Expressions of grief are apart of human nature. Yet in our continuously modernizing world how one expresses such an emotion is subject to public approval. This is especially the case in incidence of loss of a public figure. The Queen is a perfect example of how expectations of emotional expression are placed on public figures. With the media at play and tabloids reporting the lives of famous individuals every move, the private and individualized expression of emotions is not subject to the approval of the viewing public.

“…the involuntary loss through death of a human being who is viewed as significant…” ( Loftlan 1985, p.172).

The definition of grief as outline in Lofland’s article The Shaping of emotion: The case of Grief. The move The …show more content…
As it was not her position within the Monarchy was demised that she made her emotions of the death public. At the end of the film the Queen states to the Prime Minister she was taught from a young age that duty should always come before herself. Here I will draw once again on Lofland’s article The Shaping of emotion: The case of Grief.

Lofland argues that social arrangements can interfere with the private emotion (p.172 1985). The Queens position within the Monarchy has seen her put her own emotions second to her duties. Despite the Queen’s intentions in the case of lady Dianna’s death the Queens actions or lack thereof where seen as apathetic. This can be seen as cause of her social arrangements. As the Queens social arrangements differ so much from the rest society her manner of expression of grief has differed dramatically to that of the public. Thus the Queen and the Monarchy was scrutinized.

As stated in Duffy and Yell, although grief is a personal and private emotion, it is expected that in events distributed by the media where private individuals, in this case the Royal Family, display their grief publicly and the public expect appropriate responses that meet social norms of society