I spent my Thanksgiving break buried in my two favorite shows: “The Crown” and “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” (KUWTK). As I ventured farther and farther into the monotonous episodes, I also spent the break pondering everyone’s most fundamental question about both of these shows: Why does anyone care so much about these disgustingly wealthy, remarkably untalented, and phenomenally mundane families? 

I found an answer in a very unlikely place: my homework. In a history class I’m taking this semester— “The Memory of Slavery in Monuments, Museums, and Media” (HIST228)—we read an excerpt from Patricia West’s “Domesticating History” that featured the story of the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. The section I read followed the advanced political maneuvering of women activists in the 19th century who aimed to purchase and publicize Mount Vernon as a historical house and museum. At a time when women were locked out of public advocacy, political work, or mass organizing of any kind, the success of this movement was remarkable.

The Mount Vernon Ladies Association was composed of mainly upper-class, white, Southern women—the cultural epitome of purity and moral guidance at the time. In the depths of American racism, the role of these women in society was sacred: they tended to the home, setting a tone of religious, social, and “moral decontamination” against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in ethical upheaval. So, why were these women allowed to leave the house to advocate for a museum? Because they never really left the house at all: the museum they wanted to establish was a house museum! 

Women could enter the public sphere—in fact, they were encouraged to—if they did so through the private sphere. If these wealthy white ladies were seen to be beacons of moral purity in the home, then it was easy to make the case that establishing a house museum was an extension of their righteous prowess. When women—particularly those associated with wealth and moral virtue—could be seen caring for or working on the proverbial house of the nation, they were welcomed into the public. The home was assigned as the domain of women. So, if the home became public, women could too.  

This brings me to the Kardashians and the Windsors. Among their many similarities—playing host to some of the most famous celebrities of our time, a remarkable lack of talent, etc.—two stand out. Firstly, these families are composed almost entirely of women. The Kardashians feature only two men consistently on their show, compared to seven women, and the men exist only in the context of the women. The Windsors have more men, but the most famous and iconic characters from the family are consistently the women: Elizabeth, Diana, Meghan. These families are far more women-centered than most institutions of popular culture. 

Secondly, these families’ famous TV shows: “The Crown” and “KUWTK” take place almost entirely in the home. This actually is quite unique. The British Royal family are meant to be public, social, and political figures. Yet almost every episode of “The Crown,” as well as almost every tabloid story written about the Windsors, is about their private lives. The Kardashians, meant to be emblems of business and success, are almost never shown at parties or events on the show. Instead, the vast majority of filming happens in backyards or kitchens. It strikes me that these two facts may not be coincidences at all. In fact, perhaps famous women in their homes is the secret to the success of both these families.  

“KUWTK” and “The Crown” are, I argue, modern versions of Mount Vernon’s House Museum. They are certainly less politically charged, but they serve a similar space in the public sphere. These shows feature private life—the home, relationships, child-rearing—but in a way that is open to the world. The world is deeply interested in the sanctity of the home and the women who keep this sanctity. So, viewers tune in to see the late Queen sitting on her couch pursing her lip at her husband, or Khloe eating a salad and chatting with Kim instead of watching valiant heroes or well-written dramas or insightful documentaries. For the American and British publics, it seems there is nothing more engaging than a woman in her home. 

What makes these two case studies so interesting, however, is that they aren’t preserving the holiness of the home in the way the Mt. Vernon Ladies aimed to. For the women of 19th-century America, their appeal was as a beacon of justice, virtue, and morality at a time of unrest. They would calm the public’s rage as they would soothe a child in their home. This philosophy doesn’t fit too cleanly with our modern ladies. The most iconic moments of these characters’ stories are entrenched in scandal.

Kim’s leaked sex tape remains a pillar in the Kardashian’s rise to fame, propelling them into the headlines. Princess Margaret’s lost love with Peter Townsend sucked viewers into “The Crown” for dozens of episodes. Tristan Thompson’s adultery scandals—all of them—revived public interest in the show.

And of course, the scandal to end all scandals, Princess Diana of Wales, has held a page in tabloids for the past several decades. This, I think, is where contemporary audiences become restless. In a media climate full of constant entertainment, as well as a social climate criticizing the representation of women, a domestic scene that is simply pleasant seems profoundly boring to the public. But, if we take the comfort and enthusiasm the world feels for women in the home, and challenge it, suddenly a very interesting piece of media arises. 

If there is something deeply comforting to the public about the domestic lives of women and families, there could perhaps be nothing more interesting or scandalous than a mundane and relatively inconsequential crisis striking the private home. Domestic womanhood has been crafted to maintain the foundations of our society. Suddenly, Kim’s shockingly sexual impurity isn’t just Kim’s, it’s the exposition of a moral rot at the root of American culture. And the Queen’s deep and profound coldness towards Diana isn’t just coldness from the Queen: it’s from the entire British public. 

These public homes become metaphors for the culture and society we live in, and the women who keep these homes are expected to keep the moral purity of the public. Therefore, I would characterize Kim and Diana’s scandals as twofold. Firstly, they become the most interesting pieces of news and media the public can imagine, because they challenge a conception of comfort and virtue we are used to expecting from domestic women. By contradicting familiarity and pleasantry, they grab headlines in ways no other scandal ever could. Secondly, though, they make the public uniquely angry. When we expect the home and the hearth of pop culture and national identity to be preserved by Kris and Elizabeth and Meghan and Kourtney, any divergence or mess up extends beyond these women and their families. It attacks the fabric of society we are used to women upholding: virtue, morals, family, and unity. 

So what do the Kardashians, the British Royals, and the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association all have in common? They are the dolls of society, cooking and cleaning and talking as the world peers into their dollhouse. They provide comfort and familiarity to a public who loves to see the keeping of the national hearth. And when one of these famous, docile, privileged dolls screws up, the world wants their head.   

Julia Schroers can be reached at jschroers@wesleyan.edu.