The idea that members of the British royal family might allow themselves to be seen on television in any capacity other than at the end of a long-range lens in the course of a formal state occasion or fleetingly in newsreel footage was once considered unthinkable. In the early days, immediately after World War II, television was regarded by many in the establishment as too trivial to be taken seriously, and it was argued that it was inappropriate for heads of nations to appear on TV. In Britain Sir Winston Churchill was in the vanguard of those who considered television a vulgar plaything and beneath the dignity of the crown.

The crunch came in 1953, when it was suggested that television cameras be allowed to film the coronation of Elizabeth II. Churchill, the archbishop of Canterbury, the earl marshal, and various members of the British cabinet strongly opposed the idea, but, to their surprise, the 26-year-old Princess Elizabeth, in a decision subsequently hailed for its sagacity, insisted upon the rest of the nation being able to witness her enthronement via television, and the cameras were allowed in. The resulting broadcast, expertly narrated by the BBC’s anchorman Richard Dimbleby, was a triumph, bringing the monarchy into the television age and cementing the image of Elizabeth II as a “people’s monarch.”

Following the 1953 coronation experiment, it became accepted that the television cameras would be permitted to film grand royal occasions, including weddings, the state opening of Parliament, and the trooping of the color, as well as jubilee celebrations, visits by the royal family to local businesses, and so forth. Coverage of royal events, however, remained a sensitive area in broadcasting, and many rows erupted when it was felt cameras had intruded too far or, conversely, that too much deference had been shown. Certain presenters, including ITV’s Alistair Burnet and the BBC’s Raymond Baxter, specialized in coverage of royal stories or spectacles, but found they had to tread a very thin line between being accused of sycophancy or charged with gross insensitivity.

The British queen is sheltered from more intrusive interrogation on television by necessity: there is a constitutional imperative that the monarch should not comment personally on the policies of her government because of the implications this might have in terms of party politics, and because of this rule, Buckingham Palace, in concert with the government of the day, closely controls the style and content of all broadcasts in which she appears. In 1969, an attempt was made for the first time, in the joint BBC and ITV production Royal Family, to portray Queen Elizabeth as a private person rather than as a constitutional figurehead. The program attracted an audience of 40 million in the United Kingdom alone, and similarly large audiences have watched her celebrated annual Christmas broadcasts, which have over the years become more relaxed in tone, inspiring further occasional documentaries inviting the cameras “behind the scenes” (though, again, only under strict direction from the palace).

There is more leeway in television coverage of other members of the royal family; however, this has been exploited with increasing vigor since the 1980s, in response to changing public attitudes toward royalty. Prince Philip’s hectoring manner during rare appearances on chat shows did little to endear television audiences, and he was henceforth discouraged from taking part in such programs. Princess Anne developed a similarly tempestuous relationship with the media as a whole, though she was better received after her good works for charity won public recognition. Prince Andrew came over as bluff and hearty, and Prince Edward was considered affable enough—though there were adverse comments about loss of dignity in 1987 when the three youngest of the queen’s children attempted to sound a populist note by appearing in a special It’s a Knockout program for charity (royal guests stormed out of press meetings when the questioning became hostile, and the experiment was not repeated).

After years of carefully treading the line between deference and public interest, television’s relationship with the British royals was stretched to the limit in the 1990s during the furor surrounding the break-up of several royal marriages, notably that of the heir-apparent, Prince Charles (whose wedding to Lady Diana Spencer had been seen by 700 million people worldwide in 1981). A notorious interview with Princess Diana that was broadcast on Panorama, when it was becoming clear that the rift was irreparable (though many still hoped the marriage could be saved), provoked howls of protest from many quarters—not least from the palace itself. Charles was given his own program in which to tell his side of the story, but he only succeeded in drawing more fire upon himself and his family. For many viewers, both interviews were enthralling, though to others they were distasteful and reflected badly both on the individuals themselves and on the institution of the monarchy.

A severe test of the relationship between television and the British royal family came in 1997, when Diana, Princess of Wales, died in a car accident in Paris. The media’s coverage of the tragedy and of the national trauma that ensued provoked intense debate. The fact that, initially at least, press photographers pursuing the princess’s car were blamed for the crash heightened the feeling that all members of the media should behave more responsibly when covering the royal family. From the moment that the first shots of the tangled wreckage of the princess’s car were transmitted, it became clear that broadcasters would have to behave with the utmost sensitivity. As the extent of public sympathy for the dead princess emerged, it was quickly realized that Buckingham Palace’s wishes would have to take second place to national sentiment. The accident and its aftermath received blanket coverage on all channels, and the royal family itself was obliged, with evident reluctance, to obey the dictates of the cameras.

The failure of the queen to sanction any immediate public expression of grief over the disgraced princess’s death was a public relations mistake, although the parading of the princess’s sons before the cameras at their mother’s funeral did something to deflect hostility. The impression of most viewers was that the palace had mishandled things badly and needed to overhaul its public relations policy. With the funeral over and schedules back to normal, the verdict on how television covered events was that it had faced the challenge rather better than the royals, managing to avoid insensitive sensationalization of the tragedy while still reflecting the public mood.

In the wake of Diana’s death, there has been some reform of the relationship between the royal family and the media, but there is still tension. In 2001, with press attention to Diana’s son Prince William escalating, the royal family was caused particular embarrassment when a video company in which Prince Edward had an interest was accused of breaking an embargo on filming William while at university. The company was severely criticized and subsequently announced it would no longer undertake filming of the royal family.

Other monarchies have experienced not dissimilar difficulties in their relations with television and other organs of the media. For a number of years, the Rainiers of Monaco, for instance, seemed to live their lives in the constant glare of the cameras. Some, however, have protected themselves by insisting that the cameras remain at a discreet distance (as in Japan, where the emperor is only rarely filmed), despite the demands imposed by un flagging public interest.

Television’s fascination with royalty has expressed itself in other forms besides coverage of contemporary royals, notably in the field of drama. The BBC in particular won worldwide acclaim in the late 1960s and 1970s for lavish costume series dealing with Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Edward VII, and, rather more controversially, Edward VIII. More recently, a documentary series in which Prince Edward delved into the lives of some of his royal ancestors was also well received.