Why Was The Monarchy So Popular And How Did Its Status Change?

The monarchy managed to maintain a certain degree of popularity during the period between early 1950 and the early 1990's because of the ability of the institution and the Royal Family to adapt according to popular demand, particularly through the media. A certain difficulty lies in answering the question since the phrase 'so popular' assumes the monarchy achieved a level of popularity which it did not have. However, it is not the purpose of this essay to ascertain why the monarchy was unpopular for so many, but rather to develop the themes explicating why it maintained any popularity and how this altered the status of the monarchy. The relationship between the British public and the Monarchy was a complex one; very often the reasons for its popularity were the same as the reasons for its unpopularity. For example, for many the monarchy appealed as a symbol of tradition whilst to others this traditional nature of the institution seemed archaic and out-of-place in modern Britain. Given the broad nature of the question, this essay will focus on exploring general themes over the period, comparing the beginning and end of the period in order to demonstrate that the changing status and popularity of the monarchy was a gradual one, but one which ultimately became more informal and more transparent. Ultimately, this essay seeks to argue that because the monarchy adapted to the times, through its increasingly informal and familial status, it maintained popularity.

The British monarchy was able to maintain an enduring popularity because, as Canon argues, 'it provided an element of certainty in a period of rapid change'. Other historians such as Robert Hewison support this, highlighting that it was the pervading sense of pessimism and social change which contributed to the growing market for nostalgia. This resurgence of reverence for the past led to a production of mass marketed and royal books throughout the 1970s, during the so-called 'Crisis of Britishness'. In this way the nation was able to recall times of self-confidence as the nation supposedly declined politically and morally. Whilst Weight argues that the 1977 Silver Jubilee celebrations revealed the Windsor's most serious failure to fulfil the monarchy's twin role as a symbol of ancient and modern Britain, arguably it was not the 'Modern' monarchy which the public desired, but affirmation of its greatness and heritage. Contemporary's comments such as Norman Shrapnel's claim that 'the Silver Jubilee seemed to fill a number of unconscious needs, chiming for nostalgia'. However, whilst the institution itself may have had sporadic resurgences of popularity due to the increasingly pessimistic political and social outlook and notions of Britain in decline, contemporary commentaries of the royal family highlight negative characteristics of the royal family, such as the aloof dowdiness of the queen. To a certain extent the monarchy managed to rehabilitate its image by rebranding the institution with the faces of the younger Prince Charles and Princess Anne during the sixties and seventies and later the faces of Princess Diana. Thus, whilst the monarchical institution itself remained for some a reminder of the greatness and tradition of the nation, the nature of the royal family, and the fact that with each new generation new faces become prominent, indicates that the royal family itself maintained popularity through adaptation. Thus the cultural popularity of the monarchy rested on its ability to represent itself as a symbol of nostalgia, whilst attempting to reposition itself as the embodiment of contemporary Britain.

Over the period the monarchy presented its potential for adaptation through a regulated relationship with the media. Through this relationship the monarchy maintained popular interest by maintaining a high profile, which resulted in the changing status of the monarchy into a more transparent institution, personified by the Royal family itself. Through the exploitation of media and growing exposure, the monarchy became more familiarised, where the faces of royals were plastered in magazines, newspapers and on television. So began the 'cult of the monarchy'. From the moment of the Queen's coronation the monarchy demonstrated an awareness of the need to embrace technological advances in order to maintain a degree of popularity. The televising of the coronation in 1953 saw over 20 million viewers tune in to witness the event for what has been described as the first time a monarch had been crowned 'in sight of all her people' which for Conekin, 'crystallised a sea change in popular attitude' towards the monarchy, since these spectacular events could be consumed from the comfort of the private domain. Although this does not necessarily convey how many people actually wished to watch the event, or were simply watching it because there were no other television channels to watch, it does demonstrate the beginnings of the royal infiltration into the private home or at least the its infiltration into the private domains of those who could afford television. The wedding of Princess Diana and Prince Charles was broadcast to over 750 million people worldwide, indicating a pervading interest in this regulated broadcasting of royal events. Whilst the few interviews with the Royal family and lavish broadcasting of Events may have appeared contrived, thus a potential source of unpopularity, these televised events simultaneously became traditional. For example, whilst the Christmas message may not have held any interest for the public, thousands still watch it, even if only to immediately criticise it with relish afterwards.

More indicative of the monarchy's enduring popularity is the levels of sustained interest exemplified by the explosion of press coverage of the Royals, taking the form of tabloids and newspapers. Royals and news relating to the monarchy featured in newspapers practically on a daily basis from the 1950s, in some form or another, from the more serious reports on events such as the birth of Prince Andrew in 1960 to the more sensational stories, such as the 1987 Daily Mirror feature on Princess Anne's rather unceremonious fall from a horse, headlined 'bottoms up Ma'am'. This frequent publication of news relating to the monarchy indicates the increasingly high profile of the royal family, and its increasingly informal status. It indicates that the monarchy played a role in public discourse - they were still something to talk about. Even though, as Billig demonstrates, this media coverage was a result of a strong relationship between royals and the media 'acting as if the public has an insatiable hunger for royal information' and demand probably did not match the production of so much news, the fact that it was still published indicates some demand for it and shows that people still knew about the royal family, even if they didn't necessarily want to. Thus, they were also popular in the literal sense because of royal drive to maintain in the public eye by adapting to the increasingly informal world around them. By the 1980s this increasing profile of the royal family in informal circumstances had transformed into a 'cheeky familiarity' with the royal family, with tabloids commenting on the actions of 'Fergie' and 'Di'. Whilst in some ways this presents the falling status of the monarchy from reverence, its new status as an object of familiarity allowed for resurgences in popularity. Many claimed to really 'know' the monarchy, based on secondary media, for example in an interview conducted for 'Talking about the Royals' a mother claimed 'they're in the paper every day and on television, as I say, you know them warts and all'. Thus, the status of the British monarchy was becoming increasingly familiar and increasingly characterised by the Royal Family.

As a result of increasing exposure, the status of the monarchy changed from one which upheld moral decorum, to one which exemplified the structural problems of society. This had two contradictory impacts on the popularity of the royal family. In one sense, as Weight argues, the increasing exposure revealed the human contradictions which lie at the heart of any family, which in turn dissolved any status the monarchy had to provide moral guidance to the nation. He clarifies that it was not so much the undignified acts themselves which turned the British public against the monarchy, but rather 'the hypocrisy of national figureheads who were not practicing what they preached'. The sleazy ways in which the prince's marriages had ended, the infidelities committed by Princess Margaret all contributed to notions that the monarchy was not upholding its purpose to provide rigorous decorum. In LIFE magazine, 1957, the author writes that the function of the monarchy was as the 'archetype' of familiar values. With the decline of such values, the royal family should have seen a decline in popular support. Yet, it is precisely this exposure of 'contradictions of the family' which led to its appeal, since it was become more relatable. Along with the growth in paparazzi coverage of the royal family, particularly throughout the Dianna days, there was also an increasing awareness of the press, rather than the royal family, as the enemy. Contemporary AN. Wilson wrote that the 'monarchy is allowed to be hounded out by bullies and brutes', surmising that it was a symptom of the general coarsening of British Life. Whilst there was demand for royal gossip, highlighting popular interest, there was an increasing perception that the royal family, too, needed some privacy. This dramatically contrasts earlier perceptions of the role of morality and media in relation to the royal family. In 1955, the Times ran a weekly coverage of the developing relationship between Princess Margaret divorced Peter Townshead, in 'The Royal love Episode'. It claimed that 'In matters of this kind the Royal Family have no private life. They are symbols of our way of life and they belong to the people of the common wealth'. Thus, whilst gossip about royals remained just as popular as it was in the 1930s, the problems which the royal family faced made the monarchy more relatable and thus, in a certain extent, a new opinion proposing the right for monarchical right to some privacy was born, even if this was not carried through by the media.

The relationship between the British Monarchy and national unity and identity is somewhat ambiguous, but can be used to demonstrate the reasons for an enduring popularity of the monarchy. In a commentary on the Coronation, 1953 Shils and Young claim that the event was 'an affirmation of values by which society lives' and suggested that the national response reflected a 'greater national unity'. Therefore, the monarchy was the embodiment of nationality. However, as Cannon exemplifies, in fact the coverage of the Prince of Wales investiture, the 1978 jubilee and the Royal Wedding 1981, show that the diminution in national unity and shared values led to a focus on the monarchy as an antidote. Thus, in this sense a popular appeal of lay in its ability to come to represent national unity and pride whether mythical or not, when it was needed. This accounts the public hysteria which so often accompanied national events, such as union jack underwear in support of the silver jubilee and an outpour of memorabilia, although clearly there was also much social uproar against such events simultaneously. Despite extensive objections from much of the public for expense, a huge appeal of the Royal Family was its ability to remain 'a powerful affirmation of extant Britishness'.

In conclusion, the transformation of the monarchy's status was a slow development, which stemmed from exposure in the media and changing political and cultural ideals. The monarchy managed to maintain popularity through the media by maintaining a high profile and increasingly infiltrating the private domain. Through tabloid and newspaper culture the monarchy became more informal, transparent and was increasingly personified by the royal family itself. Although public reaction to specific Royals could spark unpopularity, for example the dislike of Prince Charles, equally public amour for characters such as 'Princess Di' allowed for waves of popularity. Thus, the changing faces of the monarchy also stimulated a change in status, since its state was often directly associated with these specific personalities. However, throughout this period, the monarchy also managed to maintain popularity through providing an element of certainty and, through pageantry, a sense of national pride and a national unity which perhaps did not exist. Thus it was the monarchy's power to adapt whilst simultaneously appealing to conservative notions of traditional institution and national pride that allowed it to maintain an enduring popularity. The relationship with the monarchy is a complex one, constantly fluctuating based on politics, generation and class yet despite this at least one generalisation can be made. The British public 'hate to love' the British Monarchy but equally 'love to hate' them.