The conspiracy square
Most conspiracy narratives that take off online are based on four common elements, Are says. He calls it the “conspiracy square.” There is the supposed victim, who is usually already loved, or at least photogenic or charismatic. the villain, who is blamed for whatever is supposed to have happened to the victim. the establishment believed to cover up or encourage the injustice of evil; and the media, which reinforces the conspiracy narrative.
Some members of the royal family, particularly the younger generation of princes and princesses, find it easy to slip into this role of victim. They are wealthy, famous and photogenic and their roles in public life endear them to many.
Catherine, in particular, was a ready focus for a conspiracy narrative, not only because she is glamorous and widely liked in Britain (helped by favorable coverage in the tabloid press), but also because she was more private in her life than many. other royals. “Kate’s signature was her composure, her discretion,” Arianne Chernock, a historian at Boston University who studies the British monarchy, told me. “Kate was a much more private person” than Princess Diana, he said.
Recent conspiracy theories have come prepackaged with villains: In the speculative corners of the Internet, William has played the role of villain that Charles once had in Diana’s cover-up, for example.
And as an institution, the royal family is, by its very nature, particularly vulnerable to error, even ridicule: it is, after all, a centuries-old constitutional relic, built on strange rituals and funded by British taxpayers, that many see as anachronistic in a modern parliamentary democracy. At its heart is a paradox: it’s a family of people held together by relationships and love, but it’s also “the stable,” as Prince Philip called it, an organization that relentlessly pursues its own interests, even at their own expense. the royals.
