King Charles’s visit to the US was much anticipated in the UK – but not necessarily in a good way.
The BBC reported that the “‘high stakes’ visit will be the toughest test yet of his reign”. Some UK parliamentarians insisted the visit should be cancelled, arguing that Britain’s monarch should not reward US President Donald Trump for the Iran war and his rude comments about the UK government. Others felt cancellation would be a huge error, infuriating the White House. King Charles could instead be the “Trump Whisperer” who might calm the unpredictable President.
A royal source accurately summed the visit as “high risk, high stakes and high opportunity”. There have been only four other similar state visits to the US by a reigning British sovereign since 1945, all by King Charles’s mother, Queen Elizabeth II. This week’s visit was therefore a huge moment for Britain, the King and for Mr Trump too.
Mr Trump loves glitz, the company of famous people and gold-encrusted ceremonial. But British royal state visits are heavily scripted, choreographed and rehearsed. I reported on one of Queen Elizabeth’s state visits to Washington and attended a number of private events including a garden party at the British ambassador’s beautiful residence on Massachusetts Avenue.
One of the Queen’s diplomatic minders once told me that a controversial American politician was desperate to be photographed with the Queen and the diplomats were concerned he might use a royal photo in his re-election campaign. The British view was that this would be “unwise”. I watched in a mixture of amusement and admiration how British diplomats made sure the unwelcome meeting and photograph did not happen.
The Queen was instead shepherded towards a more congenial meeting with the Blues musician BB King. I can report that the Queen seemed delighted. I whispered to my diplomat friend that I would like to take a photograph of “Queen meets King”. The diplomat whispered back: “If you do, I will have to shoot you.” He was joking. Probably.
This mixture of fun, very tight security and reaffirmations of the important US-UK relationship is a guide to the rehearsed choreography of King Charles’s visit, mixed with the inevitable unpredictability of Mr Trump himself.
In fact, the US President was a careful host, separating his affection for the King from his criticism of the Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his government’s policies. The British also played down the utterly unthinkable American suggestion that the Falkland Islands should be handed over to Argentina, and Mr Trump’s irritation about lack of British military support for his Iran war. For his part, Mr Trump amusingly suggested his own mother had a crush on the handsome young Prince Charles.
The King’s speech to the joint session of Congress was also both warm and well judged. “Ours is a partnership born out of dispute,” he said, referring to the American war of independence in the 1770s. King Charles then reminded American lawmakers that partnerships born from disputes proved the key to our combined strength. Britain and America stood side by side through two world wars, the Cold War and the Afghanistan war after 9/11. The King then nudged Americans to show “that same unyielding resolve” in Ukraine because such challenges “are too great for any one nation to bear alone”, and require our “indispensable partnership”.
Historically there have been several significant US-UK disagreements since 1945 including the Suez crisis of the 1950s; Britain’s refusal to support then-US president Lyndon B Johnson’s war in Vietnam; and then-president Bill Clinton’s engagement with the political wing of the Irish Republican Army during the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. Now the disputes include Iran, and also trade and tariffs.
The US-UK “special relationship” may therefore be over-valued, but it does remain unique. An American diplomat once told me that “the phrase special relationship” is used by American presidents “to tickle the belly of the Brits”. A senior White House official put it differently noting that beyond rows, political differences and squabbles, he said American presidents and British prime ministers are “fated to get along” because the alternative would be bad for everyone.
Certainly, anyone who has met King Charles will understand how good he is at his job. In private conversations he makes robust arguments and yet avoids unnecessary bad feelings or disputes. Mr Trump is quite different. Predicting his behaviour is a fool’s game yet he clearly wishes to be remembered as a gracious host to a King he describes as “a friend of mine”. The showman that is Mr Trump and the great show that the British monarchy embodies therefore seem happy from the visit.
The people of the US revolted violently against their British rulers. Today’s differences between Downing Street and the White House and between Mr Starmer and Mr Trump are real, but they also reflect that there remains more to unite us than divide us. We share a common language, many similar institutions, values and often (but not always) common interests.
There is however an obvious caveat. Britain’s monarchy has its critics and its flaws, but it also represents tradition, stability, predictability and consistency. Can we say the same about the Trump presidency?
