Short History Of... - Queen Elizabeth the Second, Part 2 of 2

Episode Date: June 5, 2022

As the Queen’s family life becomes more complex, the relationship between palace and press intensifies. But balancing the need for security and privacy against her very public responsibilities is never simple. So who is the real woman beneath the crown? How does she respond to the dark years of her reign, or the grief of losing her beloved husband? And as she approaches her Platinum Jubilee, how will history remember her reign? This is the second in a special two-part Short History of Queen Elizabeth the Second. Written by Jo Furniss. With thanks to Dr. Tracy Borman, author of Crown and Sceptre; and Dr. Tessa Dunlop, author of Army Girls.  For ad-free listening, exclusive content and early access to new episodes, join Noiser+. Now available for Apple and Android users. Click the Noiser+ banner on Apple or go to noiser.com/subscriptions to get started with a 7-day free trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's 1957, just before three o'clock in the afternoon on Christmas Day. It's a time of festivity for most British families. But at Sandringham House in Norfolk, in the east of England, the atmosphere is brisk. In the library, a BBC film crew is at work. Technicians make last-minute checks, camera operators rehearse shots. Everyone is in motion. The star of the show, sitting composed at a desk, is the one point of stillness in the room. After a final briefing, she asks for a moment of calm, and the producer respectfully retreats, moving backwards over cables and around lights.

He's not supposed to turn his back on her. Jusce respectfully retreats, moving backwards over cables and around lights. He's not supposed to turn his back on her, because today his presenter is Her Majesty the Queen, and for the first time she is about to read her Christmas message live on television. In recent months, the Queen has undertaken a modernization of the monarchy, which is why, today, these cameras are here to allow the public inside her private home. Despite her dizzying wealth, she wants to appear hospitable, relatable. She brushes a strand of corgi fur from her gold lamé dress. It's a shame the colour will be lost on the black and white television sets of her viewers,

but at least they'll get the shimmering effect. A hush descends on the room. It's nearly time. A tall man comes to stand beside the camera. He's slightly in the way, in fact, but he is Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, and no one is going to tell him to move. He whispers good luck to his wife, who's doing her best to smile serenely through nerves that have almost ruined her family Christmas. Soon the producer is counting down the seconds. Seven million households watch as the program

begins, with a shot of the magnificent exterior of Sandringham set to a choral version of God Save the Queen with accompanying sleigh bells. Then, slow and stately, the shot zooms in on one window. As the image fades to the interior of the library, the producer uses his fingers to signal three, two, one, on air. Her Royal Highness the Queen takes a deep breath and makes television history.

She wishes the nation a happy Christmas. Twenty-five years ago, she says, her grandfather, King George V, broadcast the first Christmas message on the radio. Then, sharing a rare glimpse of her personal life, she explains that these days her family, like those at home, like to gather round and watch television on Christmas Day. As she speaks, viewers scrutinize her private world. Surrounded by family photos and Christmas cards,

Elizabeth II is a modern monarch, young, media savvy, but still imperious. Then she broaches a key issue of the 1950s, progress and how to cope with it. That it is possible for you to see me today, she says, is another example of the speed at which things are changing. I'm not surprised that people feel lost, unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard.

Unthinking people carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery. Maybe she's referring to technology, or faith, or the monarchy. In any case, she concludes by acknowledging her ever-shifting role. Though she may not lead soldiers onto the battlefield, or set laws, or administer justice, she is nonetheless devoted to what she calls these old islands and their brotherhood of nations. As she signs off, she glances up to see Philip give a nod of approval. Her first live television appearance was word perfect, mission accomplished.

The Queen breaks into a genuine smile of happiness, and perhaps some relief, as the lights fade and the credits roll. Her televised Christmas message is such a success that it becomes an annual event. As the decades pass and TV stars rise to fame and fall into obscurity, Elizabeth II reigns victorious over the small screen. For many, what becomes colloquially known as the Queen's Speech is a ritual part of a British Christmas. Families across the country and the Commonwealth plan their dinners around her 3pm broadcast. By the 1980s, her audience reaches a peak of 28 million live viewers,

half the British population. In 1992, the dark year that sees marital strife of three of her four children and a devastating fire at Windsor Castle, there is so much public interest that details of the speech are leaked to the press. Five years later, her broadcast once again harnesses new technology to go live on the internet for the first time, following the sudden death of Diana, Princess of Wales. In 2021, millions tune in to commiserate with the Queen as she spends her first Christmas without her husband. But even this, her 69th address, focuses on change, the watchword of a reign that has survived conflicts, crises, scandals, and the dismantling of the British Empire. For 70 years, the Queen has been the calm eye of the storm both personally and politically but how does

elizabeth ii lead a monarchy through a constant battle to maintain its relevance justify its privilege and connect with its people what do we want from a 21st century queen After the longest reign in world history, what is the legacy of Elizabeth II? I'm Paul McGann, and this is The Second in a two-part series to mark the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, a short history of Elizabeth II. It's the 21st of April, 1947. The birthday of Princess Elizabeth, heir to the throne of the United Kingdom. As she turns 21, she's on tour in South Africa with her father, King George VI, and her mother and sister. The royal family is staying at Government House house a beautiful white colonial building in Cape Town

Elizabeth takes a stroll through the gardens with her father It's a warm day the Sun dappled by shady trees Maybe later she can relax or swim with Princess Margaret, but first she has a job to do. Technically, the King's eldest daughter is heir assumptive. If her parents had produced a son, he would take precedence. But now that her mother is aged 47, Elizabeth is being groomed for the throne. Her father has been mentoring her for years. Struggling himself with the speech impediment, he knows only too well the importance of appearing assured and confident.

His daughter made her first radio broadcast at the age of fourteen. Today she will again address the Empire, an audience of some half a billion people. As they walk, father and daughter rehearse her speech. Written by a trusted journalist, the words are not Elizabeth's own, but they capture her sentiments. Little does she know that the pledge she is about to make will define her life and her reign. Elizabeth settles at a small mahogany table

that has been placed incongruously on the lawn. It holds only a microphone and a sheet of paper. The princess picks up her speech and waits for her cue. She thanks the people of South Africa for a warm welcome, then gets to the crux of her message. But through the inventions of science with the whole empire listening i should like to make that dedication now it is very simple i declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong. But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it

with me, as I now invite you to do. I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow. And God bless all of you who are willing to share in it. Ten years after she makes that career-defining promise in South Africa, her father, the king, is gone. Elizabeth is queen. She's married with children of her own. She's made good on her vow to serve,

proving that she has the strength of character to put duty ahead of family, even if it means preventing her sister Margaret from marrying the man she loves. Often she leaves her own children behind to travel to all corners of the Commonwealth. In the past few years alone she has visited Kenya, Nigeria, Canada, Bermuda, Jamaica, Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon, the list goes on. Plus, there are engagements the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. The Queen has even continued the tradition started by the beloved grandfather she called Grandpa England of speaking on the radio every Christmas. So it comes as a nasty shock in August 1957 when Queen Elizabeth hears a man on the television accuse her of being out of touch. Lord Altrincham, a young conservative politician, launches a scathing attack. He criticizes the Queen's court for representing only a small aristocratic minority

when it should reflect the whole Commonwealth and every section of society. Worse, he says that when she is speaking in public, the Queen sounds like a priggish schoolgirl. The public responds furiously. One man immediately defends the Queen's honour by slapping Lord Altringham around the face as he leaves the television studio. Later, the peer will drop his title, insisting, even as he does, that he only wanted to help the monarchy to survive. But behind the scenes of the palace, there is an acknowledgement of the truth in his criticism. As a child, the Queen never went to school or mixed with children of other classes. Even when Elizabeth served during the war, she went home at night rather than sleep in the barracks.

The royals were not raised to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi. The Queen accepts the need for change. So, later that year, she delivers her Christmas speech for the first time via the popular new medium of television. In 1958, she puts an end to the debutante ball, the annual event where upper-class young women are presented to the Queen before being allowed to join high society. And soon, people from all walks of life are invited to attend garden parties

at the palace in recognition of their good works. But television and public appearances only allow a curated view of the monarch. Her royal mystique is all part of the magic. Even after seventy years we rarely get an insight into her personal life or private thoughts. So how well do we really know Elizabeth II? Dr. Tracey Borman is a royal historian and author of the book Crown and Scepter. The great irony is that we know a lot less about our current queen and the person behind the crown than we do say about her Tudor namesake, Elizabeth I, whose thoughts and feelings are out there. They are in the recorded notes of

ambassadors, they are in her speeches, they're in her private remarks, and yet we have so few of those for Elizabeth II. The British Constitution states that the monarch must remain neutral on political matters. Her 70-year reign has seen seismic social change. The queen is one of the most powerful women in the world, a head of state who has outlived countless male peers. She grew up in an era of feminist awakening. But is Elizabeth II an advocate of women's rights?

Dr Tessa Dunlop is a historian and author of The Army Girls. What we do know about the Queen, given that she's politically muzzled and is very clever to stay out of any kind of political conversation, which one about the role of women is, what we do know is that she's a product of a generation that didn't demand change, but did help facilitate change. And her role as queen was part of that. For a generation of girls, we grew up with a queen as our head of state, and for many of us with a female prime minister. Now, whether those two women really believed in sex equality, it's almost irrelevant because the symbolism is what's

important in those instances. There is this idea in 1952, 53, when she comes to the throne of this unimpeachable, beautiful princess in a golden carriage. Because she's young and because she's female, it felt a little bit progressive as well. There's a wonderful article written by Margaret Roberts, who's going to later become Margaret Thatcher, saying, you know, if we can have a young queen, girls, we can also leave the house and get working. Feminist icon or not, there is no doubt that Queen Elizabeth is a woman of influence, whose supporters are quick to mimic her personal tastes. The British are famously a nation of animal lovers, and the Queen is no exception.

She becomes especially known for her corgis. Her father, King George VI, first brings home a corgi called Dookie in 1933. Princess Elizabeth loves the pet so much that she receives her own puppy called Susan for her 18th birthday. Susan even accompanies Elizabeth and Philip on their honeymoon. As her own family grows with the arrival of Prince Charles in 1948, she decides to also start a corgi line of succession. From Susan, she breeds two dogs called Sugar and Honey, who are pets for Charles and his sister, Princess Anne. Sugar becomes a poster girl in her own right,

featuring on the cover of the Australian Woman's Weekly in 1959. The Queen goes on to breed 14 generations from her first puppy, and the popularity of Corgi soars during her reign. The British Kennel Club recently reported a renewed interest in the breed, inspired by their frequent appearance on the TV show The Crown. But as Prince Charles has commented, the Queen's particular affinity is with horses. She learned to ride when she was three and still rode into her 90s.

The hobby develops into a serious business and the Queen becomes a respected owner of racehorses. In 2013, she is the first reigning monarch to breed the winner of the Royal Ascot Gold Cup. The Queen's first love is horses. They're not just her pets, they're also a hobby, a sport, a fascination for her. And that hobby, I really believe it sustained her. It gives her great, unadulterated pleasure. They're answerable to no one. It makes no difference that she's head of state or not. And she values her knowledge. She values her input and her input and her knowledge are valued. values, her input, and her input and her knowledge are valued. So this is something that is irrespective of her royal title, it's something that she meets individuals on at a level playing field.

It's a genuine interest. The Queen is also influential in her sense of style, like her royal ancestors, whose sartorial choices would ripple down through court and country. But as a working monarch, she is more concerned with appearances than fashion. While her wardrobe is practical, it's also deeply symbolic. She's said to prefer pastel or vibrant colours, so she can be easily spotted, believing that if people have come to see her, then she should make herself visible to them. And her outfits often carry subtle messages. Right from the start of her reign, her coronation dress is decorated with floral symbols of

the Commonwealth nations. As a head of state who is not allowed to express a political opinion, some claim she communicates in other ways. At the opening of Parliament in 2017, the Queen wears a blue hat with yellow flowers, the colours of the European Union flag. Some take this as a sign of her opposition to Brexit. It's hard to resist that particular one because the colours are bang on and the little yellow flowers look like the stars of the EU.

But that has been since refuted by the Queen's former dresser, whose book came out recently. So I don't know. But I think the Queen does use symbolism occasionally, and particularly in her manner of dress. There's something that's well known and accepted that's called diplomatic dressing. So just on a very basic level, if the queen visits a particular country, then perhaps the emblem of that country will be reflected somehow. But I can't help thinking, surely she must have been tempted to send out the occasional subtle message because it must be immensely frustrating for her to be symbolically head of state, and yet she can't express her opinions. The conspiratorial idea that the Queen sends subliminal messages in her attire perhaps reflects the fact that we never know what she really thinks.

Certainly, Elizabeth has demonstrated a steely determination throughout her life, including her young life. Now, that, I think, feels rather cool, kind of feisty, especially in a very young girl, which she was once upon a time. And it also feels wonderfully refreshing in an era where far too many old women are invisible and without a voice. It doesn't mean she's this great democratic or emotional or empathetic force, though. The gift of her never really speaking, of course, other than her scripted moments, is that we simply don't know what she's thinking. And that means we can project all our thoughts or ideas of what she should be thinking onto her. Though her personal opinions remain closely guarded,

the same cannot always be said of her home. In 1982, one man decides that he'd like to get to know this enigmatic queen a little better. It's June, and Michael Fagan is on the bus. Unemployed and virtually destitute, he has nowhere in particular to go that day, so he rides around, taking in the sights of central London. As the bus sweeps past Buckingham Palace, he studies the windows, hoping for a glimpse of Her Majesty. He doesn't notice that the Royal Standard is not flying that day, meaning the Queen is not in residence.

On a whim, Fagin rings the bell and the bus stops. He disembarks and walks back the way he came, alongside the iron railings that surround the palace gardens. But Fagin is a former army cadet. It's easy for him to climb over the 14-foot high wall. Once inside the gardens, he sprints across the grass to reach the palace. Unnoticed by guards, he shins up a drainpipe to reach an open window. Now inside the most famous home in the world, he wanders the corridors, finds a bottle of wine that he drinks, and sits on the throne.

When he's disturbed by a maid, he escapes out of a window. Back on the bus, Fagin decides to return when the Queen is in residence. That chance comes a month later. It's the 9th of July, 7 o'clock in the morning, when Fagin sneaks into the grounds the same way as before. Security is no tighter. Although the maid reported his previous break-in, the palace security didn't believe her account. This time Fagin sets off alarms as he enters the palace.

The guards assume there is a fault and do not react. The intruder makes his way to the royal apartment. In an ante-room, he accidentally smashes a glass ashtray and cuts his hand. Still clutching the broken fragment, he enters a bedroom. It's still early, and heavy curtains block out the summer sunlight. He tugs them aside. block out the summer sunlight. He tugs them aside. In the luxurious bed, a woman stirs, then sits up to see a man, a stranger, standing in the shadows. Blood is dripping down his fingers. He's holding some kind of weapon. The queen doesn't know this man, has never seen him before in her life.

He is unkempt, barefoot, and reeks of stale alcohol. He walks across the room to the edge of her bed. Calmly, he inspects his bleeding hand. He drops the glass when she asks him sharply what he's doing. Suddenly, Michael Fagan can't remember why he came. He is face to face with the most famous woman in the world, but can only focus foolishly on her liberty print nightdress. Her frightened expression. He too is terrified.

He cannot express the confusion of thoughts and frustrations that drove him here. That his wife has left him. That he lives in poverty. That modern Britain offers a man like him, who trained as a cadet in her army, little opportunity for self-improvement. That drugs and alcohol are an escape. Instead he stands there, bleeding, while the Queen presses a panic button. Fagin knows she's called for security, but he doesn't run, and neither does the Queen.

He stays there in her bedroom for seventeen minutes before anyone comes to help. Finally, when a footman returns from walking the Queen's dogs. He spots the alarm. He then calls two policemen and they remove Fagin, who goes calmly with them from the room. He is sent for psychiatric treatment, but later serves time in prison for separate drug offences. The Queen is praised for her cool-headedness when confronted by a man who turned out to be harmless but could easily have

been a killer. Only a year earlier, a wannabe assassin had fired six blank shots at her while she was riding on horseback during the Trooping of the Colour. On that occasion, she simply calmed her animal and rode on to complete the parade. This time, the lack of security that allowed Fagin to reach the Queen's bedroom is treated as a national scandal. Both incidents remind the public that, while she is a symbol of British values, Elizabeth is also a human being, vulnerable despite all the privilege. A decade after Michael Fagin breaks into the palace, a series of family events will result in the Queen making public her vulnerability once again.

The year 1992 is a horrible year of personal challenges that overshadow her ruby jubilee. What should have been a celebration of 40 years on the throne instead focuses on marital strife and ends in disaster. In a speech at London's Guildhall on the 24th of November 1992, the Queen speaks with characteristically dry understatement. 1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an annus horribilis. In March of that year, her second son, Prince Andrew, separates from his wife. In April, her daughter, Princess Anne, separates from her husband. In April, her daughter, Princess Anne, separates from her husband. June sees the publication of a tell-all book,

in which Princess Diana claims Prince Charles had always been in love with another woman. In August, the British tabloid newspapers double down on royal scandals. First, they print topless photos of Prince Andrew's former wife, Sarah, Duchess of York. Then, a report by an investigative journalist causes intense embarrassment for the palace. On New Year's Eve 1989, an amateur radio enthusiast somehow managed to tune in and record private telephone calls between Diana, Princess of Wales, and a childhood friend called James Gilbey. During these private conversations, the Queen's daughter-in-law described feeling tortured by life inside the royal family.

But, most titillating, is the fact that over 50 times, Gilbey uses a pet name for Diana, calling her Squidgey. It's not until 1992, that darkest of years, that what becomes known as Squidgeygate hits the British tabloids, but when it does, it electrifies the public. The newspaper responsible for breaking the story sets up a premium-rate phone line, allowing anyone to ring in and listen to all 30 minutes of the conversation. As the scandal develops, the royal household and even the government are dragged into its orbit. It's claimed that the recordings may have been part of a conspiracy,

an attempt to smear the reputation of the princess. Maybe it proves the Secret Service have been tapping phone lines at Sandringham. Whatever the truth at its core, Squidgeygate casts a long, humiliating shadow on the entire family. Later in the year, after months of speculation, Charles and Diana announce their separation. But even after this, the year has more in store for the Queen. It's 11.30 in the morning of the 20th of November 1992. Close to the River Thames, west of London,

the Queen's official residence at Windsor is the largest inhabited castle in Europe. Today, though, she is elsewhere. Down in the Queen's private chapel, builders have been carrying out renovations. They use ultra-bright spotlights with 100-watt bulbs to carry out intricate restoration. One of these lights has been left hanging beside a curtain. There is no one in the chapel when the hot bulb starts to singe the fabric.

No one smells the first wisps of smoke as threads catch alight. No one feels the burst of heat as flame ignites and races up the silk hanging. Within minutes, a torch thirty feet high sends sparks into the exposed timbers of the roof. Built in 1842, the chapel has no modern building controls, no fire breaks. By the time the flames are noticed, the blaze is out of control. The workmen do their best with fire extinguishers, but it's already far too late. Windsor Castle, though, is no ordinary family home. At over 900 years old and spanning 13 acres of land, it has its own 20-person fire brigade.

Now in the control room near the stables two miles from the fire, a light flashes on a map of the castle. The chief officer immediately dispatches his units Land Rover and water pumping gear, but as the seconds pass, more and more lights illuminate in front of him, and he knows his equipment is not going to be enough. Inside the castle there is not a moment to lose. As they await the fire services from the local town of Reading and reinforcements from London, everyone who can lends a hand. Human chains are formed to pass priceless artwork and antiques

out of the path of the fire. But before long, the intense heat forces them outside. The Queen is informed and drives straight to Windsor. By the time she arrives at 3 p.m., the ceilings are starting to collapse. Remarkably, most of the treasures are saved, including 300 clocks, reams of historical manuscripts, the 150-foot Waterloo dining table, and a collection of drawings by Leonardo da Vinci. The only items lost from the Royal Collection are those that are simply too big to remove A four metre high painting that is fixed to a wall

The chapel's organ The chandeliers As darkness falls, the fire is contained inside the octagonal Brunswick Tower From which a fifty foot column of flame lights up the night sky It takes hundreds of firefighters fifteen hours to extinguish it from which a 50-foot column of flame lights up the night sky. It takes hundreds of firefighters 15 hours to extinguish it. But as the smoke clears, a public debate gathers momentum. Who should pay for the repairs to Windsor Castle?

A royal palace is too valuable to insure, and there are estimates of a £60 million bill. The castle is owned by the state, not the monarch, but many feel that the Queen should pay out of her own wealth. As one of the richest women in the world, Elizabeth Windsor's private real estate portfolio includes Sandringham and Balmoral Castle in Scotland. She receives a private annual income of some 20 million pounds from the Duchy of Lancaster estate. And then there is jewellery. Although the crown jewels are owned by the state, the Queen's private collection is considered to be priceless. Individual necklaces and tiaras with historical significance are worth up to a million pounds each. The Royal Collection,

the largest privately owned art collection in the world, comprises over a million items. There are also racehorses and a stamp collection that includes every British stamp ever issued, including the very rarest and most valuable. Following the Windsor Castle fire, the Crown recognises the risk of a backlash against the monarch if the repairs were to be funded by the public purse. So instead, the Queen launches a fundraising drive, which kicks off with a £2 million donation of her own. Public pledges raise 30% of the necessary funds.

Needing to make up the shortfall, the crown turns to its assets. When Buckingham Palace opens to the public, profits from the £8 entrance fee go towards restoration costs. But the financial restructuring goes further than just repairs to the castle. In 1993, the Queen also starts to pay tax on her private income and informs some members of her family that they are no longer funded by the civil list. I think that's something that

really did strike a chord with lots of people because one of the foremost arguments of Republicans is that, you know, how much it costs, how much the monarchy actually costs the Britishish people so the fact the queen has reduced that burden i think was sparked by a lot of the events of 1992 by the winds of fire but also by the scandals the marital scandals of her family which was really causing people to question what value for money are we getting from this royal family so that's something i think she's been very conscious of. And that's a change that will continue. I think we'll continue to see a streamlining of the royal family so that less of it is a burden to the public purse. Five years later, in 1997, the repairs at Windsor are completed, and that castle also opens to the public. But while the palace rises phoenix-like from the flames,

that year will prove to be the most incendiary yet for the Queen. It is August 30th, 1997. At 9.30 in the evening, a woman with shiny blonde hair and a tuxedo-style black jacket is captured on security cameras entering the Ritz Hotel in Paris. She is Diana, Princess of Wales, heading to the Les Padons restaurant with her date, Dodi Al-Fayed. His father owns the hotel. The couple have come here tonight because the venue for their planned dinner date is already besieged by paparazzi. Diana's relationship with the playboy son of an Egyptian millionaire is the latest scandal to hit the British royal family. The press are obsessed with every sighting of the glamorous couple. Though she has been separated from Prince Charles for five years

and divorced for just one, between her charity work and her complicated love life, barely a week goes by without her face appearing on a front page. After the meal, Diana and two men slip out of the back door of the Ritz to avoid the crowds that have gathered at the entrance. Shortly after midnight, she climbs into the rear of a waiting Mercedes-Benz with her boyfriend. Her bodyguard, Trevor Rhys-Jones, gets in the front. He is the only one to put on a seatbelt. A third man is driving, a security guard from the Ritz called Henri Paul.

Thanks to the whiskey and beer he's been drinking, his blood alcohol level is three times the French legal driving limit, and the antidepressant Prozac is in his system too. Even so, he sets off at speed to evade photographers. Only two minutes into the journey, Henri Paul spots paparazzi. Suddenly, motorcycles surround them, weaving around the vehicle. Diana slides down into her seat. Henri Paul accelerates into the Pont d'Alma tunnel alongside the Seine.

At 23 minutes past midnight, he glances in the rearview mirror. The paparazzi bikes can't keep up with the high-powered Mercedes. When he looks back at the road, it's just in time to see a concrete pillar in his path. The car hits it, head on. When the emergency crews arrive, they find a scene of devastation among the twisted remains of the vehicle. Two of the four are already dead,

Dodi Al-Fayed and Henri Paul. Two others, a woman and a man, are pulled from the wreckage and taken to hospital. But while the bodyguard survives, the surgeons are unable to save the last passenger. At 4am French time, Diana, Princess of Wales, is pronounced dead. She was just 36 years old. is pronounced dead. She was just 36 years old. Across the Channel in Britain, the news breaks as people are waking up on a national holiday. There is an immediate and overwhelming reaction. Diana's former husband, Prince Charles, travels at once to Paris to accompany her body back

to the UK. In London, the first mourners arrive at Kensington Palace before dawn. On the same day, bouquets are left outside Buckingham Palace too. What starts as a few floral tributes soon becomes a great sea of colour, an unprecedented spontaneous memorial. It's estimated that 60 million flowers are laid outside the palaces over the next week. But there is outrage when the Queen decides to stay in Balmoral rather than come down to London. Grieving visitors to Buckingham Palace complain that a flag is not being flown at half-mast. Though the world standard only flies when the Queen is in residence,

at a time like this, the public care little for protocol. The absence of this traditional symbol of mourning is interpreted as a slight on the dead princess. Grief turns to fury, which is projected at the Queen. I think there have been ebbs and flows in the Queen's relationship with the public. So it hasn't been just a steady continuum of growing respect and affection.

There have been crises in that relationship and I would point particularly to the death of Princess Diana in 1997 when that dealt such a blow to the monarchy that people predicted it would be the end. The Queen remains hundreds of miles away in Scotland, where she helps to console Diana's young sons. So it falls to Britain's new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to capture the public mood. A few hours after the tragedy, he scribbles a hasty speech on the back of an envelope as television crews start to arrive in his hometown. When he speaks to the cameras, he calls Diana the People's Princess.

His approval rating soars as the Queen's goes into decline. Queen's goes into decline. Diana's funeral on September 6, 1997, is watched by an estimated 2.5 billion people. Though the Queen has by now returned to Buckingham Palace and spoken publicly of her grief, for many mourners, it's too little too late. The front page of a national newspaper prints a picture of Queen Elizabeth with the headline,

Show Us you care. Diana almost brought the monarchy to its knees. There was this huge backlash really against the royal family even before Diana's death because of the years of suffering her husband's infidelity and then the bulimia and the sort of mental health issues that Diana had suffered as a result of her role in the royal family. And people sympathised with that. And it was a sense things had to change. We couldn't go through another Charles and Di catastrophe.

And so I think even though, of course, it didn't lead to the end of the monarchy, it did change things. And I think the royal family finally woke up to the fact they had to somehow find ways of being more accessible, more relatable. The death of Diana highlights a contradiction. During her lifetime she's often condemned for speaking candidly about her marital strife and infidelities, accused of airing dirty laundry

in a way unbecoming of a royal. But when the Queen remains at Balmoral to care for her bereaved grandsons in private, she is criticised for her silence. The public demands the royal mystique and dignity shown by the Queen, but also the authenticity and relatability shown by Diana. Is it possible for one monarch to give all that? We want them to reflect us, but they also need to be sort of special and different. As Britain has shrunk and issues of nationhood have become more conflicted, at the same time, the family, if you like, has shrunk. The symbolism of it has changed.

So while their political significance has declined, along with the decline of Britain and the decline of the Commonwealth, politically and globally, what you've seen is instead the royal family acquiring a sort of celebrity sheen, a soap opera narrative that's been emboldened by Hollywood and Netflix and tabloids, and that wasn't around even 30, 40 years ago, really. Many commentators say that the days following Diana's death make up the worst week in the long reign of Elizabeth II. But there is also anger directed at the media, as it becomes apparent that the aggressive methods of the paparazzi

played a key role in the accident that killed the beloved Diana. Her death prompts the Crown to establish new grounds for a symbiotic relationship between palace and press. I would say the press has long since replaced Parliament as the greatest threat the monarchy has ever faced. It's all about the media and how that dictates public opinion of the monarchy has ever faced. It's all about the media and how that dictates public opinion of the monarchy and that is a tortuously difficult relationship to get right for the crown. And it was really during Elizabeth II's reign that we saw this intense scrutiny develop. During the 1980s in

particular, this is when you get the first stirrings of trouble in the marriage between Prince Charles and Princess Diana. And there was one very famous newspaper who I won't name, but whose editor said something along the lines of, give me a royal story. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, just give me the story. And that was really the kind of blueprint, I think, for the relationship between the press and the monarchy. But without the conservative press, and the Queen understands this, there is no real heartbeat to the monarchy. They need that puff.

Remember, they gave up their political power hundreds of years ago. It's about being popular. It's about embodying a national sentiment. After a reign of 70 years, there is still a global fascination with the royal family and its matriarch. The television show The Crown, which fictionalises key moments in Elizabeth II's life, has been viewed by some 73 million households worldwide. Even now, the Queen is one of the UK's foremost cultural exports. In 2015, Elizabeth II becomes the world's longest reigning monarch, surpassing Queen

Victoria, her great-great-grandmother. A year later, in 2016, there is another shift in the House of Windsor, when the Queen's grandson, Prince Harry, confirms his relationship with the American actor Meghan Markle. Instantly media and public interest spirals to a Diana-like frenzy, again highlighting the line between royalty and celebrity. And I think this blurring of royalty and celebrity is something that we've seen increasingly ever since Diana came onto the scene. And certainly it's the case today. But it very much depends on the member of the royal family

that you're talking about. I think the Queen, you couldn't describe her as a celebrity. She is the monarch. She herself, I don't think, would ever see herself as a celebrity by any means. They're famous, but does that make them celebrities? I think people like Diana and Megan much more so than the sort of more traditional members of the royal family. But yeah, I think this is something we're going to see a continuing trend towards. And it's something to be very cautious about, I would say, if you're a member of the royal family. I think it was Sir David Attenborough who said, never let the tribe inside the chieftain's hut because if you see inside it too much,

the further you go along the corridors of the palace, the more threadbare the carpets become. So I think there's got to be a bit of a dividing line, really, between monarchy and celebrity. Otherwise, it all gets a little bit too dangerous for the future of the monarchy. There is great public sympathy for the Queen when her husband Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, dies on the 9th of April 2021. He is age 99 and only two months short of his 100th birthday. He's aged 99 and only two months short of his 100th birthday.

There is a period of national mourning, but amid COVID restrictions, his funeral is a muted affair. A poignant image of Queen Elizabeth sitting alone at Westminster Abbey dominates the newspapers as she bids farewell to the husband she once described as her strength and her stay. As a partnership, it really worked. I think it took a while for Prince Philip to carve out a role for himself. And I think the crown accurately portrays his frustration at first, that, you know, who am I? What am I as a consort? In an age where men were supposed to rule the household, really, but of course that couldn't happen.

But he did develop a very active and a very valuable role as well, but also a supporting role. And I think the Queen feels the absence of that very, very keenly. There was a new vulnerability about the Queen, I think, in the wake of Prince Philip's death. And we saw that with that famous image that went across the world of her sitting in St. George's Chapel at the funeral, all alone, thanks to Covid, really, and the restrictions. But there was definitely a sense of her isolation, more generally, I think, after Philip's death. Adding to the Queen's sense of isolation is the necessity to publicly distance herself from her second son, Prince Andrew, in the run-up to her Platinum Jubilee.

her second son, Prince Andrew, in the run-up to her platinum jubilee. The Duke of York steps back from royal duties, following accusations of sexual impropriety with a minor and his close relationship to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Though the man once dubbed the Playboy Prince denies all allegations and settles out of court, the stain he leaves on his family is indelible, and he's moved away from his mother's side. Similarly, the Queen's grandson Prince Harry gives up his position as a senior royal after a series of high-profile run-ins with the British media. Even after seventy years on the throne, the recent crises once again highlight the pressure on the Queen to balance family and duty. From the revelation of Princess Margaret's affair all those years ago at the coronation, to the question mark over the attendance of two close family members at the Jubilee, the Queen's reign is bracketed by scandalous affairs of the heart.

In 2022, Elizabeth II celebrates 70 years on the throne. She's already put in a record-breaking shift, but she's the oldest reigning monarch in British history too, the most travelled and the most famous. She's also a queen whose constitutional power was diminished long before her coronation. power was diminished long before her coronation. Her role is to exist as a figurehead, a symbol of British values that no one can easily define. And she is the thread that connects the 54 Commonwealth countries. As head of state, the Queen has led the country through an era of unprecedented change. Though she has been a source of reassuring consistency, unlike her more dramatic ancestors, she has worn her power lightly. So how will Queen Elizabeth II be remembered by history?

What is the legacy of this queen? She will be remembered for really carving out a key role for the monarchy in philanthropy. Now, that is nothing new. You can date that back to at least the 18th century when the monarchy starts to play a charitable role. But Elizabeth II has taken that to another level. She's patron of more than 600 charities. But I think one of the really revolutionary things the Queen has done is to bring equality into the royal succession for the first time. So in 2011, it was thanks to her that finally the law changed. And now the crown passes to the firstborn child, whether they are male or female. And that is a huge thing. That's the first

time in more than a thousand years that finally women have equal rights with men in the royal succession. One of her most potent attributes is actually her survival. She has come so far. She has been with us every step of the way. She ties us back to an era we now talk about in sort of revered terms, like a sort of fantasy land, World War II, the Blitz, Churchill. The Queen belongs to that era. She is the ultimate time traveller. I think she's never been more secure in terms of her position and popularity as she has been in extreme old age when, of course, she's never been more frail. Again, there's another contradiction there. There are so many contradictions, which is why the prism of the Queen is never-endingly fascinating,

because it's this pull from the private and the public, the institutional and the emotional. It's never-ending. Thanks for listening to this final episode of Season 2. If you've enjoyed our podcast, check out the other titles from the Noiser Network, including Real Outlaws, History Daily, and the award-winning Real Dictators. If you're enjoying Noiser podcasts and would like to hear them without adverts, join Noisa Plus today. As well as add free listening to Noisa originals including Real Outlaws, Real Dictators, Short History Of, and History Daily,

you'll get bonus content and early access to new episodes. Start your free trial today with Noisa Plus.