I've been wondering if this supposed American fascination with the British monarchy is real. It's real in the American press, for sure, but it seems to me that the press is projecting their own interest onto Americans in general, and so it becomes conventional wisdom that Americans are fascinated with the monarchy. Wouldn't be the first time the press manufactured conventional wisdom. I don't know anybody that cares too much about it. A bunch of Americans saying "the queen seemed like a good person" at this historical turning point isn't nearly enough to convince me that Americans are fascinated by the monarchy - that's just a normal human reaction that doesn't require obsession.

I maybe would have bought it in the days of Princess Diana, but aside from an event like this, who sees Americans talking about the royals these days?

Just so it's clear that I don't mean to dismissive towards those feeling a genuine sense of loss, I'll add my voice to the chorus of "if you're going to have a royal figurehead, she did a good job of it".

As a constitutional monarch, she had no actual power to rule. She was basically a living symbol of the nation, a link to tradition and history, whose job it was to make public appearances to lend a focus on good works and the people of the nation,. She received foreign leaders and dignitaries and acted as an ambassador of the British people and as head of the Commonwealth, helping to maintain a close relationship with former colonies, for mutual benefit (though you can argue which side benefitted more from it). She lived a life of luxury and privilege; but, did not go out of her way to over indulge in such things (at least in public). She was dedicated to a life of service, honoring individuals who served the nation in some capacity, carrying out her ceremonial duties, like opening parliament and receiving new prime ministers (one of her final acts). She also traveled the globe, bringing her nation's image and culture to other states, to help bring them together. Again, you can see it as self-serving, for the UK; but, it seems that she legitimately sought to bring people together to build a better world, as she spoke of on the 75th Anniversary of VE DAY.

I really do believe, and most historians and journalists agree, that she took her public roles very seriously and sincerely. She really did dedicate her life to serving her nation.

That is part of why criticism of Charles and others was so heavy, at times, at the carried on affairs, played the jet set, got caught in influence peddling scandals (and far worse), or acted like entitled nitwits, in public. You never saw that from her.

At the same time, she had been a figure in the public eye since she was 10 years old, when her father suddenly and unexpectedly became king. She went from a private and, by many accounts, idealic childhood, to becoming the heir to the throne and the responsibilities that came with it. She became queen at 27.

As for the American obsession; I have seen it close up and a lot of it is the typical celebrity worship, especially Diana. She was sold to this country as a fairy tale princess, like Cinderella, when in actuality she grew up in wealth and status and married into royalty, and indulged in things, in public. At the same time, she did carry on the public responsibilities, working with charities to help put a big spotlight on some very worthy causes, such as HIV/AIDS research and was one of the earliest public figures to openly embrace AIDS patients, when people were afraid to be in the same building with one, let alone the same room or even touch.

With the Queen, I think it is different. She was living history and a connection to an era that some experienced in their youth and many others only read about. I'm nearly 56 and she was the Queen of the UK for my entire life. She was Queen for all but about 25 years of my father's life.

I don't follow celebrity, but I found myself wrapped up in looking at news clips, from the BBC and other British sources, of the Queen and her life and the history that surrounded it, as history has always been one of my biggest interests. Some of it was fascinating stuff. One commenter said she was the perfect constitutional monarch, rarely saying anything controversial, leaving you to wonder her real thoughts on the politics and events of the nation. She remained, publicly, a neutral figure, even if she privately voiced other views. Given the nature of modern politics, in the UK and US (and elsewhere) that is a welcome thing.

I often wondered why anyone chose to keep a monarch, who had no political power; but, as I got older, I think I understood. She was like other national symbols and became something more than just a person or celebrity.

It's 100% real and I don't understand it at all.  But I'm pretty firmly anti-monarchist and there's a strong authoritarian strain in a lot of American thought. 

I have absolutely seen it across social media platforms and across social strata.  

Didn't Americans have a similar fascination with the Kennedys?

Some did and do. 

I don’t think very many people viewed themselves as the Queen’s subjects. They had the same rights as citizens of a republic. Monarchy doesn’t really work like that in the 21st century, at least not in Europe. Most people’s gripe with the Monarchy involve the cost of running one. Personally, I’d be much more inclined towards being anti-Monarchy if the politicians running our countries did a better job.