Three years since the news from Balmoral
By J.K. Baltzersen
web posted September 8, 2025
On this day three years ago, the big news broke. The Queen of the United Kingdom and her other Realms and Territories for just over seven decades had passed. She ascended the throne when there were still British colonies in Africa. She acceded to the throne when spending the night at Treetops in the Aberdares in the British colony of Kenya from February 5 to 6, receiving the message of the passing of His Late Britannic Majesty King George VI later in the day at Sagana Lodge, then a royal residence.
Kenya attained independence on December 12, 1963, as a dominion. Exactly one leap year later, on December 12, 1964, Kenya converted to a republic. The Governor-General for those 366 days was Malcolm John MacDonald, who also served as the last colonial governor of Kenya. The dominion lasted for such a short period that no native Governor-General was installed. Hence, there was no Governor-General to violate his oath to the Queen before talking on a republican office. Jomo Kenyatta, who served as the Queen's only Kenyan Prime Minister, likely violated an oath when acceding to the presidency of Kenya. This republic certainly has had its problems, although it's possible to do worse, such as in Rhodesia, whose capital's name change I recall from my childhood in Nairobi.
Recently, Barbados departed from the very loose personal union of the Commonwealth realms. Jamaica is apparently in a process of doing the same. Some call it completing the decolonization process. If you're obsessed with violations etc. of the British Empire and/or of the monarchy back in the days when there was significant real regal power, and you want to ditch the monarchy as symbolism of your opposition to that past, instead of caring about what democratically elected politicos have done with their immense power in more recent times, it is tempting to suggest that you might be in need of some form of psychological help.
One might wonder what Jamaica would achieve by going full republican. Especially, since the current plan seems to be ditching the monarchy while retaining a constitutional role in Jamaica for the British Privy Council. How weird is that? Such a role is certainly more a remnant of colonialism than a constitutionally separate Crown within a personal union.
Queen Elizabeth II was on her way to beat the lengthy reign of the French Sun King, Louis XVI. She was less than two years short of that record. For a long time, it seemed she could make it. After all, her mother lived beyond a hundred years, receiving the official Queen's birthday greeting from her own daughter. Some may have amused themselves by imagining the official greeting being sent to herself, but the Queen did not sing to God Save the Queen. So, it is likely no such self-greeting would have been made. It didn't happen, so it remains hypothetical.
The pandemic came, and the Grand Old Duke passed shortly before his 100th birthday. The decline of the Queen seemed to be accelerating. In old age, the passing of one's spouse often does. At the time of the Platinum Jubilee, it was quite uncertain whether she would make it another two years to the record of the Sun King, and also that of centenarian yet another two years down the road. Only three months later, we had the conclusion at Balmoral. Yet, Her Late Britannic Majesty remains the longest-reigning and oldest Sovereign in British history. Besides, the Sun King acceded to the throne as a four-year old, with a lengthy regency as a minor. The Queen herself did not appreciate this record-breaking business. For her, Accession Day was also the day of the early passing of her father.
Monarchy can be many things, but if we simplify, we can say we have monarchy with real regal powers and symbolic monarchy. On the day of the passing of the Queen, at a gathering in Manchester, prominent Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson praised symbolic monarchy and in particular the role of the monarch's audience with the Prime Minister, as a way of the latter coming to confess to the former. The three Bagehot rights, i.e., the monarch's rights to be consulted, encourage, and warn, may have a moderating effect on modern politics. But it all happens behind the scenes, and as long as the democratic politicos have the final word, and they know they have that last word, the moderating effect will at best be limited. At worst, the pomp and circumstance of the monarchy work as rubber-stamping and legitimizing of the dirty work of the politicians.
We can lament the decline of regal powers and its effect on government and society. We can praise the remaining symbolic monarchies of modern society, with their positive effects. But monarchies with real regal powers and symbolic monarchy are not the same thing. Modern, symbolic monarchy cannot be a solution to the rising power of government, beyond possible slight moderation – and use of reserve powers in very extraordinary situations. It is far from a full solution. Yet, it is a dubious claim that ditching monarchs will make things better. Monarchy is often an important part of the glue of society, even when we are only talking about symbolic monarchy. Removing it may have dire consequences.
Although republicans do have a point when they say emasculated monarchs leave a power vacuum by having a powerless monarch "check" the powers of the politicos. However, the checks the republicans propose will more or less leave political power intact. Their checks may introduce some administrative hurdles, but if you look at the republics of Europe, the checks of presidents on the rest of political power, while stronger than those of symbolic monarchs, aren't that impressive. Besides, both presidents and parliamentarians are mostly friends from the same political establishment. Even in the United States, where modern checks and balances are supposed to be the most robust, government isn't held impressively in check. And no, that's not because of Trump. It was a problem way before he entered the political stage.
How do we fix the problem? Well, that's the million-dollar question. There's a lot of toothpaste to put back into the tube. And in those pre-shots-of-Sarajevo societies, monarchs were an important part of a different culture. In a sense, one could say they were the glue that held it together. One cannot just put the glue back in and expect that culture to magically reconstruct itself. World War One was a transformation from a monarchical world to a democratic-republican world. But it was also industrial slaughter, including that of a large part of the aristocracy. Also, mass participation in war translated into mass participation in civil, post-war government. Etc.
The solution is not right in front of us. But that is not to say that we keep shut about the problem of unchecked government. We must often learn that there is a problem before we search for solutions. In society, we solve problems together. Some people analyze the problem. Others may come up with solutions. It is a fallacy to say that you cannot point to problems without having a ready solution. That is not how problems generally are solved. That is not to say never have solutions or what could be the starts or parts of them. People do appreciate people who also can contribute to problem solving, not just nagging about what the problems are. There sometimes is a need simply to point at the toothpaste that has come out of the tube.
It is now three years since the royal funeral in London, with the coronation seven to eight months later. The British monarchy is the only European monarchy still with a coronation. Some say it should be dropped. There is a need in this modern age for connections to the past. We need reminders that not everything should be modernized, that new is not good simply because it is new, and that old things can be good. The European monarchs of Christendom were under God. They were subjects to God. We need more of that not less. What we have gotten instead is an almighty government that puts itself above everything because it has the mandate of the people. We have King Demos – or even God Demos. We need less of that and more of what the coronation reminds us of. The coronation establishes His Britannic Majesty King Charles III as servant of God. That should be celebrated, not lamented.
Monarchy represents something good, even in its symbolic form. We need to keep it. And while we do, we can think about how to get that toothpaste back into the tube.
The Late Sovereign Lady of glorious and happy memory, requiescat in pace! God save the King! 
J.K. Baltzersen is a Norwegian political commentator and writer. His work has appeared, among other places, in The Washington Times, FEE.org, and Enter Stage Right.
