How good was King Charles?
Barnabas62
Shipmate, Host Emeritus
in Purgatory
Recognising that King Charles was, very probably, only reciting words crafted by UK government officials, I thought his delivery to Congress was very very good. The reception seemed a lot more than just respect for the elderly monarch of an old ally.
All the more remarkable given the personally horrendous run up to visit (ex Prince Andrew etc) and the significant strain in US-UK relations.
I wondered how it looked to US Shipmates and others.
All the more remarkable given the personally horrendous run up to visit (ex Prince Andrew etc) and the significant strain in US-UK relations.
I wondered how it looked to US Shipmates and others.
Comments
So did Congress. Although all those ovations felt a bit much to me.
But it must have been such a breath of fresh air to hear a head of state who can speak well, understands the audience, has a keen sense and understanding of history and cares about diversity and democracy.
I thought he did well though, all things considered.
Whether it will make any substantial difference to US/UK relations during the current administration remains to be seen.
I'd be interested in the perspectives of US Shipmates on this one. So far the only responses to the OP have come from this side of The Pond.
I for one don't give a flying fuck what the unelected figurehead of another country, someone who holds his position solely because he was born to it, says about diversity and democracy. My word, do you even hear how ridiculous that sounds? A king cares about diversity and democracy?
"No Kings" has been one of the strongest rallying cries against an administration that is tearing apart liberal democracy in the US. The ever-tone deaf White House social media lackeys posted a picture of Trump and Charles with the caption "Two Kings."
The Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act yesterday. But sure, let's talk about Charles and a speech that matters not in the least.
Not funny.
He's not trying to be funny.
Charles is well-known in aboriginal circles in Canada as he has been to more northern settlements than possibly anyone for whom it is an occupational hazard. Over the years I have spoken with clergy, activists, and street people who have met him in Inuvik, Yellowknife, Iqualuit etc and enjoyed trading awful jokes and puns with him. So his comic delivery of sharp points was no surprise to me. Vice-President Vance may have been the only one who noticed that he was among the skewered.
For Charles' flaws (I have a list somewhere), he may well have been one of the most progressive in the room (Alexandria Ocasio Cortez excepted). I think he is aware of the disconnect between his historical situation and the causes he espouses, but he doesn't seem to be too bothered by it.
Well, he doesn't need to be, does he.
Back up a bit from evaluating whether it was a good speech or not. Why should Americans care about what he said?
First, while he doesn't need to, his awareness and focus is exceptional among people at the top of the pyramid, however they got there.
In his comments, he made the point of reviewing a series of first principles, outlining the role of Magna Carta, the place of the executive and the necessary and systemic restraints, and the importance of the environment. These principles are not in line with how the current administration is operating. He lets listeners draw their own conclusions.
He didn't say anything that thinking people in the US don't already know. We don't need someone who does not deserve to have an international platform to speak in the first place to tell us how far out of line the current administration is operating.
Indeed.
Well, King Charles does care about diversity and democracy - and the environment.
I'm sorry you felt angered that he had this platform to say it @Ruth.
Why do you think his speech was so well received in Congress?
I have no special love for the monarchy. Except that, if we abolished it we'd end up with a president. 'president farage' **shudder**
As to what does it matter - it matters to the UK and US people really only in so far as it shores up less toxic aspects of the relationship of the two states and to whatever extent Charles’ approval matters to Trump (and if he therefore is willing to moderate or compromise on some issues in order to maintain royal contact).
No, he didn’t say anything thinking people in the US don’t already know. But he, because he is the head of state (whether we approve of why he’s head of state or not), got to say it in a venue where the vast majority of thinking people in the US do not get to speak, and to an audience that the vast majority of thinking people in the US do not get to address except through phone calls, letters and maybe in-person questions or statements to individual members.
And, he had the ability that most of don’t have to speak on behalf of historic alliances, including NATO, and on behalf of a watching world.
Whether Charles deserves an international platform or not, he has one. Personally, I’m happy to hear the voice of anyone who’ll stand before Congress and say things that need to be said.
Whether it will matter, on the other hand . . . .
Genetic heredity as a selection principle is as moral and practical as is financial heredity (none!), whether it is inheriting lumps of cash or paid-for influence or privilege. The US may have largely escaped one impurity, but fails on the other. I know that in Canada, much political selection has a corrupt element-- very rarely financial, but exchanges of influence etc. How that goes in the US, I will leave others to discuss.
In any case, he had the platform, and he used it to the best of his ability, and many others have failed or didn't even bother trying.
If he stood up to Trump and said things that need saying, then I am very glad to hear that, but I have not heard his speech. I hope it does some good. God knows we need it.
This.
AFAIK, there hasn't been a mad rant of a reply from Trump. Yet...
Slightly off-topic: is there a degree of ovation inflation with regard to the SOTU and other set pieces? Is it one of those things where it started being counted as a rough-and-ready indicator of success and then became a target?
But who's to say that Prince George (for example) couldn't end up being like Farage? That's not to suggest that I think that will happen (I think it's unlikely) but there's nothing to prevent a monarch from also being an awful person. Also given his position, if King Charles really cared about democracy he would abdicate and call for the monarchy to be abolished, given that monarchy is intrinsically anti-democratic.
I agree with @Ruth though, the comments suggesting that somehow an unelected monarch is a champion of democracy leave me scratching my head. I also have to point out that the argument that getting rid of the monarchy would leave us with President Farage or a US-style presidency is a specious one - there are lots of countries with a president *and* a Prime Minister under a Parliamentary system. Ending the monarchy would pretty naturally involve a complete revamp of the whole system.
Around bsky I'm picking up a lot of wags - and I think I sympathize - who are noting the irony that a visiting monarch is telling us about the virtues of democracy while our own president is clearly drooling for a gold, bejeweled crown.
True dat.
While Charles is giving the whole "good governance" speech with both barrels there, we are getting something as close to populism as Starmer feels he can get away with. Anything to hold on to power. Does that sound familiar?
Well, as long as he occupies his position within a democratic system, I don't really have a problem with it. And insofar as the British monarch today has been rendered a figurehead, I think the overall system remains democratic(*), even if the method for selecting the figurehead is rooted in antiquated traditions.
Now, if the Supreme Governor and Defender Of The Faith had started lecturing Americans on the evils of hanging the 10 Commandments in schools, I'd say that's a bit more problematic, even if I do find the US decalogue fetishists more sinister than the general C of E.
(*) I do have a pretty low opinion of Canadian politicians(lookin' at you, Elizabeth May) who try to drag the monarch into partisan politics, under specious premises like "The crisis we are facing right now is so grave that we need the intervention of the head of state", 'cuz it negates the whole basis of constitutional monarchy and it exists in the modern era.
Fair enough. I've heard stories about monarchial interference under Elizabth II, but was never sure how valid the stories were, or how much impact any interference actually had.
If the monarch's role is just confined to saying "Well, Prime Minister, I can't say I approve of this recent legislation you're proposing", with no power to actually direct the parlianent's actions, one could probably argue he's just functioning as an adviser offering take it-or-leave-it counsel, albeit appointed according to archaic procedures.
In Canada, the last time I heard about the literal monarch intervening in politics was in the early 90s, when the Conservatives were trying to pass an unpopular sales tax, and the unelected Liberal-controlled Senate was blocking it. The Conservatives actually had to send emissaries to London to ask the Queen for more Senate seats, which she granted. But in that case, she was on the side of democracy, because the tax had been approved by the elected Commons, whereas the Senate was cynically trying to govern by opinion polls.
Absolute democracy is not, I think, the be-all and end-all of the thing. If His Majesty thought that the best interests of the country would be served by the abolition of the monarchy, it would be his duty to encourage his Prime Minister to put forward legislation to that end. His personal abdication might be symbolic, but it would frankly make more sense for an elderly King to encourage the sort of wide scale discussion and consultation that would be necessary to decide on what kind of constitutional framework would replace a monarchy, than for that King to retire and to leave a much younger King to be the caretaker during the transition period.
To take the focus off Charles and UK, Spanish voters overwhelmingly approved the Spanish Constitution in 1978, and that Constitution establishes constitutional, parliamentary monarchy as Spain’s form of government. Can the Spanish monarchy be—or could it have been in 1978—accurately described as “anti-democratic” when it was established through democratic processes and as a part of a system that is otherwise democratic?
I think it would depend what powers they were voting to give that head-of-state. If they were voting to give him the powers of Louis XIV, then the vote itself might be democratic, but the resultant monarchy would not be.
OTOH, if they were voting to give him the powers of post-1947 Hirohito, then both the vote and the resultant monarchy would be considered democratic. Or at least compatible with a democratic system.
It appears the immediate practical effect is that Trump has lifted the Whiskey tariffs. Scotland and Kentucky are pleased. (Well, for the next five minutes anyway.)
I certainly hope not. One thing that is good to remember in the US is that it is a republic, not a total democracy, with rights enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that should not be abrogated even if a huge populist movement tried to do so. It's what the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold--to see if laws are constitutional, and to say "no" if they're not, even if an unconstitutional law has majority support.
True, though I'm not sure if the issue is democracy vs. republic, since post-1982 Canada also has rights constitutionally enshrined, IOW they can't simply be taken away by majority vote(*), but Canada is not a republic.
(*) Well, technically, there is a procedure for parliament over-ruling the courts on matters of rights, but that would still be in place even if we changed our figurehead to a president.
As the Guardian pointed out a few years ago, over 1000 bills were vetted by the Queen or (then) Prince Charles during her reign, and the convention was used to privately lobby the government on a number of occasions, but the information about how many bills were lobbied against, and how many were altered as a result, remains privileged.
On harm to the environment, and to people living in the vicinity, there's the issue of cleaning up one of the UK's worst illegal waste dumps, which sits on land partly owned by the Duchy of Lancaster.
In UK law, if waste is dumped on privately owned land, it is the responsibility of the landowner to clean it up at their own expense. In the case of an illegal dump near Wigan, the Duchy's position is that they're exempt from these regulations. (Which does appear to be the case under escheat law.)
Not only have the Duchy declined to pay anything towards the cleanup, they looked to profit from owning the land by offering it to Wigan Council at open market value, as long as Wigan Council paid all the legal costs, and despite the Duchy being fully aware that it had large liabilities attached.
One of our theologians even lauded him for being a good public theologian.
I saw the speech to congress. Personally I was impressed.
I want the name of the speech writer!
It was a perfectly crafted speech to try maintain relationship in good faith, without bending the knee at all. There was a great deal of flattery with saying what he thought was important too. And the wonderful British sense of understated humour shone through beautifully!
I wonder how it works between the monarch and the PM if they are at odds?
But I suppose PM's come and go, monarchs are in it for the long term.
Well done King Charles.
It was in response to trump saying if the US didn't get involved in WW2 the brits would all be speaking German. The response was if the Brits didn't get involved in the US in its earlier history, the Americans would all be speaking French.
lolololol! #niceone
I thought since this is in Purgatory we are supposed to be careful how we write "Trump."
That said, truth be known, if the US had not gotten involved with WWI, US citizens would be speaking German today, at least as a second language.
Germany was in no position to threaten the USA in 1917.
The big German offensive that year certainly gave the Allies a jolt but they wouldn't have collapsed such that the Kaiser could have captured Paris and then London and ultimately Washington.
The most likely result would have been France and Britain sueing for terms if the Western Front had completely collapsed and Germany holding onto Alsace-Lorraine and possibly Belgium.
US intervention hastened the end of WW1 but didn't prevent Germany taking over the USA as they'd never have been in a position to do so.
Anyhow ...
I'm not sure anyone has mentioned how Trump's been claiming that King Charles indicated privately that he'd have supported US action against Iran if he'd have had his way.
Do we give Trump any credence for that claim?
Is that the sort of thing the King would say, even in private, and even if he believed it?
Or is it more Trumpine bloviating?
I'm sure Trump wishes the UK monarchy wasn't a constitutional one and that he could be an unconstitutional King Donald I of North America (including Canada).
(Which I'm sure is a morally justified cause all the way, but this strikes me as a stunt mostly aimed at a domestic audience, prob'ly including diaspora nationalists; academic and adjacent anti-colonialists; with maybe a small oldsters' wing of "Ha ha, stupid limeys and their stupid king, you tell 'em, kid!"
(Rough equivalent would be Hugo Chavez going to whatever summit that was and handing Barack Obama that book on US imperialism in Latin America as a photo-op.)