Among King Charles’s many jests during his Washington visit, the most striking involved an 18th-century historical rivalry between Britain and France for control of the New World. At a White House state banquet, Charles addressed Donald Trump, remarking, “Mr President, you recently suggested that without the United States, European nations would be speaking German. Might I venture to say that, were it not for us, you would be speaking French!”
Whether Trump grasped the humor is debatable. Generally, history, even their own, isn’t a top interest for most Americans. As a people focused on the future, they tend not to linger on past events or long for the perceived joys of bygone eras. In contrast to generations of Britons who still indulge in nostalgia for figures like Spitfires, Churchill, and Vera Lynn (and their triumphs over the French), Americans usually aim for new achievements. Their perspective is largely optimistic. However, under Trump’s leadership, this has morphed into an unpleasant, reawakened form of US “manifest destiny” imperialism.
With his characteristic subtlety, Charles conveyed significant messages. While addressing Congress, he refrained from delivering the sharp rebuke to Trump that many in Britain (including myself) had anticipated. Considering the constitutional and political limitations, his address was a courageous effort. Charles might have temporarily alleviated US-UK tensions, but his greater accomplishment was to gently prompt Americans to recall their origins, their heritage, and the higher standards they are capable of achieving.
Frankly, the US, under its erratic president and the Republican party, has been behaving uncharacteristically for some time. Charles’s proposed remedy was one of serenity, comfort, and insight. He offered a seasoned, discerning viewpoint to navigate, transcend, and look past the challenges of the Trump period. He voiced a profound confidence in the US, a confidence that many Americans seemed to be losing. He underscored unity as crucial for success and highlighted the worldwide significance of US actions. Charles’s nuanced, timely history lesson might have contributed more to restoring American pride than anything Trump himself has done.
The response from both Democrats and many Republicans in a divided Congress was quite revealing. Repeatedly, they stood in unison to commend the king’s evidently heartfelt belief – conveyed subtly rather than directly – that the US would navigate these difficulties, regain its composure, realign with its foundational principles, and once again strive to be a moral power for good; his assurance that this difficult period would pass, as historical patterns suggest all such challenges eventually do.
Recall the Magna Carta? Charles reminded them that this 1215 English document, which limited monarchical authority, served as a foundational guide for America’s creators and has been referenced over 160 times in US Supreme Court decisions. It enshrined “the doctrine that executive authority is subject to oversight and restraints.” The subtle implication from a reigning monarch, aimed at the demanding “pseudo-king” in the White House, was not lost on anyone. Democrats, especially, caught the reference, rising to their feet with cheers.
And what about the 1688 Bill of Rights, a consequence of the English Civil War and the pursuit of parliamentary supremacy? He pointed out that significant portions of this document were directly adopted into the 1791 US Bill of Rights. This offered clear royal endorsement to those concerned that contemporary US civil liberties are succumbing to a resurgence of oppressive rule. A quarter-century after 9/11, Charles emphasized that NATO nations, Britain included, vividly recall the event and how they supported the US. The implicit message was: appreciate the commitment and allegiance of the UK and your European partners. And respond in kind. Support Ukraine.
The king’s anecdotes concerning earlier royal visits additionally helped to revive America’s shared historical consciousness – and reinforce his central point: that regardless of its size or power, no nation can sustain isolation indefinitely. Charles noted that his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, had fostered strong relationships with every US president since Eisenhower. He implied that these bonds mirrored the profound, lasting connection between the two nations. The US, while a thriving, sovereign entity, maintained its foundational links to Britain and Europe. And, he seemed to convey, this is a truth you should never overlook!
To some extent, these points were predictable, perhaps even cliché and somewhat calculated. Yet, the fervent reception from Congress and the American media indicated that Americans – whose national identity was under constant attack, whose anxieties about the future were intensifying, and whose lives were frayed by continuous Trump-induced turmoil – desperately required this affirmation. George Canning, the British foreign secretary in 1826, famously stated he “called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old.” Through Charles’s reassuring visit, the “Old World” reciprocated that gesture.
Indeed. Both politically and historically, Trump’s presidency has severely disrupted the US’s equilibrium. Roughly half the nation appears to believe it’s battling both internal adversaries and unappreciative, exploitative international partners. The other half is dismayed by a president who actively erodes the democratic principles and statutes that rebellious colonists championed two and a half centuries ago, and upon which the US Constitution – and its global standing – is founded. King Charles visited Washington with British interests in mind, but through his conduct and subtle counsel, he illustrated how the US could restore its own stability.
Will Americans absorb his message? Will they truly embrace the lessons of history? Or will this simply prove to be a brief interlude, a passing flicker of goodwill and decorum, a momentary clearing in the storm? Predictably, almost immediately after Charles departed Washington, Trump started to leverage their private discussions to rationalize his irrational policies concerning Iran.
The conflict with Iran – largely avoided during the visit to prevent controversy – serves as a critical litmus test. If the Trump administration were to emulate Charles’s composed demeanor, taking a step back to objectively review the origins of this illogical animosity, reflecting on the CIA’s anti-democratic coup against Mossadegh in 1953, the subsequent installation of the Shah’s authoritarian rule, and the decades of unwarranted condemnation, reciprocal isolation, and sanctions that succeeded the 1979 revolution – including American backing for Saddam Hussein’s 1980s offensive and Israel’s protracted, deadly covert operations – perhaps its current actions would diverge.
Given his purported appreciation for British methods – and in keeping with the ethos of Charles’s visit – Trump ought to adhere to the UK’s recommended course of action for Iran, rather than reigniting conflict. This entails de-escalating tensions, engaging in unconditional, sincere negotiations, and proposing an end to sanctions and diplomatic normalization, contingent on Iran’s commitment to abandon nuclear weapons development and dismantle regional proxy groups. This is the agreement the world awaits, and it stands as the sole sustainable resolution.
Should Trump, for once, adopt a long-term perspective and act accordingly, he could belatedly steer the US back towards a historically righteous path. And irrespective of monarchy, the global community would have cause to commend the week Mr. Windsor visited Washington.