Seems that Prince William and Kate Middleton are The Headline to Beat in the UK, as press attention surrounding Middleton and her possible engagement to and romance with Prince William reaches rather scary proportions.
I’m not a complete snob to all things royal – I once watched a four part special on Windsor Castle in HD on our PBS station. I was fascinated by the staff of people who live in the castle that is a national historical monument, and still serves as one of the Queen’s family homes. I love behind-the-scenes stuff, especially things like a profile of the royal timekeeper, who is up for 16 straight hours resetting all the clocks when the house observes daylight savings or daylight standard time. Dude. Seriously.
But what’s with the nonstop fascination with all things Windsor, or, to put it old-school, all things Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? Is it because they are the modern day version of all those characters we read about in historical romances? Do we impose on those individuals the fantasy of fairy-tale romance? Or is it a fascination with born-celebrity, as opposed to attained-celebrity? I know my grandmother watched Charles and Diana’s wedding and the funeral of Princess Grace of Monaco like my grandfather watched the Superbowl every year. But I’ve never quite understood why we’re so taken with royals, but judging by the newsstand magazine covers this week featuring Prince William and Middleton, a good number of us are. What’s your take?
I kind of consider royalty as akin to regular celebrities, except a little more screwed. I pay attention to the ones that seem interesting and nice, make fun of the ones that don’t.
I don’t pay much attention to the Queen/Prince, paid mild attention to Charles/Camilla, paid more attention to Princess Di (my mom is one of those Di-obsessives, so it was hard not to), you get the drift.
William and Kate seem like nice folks, but predicting marriage seems like jumping the gun to me. No matter how nice the fellow is, marrying him would be terrifying (especially when you know what happened to his mother, his aunt Sarah, etc), and given their ages, it seems more likely to me that they’d break up instead of get married.
I was one of those who watched Diana and Charles’s wedding – but I was 9 at the time, so that gives me an excuse. I also had a paper doll set of the wedding. I think my fascination (such as it is) stems from the whole fairy tale aspect of royalty and the idea of happily ever after. Besides, there is just so much drama in that one family that it could provide plots for God knows how many books!
While I like Fugly and Snarkywood because they’re about clothes and sometimes human behavior, I have no interest in celebrity watching (royalty or media) otherwise. Boring take, huh?
I’m another person who’s never really understood what’s so fascinating about royalty, and I remember thinking even as a child, at the time of Charles and Di’s wedding and William’s birth, that I wouldn’t want their lives—that all of the attention and expectations attached to their roles restrict their lives in a way that IMO is too high of a price to pay for a life of privilege, especially one that has no meaningful power anymore.
For me it isn’t actual live royalty, it is the romantic idea (not the cruel reality of a strict class system) of royalty. All that history and intrigue is just, well, cool. Part of it is the so-totally-different-from-how-it-is-here-in-America-ness that catches my fancy. I don’t “follow” current royalty of any nation but it is kind of neat to know they still exist.
Ceilidh
I’m British and I just tune it all out as the Royals don’t really interest me at all (I did watch that documentary about Windsor Castle though)If William and Kate do get married I hope the government make it a national holiday like they did with Charles and Diana – their Wedding was during school holidays so I didn’t get an extra day and felt vaguely cheated at the time!
I watched that PBS doc too! It gave me fresh insight into why royalty as an institution still exist in the UK. Before I was always befuddled.
Wasn’t that flag raiser the sweetest?
(I don’t care about Prince William anymore because he’s gotten kinda fugly (or at least strange-looking). Harry is much hotter now but, being the second born, only gets attention when he’s grabbed some girl’s boobies or enjoyed a bit of pot.)
What was the question? Oh, right. Umm…I don’t know. I’m guessing it’s just another form of celebrity worship. The UK version of constantly hounding LA starlets to see which one forgot to wear panties again.
I’m so giddy that other folks have seen that documentary. It was addictive & interesting, wasn’t it? I’m all about the Windsor Castle timekeeper.
If anyone is interested, here’s a link to the US PBS details: Windsor Castle: A Royal Year
Americans are far more interested in the Royals than the British or other Commonwealth citizens are. I don’t know why that is.
If William took after his father rather than Diana, I don’t think he’d be paid nearly as much attention.
I’m not much of a royal-watcher at all (let’s put it this way – the Charles and Di wedding was the month I was born, and I overslept her funeral) but I think it’s much the same as the general fascination with celebrities: they’re pretty, they’re rich, surely they must have fun shagging other pretty, rich people.
I generally like my objects of fascination to be famous for something other than just being pretty and rich, though – or in Paris Hilton’s case, a wealthy ho bag.
I’ve heard that, too, Charlene, that UK-ers aren’t as into the royals as the US and Canada are, but the latest television coverage I saw in the US was how barmy the UK media was going over Middleton’s every move.
Now, that doesn’t mean that People and US Weekly and whatall aren’t plastering Prince William’s face all over the cover, but the other media coverage that I’ve seen is about the media coverage in the UK. But then, UK media is so fascinating to me in general.
And why Paris Hilton is famous continues to baffle me. I think it’s a sign of the apocalypse
We have Kate Middleton. You guys have Paris Hilton.
😀
Yup, we’ll stick with Kate, thanks.
I find it funny that a few hundred years ago we were itching to get away from the royal family, so we started our own country. Now we can’t get enough of them. 🙂
Also, if someone in West Virginia marries their cousin we call it inbreeding. If a royal family member does so, it’s just keeping the bloodlines pure, dahling! Who WOULDN’T be fascinated?!
My fascination with the British royals begins and ends with the documentary I recently saw on the royal kitchen. I’m totally into the food thing, and really, they had a bitchin’ kitchen, and an especially nice ice cream maker. And the chef portions everything in really cute little sizes for easy consumption. AND he makes homemade food for the queen’s dogs.
I did think the movie “The Queen” was really great, though, especially the way her own history was compared and contrasted to that of Diana’s. When someone’s life transfers so easily to film, though, it’s almost more difficult for me to see that person as distinguishable from a *character*.
Did I actually read something about how she is still a virgin? Tell me I didn’t… tell me that people don’t actually ask her or expect it. Lord have mercy. It makes me feel unclean to know.
One thing no one’s mentioned, but that I always notice, is when you marry into the royals you get to wear some really fab jewelry. Tasteful, too.
There’s certainly a “bling” element in the fascination. Fancy homes that are a bitch to heat, in Diana’s case great fashions and the ability to wear them well, zillions of minions at your beck and call…
It all sounds lovely, until you think about the inbreeding and the paparazzi.
I’m in the UK, and I’m moderately interested. When Princess Anne happened up our road, I stopped with the children and waved – but I wouldn’t have gone in to town especially to wave at her. And when we were invited to a Garden Party we went, but given that the Royal Personage was Prince Andrew, we didn’t worry too much about catching a glimpse – we people watched, ate the really nice sandwiches, and went home.
I think I’m interested partly because they are a constant part of life, and partly because their lives are like unfolding stories. And I love Royal Weddings – all the pomp & circumstance – though I agree they should only be allowed to marry during term-time, because the best thing was always having the day off school.
Can’t stand the tabloid coverage though: I just don’t care what the Queen has on her sideboard, or what Prince Charles whispers to Camilla. And a car crash is just a car crash.
The programme about Windsor was good – tranquil viewing.
Well, we have Brangelina and TomKat. Shudder. The Windors seems to be the enduring version of America’s celebrity of the hour obsession. I’d say that the motivation is the same. It’s rather like a reality soap opera.
The British tabloid press is relentless in their coverage of all people: royals, footballers, politicians, and celebrities. I don’t think the royals really get more coverage.
And Jo – that is too funny. I have a friend who wished all through school for something royal to happen to get her a day off.
Well being that I am a NZ’er, and living in the US, here’s my take…
The Royals are to general Commonwealth citizens as the President/Hollywood Starlets is to the average joe American. There are some who are rabid fanbois, there are some who keep an ear out and won’t change the channel if they come on the news, and other don’t really give a shit.
Now of course, Bush…MMmmmhmmrrmnnmm (sorry holding my tongue there so I don’t get all left wing wiggy on ya’ll) has power that royalty hasn’t had for years, centuries even. But they still hold the same fascination for the masses. ie always on the cover of the Woman’s Weekly.
Now if you want to get down to whose got the worst rep…the Bush’s…bushes…bushs’…crap I never get that right, win hands down. Royalty has it all over them in the tragedy & love department, Georgies kids just like talking smack, and ironically injecting it, Clinton…well lets leave that between he and his cigar shall we. How can that beat tragic death and seperated lovers? Oh and you can’t forget the MIL who has an annus horriblis!
Royalty all the way baby! Do you think I’m too old for William?
SB Sarah I lurrrved ™ the special on Windsor Castle! Did you happen to catch in in HD? Dude!
I loved all the history, one of the badges for Garter Day is over 300 years old! Older than our whole country! Oldest thing in my hometown is the Cluck an Chuck out on Highway 99! I totally got off on that!
As for the whole Royal thing, guess for me I’m compleatly bowled over by the fact that the only thing royals have to do to become royals is slither down the birth cannal. I too had my mother wake me at 2am to watch Diana Spencer and Prince Charles get married! The ONLY thing we at Kelly Junior High talked about for weeks!
When I saw the headlines about William and Kate my first thought was… No! he’s too young! Yeah like he’s my kid and he’d listen to my advice! But really, I do feel like an auntie because i’ve watched him grow up and i wonder if others do too.
The difference between Royal watching and Celebs especially American Celebs is that the Royals are performing their dutyies as caretakers/rulers of a country and that lends an air of…respctablity(?), even in their naughty moments.
Celebs/Actors are merely just selling something… usually themselves.
My interest in the modern British royal family pretty much begins and ends with The Queen, because there’s Helen Mirren and what’s not to love. But I’m not particularly interested in the non-royal famous-for-being-famous crowd, either.
SB Sarah I lurrrved ™ the special on Windsor Castle! Did you happen to catch in in HD?
Oh, yes I did. And it was that show that made me finally appreciate the technology that is HDTV. It was breathtaking, especially the aerial shots of the grounds, the park, and the castle itself. Wow. Stunning.
And the history part is amazing, too. When I lived in Spain I used to touch walls in Salamanca on my way to class that were way, way older than the US, and I used to wonder what the US looked like when that wall was new. History makes me dizzy sometimes.
Now of course, Bush…MMmmmhmmrrmnnmm (sorry holding my tongue there so I don’t get all left wing wiggy on ya’ll) has power that royalty hasn’t had for years, centuries even.
One of the things that fascinated me about “The Queen” was the amount of political influence the film suggested that Elizabeth, at least, still has. Certainly not as direct as the Prime Minister, and perhaps some of it endowed from her own mind and pride, but Blair was portrayed as gonig out of his way—against the wishes of his wife and some in his party—to keep Elizabeth from shooting completely out of relevancy. And it felt like more than cultural nostalgia, which is what made it interesting to me. I wondered at the time how much indirect political importance the Royals have in Britain, and how accurate the film was.
Well the fascination is probably more on the fairytale of royalty, Plus people need a break from:
Rosie VS Donbald(Spelling is not accidental)
Paris Hilton
Britney Spears
MS. New York and Flava Flav
MS. New York and Flava Flav
I have come to a begrudging understanding of Flava Flav’s appeal, but explain to me, please, how New York managed to get those 20 guys sniffing after her. THAT is a total mystery to me.
Not that I want to start a kerfuffle but it really baffles me that if they no longer have any political influence, what’s really the point of having them living it up in castle after castle? I don’t see them any differently than Hollywood celebrities who are at least good for a chuckle or two. Although I am thankful that the “royals” keep their crotches covered. That sort of entertainment I can do without (unless it’s sought out ;)).
I had a roommate at the time who kept the tv on the Diana/Charles wedding during the entire coverage. It was excruciating. I did get a snicker out of reading—can’t remember if it was then or later—that Barbara Cartland took credit for her romances inspiring the relationship. Guess we know where all her heroes and heroines are 20 odd years on
I’m in awe at how these people manage to function without snapping under pressure and telling an underling to go choke on a blood pudding.
That and my mother’s obsessed with all things English, let alone royalty, so it’s what I’ve grown up with.
It’s strange, but I recall the frenzy surrounding Diana’s death more clearly than the frenzy surrounding Sept. 11th.
I think I may have inherited my mother’s obsession because I went of my own accord to see The Queen the day it opened in theatres and cried all the way through.
But the women’s hats—oh the poor dears.
…And the Dutch monarchy shows the British monarchy how it’s done—sans crazy.
submission word: economic45???
Running a country must be hard, is all I’m saying.
given their ages, it seems more likely to me that they’d break up instead of get married.
Ah, but they went to the University of St Andrews! In my first year there we were told that a very, very high percentage of St Andrews graduates meet their future spouse/spouse-equivalent while studying there. And it was true. I did, and I know about 8 other couples who did, and we’re all still together, and most of us married either just after or during our time there, so most of us were younger than William and Kate.
ACK!!! Just when you SBs thought it was safe to deviate from cover snark to engage us in an oh-so-veddy-British discussion, look what appears…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/031024756X/ref=dp_image_text_0/102-8524980-6172119?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
Tell me that it’s just a coincidence and there is only a passing resemblence!!
Arethusa,
They’re there to be the focus of patriotic fervour, national symbolism, and all that sort of stuff for those into and susceptible that kind of thing. And there will always be people into that kind of thing, impossible to abolish it.
All that completely human irrational attachment has got to go somewhere, and having it focused on the people who actually do have real power would be really really bad. You definitely don’t want sensibly despising whoever is currently elected Prime Minister to be all bound up with issues patriotism or loyalty to country. That twists democracy all out of shape. Or the person who is Commander in Chief of the armed Forces, the person they swear oaths to and stuff, to have actual political power. That would be scarily dangerous (see Mr. Hitler, Adolf).
So Royalty is mostly kept around to act as the ground wire for the whole the policial system here in .uk. It wasn’t of course *designed* that way, it just sort of grew over recent centuries into being like that.
That’s why when some newspaper over here has one of their irregular bouts of Republicanism, I start muttering to myself darkly. They’re assuming that abolishing the symbol upon which all that irrational stuff is focused, will somehow get rid of the irrational stuff itself.
Fat chance, instead it would just end up focused on someone or something that’s more dangerous, less domesticated, and more likely to turn on you. We’ve spent centuries slowly training them up (with civil wars, salutary decapitations, and coups in favour of more tractable relations) to be good little kings and queens who don’t do anything much but spend money, look ornamental and give everyone harmlessly unimportant scandals to gossip about. Why would we want to swap that for say a President who would actually have ideas that he was supposed to *do* stuff, and might actually get away with doing it, and shutting up everyone who disagreed, because of all the patriotic ra ra rocket fuel would now be powering his engines rather than those of a safely ornamental Royalty?
And no, I never even voted Tory in my life 😛
End of somewhat political rant.
Who cares? Give us all a rest, please!
You always seem to have the news the day before the Washington Post.
It’s creepy, really.
I don’t get it either, not a celebrity fangirl. Don’t read, don’t watch, don’t really care much. Hollywood or European Royalty, they are almost all just spoiled rich brats…and (unless you’re interested in who they are sleeping with this week) not even interesting brats. In the end, celebrities are just real people and you are more likely to find interesting & worthwhile ones in your own community (or this website).
Aaah, the history…now that’s interesting, Americans have so little of it. The History Channel is very popular in our home (so it’s strange I read so little historical romance). Sorry I missed the documentary, maybe next time.
William & Kate…wish them all the best, really. I know almost nothing about them, but look like a cute couple. Is that virginity crap really arising again? Like what, it didn’t ruin several lives the last time the Brits ran it around the block? Get over it.
TABLOIDS ARE BAD, NASTY, AND EVIL. I’d like to ban their harrassment and invasion of privacy.
So Royalty is mostly kept around to act as the ground wire for the whole the policial system here in .uk. It wasn’t of course *designed* that way, it just sort of grew over recent centuries into being like that.
Yes, yes, yes, this all makes perfect sense; thanks for your post.
I was right there in a seat at the Angelika, the week after “The Queen” opened in Manhattan, because royalty & aristocracy fascinate me. They are so completely The Other.
Beyond anything else, it’s the heritage they represent. Which is so un-American. Their pedigrees are completely known, even more thoroughly than a race horse’s. (Except for the cuckolded husbands, of course.) As opposed to me, who can’t get very far beyond my great-grandparents without having to cross an ocean into an untelligible language, a foreign culture & centuries of obscure peasantry.
Second of all, yes, the idea of inheriting one’s place in life, and one’s existence simply having a value, all by itself, through the accident of birth. Without one’s having to achieve, achieve, get into the right school, get good grades, strive, strive, pull down a great job, work, work, publish, make a name for oneself. My God, they just rest there gracefully, upon a pile of stocks, bonds, priceless antiques, national treasures, historic trust homes, what have you. (While I have to buy my antiques, and let me tell you, it’s a lot of work & study to figure out how to spend wisely. 😉
With aristocracy or royalty, I’m just staring in fascination at all that I’m not. I can’t help myself. I have to wonder what such an existence is like. My imagination can’t help projecting upon them all the feats performed by their ancestors, all that history, even if the descendent in front of me looks like an idiot not much better than Paris Hilton.
Proust understands this better than any writer I’ve ever read: The fascination, even as one knows the object itself isn’t really all that worthy.
Thus my ambivalence about my liking for the historical romance genre, which is largely aristocrat-centered, even if it has been modified to suit American tastes (i.e., the heroine isn’t just lovely & blue-blooded, she’s also socially progressive, intelligent, compassionate & etc.)
ooooh, I just love anything that falls in the ‘behind the scenes’ category when it comes to the British Royals. I think my ongoing interest in just how this strange, unrelatable, extreme Other functions is a leftover of a girlhood obsession with all things princess-y. Remember the interview Diana gave with Panorama? We were picking the transcript apart in a research methods seminar on symbols and signs and use of language, and I surprised the group, the tutor and myself by exposing my little girl geek by going on about the importance of her choice of a black suit, given Royal protocals on wearing black. (For funerals only for women, and apparently Diana got a dressing down for wearing a strapless black balldress to one of her earliest royal engagements.) I had no idea that I’d retained that random factoid!
I agree with practically everything that skapusniak said.
Seconded.
Okay, I haven’t been making any effort in seeking out more Kate Middleton stories, but are tabloids (I can’t believe broadsheets would be so crass) truly talking about her hymenaity or lack thereof? Dude, that is…just…bleurgh. Poor girl.
I think that however little real power the Royal family may have, and however irrelevant some may feel they are, the fact remains that they still are Our Royal Family, part of what makes the British British and for that reason alone stories about them are always going to be printed and read by people here in the UK. The attention may suck for her on a personal level, and I do think the press ought to calm down (come on, there are reporters / photographers who turn up to write about / take pictures of the people who are writing about / taking pictures of her!), but at the end of the day, as even a potential future Queen of England, there are people who are going to be interested in everything about her, because of the (symbolic) importance of the role she may go onto inhabit oneday.
Without a crystal ball, I think William and Kate could make a very popular King and Queen, if only because they are relatively good looking (shallow, but sadly true), and ‘feel’ more English/British than some (much) earlier Royals. She’s a middle-class, middle-England type (relatable to the masses!), and being half Spencer makes him more English (and gives him more English ancestry) than many of his Royal relations. Plus, the whole omgDianawashismomandwestilllovehersqueeandCamillaistehevilhiss thing that many people still have going on.
In my first year there we were told that a very, very high percentage of St Andrews graduates meet their future spouse/spouse-equivalent while studying there. And it was true. I did, and I know about 8 other couples who did…
Crap! No one told me that! Of course of my six roommates, two of them did, so I suppose that is a pretty good percentage.
Thanks for your reply skapusniak. I have actually heard that reason before and have always found it puzzling because of the history of the British royalty. (The assumption being that the institution is “neutral” which I find arguable.) But I guess it’s a better alternative to Adolf Hitler.