The reality is a little more nuanced.
In situations like this, the national station is often caught between a rock and a hard place. It has a duty not only to cover national events, but to focus the nation’s attention on them. At the same time, it is an audience that consumes media in an increasingly fragmented way. Simply postponing programs instead of running them on different platforms seems like an obvious answer, especially for younger viewers.
It is worth noting that Philip was credited with understanding the power and importance of the media and how it could be used to keep the queen relevant. Perhaps most famous was that he was behind the push to televise his coronation, which allowed the entire nation to share the moment.
The monarch still enjoys enormous personal popularity. Although, despite their efforts to be more accessible, the public may want even more. His younger relatives have shown for decades signs of understanding the demand for an even more open and accessible royal family.
“Whenever the public is asked who excludes the queen from their favorite family members, it is very common for William and Kate to be the best, in general, with Harry and Meghan still popular with the youngest.” said Joe Twyman, Deltapoll’s director of public opinion consulting.
These four, of course, have been activists in the fight against the stigmatization of mental illness, the fight against climate change, and have strived to look like normal people.
Prior to the recent problems with Harry and Meghan, this multi-speed monarchy had really served a useful purpose. The youngest and most accessible royalty who made the institution less fulfilling played a role for the hugely popular queen, entrusted by the public to fulfill her constitutional functions with integrity. The golden years of this intergenerational team were undoubtedly in the early 2010s, when William and Kate’s wedding was celebrated with national street parties and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
This success, however, could be the catalyst for a series of complicated constitutional questions that will be asked when the queen is no longer with us.
“Philip’s death is really the beginning of the end of an era. It’s a story that reminds us that the queen is a person, not just an institution,” said Catherine Haddon, a constitutional expert at the Institute for Government. “The irony is that his younger relatives have so far been little more than personalities, and it is unclear to what extent this will translate into becoming heads of the monarchy.”
The person for whom this is immediately problematic is Prince Charles, first in line to the throne.
Charles has an unenviable act to follow not only because of the queen’s popularity, but because of her public image that has grown over her decades in the royal waiting room. He has been an advocate of climate change since he was previously popular, directly interfered with government policy, and of course was hated by large chunks of the public after his divorce from Princess Diana. By contrast, the queen was 25 when she was appointed to the throne on the death of her father.
“Somehow, Charles is caught between two worlds. It’s not clear that he will enjoy the deference his mother made because of his interventions with governments over the years, so traditional monarchists might not trust him. in him to do the job with the same level of integrity. On the other hand, his personal brand has been successful enough because being more personal and accessible may not appeal in the same way as William and Kate. ” said Haddon.
Twyman said that “the public is accustomed to commenting on Charles and Camilla, for better or for worse, in a way they never have with the queen. For the first time in centuries, the monarch will have a personality beyond his public role It is very difficult to predict what they will want from him, but it seems unlikely that his mother’s leadership will be repeated. ”
Public comparative support for William and Kate is stark. Countless opinion polls show that the public would rather skip a generation after the queen’s death, placing William on the throne instead of his father. This is highly unlikely outside of a voting issue. But the level of support for the younger couple suggests that the public feels comfortable with their public personality at the top of the institution.
The contrast of affection for Charles and William could be a problem in itself. Charles is 72 years old. If the queen lives at the same age as her mother, Charles will take the throne at 79. If Charles lives while his father, William will not become king until 2048.
At this point, public sentiment towards the monarchy could change drastically again, especially if Charles ’popularity does not increase after he becomes king.
“No one still knows what Charles will be like as a king. But the work has become harder since 1953 and will certainly continue to be harder and harder,” said Ben Page, executive director of election company Ipsos. MORI. “The monarchy must increasingly attract a more diverse country, from ethnicity to age to wealth. No product on earth is advertised to everyone from zero to 100 years or a millionaire without money”.
In a short period of time, an institution averse to radical change will be forced to evaluate its next steps. The full continuity of Queen Elizabeth is no longer possible, given the public roles currently held by her successors.
And, as Twyman points out, these conversations “will take place in the context of the first coronation in the lives of most people of an elderly king about whom many already have firm opinions.”
It is important to note that complaints about BBC coverage were probably not due to disrespect for the Queen or her late husband, but to the bewilderment of a younger generation for coverage that seemed to belong to a different era.
“The idea that institutions like the BBC and the government are entering days of mourning and a role of public obedience clearly confuses many people,” Haddon said. “And the fact that they’ve been listening to personal memories of family members suggests they’ll probably know.”
One can hardly imagine, given how much the world has changed, to understand that the public’s relationship with the royal family is not the same as it was seven decades ago. It is logical that the British public will want something new when the time comes for Charles to become king.
The question that cannot be answered at this time is whether the monarchy and the institutions around it are sufficiently prepared to modernize themselves beyond the small steps of recent years, once the head, whose leadership is barely it has changed since its coronation all those years ago, there is no more time around.