In speaking truth to power, Charles III proved himself far worthier than the Clown Who Would Be King
At a moment when the transatlantic alliance is under tremendous strain, with strident tones heard on both sides of the ocean, King Charles III’s address to the US Congress had the sense of a rebuttal to … well, just about everything.
The background, of course, is Trump’s recent assault on Britain — questioning the relevance of its armed forces and calling PM Keir Starmer weak for refusing to join the war against Iran, while Starmer declared himself “fed up” with the rising energy prices caused by America and his deputy David Lammy called Trump’s insults “small and petty.” Quite a special relationship!
Into this debacle stepped Charles, a figure long caricatured as the eccentric royal who grew old waiting for his mother to retire or expire. In Trump’s twisted world-view he is certainly a loser, though one with a nice property portfolio. But those who followed Charles or encountered him in person — I once did at a garden party at Buckingham Palace — recognize a different figure: serious and curious, steeped in history and ideas, carrying an admirable sense of duty.
His role may not be democratically defensible, but he occupies a space Americans lack: a head of state (for yes, that’s what he is) able to speak for continuity, institutions, decency, logic and traditions – rather than the whims and obsessions of a politician. His speech was a masterclass in the anti-Trump way of existing, and the interesting thing is that he pulled it off without creating further antagonism. Trump seemed to like it enough to post about “Two Kings.” And then — for what is the economy but a regal plaything — to cancel tariffs on Scotch in order to “honor” his royal guests.
The interwebs seemed more inclined to mock Trump for cutting in front of Charles and Queen Camilla to shake a bunch of hands.
Either way, the difference between the two becomes vividly clear when one considers specific passages from the speech. Behold:
- “Whatever our differences… we stand united in our commitment to uphold democracy.” In normal times this is a cliché that is both true and tired. In our times, it’s a deft piece of diplomacy in challenging Trump to refute it. In his recent National Security Strategy, Grump dragged the US away from any notion of upholding democracy. He prefers autocrats like Putin to most democratic allies and is verily attracted to strongmen, even if murderous or vile. In Europe he has been boosting characters like Viktor Orban, who nearly destroyed post-communist democracy in Hungary. In America, he does his best to rule like an autocrat, and of late has again been threatening the revocation of a license from a network that refuses to fire a pesky comedian. His Royal Highness, whose very existence is a potential affront for democracy, was its greatest defender. Hear, hear!
- “That same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine… to secure a truly just and lasting peace.” Charles anchored support for Ukraine against the criminal assault by Putin as a given – even though Trump has pulled all direct aid and been trying to end the war on terms that Putin can spin as a win. The phrase “just and lasting peace” signals a rejection of a territorial settlement that would reward Putin’s aggression, as Trump wishes. Charles articulates the older Western doctrine: peace derives from strength and order, order from rules that bind even great powers, learning the lesson of Munich, and principles over expedient “deals.”
- “NATO… pledged to each other’s defense… keeping North Americans and Europeans safe from our common adversaries.” Trump, in his strategic blindness, has been lying to the American people about the costs of the alliance while presenting it falsely as a burden, has called it obsolete and a paper tiger, threatened to invade member Denmark in order to seize Greenland, and misunderstands the joint commitment to mean the allies have to join his war of choice in Iran (which I supported). Moreover, Trump has been making common cause with NATO’s main enemy, Putin. Charles again ignores unfortunate Trumpiness and speaks the simple truth: NATO is critical and important, and it is for the common defense.
- “Our defense, intelligence and security ties are hard-wired together… measured not in years, but in decades.” This passage sweeps away the Trump notion of easy recalibration. Trump’s approach casts alliances as adjustable — terms to be renegotiated, contributions recalculated, loyalty tested. Everything is about the next year, month, week or news cycle. Charles presents interdependence as a fact: intelligence networks, joint commands, shared platforms. They are systems, not deals. What Trump treats as optional, Charles treats as embedded. My parents barely survived the Holocaust. This is serious business. Give me Charles any day.
- “We do not embark on these remarkable endeavors together out of sentiment … they build greater shared resilience… making our citizens safer for generations.” This cuts against a worldview that treats alliances as extensions of personal rapport. Trump has framed relationships in terms of whether leaders “like” him, whether something “feels” a certain way and of course whether allies “pay” – emotions combined with transactionalism at the most vulgar baseline. Charles replaces that with structure: alliances distribute risk and compound strength, accruing value through durability and continuity beyond any leader.
- “The challenges we face are too great for any one nation to bear alone… we must build on what has sustained us for eighty years.” This is the clearest articulation of the postwar creed: interdependence as a force multiplier. Trump seeks sovereignty without limit and is the first president from any party to disdain the post-WW II global order that the US built, led and benefited from. Charles reminds anyone with the wit to listen that the system built after 1945 has been immensely valuable, even if it did not result in crypto deals for the Trump family.
Taken together, these passages reveal a coherent worldview. Charles speaks for the accumulated wisdom of norms, alliances, and shared memory. Trump style thrives on disruption — testing, renegotiating, betraying, discarding, and where at all possible profiteering. One sees the international order as an inheritance to steward; the other sees a bunch of suckers to be swindled. That is why the speech reads as the anti-Trump. Without attacking him directly it answers him on every major axis.
I occasionally attend a geopolitics conference in London, parts of which are held at the House of Lords. This is not an elected institution – it is, in fact, a sterling example of the privilege of the “elites” that are so beleaguered in politics today. I’m a fan. Each year, our host, Karan Bilimoria, rises to offer a gentle but quietly subversive defense. The Lords, he argues, works precisely because it is insulated: a chamber of specialists — scientists, jurists, diplomats —unburdened by electoral pressures and free to think beyond the next headline or campaign cycle. Its powers are modest. It can’t ultimately block legislation. But it can slow it, scrutinize, and nudge things in a better direction. And, not infrequently, it does.
So genteel. Can anyone imagine this happening in the United States without power politics and filibusters and people screaming on hollering on social media? Indeed, can we imagine any more a head of state as well-meaning and articulate as Charles? Mock the monarchy all you want; elections aren’t everything.
I have no special admiration for Charles. Whatever frustration he experienced while waiting to ascend to the throne is nothing compared to what most ordinary people endure. But he is a decent and intelligent man, and despite being unelected is vastly worthier than the clown who would be king.
