When the King of Britain Inspires the American Congress

by Brett Manero

King Charles III of the United Kingdom spoke to the United States Congress yesterday, April 28, 2026. This was the second time the British sovereign spoke to the American Congress, after Queen Elizabeth II spoke there in 1991. It seems that the vast majority of Americans thought highly favorably of the King’s speech, and I did as well.

What stood out to me was, first of all, the incredibly historic moment that it was: nearly exactly 250 years after the declaration of American independence, the descendant of King George III – “mad” King George – speaks to the Congress that is the fruit of the American Revolution. I wonder if Founding Fathers like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson could have looked into the future and seen a future British King speaking to the American government, what they would have thought of it. Perhaps Washington and Adams would have thought favorably of it – as their tendency was to favor positive relations with Great Britain in the years following independence, rather than the Jeffersonian view of favoring France. Britain was, after all, America’s natural ally and trading partner, with the same language and historical ties.

The relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom – the “special relationship,” as Winston Churchill coined it – has often been a complicated one. There was peace and massive amounts of trade in the years following independence, but then came the ugliness of war again with the War of 1812. Relations afterwards stabilized, but war nearly came again during the Civil War, which President Abraham Lincoln rightly avoided. Britain declined to officially recognize the secessionist Confederate States of the South, when the North made the abolition of slavery an aim of the War.

Relations improved again with the First World War, and the eventual entrance of the United States into the conflict on the Allied side. For the first time since independence, America was fighting side by side with Britain. During the 1920’s, isolationist sentiment in America became quite prominent, as many Americans felt that Allies like Britain and France had wrongfully pulled America into the unnecessary “war to end all wars.” With the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, American support for Britain steadily grew, even as isolationist sentiment remained steadfast. All of this of course changed with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war on the United States in 1941, and now Britain and America were firm allies.

And so, the “special relationship” was born. King Charles rightly noted that the Anglo-American alliance was one of the most consequential in history, and there is no overstating this fact. The cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and even the sharing of military structures during World War II highlight this. It was an alliance born out of necessity and the will to survive. Amidst this war – like World War I before – millions of American soldiers were stationed in Britain to prepare for fighting on the European continent. I can’t help but find this somewhat amusing and ironic, as the American colonists in the 1770’s often deeply resented the stationing of British troops in the American colonies.

As consequential and important as the Special Relationship is, Anglo-American relations throughout history have been complicated. King Charles also rightly noted that relationship between the two is one of “reconciliation,” and he is correct. Whereas “mad” King George III – an ancestor of Charles – was hated by many American colonists, one could not help but notice that the entirety of the American Congress had great respect for the current British King.

Maybe that was one of the most noticeable moments yesterday: the divided Congress – which can’t agree on a budget – entirely stood up to applause the King together. For but a brief moment, it seemed like Republicans and Democrats maybe can work together. Charles’ remarks on the necessity of executive power being limited was rather remarkable as well – he, as King, is descended from the original executives of his country. The King was the architect of power in England until the Magna Carta of 1215, with its limitations of the powers of the King, and thus began the long but steady process of the King’s power transferring to Parliament. If Kings and Parliaments vied for power throughout the centuries, it is notable that the current King acknowledged the goodness of limiting the executive’s power – and he said this not in his own Parliament, but in the American Congress.

For a while, I have not believed that monarchy is necessary. I have often found modern monarchies to be a bit silly. My British friends have argued that one of the benefits of monarchy is that it provides a stable head of state who is outside bipartisan politics and can act as a neutral leader. I have often seen their point, but was still unconvinced. To me, it seemed like republics do just fine without a sovereign. Also, as a Catholic, I already have a King and Queen: Jesus is my King, Mary is my Queen, and the Church is my Kingdom. The Pope is the prime minister, the second-in-command to the King. If we already have a divine King, why would we desire having a flawed secular King? The Prophet Samuel in c. 1000 BC warned the Israelites of the dangers of having a King:

He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots;  and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.  He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.  He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants.  He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants.  He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work.  He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.  And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Samuel 8:11-18).

There it is: God is your King, so having a human King will inevitably disappoint. To be pro-republic and anti-monarchy is therefore biblical. But, I must admit that yesterday showed me how monarchies can still be based on wisdom. Seeing a King – who is technically politically neutral – speak calm and order into a Congress that has suffered from appalling division and gridlock, was inspiring. And we desperately need more of that calm and order.