Thoughts on Lorde's "Royals"

Okay, so it struck me tonight that Lorde's song, "Royals," makes absolutely no sense. Of course, you might say, "Duh. I could have told you that months ago." Well taken. Maybe I'm slow. But I really did think "Royals" was on to something until I read tonight that a reviewer for the New York Times praises Lorde's "Royals" as a song that allegedly "inverts the good-life bragging of archetypal Top-40 radio songs into a cry of consumer alienation." 

And that phrase got me thinking because, first, it sounds like indirect, high praise for the song, and second, it makes me wonder if that's what the song actually attempts to do. Is "Royals" really "inverting" anything? Because in my mind, the song bites the hand that feeds it. And the hand that feeds it is the underlying desire for power, fame, fortune, wealth, etc. It's the assumption that we'd rather be higher than others than not, and we're happier ruling rather than serving.

I could help prove my thesis from the verses, but let's just skip to the chorus. Lorde proudly proclaims that "we'll never be royals; it don't run in our blood. That kind of luxe just ain't for us; we crave a different kind of buzz." So far so good. She's making the point that we won't live like royalty, but what she's saying goes even further: she's claiming that not only do we not live like royalty, but we don't even desire to, since that "luxe just ain't for us; we crave a different kind of buzz." So from the heart, apparently, we as the common people desire something altogether different than the bling-crazed aristocracy. 

But for me, that then begs the question: What do we desire, Lorde? If the "luxe" of the ruling class ain't for us, then what is it that's our cup of tea? And why does your very stage name seem to imply the opposite of what you seem to be saying? Please explain.

So she goes on to explain in the second part of the chorus, and the self-contradictions start multiplying like a viral infection: "Let me be your ruler (ruler). You can call me Queen Bee, and baby, I'll rule. Let me live that fantasy." 

So wait. How are we common folk any different than the shallow bourgeoisie? What runs in our blood that's not like them? What's that different kind of buzz that we crave, oh fearless leader? 

And as it turns out, there's nothing different between us and them. Lorde, you're lying to us. You fantasize about ruling over me just as much as the royals do. You crave to be Queen just as the people in power do. We all spring from the same heart, the same desires for power, as much as we want to declare our uniqueness. The only difference between us and them is that they actually rule while we only long to "live that fantasy." 

And so the song shoots itself in the foot, disproving the very thing it so desperately wants to prove: that there's something different about us common folk, something sacred, something more worthwhile than the trappings of fame and wealth and success and the drive to rule. But no hope here: deep inside, even our precious Lorde just wants to have us bow the knee and call her our Queen Bee. 

I suppose that, if the song had stayed consistent in its message, the song wouldn't have had nearly the same popular appeal. Because all of us really do want to be our own proletariat "Queen Bee": we want the power to play ruler and judge and master of ourselves and others despite whatever is really going on around us. I mean, just imagine if the second half of the chorus went this way:

Let me be your servant. You can call me lackey.

And baby, I'll bow. Let me live that legacy.

Nope. That just wouldn't fly. Not in this world.