I’m one of the luckiest of Yanks to have had the honour of meeting Queen Elizabeth II during her final state visit to Washington in 2007. I saw and felt, up close, the unmatched diplomatic presence of the British monarchy and of this beloved, deeply respected woman.
This week, her son, King Charles III, lands in Washington for the first state visit of Donald Trump’s second term — not because of bilateral political harmony, but quite the opposite.
Keir Starmer couldn’t close a deal with Trump if his political life depended on it — and in some ways, it does. Trump has already written Starmer off as a profound disappointment, having spent eighteen months turning the special relationship into a one-way embarrassment.
The President didn’t invite the Prime Minister. He invited the King — because the Crown still means something and Starmer means nothing.
Four days of White House pomp, a private Trump–Charles audience, a garden party, and a historic address to both Houses of Congress: only the second reigning sovereign to do so since the Queen’s 1991 speech during the Bush presidency. Starmer’s government watches from the sidelines like the irrelevant spectators it has become.
The Middle East debacle offers the clearest proof of Starmer’s serial incompetence. When Trump needed serious allies to confront Tehran, Starmer’s government refused to send so much as a frigate to the Strait of Hormuz. They dithered, virtue-signalled, and left Britain looking like a paper tiger with two rusting carriers.
Trump didn’t mince words: the Royal Navy had been reduced to “toys” under this Government. Some British defence experts suggest he was kinder than Starmer deserved.
The President has publicly doubted whether Starmer “has a chance”, mocked his immigration retreat, his North Sea energy capitulation, and his broader lack of backbone.
This is the same Starmer who once presented himself as the serious adult in the room. Now he is the punchline — a focus-group Prime Minister who has achieved the remarkable feat of making Britain look weaker in Washington than it has under any previous government.
Wider Labour decay makes the picture uglier still. This is a government quietly pining for EU alignment, contemplating Chagos concessions, in denial over grooming gangs, and treating British sovereignty as an embarrassment. Post-Brexit Britain was meant to stand tall.
Under Starmer, it has grovelled, flinched, and offered only limp transactionalism — the very opposite of the muscular independence Washington respects.
Charles did not beg, plead, or triangulate. Trump extended the invitation because he respects the institution that Starmer merely tolerates. Whether or not one agrees with him on the environment, the King embodies continuity and duty; Starmer embodies prevarication and poor judgement.
Elected politicians like Starmer come and go, sometimes in disgrace. The Crown endures. Trump understands this instinctively.
He is drawn to the King because royal diplomacy cuts through the political mire in which Starmer operates. The late Queen entered Washington carrying centuries of alliance, with no need to apologise for Britain’s independence.
Donald Trump’s all-in with the King because he knows Britain's biggest problem is coming to end - Lee Cohen | Getty Images
Charles, facing robust geopolitical headwinds, will do the same. This visit demonstrates that the monarchy remains Britain’s most potent diplomatic asset — more effective than any third-rate negotiator Starmer could assemble.
For that reason alone, British republicans are profoundly mistaken. No EU cringe, no supranational apologies — just an independent nation sending its head of state, the King, to remind America why the relationship still matters. Britain preserved its ancient institutions rather than surrendering them to Brussels or to Starmer’s timidity.
Politicians like Starmer promise endless “resets” and deliver only frost and failure. The King arrives bearing the weight of an unbroken alliance. No lectures, no performative hand-wringing — just results.
Starmer’s discomfort with the monarchy operating on the world stage is telling: many in his party would rather the King stayed home than highlight the contrast. This week will be seen by some as vindication for those who backed EU independence but feel let down by Starmer’s globalism.
The special relationship has never been about transient prime ministers. It rests on shared history, shared values, and the one institution that still allows Britain to punch above its weight.
From an American who watched firsthand as Queen Elizabeth II captivated Washington nearly two decades ago, the message is clear: notwithstanding the deficiencies of the government of the day, Britain still commands respect in Washington not because of who occupies No 10, but because of what endures above it. Britain hardly needs progressive reinvention — and this week proves it doesn’t need Keir Starmer either.
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter