The worst part of Trump's UK visit had nothing to do with him — and everything to do with the royal family

Any elected president — even one as controversial as the current President of the United States — is preferable to the most dutiful unelected monarch

It was nothing less than preposterous.

A septuagenarian with thinning hair, dressed in the most ridiculous manner, and with a forced grin stuck to his face, accompanying the Queen at an official state dinner. Could things really sink any lower?

I refer, not to Donald Tump, 72, the democratically elected president of the United States, but to Prince Charles, 70, the unelected heir to the monarchy, whose role representing Britain on the national stage ought to be a national embarrassment.

And as goes for Prince Charles, so too for the rest of the sorry bunch that followed along: Camilla, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and of course, the Queen herself.

It’s not news that some people don’t think much of the 45th US president. Indeed, some would have it that he’s our generation’s greatest threat to civilisation, global security and the planet’s very survival.

No small number of people turned out in London to protest his presence, and that of his wife and unappealing children. Some contrasted his vulgar Twitter attacks on London mayor Sadiq Khan, with the cool, unflustered manner in which he was welcomed by the Queen for roast lamb and asparagus spears.

But that misses the point. Although Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016 and although Russia may have helped his candidacy, the flailing real estate tycoon-turned reality television star is present in London this week because the people of America elected him their leader. The Queen and her family are there simply by dint of being born into a narrowly bred line of German royalty.

Likewise, the American people have a process for getting rid of a president, either through election, or in extreme cases by impeachment. Ironically, lots in the US say it’s time to impeach Trump because he is acting like a king. The last time Britain overthrew a monarch was in 1649 when Charles I was beheaded for treason. Even most the most narcissistic, ill-tempered elected leader is preferable to the most dutiful unelected monarch.

Thanks largely to a very expensive PR and propaganda campaign, and the smart addition of two appealing young women born far away from Buckingham Palace, the British royal family appears to be on something of a roll.

It was not always so. Just a couple of decades ago, people were mocking the tabloid antics of the Queen’s offspring and she was regretting her “annus horribilis”.

After the death of Princess Diana, there was widespread talk about scrapping an institution that was out of touch and which cost British taxpayers around $300m. (The anti-monarchy group Republic points out this is 100 times more than the cost of maintaining the Irish president.)

Likewise, the popularity of US presidents rises and falls. Barack Obama, who was also given a state visit, was largely welcomed when he visited in May 2011. Meanwhile George W Bush, who also was honoured by a state visit, was met with protesters, as was Ronald Reagan, whose trip was not an official state visit, but who got to go horse-riding with the Queen at Windsor in 1982.

It’s true, Trump has also met with the elected politicians — Theresa May, Nigel Farage and the rest of them. That is where the real business is said to get done, or not.

But those are not the images beamed around the globe and placed on the front page of every newspaper and website. In 2019, a modern Britain requires more than a 93-year-old woman and her family to represent it to the world.

Britain can do better than either Donald Trump or Prince Charles as its head of state. It’s time we got serious about finding someone for the job.