Back to reality: after long days of mourning and ceremonies of an unprecedented scale, Britain is slowly coming back to life - and discovers that the burning problems did not disappear with the death of Queen Elizabeth II.
The huge funeral procession in London yesterday was accompanied by a burst of patriotic excitement not remembered for years in the kingdom.
With few exceptions, the British press in the last 12 days covered every marginal angle of the events and focused on the memories of the Queen's long life.
In London, they are satisfied with the unity of the ranks and the sense of shared destiny that the events created, and certainly the established media had a part in building the myth that should make Charles a popular king, but the assessment is that the feeling of exaltation will not last for many more days.
The reality of a new king, a new prime minister, rampant inflation and a looming gas and energy crisis could make the coming winter particularly difficult.
Now, with the return of the media's preoccupation with these problems, in Britain it is difficult to predict the public's reaction.
In a conversation with "Israel Today" earlier this week, House of Lords member Stuart Pollack accepted the national mood for Shabbat - and many times the Shabbat made it even more difficult than the mourning during it.
"We are sitting on a national sheba, but it is also a personal sheba for each of us," he said, "the last few days definitely marked the end of an era, but the end side also changes continuity.
The queen was unique, but historical continuity is important.'
Indeed, it seems that this is the key question that will preoccupy Britain in the coming months: did the strength of the unifying and patriotic feeling of the last few days stem from the institution of the monarchy, or was it based on the personality of the outgoing queen?
The consequences of the answer are expected to be dramatic for the future of the United Kingdom.
Dr. Oded Steinberg from the Hebrew University,
"The coming winter is a testing time," assesses Dr. Oded Steinberg from the Hebrew University, "in many ways this is the perfect storm: the two people who stand at the head of the kingdom, King Charles and Prime Minister Liz Truss, are almost a caricature of dryness, and the challenge is expected to come much more Faster than you think.
Charles will be very popular at first, but in the long run his popularity depends on the situation in Britain.
A deterioration in relations between Britain and the Commonwealth countries could occur if there is a crash in the popularity of the crown.
In this sense, the relationship between symbolism and politics in Britain is fascinating: when the situation is good, the presence of the royal house reinforces the good.
But when the situation is bad, it is not certain that in the new era symbolism will be enough to change the general atmosphere.
The new king is worth over a billion dollars.
How will it be perceived if people have trouble paying at the supermarket and don't have enough gas?
To fight this, Charles will have to take quick actions.'
According to Prof. Aryeh Dubnov from George Washington University, the key lies in the royal house's relationship with the media - a relationship that the queen has been able to manage wisely over the years.
"There is a love-hate relationship between the royal house and the media.
Supposedly the media people are the bad guys in the story, but actually, also thinking about key points in the Queen's biography, we see that she had the ability to take an institution that is supposedly completely fossilized and not only make it relevant to the 21st century, but also manage to paint it as 'cool', 'Cute', as a source of attraction for tourists and as the subject of wonderful Netflix series.
This stems from Elizabeth's understanding that the media is not only an enemy, but also a body that can be 'played' with.
"In this context, the Royal House made decisions that seem small, but together they are significant: to formalize the broadcast of the Christmas greeting on the BBC, the performance at the opening of the Olympics in London during which she seems to have jumped from James Bond's helicopter and the video with Deb Padiganton.
In doing so, she made herself, without saying anything, a symbol for everyone.
The real message is of course: how can you imagine Englishness without me?
In this respect the Queen was a brilliant copywriter.
During her time, the royal house understood the language of the Anglo-American world, the consumerism inherent in it.
It's their double game: to turn the monarchy into something Hollywood cool, while at the same time keeping the distance.'
Queen Elizabeth and King Charles,
The Queen's death occurs at a time when the British ethos is being reformulated, mainly in light of the separation from Europe after Brexit.
A possible undermining of the Commonwealth, an organization with which the Queen was so identified, may affect the perception of British nationalism 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 participate in the traditional raising of the glass to the Queen.
Today it would not pass.
This connects to the processes taking place within Britain, that the British myth is being reshaped these days through the emphasis of the difference from Europe.
In Brexit, we saw this myth in action: the British basically said, 'If we are so different from the Europeans, then we will cut ourselves off from them.'
According to Dr. Steinberg, King Charles is more aware of these processes than his deceased mother.
"A scenario of countries like Canada or Australia withdrawing from the Commonwealth in the coming years is certainly possible.
This thing very much depends on what will happen in the British economy and British politics.
It is possible that these voices would have risen under Elizabeth as well, because there is a deeper process here.
Britain's attitude to its imperial past is not talked about enough.
In the norms adopted in recent years, the head of state is supposed to ask for forgiveness for its past crimes.
Germany, for example, apologized for its crimes in Namibia, in the massacre of the athletes in Munich, and surely this is also true of its attitude to the Holocaust.
In Britain, the monarchy broadcasts that it is detached from these considerations, and it is not clear how much longer it can hold.
The current situation allows the royal house "not to get dirty" and not to touch the depth of imperialist evil.
It is possible that now a dynamic will begin that will leave them no choice.'
King Charles III during the announcement, photo: AP
"Charles understands this issue better than his mother.
He was present, for example, at the ceremony of making Barbados, which was a sugar colony, a republic.
He knows that something will have to change compared to the way Elizabeth has been conducting herself.
Mainly because he is not seen like her as a mythical figure.
In my opinion, they will have to align themselves with the accepted norm today in the Western world and recognize some of the crimes that Britain has committed.'
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
