Over the past few weeks, the rolling, relentless media bandwagon that is the King Charles III coronation event has gone into overdrive.
The press has abounded with stories both trivial (the commissioning of a new James Bond story to commemorate the occasion) and serious (who will be responsible for paying for the extravagances?) in the midst of the cost-of-living crisis.
It is a fact that coronations, as opposed to royal weddings, are financed by the state and taxpayers are expected to foot the bill.
The Sun recently reported that even “a slimmed-down coronation could cost around £100m”.
This is in an environment in which, according to a report by Public Health Wales, the current cost of living “is a public health emergency, potentially on the same scale as the Covid-19 pandemic”.
It’s fair to point out, though, that the royal household appears to recognise the state of the nation.
A source stated that: “The King is very aware of the struggles felt by modern Britons...
“He has already spoken of his wish to continue his mother’s legacy and this includes continuing to recognise what the people are experiencing day by day.”
As a way of recognising the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom, Charles will also acknowledge the different faiths of the country alongside his references to the Church of England in his coronation speech.
In comparison to the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953, the upcoming pageantry and ceremony can be considered modest.
The actual ceremony itself will be over in under an hour, while in 1953 it ran to just under three hours.
There was also an eye-watering number of guests gathered in the Abbey for the previous Queen – 8,000.
For Charles, there will be a much reduced 2,000.
The road to the ceremony should be more pleasant for Charles, too. In 1953 some three million people gathered to watch the five-mile procession to Westminster Abbey.
Charles will enjoy a much shorter journey and be encased in the Diamond Jubilee State Coach, “a state-of-the-art vehicle which boasts hydraulic suspension, an onboard heating system and electric windows”.
I don’t wish to deny the public appetite for royal events or to disparage those who celebrate such splendour and extravagance as a particularly British area of expertise.
There is clearly some UK-wide enthusiasm for the forthcoming festivities and rituals. But in respecting this, we have also to acknowledge that many see the Royal Family as unrepresentative, secretive and outdated.
The Sun’s claim that “King Charles’ coronation is something the country as a whole is looking forward to” is demonstrably untrue.
Indeed, a recent YouGov poll indicated that over half the respondents who took part in a survey commissioned by campaign group Republic were not interested in the coronation.
Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, accused the BBC of “failing to hold the monarchy to account” and called the event an “expensive pantomime” and a “slap in the face for millions of people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis”.
He also stated: “When only 15% are enthusiastic about the coronation and – according to other polls – more than 30% want the monarchy abolished, it’s hard to claim this is a national celebration. Or that we’re a nation of royalists.”
But this doesn’t mean interest in in the Royal Family is waning or that support is non-existent.
If we consider the media soap opera that surrounds the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, we could be forgiven for thinking that their travails are the lifeblood of the tabloid press.
Indeed, long before the most recent media outrage at Meghan’s non–attendance at the coronation became public knowledge, the Guardian reported in 2020 that the Duchess of Sussex received twice as many negative headlines in the press as positive ones.
Examples of Meghan’s ill-treatment at the hands of the British press are legion but stories about the Royal Family, generally, capture our attention.
Why might this be? Perhaps it’s because in this 24/7 media-saturated world in which we live, we’ve become too invested in celebrity lives.
As Dr Frank Farley, a professor and psychologist at Temple University in Philadelphia, USA, and a former American Psychological Association president, says: “We’re social animals – with famous media figures, people we learn about, celebrities et cetera, we often live some of our lives through them.”
Farley argues that this can be called “parasocial behaviour”, in which individuals form an attachment to a person that they have never met. So maybe we are attracted to the Royal Family because we take pleasure at their obvious distance from everyday life and the fact that because we know so much about them – we can judge them and make whatever pronouncements we want.
The Netflix show The Crown, ostensibly about the development of the Royal Family in the 20th century, has added to this mix.
This fictional/factional drama has undoubtedly contributed to the sense of aura and mystery, and as historian Greg Jenner has pointed out: “The Crown depicts the royals’ life as a soap opera, which in turn makes us believe that we know more about the Royal Family than we actually do.”
As we get nearer to the coronation date, media coverage of events will intensify and public opinion will be divided.
But one thing is for sure – over the bank holiday and the three days of festival to commemorate the new King, the UK media will do everything it can to present proceedings as entirely natural and entirely British.
Read more:
- Dr Jewell is director of undergraduate studies at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Culture.
