The Royals with Roya and Kate - EXCLUSIVE: Former US Ambassador warns King's State Visit could be “problematic”

Episode Date: March 14, 2026

As King Charles and senior royals gathered for Commonwealth Day, the monarchy faced pressure on two fronts: domestic protests over Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and MPs questioning whether the King’s US state visit should still go ahead amid Donald Trump’s war in Iran. Roya Nikkhah and Kate Mansey are joined by Sir Peter Westmacott, former British ambassador to the US and former deputy private secretary to King Charles, to discuss how the Palace manages crises on the world stage and why he believes the state visit next month is “problematic” if the war is still ongoing.Image: GettyProducer: Robert WallaceExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaShould the King's US state visit go ahead? Get in touch: [e-mail] Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals. It's a podcast where we discuss what happens behind the palace walls and why it matters. I'm Kate Mancy and I'm Royne Carr. This week it feels like Windsor, Westminster, Washington and the world are colliding all at once. At Westminster Abbey, we saw the King, Queen and Senior Royals all gathered for Commonwealth Day. for first public appearance together since the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Winzer. Outside the Abbey, protesters demanded answers on what the royal family knew about Andrew's links to Geoffrey App's team. And then, just next door, in the House of Commons, there were MPs calling for the King's planned state visit to the US to be delayed amid tensions with President Trump over Iran. So how does the monarchy manage moments like this when royal scandal? collides with global politics. Well, it's a good question, a big question,

and to help us understand it all, we're delighted to be joined by someone who's seen both sides of that world. Sir Peter Westmacott is former British ambassador to the United States and the former Deputy Private Secretary to King Charles when he was the Prince of Wales. Sir Peter, welcome to the Royals. Thank you very much. Good to be with you. Excellent to have you. 40 plus years of diplomacy and high-level roles.

You've worked in Iran. You've worked in the US. You've worked very closely in the 1990s with King Charles, who was then Prince of Wales. What can you tell us about behind the scenes, the insider's view of what the royals are doing on the world stage and why their diplomatic role matters, do you think? It is very different working for members of the royal family than working for a politician. I was once a private secretary to a couple of conservative government ministers, and I was a private secretary. with Prince Wales, Prince and Princess of Wales. They are very different roles. They're very different jobs. And their role on the world stage is, of course, completely different. I would argue that the great advantage, if you like, in terms of the UK national interest of the royal family,

is that they are not elected politicians. That also means they're not there for the short term and for tomorrow's headlines. They are there for the long term. Their interest is that of the nation. It's not a one political party. But they are there as the embodiment of the... the nation, not of any government.

And that gives them a particular role when it comes to dealing with other countries and other rulers. So I think it gives us, if you like, a twin-track approach to managing our relationships with and our interests in other countries, which is pretty unique. And everywhere that I have been, what was really striking is how even very grand heads of state are thrilled to have a personal relationship with the British monarch, or indeed with the heir to the throne. I spent a lot of time, of course, with the king when he was at the heir to the throne.

But, you know, you see it even more clearly now that the relationship with the king is something that really matters to a lot of other heads of state around the world. Well, to that point, Peter, we had a lot of people from the Commonwealth, global leaders, heads of state coming to the UK this week to see the king. We have the Commonwealth Day service on Monday, Westminster Abbey, with, of course, the king, the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales and the Queen in attendance. That's where you see the royal family soft power play out with. all the different sort of countries, the communications that go on, the Kings had meetings throughout the week we've seen in the corks circular with members of Commonwealth countries. But one of the most striking things, and Kate and I were both there at the Abbey this week, one of the most striking things you couldn't ignore against the backdrop of the king who delivered this

Commonwealth a message talking about the pressures of conflict, testing times, all of which are playing out on the global stage at the moment, but ultimately also behind palace walls with other things that are going on. You couldn't ignore that as the King walked in, as the Prince and the Wales walked in, there were very big protests outside. The anti-monarchy group Republic had placards outside that read, Charles, what did you know? They were referring to the issue with Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. Of course, Andrew denies any wrongdoing with regards to Epstein. We'll talk about that a little later. But I wanted to ask, you worked in the royal households during the 1990s during a time when the monarchy was having a pretty tough time. It was, you know, a time of marriages breaking down

the Queen's famous speech in 92, talking about her Anna's Horribilis. What impact to like that do you think have on members of the royal family as they're going into the abbey for a very important sort of state business and diplomatic show and then that's going on outside when i was there we did as you say roy i have quite a lot of those kind of tensions that were going on almost every day the royal family were on the front page of almost every newspaper not just the red tops everybody it was non-stop except perhaps the financial times but everybody else was on some aspect of you know is the marriage breaking down, the rest of it. It was really very difficult. It was difficult for the staff because if inquisitive journalists couldn't get something on the principles, then they would go

for us, or they would ask us or they'd try and do a gotcha question or you say something which they can then make a story out of. It was quite difficult doing that job, even those of us who weren't, the communication secretary. But I think what members of the family managed to do was to compartmentalize their lives from what was going on in the media. I mean, for a lot of of the time, CD members of the royal family that I talked to just did not read the papers. They got on with their life. They felt there's a job to do. Very strong sense that with the privilege of being born into this extraordinary status,

come a responsibility to discharge that role to the best of their ability and to keep going. And I think that's what they did. I was often surprised by how calm they were under what you might call fire. There were the rest of us kind of panicking, oh, my God, of course, in the paper this morning. It's got on with life. I mean, perhaps they hadn't seen it or perhaps they had seen it and just parked it to one side.

So there's a resilience there, which I was, for which I was full of admiration. I mean, there's no doubt that the king, you know, is attuned to the fact that he's seen Republic do protests like that before. I suppose one thing we've talked a lot about on this podcast recently is the age of deference. It feels like it has gone.

There was certainly, I think, greater deference publicly towards the late queen than I suppose there is towards the monarchy now. Do you think we would have seen protest on that scale under the late queens? I never saw Princess like that going into the Commonwealth Day Service before. I mean, perhaps at the moment, we're going through a rather unique time. Way back when Diana, Princess Wales, died.

There was a lot of pressure on the monarchy. If you remember, there was a great sense of, well, why has the Queen stayed in Scotland? Why hasn't she come down sooner? Why is the flag? Not at half-bast? All those kind of different things. Actually, the Queen had already decided to come down from Scotland. It was just that the communication had not reached the right places.

And down she came. And then there was almost a kind of a public sense. of relief that there she was walking outside the mountains of flowers outside Buckingham Palace in memory of Diana. And I think it calmed down and people felt that had gone right. So there have been these pressures in the past and she didn't say Annas Holi Billis for nothing at all. It had been a really difficult year for divorces and so on. I mean, fast forward to your question today. I mean, perhaps not. But of course, we haven't quite been there before. I wasn't around in 1936 the abdication crisis.

But what you've got now is a very senior member of the Roa family, as he was, Prince Andrew as he was, right in the thick of all the Epstein staff. And therefore, people are inevitably saying, well, what did you know at the time and how have you managed it and so on? My own view, for what it's worth, is that since the details of the Epstein stuff have come out in the Department of Justice in America, have made all this stuff public, I think that the Buckingham Palace have done, it seems to me, a pretty good job of getting a head of, not so much the game, but the pressures to take action with regard to Andrew.

They moved about titles. They moved about name. They moved about decorations. They finally moved him out of Royal Lodge in Windsor. But I sensed that, you know, these initiatives were taken before there was, you know, completely impossible public pressure and demonstrations to do it. So I think they were very conscious of the need to act. Painful as it must have been for them to deal like that with your own flesh and blood.

I don't sense that we are at a stage where public opinion in general is saying, let's get rid of the monarchy, let's have an elected president. Because as soon as you then say to the members of the public, who's your president going to be, they change the subject. It's interesting, isn't it? Because you talk about that kind of keep calm and carry on sort of mentality that served the royal family so well for decades. Combined with when do you step in and give the Annas Horribalist speech,

when do you actually address it? Do you address it head on? Now, interestingly, in the last week, we've seen a little bit of the palace walking that tight rope with Queen Camilla. She was at Women of the World Conference. She was hosting a reception at St James's Palace and she talked about victims of sexual abuse. Now, it was widely seen her speech as the further she's gone yet to talking about Jeffrey Epstein. She didn't mention him by name, but she talked about standing in solidarity with victims, you know, for all those women who haven't believed, all the survivors of sexual violence who haven't been believed. And it was an interesting point at which I think we saw the palace trying to strike a confident tone, you know, so when journalists went to the palace afterwards and said, oh, that speech was sort of the boldest she's been yet, you know, and they just sort of said, well, you know, it speaks for itself, you know, nod and a wink that it was very much intended for her to be as strident as she could be. Now, how do you think that landed?

I mean, do you think this will quieten the critics? Do you think they've said enough? Or do you think if you were in the palace now, what would you be advising them to do? That's a tough question, partly because I obviously do not know everything that they do know. And we don't, I mean, there's obviously millions of documents as well, which the Department of Justice in the United States of America have not made public and may never make public. We don't know. there may be other stuff that is known to people here in London.

So I don't think I can say much on that subject, not knowing the whole of the background. My view would be very similar to the way in which it's been handled. Sorry to be boring about it. But I think getting ahead of the game and the pressures as far as you can and doing what is the right thing. And I think they've done that. Well, on the Queen's speech about victims of sexual violence, I mean, what helped with that, I think, is that she's well known to have strongly held views on that. And, you know, she knows people, she knows friends who've been through that.

She knows about a sort. So she was obviously the right person to make an authentic comment of that sort on the subject. And for it not to look like there was role-playing going on. This was her. This was real. And I'm sure she was, I wonder. I imagine that she was perfectly content to do it as well as to follow advice, that this would be a helpful time to say those things. So I think it's about trying to remain true to yourself, but also taking the initiative and getting ahead of the pressure where it's the right thing to do without, if you're like having your entire gender set by what tabloid newspapers are urging you to do.

It was interesting, isn't it? It was a very confident tone by the palace. But you are uniquely placed to tell us a bit about how Charles reacts when he's in a tight spot. Because like you say, you know, in the early 90s where you were in the palace, you must have seen all sorts of. interesting crisis. In your autobiography, you talk about a moment when you're trying to have a holiday with your family and you get a knock on the door from the farmer who lives up the road from your holiday cottage and he's got a phone call for you with the Prince of Wales wanting to know the latest on the conflict in Kuwait at the time, I think it was. I mean, how does Charles act when he's under pressure? You've been in the room with him. What's he like? Well, that was a farmer who just didn't believe it. He said, there's a bloke on the phone who says he's a Prince of Wales. I'm sorry

to pull your leg, but you know, you better come and take the call. Sure enough it was. Sure enough it was. It was the switchboard, actually, wasn't it? His Royal Highness in person. Well, that's a different story. That's not really the Prince of Wales under pressure. That was simply an indication of how closely he follows global developments. And my job, amongst others, was to be his eyes and ears on foreign policy. I did the international side of what their royal highnesses did at the time, organized the foreign trips, but also it was my job to brief him. So I was obviously on holiday at the wrong time. But we were on the phone quite a big. it because, you know, I'm the kind of filter, if you like, from the information that comes from the government about foreign affairs. And that was him showing real interest. And, of course, real concern for British forces because of his regimental duties as the colonel-in-chief of this or that regiment. So he always took a very personal interest in what was happening to our armed forces. Very calm under crisis. I mean, that was not his crisis, if you like, that was a broader crisis. But generally speaking, I mean, there were moments when I would take something really seriously bad,

It might have been my own fault. Maybe I put my foot in it. Maybe something else had happened that was clearly bad news and invariably come under crisis. I mean, he could be impatient and cross when we staff made a mess of something or hadn't properly proof read a letter that he had to sign or whatever. But on things that really did matter, I was thought extraordinarily calm under crisis. And also very gracious with staff who made a mistake if they fessed up. As long as they fessed up. Coming up, the question over the state visit, should it go ahead? We're right back.

Well, Peter, we've got another soft power, slightly controversial, live issue at the moment, because we have the Commonwealth Day Service, of course, on Monday, and then across the road in the Commons this week, we've had MPs from across the House questioning whether or not a widely anticipated US state visit by the King and Queen to go and see Trump next month. It hasn't been announced yet, but it's, it's, understood to be well underway, built for April. We've had MPs obviously saying, given what's gone on in the last couple of weeks between Donald Trump and Kirstama over Iran, with Kirstama

taking a very different stance to Donald Trump, then deciding to be of assistance and Donald Trump publicly saying we don't need ships when the war's already won, the very short phone call that they had last week. There are great tensions in that relationship at the moment. There has been some polling done as well. Members of the public we had a UGov poll this week that came out. The results were interesting because the UGov poll carried out on Monday, asked Brits if the visit should go ahead.

46% said it should be cancelled. Only 36% said it should go ahead. 18% said they don't know. What I found interesting about that poll and what decision will ultimately be taken is Friends of the King, whenever you speak to them, always like to point out that he is finally attuned to the public mood on issues,

whether that's what's going on with Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, whether that's other crises. Of course, it is not going to be the King's decision because a state visit is on government advice. It'll be the government that decides whether or not this goes ahead. But do you think at a time where a lot of the British public feel quite divided over Donald Trump, he has a very divisive figure here.

We saw that with the state visit here last year. If the King and Queen go to America next month, how does it play out for the institution seeing them shaking hands with Donald Trump with all this at play? Well, you're quite right, Roya, that a decision like that when and whether to carry out a state visit is a decision that is based on the advice that the monarch gets from the prime minister. That's just the way it is. Monarchs from time to time may not have wanted to cross the world to go to this or that country,

but if the government's advice is that the national interest requires it, then they would almost always agree. I mean, there were occasional moments from the Royal Visits Committee when we had to say, look, it's too bunched or there isn't time or you can't do two of these things in the space of three weeks or whatever. Or there might have been a health issue, you know, where you've just got to say, that is not the time and you put the date back. So there was always that kind of a discussion. But fundamentally, in a matter of principle, it is the monarch follows the prime minister's

advice. You're quite right. So it isn't his decision. Is he closely tuned to public opinion? I'm sure that is right. Always was. And very much with his own duty to the people of this country, as well as to the government, which the people of this country have elected, who.

who give him the policy advice and ask him where he should and should not go to. I personally think that at the moment... Do you think it should go ahead? While this war is continuing, that it is problematic. The visit has not been announced yet. The United States government is conducting a war which the British government initially thought clearly it was illegal. That's why we denied the use of the UK basis to the Americans.

And then the policy decision was changed when it was. was clear that the request was put in the context of using the basis for defensive purposes. This was important to our law officers, important to the Prime Minister, and so they have been using RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia and so on for operations which are about defense rather than offensive operations. Is there a blurred distinction between the two? I can't say, but that's the policy. Now, initially, the offensive operations were not something with which we were content.

I think both prime minister and I imagine the palace will be asking themselves, you know, what does British public opinion really feel about this? As well as, you know, how will a state visit to the United States at this time be perceived? How will it be felt? Is this indicative of the king, if you like, endorsing what the president of the United States is doing? And so I think while this goes on, it is, how do I put it? It is a matter that must be a matter for discussion. My own view, for what it's worth, is that President Trump is likely to declare victory

that he's achieved regime change. That is to say, Ayatollah Khomeini is dead and gone. He may have been succeeded by his son if he's still alive. And he can say, I've done all I could. It's up to the Iranian people to break out and change. He encouraged them to go for political change and regime change. If they haven't done it, he can say, not my fault. I've done my bit.

I've destroyed their nuclear capability, which of course you said he destroyed nine months ago, and I've done this and I've done that. And so I'm bringing my troops home. And I say that because what President Trump likes is a clean and quick victory with minimal US casualties, which makes him look good. And so I suspect this will not be going on by the time of whatever the scheduled time is next month of this state visit. But if it is, and this war, which is spiraling slightly at the moment, and Donald Trump doesn't seem to have a completely clear idea of which way it's going to

go. Given everything you've just said about the discussions between government, the palace, the fact that it's problematic as things stand, and the king has to constitutionally act on the advice of government, does Kirstama and does the government have a duty to protect the monarchy in a situation like this with that decision? Yes, they do. They have a duty to protect the monarchy. They have a duty also to reflect, I think, public opinion in this country. It's not really about the personality of Donald Trump, But it is about the initial sense in this country and of our own law officers that this war was not legal, quite apart from whether it was properly planned, what it's going to achieve, is it going to leave the poor people of Iran in any better shape or in worse shape?

Is it going to be even more of a tyranny than it was before? And what about the collateral damage to innocent parties the other side of the Persian Gulf, the Gulf states who are friends and allies in which, most of which used to be British territories, the British protectorates, you know, who are being hammered with hundreds of missiles. and drone strikes, you know, all that collateral damage to countries and interests, and British people, by the way, 100,000 Brits live in Dubai, for example, I'm told. You know, all that is part and parcel of the consideration that I think the government has to take into account. I can't predict how number 10 are going to consider this.

At the same time, there will be definitely people close to the Prime Minister who are saying, the United States is a critical ally for us. We do not have an independent nuclear deterrent without the American support for it. America is a critical intelligence and defense partner for us in lots of different ways. It's very important for investment, trade and the rest of it. It is too important a relationship for us to mess with and to risk antagonizing a somewhat thin-skinned president who would not take well to a political decision as opposed to a kind of logistics or health or something like that decision to postpone the visit. On the other hand, it hasn't been announced yet. I don't know what the dates are of this planned.

We do. You do. It's so far down the planning stages now that I think it would be quite something for them to pull the plug on it, for Starma to pull the plug on the thing. I mean, there's one, the way of ways in which you can deal with these things. You can, for example, say, you know, this is absolutely critical importance. We're dying to do it, but the timing doesn't work. And so we'd prefer to do it later in the year. That doesn't invalidate a lot of your planning, actually.

And that would be a postponement is something quite different from a cancellation as a political gesture. I mean, just thinking aloud. I have no idea what thinking is. There could be a sneaky kind of get-out. There could be a way of doing it, you think, without defending Trump. You know, I wouldn't go as sneaky get-out. I would say, you know, that's a way. States were like way of managing the issue.

I mean, if you've still, there are some horrible things going on. You know, the sinking of that ship unarmed off the coast of Sri Lanka, the bombing of the girls' school because the United States government hadn't done proper targeting and 170 kids killed in a school on the outskirts of Banderer of us. And from what you say, the king will be very well informed. of everything that goes on because you've seen, you've worked with him and you know how how in the detail he is with a lot of the world events. He will be very, I mean, if we do end up going down that route, and as I say, my hunch

is that this war will not last that much longer, but I may be completely wrong. If it does get to that stage, then I'm sure that any decision on, let's say, postponement would be one which is reached together with, you know, the United States government in the White House. You would not do a unilateral, you know, statement to the press. We've decided that we're not going. This is not the way things are done. They would have to reach an understanding that in the circumstances, it is not in the interest of either principal, the president or his majesty, to go ahead with the visit at this time. That's the way you'd manage it, if it came to that. If it came to that, well, things are changing by the day, aren't they? So by next month, it could be changed again.

But there's another issue, isn't there, affecting the state visit to the US. And that's obviously the Jeffrey Epstein files. Now, we've seen three million documents released last year. Obviously, those pictures of Andrew and emails purporting to be from Andrew to Epstein. But also, of course, Donald Trump and any documents that may or may not be released as to his relationship with Epstein, how much do you think that will play into any conversations that are happening around the visit? It's sort of embarrassing on both sides, isn't it? Quite a lot of the documents that have been released by the US Department of Justice have been carefully redacted.

Heavily redacted in some cases. Heavily redacted in some cases. But I would say that to the extent that there is a continuing Epstein issue for Trump, that actually isn't our problem. We don't sit in moral judgment, whatever your private views may be, on whether or not there is a history 20 years ago of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein doing this or that. that's kind of their business. Whereas what you're talking about, the war in Iran or some of the other things that he has said and done, like British soldiers in Afghanistan were not sufficiently brave and we're in the back line, that caused deep offence here that that is a British issue.

And of course you may have noticed that a few days later, he changed his tune very suddenly. The Andrew issue, though, is very much a British issue. The Andrew issue is. And it plays into, you know, the king goes abroad on these trips, whether that's to the United States or elsewhere, as does the Prince of Wales, we were in Saudi within recently, he was heckled about Andrew. Does the Andrew issue, do you think, you know, you've been a diplomat, you've worked in the household, does it weaken the monarchy abroad or does it not really affect that soft power deployment? I think that the combination of Andrew's story and some of the ongoing Harry and Megan staff in California

has in a sense affected public perceptions of the monarchy as an institution. It means people talk about the monarchy from that perspective, rather from the kind of more positive perspective that they would like and many of us would like. At the same time, I do think, as I was saying just now, that the way in which the palace, and I'm talking about the king as well as the Prince of Wales, have moved to keep ahead of the narrative on these issues, has been both correct and helpful in ensuring that the monarchy as an institution, is not as damaged as it might otherwise have been if they had not done that, if it really looked as though they were either complicit or covering up or continuing to pretend that nothing had happened, which they haven't done. You know, it hasn't been like that. But I think as things stand at the moment, I think they have managed the issue with great

care. And I do not detect any reduction of interest in royal visits in other countries. I think there is still great respect, affection for a king who demonstrably enjoys the job and dealing with other people of all nationalities. And he does. And you can see that. I think he's, you know, I shouldn't say it, but he's kind of having a ball. I think despite the fact that he's been through this terrible illness.

But there he is and doing the job with bags of energy and lots of enthusiasm. Well, we started the program, didn't we, talking about what impact the Royal Family have on the global state. and how important it is. Do you think we're going to get kind of bang for our buck out of a US visit, presuming that it will go ahead as we expect it to? Will the UK come away from that with something to show for it? It's very hard to quantify that. My own view, after Donald Trump came here for his unprecedented second state visit,

was that we didn't actually get much return from it. We didn't get more helpful public statements about the United Kingdom. we didn't get an end to tariff wars. We haven't talked about trade policy, but that's a big part of the issue with Donald Trump. We didn't get anything more helpful from him on Ukraine. We haven't talked about Ukraine, but that is, in geostrategic terms, that is the single biggest foreign policy issue in which Donald Trump is being spectacularly unhelpful. So that's not the King's business.

But when you organize and you put so much investment into a state visit, you do hope that there will be some return rather than just sending the visitor home with a big smile on. face, which he clearly did. He was thrilled. All the conversations he had on the plane going back, said he'd had a marvelous time. That's worth having, but what would be quite nice is to see some return on that investment.

And those smiles and that patchy-feely had a wonderful time translated into a more constructive attitude on the things that United Kingdom really cares about. But, you know, why is this happening? This is happening partly because Donald Trump simply loves the British royal family and wanted the king to go back. And to some extent, we're in the business of humoring the President of the United States. But it's also because of the importance of the relationship with the United States to the British national interest.

And that is why, clearly, until now, anyway, the prime minister has advised the king and the queen, this is the right thing to do. If the balance of advantage for the national interest becomes different, then I think, as I say, if somebody in the government will want to open a conversation with somebody in Washington to say, you know what, is this actually the best moment to do it? for both of our interests. Well, we will keep a very close eye on whether or not that US visit goes ahead, and if we get any bang for our buck. Our huge thanks to Sir Peter Westmacott for joining us on the Royals today.

And that's all we've got time for for this week's episode. And if you liked it, please make sure you subscribe wherever you're joining us so you don't miss an episode. Please do. And we'd also love to hear from you, particularly your thoughts on the King's US visit. Should it go ahead?

Should it be delayed? should it be cancelled? And you can also email your thoughts at the royals at the times.co.com. UK and we might feature them in a future episode. Thanks so much for joining us on The Royals and we'll see you next week.