King Charles III came to Washington, D.C. to smooth over some rough patches in Britain’s relationship with the United States, all of it driven by Trump’s egotism and insults.
The King might have addressed those differences directly, but instead he chose to highlight the values and history we share. In his speech, he appealed for a revival of our strong partnership.
What was most interesting was not what he said, but what he implied. He referred to General George Washington. He mentioned Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” He said that an acre of land at Runnymede, where Magna Carta was signed, was designated as American soil, as a tribute to President Kennedy. I don’t recall anything he said about Trump, unless it was a perfunctory thank you at the opening.
On the issues, he took a strong stance against Trump, clearly but obliquely. Charles saluted our Christian heritage but then spoke of respecting all people of every religion and no religion.
He made strong comments about protecting the environment, in contrast to Trump’s hostility to the very idea of climate change.
When he spoke about NATO, which Trump berates, the audience applauded loudly.
When Charles spoke of the importance of protecting Ukraine, the audience leap to their feet and gave sustained applause.
Gracious, literate, articulate–everything that Trump is not–Charles was applauded by both sides of the aisle.
Why can’t we have a President like that?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So what happened to No Kings? I guess foreign ones are okay?
LikeLike
The evolution of the British king is an interesting study. The modern British monarchy had assumed the role of articulating a national conscience with a sort of direct attention to the people. British kings have little or no effect on laws, but their attention to the national discourse and international relations have created them in a unique position to influence dialogue. Hence the reaction to Prince Andrew and his criminal behavior.
LikeLike
Which criminal behavior Charles has been aware of for decades and the only thing the royal family ever did about it is, once it was too out in the open to deny any longer, they stripped him of his title and confined him to a royal mansion. The British monarchy is as revolting as they were in the days of the British empire. They are not people we should be turning to as models of “national conscience”.
LikeLike
I thought his speech to Congress was terrific. He was forthright in his critique of our policies. He spoke of the importance of tolerance, the protection of the environment, respect for all, and other important issues z
He gave Congress a sterņ lecture about Trump’s disastrous policies.
Who among us is without sin?
You seek perfection and scorn all others. I know it doesn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may not be without sin, but I haven’t trafficked hundreds (thousands? More?) children to a private rape island, nor have I covered for others who have done so. SMDH, do you even hear yourself? Glib words cover over a multitude of sins for you, don’t they?
LikeLike
Dienne, I am not Jeffrey Epstein.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you’re just promoting and defending a guy who covered up for Jeffrey Epstein.
LikeLike
A guy who covered up for Epstein. You mean Trump and his Department of Just His, formerly referred to as the Department of Justice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane Ravitch wrote:
“Gracious, literate, articulate–everything that Trump is not–Charles was applauded by both sides of the aisle.
Why can’t we have a President like that?”
And you read those words that were critical of Trump and felt the need to chime and and somehow interpret words that IN NO WAY either explicitly or implicitly show that Diane Ravitch is in favor of the US having Kings, and rush to make a nonsensical statement to intentionally insult Diane.
Just curious about your position. If people express approval of something that Pope Leo says against war to support the people of Gaza and wishes that Trump was more like that, are you then certain they want the US to be ruled by a Pope?
What is it about Trump that immediately makes you feel compelled to undermine, insult and attack anyone who is critical of Trump?
I’m guessing you don’t believe for a second that Diane is a hypocrite for both being able to say something positive about King Charles’ speech while at the same time strongly opposing the authoritarianism of Trump.
So why even post the kind of comment that is typcal of right wing trolls desperate to undermine all who criticize the great and wonderful Trump? Why is it that you always post to attack Diane instead of agreeing with her criticism of Trump? Your playbook is the same – you either attack Diane to undermine her criticism, or you attack the Democrats to “prove” that what Trump is doing is no worse at all. You never criticize Trump, and criticism of Trump by others provokes you to attack the person who criticizes Trump!
So many former Trump supporters have realized they were wrong about him. But you are still standing firm in your belief that having him as our great leader is no worse than having one of those evil Dems. Why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Diane, why do you allow this? If you value intellectual honesty, she should be in moderation as much as me.
LikeLike
Great response! I actually heard a mic drop after reading this…
LikeLike
To clarify, that is a great response from NYC public school parent.
LikeLike
Falsely equating intellectual dishonesty with calling out intellectual dishonesty is a page right out of the right wing playbook. And that is exactly what this person who constantly launches insults at Diane Ravitch when she criticizes Trump does.
I also notice that when she was called out, this person pivoted from attacking Diane Ravitch and essentially calling Diane Ravitch a hypocrite to criticizing the British royal family.
If she would have just criticized the British royals in her first response, I would not have responded here. I don’t particularly like King Charles, but his speech was exactly as Diane Ravitch described.
So why didn’t she just do that instead of her immediate response being to hurl a personal insult at Diane that clearly was a character attack accusing her of hypocrisy for her criticism of Trump’s authoritarianism (i.e. “No Kings”)
What I see here is that this person posts personal attacks that attempt to cast doubt on Diane Ravitch’s credibility when Diane’s posts condemn Trump.
I can imagine a response by someone who was digusted by the royal family who did NOT feel upset any time Trump was criticized that might read something like this:
“King Charles’ speech was okay, but I think the royal family are hypocrites because…..”
But instead this person’s first response had nothing to do with the hypocrisy of the royal family, but was just a supposed “gotcha” about Diane Ravitch’s supposed hypocrisy.
It is a shame that our resident Putin/Trump defender does not seem to realize that regardless of whether our country and its leaders meet those values, it is important that we all agree that those ARE our values. Just because the Dems can’t meet those values perfectly, it is extremely dangerous to defend and normalize a political party that eschews those values and presents authoritarianism and white supremacy as a perfectly acceptable alternative. Dem’s “failures” are NOT an excuse to normalize Trump and what he and his cronies are doing. Criticize the royal family, but ALSO criticize Trump, whose power is far, far more dangerous and who continues to cause great harm.
The right wing has done this to Greta Thunberg and AOC and anyone else who is supposedly guilty of hypocrisy – with the intent of undermining their message and thus make acceptable that which should be condemned, even if the person condemning it isn’t “perfect.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I was impressed by King Charles III’s speech. I must admit that I did not have a very high opinion of the king, I have thought that he was a silly clown, a not very serious person or thinker. I guess I was wrong about him unless the whole speech was written by some other person or persons. If the speech was mostly of his own creation and then given to a panel of court speech writers for editing and/or approval, then he gets some credit.
LikeLike
Diane, here’s my response to your question as to why we don’t have a gracious, articulate, literate President, and instead have a brutish, self-serving thug as President:
*”THE FAULT is not in our stars…but in ourselves.” *
When Benjamin Franklin was walking out of Constitution Hall after signing the Constitution, he was stopped by the wife of the Mayor of Philadelphia, who asked him: “Well, Mr. Franklin, what sort of government have you created for us?”
Franklin replied: “A republic, Madam — If you can keep it.”
We the People have failed to keep it.
All the crooked Congresses and all the self-serving Presidents we have had over the past 250 years were elected by us…by the majority of We the People. They were not imposed on us.
Deceitful advertising and wealthy oligarchs and factors like the infamous Citizens United decision can’t be blamed because in the final analysis we individually make the decision about who we will vote for, and we most often make that decision based on superficial information and personal biases.
Franklin made his “if you can keep it” remark because he was well aware that We the People aren’t as dedicated to democracy as we claim to be or think we are when it comes to researching issues and candidates prior to elections; nor do we take the necessary time to research legislative proposals in Congress and advise our representatives in Congress about our views on legislation.
Our typical attitude is: “We elected them to do all that” — and then we wash our hands of responsibility and turn back to playing fantasy football or following the DOW.
Our Founding Fathers were overly hopeful and optimistic when creating our Constitution that We the People would be duly and daily conscientious participants in our republic and that the persons we elected to Congress and the presidency would be as selfless as our Founding Fathers themselves were in safeguarding our republic. It is well to remember that when our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they knew they were signing their own death warrants because if we lost the Revolutionary War, they would be hanged as traitors. They were selfless heroes, gifting to us something that we today utterly fail to appreciate.
There are no heroes in Congress or the White House today…and there haven’t been for a long, long time.
Today, persons seek political office as a path toward their personal financial enrichment and power, not to serve our Republic and our Common Good.
And, We the People elect them because we are too lazy to do the daily work to keep the republic that our Founding Fathers risked their lives to create for us.
Few today remember what was written across the stern of Pogo’s little pirogue.
I remember: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Am I the only one to see the irony in the King of England encouraging the US to embrace democracy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lenny,
I just saw a cartoon on Twitter.
“What a difference 250 years make!”
The King of England defending democracy.
The president of the US practicing autocracy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Diane. Good to know someone gets it!
LikeLike
#TodaysAcronym ☞ #TUSATUD
🇺🇸 🔃 🏳️
#TheUSATurnedUpsideDown
❝I will have plenty to say about the Supreme Court’s decision today in Callais v. Louisiana, but tonight I want to make sure that yesterday’s speeches by President Donald J. Trump and King Charles III of the United Kingdom don’t get lost in the tidal wave of news. They presented a very clear picture of what is at stake in the United States today.
❝King Charles and Queen Camilla are in the U.S. on a state visit, and in his speech welcoming them to the White House yesterday, Trump redefined the United States from a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment, as it has historically been understood, to one based in the white nationalist ideas of blood and soil.❞
— Heather Cox Richardson
LikeLiked by 1 person