Falling into conversation with a London-based American banking chief executive in the chaotic aftermath of the financial crisis, I was asked about the vagaries of the British establishment. “It is very difficult to understand where power really lies; there are all these networks and signals that hardly any of us are clear on,” he said. I agreed, it was indeed a tricky matter. Six months later, that chief executive had quit, returning with relief to a country where a spade is actually called a spade.
Britain and America, George Bernard Shaw said, are “two countries divided by a common language.” The divide is becoming clearer. Not just between the U.S. and the U.K., but between the U.S. and the whole of Europe.
Yesterday, President Trump pressed again on the bruise, already inflamed by the Gulf conflict. The act? Suggesting that King Charles would have backed the attacks on Iran if he were able to speak freely. For the U.K. establishment, such a suggestion is, as we say here, “below the salt” (a reference to medieval England where salt was a rare commodity only available at “high table,” leaving commoners left on “low tables,” literally below the condiment).
“I like him,” Trump said of King Charles in the interview with the Telegraph, the right-leaning British news organization. “I always liked him as a prince. He’s a good man, a great representative for your country. I think he would have taken a very different stand [on the war against Iran], but he doesn’t do that. I mean, he’s a great gentleman.”
The headline duly trumpeted: “The King would have stood by me over Iran.” This is not the case, revealing that the role of the monarch in Britain is being lost in translation. In all matters of policy, the King reflects and aligns with the government of the day. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, where the sovereign has no political power apart from that bestowed on him or her by the elected government.
Everything Charles says is approved. The words are jointly crafted by him, his team, and government officials; Sir Keir Starmer, the U.K. prime minister, and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, have a central role.
At the end of the month, King Charles will arrive in the U.S. on an official state visit. The conflict in the Gulf could still be raging, and tensions between the U.S. and the U.K. clear. Trump said that Starmer was “no Winston Churchill” after the U.K. refused to support the first wave of attacks. The U.K. PM has called for de-escalation and said that the conflict is “not our war.”
The king, who will address Congress, could appear to be in an invidious position. Some British politicians say he should not be going at all.
But that is not a matter for the monarch. That is a matter for the government. It was with good reason that the first sentence of the official announcement from the Royal Household of the American trip read: “On advice of His Majesty’s Government, and at the invitation of The President of the United States, the King and Queen will undertake a State Visit to the United States of America.” It certainly did not say: “I have decided to go.”
It is the right decision. Relationships between nations are much more important than the individuals of the moment. King Charles is going to the U.S. to celebrate the country’s 250th year of independence. Visits later in the year would have clashed with the World Cup and then the midterm elections in America and Remembrance Sunday in the U.K. To not go in 2026 would have been a considerable diplomatic snub.
What can we say about the relationship between the king and the president, who describes the king as “a friend”? First, it should be noted that the official announcement on the trip was closer to the actual date than is usual, suggesting a degree of delay given the geopolitical situation. This was not an invitation that was leapt at with enthusiasm.
Second, the king is the head of the U.K.’s armed forces. When the president said in January that the U.S. “never needed” NATO and that non-U.S. NATO troops had “stayed a little back” from the front line in the war against Afghanistan, a message from the palace was conveyed to the White House, outlining the sacrifices of British troops. A few days later, Trump described U.K. soldiers as the “greatest of all warriors.”
Third, the King has consistently promoted dialogue over conflict and sustainable solutions to climate change via his own Sustainable Markets Initiative. The tone is very different from the president’s, who has spoken of a “green scam.”
On the day after the Artemis II space launch, it is worth returning to Charles’s statement wishing “safe travels” to the astronauts.
“In 2023, when I launched the Astra Carta [a framework to promote the sustainable exploration of space] at Buckingham Palace, I did so in the firm belief that our stewardship of the planet must now extend to the infinite wonders of the Universe.
“The Astra Carta urges us to navigate the celestial realms with wisdom, foresight, and responsibility. Its fundamental principles are not mere aspirations; they are a solemn pledge to future generations. They remind us that the cosmos is not a frontier to be conquered, but a shared inheritance to be cherished and preserved.
“It is vital that the moon remains a beacon of peaceful scientific discovery. May the stars align in your [the astronauts’] favour, and may your safe return inspire countless others to uphold the values of sustainability, cooperation, and wonder that the Astra Carta enshrines.”
The king and the president are far apart on tone and approach. Charles, of course, would never be so “below the salt” as to suggest such a thing. And would not be allowed to in any case. But he travels to the U.S. as Britain’s most senior government messenger. And as such, the distance between the U.S. and U.K. on global matters will be very much in play.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
