[ad_1]
The ability of television and other new media to help the monarchy appeal to the public has yet to be discovered. Rather, this anxiety about the representation of the monarchy on television speaks to broader, class concerns about “trash” popular culture and its potential to “dumb down” the population, as described by cultural theorists such as Raymond Williams.
Television coverage of the coronation was a huge success and UK television license holders increased from 1.45 million in March 1952 to 3.25 million in 1954. The sheer scale of the coronation makes it a watershed moment in television history, further mythologizing the relationship between the monarchy and the media.
Over the next few decades, the monarchy continued to experiment with the development of media forms. The 1969 BBC/ITV documentary The Royal Family, commissioned by Buckingham Palace, was essentially an example of early fly-on-the-wall reality TV, with cameras following the royals for a year. It featured intimate moments like family dinners and family barbecues. Despite its popularity, the program was controversial for resolution too much access to monarchy. The palace has since edited the 90-minute documentary, banning all but short clips from airing.
Visibility vs. invisibility: a balancing act
The controversies surrounding the coronation and ‘The Royal Family documentary reflects what I see as one of the most important debates about the modern monarchy: the balance between visibility and invisibility. Some elements of royal life are hyper-visible: royal ceremonies, royal weddings, royal babies, charity visits. Other elements are completely invisible: royalty’s wealth, status and connection to global corporate power, for example. The survival of the monarchy depends on this balance. It must be seen to be believed, otherwise it remains an intangible institution and society will not invest in it. But it can’t be too visible or its operations are exposed and questions are raised about its purpose in modern Britain. What we see most of the time are tightly choreographed performances, such as the Cambridge family’s Instagram account, which documents family holidays and outings. They may suggest voyeuristic glimpses into royal life, but what we’re actually seeing are staged performances of intimacy.
That’s what made the last few years so interesting. Although she has given many scripted speeches, the Queen is well known for never giving a full interview. We rarely knew her opinion on matters outside of horse racing and knew very little about what she was really like as a person. The Cambridges follow the same pattern.
What we’ve seen recently, however, is some royals giving more personal interviews that (albeit for very different reasons) have complicated that neutral framework.
[ad_2]
Source link