FAMILY REFERENCE PATTERNS AND THEIR IDEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS IN ROYAL DISCOURSE

Abstract

The article examines the linguistic features of the speeches of Prince William and Prince
Harry. The study of lexical, grammatical, and discursive characteristics of family references
was conducted on the basis of 42 official speeches delivered between 2008 and 2025. Corpus
analysis identified important quantitative and qualitative differences in the frequency and
framing of family relationships. References to Prince William's family increased from 1,475.53
occurrences per million tokens in speeches delivered before 2018 to 1,880.29 occurrences per
million tokens in speeches delivered after 2018 per million tokens. These references were
mostly institutional in nature, using vocabulary related to the concepts of DUTY, TRADITION,
and SUCCESSION. References to Prince Harry's family doubled from 2,861.6 occurrences per
million tokens in speeches delivered before 2018 to 5,729.69 occurrences per million tokens in
speeches delivered after 2018. The shift was towards personalisation and emotional self-expression. Collocational analysis demonstrates that in William’s discourse the lexeme family
systematically co-occurs with lexical items belonging to the semantic fields of TRADITION,
HERITAGE, and SERVICE. The repetition of these collocations facilitates their interpretation
as linguistic representations of related institutional conceptions. Harry uses the lexeme family
in combination with emotionally marked vocabulary associated with the semantic fields of
LOVE, PROTECTION, and FREEDOM. A lexico-grammatical analysis of family nominations
reveals some important distinctions between the two princes: Harry tends to use relational
terms that emphasize emotional intimacy with family members, possessive pronouns, and
active voice, while William prefers official titles, passive constructions, and distant references.
The study demonstrates how linguistic features of family discourse reflect fundamental
ideological differences in the relationship between personal identity and institutional role in
the British monarchy.