Palace confirms date of Trump's state visit - with King and Queen to host him at Windsor Castle
Buckingham Palace also confirmed that President Trump and first lady Melania will be hosted by the King and Queen at Windsor Castle.
It was expected that the three-day state visit would take place in September after Mr Trump let slip earlier in April that he believed that was when his second "fest" was being planned for.
Windsor was also anticipated to be the location after the US president told reporters in the Oval Office that the letter from the King said Windsor would be the setting. Refurbishment works at Buckingham Palace also meant that Windsor was used last week for French President Emmanuel Macron's visit.
This will be Mr Trump's second state visit to the UK, an unprecedented gesture towards an American leader, who had previously been invited to Buckingham Palace in 2019.
He has also been to Windsor Castle before, in 2018, but despite the considerable military pageantry of the day, and some confusion around inspecting the guard, it was simply for tea with Queen Elizabeth II.
Further details of what will happen during the three-day visit in September will be announced in due course.
On Friday, Sky News revealed it is now unlikely that the US president will address parliament, usually an honour given to visiting heads of state as part of their visit. Some MPs had raised significant concerns about him being given the privilege.
But the House of Commons will not be sitting at the time of Mr Trump's visit as it will rise for party conference season on the 16 September, meaning the president will not be able to speak in parliament as President Macron did during his state visit this week. However, the House of Lords will be sitting.
2:36
In February this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer presented the US president with the letter from the King inviting him to visit during a meeting at the White House.
After reading it, Mr Trump said it was a "great, great honour", adding "and that says at Windsor - that's really something".
In the letter, the King suggested they might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland first before the much grander state visit. However, it is understood that, although all options were explored, complexities in both the King and Mr Trump's diaries meant it wasn't possible.
Precedent for second-term US presidents, who have already made a state visit, is usually tea or lunch with the monarch at Windsor Castle, as was the case for George W Bush and Barack Obama.
Last week, it emerged that Police Scotland are planning for a summer visit from the US president, which is likely to see him visit one or both of his golf clubs in Aberdeenshire and Ayrshire, and require substantial policing resources and probably units to be called in from elsewhere in the UK.
On Monday, Downing Street confirmed Mr Trump will meet the prime minister during his visit to Scotland later in July.
A spokesperson said: "The White House has confirmed that President Trump will be making a private visit to Scotland later this month.
"Given he is visiting in a private capacity, there will not be a formal bilateral but the prime minister is pleased to take up the president's invite to meet during his stay."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
I deplore Brexit, German chancellor admits as he signs new treaty with Starmer
At a press conference alongside Sir Keir Starmer, Mr Merz, speaking through a translator, said: "The United Kingdom, and I personally deplore this deeply, decided to leave the European Union.'' He added that "it is together that we respond to the major challenges of our time''. The UK and Germany have agreed to collaborate on migration, trade and security in the biggest treaty between the two countries since the end of the Second World War. Sir Keir and the German leader also agreed to "work ever more closely" on a range of issues. Under the deal, Germany will close a loophole to allow police to seize small boats being used by migrants to cross the Channel.
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will lowering the voting age to 16 help Labour keep power?
In a slightly surprising move on one of the last few days before parliament's long summer recess, the government has announced it wants to give 16- and 17-year-olds the vote. This change was in the Labour manifesto, and Keir Starmer had expressed renewed support for it in April, telling a select committee: 'I think that if you're old enough to go out to work, if you're old enough to pay your taxes, then you are entitled to have a say on how your taxes are spent. And also, we do have voting at a younger age in different parts of the United Kingdom and the sky didn't fall in.' However, the policy wasn't in the King's Speech, which led some to doubt it would ever arrive. Looks like their time has arrived... Does it need new legislation? Yes, and that's what's coming. Rushanara Ali, the minister responsible, has confirmed that votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for all UK elections would form part of a new Elections Bill. Actually, at least as important electorally will be other measures in the bill designed to increase turnout at elections – expanding forms of voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards and automatic voter registration. Modernising the rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference should also make the system fairer. However, there's no word on another idea Starmer once floated, which was to give EU nationals resident in the UK the right to vote in general elections (ie aside from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus, who already enjoy the privilege for historical reasons). Will it make a difference? Ali describes it as 'seismic' – it is the biggest change to the UK-wide franchise since 1969 when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 (though Scotland and Wales have already gone to 16). However, the number of new voters involved is relatively small – some 1.5 million who qualify under citizenship rules, out of a total electorate of around 48 million. They're also less likely to turn up to vote compared to, say, those over 60; the grey vote will still outweigh the youth vote. Can it save the Labour government? Not really, and not just because not that many teenagers will bother to vote. This time last year, when Labour was overwhelmingly popular, the new voters might have made a difference in a few seats, but now perhaps less so, just because Labour support has sunk relative to other parties. However, the dynamics are unclear. The best guess is that Labour would still net a small advantage over the Conservatives, who are virtually invisible in this age group, but certainly not so much over the Greens, independents/Corbynites, and, to some extent, Reform UK. Nigel Farage's party has some support among younger males, but much less so with young women (and the female vote more generally). No doubt Reform will take some inspiration from having an 18-year-old Reform councillor leading Warwickshire, and a 19-year-old in charge of children's social services in Leicestershire. Will it happen? Yes, but it's not that popular. As well as Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru all backed it at the last election. But according to pollsters More in Common, last year the public clearly opposed the idea, by a 47 to 28 per cent margin. According to an ITN/Merlin poll, about half of 16 to 18-year-olds don't want the vote. What do the kids want? Same as the rest of the voters who want things like a functioning NHS. However, they may have some special interests of their own: restoration of the educational maintenance grant (for sixth formers and equivalent) in England would seem an obvious vote-winner here, and improved opportunities for degree places and apprenticeships, lower tuition fees, and improved living allowances. At the moment, younger voters also seem more concerned about climate change (where they have more to lose) than older cohorts. It's quite likely they'd be more pro-EU than the older generations; demographics are already eroding the Leave base. In Scotland, the youngest voters tend to favour independence too, but they already had the vote in the 2014 referendum, which narrowly rejected separation. Besides Scotland and Wales, the franchise has been set at 16 in nations ranging from Brazil and Austria to the Isle of Man and, as the prime minister noted, the sky didn't fall in.
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-minister claims he was misled over fate of Afghan elite soldiers abandoned by UK and exposed in data breach
A former defence minister has claimed he was misled over the rights of hundreds of Afghan special forces soldiers to be brought to safety in the UK, as revealed by The Independent. Former Tory armed forces minister James Heappey, who oversaw the cover-up of a major data breach which impacted 100,000 Afghans and cost the UK £7bn, has apologised and admitted 'we let the country down'. But addressing the fate of Afghan special forces known as 'the Triples', who were abandoned by the UK in the country despite being targeted by the Taliban because of their role training and fighting side by side with British forces, Mr Heappey has suggested that he was misled over their eligibility to be brought to safety. He said: 'An aside on Triples. I pushed and pushed within the MoD for clarification in response to what was said in press, parliament and by campaigners. Again and again, I said in public what very senior officials and military had briefed me. It is hugely frustrating that proved to be wrong.' The Independent spearheaded a campaign urging the government to grant members of the Triples sanctuary in Britain after many were left stranded and in danger, following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. Now, it has emerged that around half of the commandos initially identified for relocation to the UK were affected by the breach, which became the subject of a draconian superinjunction amid fears the dataset could fall into the hands of the Taliban. Mr Heappey conceded: 'The debate over the Triples (a group of around 1,500 Afghan special forces who'd worked alongside UK military)... by early 2024, it was clear MOD decision making on these troops was flawed & would need review with an expectation many would now be deemed eligible.' Meanwhile, Mr Heappey has broken cover on his involvement in the cover-up of the major data breach in February 2022 when an official sent an email containing a document with the details of 33,000 records, and the details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had applied to be brought to safety in the UK. In response, the government set up a secret route for 24,000 Afghans to be brought to the UK and obtained an unprecedented super injunction to prevent reporting or even discussion of what had happened. Mr Heappey said the data breach revelation was 'gut-wrenching' and apologised for his part in the scandal. He said: 'I'd like to add my sincere apology to those of other current & former defence ministers for the data breach which compromised details of so many applicants to the ARAP scheme.' He described his frustration at 'struggling' to resettle legal Afghan claims because the system was being overwhelmed by illegal arrivals. Mr Heappey said: 'It was gut-wrenching to find out that someone in MoD had screwed up so awfully, although I also came to find out subsequently that they were incredibly dedicated to those we served with in Afghanistan. 'Few had done more to get people who served alongside our special forces out of Afghanistan. It is incredibly unfair that someone who'd done so much good and changed so many lives deservedly for the better, should also be responsible for [the operation codenamed] RUBIFIC. 'But worst part of all, of course, was the mortal danger we feared this breach presented to ARAP applicants whose details had been compromised. 'The intelligence assessment was clear: if the Taliban got their hands on the list, violent and even lethal reprisal was likely.' He made it clear that the decision to cover the scandal up in the courts with a super injunction was not his decision, in effect pointing the finger at defence secretaries Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace and former prime minister Rishi Sunak. Similar points have been made by former home secretary Suella Braverman who noted that her opposition to what was being decided was closed down once the super injunction came into place. Mr Heappey said: 'Others made decision over injunction but for what it's worth, I agree that it was needed. Whether it needed to be extended is moot - arguments are finely balanced. I'd left Govt by time of the Court of Appeal extension. And, of course, it was extended after election too. 'The anger across Govt at the MOD over the breach was palpable and justified. There were some pretty choice words offered in meetings. But the suggestion I was driving a new entitlement for those not eligible for ARAP or ACRS but affected by the breach is untrue.' Sir Ben, who was defence secretary at the time the initial legal order was sought, has said he takes full responsibility for the leak. Mr Shapps has so far stayed silent on the issue.
