The End of the Buffer: Queen Sirikit's Death and the Unprotected King
A reflection on recent analysis in the Economist published November 6, 2025 titled “Queen Sirikit’s Death Shows Changing Thai Views of the Monarchy”.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, November 12, 2025
The death of Thailand’s Queen Sirikit, the Queen Mother, at the age of 93 on 24 October 2025, represents more than a national tragedy; it marks the decisive end of an era for the Thai monarchy. As argued in The Economist—including the perceptive observation that "Queen Sirikit’s death shows changing Thai views of the monarchy. Her mercurial son, as king, does not help"—this event has stripped away the final, crucial institutional buffer that shielded the throne from modern political criticism.
The core thesis of this reflection is that the reservoir of goodwill built by the previous monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), and sustained by his popular consort, Queen Sirikit, is now empty. Her passing leaves the current monarch, King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), exposed to the escalating demands for democratic and institutional reform.
For over six decades, Queen Sirikit stood beside King Bhumibol, helping to cultivate the image of a selfless monarchy dedicated to rural development, cultural preservation, and national unity. This successful public campaign generated immense performative legitimacy—a popular mandate earned through visible devotion to the people. Queen Sirikit was arguably the most effective component of this operation after King Bhumibol himself, often acting as the empathetic face of the monarchy, particularly with rural populations.
She functioned as an institutional shock absorber. While criticisms of King Vajiralongkorn’s personal conduct and his controversial political and financial interventions mounted over the past decade, they were muffled by her presence. Her deep popularity among traditional elites and older Thais created a psychological barrier: attacking the King meant risking offense to the beloved Queen Mother. This "strategic ambiguity" allowed the palace to navigate periods of political turbulence while retaining a fundamental emotional connection with the public.
To fully grasp the current volatility, it is necessary to contrast the political consequences of Queen Sirikit's passing with the death of King Bhumibol in 2016.
| Feature | King Bhumibol Adulyadej's Death (2016) | Queen Sirikit's Death (2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Crisis | Crisis of Transition: The end of a 70-year reign; a constitutional and symbolic vacuum. | Crisis of Exposure: The removal of the final emotional shield; vulnerability to pre-existing political discontent. |
| Monarchy's Position | The source of the monarchy’s accumulated capital (goodwill, authority) was removed. | The protection from using that capital has been removed. |
| Military/Elite Response | Focused on consolidation: The military junta used the year-long mourning period to "bed in" the new King, rewrite the constitution, and strengthen their institutional grip on power. | Forced to focus on damage control: The emphasis shifts from securing power to defending the monarch's individual legitimacy against public criticism. |
| Public Sentiment | Widespread, profound, and often genuine national grief, momentarily setting aside political divisions in collective mourning. | A more segmented reaction, with traditional reverence contrasting sharply with heightened, focused political scrutiny by younger generations. |
In 2016, the loss was destabilising due to the unknown—Thailand lost its revered figurehead of unity, and the political establishment rushed to fill the resulting power vacuum. In 2025, the loss is destabilising due to the known—the current monarch's personal conduct and institutional overreach are no longer veiled by his mother's immense, protective shadow. The contrast between the two reigns could not be starker. King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit relied on popular consent; King Vajiralongkorn has demonstrated a reliance on legal and institutional authority. He has asserted direct control over key military units and the immense assets of the Crown Property Bureau, centralising power to an unprecedented degree since the 1932 revolution.
The removal of Queen Sirikit's influence now forces the current King to confront his political challenges without the benefit of that familial shield. The monarchy's authority, once rooted in popular devotion, is now visibly maintained through the mechanisms of the state, including the fiercely enforced lèse-majesté law (Article 112). Perhaps the most significant consequence of Queen Sirikit’s death is its effect on the application of the lèse-majesté law. For decades, Article 112 served to protect the revered institution of the monarchy as a whole, an institution largely personified by the respected King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit. Now, with the passing of its most popular figureheads, the law is increasingly perceived by critics as protecting King Vajiralongkorn specifically from public critique.
This is a critical inversion: the legal shield has become a political liability. The mass prosecution of young activists and critics since 2020 broadcasts institutional panic rather than strength. It is alienating an entire generation who views the Monarchy's survival as dependent on coercion rather than consent.
The analysis that Queen Sirikit's death "shows changing Thai views of the monarchy" is profoundly accurate. Thailand's political landscape is now simpler, but far more volatile. The monarchy can no longer hide behind the goodwill of its past. The death of King Bhumibol removed the moral bedrock of the institution; the death of Queen Sirikit has removed the final protective cover over the monarchy's current leadership. This post-Sirikit era forces the institution to confront its challenges in an environment defined by public scrutiny and zero tolerance for perceived political manipulation.
In my opinion, the Thai monarchy stands at a crucial crossroads. Its long-term viability depends on a fundamental shift away from expansion of legal authority and toward re-cultivating genuine popular support. Without significant structural reform—starting with a relaxation or reform of the lèse-majesté law to permit legitimate public discourse—the institution will remain the central, unprotected flashpoint of Thailand's enduring political conflict. The post-Sirikit era demands not coercion, but a difficult, honest search for consent in a rapidly democratising society.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun
Banner: TarnPisessith, Shutterstock
