What is it that constitutes the so-called special relationship between Britain and the United States today? Is it a British effort to win itself a place in the future, or is it President Trump’s tactics for securing himself another Scottish golf course?

Today, the suggestion of a relationship will conventionally imply an understanding between two equals - if perhaps not in a literal regard - a partnership in which their strengths and weaknesses complement each other. While this may not be true in every sense, it is clear that Britain and America share their history. A shared language, world wars, economic support, military protection and beyond: Anglo-American links are undeniable.

The inevitable question then presents itself: why, if the two nations have such a close partnership, has Britain, like so many of its fellows, been induced to bend to the American will, folding in the face of tariffs and discord? This would suggest that the historic relationship has little to no meaning in a practical sense and does not play a major role in Anglo-American diplomacy. What might be interpreted as a vivid example of this ‘folding’ was seen on Wednesday at Windsor Castle with Mr. Trump’s state visit, though the fiasco began several months before.

In February, as a result of the tariff threat that the President was imposing, and as a means of appeasement, Sir Kier travelled to Washington to attend one of the now famous press conferences held by Mr Trump with all his visiting heads of state in the Chinese-bedecked Oval Office. After some painful flattery from both sides, as well as discussion of recent developments in Ukraine at the time, Sir Kier presented Mr Trump with a letter from the King, inviting him to Windsor for an unprecedented second state visit to Britain by an American President. This was well received by the President, who commented that he and the First Lady were already looking forward to it.

However, to my eyes, the significance of the event was somewhat lost on both statesmen and, short of a series of further criticisms of the British government by the media of ‘sucking up to the Americans once again,’ the matter was left almost alone.

This was until last week, the event of the visit, where news stations from all over the world advanced on Windsor to observe another exhibition of the soft power that the Monarchy now exudes. The significance of this event should not be lost on the reader. The British Government is not one, under any bearable circumstances, to break with tradition; even less so is the Crown. Does this signify a turning point in the very recent history of the world versus Trump? Has a proud and ancient nation, with such little resistance, simply acquiesced to his bullying demands?

In a way, yes. Sir Keir, in delivering this favour to Mr Trump, gave him just what he wanted: legitimacy in the eyes of those who maintain their respect for the British, and a seat in St. George’s Hall beside a man whose position he covets, the King. A significant blow to monarchist pride.

And yet, despite the recent inadequacies of the Labour Government, Sir Kier seems to have won something at last over the Americans. Sir Simon Fraser, former head of the Foreign Office and now chair of Chatham House, said that in this case the British Government

‘wanted three things: they wanted it not to go wrong… to wrap Donald Trump in the warm blanket of pomp, which he appreciated, and thirdly they wanted some bilateral improvements in the relationship’.

Words which, I feel, sum up the situation very neatly. Indeed, this was a concession, a break with tradition, but it may prove to have been the right move. The PM managed to announce his intention to recognise Palestine in Trump’s presence with little public objection from the President, he  improved the position of trade in Britain with the signing of the technology agreement pledging $150 billion in US investment  and finally, advanced on his long and winding journey - through flattery, through favours, but also through hard language and decisive action - to become one of the only diplomatic paths globally through which a steadying view can reach the White House. In this respect, the state visit, a diplomatic gesture more than an invitation to dinner, can be regarded as a success. As former American diplomat Richard Haass said in the same interview as Sir Simon above,

‘From the British perspective, President Trump is not a problem to be solved, he is a situation to be managed’.

And for once, with trade, Middle Eastern politics and a step toward presidential appeasement all in one go, the situation has been managed with acceptable results.