Back to reality: After long days of mourning and ceremonies unprecedented in their scale, Britain is gradually returning to routine and the burning issues have not disappeared with the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
The huge funeral procession in London on Sept. 19 saw a wave of patriotism not seen in recent years in the kingdom. With the exception of a few cases, the British press covered the 12 days since the queen's passing to her burial from every angle, focusing on memories from her record reign. London is happy with the unity in the ranks and common sense of destiny created by the events. Without a doubt, the established media has had a part in building the myth that is supposed to turn Charles III into a popular king. But the sense of euphoria is not expected to last long.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The current reality where there is a new king, a new prime minister, raging inflation, and a gas and energy crisis could turn this winter into a particularly difficult one for the United Kingdom. Now, as the media resumes dealing with these problems, it is hard to forecast what the reaction of the British public will be. In an interview with Israel Hayom, Stuart Polak, a Jewish member of the House of Lords drew a parallel between the national mood and a shiva, noting that getting back to normal is sometimes more difficult than the period of mourning itself. "We are sitting a national shiva but it is also a personal shiva for each and every one of us," he said. "These last days mark without a doubt the end of an era but alongside endings, there is also a continuation. The queen was unique but historical continuity is important."
Indeed, it seems that a critical question that will preoccupy the United Kingdom in the coming months is 'Do the feelings of unity and patriotism of the last few days stem from the institution of the monarchy itself, or were they based on the personality of the late queen?' The implications of the answer to this question will be dramatic for the future of the kingdom.
"The coming winter will be a challenging time," says Dr. Oded Steinberg of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "In many senses, it is a perfect storm: The two people that stand at the head of the kingdom, King Charles and Prime Minister Liz Truss, are almost caricatures of dreariness, and the tests that await them are likely to come far faster than we may think. Charles will be very popular at first but in the long term, his popularity will depend on the situation in the UK. A deterioration in ties between the UK and the countries of the Commonwealth could occur if there is a dramatic decline in the popularity of the crown. In this sense, the relationship between symbolism and politics in Great Britain is fascinating: When the situation is good, the presence of the monarchy strengthens the trend. But if the situation is bad, we cannot at all be sure that in this new era, symbolism will be enough to change the atmosphere. The new king is worth over a billion dollars. How will this be perceived if people can hardly pay for groceries and don't have enough gas to heat? Charles will have to act fast to combat this."
According to Arie Dubnov of George Washington University, the key lies in the ties between the monarchy and the media – ties that the queen knew how to handle wisely over the years. "There is a love-hate relationship between the monarchy and media in which the media, at first glance, are the bad guys in the story but, in fact, if we think of key points in the biography of the queen, we see that she had the ability to take an institution that is completely fossilized and not only to make it relevant for the 21st century but also to succeed in painting it as "cool," and "cute," and as a magnet for tourism – and as a topic for great Netflix series. This stems from her understanding that the media is not only an enemy, but it is also an institution that can be manipulated.
"In this context, the monarchy took decisions that may have appeared to be small, but together were very significant: Institutionalizing the BBC broadcasts of the queen's Christmas message; her appearance at the opening of the Olympic Games in London, in which she seemingly jumped from James Bond's helicopter, and the video clip with Paddington Bear. By doing so, she turned herself without saying a word into a symbol for everybody. The real message was of course, 'How could you imagine England without me?' From this perspective, the queen was a brilliant copywriter. In her era, the monarchy understood the language of the Anglo-American world and the consumerism inherent in it. That was the monarchy's double game: To make the monarchy something cool and at the same time to maintain a distance.
The death of the queen comes at a time when the British ethos is being rewritten, primarily in light of the distancing from Europe after Brexit. The possible awakening of the Commonwealth an organization that the queen was so deeply identified with could influence the way Britain sees itself. "When I was a student, the Republican movement in England was marginal, but it existed," says Prof. Dubnov. "There were professors who refused to take part in the traditional toast for the queen; today that wouldn't happen. It connects to the processes that are ongoing in Great Britain; the British myth is being reshaped through the emphasis on differences from Europe. In Brexit, we saw this myth in action. The British themselves said, "If we are so different from Europe, let's cut ourselves off from them."
According to Dr. Steinberg, King Charles is aware of these processes more than his late mother was. "A scenario in which a country like Canada or Australia withdraws from the Commonwealth in the next few years is certainly possible. This is will be very much dependent on what happens with the British economy and British politics. It is possible that these voices would have arisen under Elizabeth as well because there are deeper processes that are ongoing. Not enough is said about the relationship of Britain to its imperial past. Under the norms that have become common in recent years, the head of state should ask for forgiveness for crimes committed in the past. Germany, for example, apologized for its crimes in Namibia, and the massacre of the athletes in Munich. And this is also true in its relationship to the Holocaust. In Great Britain, the monarchy puts out a message that is disconnected from these considerations and it is not clear how long this can continue. The current situation allows the monarchy not to get its hands dirty and not to be tainted by the depth of imperialist evil. It may be that a new dynamic will now commence that will leave them with no choice.
"Charles understands these issues better than his mother. He was present for example, at a ceremony in which Barbados, a former sugar colony, became a republic. He knows that some things will have to be handled differently from the way Queen Elizabeth managed them, primarily because unlike her he is not seen as a mythical figure. In my opinion, they will have to toe the line of the accepted norms in the Western world today and recognize some of the crimes that Britain committed."
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
