The image is absurd, almost laughable: King Charles III on bended knee before Donald Trump. A monarch, custodian of centuries of tradition and symbol of stoic dignity, reduced to a supplicant before a man who delights in shredding every convention in sight. It seems unimaginable, and yet, in the way Western leaders approach Trump, it feels closer to reality than metaphor. What should be unthinkable, the softening of democratic dignity in the hope of taming a megalomaniac, has become a strategy repeated with alarming regularity.
Trump does not inspire the kind of diplomacy that rewards patience and grace. He devours it. He thrives on the idea that the room, the handshake, the pause in the sentence all orbit around him. He is a man convinced that deference equals validation, and validation equals power. And so time and again, figures who should stand tall bend ever so slightly, hedging, appeasing, wrapping their words in soft gauze as though he might be soothed into reason.
This dance around Trump is more than political calculation. It’s a slow leak of dignity. Leaders, diplomats, royals even institutions, find themselves treating him as a fragile piece of explosive machinery: volatile, temperamental, needing careful handling lest he detonate. But here is the irony. By treating him this way, they hand him exactly what he craves: the power to unsettle, the power to command through chaos.
Imagine the symbolism of a monarch yielding to a man whose entire political career has been built not on service or sacrifice but on spectacle and self-promotion. A crown that has weathered wars, scandals, abdications, and reinventions, suddenly appearing brittle before a personality cult across the Atlantic. Of course, Charles has not physically kneeled before Trump, but the metaphor captures the unsettling truth: democracies have been bending themselves into knots to accommodate him, pretending that the gestures of politeness might tame the narcissist in the room.
The tragedy here isn’t Trump’s ego. That remains consistent, bloated, impossible to ignore. The tragedy is how established powers respond to it. Rather than confronting, they cushion. Rather than asserting principle, they massage his. What began as pragmatism, the need to keep dialogue open, has morphed into something more corrosive. It is the erosion of self-respect under the weight of one man’s vanity.
Part of this is fear. Trump doesn’t play by the rules of diplomacy, and so others fear the fallout of pushing back too hard. He is not bound by shame, by precedent, or even by consistency. His unpredictability is a weapon. When leaders sit across from him, they calculate not what will be gained, but what might be lost: the insult that could spiral into economic retaliation, the snub that might morph into a broken alliance. And so they step softly, each gesture calibrated to keep the storm contained.
But what does it mean when the guardians of dignity become caretakers of chaos? The monarchy, with its centuries-old pageantry, relies on the perception of steadiness. Governments rely on the perception of principle. When both bend to flatter the whims of a man whose only loyalty is to his own reflection, something foundational erodes. It’s not just about Trump. It’s about what his treatment reveals: a willingness to shrink in order to manage, to appease rather than confront.
There is also, undeniably, an element of spectacle in all this. Trump loves the image of being deferred to, of being the center of ceremonies that should not belong to him. The photo-op of leaders lining up, the handshakes held a second too long, the awkward smiles, these are trophies in his private museum of self-importance. And when institutions lend themselves to that theatre, they lend him their legitimacy.
Of course, defenders argue it’s just pragmatism. Better to stroke the ego than risk the tantrum. Better to flatter than to face the consequences of confrontation. But history is rarely kind to those who bow too easily. Compromise becomes complicity. And once dignity is surrendered, it is difficult to reclaim.
Picture the alternative for a moment: a monarch, or a prime minister, or a president standing their ground, speaking with clarity, refusing to indulge the performance. The world would not collapse. Trump would rage, as he always does, but the point would be made: respect is mutual, not unilateral. The refusal to bend is not just personal pride; it is institutional survival. Democracies cannot afford to look like courtiers in the court of a man who fashions himself king of chaos.
The deeper danger is not Trump himself but the normalization of bending. If he is treated as someone whose ego must be managed at the expense of dignity, then others will inherit that precedent. The next strongman will expect the same. The cycle will continue, each time whittling away a little more of the principle that power should serve the public, not the self.
So yes, the image of Charles kneeling before Trump is ridiculous. But it is also haunting, because it crystallizes the question at the heart of this era: how much dignity are democracies willing to surrender in the hope of taming the untamable? The answer so far is not reassuring.
Trump is not a storm to be waited out. He is a test. And the way leaders respond to him says more about them than about him. The crown, the office, the flag, these symbols survive because those who wear them understand they are bigger than one man’s ego. To bend too far is to forget that truth.
Because once you’ve kneeled, standing up again is never quite the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment