Two Discourses of the “Special Relationship”
This article employs a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of four speeches delivered during King Charles III's 2026 state visit to the United States to demonstrate how the constitutional monarch and populist President Trump utilized distinct discursive cultures—legal-constitutional versus ancestral-civilisational—to frame their "Special Relationship," while also identifying Charles's use of "veiled directives" as a strategic evolution in royal rhetoric under populist pressure.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine two people standing on the same stage, looking at the same object, and trying to describe it to the same audience. One person is a King, and the other is a President. They are both talking about the special friendship between their two countries (the UK and the US). But if you listen closely, they aren't just using different words; they are describing two completely different kinds of relationships.
This paper is like a linguistic detective story. The author, Sultan Ayed Alanazi, took four speeches given by King Charles III and Donald Trump during a single, intense 36-hour period in April 2026. He used a computer to count every word, every "we," and every "must," and then looked at the deeper meaning behind the metaphors they used.
Here is what the paper found, explained simply:
1. The Two Different "Recipes" for Friendship
The study found that the King and the President were cooking up two very different meals, even though they were using the same ingredients (the history of the two nations).
King Charles's Recipe: The "Construction Site"
Charles describes the relationship like a building or a garden. He talks about "foundations," "building," "partnerships," and "roots."- The Analogy: Imagine a house that needs constant repairs, new bricks, and a solid legal contract to stay standing. Charles sees the US-UK bond as a project that requires work, laws, and treaties (like NATO) to keep it safe. It's about effort and rules.
Donald Trump's Recipe: The "Family Tree"
Trump describes the relationship like blood and inheritance. He talks about "veins," "ancestors," "heritage," and "courage."- The Analogy: Imagine a family heirloom passed down from a great-grandfather. You don't need to build it or sign a contract to keep it; you just have it because of who you are. Trump sees the bond as something born in your blood, something you are destined to have because of your shared history. It's about identity and destiny.
2. The "Magnus Carta" Puzzle
Both speakers mentioned the same historical document, the Magna Carta (a famous old law from 1215), but they used it to tell two different stories.
- Charles used it like a blueprint. He said, "We must build our future on these legal rules."
- Trump used it like a starting line. He said, "We started here, and our destiny carried us all the way to Philadelphia."
- The Point: They were talking about the same rock, but Charles saw it as a foundation to build on, while Trump saw it as the starting point of a journey that was already finished.
3. The "Secret Orders" (The Veiled Directive)
This is the most interesting part of the paper. Usually, Kings are supposed to be neutral and not tell people what to do. But the author found that Charles was actually giving "orders" without sounding like he was giving orders.
- How it works: Instead of saying, "You must support Ukraine," Charles would say something like, "The principle that power must be checked is important."
- The Analogy: Imagine a teacher who doesn't want to yell at a student for not doing homework. Instead, the teacher says, "In this school, we believe that hard work leads to success." The student hears the order ("Do your homework"), but the teacher didn't technically give one.
- Why it matters: The paper suggests that because the political climate was so heated (with the President questioning alliances), the King had to use these "hidden orders" to remind everyone of their duties without breaking the rule that Kings shouldn't get political.
4. The "We" vs. "Us" Game
The study also looked at how they used the word "We."
- Charles's "We" was like a team. It included the UK, the US, and their allies (like NATO). It was about working together.
- Trump's "We" was like a family. It was mostly about "Us Americans," who got our values from our British ancestors. He didn't really include the British as part of the current team; he saw them as the parents who gave us our DNA.
The Big Conclusion
The paper doesn't say one person was "right" and the other "wrong." Instead, it says they represent two different cultures of talking:
- The Institutional Culture: Built on laws, contracts, and shared work (Charles).
- The Ancestral Culture: Built on bloodlines, shared character, and destiny (Trump).
The author suggests that when a King has to talk to a President who thinks in terms of "blood and destiny," the King has to change his style slightly. He has to use "veiled directives" to make sure his message gets across without breaking the rules of being a neutral monarch.
In short: The paper is a detailed look at how two leaders used the same history to tell two different stories about their friendship—one about building a house together, and the other about inheriting a family legacy.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.