This week, a nation that was formed 250 years ago in protest of a mad king (George III) welcomed his direct — and very sane — descendant, King Charles III, and cheered as he showed us what inspirational leadership looks like.

Let me start with a disclaimer: My feelings about royalty in today’s world are very much the same as my feelings about Christmas. Having been raised in the Jewish tradition, the holiday holds no religious significance for me. But I love the more secular inspiration behind it, of “peace on earth, good will toward all.” And I revel in the beauty of the season: the lights, the music, the sharing of our bounty with those we love and those in need.

Similarly, while I feel that royalty in the modern world is something of an anachronism, I do understand and respect the attachment of a people to their ancient history and traditions. And there is something awe-inspiring in the pageantry, the devotion to public service, and the continuity that invokes a sense of security and national identity.

While today’s kings and queens are largely considered to be no more than figureheads, divorced from the “real” — or more accurately, the sordid — world of politics, they provide the sort of moral compass we so desperately need in an age consumed by greed, malice, and an insatiable lust for power.

And that is what King Charles brought to the former American Colonies this week.

Yes, he had the expertise of the royal speech writers behind him. But his personal touch was evident in the words; and the passion, dignity, and quiet force with which he delivered them moved even the Republican side of the U.S. Congress to reward him with several standing ovations.

In his quiet manner, he continued that evening to exhibit a breathtaking combination of good breeding, subtle humor, and diplomatic savvy throughout the State dinner at the White House, while the resident oaf struggled to retain even a modicum of dignity.

So, thank you, Your Majesty, for making the trip despite our recent differences, and for bringing a much-needed touch of class and good sense to Washington.

All of which makes me wonder: If the colonists had been patient long enough to survive the reign of George III, deep-sixed the Revolution, and instead remained under British control, would we have been better off today?

Possibly not . . . but a comparison of the present state of our two countries — and yes, I have been to England and experienced it for myself — leads me to think that it would not have been a bad thing.

Not bad at all.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/30/26