Monarchy in Crisis

Five years later, at approximately 1 a.m. 31 August 1997, Elizabeth was woken by a phone call which brought some tragic news. Princess Diana, whose divorce from Charles had been finalized the previous year, had been involved in a car crash in Paris.

Details were sketchy, and the hour or two that followed saw a torrent of conflicting reports emerge. No sooner had it been reported that the Princess had survived relatively unscathed than another account suggested that her life hung in the balance. Finally, just before 4 a.m., it was confirmed that Diana had died from her injuries. Although shocked and appalled by the untimely and violent death of her erstwhile daughter-in-law, Elizabeth’s immediate concern was for Diana’s sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, who were aged fifteen and twelve at the time. Determined that the boys should be protected as much as possible from the media frenzy that would undoubtedly ensue, she resolved that the family should remain cloistered at Balmoral – where they had been holidaying – until the funeral.

Meanwhile, as a saddened British public awoke to the news, they tried in vain to make sense of the tragedy, and failing to do so, began looking for somebody to blame. With the difficult divorce still at the forefront of people’s minds, it wasn’t long before attention turned to the Royal Family, and in particular, to the Queen herself.

During the next few days, the prevailing sentiment suggested that if Elizabeth had done more to try to prevent the divorce, perhaps Diana would still be alive. Indeed, if she had not lost her royal protection officers after the divorce, reasoned the distraught masses, the accident might well have been avoided. Another bone of contention lay in the fact that there was no flag flying at half-mast over Buckingham Palace. While royal protocol dictated that, when the Queen is not in residence, there should be no flag flying on the Palace mast, the majority of the British public nowinterpreted the absence of the Royal Standard as a deliberate snub against the Princess.

And so it went on. Each day, more criticism was levied against the Queen as an aggrieved public, egged on by a hysterical media, warmed to their theme. Unfortunately, the situation was not helped by the monarch’s perceived coldness – Elizabeth had never been comfortable with public displays of emotion, and this, combined with her decision to remain at Balmoral, only seemed to confirm the truth of the nation’s accusation that their Queen was cold, unfeeling and unconcerned by Diana’s death. Finally, five days after the accident, and after an intervention from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the Queen realized the extent to which she had underestimated the nation’s anger. Agreeing to return to London to face an accusing public, she was also persuaded to go against protocol and soon the Union Flag was fluttering forlornly at half-mast above Buckingham Palace.

Did these measures come too late? Had the preceding week, with all its ugly headlines and bitter recriminations, damaged the Queen’s reputation beyond repair? Had the reign of Elizabeth II had finally lost its lustre? Well, for a short time at least, it had. The antagonism felt by a significant proportion of British public towards their monarch was tangible, and gravely undermined her position. But, once again, the nation’s enduring affection for the Queen meant that any mutinous sentiment that had been festering in her absence began to dissipate when she arrived back in London.

Indeed, the sight of this elderly woman bravely facing her hostile subjects as she walked among the mourning masses that had gathered outside Buckingham Palace, reminded the nation of all that is admirable in their Queen – and slowly but surely, the subversive mood evaporated. Elizabeth had faced down an unprecedented revolt against her reign – and survived.

If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@erenow.org. Thank you!