Later today, the King will address the nation, as he has annually since he acceded the throne in September 2022. This year’s is expected not only to be the most eagerly anticipated and arguably momentous speech that Charles has delivered, but also probably since his mother attempted to make some sense of the chaotic, grief-stricken events of 1997. The King will undoubtedly address his own health struggles, and almost certainly refer to those of his daughter-in-law, the Princess of Wales, as well. And then there are the issues of global conflict, a new prime minister and government, and, for light relief, his continued estrangement from his troublesome younger son.
At their best, the royals can be a force for national unity and timeless values
In previous eras, the monarch’s speech would be the unmissable highlight of the day, with its conclusion being the signal for present-opening and Christmas festivities to begin in earnest. It was first delivered by Charles’s great-grandfather George V in 1932 as a radio broadcast, before being televised for the first time in 1957. Since then, it has been aired every year, with the exceptions of 1959 and 1963 – when Elizabeth II was pregnant – and 1969, when the Firm was licking its wounds after the lukewarm reception of the (never again broadcast) candid documentary Royal Family. Other than that, it has been as much of a mainstay in British Christmases as turkey, Baileys and tumultuous family arguments. Yet do people really care as much as they used to?
Viewing figures give a mixed impression. The 1980 high watermark, when 28 million people watched the Queen’s speech, is unlikely ever to be reached again. Charles managed an impressive 8.1 million viewers in 2022, with another couple of million on catch up. Last year’s consolidated numbers worked out at around 10.7 million: the largest audience in 20 years, but still considerably lower than his mother’s heyday.
From a presentational perspective, it must be frustrating for the King – who is a far better and more natural performer in front of the camera than the late Queen ever was – to know that in an age of fragmenting audiences he is likely to be watched by fewer and fewer as the years go by. This time round, admittedly, curiosity and sympathy might see the numbers rise, but if next year – somehow – is less eventful, then the viewers may find watching it an inessential experience.
This is a great shame. Even if you are not a royalist, there is an undeniable sense of engagement and community engendered by the nation all sitting down together at 3 p.m. on Christmas Day and receiving the same message from their monarch. Nobody would ever expect a mic-drop moment from the address – there will be no sudden announcement of abdication, or seizure of dictatorial powers, or similar genuinely shocking revelation – but it is one of the few occasions in public life when the British people, so often buried in solipsistic screen time, can put their phone or tablet down and spend a few moments reflecting on a sense of shared identity. At their best, the royals can be a force for national unity and timeless values that we should at least acknowledge, if not wholly embrace; the age of families awkwardly standing for the National Anthem is probably long since past.
So how should the Christmas speech be transformed into a bigger deal? A cameo by Taylor Swift, perhaps, or some Elon Musk-funded technical wizardry? Both possibilities, both gimmicks. When families sit down this year to watch a 76-year old man, who has spent a considerable amount of 2024 in poor health, they will not require some technological or celebrity-led stunt to make the speech more interesting. Instead, if Charles delivers an affecting, personal address – as he has the past two years he has made it – it could go from being television to be tolerated to something uplifting and even unmissable. And if that resonates with his people, then it might end up being the greatest, and most unexpected, Christmas gift that he could offer.
Comments