Jonathan Freedland

Yeah, he did.

And again, leaning into that image of the sort of quite fusty, older, more formal Britain and sort of playing on that role.

250 years since the Declaration of Independence, of course, when the United States broke from Britain.

And so the running gag through the whole visit has been, well, we're still a little bit annoyed with you for leaving us, but we've got over it.

And therefore, that's a model for our whole relationship.

We can have these differences of agreement.

The whole relationship began with the difference of opinion.

And we've got over it and had a good relationship anyway, which is a very timely message for when the British government refusing to go in with the war in Iran and on Iran is at odds with the American government.

In a way, here's the king to say that's been our whole history all along from the beginning.

And it's OK.

Yeah, I mean, terrible timing from the point of view of the royal visit.

Somebody leaked that, obviously trying to cause trouble because it was a while ago.

I think it was in February that the new replacement ambassador, the replacement of Peter Mandelson, made these remarks.

I suspect what he was saying, not very diplomatically, was if you actually think about military cooperation now, the Israelis and the Americans are working closely, hand in glove, more than any two countries, I think, probably ever before in the Middle East.

in the war in Iran and therefore that's more special but I think again such is the separate distinct category a monarch is put in I think in a way the American political class will look past that and because they they treat Charles differently if this was Keir Starmer coming

And now those remarks had surfaced.

That would have been trouble.

But instead, it's people are prepared to put all that aside.

And as our colleague David Smith wrote, they do go a bit weak-kneed at the sight of a monarch.

And he's the first British king, of course, his mother did it, to speak to Congress.