Edexcel History Part B Royal Family Essay

Do you apply with the encounter that the briny resultant role of increase media reporting of the empurpled family from the mid-seventies in front was to persecute the depict of the monarchy? There is evidence to send word that the important core of increase media insurance reporting of the over-embellished family from the 1970s onwards was to harm the fancy of the monarchy. However there is similarly a graphic symbol to argue that increasing media coverage of the purplish family had other material effects. blood 15 supports the view that the master(prenominal) effect of increasing media coverage of the munificent family from the 1970s onwards was to ravish the forecast of the monarchy when it says the slapstick gameshow Its a imperial unvoiced, which many members of the lofty family took dowery in seriously dented their haughtiness the nation was non amused, which suggests the volume of Britain lost extol for the august family as a result of media coverage. This is support in start 16 when it says We hope the Windsors and their advisors argon watching the mood on the streets and breeding from it, which implies that the purplish family should be c atomic number 18ful how they exertion so they do not drift off any further respect from the public. acknowledgment 17 in like manner supports the view the main effect of increasing media coverage of the violet family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy when it talks ab break a date of uncertainty. This suggests that due to the function of the media, mass were uncertain of how to view the purplish family, as they were radical to be portrayed as less high up in society, and and so commanding less respect. This is support in initiation 15, which says their magic began to reflux. This implies that although a certain amount of respect remained for the royal family, they were beginning to be seen as less remarkable to the British public. Events mu ch(prenominal) as Its a Knock away were aattempts at modernising the relationship between the royal family and the slew of Britain, but they reduced the mystique of the family and decay respect. Source 17 contradicts the view that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy when it says that two programmes about the lives of the monarchy were two of the exs biggest televisual events suggesting that one significant effect of the increasing media coverage was to increase the elicit and awareness of the royal family.Previously, apart from fagot Elizabeth IIs coronation in 1953, there was little knowledge of the lives of the monarchy, and much(prenominal)(prenominal) media coverage meant that spate could find out more about them, and see that they are actually normal people. This would allow any(prenominal) relation between ordinary people and the royal family, perhaps gaining them some popular ity. This is support in source 15 which says they could express joy at themselves, suggesting the royal family were increasingly world seen as regular, fun-loving people just care everyone else. This is a stark contrast to how they would wealthy person been viewed in previous years, as they were viewed by the public as more traditional, traditionalist and perhaps even dull. Source 16 contradicts the view that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy when it says that the royal family experience grasped the lesson of Dianas popularity, implying that the royal familys reputation is not being ruined by media coverage and alternatively that it is increasing their popularity.This is supported in source 17 which says the monarchy was understood respected as Britains virtually prestigious institution also suggesting that the royal familys reputation had not been alter by media coverage, they h ad just become more popular and maintained their prestigious posture in the meantime. From 1981 onwards there was broad media interest in Diana, Princess of Wales. This has a mostly negative impact on the royal family, supporting the view that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy. non only did it reduce respect for the royal family, making them more into celebrities than well-respected figures, it also arguably led to the death of Princess Diana. The Princess of Wales died in a car crash whilst being chased b ya car full of paparazzi. This tragical event is a perfect ensample of how the image of the monarch ywas damaged by increased media interest they were no long-run really seen as real people, allow alone respected. Newspaper articles about them were tremendously sensationalised and focused on scandals, rather than trying to maintain the high status of the monarchy. For modelling , anticipate scandals amongst the royal family were widely reported.The Camillagate and Squidgygate stories concerned tape phone conversations that were evidence for extra-marital affairs, and were rather bright in parts. This led to a striking change in how many people saw the Windsor family. It gave people a rationalness to look down upon them, and people did not think members of the family should engage in such acts when they were supposed to be setting an example to the country. Another prime example of how media influence damaged the image of the royal family was when the purple Family failed to publically display their grief for the outrage of Diana. Previously, this would not defecate been a hassle but such was the extent of the media coverage of the royal family by this time, people were expecting to con from the Windsors about Dianas death. When a pith of grief did not come, people eyeshot the royal family were uncaring and rather out of touch with the public. In conclusion, I agree that the main effect of increasing media coverage of the royal family from the 1970s onwards was to damage the image of the monarchy. Source 15 argues this case by saying the royal family were beginning to acquire a negative, less elegant kind of glamour. This source is from a textbook, so it is likely that the information is sinless and unbiased, and thence instead useful as a source. However there is also evidence that increasing media coverage of the royal family had other significant effects, such as increasing the popularity of the royal family and interest in their lives. This keeps the royal family relevant to our society as a symbol of Britain, so it is quite important. As well as this more coverage of the private lives of the royal family would have allowed people to relate better to them, and therefore support them more.This is significant because a monarchy is much seen as useless in our circulating(prenominal) society, so for the royal family to continue live there needs to be ceaseless public support. This view is discussed in source 17 which says the monarch ywas stil lrespected as Britains most prestigious institution, suggesting media had optimistic effects on the royal family rather that just damaging their reputation. Source 17 is quite a reliable source as it is from a textbook, and seems to present quite a balanced view of the medias influence on the royal family. Source 16 on the other raft is less useful to either wrinkle and talks in quite a patronising way about the royal family, saying they hope the Windsors are culture from the mood on the streets. It is an editorial from the freelance newspaper, so may be sensationalised and therefore less accurate.