Repairing the Special Relationship Between Britain and America: A Burden Too Heavy for the British King?

The "special relationship" between Britain and France lost its former luster after Trump launched war against Iran. Trump even mocked UK Prime Minister Starmer by saying, "He's not Churchill," to which Starmer did not retort with "You're certainly not Washington," but his tone was unusually cold—something unprecedented.

At this moment, King Charles III of the United Kingdom embarked on a state visit to the United States. During this trip, a small detail stood out: On Saturday, at a dinner hosted by the White House Correspondents' Association, President Trump was targeted in an assassination attempt. Fortunately, the president escaped unharmed. Unlike his previous two similar incidents, this event did not add any legendary flair to Trump’s image. However, for the British royal family, it was a major security incident demanding serious assessment. Despite this, King Charles decided to proceed as planned with his four-day visit to the U.S., officially framed as celebrating the 250th anniversary of American independence—but in reality, the mission is far from simple. First, it underscores the importance of the long-standing Anglo-American special relationship; second, it carries a significant additional task: repairing the deteriorating "special relationship" between Britain and America. BBC commentary described the king’s trip as “crucial and high-risk,” calling it the most challenging journey of his reign so far.

As we speak, the British king has already arrived in Washington. President Trump and his wife welcomed King Charles III and Queen Camilla at the White House with a tea reception. Tuesday features another highlight: the king will deliver a speech before the U.S. Congress, followed by a state banquet at the White House that evening. Wednesday sees the royal couple traveling to New York. Their journey concludes on Thursday with a visit to Virginia’s National Park.

Months ago, the king and queen coordinated their itinerary with 10 Downing Street. For Charles III, this is a high-risk visit, bearing the mission to mend the strained Anglo-American "special relationship." When Prime Minister Starmer assumed office, he never anticipated that such a historic bilateral tradition would be damaged. In 2025, when Trump initiated a global trade war and disregarded traditional Atlantic ties—imposing heavy tariffs on old Europe, including Britain—Starmer went so far as to praise Trump as "wise" and invited the president, who revels in royal ceremonies, to visit London in September. This diplomatic gesture secured Trump’s "pardon" for Britain. In the same year, May saw Britain become the first country globally to secure a preferential tariff agreement with the United States.

Yet Trump’s vanity and self-love seem boundless. In January, after European nations condemned Trump’s ambition to annex Greenland, the White House threatened heavy tariffs on Europe. This time, Starmer refused to back down, declaring Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on U.S. allies opposing his territorial claim over Greenland “entirely inappropriate.” Relations between the two nations began to deteriorate. Soon after, the U.S. and Israel launched war against Iran. The British government publicly questioned the war’s legitimacy and restricted the use of U.S. air forces at British military bases. In response, the White House unleashed a series of humiliating verbal attacks on Starmer.

After Britain declined to send troops to participate in the war against Iran—and took three weeks to consent to allowing U.S. military access to its base in Cyprus—Trump angrily declared, “He’s not Churchill,” suggesting Starmer resembled Neville Chamberlain, the 1930s prime minister who pursued appeasement and signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler. Trump also mocked Britain’s two aircraft carriers, calling them “toys.”

Such rhetoric that previous U.S. presidents struggled to utter became routine for Trump. Beyond being harsh and insulting, the decline in bilateral relations is evident in another way: In April, due to lack of presidential support, 10 Downing Street confirmed the suspension of ratification for the treaty transferring sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius—a deal originally intended to ensure Washington’s secure access to a key British military base in the Indian Ocean.

Recently leaked Pentagon documents suggest that, as retaliation for Britain’s failure to assist the U.S. in its war against Iran, the U.S. might challenge Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1982, Britain fought Argentina to defend its sovereignty over these South American islands—an episode deeply etched in British memory, notably involving Prince Andrew, the king’s younger brother.

Trump claims King Charles III is his “friend” and appreciates the imperial treatment he received during the royal visit—the golden carriage, lavish feasts at Windsor Castle, etc. Yet Trump’s enthusiasm does not extend to the king’s younger son, Harry, and his wife Meghan, whom the president reportedly “is not a fan of.”

In the UK, calls have repeatedly mounted for the king to cancel the Washington trip. But neither the royal family nor the British government yielded. According to a senior British official quoted by *The Times* on Sunday, postponing or cancelling the trip “could risk turning a temporary rift into permanent estrangement.” The newspaper reports that King Charles III is fully prepared for this delicate diplomatic mission.

There are precedents for the British royal family visiting the U.S. amid political turmoil. After the Suez Crisis in 1957, Queen Elizabeth II visited President Eisenhower. In 1976, during the bicentennial celebration of American independence, Elizabeth II visited the White House amid the Watergate scandal’s turmoil in U.S. politics.

King Charles may well repeat verbatim the words his late mother once delivered at a state banquet to President Ford: “Mr. President, we live in an uncertain age. We must not ignore our fundamental values, nor underestimate the value of certainty.”

Source: rfi

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1863668765674504/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.