Elizabethan Era Ends: She Was Our Queen Too!

Rather than ruling over an empire, "the Queen" represented a world that was also ours.

Elizabethan Era Ends: She Was Our Queen Too!

Rather than ruling over an empire, "the Queen" represented a world that was also ours. Not only that the Federal Republic of Germany and the "Second Elizabethan Age" fell almost at the same time. We could learn from her. Almost always. Not anymore. reason to recap.

Ernst Kantorowicz, a German-born historian, has explained that every king -- and queen -- has two bodies: a biological one, which can also be described as "private" and "intimate." He bleeds and sweats, eats and passes, reproduces and lives with the hopes and fears that his brain produces with countless other thoughts and drives. And like every body, it dies alone at the end. The second body is the official one. He has dehumanized, social, and timeless characteristics:

1. It lives longer than the biological body and creates a memory with its history.

2. It is not private property, but belongs in an abstract way to the people - English: subjects - as well as their state and their nation.

3. It forms the heart of the institution of royalty. According to Kantorowicz, it was through them that the state and later the idea of ​​a nation could develop from the Middle Ages.

When the book "The Two Bodies of the King" was published, the world was already counting the year 1957 after Jesus Christ - for Christianity, by the way, the greatest king of all time. It was also the fifth year since Princess Elizabeth of England inherited a global kingdom on February 6, 1952, which was then spread over 32 countries. During her coronation on June 2, 1953, her private body was symbolically turned into public property - as described by Kantorowicz and comparable to the turning from water to wine attributed to King Jesus in the Christian imagination.

Belief in Elizabeth II lasted for more than 70 years. Her thoroughly medieval coronation, which even by the standards of the time seemed anachronistic, i.e. outdated, can be seen on YouTube. That's because the ceremony was televised for the first time. The age of the mass media was "in full swing", as they say in English - and it had been given an additional boost by Elizabeth's becoming queen, not only in the Commonwealth, the community of heirs to the British Empire, but also here.

The visibility of people has always been a power factor. The media have massively amplified it. For constitutional monarchs, whose true power has long rested with "their" parliaments and governments, this is both a blessing and a curse:

1. In the sense of "two bodies", the belief in the crown has had competition in the 20th century. By producing people who lead private and public lives, the media are, in a sense, little kings. Their kingdom is called "public" - and with digitization at the latest, it is open to everyone. Anyone who takes part inevitably has a private "person" and a public "persona" – this is how psychology differentiates, analogous to Kantorowicz. While many people have insane difficulties in distinguishing between (and protecting) their private and public spheres, true royal children are drilled into the difference from birth.

2. The royal children learn that they are both: royals in a kingdom and celebrities in a (world) public. In addition to the traditional following of their subjects, this creates a new base of supporters for whom national borders no longer play a role - the fans and followers. In the British case, the sphere of influence goes far beyond the traditional island kingdom in north-west Europe and the 53 partner states in the Commonwealth. Many people in the USA, but also in Germany, are interested in the British royal family. An explanation for this has often been sought in the "lack of splendor" of republics and their staff. That seems plausible in view of our chancellor or his predecessor, but less convincing when you consider the enormous amount of attention that the "star couple" Obama is attracting.

The pronounced interest of the German population in the British royal family has always been justified by their German descent. The awareness of this among the commentators is probably greater than in the audience. Although it is true that with "Mountbatten-Windsor" a partly German name sticks to the royal family - because before 1917 it was "Battenberg" and came from the Hessian - the German roots bear no recognizable fruits of identification. There are neither legions of fans in Hesse or in Swabia around Teck Castle, nor in Schleswig-Holstein, where the house of Sonderburg-Glücksburg is located, from which Prince Philip, Elizabeth II's husband, came.

In fact, you could see the new King Charles III. described by his father as a monarch of German descent. But he not only speaks better French than German. Surveys also show that in this country, the private lifestyle that has been splendidly visible for decades does not really invite identification. Charles is perceived as aloof, elitist, erratic and energetic, irritable and argumentative, ironic and opinionated, in short: British and - typically or not - eccentric and snooty. He may inspire anticipation of a varied and relatively short intellectual reign, but he has also provided plenty of reasons – not least through ominous cash donations of millions of pounds to his foundation – to praise the lackluster-dull staff in the front row of the Federal Republic .

There are other reasons why millions of people felt personally addressed, humanely moved and even physically touched when Queen Elizabeth II performed. The author himself experienced it in 2000 during the opening of the British Embassy in Berlin.

Despite her aloof position, she not only shook hands with countless people, but also looked them deep in the eyes. Instead of exuding condescension and arrogance, the Queen managed to radiate warmth and humanity. While these encounters were completely noncommittal, a connection was formed. They were fleeting moments in which, as it were, from her official body she conveyed a message that was addressed to all people - and which can be described as "private" because it is only understood from person to person: "Fear not! "

We know these words from the Bible – from Jesus. They are words that suggest security and belonging, and that presuppose the willingness of the king or queen to make absolute sacrifices. Elizabeth II may not have said it literally, any more than she will rise again, but she was able to show the sympathy needed by revealing something about herself. It arose from their two bodies: their biological existence and their symbolic presence. The older Elizabeth II became, the more she felt the price she had to bear in private – and for which she was to be pitied. On the other hand, the dividend of her long reign became a little more convincing with each passing year.

It did not necessarily require a personal encounter to receive this message. Not only on the occasion of her death is it emphasized how much "continuity" she embodied. But what does that mean – especially in the much-touted times of change? They can be claimed for the past 70 years - which were initially described as the "post-war period" and which, in retrospect, almost completely correspond to the previous existence of the Federal Republic of Germany.

What one could experience in real and media encounters with the Queen was neither the aura of a luminary nor the coquetry of a world star. Rather, it was the hope and vulnerability of an extraordinary person who, as a young woman, had experienced World War II: a war of nations, peoples and kingdoms. From this she drew lessons that still apply to all of us today. Some of her very private hopes may have been very distant for us - because they were also aimed at increasing and securing the wealth of her dynasty - we share her general and simple desire for stability and peace. The principles of reconciliation and understanding, which they publicly presented 70 years ago, have made them credible in countless real and media encounters.

The longer Elizabeth II lived, the more universal her mission and office seemed. No matter how hard her masters of ceremonies, especially in the last ten years, tried to make Elizabeth appear particularly British with pomp and circumstance, the truth was that she seemed less and less British. This was mainly because their endurance, sense of duty and longevity cannot be attributed to a single nation any more than mankind's longing for them.

Queen Elizabeth was the only person on earth who has been able to meet nearly every influential person since 1945 and impart their deeply human insights as the tenets of her monarchy. The rehabilitation of Germany and the longest period of peace in Europe also fell into this "Second Elizabethan Age". This coincidence alone has made her a unique identification figure for us.

Prince Consort Albert, Queen Victoria's German husband, is said to have said: "The esteem of a royalty is only possible through the personal character of the sovereign." Until September 8, 2022, it was not just ardent admirers of Elizabeth II who emphasized that she had managed to keep private matters out of office and that she was not guilty of any misconduct. Last but not least, her son Andrew demonstrated how easily a body can be tempted to do so in private and intimate life through a rich life.

The editors of the "Guardian", which has always dreamed the dream of a republic of Britain loudest, gave Elizabeth II the best rating on her 80th birthday in 2006: "For half a century she has fulfilled a demanding task ... and at the same time made almost no mistake. By standard criteria - her enduring popularity and her ability to avoid problems - she should be considered one of the most capable politicians, when she is precisely not." Why? Because politicians live by their promises and because they have actual power in relatively short terms of office. The Queen, on the other hand, has never promised anything. And she let all the time she had go by without making a mistake.

Rather, it lived from and with the fate of not having any operational power and not being able to make very many decisions independently. This left her dependent on others – 12 British Prime Ministers and 3 Ministers, as well as many people inside and outside her de jure shrinking empire.

In fact, however, her empire has grown steadily over the course of a good 70 years. Not least because one of her unwritten duties was to be our queen too.

The individual and the institution of the queen are no longer united in one body. The people of the UK will soon be burying their biological remains. Meanwhile, the memory of this special person remains in common for all of us.