Queen Elizabeth's image repair discourse: insensitive royal or compassionate queen?

INTRODUCTION

Our image, reputation, or face is vital to our social and emotional well-being. "Image" is the perception of a person (or group, or organization) held by others. One's image is influenced by one's own words and actions, as well as by the discourse and behavior of others. One's good name is very important to our emotional well-being, and having a positive reputation is very important in our dealings with others. Higgins and Snyder, for example, acknowledge that "people have a basic need to maintain positive images."(1) Threats to our reputation frequently compel us to attempt to repair our reputation: whenever we perceive that our image is at risk, we are inclined to take restorative action. Schlenker recognizes that predicaments can "damage" one's identity, "adversely affecting relationships" with others.(2) Accordingly, as Goffman explains, "When a face has been threatened, face-work must be done."(3) Face-work is persuasive discourse designed to restore a blemished image.

This phenomenon, motivation to repair a tarnished image, occurs throughout human behavior. Research has revealed that politicians,(4) corporations,(5) and sports/entertainment figures(6) all produce image restoration discourse when their image is threatened. But do Queens and other members of royalty need to concern themselves with the opinions of mere commoners?

The events following the death of Princess Diana - and the Royal family's response to suspicions, innuendo, and criticism - illustrate the claim that the need for public relations work is pervasive. Tragically, Diana, Princess of Wales, died of injuries sustained in an automobile accident in the early morning hours of Sunday, August 31, 1997. British citizens awoke Sunday morning to the shocking and completely unexpected news that Princess Diana was dead. In addition to explanations of the accident, the news media carried a brief statement issued by the Royal Family "confirming the death" of the Princess.(7)

While the Royal Family's initial public response to Diana's death may have been simple and muted, Britons responded with an enormous public demonstration of grief. Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, and Westminster Abbey became instant shrines to Diana's memory and were deluged with flowers, cards, candles, and other remembrances of her. Stereotypes of the staid Briton with the "stiff upper lip" were replaced by video images of them weeping over their loss, and waiting in long lines to sign the books of condolence.

Their grief, however, was soon mixed with increasing anger directed toward the Queen and her family. News stories and letters to The [London] Times editor began to reveal public displeasure with the Royal Family's lack of response to Diana's death. One critique focused on the Queen's lack of public display of grief, and as the British newspaper The Independent put it, "if only the royals dared weep with the people."(8) Did the Royal Family even care about Princess Diana's tragic death?

The more stinging rebuke, however, chastised the Queen for failing to acknowledge her subjects' overwhelming grief.(9) Public judgments of inadequacy were stoked by several events. First, the Queen remained isolated in Balmoral Castle, Scotland, during the first several days following Diana's death, emerging only once on Sunday morning to attend church services and displaying no outward sign of grief over this tragedy. As one writer put it, "It is not understandable, indeed inexplicable, why. . . members of the Royal Family. . . should not have left Balmoral and talked directly to people.(10) The belief was that the Queen and her family should acknowledge their subjects' feelings. Second, the lack of a Royal Standard or Union Jack flying over Buckingham Palace in London also symbolized the Queen's lack of sensitivity to her subjects' grief.(11) In the other residence in Scotland, the flag flew, but not at half mast. As The Times reported, "pictures of the Royal Standard flying at full-mast at Balmoral Castle . . . have further fueled a widespread feeling that the Royal Family is showing insufficient respect for the death of" Diana.(12) Although tradition holds that the Royal Standard is never flown at half-mast, even when a King or Queen dies, as The Times reported, Britons "were in no mood to observe the rules of royal protocol" regarding appropriate times for flying flags.(13) The clearest representations of public indignation were the headlines of London newspapers: "Your People Are Suffering. Speak to Us, Ma'am," "Where Is Our Queen? Where is Her Flag?," "Show Us You Care."(14) There was a widesprcad belief that the Royal Family was simply ignoring their subjects, creating a royal public relations nightmare.

According to the Queen's spokespersons she was genuinely hurt by the criticisms that suggested she was indifferent to Britons' suffering.(15) Nonetheless, the "ferocity" of the attacks(16) all but forced her to respond. Buckingham Palace "issued a statement acknowledging the enormous wave of public feeling for the Princess"(17) and several Royal Family members - including the Queen and Prince Philip - returned to London and engaged in a "burst of public activity" intended to communicate sympathy and solidarity.(18) In a significant break with Royal Protocol, the Queen also ordered the Royal Standard to fly at half-mast during Diana's funeral.

Even more remarkable than the decision to fly the Royal Standard at half-mast, however, was the Queen's agreement to address the British public on the evening before the funeral. As The Times put it, "The Palace has at last grasped the urgent need for a direct personal message."(19) In the United States we are accustomed to the President addressing the public frequently. This is decidedly not the case in England, where the Queen makes only two scheduled public addresses per year: the annual Christmas address and the Opening of Parliament. Indeed, in the 45 years since Queen Elizabeth ascended the British throne, she made only one other unscheduled public address to her subjects.(20) Further, while Britons certainly understood the importance of the Queen's address, television news anchors in the United States also "went out of their way to bridge the cultural gap and explain how historic the Queen's break with protocol was."(21) Queen Elizabeth's speech was thus an extraordinary response to the growing feeling of hostility among her subjects - and a clear signal of her concern over matters of public relations.

The circumstances leading to the public address Queen Elizabeth made on September 5, 1997, were virtually unprecedented. As Phillips explained, "The public and the press had so harshly scolded the royal family, and Queen Elizabeth in particular, for making no public expression. . . of its feelings that the Queen was forced to capitulate."(22) Thus, the address itself, designed to restore the Queen's damaged public image, deserves analysis to determine whether her response was appropriate and successful. The Royal Family is an institution that, like any corporation or other organization, must be concerned with public relations. However, rhetorical examinations of royal addresses are rare, perhaps owing to the infrequency with which these discourses occur. One of the few studies of this kind of situation is Ryan's evaluation of King Edward VIII's 1938 apologia following accusations by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin over Edward's decision to marry a commoner.(23) To analyze Queen Elizabeth's public relations effort we first explain the theory of image restoration discourse. Then we describe and analyze the Queen's discourse. Finally, we evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of her rhetorical response and discuss the implications of this analysis.

THEORY OF IMAGE RESTORATION DISCOURSE

The communication literature offers approaches to understanding image repair rhetoric.(24) Benoit's typology of image repair strategies synthesizes this material into a more comprehensive theory.(25) Because this typology has been described elsewhere we will briefly sketch the strategies available to rhetors here.

As Ryan correctly observes, image repair is best understood as a response to a prior attack (or to suspicions).(26) A persuasive attack has two key elements: (1) the accused must be seen as responsible for an act; (2) that act must be viewed as offensive by a salient audience.(27) Most of the rhetor's options stem directly from these two essential elements of an attack. There are five general forms of image repair, several with specific variants (see Table 1).

Denial

Simple denial has three forms. A person accused of wrong doing may deny that the offensive act occurred, deny that he or she committed the act, or deny that the act is harmful. Any of these forms of denial, if accepted by the audience, can help repair the rhetor's image. A related option is for the rhetor to attempt to shift the blame. If another person (or group, or organization) really committed the offensive act, the accused should not be blamed.

Evade Responsibility

Attempting to evade responsibility for the offensive act has four versions. One may claim the offensive act was a reasonable response to someone else's offensive act (usually an act of the alleged victim) and that this response is a reasonable reaction to that provocation. Defeasibility claims that the actor did not have the knowledge or ability to avoid committing the offensive act. One may also suggest that the offense occurred by accident. Fourth, the rhetor can explain that the act was performed with good intentions.

Reduce Offensiveness

One can attempt to reduce the apparent offensiveness of the act in six ways. First, a rhetor can bolster his or her image so as to strengthen the audience's positive feelings toward him or her, hopefully offsetting the negative feelings arising from the wrongful act. Minimization suggests that the act in question is not as offensive as it seems. Differentiation is an attempt to distinguish the act from other similar but more offensive actions. In comparison, the act performed by the rhetor may not seem so bad. Transcendence attempts to justify the act by placing it in a more favorable context. One accused of wrong doing could attack his or her accusers, to reduce the credibility of the accusations (or suggest the victim deserved what happened). Compensation offers to give the victim money, goods, or services to help mitigate the negative feelings toward the rhetor.

Corrective Action

Corrective action is a commitment to repair the damage from the offensive act. This can take two forms: restoring the state of affairs before the offensive act and preventing the recurrence of the offensive act.

Mortification

The last strategy is to admit committing the offensive act and to ask for forgiveness. A sincere apology may help restore the rhetor's image. With a basic understanding of the concepts that guided our analysis of the Queen's speech in hand, we can turn to discussing the fruits of our analysis.

QUEEN ELIZABETH'S IMAGE REPAIR EFFORT

The Queen's discourse(28) enacted four image repair strategies: two predominated (denial, bolstering), while two others played relatively minor roles (defeasibility, transcendence). We will discuss each strategy separately in this section.

Denial

First and foremost, the simple fact that the Queen gave this speech, unprecedented as it was, functioned to deny the accusation that the Royal Family did not care about Diana's death or about their subjects' feelings of grief. As such, this speech is an instance of rhetorical enactment.(29) As Campbell and Jamieson note, the fact that Barbara Jordan, an African-American woman, could be selected to give the keynote speech at a presidential nominating convention demonstrates that minorities have come a long way toward being integrated into the political mainstream. Similarly, the fact that Queen Elizabeth decided to give an unprecedented speech - before she ever spoke a word (or, as long as she wasn't offensive, almost regardless of what she said) - was a powerful rhetorical act expressing concern over Princess Diana and for her subjects' feelings. As in Campbell and Jamieson's explanation of Barbara Jordan's Democratic keynote, the sheer act of Queen Elizabeth delivering a speech on this topic "embodies the position she is arguing"(30); in this case, that position is that the Royal Family cares about Princess Diana and their subjects. Tradition-bound as the British monarchy is, surely it was not easy to make the decision to give such an unparalleled appearance. The British people could see on their televisions and hear on their radios that their Queen really did care about the Princess and about them and their feelings. The Queen was willing to break with tradition, to try something new, to reassure her subjects. This was a moment of high drama, and it functioned to deny the reproaches of the Royal Family.

Examination of the speech itself reveals that the Queen responded more directly to the criticisms. Several of her passages addressed the charge that the Royal Family did not care about Princess Diana's tragic death. The Queen characterized the news as "dreadful," thus revealing her attitude. She reassured her audience that she cared about the fallen Princess: "First, I want to pay tribute to Diana myself. She was an exceptional and gifted human being. In good times and bad, she never lost her capacity to smile and laugh, nor to inspire others with her warmth and kindness." Later, she explicitly declared that "I admired and respected her - for her energy and commitment to others, and especially for her devotion to her two boys." Similarly, Queen Elizabeth said, "I share in your determination to cherish her memory." These statements function directly to deny the accusations that the Royal Family was uncaring of Princess Diana.

Furthermore, the Queen set to rest suspicions that she did not care about her subjects' feelings. She was aware of the "overwhelming expression of sadness at Diana's death." The speech suggested that she and her subjects could share in the grieving process: "I hope that tomorrow we can all, wherever we are, join in expressing our grief at Diana's loss, and gratitude for her all-too-short life." Thus, the speech, in its specific details as well as being an unprecedented rhetorical act, directly denied the accusations directed toward the Royal Family.

Although not part of the address itself, the Queen's decision to lower the Royal Standard over Buckingham Palace to half-mast during Diana's funeral also functioned as a rhetorical act to deny charges of indifference. The Queen's actions communicated to her subjects that she cared about their perceptions of her, to the point of disregarding royal protocol.

Bolstering

Several passages in the message functioned to bolster the Queen's image. She assured her subjects of her sincerity, explaining, "What I say to you now, as your Queen and as a grandmother, I say from my heart." Queen Elizabeth revealed that the Royal Family had been at Balmoral to comfort Princess Diana's children: "This week at Balmoral, we have all been trying to help William and Harry come to terms with the devastating loss that they and the rest of us have suffered." She spoke directly to the bereaved viewers, thanking them for their outpouring of emotions for the entire Royal Family: "This is also an opportunity for me, on behalf of my family, and especially Prince Charles and William and Harry, to thank all of you who have brought flowers, sent messages, and paid your respects in so many ways to a remarkable person." These utterances function to display the Queen's, and the Royal Family's, heartfelt emotions, selfless motives, and gratitude, bolstering their image.

Defeasibility

Some of her audience might still have wondered why she didn't speak up sooner. At one point the Queen used the strategy of defeasibility to account for the lack of public response from the Royal Family. She explained, "It is not easy to express a sense of loss, since the initial shock is often succeeded by a mixture of other feelings: disbelief, incomprehension, anger - and concern for those who remain." Thus, these feelings - shock, disbelief, incomprehension, anger - were difficult to surmount, and are offered as an excuse for their initial rcaction, or lack thereof.

Transcendence

Finally, the Queen attempted to direct her viewers' attention toward a larger issue: the world's perception of the British people. She explained that this tragedy and Princess Diana's funeral "is a chance to show to the whole world the British nation united in grief and respect." This suggests that her subjects should band together to put on a united front to the rest of the world - rather than dwell on criticisms of the Royal Family. It gave them a reason to renew their bond with their monarch.

EVALUATION OF THE ROYAL IMAGE REPAIR EFFORT

We argue that this was a well-developed and appropriate response to the allegations and suspicions faced by the Royal Family. First, we believe the strategies are well chosen for this situation. It was incumbent upon the Queen to deny these charges. She couldn't simply offer an excuse or try to justify a lack of feelings for the Princess and her subjects. Denial was essential to this image repair effort. Furthermore, especially given growing concerns over the relevance and expense of the monarchy in recent years, it was appropriate for the Queen to bolster herself and the Royal Family in this address. Defeasibility is a potentially useful strategy, noting the interference of factors beyond one's control. Finally, attempting to transcend current events to focus on issues that were arguably more important is a plausible strategy. Other potential responses - like attempting to minimize the people's concerns, or attacking the Royal Family's accusers - were inappropriate and the Queen was wise to avoid them. Thus, we judge that the four strategies selected were appropriate.

A second issue is how well the strategies were operationalized in the discourse itself. Some denials, for example, are simply more believable than others. We judge that Queen Elizabeth did a good job implementing these image repair strategies in her response. As noted above, this speech was an instance of rhetorical enactment, wherein the discourse itself - apart from (or in addition to) what was said in it - embodied a response to the accusations. This was a highly dramatic and especially effective response to the accusations. Obviously, the Queen cared about her subjects: she was willing to take the risk of giving a virtually unprecedented speech to them! Her subjects responded well to this action. As Hamilton and McGrory revealed, "The Queen returned to London to face her people. . ., and they left her in do doubt that she was welcome."(31) Further, the specific instances of denial within the speech were appropriate as well. She sounded sincere and genuinely concerned about her people. She expressed her grief over Diana's death as well as her concern for her subjects' feelings. Again, Britons responded favorably to the Queen's denials, as "there was widespread praise . . . for the Queen's broadcast, ranging from members of the peerage to the crowd outside Buckingham Palace."(32) Apparently the speech's viewers found it persuasive as well.

Bolstering was also developed effectively in the speech. The Queen indicated that she was speaking from her heart. She mentioned the family's concerns for Princess Diana's two children, and expressed her appreciation for her subjects' support. Furthermore, defeasibility provided a plausible excuse for the Royal Family's apparent lack of response, and transcendence was a reasonable attempt to rally her subjects with an attractive appeal (a united Britain facing the world). It was also a good decision to mention these last two strategies without dwelling on either (which may have appeared too defensive). Therefore, each of the four strategies was developed well in the discourse. Many in England believed the Queen responded well to their concerns, and appreciated that she "opened her heart to her people . . . with a deeply-felt personal tribute to Diana."(33)

IMPLICATIONS

In a day and age in which it seems that almost everyone is apologizing for something (for ignoring atrocities committed in World War II; for experiments performed on minorities; for biting an opponent in a prize fight; for referring to African-Americans as "black jelly beans;"(3) for having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a White House intern), some people and institutions are comparatively silent. Elizabeth II, Queen of England, has never before given a speech to repair her image, or the Royal Family's image. Of course, she didn't apologize here, but her rhetorical action was especially dramatic in large part because she had never done it before. Of course, if tragedy strikes again and a similar situation faces her in the future, this approach will not work as well. Still, the mere fact that she gave a speech about Princess Diana's death (and the Royal Family's reaction, or apparent lack thereof) gave this speech a tremendous power. This does not mean that she could have said anything (an offensive stance could have robbed the moment of its significance), but the situation, including the fact that such a speech was unprecedented, favored the Queen.

She effectively denied the charges, provided a plausible excuse, and directed her viewers' attention to another, allegedly more important issue. She avoided strategies that would have caused resentment in her viewers (like minimization or attacking one's accusers). The speech was not simply adequate, not merely inoffensive, but positively well crafted to succinctly but distinctly make her point. This image repair effort was aided by circumstances, but was extremely well conceived as well.

The idea of rhetorical enactment is a significant one. There are occasional circumstances in which the sheer fact of a rhetorical act - regardless of its details - functions persuasively in a rhetorical situation. We suspect that it is no coincidence that Barbara Jordan's 1976 keynote speech (from an African-American woman) and Queen Elizabeth's image repair effort were unprecedented (in the case of King Edward VIII, his speech occurred when he had already abdicated, and his brother had already become King George VI).(34) These two rhetorical acts had more "power" or impact because they were unusual. However, for this very reason, if a second African-American woman, or another Queen, to give an image restoration discourse, it would not be as inherently effective. We speculate that there will probably be some spillover as well. When Katherine Ortega (a Hispanic woman) gave a Republican nominating convention keynote speech eight years after Barbara Jordan, even though she was a member of a different minority, we suspect the effect of rhetorical enactment was vastly dissipated from 1976. Rhetorical enactment can be powerful, but it may be a fleeting phenomenon.

CONCLUSION

After the tragic death of Princess Diana, the British people grew increasingly incensed as the Royal Family seemed to ignore first the fallen Princess and then their subjects. Criticism of the Monarchy grew very heated, creating an enormous public relations problem. Queen Elizabeth decided to make a historic, and completely unprecedented, rhetorical response to these accusations and criticisms. Her speech enacted one of her primary strategies, embodying a denial of the charge that the Royal Family did not care about Princess Diana or the British people and their grief. The Queen's speech was remarkably well crafted: denying the accusations within the speech, bolstering her and the Royals, and briefly offering an excuse for their behavior and suggesting that the viewers turn their attention to another issue (the Britons united against the world). This case study clearly demonstrates that public relations are important concerns for the normally aloof royalty - and rightfully so.

TABLE 1

Image Restoration Strategies

Denial

Simple Denial Shifting the Blame

Evasion of Responsibility

Provocation Defeasibility Accident Good Intentions

Reducing Offensiveness of Event

Bolstering Minimization Differentiation Transcendence Attack Accuser Compensation

Corrective Action

Mortification

NOTES

1. R. L. Higgins and C. R. Snyder, "The Business of Excuses," in R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989), p. 74.

2. Barry R. Schlenker, Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1980), p. 131.

3. Erving Goffman, Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. 27.

4. See, e.g., William L. Benoit, "Richard M. Nixon's Rhetorical Strategies in his Public Statements on Watergate," Southern Speech Communication Journal 47 (1982), pp. 192-211; William L. Benoit, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick Tragedy," in Halford R. Ryan (ed.), Oratorical Encounters (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 187-199; William L. Benoit, Paul Gullifor, and Dan Panici, "Reagan's Discourse on the Iran-Contra Affair," Communication Studies 42 (1991), pp. 272-294; William L. Benoit and William T. Wells, Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996); Kimberly A. Kennedy and William L. Benoit "The Newt Gingrich Book Deal Controversy: Self-Defense Rhetoric," Southern Communication Journal 62 (1997), pp. 197-216; Robert A. Vartabedian, "Nixon's Vietnam Rhetoric: A Case Study of Apologia as Generic Paradox," Southern Speech Communication Journal 50 (1985), pp. 366-381.

5. See, e.g., William L. Benoit, "Sears' Repair of its Auto Repair Image: Image Restoration Discourse in the Corporate Sector," Communication Studies 46 (1995), pp. 89-109; William L. Benoit and Susan L. Brinson, "AT&T: Apologies Are not Enough," Communication Quarterly 42 (1994), pp. 75-88; William L. Benoit and Anne Czerwinski, "A Critical Analysis of USAir's Image Repair Discourse," Business Communication Quarterly 60 (1997), pp. 38-57; William L. Benoit and James J. Lindsey, "Argument Strategies: Antidote to Tylenol's Poisoned Image," Journal of the American Forensic Association 23 (1987), pp. 136-146; Susan L. Brinson and William L. Benoit, "Dow coming's Image Repair Strategies in the Breast Implant Crisis," Communication Quarterly 44 (1996), pp. 29-41; Sonya K. Foss, "Retooling an Image: Chrysler Corporation's Rhetoric of Redemption," Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 (1984), pp. 75-91; Keith M. Hearit, "Apologies and Public Relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo," Public Relations Review 20 (1994), pp. 113-125; Keith M. Hearit, "The Use of Counter-Attack in Apologetic Public Relations Crises: The Case of General Motors vs. Dateline NBC," Public Relations Review 22 (1996), pp. 233-248; Keith M. Hearit, "On the Use of Transcendence as an Apologia Strategy: The Case of Johnson Controls and Its Fetal Protection Policy," Public Relations Review 23 (1997), pp. 217-231; Richard Ice, "Corporate Publics and Rhctorical Strategies: The Case of Union Carbide's Bhopal Crisis," Management Communication Quarterly 4 (1991), pp. 341-362.

6. See, e.g., William L. Benoit, "Hugh Grant's Image Restoration Discourse: An Actor Apologizes," Communication Quarterly 45 (1997), pp. 251-267; William L. Benoit and K. Kerby Anderson, "Blending Politics and Entertainment: Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown," Southern Communication Journal 62 (1996), pp. 73-85; William L. Benoit and Robert S. Hanczor, "The Tonya Harding Controversy: An Analysis of Image Repair Strategies," Communication Quarterly 42 (1994), pp. 416-433; J. Nelson, "The Defense of Billie Jean King," Western Journal of Speech Communication 48 (1984), pp. 92-102.

7. Royal Press Releases, (1997, August 31), http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GQB/GQB.html.

8. Warren Hoge, "Royal Family, Stung by Critics, Responds to Grieving Nation," New York Times (Sept. 4, 1997a), p. A1.

9. Alan Hamilton, Andrew Pierce, and Philip Webster, "Royal Family Is Deeply Touched by Public Support," The [London] Times (Scpt. 4, 1997), p. 1.

10. "Royal Protocol and Public Grief," The [London] Times (Sept. 4, 1997), p. 19.

11. Hamilton, Pierce, and Webster, op. cit.

12. Hamilton, Pierce, and Webster, op. cit., p. A5.

13. Philip Webster and Alan Hamilton, "Queen to Make TV Broadcast," The [London] Times(Sept. 5, 1997), p. 1.

14. Warren Hoge, "Responding to Britain's Sorrow, Queen Will Address Nation," New York Times (Sept. 5, 1997b), p. A1.

15. Warren Hoge, "Elizabeth Returns to London to Bury, and Praise, Diana," New York Times (Sept. 6, 1997c), p. A1.

16. Hoge, op. cit., 1997b, p. A6.

17. Hamilton, Pierce, and Webster, op. cit, p. 1.

18. Webster and Hamilton, op. cit.

19. "Monarch and Media," The [London] Times (Sept. 5, 1997), p. 3.

20. Hoge, op. cit. (1997c).

21. Caryn James, "Windsors Through a Lens, Stiffly," New York Times (Sept. 6, 1997), p. A6.

22. Andrew Phillips, "Grief on Demand," New York Times (Sept. 7, 1997), Section 4, p. 16.

23. Halford R. Ryan, "Baldwin Versus Edward VIII: A Case Study in Kategoria and Apologia," Southern Speech Communication Journal 49 (1984), pp. 125-134; Halford R. Ryan, "Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin vs. King Edward VIII," in Halford R. Ryan (ed.), Oratorical Encounters (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1988), pp. 53-62.

24. See, e.g., Kenneth Burke, The Rhetoric of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970); B. L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel, "They Spoke in Defense of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia," Quarterly Journal of Speech 59 (1973), 273-283.

25. William L. Benoit, Accounts, Excuses, Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995); William L. Benoit, "Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication," Public Relations Review 23 (1997), pp. 177-186.

26. Halford R. Ryan, "Kategoria and Apologia: On their Rhetorical Criticism as a Speech Set," Quarterly Journal of Speech 68 (1982), pp. 256-261.

27. William L. Benoit and Bruce Dorries, "Dateline NBC's Persuasive Attack of WalMart," Communication Quarterly 44 (1996), pp. 463-477; Benoit and Wells, op. cit.

28. Queen Elizabeth, "The Queen's Message," http://www.coi.gov.ak/coi/depts/GQB/coi2175d.ok (Sept. 5, 1997).

29. Karlyn K. Campbell and Kathleen H. Jamieson, "Form and Genre in Rhetorical Criticism: An Introduction," in Karlyn K. Campbell and Kathleen H. Jamieson (eds.), Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action (Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1978), pp. 9-32.

30. Ibid., p. 10.

31. Alan Hamilton and Daniel McGtory, "The Queen Shares her Sadness," The [London] Times (Sept. 6, 1997), p. 3.

32. Adrian Lee, "Generous Words Earn Universal Praise," The [London] Times (Sept. 6, 1997), p. 2.

33. Alan Hamilton, Philip Webster, and Daniel McGrory, "Queen Pays Tribute to 'Exceptional and Gifted Human Being,'" The [London] Times (Sept. 6, 1997), p. 1.

34. Ryan, op. cit. (1988).

William L. Benoit is a Professor of Communication at the University of Missouri, Columbia. Susan L. Brinson is an Associate Professor of Communication at Auburn University.

Article Details

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:	Many people around the world were shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Princess Diana.
Author:	Benoit, William L.; Brinson, Susan L.
Publication:	Public Relations Review
Geographic Code:	4EUUK
Date:	Jun 22, 1999
Words:	4938
Previous Article:	Challenging assumptions of international public relations: when government is the most important public.
Next Article:	Relationships between organizations and publics: development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale.
Topics:	Government publicity Analysis Public relations Queens Public relations Speeches Criticism and interpretation Speeches, addresses, etc. Criticism and interpretation