How much is the right amount of coverage for the death of a royal consort? On Saturday 10 April, the day after Prince Philip died, the Guardian newspaper’s front page carried a black-and-white portrait of the duke, followed by 12 more pages of news – including a four-page obituary – one comment piece and a leader article. It was the only national paper (other than the Financial Times) not to offer a special supplement alongside the main coverage, but for some readers it was still too much. Between the readers’ editor’s office and the letters desk, we received about 100 complaints. One reader wrote: “I find it difficult to comprehend how the Guardian can devote 13 pages of its Saturday edition to the death of Prince Philip. In proclaiming a self-avowed republican editorial policy, how can you rationalise such overkill that smacks of the sort of media coverage in an authoritarian country when the head of state dies.” Another – who seemingly did not share the leader article’s view that in Covid times “other families can today see themselves, their own bereavements and their own losses and sadnesses reflected. That is one of the reasons why this death is indeed a national event for Britain” – told us: “I felt your coverage of the recent death of Prince Philip was totally disproportionate – especially in the context [of the] number of lives lost through the pandemic and the impact of that on specific communities. It smacked of one life being more important than others.” Some readers expressed concern that the Duke of Edinburgh’s record on racially offensive comments should have weighed against the tone or volume of reporting, while a charge of “sycophancy” was levelled by many who complained. More than 100,000 people read the printed paper each day, and many millions read it in digital form. And it is ever the case that readers are far less inclined to make contact to register their satisfaction. A few did, however, contradict the complainants: “Thank you for your front page today,” wrote one. “I am sure you know what I mean but in case you don’t – no fawning monarchy lead.” Another said it was wrong to presume all readers think alike, adding: “My wife and I (to coin a slightly different phrase) have been readers for 40 years at least, and thought your coverage, and particularly comment, were very appropriate.” A third wrote: “As I used my TV/radio off button [on 9 April] so as not to get the blanket coverage following the passing of Prince Philip, I appreciated the excellent and balanced edition of the Guardian on Saturday.” Over the four days following the announcement of Prince Philip’s death, about 50 related articles were published across the Guardian and Observer online. In a straw poll of subscribers conducted via their weekly newsletter, the 600 or so who responded (they may be paper or digital readers from any country) were split evenly between “too much” or “about right”, with a small handful saying there was “not enough” coverage. Prince Philip, Britain’s longest-serving consort, is the seventh royal consort to die during the Guardian’s 200-year history but only the third – after Queen Caroline (who died in 1821, shortly after being barred from her husband’s coronation) and Prince Albert – who was still serving alongside the reigning monarch. Times, sensibilities and newspaper formats change, so it seemed fitting in this anniversary period to delve into the archives to see how these events were handled in the past. At the time of Albert’s death in 1861 the Manchester Guardian was just four broadsheet pages long, with the front page by convention given to classified advertising. The funeral of Queen Victoria’s husband took around half of the editorial space inside the Christmas Eve edition. In 1925, tributes to Queen Alexandra occupied nearly four of the 24 pages, while the death in 1953 of Queen Mary, described by the Guardian as “the most queenly of queens”, led the front page for two days, with a spread of photographs and tributes inside the 12-page paper on day one. A leader opined that the strength of the monarchy was “in no small part due to the immense affection and admiration which her courage, industry and dignity won for both herself and the crown”. Before Philip, we go back two decades to the death in 2002 of the Queen Mother; aged 101, she had been a widow for half a century. Much had changed in those years. A front-page commentary ran under the headline: “Uncertain farewell leaves a nation divided”, with a spread on pages 4 and 5 (where the BBC was reported defending its coverage from criticisms ranging from schedule changes to Peter Sissons’ failure to wear a black tie), and four pages of obituary. In the opinion section, Christopher Hitchens was unsparing. A leading article then offered a frank assessment of the former queen’s strengths and weaknesses, although the latter “did not invalidate her right to national honour”, but ended by saying that once the funeral was over, “this country will need to consider how much longer the monarchy can properly continue to hold the place in our national life” that she had done so much to sustain “in defiance of the times”. A long package of letters under the headline: “We’re not all in mourning” was rounded on by some readers the next day as “mean-spirited”. However one might wish the future to be, Prince Philip’s life had been part of the national fabric for the past 75 years. I asked the editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, how coverage of his death was decided for 2021. “As with any significant figure, we had a longstanding plan. We had commissioned a small number of well-researched and well-written pieces, including an outstanding obituary, which a group of senior editors had been reviewing in the months before his death,” she explained. “We ran a live blog as it was the best way to capture the reaction to the announcement … [and] over subsequent days we featured a range of different views on Prince Philip’s life and death, as well as what it meant for the future of the monarchy and the country. “We knew that other newspapers would do much more on the death of Prince Philip – and they did. We also knew that some Guardian readers would feel we did too much – which also proved true.” “The death of Prince Philip was undoubtedly an important moment. We sought to strike the right balance between marking the death of a significant figure in British public life and questioning his life and legacy. It was also a chance to show how the family itself has changed over the course of his lifetime, and will need to continue to change, as the second Elizabethan era draws to a close.” Answering those who believed a republican-leaning paper should rein back the reporting, Viner said: “Whatever the political position of the Guardian, we understand that the royal family is part of the national conversation. What we write on them is read in great numbers and in great depth by our global Guardian audience. “The fact that our editorial line has generally been questioning of the monarchy in its current form has never meant that we do not also scrutinise the way it operates or recognise its place in British life. We have probably done more than any other media organisation to properly scrutinise the royal family – for example our work on the Paradise Papers, and more recently the Queen’s consent. “Whether we got the balance right this time has been a matter of lively debate among senior editors, just as it has been among readers, and that’s as it should be.” Elisabeth Ribbans is the Guardian and Observer’s global readers’ editor