diana was didn't add an extra dimension to it for me. Seeing the way it affected some people, though, reminded me that a lot of people really took her to their hearts in a personal way.

@LizzieBirmingham

I think it’s weird to not have even a passing interest in your country’s head of state. They’re our representatives in the wider world. I suppose if you have no interest in the place of the nation on the world stage then it wouldn’t be relevant to you, but I find that hard to understand myself.

I was thinking about this earlier and I realised that as the Queen isn't an actual policymaker in 'real' terms, for me the way our politicians are behaving and the values they are endorsing feel more relevant to our position on the world stage than the monarchy does. I only really see them as our representatives in a 'token' way.

The Queen has no influence as far as government and policy making goes, and very little power. She's just a figurehead.

I really can't see what different she makes to the rest of the world tbh.

How this country is seen by the rest of the world is going to be influenced by our government and how they interact with other countries and behave on the world stage.

The Royals are part of what French Philosopher Guy Debord called the Society of the Spectacle.

This was a shallow form of distraction created to keep people’s real emotions quelled in a capitalist society, and is a concept of philosophical classification as relevant now as when it was invented in the 1950s/1960s.

If you're going to have a royal family that gets to lord it over you, be funded by you, have a constitutional role and obscene wealth, and supposedly be a representative figurehead for the country, it makes sense to be aware of what they're up to.

I think it’s like any other sleb isn’t it? Kardashians or whoever. Why do people care what’s going on in their lives?

I don’t really get it but assume people like living vicariously in some way? It’s a bit like a living soap opera?

@pigsDOfly

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 don't think these things are entirely rational. I mean, even the famous person who has, for example, created music that moves you, I'm always a bit bemused by the outpouring of grief. But then, much to my surprise, i found myself shedding a tear for Sir Tom when he died. I honestly can't say why - I thought the whole thing was ridiculous and railed regularly about how a 99-year old man should not be the one responsible for funding the NHS!

For the Royal Family, I think on some level they do touch people. My life has nothing in common with Meghan or Kate, except that we're all women and we're all mothers. But maybe that's enough? And when I see them do or say things that I might like to say or do, that means something to me? I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask this of though because while I'm a royal watcher, I am not particularly emotionally invested, have never even considered going into London for a big royal event etc. But I think that's part of it.

And certainly, Diana definitely had that affect. People really did feel close to her. I remember watching the outpouring of grief and really not understanding it. Like a PP, I thought it was terrible that a relatively young women, with young children, had been killed in such awful circumstances but I wasn't crying. My mum sobbed about it for DAYS!!

@PersimmonTree

Thanks *@Puzzledandpissedoff*. In a non-fawning, totally impartial kind of way, you understand.

I guess that's the same Commonwealth that's just lost Barbados as well. Bummer for Liz and Phil.

What are you talking about? Barbados is remaining in the Commonwealth.

@j712adrian

The Royals are part of what French Philosopher Guy Debord called the Society of the Spectacle.

This was a shallow form of distraction created to keep people’s real emotions quelled in a capitalist society, and is a concept of philosophical classification as relevant now as when it was invented in the 1950s/1960s.

I can see that in relation to the obvious spectacle of, say, royal weddings, coronations and the like, but surely there's not a great deal of 'spectacle' in day-to-day royal goings on any more, with most of it being dullish ribbon-cuttings, carefully-vetted speeches on behalf of an equally carefully-vetted organisation, and strenuous efforts by some of the younger royals to pretend to be like their subjects?

You'd get far more 'spectacle' from some of the more prolific Instagram influencers, or certain kinds of reality TV these days, surely? (Or has The Crown actually, weirdly, taken on some of the 'spectacle' from the royals?)

MsMarch I agree these attachments aren't rational but it seems that for many people who admire an entertainer or sportsperson the admired person will become a sort of 'friend' who will somehow 'belong' to the admirer.

I don't understand it myself as I have never felt like that about anyone that I don't personally know.

Even as a teenager when a lot of my friends were sighing over pop singers I was left cold by it all. Perhaps I'm lacking something in my makeup that enables me to form that sort of attachment.

I'm not completely without feeling though, and can certainly feel sadness when anyone dies and I can empathise with those left behind. But shedding tears over someone who I have no relationship with and have actually never met just seems weird to me.

Tbh, I found the outpouring of grief over Diana very strange. It seemed to become almost like a competition for many people as to who 'loved' her more and who, therefore, would wail the loudest and longest as if that somehow meant they had an actual relationship with her.

@j712adrian

The Royals are part of what French Philosopher Guy Debord called the Society of the Spectacle.

This was a shallow form of distraction created to keep people’s real emotions quelled in a capitalist society, and is a concept of philosophical classification as relevant now as when it was invented in the 1950s/1960s.

Oh yes, this is very much in evidence in our current celebrity culture.

For the younger generation celebrity culture has pretty much taken over from the royals in this regard. Much more exciting and dramatic and with all their wealth on display. Much better value for money than the royals.

It's a shame Debord isn't still around to see just how this has evolved in modern society.

I am in two minds. Over my lifetime I think the Queen has done a grand job in a way in which an elected head of state cannot. She can meet all manner of people and still makes everyone she meets feel special. I think the same is true of Charles and William. So in the short term all looks okay. It is however an anachronism. If it were Andrew set to pick up from his mum as King, I think I would be lobbying for a republic right now as would many others, so the monarchy will only last as long as it has good leadership

There is a nasty other side of this adorers' coin, in that they feel entitled to abuse the royals who don't live up to their ideas of how they should be, eg Camilla and Meghan. Weird all round.