Login
King Charles Visits America's Mad King
Friends,
As much as he’d love to be, Trump is not king of America. Which makes Charles III’s visit here a bit odd. It’s billed as a state visit, but Charles isn’t a head of state; his function is purely symbolic.
Most Americans disapprove of Trump, but there’s something special about the relationship between the Brits and their Royal Family. For it is in fact their Royal Family — not just an archaic symbol of what remains of the British Empire but a living, breathing, soap opera of a family that in the minds of many Brits represents modern-day Britain.
To those who say it’s bizarre for one of the world’s major democracies of the 21st century to cling to the fiction of royalty — and it is indeed a fiction, because Charles III has no tangible political power — I say this: It’s a relatively harmless fiction and one that arguably meets the needs of people to gossip about, project upon, and vicariously live the lives of a storybook family that tries to be of service to their nation.
Here in America — at least before Trump — some of us romanticized our presidents and their families. Remember Camelot?
But because our presidents also run the executive branch of our government, the two roles — the projected glamor and the political reality — have often gotten confused, leaving us disappointed on both grounds.
After Camelot came Lyndon Johnson, who pulled up dogs by their ears. And then, eventually, Donald (“Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything”) Trump. You can’t get any further from a romanticized Camelot.
Britain’s government may seem drab and boring but is at least free to do its drab and boring best.
Here, we demand that our presidents and their spouses throw formal balls (Trump is trying to build the biggest ballroom anywhere) and state dinners, decorate the White House like a castle, appear in person at every major national anniversary or memorial or funeral, and always symbolize the nation.
I’m certainly not suggesting America should have a royal family. Count me in the “No Kings” camp.
It’s just that Britain’s infatuation with its own royalty may have some social utility there that we Yanks don’t fully understand. Keeping the trappings of royalty separate from the daily slog of governing makes some sense.
