The King's speech: did it deliver?
During his visit to Washington, British monarch Charles III gave a much applauded speech to the US Congress. He emphasised the responsibilities to Nato, Ukraine, global security and the environment and underlined the two country's close ties and the need for joint efforts to uphold democracy.
Things only kings can do
No mere president could have delivered such a speech, the taz emphasises:
“Not just because no elected president can remind the US that his five-times great grandfather granted them independence 'just the other day', but also because an elected president cannot claim more legitimacy than another elected president. They have both merely been elected, and thus represent only a section of their respective populations. A king is elected by no one and therefore represents the entire population equally and – this is key – he can think on longer time scales, he can embody tradition in a non-partisan manner and thus put politicians – with their limited terms of office and partisan leanings – firmly in their, very mediocre, place.”
Uplifting appeal
Le Monde finds the speech highly commendable:
“His praise for the balance of powers and the 'debate and deliberation' in Congress comes across as a criticism of the US president's concentration of power. Charles III's call for 'unyielding resolve' in defending of Ukraine and preserving the 'Atlantic partnership' is a welcome rebuke of Trump's disengagement and his complacency towards Moscow. ... That [Trump's] fascination with the monarchy compelled him to receive King Charles III with pomp and circumstance and to ceremoniously offer him the stage for an instructive lesson in democracy, international cooperation and the environment stands out as one of the few uplifting moments in the world today.”
Shameful complicity
Columnist Frances Ryan issues a damning indictment of Charles's Washington visit:
“A few days of joviality will hardly guarantee Trump's ever-erratic affections for long, as Keir Starmer has found out the hard way. What will last far longer is the sense of complicity: that the indefensible has yet again been legitimised. There is the sense that no matter what lines are crossed – from the illegal war against Iran to ICE detentions and deaths – allies will look the other way. That Charles courted Trump while failing to meet Epstein's victims – or even mention them explicitly in his speech, as had been hoped – could hardly be a clearer message of who counts and who doesn't.”