London 2012 took a different approach. Some would say due to a lack of ancient history. True again. But not all peoples around the world have the privilege of looking at ancient ruins with nostalgia. Some are obliged to put serious efforts to work, to achieve progress on economic and social level. Other reasons are in play as well. British land was never conquered at least since Julius Caesar. Greek lands have been turned again and again in a theatre of wars and extreme politics; so different peoples, different storytelling.

In my view, London 2012 ceremony focused on two things: first, what made Great Britain what it is today and second, on today’s world reality and change.

They depicted change via constructing images that described progress, embraced differentiality and promoted contemporary culture elements. From the agrarian economy to the “dark satanic mills” of the industrial revolution, which began in the UK in the middle of the 18th century and swept throughout the rest of the world -transforming society and laying the foundations of the modern world in its wake- to post-industrial pop society and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, British computer scientist and the inventor of the World Wide Web.

In my opinion, there were two key moments of the ceremony that made a difference. The one was the ‘Mortality’ section by choreographer Akram Khan that featured 50 specially selected professional dancers, a 9-year-old boy and Khan himself, accompanied by the voice of Emeli Sandé singing Abide With Me. Khan’s work brought an infectious stillness to the Ceremony, a reminder of our own mortality and the transfer of possibilities and hopes between generations.

The second moment was the final stage of torch relay with the young athletes leading the way to the future. River Thames cruiser with Beckham and the young female footballer on board delivered the flame to an older but strong athlete who entered the stadium and handed over the torch to a group of young athletes, who, as a group, shared the final meters towards the final task. It was a symbolic mystagogy that praised values, beliefs and the human factor.

A lot of comments are already made about the British Olympic party. Cross-cultural differences allow for too many interpretations and expression of national complexes. My preferred was the one tweeted by UK’s Conservative MP Aidan Burley, who was sacked as a ministerial aide last year after he took part in a Nazi-themed stag party in the French Alps. He said the Olympics opening ceremony was “multicultural crap”, The Guardian writes. He described it as “the most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen”.

Well, if the ‘Isles of Wonder’ managed to upset the extremists, it means that the social and political symbolisms were properly in place.

Dr. Demetris Kamaras is the Editor of AlYunaniya.com

Under the rain, they were trying to pass their simple message: “This is your country!”, “It is your future!”, “Your democracy! Your choice!”. Hundreds were the anti-monarchist demonstrators who were prevented from reaching the banks of the Thames by security staff. The royal jubilee flotilla had to sail unperturbed.

The planned protest went ahead inside a designated protesters’ zone, discretely hidden away and impossible to be seen from the riverbank; but those excluded from it resisted, and protested on the other side of the fence, among merrymakers heading towards Tower Bridge.

The protesters held placards calling for “citizen not subject”, and “democracy not monarchy”, as they tried to exercise their freedom of speech. They were faced with boos and jeers from royalists, who started to sing ‘God Save the Queen.’

At the head of the protesters was Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, a figure whose job is to make people notice how the royals spend most of their lives shielded from criticism, and supported by an imposed sense of entitlement. It seems that this protest might force them to face the strength of republican sentiment in Britain, and remind them of the democratic values their country has fought for in the past.

The case for a republic in Great Britain is mature. People wish to evolve, to live in a country in which aspiration, responsibility and democracy give a choice to every citizen; and to abandon a society whose institutions are based on inheritance and exclusive privilege.

A wind of change blows in Britain, and it finds support from the delegation of the Swedish Republican Movement that was present among the protesters in London. It is not an isolated event. Since its establishment in 2010, the Alliance of European Republican Movements (AERM) is grouping and organizing republican movements from many countries. Of the twelve monarchies still standing in Europe, AERM has members in seven of these, including the U.K.

Republic, in the person of Graham Smith, campaigns for an elected head of state to replace the monarchy in the United Kingdom. It has also called for a new constitution that puts real power in the hands of voters.

What would the Queen’s answer be? The Queen is the head of state, but the Prime Minister and Government run the country; does this mean that the royals will be able to pull it off as usual, and there is nothing new under the British sky?

The fact is that as censorship continues to keep the anti-monarchist protest away from public attention, the royal family has been battling its way into the new century with several clever moves. On the 9th April 2005, Prince of Wales was allowed to marry Mrs Parker Bowles with a civil ceremony at the Guildhall, Windsor. This cast a new light on the royal family, and helped it to stabilize an impression of ‘opening’ towards the people, of its embrace of democratic beliefs.

Through time, His Royal Highness Prince Charles developed ‘The Prince’s Charities’, a group of not-for-profit organisations to which he is Patron or President. The group is the largest multi-cause charitable enterprise in the United Kingdom, raising over £100million annually, and the organisations are active across a broad range of areas including education, environmental sustainability, and responsible business.

Recently, another commoner entered the royal family. Prince William married Catherine Elizabeth Middleton on 29th April 2011, and effectively promoted himself as the ‘people’s prince.’

Is the British royal family on the course of a campaign to revamp their look, and assure their future power in the country? It would seem so, also because revenue created directly and indirectly by the royals for the country is brought to the fore more and more often.

As Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa wrote in the Il Gattopardo (The Leopard, 1956): “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” A sentence uttered by the protagonist, Prince Fabrizio Salina, a nobleman caught in the midst of democracy, war, and revolution. It might be just what the day after the Queen’s diamond jubilee will bring about.

In the meantime, the anti-monarchists organise themselves. Bloggers discuss the events that took place in London, and the people continue to think about it. It seems the anti-monarchist demonstrators make sense to many citizens. And as they mention how children should believe they can achieve anything they want, provided they work hard for it; and claim people in the U.K. should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own political affairs, I wonder on the country’s future.

Can a society which suggests that even the wisest and most talented commoner is no match for even the most unpleasant and immoral royal continue to be?

We will be watching you mighty Britain; let your people decide what they want for a country.