The recent “Katespiracy” saga served as the latest example in our ongoing and collective obsession with the Royal Family. Broadly speaking, public figures help to serve as useful psychical mechanisms for wish-fulfilment and phantasy. Engaging with these figures provides not just a temporary escape, but also, to some extent, a momentary solution to our own limitations, shortcomings, and realities. Recent history shows that no matter how many of our heroes fall from grace, be they from Hollywood or elsewhere, our need to idolise remains, and always will. Not only were our formative years spent largely in admiration of our earliest idols, our caregivers, but that very sense of awe was also directed back onto us, and consistently so – learning our first words, learning to walk, potty training, and so forth. Simply by existing as somebody’s child, a key aspect of our development included idolisation and being made to feel special.
Society today is flooded with what Lacan termed 'the desire of the Other' - the desire to be desired. We take pictures and upload carefully curated snapshots of our lives, anxiously awaiting the response. We edit our faces and bodies, first in Photoshop and later in clinics. In our relentless pursuit, we become immersed in a never-ending cycle of self-promotion, desperate to feel what we experienced or wished to experience as children; inherently loved, unique, and adored. In this sense, we wish to be treated like royalty, and there is perhaps no one more revered, or more royal… than the British Monarchy.
Whenever the Royals capture headlines, British society splits into two. Whether the Monarchy still has a place in the modern age should be a debate fundamentally rooted in constitutional principles, democratic values, societal needs and its role in modern governance. But it is almost never this. We defend or attack the Monarchy without even knowing anything about it, and even when we do, the arguments we pose to justify our beliefs can reveal an emotional displacement quicker than the beliefs themselves. Pro-Monarchists almost always make the case for the supposed revenue generated from tourism, and even though there is no definitive consensus on the matter, with most independent analyses concluding a small cost or surplus to the public purse, any proven financial gain would be secondary to its institutional purpose - to be the Head of State, not a stimulant for the economy.
Monarchy supporters like Piers Morgan often cite high viewership of events like royal weddings and coronations as evidence of Britain's greatness and national unity. But beyond its traditional significance, what relevance does pomp or pageantry hold in a discussion about whether or not the monarchy is an institution that may be outdated and not fit for purpose? For the majority of us, we don’t really know anything about these people, yet find ourselves inexplicably drawn to them. Merely having the conversation regarding their existence triggers a sense of danger in the mind, prompting us to instinctively defend or attack them without fully understanding our reasoning. Something deeper must surely be at play here, as Piers unknowingly illustrates the question: are we scrambling for justifications, no matter how weak or relevant, for some inner urge we barely, if at all, comprehend?
While such analysis provides valuable insight, it can only partially unearth the complexities of human nature. Even the keenest intellect armed with logic and reason is not ensured immunity from displacement. The psychology of leadership is one that will always divide opinion because it involves dynamics of loyalty, obedience, and rebellion. Monarchies perpetuate hierarchical structures that reflect deeper psychological needs: order, stability, security, protection. We can all acknowledge how the idea of being born into superiority is not exactly in line with democratic values, but could this incongruity in fact be part of the appeal? It's worth remembering here, that in our childhood, we experienced that same sense of privilege.
One very common outlet we can inadvertently express these emotions are through public figures. We see this almost every day in our newspapers and office conversations regarding the likeability, or lack thereof, of Prince Harry and Meghan. We consciously make the claim: “Meghan is misunderstood” or “Meghan is detestable”. What we believe we are doing is collating empirical evidence to form an assertion that we believe, is solely based on the data we’ve gathered. But have we ever stopped to consider why this person believes Meghan was suicidal, or why that person believes she was attention-seeking? What is it within the two different sets of psychology that causes us to have opposing conclusions about those we’ve never met? We are not lawyers employed to argue two opposing motions. In the case of her Oprah interview, the conversation regarding her suicidal thoughts fractured public opinion into the gullible and the cynical. As much as we like to think we are in complete control of everything we do, think, and believe, might there be an explanation relating to our personal lives that may unconsciously guide our divergent conclusions? Could it be that we are individuals driven by our own life narratives, leading us toward different and disparate viewpoints?
Projection onto public figures allows us to release a latent affective energy, one that had been previously stifled in our earlier years, buried beneath layers of restraint. For many of us, The Royal Family is a sensitive nerve point, one which may resonate with a need to defend or reproach against unconscious aspects of our own family, or even ourselves. There are also those of us who find solace in having some symbolic authority whose presence crucially remains a constant, tapping into our primal desires for stability, certainty, and security. Its very existence mirrors an ever-present parent or family member - one that never goes away, never leaves… how magnificent, or rather, how mortifying?
I feel like the UK needs its own Hollywood and celebrities. They do the same thing as royals but they actually work.