Odd interest in UK’s royal family suggests remnant of need for ruler

By David McElroy · July 23, 2013

There’s a new royal baby. Have you heard? (It’s a prince, by the way.) Your reaction to this news probably puts you into one of two camps.

Those in one camp find it strangely fascinating and they’re eager to hear more about it. Those in the other camp not only couldn’t care less, but are actively irritated by the event being treated as noteworthy. Count me among the second group.

It’s easy to make fun of interest in the royal family. I’ve done my share of it in the past and I’ve been seeing a lot of it again lately because of the birth of this child. But something hit me Monday that’s making me think about it in a new way. I’m not certain I’m right, but I suspect there’s truth to it.

Lurking inside almost everyone is a desire for someone to tell us what to do and take care of us. Consciously or not, most people have a deep need for someone to be “in charge.” I suspect that interest in royalty of any kind is a remnant of a desire that’s played itself out for hundreds or thousands of generations of our ancestors.

Very few people who have interest in the royal family would say it’s from a desire to be ruled. Those I know who follow the royals and find kings, queens, princes and princesses fascinating — and you know who you are — say it’s just because they enjoy the glamour and the fantasy of what they associate with royalty. Blame it on fairy tales or on envy, but some people can’t get enough of it.

I suspect there’s something comforting and glamorous about royalty to some people because it evokes — on an unconscious level — the feeling that there’s someone “above” us, which in turn provides a feeling that there’s stability and meaning in the world. I suspect it lets people feel that there’s some up “up there” who’s really “in charge” in some way.

People have always demanded someone to rule over them, even it wasn’t required. The Hebrews of the Old Testament demanded that the prophet Samuel give them a king, even though they were doing fine without royalty to rule over them. Samuel warned them about the dangers of having a king, but the people wanted one anyway. People today still want a king. They just call him a president these days.

I remember the first time I tried to explain libertarian ideas to my father. I went into great detail about the moral and pragmatic reasons why things should be different, but he couldn’t listen. I’ll never forget that all he could say was, “But … but … but … someone has to be in charge.”

I think most people have a latent desire for someone to be in charge. Paying attention to the royals is just a nice, safe way of indulging in the unconscious desire for someone to be in command. It’s not that the people fascinated with the royal family are closest monarchists. But I do think this explains the fascination. And it explains the reason why even some western democracies have been unable to ditch the expense and foolishness of a royal family.

Having a royal family without real power lets people have the fantasy that someone’s in charge, even as they more rational side understands that power comes from somewhere else. For those in countries without royalty, I think it’s a safe way for some people to indulge in the fantasy without having to understand or accept what it means.

Maybe I’m wrong. If you’re a fan of royalty, you probably think so. But I suspect I’m right. Why else would anyone possibly care about a random baby born to random people in London who we’ve never met? I can’t think of any rational explanation.

Whether I’m right about this or not — and I’m not sure how to test the idea — I’m sure that royalty of various countries holds no interest for me. As somebody said online Monday afternoon, “We fought for independence so we wouldn’t have to care about the royal baby.”

Yes, it’s snarky and silly, but some of us are happy to be free of all vestiges of rulers over us.

For what it’s worth, though, the new baby prince was said to be about 8 pounds, which is about 12 U.S. dollars. And that’s all this baby is for me — a punchline to a bad joke.

Share on Social Networks

I haven’t posted anything new in my YouTube series about narcissism in the last couple of weeks, so some people have been asking about it. There’s nothing wrong and I’ll be back soon. The issue is simply a technical problem because of a piece of equipment that died. Here’s a brief video I posted on YouTube to explain.

On a live awards show Sunday night, one man made a joke about a female celebrity. The husband of the celebrity was offended and hit the man who made the joke. Or maybe it was staged for entertainment. Who knows? Who cares? Social media is full of discussion — and even arguments — about this idiocy today. This baffles me. Let’s assume for a moment that the event happened as reported. People have been having such idiotic fights ever since there have been humans. Half the bars in the world see such brief dustups regularly. It simply doesn’t matter. The fact that so many people believe they need to talk about this — or even need to have opinions about it — is more evidence of the bizarre media brainwashing that convinces many to care passionately about brain-dead trivia. Your life will be happier and saner if you focus on yourself, your family and your friends, not on whatever scripted (or spontaneous) bilge that the media wants to pipe into your home.

I’m in the middle of migrating this website to new servers this week. This means you might encounter some unexpected behavior until I get all the bugs worked out. Clicking on my links (including this one) might cause your browser to give you the message that it’s a site without a current security certificate. It’s not actually unsafe, but there’s something which isn’t yet set up for the security certificate. I apologize for any such errors you might encounter while the process is going on. If you notice any problems with content which didn’t migrate properly, I would appreciate you letting me know the details at davidmcelroy@mac.com. Thanks for your patience.

I often wonder what animals think when they look at us and consider the society we’ve created. Yes, I know this is fanciful and unrealistic, but what if they could? Would they be astounded at how we treat each other? Would they be disgusted by the ugliness and pettiness which fill so many of our daily interactions? The truth is that I’m feeling pretty disgusted with humanity tonight. I made the mistake of reading some online interactions that I should have avoided — and it sickened me. The people involved appeared to be vile and stupid and arrogant. I wish I could pretend they’re a tiny minority, but I know better. It’s times such as this when I most need to escape much of “civilization” and disconnect from their world. If humans are going to be worthy of “ruling this planet,” we have a lot of growth to do. And I fear that growth is nowhere in sight. So my buddy Thomas, above, and all of his friends would be right to judge us harshly — and to think, “Why do you folks get to be in charge?”

I should have expected this, but I honestly didn’t. The article I wrote last week about disagreements over treatment for autistic children brought me angry emails. You could almost call it “hate mail.” Of the five emails about it so far, two have been to tell me that I’m wrong to even listen to critics of the most popular therapy for autistic children — and the other three tell me I’m wrong for not condemning the treatment as the “obvious” abuse it is. If you read the article, you know I didn’t take a position on the issue, because I simply don’t know enough to have an opinion. But by talking about the issue, I stepped into a heated controversy. The emails from the two sides convinced me of nothing. But they did give me even more empathy for the unfortunate parents who have to figure out for themselves where the truth lies for their children.

Related Posts