Charles III's US visit and address to Congress

[Mel O'Drama]

As Telly Talk has good representation of various nations, how do we feel about it?



The reception across the board seems overwhelmingly favourable for both its diplomacy and its strong message.

And parties left and right lapped it up.

As someone who is generally indifferent to the UK's Royal Family and weary of politics, I've been surprised to find myself watching the address in full not once but twice and marvelling at the way it's worded and delivered.

There are a few shots across the bough, from the mention of the importance of checks and balances and the call for support of Ukraine to the impact of the climate crisis. There's also a timely reminder that he and previous generations of his family proudly served in the Royal Navy, a force so recently and vocally belittled by his host.

And yet behind it is genuine hope and an important reminder of shared histories which highlighted why unity between allies is more important than the divisions tearing things apart. The warmth came across, and I can see why it's been likened to a father talking to his squabbling kids.

I think it really is a masterclass in how to deliver a message that reaches across the board. And just days ago I thought the visit would be an expensive mistake.




On another note, I found the frequent ovations both frustrating and funny... like a sketch where someone's earnest sentences are constantly interrupted by canned applause and a wave of standing up and sitting down again. That kind of thing can really throw off a carefully-rehearsed delivery (I heard a distinct "whoo" at one point), so he did very well to still get the message across under those circumstances.

 

[Karin]

Thank you for sharing. I've watched it in it's full once. That was enough for me. I agree it was a good speech that served the purpose it was intended for. To repair the special relationship between the USA and the UK. It also included a lot of historical references. Whoever wrote it has done their homework well.

But as a Swedish citizen who has been dragged into NATO without the people of my country even being allowed to have a vote on it (not the way things should work in a democracy), I am not thrilled with all this talk about how we will defend our nations against our adversaries. I much preferred when we were a neutral country that could stay on the sidelines watching what the nations in power did instead of being dragged into whatever conflict they decided we should participate in.

That he talks about climate change is nothing new. He has been interested in the environment long before it was fashionable. I guess he got the message of unity between the USA and the UK across really well. The members of the American congress did lap it up. All the standing ovations seemed to be feed King Charles ego to start with but after a while he seemed almost annoyed at not being able to talk uninterrupted. Over all he's come a long way from the days when he used to be eclipsed by his late wife in the 1980s.

Also I find it hard to believe that it's been 25 years since 9/11 this year. How is that even possible?

 

[Crimson]

On another note, I found the frequent ovations both frustrating and funny.

American presidential speeches are usually structured to not only allow but encourage these reactions, not just applause but some disapproval. It does have a bit of artifice -- I always picture someone holding up an "Applause!" sign like at the filming of a sitcom. These speeches are generally a string of sound bites anyway, so the applause isn't disruptive to the flow. I haven't listened to Charles' speech, but if it wasn't structured for interruptions then I would feel awkward. I mean, Churchill's "We shall fight" speech would have been a very different vibe if delivered to clapping and hooting.

 

[Karin]

I don't think it was structured for that many interruptions. He even repeated some of the last words he had said before the applause when he continued talking at a couple of occasions.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

It also included a lot of historical references. Whoever wrote it has done their homework well.

Very much so, yes.

I am not thrilled with all this talk about how we will defend our nations against our adversaries. I much preferred when we were a neutral country that could stay on the sidelines watching what the nations in power did instead of being dragged into whatever conflict they decided we should participate in.

I can understand that. I'd probably feel the same way in your position. Never having had the benefit of neutrality, I feel more concerned about the threat to NATO with recent events such as the Greenland crisis, and I'm sure that wasn't far from the King's mind as he spoke.

That he talks about climate change is nothing new. He has been interested in the environment long before it was fashionable.

Yes. He was really ahead of the curve and has done a lot to try and pass on his understanding to people for many years. His passion for nature wasn't surprising, but his directness about it in that particular setting was.

I'd suspected that certain topics might be off the table during the state visit for the sake of harmony, which would have been understandable. But the approach he took was the more surprising one. I found it incredibly satisfying to see him cover many potentially "taboo" topics during his address. Above this, doing it in a way that was palatable for both audiences showed class and understanding. That's how it's done.

Over all he's come a long way from the days when he used to be eclipsed by his late wife in the 1980s.

While it's always hard to tell, I thought he put something of himself into what he said. In particular, there was a healthy dose of his humour. His delivery of some of those little moments was perfect, and I found his knowing grin quite endearing. It shouldn't surprise me that he speaks so well, but I suppose it did. As mentioned, I'm fairly ambivalent when it comes to royalty, but this felt like a defining moment for him. I can't think of anyone else who could say what he said in congress and still appear to be (mostly) admired by both sides of the floor.

American presidential speeches are usually structured to not only allow but encourage these reactions, not just applause but some disapproval. It does have a bit of artifice -- I always picture someone holding up an "Applause!" sign like at the filming of a sitcom.

I haven't listened to Charles' speech, but if it wasn't structured for interruptions then I would feel awkward.

As Karin said, he didn't seem to have expected the interruptions and certainly not in that frequency.

He began his address by paraphrasing Oscar Wilde's quote about our two countries having everything in common these days... except for language. Perhaps that could be extended to the language of the political arena.

His reaction the first time everyone leapt to their feet seemed to be amusement. It certainly amused me that he received so many ovations in such a short span of time, and sometimes over the tiniest of comments. I like to think he appreciated the enthusiasm and warm reception. And when in Rome...

I mean, Churchill's "We shall fight" speech would have been a very different vibe if delivered to clapping and hooting.

And that's made me chortle all over again.

 

[Barbara Fan]

I thought it was a very well delivered speech by KC3 - and the Queen (Elizabeth) would have been proud

(However ............ his fingers fascinate me!)

 

[Angela Channing]

But as a Swedish citizen who has been dragged into NATO without the people of my country even being allowed to have a vote on it (not the way things should work in a democracy),

That's exactly how I feel about having Charles as our head of state.

I see the State visit as one corrupt billionaire inviting another corrupt billionaire to talk to elected representatives about things that ordinary people should be concerned about but people like him should get a free pass to do whatever the hell they like. For example, climate change, an issue that Charles thinks is so important that the hypocritical monarchy asked to be exempt from environmental laws.

Charles spoke of executive power being "subject to checks and balances" but failed to mention that the Royal Family have secured numerous exemptions from UK laws so they can escape being "subject to checks and balances", not least the Freedom of Information Act so they can operate in secrecy.

The speech was well written by his speech writers and as a exercise of hypocrisy and appeasement of a fascist leader, it hit all the marks.

 

[Rove]

I haven't been following the King's visit to the U.S. of A as I now try to avoid the news...to depressing. What I did read was President Trump removed the tariff affecting the Scottish whiskey industry due to the King's visit. Well something positive I guess.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Charles & Camilla are stalwart defenders of Michael Jackson.

 

[Crimson]

that could be extended to the language of the political arena.

Yes. I think there are differences of when certain behaviors are appropriate. I've seen videos of debates and such in Parliament and they seem rowdier, more interruptive and even more belligerent than even the most contentious political debates in our Congress.