The reality is a bit more nuanced.
In such situations, the national broadcaster is often stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has a duty not only to cover national events, but to draw the nation’s attention to them. At the same time, it has to do with an audience consuming more and more fragmented media. Simply delaying shows instead of running them on another platform seems like an obvious answer, especially for younger viewers.
It’s 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 famously, he was behind the pressure to show her coronation on television so that the entire nation could share in the moment.
The monarch still enjoys enormous personal popularity. But despite her efforts to be more accessible, the public may want even more these days. For decades, her younger relatives have shown signs of understanding the demand for an even more open and accessible royal family.
“Whenever the public is asked who their favorite members of the family are other than the Queen, it is very often William and Kate who generally come out on top, with Harry and Meghan still proving to be popular among younger people, “said Joe Twyman, director of public opinion consultancy Deltapoll.
These four were, of course, active campaigners to destigmatize mental illness, combat climate change, and go to great lengths to come across as normal people.
Before the recent troubles with Harry and Meghan, this multi-speed monarchy had actually served a useful purpose. Younger, accessible royals who made the institution less stuffy played a role for the hugely popular queen, who was trusted by the public to perform her constitutional duties with integrity. The golden years of this intergenerational tag team were without a doubt the early 2010s, when William and Kate’s wedding was celebrated with national street parties and the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012.
However, this success could be the catalyst for a series of tricky constitutional questions that will be asked when the queen is no longer with us.
“Philip’s death is truly the beginning of the end of an era. It is a story that reminds us that the Queen is a person, not just an institution,” said Catherine Haddon, constitutional expert at the Institute for Government. “The irony is that her younger relatives have so far been little more than personalities, and it’s not clear how well that will translate into becoming heads of the monarchy.”
The person for whom this is most directly problematic is Prince Charles, the first to the throne.
Charles has an unenviable act to follow, not only because of the popularity of the Queen, but also because of the public image of him that has grown in the royal waiting room over his decades. He has been a campaigner for climate change since before it was popular, interfered directly with government policy, and was of course loathed by large sections of the public following his divorce from Princess Diana. The queen, on the other hand, was 25 when she was enthroned at the death of her father.
In a way, Charles is caught between two worlds. It is not clear that he will enjoy the respect of his mother for his interventions with governments over the years, so traditional monarchists may not trust him to do the work with the same level of integrity. On the other hand, his personal brand has had enough success that being more personal and accessible may not be as attractive as William and Kate, ”said Haddon.
Twyman said, “The public is used to having an opinion about Charles and Camilla, for better or for worse, in a way that it simply never did with the Queen. For the first time in centuries, the monarch will have a personality. which goes beyond their public role. It is very difficult to predict what they will want from him, but it seems unlikely that it will be a repeat of his mother’s leadership. ”
The public’s comparative support for William and Kate is stark. Numerous opinion polls show that the public would rather skip a generation after the queen’s death and put William on the throne instead of his father. This is highly unlikely outside of a poll question. But the level of support for the younger couple suggests that the public is comfortable with their public personalities being taken to the top of the institution.
The contrast in affection for Charles and William could be a problem in itself. Charles is 72. If the queen is the same age as her mother, Charles will take the throne at the age of 79. If Charles lives as long as his father, William won’t become king until 2048.
At the time, public sentiment towards the monarchy could again drastically change, especially if Charles’ popularity doesn’t rise after he becomes king.
“No one knows yet what Charles will be like as king. But the job has gotten tougher since 1953 and will no doubt become more difficult,” said Ben Page, CEO of the poll company Ipsos MORI. “The monarchy must increasingly appeal to a more diverse country in everything from ethnicity and age to wealth. No product on Earth is advertised to anyone from zero to 100 years old, or penniless to millionaires.”
In a short time, an institution that is averse to radical change will be forced to assess its next steps. Queen Elizabeth’s total continuity is already impossible, given the public roles her successors currently hold.
And, as Twyman points out, these conversations “will take place in the context of the first coronation in the lives of most of the people of an elder king that many already have strong opinions about.”
The complaints about the BBC’s coverage, it is important to note, were probably not out of disrespect for the Queen or her late husband, but rather a younger generation’s bewilderment at coverage that seemed to be heard in a different era.
“The idea that institutions like the BBC and the government are entering days of mourning and a public role of obedience clearly confuses a lot of people,” Haddon said. “And the fact that we’ve heard personal memories from members of the family suggests they probably know this.”
Considering how much the world has changed, it is hardly an imagination to understand that the public’s relationship with the royal family is not the same as it was seven decades ago. It makes sense that the British public wants something new when Charles becomes king.
The unanswerable question for now is whether the monarchy – and the institutions around it – are sufficiently prepared to modernize beyond the baby steps of years past when the boss, whose leadership has hardly changed since her coronation all those years ago, is no longer around.