People-watching
Elizabeth II and her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, George I.
My mother imbued me with a love of English history from an early age. When I was six years old I memorized the list of Henry VIII’s wives, including the godawful things that happened to them. (I think I got my feminism and my love of history at the same time.) I next set out to memorize the entire list of English monarchs, beginning with Offa. When my brother and I were kids, the height of hilarity to us was that there had been a king named Ethelred the Unready. We would just roll on the floor.
My first “research paper,” at the age of nine, was on Elizabeth I. (It had footnotes!) As I grew older, my interest matured into a larger focus on the history and evolution of the English and British state, and from there into a study of medieval Europe, and from there to the transition between late antiquity and the medieval period, and thence to the ancient world, and thence to the even ancienter world, and thence to Indo-European origins, and on and on. I’ve spent forty years now reading history. But it all started with Henry’s wives.
For me, the fun thing about the British monarchy is that it’s still going. They’re still there, in perfect continuity. The bulbous profile of George I lives on in Elizabeth II, who looks more and more like her ggggggg-grandfather with every passing year. Prince Charles and Prince William sport the Coburg nose, which has been a feature of royal faces since Prince Albert and Queen Victoria (who were first cousins) gave everybody a double dose of the genes. (By the way: if you’re interested in royal inbreeding, check out Queen Victoria’s Family: A Century of Photographs. Victoria and Albert were first cousins, and all their kids married cousins, and then the grandkids started marrying each other. By the late nineteenth century about half the children in the family looked like clones. Swear to God.)
All of which goes to explain why I find the royals, as opposed to Hollywood celebrities or reality stars, interesting to watch. But the watching itself is, I believe, the same impulse no matter who we’re following. I think about that every few years, when somebody in the royal family dies or gets married or explodes. I suddenly descend from the Smoking Lounge and find myself people-watching, for the same reason that other Americans watch reality shows or read the celebrity gossip rags.
And what is that reason? That human beings are social animals, I guess. People-watching and gossiping are our birthright. It’s what our big brains are built for. It’s what we do.
I know the Brits get sick of the royals; I know that a lot of folks over there would like to put paid to the whole shebang. But it’s worth bearing in mind that there is apparently always going to be a need for some kind of human spectacle. If there isn’t anything ready to hand, people will just invent shit. Isn’t that what reality TV is all about?
27 Responses to “People-watching”
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Invent shit: Exactly! Sports, TV, fashion, politics — all that same people-watching impulse. What are you gonna do? At least we’re not watching slaves get devoured by lions anymore. Not yet.
*****A
November 18th, 2010 at 10:12 pm EST -
Bess of Hardwick says:
Wow. The resemblance is amazing.
I don’t mind the royals and I’ve followed the English ones since school with special emphasis on the Tudors, natch — but then they’re not sucking up my tax money. I thank the Founders daily that they refused to inflict the whole titles racket on this country. And yes, I’ll be watching the royal wedding anyway.
The Queen herself seems like a good egg and of course she’s not responsible for her hideous sponging relations. I also feel some sympathy for Philip, a man’s man who’s had to spend most of his life following two steps behind his wife and who wasn’t allowed to give his name to his own dynasty.
-
the15th says:
I’ve always kind of been fascinated by the royals too, so I appreciate the feminist justification. I suspect that royal-watching is seen as something that women are interested in and therefore a contemptible pursuit.
The same goes for the people-watching of the true crime genre. (Is Nancy Grace anyone else’s underrated feminist icon, or is it just me?)
-
Violet Socks says:
I also feel some sympathy for Philip, a man’s man who’s had to spend most of his life following two steps behind his wife and who wasn’t allowed to give his name to his own dynasty.
Are you serious? His dynasty? A man’s man?
Did this suddenly turn into the Patriarchy Club?
-
Unree says:
Yeah, that’s weird here, Bess of Hardwick. I’m sure Prince Philip has felt emasculated over the years, but he grew up among royals and knew the shtick before he agreed to get married. He was worldlier and more privileged than Diana when the royal shackles landed. And he has had a lot of perks.
If I were a UK voter and an anti-monarchy initiative came up on my ballot, I would support the initiative and vote against the monarchy. Officially sanctioned hereditary privilege is wrong–in principle more wrong than the de facto kind we have in the U.S.
But I also enjoy the spectacle, and admire the service that some royals have given their country. It’s a tough job. I doubt I’d last a week.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
This is more interesting than arguing over whether That Fat B*** Bristol Palin is Cheating by Getting All Her Mom’s Fans to Vote for Her on DWTS, that’s for sure.
-
Nessum says:
[T]he height of hilarity to us was that there had been a king named Ethelred the Unready. We would just roll on the floor.
Heh, it does sound quite Monty Pythonesque. :)
And even as a non-royalist, I still love ‘attending’, from my couch, royal weddings, baptisms, state dinners – just as much as I love watching e.g. the Oscars.
Btw out of the 7 European kingdoms, 3 has a ‘Reigning Queen’.
-
Amy says:
I’m guessing Violet, that comment was meant to get a reaction.
-
votermom says:
When I was six years old I memorized the list of Henry VIII’s wives, including the godawful things that happened to them.
Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived, right? -
anna says:
You’re a real prodigy Violet. I only ever managed to memorise the English kings and queens from William the conquerer on (and I sure wasn’t memorizing them at age six!) I still get it mixed up sometimes; still get the order of American presidents mixed up sometimes, if you promise not to tell. Was it Taft, Harding, Wilson, or Wilson, Harding, Taft…damn it!
Anyway, I’ve always wanted to know more about American women’s history. Any books you’d recommend for an overview?
-
DarthVelma says:
Elizabeth II is one of those people who I would love to have to dinner…if I could get her to actually talk about all the history she has been a party to. Her first PM was Winston Churchill. What was he like? Or Thatcher? What was it like to see her people turn into pseudo-American celebrity worshippers over Diana’s death? (I was boggled…whatever happened to that stiff upper lip I had always so admired?) And of course, what was it like to serve during WWII? (Was the Queen Mother a crack shot on the range they installed at Buckingham palace? Did Elizabeth really sneak out on V-E Day to party?)
I agree with the poster who noted she seems like a good egg. And how many countries have a queen who can also repair jeep engines? :)
-
anna says:
I think my comment got eaten by the moderation.
Violet: I’m interested in American women’s history. Any books you’d recommend for an overview?
-
gxm17 says:
The best people watching place is the National Zoo. Apes watching apes in the ape house is one of my very favorite things. They’re almost as much fun as the big stinky elephants. (And I absolutely love the big stinky elephants.)
the15th @ 3. It’s odd that you mention that. I just had someone (a woman) call me and a co-worker “diseased” because we’re crime junkies and were discussing cases.
-
K.A. says:
I personally never really “got” the appeal of either celebrity worship (not even getting to the new cult of reality stars famous for no reason) or fascination with the royals. My best guess on the latter group was that the Brits used them as tabloid punching bags to air their resentment for having to fund the superfluous monarchy’s supposed superior status–especially in such a classist society! They have to foot the bill to uphold their own oppression! (Hmm, sounds more and more like things on this side of the pond….)
One thing that did interest me though is that Harry does not look like Charles, but does look like that soccer player Diana went with. They justified the rumor by saying red hair does appear in Charles’ lineage, but seriously, there’s more to the resemblance mismatch than just hair color.
One thing I love about the English (besides the comedy): the freaking ridiculous hats! I wish women here were coerced into wearing awesomely stupid hats instead of high heels. I’d actually love that.
-
K.A. says:
Oh my, I forgot to mention:
My interest in the royals only increased when I used ancestry.com’s feature that links your lineage with famous figures. My closest “famous” relation was Queen Elizabeth, although being fourth cousins really doesn’t mean much in terms of genetic kinship!
-
K.A. says:
Typo: The royals didn’t justify the rumor about Harry’s father, of course. They nixed it under the justification of there being a red hair connection.
-
Violet Socks says:
I think you folks who are feeling sorry for Philip don’t know the story. The man was the Tiger Woods of the royal family. Actually, Tiger never got up to half the shit Philip did, who kept it up for decades. He humiliated Elizabeth from the moment they were married (which happened because she was so in love with him, poor woman). With strippers, prostitutes, showgirls, film stars, his own wife’s cousins, her ladies, his in-laws, shopkeepers, millionares, anybody and everybody. For decades.
And then that goddamn old freak had the nerve to call Diana and Sarah (York) “sluts” and “whores” who were “mad” and belonged in “nunneries” because of their little dalliances.
Yeah, poor Philip. What a terrible fate, to be married into millions and have to spend decades cheating on your wife and playing polo.
As for the dynastic thing, that just boggles my mind. It’s Elizabeth’s family, she’s the heir to the throne, she’ll pass it on to the child she grew in her own body — and yet Philip’s contribution of a spermatozoa makes it “his” dynasty????
-
gmanedit says:
They’re not just celebrities, you know. They’re among the elite who run the world—for their benefit, not ours. (That splendid puss, Elizabeth, owns all the offshore rights to her island.) We’re just peasants.
Loathsome, every one of them.
-
sandra s. says:
Being a Canadian, I have a sort of vague affection for the Queen. She’s on the money! She’s historical! She’s our leader in a totally absurd and abstract sense! It’s very much like having a grandmother you only met once as a baby who is still kicking somewhere but who you don’t communicate with. The people-watching analogy is a good one, though. I’m pro-Queen in the same way that I’m pro-Angelina Jolie. Idly.
-
Violet Socks says:
My closest “famous” relation was Queen Elizabeth, although being fourth cousins really doesn’t mean much in terms of genetic kinship!
Oh, cool! Are you descended from the Grimstead/Walshes?
Violet: I’m interested in American women’s history. Any books you’d recommend for an overview?
No, I’m sorry, I don’t know offhand of anything.
If you had a more specific interest I might could recommend something.
-
anna says:
How about suffrage specifically?
-
Jewell Starsingerf says:
“I also feel some sympathy for Philip, a man’s man who’s had to spend most of his life following two steps behind his wife and who wasn’t allowed to give his name to his own dynasty.”
Are you kidding? Poor little rich man. That dynasty is named for a man, regardless of which name is taken. Elizabeth’s male ancestors determined that. The only way women get their own names is if they make it up for themselves.
-
K.A. says:
I had to find that obscure feature on ancestry again just to look it up. I was wrong; it’s even worse than 4th cousins (I wish!). Elizabeth I is the fourth cousin of the great-grandparent I used for the search (it’s through Elizabeth I’s mother’s line–”Noel,” which was Americanized to “Neale” when my ancestor came to colonize VA, apparently). Oh well, ha ha.
My closest famous relation (via the single relative I used for this search, anyway) was actually President Taylor.
I loved the idea of doing my genealogy until I realized how little you’re really related to any one of your 128(!) 5th-great grandparents, and how much unknowable extramarital sex could have gone on that throws the whole line off anyway!
I have to take back my allegation of Harry being possibly (luckily) not related to Charles. He really resembles Philip, if you check pictures of him from his youth.
-
Simon Kenton says:
Aethelred the Unready – “Unready” is more a modern-English transliteration than a translation; it would be better translated as “badly-counseled” or “ill-advised” in the sense of having bad advisors. “Obamred the Rhamboid” might, in a few hundred years, morph to a similar ambiguity.
-
Ciccina says:
At least we’re not watching slaves get devoured by lions anymore.
Or, in my case, at least we’re not getting devoured by lions while other people watch, anymore.
I remember with the precise opposite of fondness a 7th grade assignment to create a family tree and give an oral report on one’s most noteworthy ancestor.
It was hard to choose among “was sent to fight in Ethiopia (the first time),” “was sent to fight in Tripoli,” “was sent to fight in Ethiopia (the second time),” “lost his arm when he was bit by a donkey,” “had to come to America because of an accident with a cart,” and “was lying in the next bed over from the soldier who was slapped by Patton, but doesn’t remember anything because of the malaria.”
Anyhoo. The current British royals seem so flighty to me… I find I’m more interested in the descendants of the House of Orange-Nassau. A sturdy and decent lot, for the most part.
-
Violet Socks says:
How about suffrage specifically?
No, sorry.
-
simply wondered says:
the best line i have heard about the impending marriage (bleurgh…) is the fact that harry is the best man and will (given his parentage and inclination) organise a night where he and his brother stick pictures of their grandma into strippers’ underwear.
kinda sums it up.
