In 2017 and 2018, two documentaries were broadcast on British TV. The first was dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana. In it, we see the brothers, Princes William and Harry, as we have never seen them before, as we have never seen any member of the royal family before: publicly and openly talking about the death of their mother and how it affected them. . Harry remembered the traumatic experience of those days. Protocol forced him, at the age of 13, to walk several kilometers behind his mother’s coffin in front of millions of Britons and billions of television viewers around the world. After this experience, he was unable to publicly express any emotion for years.

The second documentary in November 2018 was dedicated to the 70th birthday of (then) Prince Charles. It was just as revealing. The two brothers are still seen together and relaxed, perhaps for the last time together, after their always close relationship has already gone down the path of a Homeric clash, and Harry feels that William is not supportive of his relationship with Meghan Markle. In this documentary, Harry and William openly express their love and appreciation for their father. They tease him gently, noting his quirks, but mostly focus on his work and his values.

It would be a mistake to consider the protagonists of the British monarchy simply as units: as individuals, cut off from their surroundings and relationships. For example, we cannot understand Elizabeth’s psychology and contributions without considering that as a child she was forced by the abdication of her uncle Edward VIII to suddenly and unexpectedly give up any prospect of personal identity or independence and devote the rest of her life to the life of the nation. For the same reason, it would be a mistake to analyze the psyche and contribution of Karl without delving into his relationship with his father and sons. Each generation is the result of the influences and conflicts of their parents and ancestors.

“Prisoner of War”

The relationship between Philip and Charles belongs to a different era, a different Britain. In Britain, where the hardening of children was taken for granted, where any difficulty had to be faced silently, with phlegmatism and stoicism (the so-called “immobility of the upper lip”), and where the manifestation of any emotion was almost taboo. Philip was a man who seemed to be made of steel, physically and emotionally. He had a passion for the sea, sports, the military and hunting. Growing up in the unfortunate circumstances of exile and family disintegration, and his mother (Princess Alice) struggling with mental health issues, Philip fully embraced the British model of values ​​and behaviour. He insisted on sending the small, shy and sensitive Charles to Gordonston School in Scotland, where he studied. Military discipline (and hard hats) reigned in Gordonston. Charles, who lived through hard times, later compared it to Colditch Castle, where the Nazis kept prominent prisoners of war.

According to official biographies and later leaked statements, while Charles held his father responsible for his problems, Philip regarded his son as spoiled and lacking the necessary discipline to become king. However, over the years the two men softened (on his 80th birthday, Philippe also sent Charles a letter of apology) and their relationship improved significantly.

It should also be noted that Philip bequeathed to Charles not only this “negative” burden of emotional detachment, but also many virtues. Despite his conservative upbringing, Philippe was a modernizer of the monarchy (he fought many behind-the-scenes battles to bring it into the 20th century of television, image and contact with the world), while at the same time he had a passion for science and technology, which he supported throughout his life. These modernizing influences are absolutely visible in the work of Karolos.

Earned years

Diana accused Charles of not taking care of his children. However, Charles seems to have put all those years of waiting to good use as heir to the throne. He transformed his parents’ emotional coldness into empathy. He developed his emotional intelligence and, especially after Diana’s death, developed more meaningful relationships with his children. This was certainly helped by Camilla, one of the most liberated and disenfranchised people in the British establishment, who looks at life (and what some have accused her of for forty years) with disarming humor, genuine modesty and inner peace. Charles is one of those people whose public image (the result of media representations, family legacy, his own mistakes, and to some extent Diana’s narrative) is very different from reality.

Karolos works very hard, endless hours every day, literally from morning to evening. He is passionate about a number of global and social issues, primarily the environment. However, unlike so many other politicians or famous personalities who discovered environmental consciousness when it came into vogue or when it became considered a necessary tool for public communication, Charles already in the late 1960s began campaigning for biodiversity and sustainable development, organic agriculture economy, combating environmental pollution and climate change. Since the early 1990s, he has created and developed exemplary institutions and initiatives on these issues, continuing to coerce politicians and public opinion to the point where some feared that when he ascended the throne, he would spark a constitutional crisis. (Which obviously wasn’t).

Projection of Virtue

Even more impressive than this systematic work of life is that Charles seems determined to endure and condone even Harry’s most (self-)destructive moves, such as the flurry of deeply personal, hurtful and revealing interviews he has given to British and American channels. over the past two years. , as well as his autobiography called “Reserve”, which served as a bombshell against the Palace. Interestingly, according to an analysis of the interview and Harry’s book, Charles emerges from it all relatively unscathed, especially when compared to William, who collects his brother’s more vicious arrows. The bond between father and son seems to remain strong despite adversity. However, Charles feels he is in danger of failing one of his most important missions: to keep the two brothers united. At Philip’s funeral in April 2021, Charles pleaded with the two brothers, who were already systematically feeding the press with ammunition against each other, “not to make the last years of my life miserable.”

Such an emotional display on the part of members of the royal family would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Charles is the bridge between the era of the British Empire that his parents faithfully served and the 21st century of marginalized social groups that his sons now serve. He himself is also the bridge between the God-given sense of superiority of his ancestors and the appearance of equality demanded by today’s culture. You see, the signaling of virtue has changed radically since the masses looked at monarchs as demigods and role models and were content to imagine an alternate universe where they too would be in that position. Now, in the era of social media and powerful teenagers, most of them see themselves as role models and demand an image of equality. The idea that the family is superior by the grace of God is no longer acceptable. Of course, all this is connected with the image and projection of virtue: the actual achievement of equality is something much more complex and boring.

At the center of the triangle

Finally, Charles is the link between the absolute public concealment of any emotion that characterized Elizabeth and Philip so strongly, and the constant display of sensitivity and sympathy that is now required of all public figures. It is tragic irony that theorists of political psychology, political communication and the media trace the beginning of this new era of emotionally extroverted (somewhat misunderstood) Britain … to Diana’s death in 1997, when millions of Britons were carried away in the streets for the first time to cry. and on television channels to express their pain, love and sorrow. This concrete barrier that held back emotions in British society was torn down in just one week (instructive documentary Diana: Seven Days). It is obvious that the death of Diana only served as a pretext, a detonator for trends that have been developing for decades. The tectonic plates of Western and especially British culture were about to shift as the then young Tony Blair and his advisors were already wisely diagnosing the course of things and building their campaign and government around a new model of politics and public communication, where emotions played a major role.

Thus, Charles finds himself at the center of a peculiar triangle that begins with Philip’s cold detachment, passes through – excessive (manipulative or hysterical, according to some) – the primacy of emotions in the image of Diana, and ends with his children, who are now named to cope with this huge burden of internal conflict. But William, as the first-born and heir, but also by temperament (being even more reserved than his father), chose the path of his grandfather and grandmother: the path of duty and public display in moderation. But Harry chose the shocking directness and public control of his mother’s emotions.

On Friday, September 9, 2022, 24 hours after Elizabeth’s death, Charles gave his first televised address as king. It was a really great show. Charles was warm, human, agile and agile, yet “leading” at the same time, acting as the Father of the Nation, a nation not of the 19th or 20th century, but of the 21st century. He did not treat his people condescendingly, simply accepting their condolences. Instead, he stepped aside, saying, “I know her death brings great sadness to many of you, and I share this indescribable sense of loss with all of you.” It was the catchphrase that conquered a fragmented society of individual-consumer-users, in which everyone was accustomed to regarding their ego as dominant and at least equal to others.

In recent decades, Elizabeth, due to her duration and historical circumstances, has acquired such a special weight that she could not only react to events, but also create her own “political product”, imposing unity and tolerance towards dissidents or criticism by her very existence.

Now the question is whether the personality, empathy and presence of Charles is enough to protect the British monarchy and the social world after fifteen consecutive years of economic crisis and austerity, after seven years of political crisis and Brexit split, after three difficult years of additional systemic unrest due to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as continuous waves of strikes[1]the plague of Britain, while healthcare, education and transport are in a permanent crisis, and new generations of Britons are socializing in a radically different value-communication environment.

*Romanos Gerodimos is Professor of International Politics and Communications at Bournemouth University.