The Queen Elizabeth’s funeral will be the most impressive event of this kind in history – that’s what claim the British media and it’s unlikely that they are wrong. Funeral rites will be held on Monday, September 19 in London and nearby Windsor where the Monarch is about to rest in St George’s Chapel, next to her parents and her late husband Prince Philip who died last year. Thanks to broadcasting the Queen can be accompanied by viewers form all around the world. And most probably these would hundreds of millions.

The pope John Paul II’s funeral, when the world bade farewell its spiritual father, comes irresistibly to mind. Those rites also gathered millions of people before TV, and on St Peter’s Square – leader from the entire world, not only the Christian one; the UK was then represented by the heir to the throne, prince Charles, today – king Charles III.

The Queen’s funeral will too be attended by heads of state, leaders of international institutions and members of royal families – so, in most cases close and distant relatives.

SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE People’s grief and mourning have a different dimension. The British bid farewell T H E I R Queen, somebody who is close and beloved. Just as do inhabitants of Commonwealth states, particularly of those which remain in the sphere of Anglo-Saxon culture – i.e. Canada, Australia, New Zeeland. The new Australian government, led by a pro-republican prime minister even mustered to the gesture of holding back the plans to establish a republic.

Exceptional monarchy

Since the very day of Queen’s death media pay attention which surely they wouldn’t pay to anybody. In countless articles, TV and radio programs they recall the life of Elizabeth II, underlining the good side and justifying the bad side. They bring up her best features, especially the understanding of royalty as a service for the country – and these are not courtesy remarks, dictated by the principle known as “de mortuis nihil nisi bene” (of the late speak only well). Her last journey staring from the castle of Balmoral in Scotland, where she passed away, through Edinburgh to London, Westminster Palace and the parliament where her coffin was exposed to the public and where her subjects can pay a tribute to her. That it happens so in Great Britain is obvious. But why elsewhere?

Meanwhile throughout the whole world the interest of Queen’ death is great. It shows how the British monarchy differs from against the background of other ones, in Europe and outside, even if it has undergone the same metamorphosis. The British monarch, like other kings, “reigns but not rules”, but, in contrast to others, he is in the foreground. Of course not in the political sense.

Royal children receive education in normal schools, exclusive and rather not cheap ones and yet accessible to many subjects. They are not brought up at hope, as once was Elizabeth II and her younger sister Margaret. Young Windsors have friends in not necessarily aristocratic circles, including among artists an celebrities coming from lower classes. They work professionally, often in business. They do military service, not forcibly of high rank, to recall the memorable service of prince Harry in the British ranks in Afghanistan or of prince Andrew in the Falklands War. The shop in ordinary stores. And they get married with people bearing noble titles or at least rich, that’s true, but hardly with royals.

Exactly the same happens in other royal families – in Spain, Holland, Nordic countries or even Japan. Each being closer to ordinary people.

Famous were the trips of the late king of Norway Olaf V who would go skiing near Oslo by public transport. Princess Victoria, heir to the Swedish throne married her personal coach, something that was previously unthinkable. There are many other examples of democratization in personal dimension.

What is then what makes the British monarchy so special? Why does every event in the Windsor family – weddings, travels, scandals – echo throughout the world, while other royal families have to content themselves with superficial coverage?

One can proved that it is so, because the British monarchy still plays an ex exceptional role – is a force unifying the United Kingdom and Commonwealth states, a symbol of unity and of ties with the past respectively. But all monarchies, at least in the West, were cast in the role of a symbol (naturally, it doesn’t apply to Middle-East or exotic monarchies, like the Sultanate of Brunei). The remained because the visibly bond the nation together also, as in Sweden, in the multicultural dimension. Where it was desired to break up with the past – in Italy or Greece – the kings were dismissed.

Royal scandalmongers

Other royal courts, in comparison with the British one, are brushed off, and there is no shortage of examples of that.

I was in Bangkok at the time princess Vadhana, an older sister to the king, Bhumibola, passed away. Crowds were heading for the throne room at the royal palace where her body was exposed to the public and even an unfamiliar foreigner could sense the feeling of sorrow and mourning. International press, though it recognized Vadhana’s death, did it rather out of chronicling duty as the Thai court is an institution very remote from Europe.

More attention was paid to Hirohito, the emperor of Japan, well-known in the world, especially thanks to the war and his after-war renouncement of godly status.

The shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi didn’t pass away unnoticed, but it was due to a number of factors, including the fact that only one year before his death he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution and departed from this world in exile. He was very recognizable in the West anyway, also in terms of his private life as the press widely accounted the twists and turns of his love life.

Either way let us notice that – except special cases as the present one – it’s the royal weddings that arouse more interest. It’s a nice topic but there is always something to show and cover. Let alone when a royal wedding is short of a scandal.

One of the biggest occurred 20 years ago in Norway when prince Haakon, son of the king, Harald and heir to the throne married Mette-Marit Tjessem Hoiby, a girl from the lower classes of the society having an illegitimate child, whose father, to make things worse, served in prison for dealing drugs. For the public opinion it was a step too far and no wonder that the support for the monarchy shook strongly at that time. There is never enough of scandals. Behold the Spanish king, Juan Carlos (today already retired, after his abdication) is proud of hunting an elephant. He shows a photo. The world is outraged. Albert II, Belgian king (also retired) has an illegitimate daughter who popped up after many years, demanding a paternity test. Henri de Montpezat, husband to the Danish queen Margaret (already gone) leaves the court for several years thus protesting against his status – because he would accept the role of prince consort, the second person in the country, but not the third, after the first-born son, and that’s he was treated.

Royal adventures – from Europe, or the wider world, shocking or perfectly plain – always attract attention of the public, most in their own countries. World’s interest swiftly comes to an end. British scandals on the other hand are eternal. Media know perfectly they will always find readers.

Anyway, they have enough material for that as the Queen’s offspring worked hard on that. Divorces, new relations, affaires, coming-outs for the press… This embarrassing practice was initiated, which is easily forgotten, nobody else but Diana, the beloved wife to prince Charles. It was her who, in a talk with Andrew Morton (who wrote her scandalous biography – “Diana: her true story”) lamented over the harm Charles and his family did to her. Her confession turned out to be very profitable because the public opinion took her side, not even noticing the inappropriateness of her conduct.

This hardly royal practice has been developed by Meghan Markle, wife of prince Harry and participant – or even the very initiator, this remains unclear but cannot be ruled out – of the famous interview given to Oprah Winfrey.

Gold mine for show business

It explains, to a large extent, why the interest in the House of Windsor is vivid and constant. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to recall a certain fact, basic but often neglected: no European ruling families (let us omit old dynasties, for instance the house of Savoy) are not enrooted in such a deep past.

The 11th Century, the battle of Hasting, William the Conqueror – the history needs no comment. But that’s not all. No other family ruled over an empire. No other has had rulers to have such an impact on the vicissitudes of Europe and the world, to mention only Richard the Lionheart, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). Let us add to this queen Victoria who may have not ruled herself but became a symbol of her times.

Mass culture and the language are two factors that also help the British monarchy remain rulers of mass imagination. Both support each other because mass culture couldn’t exist globally without the English language, thanks to which nowadays you can reach every member the entire – or nearly entire – audience.

And there is what to reach with as the abundance of movies about Tudors, Stuarts or Windsors is infinite. Let us recall movies and series based on events at the court. “The Queen”, “The Royal Speech”, “Victoria” are set in contemporary times or quite recent. “Elizabeth”, “The Tudors”, “Wolf Hall”, “Henry VIII and his six wives” or “The white Queen” tell us stories from centuries ago. Thanks to such productions – attractive and reliable – even a viewer that is quite unfamiliar with history – may try to enumerate the six wives of Henry VIII or remember what kind of affliction George VI, Elizabeth II’s father, was struggling with.

But this preview is very modest. The British royal family is a true reservoir of movie scenarios and, at the same time, a gold mine – on this field no other dynasty can compete with it. No wonder that others, e.g. the house of Savoy occasionally drop a hint about making a movie that would present their history to the wider public. But would anybody be capable of effectively enter the territory occupied today by the Stuarts or the Windsors?

It was achieved – toutes proportions gardées – only by Turkish Osmans, maybe because the attractiveness of film productions about their history is increased by a combination of exotic Turkish and European threads.

Not only do British movies and series are a source of accessible knowledge (which is good, isn’t it?) of the court and its members, at times in such a manner that the portrayed would disapprove of. Is it so? Nobody knows because they themselves say nothing about that, treating the whole thing “royal-style”, according to the sacred principle “never complain, never explain”.

The jewel in the series crown is naturally – nomen omen – “The Crown”. Anyway, the example of this series shows the mechanism of shaping the public opinion. The telecast of episodes telling about Charles and Diana’s marriage reminded the British of how much their favourite had to suffer – which, in turn, made Charles’ reputation was badly affected.

Meanwhile in the world the series brought on a surge interest in the royal family, probably also because its members are depicted as ordinary people living in an extraordinary world. It’s easy to identify with such characters despite all the social differences.

Magnet for the world

Anyway, British viewers – it probably doesn’t apply to global ones – knew very well which of the family members live modestly, fulfill their duties and do not demand anything for themselves. For example Elizabeth’s daughter, princess Anne who didn’t wish her children to bear royal titles.

Also Camilla, today the wife of Charles III, whom the British began to appreciate, fits in this category of direct people, deprived of pretensions or swank.

The royal family, despite the efforts of republican movements, invariably remains an exceptional magnet for the world. As it was once counted in the BBC economic section, around 10% of foreign tourists come to Great Britain to feel the magic of the place in which the Windsors live, to see their palaces or maybe even themselves. In this category other European monarchies don’t even pass the muster.

– Teresa Stylińska
-Translated by Dominik Szczęsny-Kostanecki

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists