celebrity gossip, academic style

There are some obvious reasons we bandy about: we don’t have out own royalty (that’s why we like the Kennedys); there’s something about people who are very rich and have been that way for a very long time; everyone loves a princess and a fairy tale, especially when that princess is, as they say, a “commoner.”

But this recent hubbub over the engagement of Prince William to Kate Middleton has reminded me, for the first time since Princess Diana’s death, how invested Americans are in the British royalty, and how that has or has not changed since the last major British royal wedding, way back in 1981, between Prince Williams’ parents.

In case you’ve been living under a rock, here’s a nice sampling of said hubbub:

People Magazine‘s elaborate “William and Kate: A Royal Engagement” spread, including slideshows featuring other “commoners” who have married up, possible designers for Kate’s dress, past royal weddings, photos of William growing up, and, my personal favorite, Price William’s Life in People Covers. Please see the gems below.

US has a boring slideshow of their “royal romance” and put them on the cover two weeks running. CNN broke the very important news that Kate had “dominated” the U.S. weekly covers. News of Kate’s “wedding counseling” totally creeped everyone out, while Harper’s Bazaar, psyched to have a new fashion plate in whom Americans were interested, pasted her face on potential fashionable outfits. Again, totally creepy. Inc ase you were wondering, Karl Lagerfield thinks it’s okay that Kate’s a commoner, but only because she’s fashionable, while The Daily Beast offers precise instructions on how to emulate Kate’s “classic style” and “dress like a princess.“ The New York Times wrote several articles: Yeah for engagement, look, that’s Diana’s ring! William is super protective!, Kate’s Dress: Will it be Issa? and OH MY GOD there’s already a commemorative engagement plate, ready for you to purchase for your Great Aunt‘s Christmas present.

Which brings us back to the essential question: why are Americans invested in this couple? Or any British royal couple, for that matter? In a guy that looks like Prince Charles? Even Prince William, for all his quasi-dashingness, is not exactly Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Orlando Bloom. Which is all to say that interest in these people doesn’t make logical sense. What are their talents? Other than being royal born? They are neither charismatic nor beautiful. They do rich people things wearing rich people clothes, live in castles, get addressed as “your royal highness.” But so do lots of earls and dukes and other royal families. What is it about the British royal family in particular — and does interest in the British royal family remain relatively “universal?” Or are these magazine covers primarily for those men and women who stayed up late into the night to watch Charles and Diana’s wedding?

I’m drawn to these questions for a personal reason: my mom loves the royals. Not in a plate-buying sort of way, but a pick-up-a-gossip-magazine sort of way, which is something that she usually only does as a last resort when sitting on my couch. She’s always been supportive of what I study, but she’s just never been really into celebrity gossip. [I always, always wanted a subscription of People as a kid, alas.] But she’s admitted to me that the only gossip she finds herself attracted to — what she might even consider buying — is on the royal family. And not just on Princess Di, although she was one of those women who stayed up to watch the wedding. On the sons, too — she was invested in watching them grow, go to school, become independent, and, now, get married. Prince Charles, meh, she could take or leave.

Which points us in a somewhat telling direction: are royals only interesting when they’re women? And disaffiliated from the actual royal line? When there is — just like in our attraction to stars — a point of identification?

Sometimes I start a blog post and write my way into answers for the questions I pose; other times I have some pre-conceived ideas about where the post will be headed. But I really don’t have a firm grasp of this phenomenon, and how it specifically relates to Americans.

So here’s a few scattered thoughts, and hopefully you’ll help me in the comments:

1.) The American tie to the British royals has everything to do with language, shared culture, and race/ethnicity. ”We” were, after all, once British subjects. (More accurately: some of our ancestors were British subjects, in one way or another, either as inhabitants of colonial America, Britain itself, or any of Britain’s other far-reaching colonial holdings). British royals speak the same language as us, even if they do so with an inflection — but one that many Americans readily associate with class and sophistication (It’s true!). While we like to make a big deal about what separates the Brits from the Americans (Tea! “Football!”) there’s actually much, much more that unites us, from the similarity of our political systems (not to mention the “special relationship” between our two nations) to a certain Protestant work ethic. There’s a bit of sublimated racial supremacy going on as well, as the persistence of the (white) royal line shores up understandings of Britain (and America, by extension) as white nations with minority populations (instead of nations where whiteness is in decline, as it were).

2.) The one thing that really differentiates us = monarchy. Obviously that’s what the revolutionaries were attempting to escape and were absolutely loathe to see in America: a trenchant class system that doomed a certain strata of people to languish as underpaid, overworked, and without basic social services. (OH WAIT, DOESN’T THAT SOUND LIKE AMERICA TODAY?) Point is, the theory of America is that of a land without insurmountable class divisions (The American Dream, y’all!)….but maybe a very small, very traditional, very much schooled in fairy tales part of each of us wishes for a time when divisions were clear, monarchs were rich, and subjects toiled? I don’t know enough about British culture and social mores to say anything substantial about what the monarchy means there — seriously, most of what I’ve gleaned is from the movies, British novels from 1750 - the present, and cultural theorists from the Birmingham school (such as Richard Dyer) and it’s certainly not fair for me to extrapolate. (This is where I need my British and former Commonwealth readers to chime in, please). But I do think that the persistence of the monarchy (in Britain, as elsewhere) is an expression of nostalgia for times when such divisions were clearer. Obviously no one wants to personally go back to being an impoverished subject of a Lord, but there is a clean order to such divisions which is appealing, and not only to the “landed” (e.g. those who own land, automatically rendering them part of the upper echelons of society) classes.

3.) So is American interest in the monarchy an expression of our yearning to be an older, more regimented, less “free-for-all” country? Put differently: is it a fascination with the “other” against which we defined ourselves? Usually we think of such “othering” in terms of race — segregation and racial loathing occur because of a secret/sublimated yearning for the “other”, leading people to define themselves as stringently as possible against the thing they most fear/desire to become. I don’t think that Americans want to become Brits, per se, but they might (secretly) yearn to belong to a society with a storied history, with things as regal, clearly classed, and beguiling as royalty. Plus the whole “pure blood line” is equal parts creepy and desirable — people want their own blood lines to live on and prosper, but the protection and elevation of it reeks of the House of Sliverin in Harry Potter, which in turn reeks of fascism. This also recalls the discussion around Princess Diana’s virginity — her uncle declared her a “bona fide” virgin — and the need for a clean, unadulterated blood line.

4.) What, then, of the deviations? Prince Charles couldn’t marry Camilla; King Edward VIII’s abdication of the crown so as to continue his relationship with the twice-divorced, very American socialite Wallis Simpson. It’s funny, because Princess Di, “the people’s princess,” was certainly of royal stock. But what made her the people’s princess was, in truth, her resilience in the face of Charles’ negligence. Charles was an ass — in part because he was continuing his affair with Camilla — and was never a charismatic man himself. As a result, Diana gets all the sympathy and support — she’s much more attractive than Charles, for one, and also left to suffer because of Charles’ indiscretions and inability to “keep it in the royal line.” Plus Diana seemed to be an authentically compassionate woman who had no idea what she was getting into — and did what she could to turn her relative misfortune into a platform to assist others.

5.) Which brings us to Kate Middleton. Part of the allure of the engagement story is rooted in her youth and beauty. She carries herself well, she dresses well, she has had (relatively few) social snafus. She is, as my Granddad would say, a well-bred girl. Or is she? By American standards, yes, but not by British ones. She looks and acts the part, but as myriad articles have been keen to point out, she is very much a commoner. A 2008 Vanity Fair profile of Middleton puts a fine point on Middleton’s aspiring-class-ness: ”One member of the young polo-playing set in the county of Gloucestershire—known in the British media as the “Glossy Posse”—noted, “Her parents have a tarmac drive, for God’s sake.” (In England, tarmac drives are held to be a sign of new wealth; old money generally has either gravel or long roads, with tire-flattening potholes.)

But here’s the kicker: we may still want a monarchy to exist, just as we want a system of stardom to exist. And sure, it’d probably be more elitist (and more weirdly sexy) if Middleton was a Dutch princess or otherwise royal. But Middleton’s commoner status signifies the “modernization” of the monarchy: Charles was allowed to marry Camilla; Will and Kate have unofficially cohabitated for years. It also speaks to the willingness to let monarchs marry for love, rather than rank — and avoid the sort of tragic melodrama that befell Charles and Diana. But it is absolutely crucial that Middleton *behave* like a royal, both in dress and demeanor. I loved her engagement dress as much as anyone else, but note that it is totally conservative, with long sleeves of which the Queen would approve.

The very upper crust of British society may never accept her and persist in making bad class jokes behind her back. But for the vast majority of the American public, the very fact that she wears hats makes her an instantaneous member of the upper class/monarchy. Even to young women, she’s a woman who will forever be able to spend and dress herself beyond our means, thus rendering her a celebrity. But will the Kate/William romance initiate a new group of romantics into the royal-loving fold? My bet: the large majority of women 15 - 55 will be streaming/watching/DVRing the wedding, even if only for the fashion. Time will tell.

6.) In sum, this particular romance is not all that different, at least for American audiences, from any celebrity romance, only it’s inflected with the indelible attraction of class, pomp, circumstance, and exoticism. Plus: PRINCESSES!!!

So please: tell me why else we’re interested? I’d love to hear as many perspectives as possible.