On September 10, local time, King Charles III of the United Kingdom was officially authorized by the British Throne Council to become the new British monarch.
On the evening of the 9th local time, King Charles III of the United Kingdom delivered a nationally televised speech, expressing his nostalgia for his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, and thanking the Queen for her dedication to the royal family and the country over the years. He said he would, like the Queen, make a "solemn commitment to uphold the country's constitution".
The 73-year-old King Charles III is the longest-serving crown prince in British history and the oldest monarch in British history.
Direct news: Will British society continue to accept the monarchy after the death of Queen Elizabeth II?
Special commentator Zhang Sinan: Queen Elizabeth II has been widely respected and loved after her death. Even the republicans who advocate the abolition of the monarch, there are many people who express their most sincere condolences. This extremely high honor is undoubtedly a personal achievement of Elizabeth II during her lifetime, but it may not be inherited by the British monarchy. As the British media pointed out pointedly, Charles III may have inherited his mother's throne, but never the prestige of Elizabeth II.
If you ask an Englishman, as one of the oldest democracies in the world, why does the UK still retain the monarchy as a facade? They might say that the monarch is the spiritual bond that holds the United Kingdom together, or that keeping the monarch is a good deal from a national fiscal point of view, and they might even ask, does not keeping the monarch cause the United States to experience a fractious division of the country every four years? ?
In fact, I think there are only two reasons why British society retains the monarchy: one is the conservatism tradition ingrained in British culture, that if something is OK, there is no need to throw it away, in the British monarchy again The British public may have no desire to change the status quo of the existence of the royal family until the country has done some definite harm; the second is more fundamental, that is, the British monarchy brings a sense of nostalgic pride, making the British public feel that the dead world The last vestiges of the empire, in other words, are symbolic, the presence of the monarch represents British history, and the royal family's complex and even inexplicable rituals and traditions define British culture.
But I want to stress that this "symbolism" is by no means a natural occurrence, but a deliberate result of the British royal family. The British monarchy may "govern by inaction" in terms of direct political power, but by shaping "symbolism", the British royal family has brought its own legitimacy to the limit within the constitutional framework.
is first and foremost mass media governance, cultivating monarchs around the world. When we tease Trump as "Twitter ruling the country", we don't know that Queen Elizabeth II is the originator of mass media ruling the country. In 1953, Queen Elizabeth II allowed BBC to broadcast worldwide live broadcasts at her coronation ceremony, setting a precedent for the royal family; then in the 1960s, it was the first precedent to allow cameras to enter the royal palace to shoot documentaries about members of the royal family. And every major historical node, the Queen will travel around the world under the follow of a professional media team.
This kind of sufficient media exposure has made the Queen an uncompromising international celebrity, binding the royal family to the British historical heritage and even the national identity, making the people feel a kind of "British people must have a monarch to be authentic and republic." The subconscious mind that the factions are all messed up, so as to create emotional support from ordinary people for the continuation of the royal family, and in the process marginalize the rational thinking about "whether the royal family is necessary to exist".
but bigThe mass media is also a double-edged sword. In the 1990s, Princess Diana 's phrase "There are three people in this marriage, it's a bit crowded" quickly fermented through the mass media, making the outside world realize that some people in the British royal family, Even very important people can't keep even the minimum marriage vows, and the image of the British royal family has been devastated. As a countermeasure, the British royal family had to put the building of its external image entirely on Queen Elizabeth II.
In addition to "governance by mass media," there is also "governance by ritual." German sociologist Max Weber once said that any kind of rule cannot be maintained solely by violence, it needs to prove its reasonable legitimacy, in other words, it needs the spontaneous respect and obedience of the people. Through a variety of ceremonies with even unclear meanings, the British royal family connects its own existence with ancient historical traditions and "superhumanizes" the monarch, whether it is to show the monarch's talent or possess some kind of superhuman moral character. to gain the respect of the British public.
In a sense, this is ridiculous in modern society, but when the ritual is complex enough and feels ancient enough, the monarch will appear mysterious enough, creating a sense of distance from ordinary people, and thus make There is a sense of awe in the outside world, and at this time, the line between the public's respect and obedience to the royal family begins to blur. Just like a modern Briton will not accept the distinction of social rights based on blood, but will not have too many doubts about the royal family based on blood, is this respect, or is it a form of obedience? I have no idea. This ambiguity may not bring the British royal family back to the center of political power, but it is enough to keep the royal family alive, and long enough.
And the British royal family is fully aware of this. When I was a graduate student, one of my professors worked at , the US State Department, . He said that when he was in contact with the staff of the British royal family, he found that the British royal family could tinker with a set of ceremonies and match them with anything. The last set of rhetoric that has been passed down through hundreds of years of history. This professor of mine asked, does the British royal family prepare a set of rituals for everything? And the answer he got was: No, we just “invented” a new ritual on the spot on a case-by-case basis and made it feel old enough.
So back to your question, it's true that Charles III did not inherit the prestige of Elizabeth II, but he inherited the media and PR team that built the Queen's prestige, he also inherited the complex ritual system designed around the monarchy, plus In view of the conservative traditions ingrained in British culture, as long as Charles III is restrained enough, over time, I think the British people will continue to accept the monarchy.
Straight news: What challenges will Charles III face after he succeeds to the throne?
Special commentator Zhang Sinan: I think it is time. As I mentioned earlier, Charles III inherited the media and PR team that built the mother's supreme prestige, and inherited the complex ritual system designed around the monarchy, but Charles III is not Elizabeth II after all. In time, perhaps he will also accumulate enough prestige, but at least for now, Charles III is in an awkward transitional phase.
The national memory of the late Queen has gradually formed the collective memory of the whole society. Among them, Britain once had a near-perfect monarch. Under the shadow of this collective memory, Charles III will not be "loved and black"; on the contrary, the more people think that Elizabeth II is perfect, the more people will magnify some of the stains of Charles III.
Ironically, this is also the price of the "mass media governance" and "ritual governance" I talked about earlier. The Queen puts herself and the royal family in the thick of historyIn the name of inheritance, it has become a de facto trendy culture, thereby attracting the emotional support of ordinary people. The British support the monarchy represented by the queen because they love and respect the queen, but after the death of the queen, the sense of distance between British society and Charles III will be directly converted into the sense of distance between the monarchy.
Although time can solve all this, people will gradually forget about Elizabeth II, and Charles III will also establish a new prestige of his own under his mother's legacy. If he is restrained and wise enough, now he needs to make his own public as soon as possible. The image overlaps with the "superhuman" monarch created by royal rites, otherwise Charles III might have to zen, or even worse, watch Britain go republic again in his own lifetime.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-