King Charles’ US trip shows royalty’s soft power, even in times of war

Dennis Altman For The Conversation

Melbourne: Last February the White House released photos styling President Donald Trump as a king on social media. This week he got to host a genuine king, for the state visit of Charles III and Queen Camilla.

During this week, the royals have been paraded around Washington and New York as symbols of the once “special relationship” the British like to claim exists across the Atlantic.

That relationship has been increasingly strained by Britain’s refusal to take part in the current Iran war, which has led to acerbic comments by Trump against UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Using the royals to bolster ties with the United States has long been a British tradition, despite the reality that the US came into existence by rebelling against royal rule.

Trump is the only president to have been honoured with two state visits to Britain, and he speaks glowingly of his friendship with the king.

As a constitutional monarch, Charles cannot express views other than those of his government. Were Trump to attack Britain for its reluctance to join the attack on Iran, for example, or mention his threat to support Argentina’s claims to the Falkland Islands, the king cannot respond directly.

In his Oval Office meeting with the president, and again when he addressed Congress, the king emphasised that despite temporary disagreements the two countries were bound together in “one of the greatest alliances in human history”.

In a very carefully scripted speech, the king stressed several issues where there is disagreement between the two countries, as in his remarks that “the same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine”.

His emphasis on environmentalism allowed for a reference to climate change, hardly a priority of the Trump administration.

The king also spoke of AUKUS, a reminder he is also head of state of Australia along with 14 other countries. The fact his visit is perceived entirely as one on behalf of the United Kingdom is a reminder of the peculiar anomaly of our continuing adherence to the monarchy.

Beyond the pomp and ceremony, will the visit actually affect Trump’s foreign policies? Trump regards himself as the ultimate deal-maker, and even he recognises the king does not make deals for any of his 15 realms and territories.

In private, the king may have softened some of Trump’s views. He may even have been able to explain that the inhabitants of the Falklands cling fiercely to their British citizenship, hoping Trump does not remind him that his disgraced brother, Andrew, fought in that war.

While the ongoing revelations about Jeffrey Epstein hang over both the president and the king, the subject was carefully avoided. Queen Camilla is due to meet several survivors of domestic abuse, and in an echo of her late mother-in-law, to visit a farm housing racing horses.

For both Trump and Charles, this visit comes at an opportune time to promote their brands. Trump’s support is declining as the war in Iran drags on inconclusively and forces up prices. The White House presumably believes images of him with the king might distract people from the growing chaos of his administration.

Equally, the royal visit reminds Britons the monarchy remains their most effective tool of soft power. As Australia’s former High Commissioner in London, George Brandis, reminds us, Charles has had a lifetime of training that allows him to charm foreign leaders even when they dislike his ministers.

The past few years have not been good for the monarchy. Two senior royals, Harry and Andrew, have now removed themselves from royal duties. Both Charles and the future queen, Kate, have had serious illnesses.

For both leaders, a successful visit enhances their standing, even though it is unlikely to change any political positions. The king will not soften Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels, nor persuade reluctant Republicans to increase support for Ukraine.

But he will have demonstrated that monarchy still has its uses in international diplomacy. Possibly the Danish government will be considering whether its hold on Greenland might be strengthened by a visit from King Frederik and Queen Mary.

The author is Vice Chancellor's Fellow and Professorial Fellow, Institute for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University.