As he himself has obliquely acknowledged, his mother was always going to be a hard act to follow, but in his speech to Congress, King Charles has emerged from the inevitably long shadow cast by the late Queen's seventy-year reign and global stature. It proves, indeed, that institutions can be bigger even than their most illustrious leaders, and it is just as well that this is so when Britain, somewhat short on the 'real' thing, needs as much soft power as possible.
It was a graceful, witty speech, delivered with the same kind of studied understatement that his mother deployed to such great effect, and it worked. As he noted, it is ironic that a hereditary monarch can turn up in the capital of a nation which violently rejected the rule of his five-times great-grandfather, George III and lecture them about democracy and the rights of man, but he got away with it thanks to a food joke well delivered: 'King George, as you know, never set foot in America. And please rest assured, ladies and gentlemen, I am not here as part of some cunning rearguard action.' Such self-deprecatory humour can only succeed where the protagonist has some real stature. A man with a bit of a reputation for being agonised, he seemed to be enjoying his new career in progressive stand-up, like a posh Stuart Lee.
The King is a democrat, and may privately sympathise more with the Democrats arraigned around him in the chamber, judging by the pattern of the standing ovations, than the Maga contingent. Still, he lured them into thinking about the predicament their country and the world are in. Declaring that 'many here and for myself, the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community' was bound to get the born-again contingent on side, but it was quickly followed up by a swift but gentle exposition on his own 'interfaith' work, and, in suitably biblical terms: 'It is why it is my hope, my prayer, that in these turbulent times, working together and with our international partners, we can stem the beating of ploughshares into swords.' For those who wanted to derive the meaning, it was there; others could take the homily purely at its innocent face value.
He could be direct, but only within the norms of the ideals of American constitutional settlement they are celebrating this year, as when he stressed the freedoms in Magna Carta, such as habeas corpus, that endure in US Supreme Court judgments and the 'checks and balances' that restrain executive power. A room of people brought up to believe in these values and, as legislators, judges and service personnel swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, are bound to stand and applaud when they are reflected back at them; but everyone knows who and what the remarks were aimed at. The same goes for the King's tangential references to his service in the Royal Navy, and the way Nato allies rallied after 9/11. It is more than a profound sense of sadness and duty that will take the King and Queen to New York to pay their respects once again, and everyone understood it. Later at the state banquet, he continued these themes, joking about how Elizabeth II had to reset relations when the Suez crisis in 1956 caused a previous transatlantic rift.
So these speeches were more 'political' than those his mother or his grandfather, George VI, delivered during their visits to the United States. It was a gamble, given how combustible we all know Donald Trump is, and how terribly he's fallen out with Keir Starmer, with whom he once shared an improbable rapport. Charles III seems now to be the new global 'Trump whisperer', and that takes enormous skill. How else can you get away with a quip about how the East Wing had changed since his last visit? Or what in more normal circumstances would be a routine, uncontroversial reference to 'Ukraine and her most courageous people.' To the surprise of many, the King 'went there' and didn't get heckled. It is impossible to imagine, say, Starmer, President Macron or Chancellor Merz being listened to in such a way. The King has thus proved to be an asset for his country and for the world. He did his best, and might even have made some Republicans think about where their nation is going. Whether his diplomatic triumph will have any lasting impact on the Middle East or the tariff wars, you have to be more sceptical. Even in such capable hands, soft power has its limits in a land that prefers the military version and one run by a man who seemingly would wish to be a king himself, and an absolute monarch. Trump and America needed Charles' little history lesson.
