Why are people in the U.S. so fascinated with royal families? The concept of a royal family may sound like a mere attachment to a children’s book’s imagination. Yet, there are still many royal families across Earth today, including the U.K., Japan, Spain, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Thailand. The presence of royal families in the modern day comes with both its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, they can provide comfort to their people, but on the other, they often maintain exorbitant lifestyles and lack real authority.
In American culture, royal families are often romanticized as symbols of elegance, tradition, and drama. Shows like “The Crown” and coverage on popular social media platforms such as TikTok reveal a fascination with their fairy-tale glamor, and a deeper interest in the contrast between democratic ideals and inherited privilege.
Their support within their countries can be attributed to their omnipresent cultural and national significance even if they no longer hold political power. For countries like Japan and the U.K., monarchy permeates their national fabric: royal families there are emblematic of centuries’ worth of history, with Japan’s being the world’s oldest hereditary monarchy, its lineage tracing back over 1,500 years. Royal families thereby symbolize the continuity and survival of tradition. This continuity can provide a critical sense of generational memory, within which each generation finds meaning, identity, and stability in the legacy of traditions passed down via monarchy. Royals become a symbol of unity, neutral and consistent figures, unlike politicians, who are more often polarizing. In times of crisis, such as political upheaval, royal families can provide a sense of stability. For example, the royal family of the U.K. became a symbol of resilience during World War 2 and managed to boost morale and bring more of their people together. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth remained in London during the Blitz, visiting bombed neighborhoods and hospitals to show solidarity with ordinary citizens. Monarchs don’t generally have much political power anymore, with their roles being largely ceremonial. This causes the positive effect of allowing them to be perceived as non-partisan figureheads who can appeal to a broad spectrum of the population. Through diplomatic visits, charitable work, and cultural ambassadorship, they can project a positive image of their country on the global stage.
In contrast, the U.S. has an absence of a unifying, neutral figure such as a monarch. Our leaders are bound by partisanship and election cycles and rarely manage to provide that same collective sense of comfort or stability during large upheavals nationwide. Presidents can push the nation forward in times of crisis, but their messages are often shaped by ideological boundaries that may only serve to further deepen existing divisions. In contrast to these consequences that result from political polarization, monarchs provide safety and stability during times of crisis.
As much as we may aspire toward the solidarity offered by royal families, they can also cause division in other ways. For instance, a critical disadvantage of royal families is the financial burden of maintaining them. The upkeep of palaces, security, staff salaries, and costs associated with the numerous royal events — these all amount to millions of dollars or pounds each year. Specifically, the annual cost of the British royal family was estimated to be around 510 million pounds or about 670 million dollars in 2024. In countries with constitutional monarchs, taxpayers fund these expenses, inspiring criticisms for how royal expenses are a waste of public money, especially when compared with citizens who are facing economic challenges.
If royal families are necessary is a complex question, and the answer depends on your perspective, values, and the specific context of each country. For some, monarchs are so deeply essential to the cultural identity of their nation that they cannot imagine a nation without them. The connection that their royalty might provide to the past is sufficient for some citizens to rally for their continued existence. For others, it may be something else that draws them to the monarchy: the tourism revenue that royals rake in, their diplomatic relations, or traditional, legacy, heritage, etc. I personally think that the amount of money spent on royal families is a little ridiculous, but it’s important to acknowledge that I have not experienced what seems to be the most important factor for the continuation of monarchy — national pride.
But for America, our fascination and support for royal families can be seen as a combination of admiration, curiosity, and escapism. Royal families around the world today endure as figures who inspire admiration, provide a sense of stability during times of crisis, and represent centuries of history and heritage. In the US, where no such institution exists, royalty offers a glimpse into a world of ceremonial power, elegance, and national symbolism that contrasts sharply with the partisan, often divisive nature of democratic governance. Thus, American fascination with royalty reflects a human desire for continuity and tradition, qualities embodied by royal families around the globe.
