Editorial Ta Nea: Anchor

Two leaders with great international prestige, Mikhail Gorbachev and Queen Elizabeth II, died within a span of 10 days.

The reactions to their deaths revealed a paradox.

The leader who ruled and tried to radically change his country left behind mixed emotions.

Some of his compatriots admired him and others hated him.

The sovereign who ruled and tried to keep her country on a stable path left behind a singular legacy: the overwhelming majority of Britons adored her.

Perhaps it is not at all a paradox.

What nations need above all is a point of reference, an anchor, a figure that can console them in tragic circumstances and inspirit them in tough times.

With the exception, perhaps, of the tragedy at Aberfan in October, 1966 [in which 116 children in a primary school and 28 adults died and she visited eight days later], Queen Elizabeth II played that role in exemplary fashion.

From the fiasco of the Suez Crisis in 1956, to the terrorist attacks of the IRA and the break with Europe, beloved “Lilibet” was present, retaining her composure and optimism.

Later, when the pandemic lockdown shut Britons into their homes, she once again addressed the nation with the words of a song sung eight decades earlier in WWII by Vera Lynn, “We will met again”.

The death of the “matriarch”, as many called the woman that occupied the throne in two consecutive centuries, marks the end of certainties.

King Charles III may be fulfilling at age 73 a childhood dream, yet he knows that he cannot measure up to his mother, either in terms of her popularity or her aura.

Her rein coincided with Winston Churchill holding the office of prime minister, while in his Liz Truss holds the office.

Queen Elizabeth II acclimated her country to the loss of empire.

King Charles III is called upon to acclimate his country to a lonely path in the midst of a war about which no one knows what form it will take, what its repercussions will be, and when it will end.

Let us, then, exclaim God Save the King.