The live broadcast of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 was a first in history. If television helped the young woman to establish herself as a monarch, King Charles III, her son, grew up and evolved in an age of ruthless media, and his reputation suffered. Will the media that contributed to his mother’s popularity be detrimental to the reign of the new king?
“Television made Elizabeth a queen. But it also contributed to the success of television. There was a symbiotic relationship between the sovereign and the television era. »
Those words come from McGill University Professor Emeritus Peter McNally, who calls himself a Buckingham “palace watcher” but is first and foremost the director of the McGill History Project.
Elizabeth “was perfect” for television, he commented from London, where he is for the king’s coronation.
That of his mother, a rare and colorful event as well as in splendor, “very visual”, was particularly well suited for a medium which was then in its infancy – its debut on the Canadian airwaves was made barely a few months later. early, in September 1952.
Few people then had a screen at home. Mr McNally recalls his own father buying his first television set in preparation for the coronation.
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, the British public media) filmed the coronation for an hour and sent the film by plane to Newfoundland, from where it was transmitted. And again for the next hour, he explains.
The queen was then a young mother who had just lost her father, and people had a lot of sympathy for her, recalls historian specializing in the monarchy Carolyn Harris. Through the magic of the screen, she had entered their homes, and they felt closer to her.
Scandals
But Charles III lived his youth with a much less tender press. “It was a lot more difficult for him and it will also be a bigger challenge for the future, agrees McGill University history professor Brian Cowan. The world has changed a lot, and the media are very different: there is much less respect. »
“He was the victim of press intrusions from his age, adds Mme Harris, who also teaches at McGill University and Queen’s University. His private life has been closely scrutinized. At 14, the first scandal broke: the young prince – a minor – was seen in a pub with his classmates ordering a glass of Cherry Brandy.
Much later, a private telephone exchange between the then Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles was secretly recorded and published by the British press. Becoming known as the “tampongate”, the affair caused a scandal and terribly damaged the image of the prince. His acrimonious divorce from his first wife, Diana — the much-loved “people’s princess” — also hurt him.
Unlike his mother, who has kept her opinions to herself all her life, Charles has also openly expressed some criticism of the Chinese government and Russian President Vladimir Putin, recalls Ms.me Harris, author of several books on royalty. “He has thus become a more controversial character. But did it hurt him? Some have said he was undermining diplomatic efforts, but others believe it made him seem like a committed person, well into his time, she says.
Charles III also knew how to use television to his advantage: he made brief appearances on popular British shows such as Coronation Streetin 2000, and EastEndersin 2022.
An enduring attachment
The monarchy also communicates directly with its subjects, with its webpage and Twitter account “The Royal Family”. There are summaries of their activities and well-orchestrated photos: she can thus control the message, without being questioned or criticized by journalists.
Professor McNally insists that Charles ascends to the throne in a completely different world to that of his mother 70 years ago. “The press is no longer benevolent with anyone,” he said. Nor is it with politicians. We live in a very intrusive world. The level of surveillance is unbearable. »
Although he doesn’t benefit from the adulation his mother had, “people can be forgiving and forgiving.” They see that he works very hard and respects the institution, he believes. According to him, the media will not be the loss of the king, unless he commits a serious indiscretion or does something very serious. He recalls that even Elizabeth II had her share of criticism over the years – some even complained about her voice – without her losing the love of her people.
Anyway, the press has every interest in promoting the monarchy, says Professor Brian Cowan: “It’s a seller. Monarchy scandals sell even more. So the media maintain them. And even though the left-wing press is critical of the monarchy for its wealth and its links to slavery, the media, “in general, benefits from it”.
Nor does he believe that the media will sound the death knell for the sovereign. “He is king and will be until his death. Getting rid of it will require an Act of Parliament, he notes.
According to him, the biggest risk for the monarchy is not that it is hated. “People just don’t care. »
In a recent YouGov poll, Britons polled shortly before the coronation voted 62% in favor of a monarch as head of state rather than an elected leader.
In short, even if Charles III were to prove to be much less popular than Elizabeth II, the British population does not seem ready to say goodbye to the monarchy and its new king.