Prince Andrew has been stripped of his royal titles and honors and ordered to leave his longtime residence the Royal Lodge, Buckingham Palace said. “His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew,” the palace said in a statement Thursday evening, marking an extraordinary intervention by the British monarch. “Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor,” the palace wrote. “His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.” “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” the statement added. The announcement follows renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s friendship with the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as reports that he was living effectively rent-free in the 30-room lodge, prompting a barrage of wider questions about the way Britain’s royals are funded. Andrew announced earlier this month that he would be giving up his titles, including the Duke of York, though he was expected to remain known as Prince Andrew. Andrew withdrew from royal duties in 2020 after public backlash over a BBC interview in which he maintained that he didn’t regret his friendship with Epstein and said “the people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn either by him or because of him were actually very useful.” “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse,” Buckingham Palace said.

LONDON — Nigel Farage thinks there’s no need to give Prince Andrew a further kicking. His voters disagree. Asked if parliament should intervene in the Andrew saga, the leader of Britain’s populist party, Reform UK, on Monday suggested King Charles’ brother is already “down, and on the way out,” adding there was “no particular need” to give him “a kicking on the way.” Under growing pressure over his links with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and other scandals, Andrew announced earlier this month that he would be giving up his titles, including as duke of York. He will, however, remain a prince. Reform voters, however, think Andrew should lose that title too due to his alleged behavior. Two-thirds of Reform voters (68 percent), Green voters (69 percent) and Liberal Democrat voters (63 percent) reckon he should have the honorific title of prince “officially removed,” according to a survey by the More in Common think tank. That compares with just 51 percent of mainstream Conservative and Labour Party voters. Officially removing Andrew’s prince title would require either an act of parliament, or could be done using the legal powers of the royal prerogative, but that would likely need to be done on the advice of a minister, according to a House of Commons briefing note. “It perhaps shouldn’t be surprising that those voters who most want to see the Prince stripped of his title are those who are now voting for populist parties on the right or left,” Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common, said. “For Green voters, who tend to be among the least supportive of the monarchy, the desire to see the Prince stripped of his title shouldn’t be surprising. “But support is almost as high among Reform voters, a timely reminder that many Reform voters are particularly exasperated by what they see as a rigged system with ‘one rule for the rich and powerful and another for anyone else,'” he said. There are growing calls for Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson to move out of the 30-room Royal Lodge following the publication of the posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual assault, which he strenuously denies, and after it emerged he pays a “peppercorn rent” – a quirk of British law that reduces the ground rent paid on a property by a leaseholder to a small, nominal fee, or “peppercorn” – to live in the vast property on the Windsor Estate. The Green Party’s four MPs have signed a parliamentary motion calling for the government to take legislative steps to remove the dukedom granted to Prince Andrew. A total of 27 MPs, including Scottish and Welsh nationalists, have signed it. Speaking at a press conference in London on Monday, Farage attacked the “nice liberals” he claimed would like to hound Andrew physically out of the country, never to be seen again, warning parliament should only interfere in a “real extreme situation,” such as if Andrew refused to leave Royal Lodge, or he started reusing his duke title. “[Andrew] has renounced the dukedom. He undoubtedly will be looking for a new home very soon, probably somewhere where it’s a lot warmer and sunnier than it is here. I think for somebody who is down, and on the way out, there’s no particular need to give them a kicking on the way,” Farage said.

LONDON — The British aristocracy has always seen talking about money as a little bit grubby. But the scandalized Prince Andrew is forcing the issue front and center. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. And the revelation in The Times this week that he appears to be living rent-free in a vast lodge is prompting a barrage of wider questions about the way Britain’s royals are funded. In the House of Commons Wednesday, Britain’s center-left Prime Minister Keir Starmer did nothing to tamp down opposition calls for an inquiry into whether taxpayer interests are being protected when it comes to Andrew, who stepped back from Royal duties in 2019 and gave up key titles just last week. “It is important, in relation to all Crown properties, that there is proper scrutiny,” Starmer said. On Thursday, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee — parliament’s public spending watchdog — said he would be requesting more information on Andrew’s Royal Lodge agreement.  The scandal has sent questions about royal finances rocketing up the U.K. political agenda, just months before a scheduled review of a key part of the arrangement, known as the Sovereign Grant, kicks off. Andrew’s living arrangements are part of “much, much wider problem” with a system of royal finances, which is still mired in secrecy, said Margaret Hodge, the U.K. government’s anti-corruption czar. PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE  How the U.K. government covers the cost of the monarchy — expenses like royal engagements, staffing costs and the upkeep of grand residences such as Buckingham Palace — has long been a subject of debate. The current system — known the Sovereign Grant — was brought in by then-Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012. It links public funding of the monarch to the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is essentially a portfolio of assets that was owned and managed by monarchs pre-1760 and is now run as a business whose revenue is returned to the U.K. Treasury. It generates significant revenue, which has been bolstered in recent years by lucrative wind farm deals with developers. In the wake of the Andrew revelations, Clifton-Brown said his committee would decide next year whether to “undertake any work” on the Crown Estate accounts. King Charles’ transgressive younger brother is facing torrid headlines over his friendship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. | Eric Reid/EPA Charles and Prince William also receive an income from two vast inherited estates — the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall respectively. This money, according to their own websites, is used to support themselves and their families, and their philanthropic work.  They also have their own investments and inherited wealth — which include private residences in Balmoral, Scotland, and in Sandringham, Norfolk.  Charles and William are not legally liable for income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax. But they pay certain taxes voluntarily under an agreement the late Queen Elizabeth II made with the Treasury. As part of this agreement, the government agrees not to publish any information about their tax bill. Because some assets, such as the official residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art are not sold to provide income or capital for the personal use of the king, and pass from one sovereign to the next, it would be inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid on them, the agreement argues. A former senior official involved in past decisions about royal finances said this system had been designed to ensure the British monarchy, which still has public support, is “not placed in a position of subservience” to the government of the day. It is also meant to allow the royals the “same principle of confidentiality” as other British citizens. But that same former official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warned there was a “quid pro quo” to that.  “The public will acquiesce in these arrangements if it is seen that the members of the royal family conduct themselves in a way that is, although privileged, not extravagant, and not flagrant. Things break down if there are members of the royal family who aren’t keeping that side of the bargain,” the former official added.  Senior royals are acutely conscious of the sensitivities around the way they’re funded. William is reported to be mindful of the cost of the monarchy and will assess the “footprint” of the institution, The Times reported in June. But Hodge, an ex-public accounts committee chair who has long probed royal finances, believes the system needs much wider reform. She said the Royal Lodge deal for Andrew looked “rotten.” This matters to the taxpayer, she argued. Financial reports on both Duchies are published, but they remain private estates and Hodge believes this makes for “muddy territory.” “In my view, they are public [funds] because they were given by the state to the royal family for the purpose of sustaining themselves,” she said of the arrangement. “I think we need transparency.”

LONDON — Ukraine’s allies are trying everything they can to keep Donald Trump onside. This week, that includes deploying the king of England.  Joined by first lady Melania Trump, he’ll be the first-ever U.S. president to be formally welcomed to Windsor Castle, another unprecedented element of an already paradigm-breaking second state visit for a leader who loves being singular. They will be lauded with the finest pomp and pageantry Britain has to offer, replete with banqueting, honor escorts and a ceremonial flypast of the sort Trump has been impressed by before — and which serves as a reminder of the long history of military cooperation between Britain and the U.S.  The hope is that the royal charm offensive will lay the groundwork for Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his senior aides to make fresh efforts to persuade Trump he should apply more pressure to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the quest for peace in Ukraine. While it may not appear on any program for the visit, political and royal aides expect it will be raised behind the scenes.  A senior defense official, granted anonymity like others in this piece to speak candidly, said the king is “very close” to the detail of ceasefire negotiations and to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself.  British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meet British and Ukrainian troops from Operation Interflex. | Pool photo by Jaimi Joy/WPA via Getty Images That gives the prime minister a weapon many other European leaders don’t have: a sympathetic monarch who has quietly yet consistently demonstrated his support for Kyiv — and is willing to do his part to push back on U.S. skepticism toward the cause.  A ROYAL ALLY  The U.S. president, who so often discards other conventions, has a deep respect and affection for the royal family, which the state visit is intended to capitalize on. As he departed for Britain, he hailed Charles as “such an elegant gentleman” and described his second visit as a “great honor.” He has been far less reverent toward Zelenskyy, to put it mildly, suggesting at various points that he bears responsibility for Russia’s invasion of his country and humiliating him at their infamous meeting in the Oval Office earlier this year.  At a time of highly uncertain American support, the Ukrainian leader has found a champion in the king.  Charles unexpectedly welcomed Zelenskyy for tea at Sandringham in the aftermath of the Oval Office debacle, and then for lunch at Windsor Castle just ahead of June’s NATO summit. King Charles III at an audience with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at Windsor Castle. | Pool photo by Jonathan Brady/WPA via Getty Images Orysia Lutsevych, head of the Ukraine program at Chatham House, said the king’s show of support sent a message “of solidarity and a reminder of who is the victim and who is the aggressor” amid “distortion and disinformation” by Putin.  A former senior U.K. diplomat said that while the king does not speak publicly about matters of government, he is “adept at finding other ways of showing his views.” And he will have plenty of time to do so: The president will stay overnight at Windsor Castle, where he will be treated to a carriage procession through the estate and lunch in the state dining room before the main event of the white-tie state banquet. “It wouldn’t be surprising if he took the opportunity privately to encourage the president to support Ukraine more effectively,” the same former diplomat said.  A royal aide acknowledged the king’s interest in Ukraine, noting that he called for a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine in a message of solidarity to mark the country’s independence day last month. The king may nod to Ukraine during his speech at the state banquet, as he did during French leader Emmanuel Macron’s recent visit, but otherwise his diplomacy is likely to take place behind closed doors, bolstered by symbolism throughout the trip designed to highlight the two countries’ history as wartime allies. THE HARD SELL  The trickier question is whether the king’s overtures will make a difference.  One government adviser pointed to Trump’s royal reception by King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, arguing it helped pave the way for a successful NATO summit, at which he recommitted to the alliance.  Trump will be joined on the trip by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, meaning there will also be the chance to influence his top diplomats. During Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the U.K. in the summer, insiders reported that both Rubio and Vance had become increasingly engaged with Kyiv’s point of view.  Charles’ biographer Robert Hardman previously told POLITICO: “In soft power terms, other world leaders, other countries are far more interested in the monarchy than they are in Downing Street.” This contrast — together with the continuity represented by the monarch — may be at an even higher premium as Starmer faces questions over his future following weeks of turmoil inside No. 10.  At the same time, spurring Trump toward stronger action in support of Ukraine remains a tough sell. While the president appears to have edged toward a more skeptical view of Putin, that has not yet translated into a decisive move to punish him. U.S. President Donald Trump boards Marine One as he departs the White House en route to London. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images The president made clear in a Truth Social post that he expects NATO allies to stop purchasing Russian oil and place significant tariffs on China for its support of Russia’s war before the U.S. enacts any additional costs on Russia.  Torrey Taussig, director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council think tank, said that coupled with Trump’s muted response to the Russian drone incursion into Polish airspace, “this latest positioning does not give Starmer much room to maneuver.” Taussig added that while Trump’s affinity for the royals “may lend weight” to an appeal from the king on Ukraine, she was “unconvinced” the president would change course.  If the U.K.’s main job so far has been attempting to keep Trump in the room for talks about Ukraine, then the king will at least contribute to that effort — with grander gestures than most. Annabelle Dickson contributed to this report.

LONDON — It was June 2019, and the president of the United States was taking tea with the future British king.  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half.   Trump could barely get a word in edgeways. Charles did “most of the talking,” the president told a TV interviewer the day after they met.   One topic dominated. “He is …” Trump said, hesitating momentarily, “… he is really into climate change.”  Without global action on the climate, Charles wrote back in 2010, the world is on “the brink of potential disaster.” At the London royal residence Clarence House during Trump’s first U.K. state visit, face-to-face with its most powerful inhabitant, Charles decided to speak on behalf of the planet.  It was tea with a side of climate catastrophe.   Six years on, the stage is set for Charles — now king — to try to sway the president again. A second term Trump — bolder, brasher, and no less destructive to global efforts to tackle climate change — is heading back to the U.K. for an unprecedented second state visit and to another meeting with the king. They meet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday.  In the years between the two visits — with extreme weather events, wildfires and flooding increasingly attributed to a changing climate — Charles’ convictions have only strengthened, say those who know him well.  “His views have not changed and will not change. If anything I think he feels it, probably, more strongly than ever,” said the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, a friend and biographer of the king. “It seems self-evident to me, therefore, that he would regard President Trump’s attitude towards climate change and the environment as potentially calamitous.”   But stakes are higher for the king in 2025 than in 2019. The meeting represents an extraordinary influencing opportunity for a monarch who has spent his life deploying “soft power” in the service of cherished environmental causes. But now he is head of state, any overtly political conversation about climate change risks stress-testing the U.K.’s constitutional settlement between government and monarch.  Charles has a duty, says constitutional expert Craig Prescott, to “support the [elected] government of the day in what they want to achieve in foreign relations.”  And “in a broad sense,” he added, “that means ‘getting on the good side of Trump.’”  The meeting between Donald Trump and then Prince Charles was scheduled to last 15 minutes. It stretched to an hour and a half. | Pool Photo by Toby Melville via Getty Images Labour’s focus on an ambitious green transition, though, gives the king some leeway to speak in favor of international climate action.  Both Dimbleby and Ian Skelly, a former speechwriter for Charles who co-wrote his 2010 book Harmony, expect him to do exactly that.  “I would be astonished if in this meeting, as at the last meeting , he does not raise the issue of climate change and biodiversity in any chance he has to speak privately to Trump,” said Dimbleby.   The king will be “diplomatic,” Dimbleby added, and would heed his “constitutional duty,” avoiding “saying anything that will allow Trump to think there is a bus ticket between him and the British government. … But he won’t avoid the issue. He cares about it too much.”  “He knows exactly where the limits are,” said Skelly. “He’s not going to start banging the table or anything. … He will outline his concerns in general terms, I have no doubt about that — and perhaps warn the most powerful person in the world about the dangers of doing nothing.”  Buckingham Palace and Downing Street declined to comment when asked whether the king would raise climate with Trump, or whether this has been discussed in preparations for the state visit.  HAVE YOU READ MY BOOK, MR. PRESIDENT?  In the time since that tea at Clarence House, the President has shown no sign that Charles’ entreaties on the part of the planet had any impact. (And they didn’t have much effect at the time, by one insider’s account. Trump complained the conversation “had been terrible,” wrote former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham in her memoir.  “‘Nothing but climate change,’ he groused, rolling his eyes.”)  The U.S. has once again withdrawn from the Paris climate accords. Trump’s Department of Energy has rejected established climate science. America’s fossil fuel firms and investors — some of whom helped Trump get elected — have been invited to “Drill, baby, drill.”  With America out of the fight, the world’s chances of avoiding the direst consequences of climate change have taken a serious blow.  Charles, on the other hand, has only grown more convinced that climate change, unchecked, will cause “inevitable catastrophes,” as he put it in Harmony, his cri-de-coeur on saving the planet.  Dimbleby predicted that, this time around, one subtle way allowing the king to make his point would be to gift Trump a copy of that book — a treatise on environmentalism, traditional wisdom and sustainability that diagnoses “a spiritual void” in modern societies, a void which has “opened the way for what many people see as an excessive personal focus.”  “I’m sure [the king] won’t let [Trump] out of his sight before giving him a copy,” said Dimbleby. Chinese Premier (and Trump’s main geopolitical rival) Xi Jinping already has a copy, said Skelly.  But the meeting comes at a time when Prime Minister Keir Starmer — boxed in politically by the need to keep the U.S. on side for the sake of trade, Ukraine and European security — has avoided openly criticizing the Trump administration’s attacks on climate science or its embrace of fossil fuels.  His government will not want the king to say or do anything that upsets transatlantic relations. Even when the president, sitting next to Starmer, trashed wind energy ­— the main pillar of U.K. decarbonization plans — on a July visit to his Turnberry golf course in Scotland, the prime minister mustered no defense beyond quietly insisting the U.K. was pursuing a “mix” of energy sources.  If Trump starts railing against windmills again in his chat to the king, he might get a (slightly) more robust response, predicted Skelly. “The response to that will be: ‘What else are we going to do without destroying the Earth?’ That’s the question he’ll come back with, I’d imagine.”  HOW TO TALK TO TRUMP ABOUT CLIMATE  Some who have worked with Trump think that, because of the unique place Britain and the royals occupy in his worldview, Charles stands a better chance than most in getting the president to listen.  “President Trump isn’t going to become an environmentalist over a cup of tea with the king. But I think he’ll definitely hear him out — in a way that maybe he wouldn’t with other folks,” said Michael Martins, founder of the firm Overton Advisory, who was a political and economic specialist at the U.S. embassy in London during the last state visit.  “He likes the pageantry. He likes the optics of it. … Engaging with a king, Trump will feel he’s on the same footing. He will give him more of a hearing than if it was, I don’t know … Ed Miliband.”  Trump has even declared his “love” for Charles.  The royal admiration comes from Trump’s mother. Scottish-born Mary Anne Trump “loved the Queen,” Trump said in July. The ratings-obsessed president appears to consider the late monarch the ultimate TV star. “Whenever the queen was on television, [my mother] wanted to watch,” he said during July’s Turnberry visit.    The king could benefit from an emotional link to First Lady Melania Trump, too. She was present at the 2019 meeting and sat next to Charles at the state banquet that year. In her 2024 memoir, Melania says they “engaged in an interesting conversation about his deep-rooted commitment to environmental conservation.”  She and Trump “exchange letters with King Charles to this day,” Melania wrote. TAKING TEA AT THE END OF THE WORLD  The king will have plenty of chances to make his case.   A state visit provides “quite a lot of time to talk” for monarch and president, said one former senior British government official, granted anonymity to discuss the royals and their relationship with government.  There will be a state banquet plus at least one private meeting in between, they said. Charles may also be able to sneak some choice phrases into any speech he gives at the banquet. Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. | John Keeble/Getty Images The king receives regular briefing papers from the Foreign Office. As the meeting looms, the same person suggested, he may be preparing thoughts on how to combine a lifetime’s campaigning and reading with those briefings, to shape the opportunity to lobby a president.  “He will be reading his foreign policy material with even more interest than normal. He will probably be thinking about whether there is any way in which he can pitch his arguments to Trump that will shift him — a little bit — toward putting his shoulder to the climate change wheel,” the former senior official said.    “He won’t say: ‘You, America, should be doing stuff.’ He will say, ‘Internationally I think it is important we make progress on this and we need to be more ambitious.’ Or he might express concern about some of the impacts of climate change on global weather and all these extreme weather events.”  However he approaches it, 2019 showed how tough it is to move the dial.  After that conversation, Trump told broadcaster Piers Morgan that he thought Charles’ views were “great” and that he had “totally listened to him.” But then he demonstrated that — on the crucial points of how fossil fuels, carbon emissions and climate change are affecting the planet — he totally hadn’t.    “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster,” Trump said. “And I agree,” he added, before promptly pivoting to an apparent non-sequitur about the U.S. having “crystal clean” water. It was a typically Trumpian obfuscation. Asked about the king’s views during the Turnberry visit, Trump said: “Every time I met with him, he talked about the environment, how important it is. I’m all for it. I think that’s great.”  In nearly the same breath, he ranted about wind energy being “a disaster.”  GOOD LUCK, CHARLIE  “It is difficult, if not impossible, to see [Trump] change his views on climate change, because they’re not informed by his understanding of the science or consequences, but rather by naked politics,” said leading U.S. climate scientist Michael Mann in emailed remarks.   And Trump will come to the meeting prepared, said Martins, the former U.S. Embassy official. “Trump will receive the full briefing on the king’s views on environment. He won’t be going into that blind. He’ll know exactly what the king has said over his career and what his views are on it and how it affects American interests. I don’t anticipate him being surprised by anything the king says.”   He added: “Bashing net zero and President Biden … gets [Trump] political wins.”    To Charles’ long-standing domestic critics, it all highlights the pointlessness of his position.  Donald Trump has even declared his “love” for King Charles III. | Pool Photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images “He is bound by these constitutional expectations that he does nothing that will upset the apple cart [in U.K./U.S. relations],” said Graham Smith, chief executive of campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy. “If he was elected, he’d have a lot more freedom to say what he actually wants.”  “Soft power is a highly questionable concept,” added Smith. It’s only useful, he argued, when backed by something Charles lacks and Trump has by the bucket-load: “Hard power.”  And time may be running out for Charles to deploy even soft power in the climate fight.   Trump’s chief U.K. political ally is Nigel Farage, whose anti-net-zero Reform UK currently lead opinion polls. If British voters pick Reform at the next election, Charles’ potential advocacy would be restrained by a government opposed to action on climate change.  So how far will Charles go to seize his moment?  He wrote in Harmony: “If we continue to be deluded by the increasingly irresponsible clamour of sceptical voices that doubt man-made climate change, it will soon be too late to reverse the chaos we have helped to unleash.” He feared “failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself” if he did not speak up.   Skelly, the former speechwriter who co-wrote the book, predicted that Charles would walk a fine diplomatic line — but was “not someone to sit on his hands or to remain silent.”   “He was warning about these things 30 years ago and nobody was listening. … He feels increasingly frustrated that time is running out.   “I’d love to be a fly on the wall — because it will be a fascinating conversation.”

BERLIN — It was a beating hot summer day and Gregor was dressed in the formal uniform of the German army: a sky-blue shirt and navy trousers, which he had received that week, the fabric still stiff. The 39-year-old office manager had never been patriotic, and like many liberal-leaning Germans his feelings toward the military for most of his life had been ambivalent at best. When he was 18 he’d even turned down the option of doing a year of military service, believing it was a waste of time. Now, two decades later, life had taken an unexpected turn. As a steel band played, he marched in time alongside 17 others dressed in the same freshly pressed outfits into an open square at Germany’s Ministry of Defense, a towering grey neoclassical building in western Berlin, following the commands they had learned just a few days earlier. They were all there to do the same thing: take the oath required of all new recruits to the German armed forces. Afterward, they would begin their official training as reserve officers, learning the basic skills needed to defend against a military invasion. Everything had changed for Gregor on Feb. 24, 2022, when news broke that Russia had invaded Ukraine. Suddenly, the peace he had always taken for granted in Europe didn’t seem so guaranteed. “I was watching videos of Ukrainian civilians joining soldiers to fight off Russian tanks as they rolled toward their towns,” he said. “I thought to myself: ‘If something like that happened here, I wouldn’t have any practical skills to help.’” It was a fitting day to take the oath: July 20, 2024, the 80th anniversary of the so-called Operation Valkyrie, when a group of German soldiers plotted, and failed, to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Usually oath ceremonies are low-key affairs, carried out at barracks with a few family members present — the close associations between the military and Germany’s dark history means servicemen are not celebrated with the pomp and pageantry they are in other countries. But in honor of the special date, around 400 other recruits from various divisions from all over Germany were gathered in the same square, ready to take their pledge. The country’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius from the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), gave a short speech, telling the recruits that the prospect of defending Germany’s democracy had “become more real after Putin’s attack on Ukraine.” Then a lieutenant colonel shouted out the words of the oath, as the group repeated them back: “I pledge to loyally serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to courageously defend the right and liberty of the German people.” As he repeated the words of the oath, Gregor felt an unexpected swell of emotion. “I realized this is going to be a big part of my life now,” he said. “I’m going to be dedicating a lot of my time to it, and I’m going to have to explain to people why I’m doing it.” His mother remarked afterward that she also experienced surprising feelings while watching from the benches. “That was the first time I ever heard the national anthem being sung and felt like I actually wanted to join in,” she told him. Across Germany, both politicians and members of the public have been going through a similar transformation. The country’s army, officially named the Bundeswehr — which translates as “federal defense” — was established by the United States during the Cold War. It was designed to support NATO rather than ever lead a conflict, for fear that a German military could be misused as it was during World War II. This supporting role suited Germany’s leaders: Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, the country’s politicians carefully shaped an image of a peaceful nation that prefers influencing global politics through trade and diplomacy. After the end of the Cold War the Bundeswehr began scaling down, with military spending falling from a high of 4.9 percent of GDP in 1963 to just 1.1 percent in 2005. But in the months following the Russian invasion, then-chancellor Olaf Scholz surprised the world by announcing a radical change in German foreign policy, including a €100 billion ($116 billion) plan to beef up its army. Then in early 2025, five days after the February election of new chancellor Friedrich Merz of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), Donald Trump invited Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky into the Oval Office for a browbeating broadcast around the world that signaled his lack of interest in standing up to Russia. A shocked Merz, who had campaigned on a platform of low taxes and low spending, immediately agreed with Scholz to work together to reform the country’s strict borrowing laws — which were embedded in the constitution — and build up its defense capabilities as quickly as possible with a €1 trillion loan, which amounts to about 25 percent of the country’s GDP. According to Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), this type of defense spending was previously unheard of during peacetime. “Countries that spend this much are usually those at war, or autocratic states that don’t have democratic oversight,” he said. The following month, Germany’s lawmakers voted to back the plan, setting the country’s military on track to be the best-funded in Europe and the fourth-biggest in the world. In Merz’s view, Europe didn’t just need to arm itself against Russian aggression, but also “achieve independence from the USA.” Later in the year, NATO members would agree to raise their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, at Trump’s behest. It marks a huge shift not just from how Germany manages its finances but how it perceives both itself and its place in the world. “After World War II, the allies did a tremendous job of re-educating the German population,” said Carsten Breuer, the Bundeswehr’s highest serving general. “This led to a society which I would say is peace-minded, and of course there’s nothing wrong with that. But it is also non-military.” So far, committing resources to the military has been fairly easy for the German government. But now it needs to convince thousands of people to do the same as Gregor and dedicate themselves to military service. After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the government began scaling down the Bundeswehr from 500,000 soldiers to the current 180,000. The country’s national service, in which young men had to choose between serving in the army or undertaking another type of civil service, was scrapped in 2011. Now, General Breuer estimates the total personnel needs to rise to 460,000, including both full-time staff and reservists. Bundeswehr applications are up 20 percent this year, though not everyone will make it through the physical and security tests. Even then, that still isn’t enough to plug the gaps, and it is likely that conscription of some kind will return. Breuer believes the German public is softening up to the military after decades of standoffishness. The war on Ukraine, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic and the disaster response to devastating floods, have put many people in closer touch with the Bundeswehr, he says. “When I was talking to my soldiers in the early 2000s, they would always ask, ‘Why isn’t it like the U.S. here, where people thank you for your service?’” he said. “Nowadays, we’re starting to see this in Germany.” He recounted a recent moment when he was waiting for a flight in the city of Dusseldorf and an elderly man tapped him on the shoulder to offer his thanks. However, for many people, any glorification of the German military will always have uncomfortable associations with the country’s dark history: Neo-Nazi groups still use German military symbols and history as part of their recruitment propaganda, and the Bundeswehr has been plagued by far-right scandals in recent years. For some, the government’s push to embrace the army is one more sign of a dangerous transformation in the country’s political sentiments: The far-right AfD is currently second in the polls, and the ruling CDU has shed former leader Angela Merkel’s liberal image in favor of a harsh anti-immigration stance. And as welfare, social services and climate protection face possible cuts to support military spending, Germany’s politicians face a challenge in seeing how long they can keep the newfound support going. “When you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, and you forget the rest of the toolkit, which includes diplomacy and cooperation,” said Scarazzato from SIPRI. “Military gives some level of deterrence, but engaging with the other side is perhaps what prevents escalation.” He warns that a beefed-up army “is not necessarily a panacea for whatever issue you are facing.” The Heuberg training ground in Baden-Württemberg has a long and dark history. Nestled in the southwestern part of Germany near the Swiss border, it was originally built as a base for the German Imperial Army, which existed from 1871 to 1919 and fought in World War I. Some timber-framed buildings and stables from this time still exist, many crumbling and disused. In early 1933 it became one of the country’s first concentration camps, housing 2,000 political opponents, before it was used as a base for the SS, the Nazis’ violent paramilitary group. Now, it is where the next generation of German military reserves come to train. This past June, I watched 18 people struggling through the same type of training Gregor undertook a year earlier. Heuberg serves as the anchor for recruits hailing from Baden-Württemberg, with each region of the country playing host to its own reserves trainings. The one I observed at Heuberg takes 17 days in total, spread out over long weekends throughout the summer. None of the recruits, including Gregor, can share their surnames for security reasons — the Bundeswehr says its soldiers have been targeted by foreign intelligence and been subject to identify theft. The lieutenant colonel leading the training, Stefan, told me that the sessions cover the most basic skills, meaning these recruits will know how to defend a barracks if Germany were attacked by a foreign power. They can then continue regular training as part of local defense units, learning how to secure critical infrastructure. The recruits range in age from their 20s to 60s, with most in their 30s and 40s, and work a variety of jobs. There’s a forester, a teacher, a chemical engineer and even an ex-journalist, although only three of them are women. Everyone mentioned the war on Ukraine as the catalyst that got them interested in the military. A German army spokesperson said a total of 3,000 untrained citizens have expressed interest in joining the reserve over the past five years, with a major peak just after the invasion of Ukraine and another in early 2025 following the U.S. election. The training is not for the faint-hearted. Recruits must learn to fire an 11-pound rifle, hike around the base in the soaring heat while carrying their 33-pound backpacks, and practice running and doing push-ups in their gas masks and protective clothing, which restricts their breathing. They will also learn orienteering and radio communication, with the 17 days eventually culminating in a simulation of a Russian attack, during which recruits will be fed information through their radios and organize themselves to defend the barracks. Stefan, who served in NATO missions in the former Yugoslavia, Mali and Afghanistan, explained that several people had dropped out already. “That’s normal, it’s not for everyone,” he said. As well as the physical strain, recruits often struggle with the emotional aspect of learning to fire guns. “I tell them, at the end of the day, you’re a soldier — it’s part of your job.” Kevin, 29, works as a banker. “In school, my best friend wanted to join the army, and I remember telling him he would be wasting his life,” he said. His father also had to do compulsory military service, “and he told me no one wanted to be there, it was so uncomfortable because you were reminded of history the whole time.” After the invasion of Ukraine, he remembers sitting in his office watching the price of commodities skyrocket. “We all watched Biden’s speech about the start of the war, and it really felt like a turning point in history,” he said. After many hours of running, shooting and hastily learning new commands, the recruits — many slightly red-faced — finish the day by learning to clean their guns, pushing strings down the barrel and out the other end. Some get stuck, prompting some awkward tugging. The commando deputy, Col. Markus Vollmann, looked on admiringly. “They are all quite extraordinary, how motivated they are,” he said. “They’re only a minority though.” So far, 45 percent of Germans say they are in favor of the country’s new 5 percent defense spending target, with 37 percent against and 18 percent undecided. It’s a marked difference from the days of the Afghan war, when two-thirds of the country wanted German troops to be withdrawn. Military sociologist Timo Graf says this fits with how most Germans have consistently viewed the Bundeswehr: The majority say its main role should be defense of the country rather than interventionist missions abroad. At Heuberg, Vollmann is nervous about how long support for military spending will be maintained once people see other services being cut around them. Germany is able to borrow much more than its European neighbors due to its low debt levels, but Merz is sticking to his low-tax-low-spend ideology with planned cuts to welfare spending. “We need to communicate better with the public about what we are doing and why it is necessary, but without scaring them,” he said, adding that debt-averse Germany needs better investment in all industry and infrastructure. “There’s no point having the most expensive tanks if, once you drive them out of the barracks, the roads are all potholed and the bridges are crumbling.” Stefan, the training manager, believes the many years of peace have left Germany ill-prepared to potentially face Russian aggression head-on. “We have too many soldiers who have never seen war,” he said. “If you have never smelt burning flesh or seen spilled blood everywhere, then you cannot understand how to make decisions in that environment. You can’t train adequately.” Just one week after the NATO conference sparked headlines around the world in July, I arrived at Germany’s Ministry of Defense to speak to Breuer, the highest serving general in the Bundeswehr. The building in western Berlin, also known as the Bendlerblock, was the home of the Nazi’s supreme military command and their intelligence agency, as well as the headquarters of the resistance soldiers who carried out the failed July 20 coup attempt. Breuer became a familiar face to Germans during the pandemic, as the head of the military’s Covid-19 task force. When we met, he was warm and jovial in his everyday combat uniform, rather than the formal jacket adorned with medals that he sports in his TV appearances. He is beaming about the budget increases, which he believes are long overdue. Following Germany’s post-Cold War disarmament, spending on everything from clothing to ammunition to helicopters was reduced — some argue by too much, leaving soldiers with out-of-date helmets and 30-year-old radio equipment. Breuer is particularly critical of how German troops were sent to support NATO missions abroad — most notably in Afghanistan — without adequate equipment. “It was clear to me that if you are sending soldiers on operations, risking their life and their health, then you have to give them everything they need,” he said. A total of 59 German soldiers were killed in the conflict. “We are now moving from a war of choice to a war of necessity,” he explained. From security analysis he believes Russia will be capable of attacking NATO territory by 2029, with the caveat that this depends on the outcome in Ukraine and whether the war exhausts the Kremlin. “Russia is producing around 1,500 battle tanks every year,” he said. In comparison, Germany currently produces 300. “And it is also building up its military structures facing West.” He says his main priorities are ramping up air defense, procuring battle tanks and drones, expanding homeland security, and beefing up the personnel that enables combat missions, such as engineers and logisticians. But tanks and drones don’t amount to much if the country can’t enlist and train to its goal of 460,000 personnel. German media is currently full of near-daily headlines about how this personnel target might be reached. Defense Minister Pistorius has proposed a hybrid voluntary draft, inspired by Sweden’s new model, in which all 18-year-old men will be sent a questionnaire. Only the most physically able will then be invited for service. However, if that fails to get the numbers needed, he has warned some kind of compulsory draft will be created. The country is already facing a massive skilled labor shortage and the Bundeswehr struggles to offer competitive salaries in fields such as IT. Business leaders such as Steffen Kampeter of the Confederation of German Employers’ Associations have claimed the German economy cannot cope with young people delaying their careers through serving in the army. One solution would be for service to be combined with vocational training, and Pistorius also wants to increase Bundeswehr salaries to make them more attractive. Breuer says he has no opinion on what system would be preferable for meeting the recruitment goals, explaining this is an issue for politicians to decide. “My military advice is: This is the number we need,” he said. At the same time as equipment and staff need to be beefed up, Breuer says administration and bureaucracy must be scaled down. Germany’s procurement offices have become so bloated over the past 30 years that multiple reports of their comical inefficiency can be found, such as parachutists having to wait over a decade for new, safer helmets that U.S. soldiers have already worn for years. Germany is also entering its third consecutive year of recession, and its heavy industries that are struggling to stay competitive are now hoping the defense spending will give them a boost: Shares in the steel sector have shot up since the announcements. However, the years of restricted budgets mean the country is starting the sudden ramp-up on the back foot. It is unlikely that industry can meet the targets in such a short space of time, meaning a large amount of equipment is likely to be purchased from U.S. companies, perhaps undermining the goal of European independence. “The fact is, once you buy the more complex weapons from the U.S., you become somewhat dependent on their systems,” said Scarazzato, the SIPRI researcher. “It would make more sense to be very deliberate in how the money is spent in order to avoid finding ourselves in the same position in 10 years’ time.” “For me it’s not about companies, it’s about capabilities,” confirmed Breuer. “This means that in a lot of cases we will have to buy off the shelf. We can’t afford the time you need to develop new items, new systems and new platforms.” With the rush across Europe to procure weapons and soldiers, Scarazzato warns that leaders should be careful not to “put all their eggs in one basket, which is the military.” Arms races also lead to issues such as price gouging and oversight processes potentially being circumvented. “You risk a race to the bottom,” he said. I asked Breuer if he had anything to say to people who are still skeptical about the need for rearmament. “I would like to take them with me on one of my visits to Ukraine.” How powerful the Bundeswehr should be, and even whether it should exist at all, has been fiercely debated ever since it was founded. As an institution, it has only existed since 1955 and was preceded by the Nazi-era Wehrmacht (1935 to 1945), the Weimar Republic’s Reichswehr (1919 to 1935) and, before that, the Imperial German Army. When the United States and its allies took control of Germany after the end of World War II, they dissolved the Wehrmacht and banned German military uniforms and symbols. As part of a larger “denazification” process, the country was prohibited from having an army in case it could be misused in the same way as the Wehrmacht. This changed as the Cold War intensified. After the 1950 North Korea invasion of South Korea, the United States urged its NATO partners to rearm Germany and admit it to the alliance. The country’s first Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, believed it could be an opportunity for the young democracy to regain its sovereignty and establish itself as an equal partner amongst allies, and on Nov. 12, 1955, the first 100 volunteers joined the Bundeswehr. “The country had to answer the question of how to create an army that could integrate into a democracy and could follow the constitution,” said Thorsten Loch, a Bundeswehr officer and military historian. The founding officers decided to construct the new army around a concept known as “Innere Führung,” or “inner leadership,” meaning soldiers must think for themselves and not follow orders blindly. They decided soldiers should be “citizens in uniform,” with national conscription designed to keep the forces rooted within society. Parliament wields huge powers over the army, and its stated mission is supporting other NATO forces rather than leading battles itself. Germany’s constitution has strict rules about how and when the military can be deployed — for example, reserves can only be called up if another nation declares war on Germany. When it came to staffing the new army, however, making a complete break from the Wehrmacht was more complicated. As Loch points out, any army that needed to pose a serious threat to the Soviet Union couldn’t be staffed by 12-year-olds. Chancellor Adenauer declared in 1952 that anyone who had fought “honorably” in the Wehrmacht — that is, those who had not committed any war crimes — would be welcome in the new army. “The officers ‘cleaned’ themselves,” explained Loch. “I believe they knew amongst themselves who had committed crimes.” They are likely to have also had input from the British, French and American intelligence services. In comparison, communist East Germany opted to staff its Volksarmee (people’s army) with younger, inexperienced soldiers in order to avoid former Nazis. Whether this “self-cleaning” was effective is a point of contention. Only a tiny number of Wehrmacht officers were ever tried for war crimes, and the concept of “honorable” soldiers has led to what many perceive as a whitewashing of the Nazi-era army, often referred to as “the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.” “The narrative was born that it was the Nazi Party who committed the atrocities, not the Wehrmacht soldiers,” said Loch. “And of course this isn’t true, as things are more complicated in reality.” Some of those early Bundeswehr officers still have questions over their heads as to what they did in World War II. The first director of operations was Lt. Col. Karl-Theodor Molinari, who resigned in 1970 after it became public that he might have been involved in the shooting of 105 French resistance soldiers, although the allegations were never proven. And while care was taken to strip away the most obvious signs, symbols and rituals of the Wehrmacht, some remain, such as military music, which also pre-dates the Nazi era. Barracks were renamed after resistance figures but were not demolished. This is one of the reasons that German rearmament was unpopular with the public at the time, and the purpose — and even existence — of an army remains a divisive topic. There continues to be a push-pull between those who say the Bundeswehr must do more to fully break with its past, and those who argue the Wehrmacht is a part of military history that cannot just be ignored. On Sunday, June 15, around 1,000 people had decided to forgo summer picnics in the park to gather outside Germany’s Reichstag for the country’s first-ever Veterans’ Day celebration. After many years of campaigning by the Association of German Deployment Veterans the government finally decided to make the celebration official in 2025, symbolizing a major shift in how politicians seek to position the Bundeswehr in society. A German language EDM band blared loudly over speakers next to stalls selling beers and bratwursts, while children petted a military donkey. The turn-out was not huge: There was no line to enter, and the dancefloor in front of the stage was largely empty. All attendees I spoke to were from military families, rather than curious civilians. “We would like to build up a veterans’ culture like they have in the USA,” said Ralph Bartsch, who runs a veterans’ motorcycle club. “It’s an absolutely overdue event,” agreed another soldier, who was dressed in civilian clothes and did not want to give his name. “It makes the Bundeswehr stronger in our society.” Not everyone is so eager to see societal norms change. The day before, in the Berlin neighborhood of Kreuzberg, I watched as Kai Krieger, 40, and his companion demonstrated how they switch out bus stop posters for those of their own design. After unscrewing the case at the bottom, rolling up the existing poster and tucking it behind the frame — essential for ensuring they are not committing any crimes — they then unrolled a doctored Bundeswehr recruitment advertisement in its place. “German mix: Nazis, cartridges, isolated cases” it reads, alongside a banner, “No to veterans’ day.” It’s a reference to a series of scandals from recent years. In 2022, Franco Albrecht, a 33-year-old first lieutenant with far-right views, was found guilty of plotting terror attacks that he hoped would be blamed on refugees. Several members of the elite KSK — Germany’s equivalent of the Navy SEALs — were found to have been stockpiling weapons and Nazi memorabilia, and members were reported to have made Hitler salutes and played extremist music at gatherings. This led a parliamentary panel to determine in 2020 that “networks” of far-right extremists had established themselves in the Bundeswehr. Ex-military personnel were also involved in a bizarre 2022 foiled plot to overthrow the German state and replace it with a far-right monarchy. “I do think it’s possible for armies to not be fascist or far-right influenced, but the German army is so toxic to the country’s history that I don’t see how that can happen here,” Kai said. He would go as far as saying that Germany should not have an army at all, because “the history is just too heavy. … They say all these nice-sounding things about defending democracy, but then the nasty things always seem to come to the surface.” Despite the Bundeswehr’s efforts to emphasize its historical connections to resistance fighters and position itself as a defender of liberal values, Germany’s far-right groups continue to view the country’s military as their own. In 2019, the German office for the protection of the constitution reported that neo-Nazi groups were organizing lectures with former Wehrmacht soldiers around the country, in which speakers would praise the SS and deny or trivialize the Holocaust. Kai’s group posted around 100 of their posters across the city that weekend, but anti-military activism doesn’t currently have much momentum behind it. Outside the Veteran’s Day celebrations, only a mere cluster of protesters were holding signs and singing anti-war songs. It’s a far cry from the 1980s when the German peace movement was a major civic force, with four million people signing a petition that the West German government withdraw its promise to allow medium-range ballistic missiles to be stationed in the country. Kai doesn’t hold back on the reasons for the movement’s unpopularity. “Our organizations talk a lot of bullshit,” he said. According to him, many of his fellow peace activists “don’t agree that Vladimir Putin is conducting an illegal war in Ukraine. … They’ll say it’s NATO’s fault,” he added, rolling his eyes. While pacifism was long associated with the left, this has shifted in recent years as various far-right movements aligned themselves with Russia. The AfD opposed military aid for Ukraine and expanding the Bundeswehr, and peace marches have become associated with cranks and conspiracy theorists. The Bundeswehr’s recent far-right scandals give potential reserve volunteers pause for thought. Burak, 38, opted out of military service back when he was 18, but in February 2025 he withdrew his conscientious-objector status. “It took me two whole years to decide if I really wanted to do that,” he said. As someone of Turkish heritage, he is still worried about whether it will be “a safe environment” for him. Burak has been involved with the country’s Green Party for many years, and during the Covid-19 pandemic he began looking into the possibility of training in disaster relief. Then when the invasion of Ukraine happened, he considered the military for the first time in two decades. “I feel like this is going to be another burden on younger people, along with things like climate change,” he said. “My generation had the privilege to say that we didn’t want to do this.” Michael, who is 50, spent his youth in Berlin’s left-wing punk scene, putting on anti-fascist gigs in abandoned buildings, and still sports the tattoos and gauged ear piercings. The invasion of Ukraine “shocked me to my core,” he said. “I am an anti-fascist, and to me, the biggest fascist project in Europe right now is Russia,” he explained. “The whole symbol of Europe is under attack.” He added that he also wants “to know where I stand” if tanks ever did roll into Germany one day. “I don’t want to be sitting there thinking, ‘Do I flee or not?’” he said. “I don’t think we should allow the Bundeswehr to just be staffed by nationalists,” he continued, when I ask how it fits with his leftist politics. “We need to think: What brought the Third Reich down? What brought liberty to Europe? It wasn’t talking with Hitler for 10 years.” A year after Gregor completed his basic training, his life looks quite different. At home, he has three huge boxes of uniforms, gas masks and helmets that his girlfriend begrudgingly agreed could be stored in their apartment, as long as he kept them tidy. Other hobbies have had to make way for his continued service, which he now dedicates around 50 days a year to. With his defense unit he practices handling weapons and understanding the logistics of how to protect Berlin’s critical infrastructure and clear paths for military transport. “We learn about the motorways and railway network, and how troops can move through them without the risk of sabotage,” he said. As a major urban center, his Berlin unit would probably be one of the first to be called up if an invasion ever happened. His company, a Berlin-based tech startup, has been understanding of his time off: “My bosses said a war would be bad for business, so they’re happy I’m doing this.” Some of his closest friends are now those he went through training with. “You’re paired with everyone in the platoon for exercises at some point,” he said, which enables deep bonds. Whenever people struggled, the others rallied around them, invested in getting the whole team past the finish line. If someone got nervous learning how to handle rifles, the others were there to calm them down. Even when he’s not training, he’ll often spend his evenings mentoring others who want to join the reserves, talking them through the process. He wears his military uniform travelling to and from training, sometimes encountering people who thank him, other times being pestered by kids who want to try on his backpack. He often has conversations with friends who don’t understand why he is doing this, or who are politically opposed to the idea of a German military. “I have realized since I joined that people in the German military do tend to be more on the conservative side,” he said. “I would like to see more left-leaning people, to balance it out and make it more reflective of society.” He thinks some form of conscription would be a good idea, to help people understand what the army involves, and that there’s much more to it than frontline conflict. “But you need to make it meaningful to their lives. There’s no point in people feeling like they’ve been forced, or that they’ve wasted a year.” The idea of serving his country still makes him feel uncomfortable. “I don’t really like the term patriotism as it’s too closely associated with nationalism for me,” he said. “But I think about the things in my country that I like, such as free education and affordable health care, and how I want kids in the future to enjoy those, too. And I think that is worth defending.”

LONDON — Britain and France may not have the greatest track record when it comes to peace and amity, but Emmanuel Macron is about to be showered with love from the very top.  Nobody does pomp and circumstance quite like the British. Macron — who arrives in the U.K. for a state visit Tuesday — will be treated to the works: a royal salute before a carriage procession to Windsor Castle. That’s not to mention the regimental band, guard of honor and state banquet being laid on for the French head of state. The lavish royal welcome is being deployed to make a clear point — namely, that U.K.-French relations are back on track after years of Brexit bad blood, while offering the two main protagonists a chance to publicly demonstrate their friendship.  The monarch and the French president have a long-standing and close relationship. Macron visited Charles as prince of Wales, and the pair discussed their shared interest in climate diplomacy. The king is no stranger to sending a well-planned political signal, and can be expected to hail the two countries’ progress toward resetting post-Brexit relations, their continued support for Ukraine and their shared goals on climate change. And with Macron approaching the final years of his time in office, the trip represents a chance for the French president to project his power on the world stage — as well as offer a subtle reminder of what the alternative to him could be. That makes it very much the Charles and Macron show. One former British diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said it was fortunate U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer “doesn’t really have an ego,” clearing the way for the king and the president to make the big diplomatic moves this week. CROSS-CHANNEL LOVEFEST The king’s love for France is well-known, and the French establishment seems to love the king back.  Charles has continued in the tradition of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who visited France frequently and met every French president from Vincent Auriol to Macron. The king has made more than 35 official visits to the country since the 1970s, speaks French fluently, and received Macron several times when he was prince of Wales. For his part, Macron made one of the most memorable tributes given by any international political figure after the queen’s death, saying: “To you, she was your queen. To us, she was THE queen.”  Flags on official buildings in France were flown at half mast and the French president went to the British Embassy in Paris to sign a book of condolence. While he is staying at Windsor, Macron will pay a private visit to Elizabeth’s tomb. The Macrons threw a star-studded banquet at the Palace of Versailles, and for the Champagne toasts that night served Pol Roger “Sir Winston Churchill” 2013. | Christophe Petit Tesson/EFE via EPA This show of support did not go unnoticed in Buckingham Palace, according to officials in Paris. Both sides were sorely disappointed when Charles was forced to cancel his first state visit as king in March 2023 because of social unrest in France and were determined to make the most of it when he eventually attended that September. The Macrons threw a star-studded banquet at the Palace of Versailles, and for the Champagne toasts that night served Pol Roger “Sir Winston Churchill” 2013.  When Charles addressed the French Senate during that visit, he said: “France has been an essential part of the fabric of my own life for as long as I can remember.” The speech, delivered largely in French, earned him a standing ovation. Peter Ricketts, former U.K. ambassador to the France, said that Macron “gets on very well with the king — there’s really a genuine relationship there, based on lots of talks over the years on climate change.” Menna Rawlings, the serving British ambassador to France, said in advance of the visit that it would be a “significant moment” for the two nations, with the “quite rare” honor “normally reserved for the most important bilateral relationships.” CHARLES’ CHOICES While the full might of the royal household will be activated to show how much Britain and France have in common, Charles’ words will still be closely watched for any hints about where he thinks the two allies have further to go.  The same former diplomat quoted above said officials would be tuned in for any mention of backing for Ukraine or Starmer’s “reset” of relations between the U.K. and the EU. “Look at what the king has done on Canada and on Ukraine without saying a word,” they observed, referring to his recent show of solidarity with the British Commonwealth nation and with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the face of Donald Trump’s disfavor.  Charles’ biographer Robert Hardman pointed out that a state visit would not be the place for “anything specific about particular country’s policies,” but the king’s speeches always contain “a sort of general point about the importance of looking after the planet.” On this point, the two men may be on less comfortable territory than usual. They have bonded over their belief in environmental protection in the past, with Macron seeing himself as the custodian of the Paris climate accord. The French president is now, however, pushing for the rollback of some EU-wide decarbonization targets. The stickier stuff — such as continued wrangling over how to tackle illegal migration, and a host of EU-wide issues such as touring rights and youth mobility — will be left to Macron’s audience with Starmer. They have bonded over their belief in environmental protection in the past, with Macron seeing himself as the custodian of the Paris climate accord. | Pool photo by Ludovic Marin/EFE via EPA The British prime minister, like Macron, may be all too keen to absorb himself in the trappings of an international summit at a difficult moment in his premiership. While the British prime minister struggles to push through planned cuts to public spending and tax rises loom, Macron’s government is struggling to get any legislation passed by a paralyzed parliament. In recent months, the French president has pivoted more and more toward the international stage, holding conversations with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Trump and other world leaders, with conflicts in Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East top of his agenda. Macron used to rule supreme in French politics but now sees his interventions in national politics challenged, even by his allies. When he dressed down a minister last week, one of Macron’s former ministers warned that such a move might expose him. “If his orders don’t produce any effects, it will illustrate his total powerlessness,” the former minister said. Whether for reasons of celebrating friendship or avoiding domestic woes, nobody will be in a rush to leave the banquet table this week. Annabelle Dickson and Anthony Lattier contributed to this report.