Several newspapers also printed fake reports of the events around the Queen’s deathbed. The Press Association news agency put out a spurious interview with one of the physicians attending the Queen, while one illustrated newspaper published a sketch of a touching death-bed reconciliation between Victoria and her grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. Court officials were assiduous in tracking down those responsible for these fabrications. With access to all messages sent from Osborne, they were able to confirm which reports had been invented. At least two correspondents promptly found themselves recalled to their newspaper’s offices after the intervention of courtiers. All these incidents of journalistic sharp practice were widely commented upon, accentuating Victoria’s death as a media event.

The growth of a mass media helped to maintain the royal family as an overarching yet intimate presence. Like a Russian doll, the icon of Victoria was made up of countless different smaller versions. Her status as national and imperial figurehead and her promotion as the Mother of her People, have to be understood in relation to the growth of different media. In terms of the media making of the monarchy, Victoria and Albert set precedents that continue to play an important role in defining the representation of the royal family today. Subsequently the media were assimilated into practices that they had first established. Thus, whereas Victoria and Albert’s royal tours were broadcast via the new illustrated press, the imperial tours of their children and grandchildren received comparably novel coverage from the new cinematograph. Important 20th century continuations of this relationship include the first Christmas Day radio broadcast by George V in 1932; the televising of the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953; and the royal wedding of Prince Charles to Lady Diana Spencer, in 1981.

by Laura Clark

Daily Mail, August 5, 2004

The past seems to be something of a closed book to many young Britons. William the Conqueror, for example, may have changed the course of our history in 1066, but he remains largely a mystery man.

In a survey, almost half of 16 to 24-year-olds could not identify him as the victor of the Battle of Hastings.

Amazingly, more than one in five believed it was Alexander the Great and 13 per cent said it was Napoleon.

The BBC poll, published today, also reveals that less than half of the young Britons knew Sir Francis Drake fought in the English fleet against the Spanish Armada. One in five believed the hero of England’s victory in 1588 was Christopher Columbus. And the same number thought it was either Horatio Hornblower or Gandalf – both fictional characters.

The findings left education campaigners aghast at young people’s lack of knowledge about their nation’s past.

Ignorance, however, was not entirely confined to the younger age groups. The survey of 1,000 Britons from 16-year-olds to pensioners uncovered glaring gaps in many people’s knowledge of key historical events that shaped our history.

They may have given us our calendar, our roads, the first modern toilet and contributed to our language, but one in five Britons were unaware the Romans ever came here at all.

One in ten 16 to 24-year-olds actually thought Britain was conquered by Germany.

And despite this year’s widespread coverage of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, a third of respondents failed to answer a basic question about the Second World War.

Just 69 per cent knew the Battle of Britain took place during the 1939–45 conflict, with the figure dropping to 51 per cent among 16 to 24-year-olds.