5 hours ago
3
Should King Charles’s state visit to the United States next month be cancelled? The case for doing so is powerful. America is waging an unprovoked war on Iran in which more than 1,000 innocent people have already been killed. The collateral damage to the global economy, including Britain’s, is becoming astronomical. All Donald Trump can do is insult Britain’s prime minister as a “loser” and “no Winston Churchill” for failing to join him. Should the monarch honour such a man by attending a Washington banquet?
The call is close. The occasion is the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States with the declaration of independence. Of course this merits celebration. But now? British public opinion is emphatically opposed to the US war on Iran. Many more Britons think the royal visit should be abandoned (46%) than think it should go ahead (36%), with 18% undecided. Just as the war is staged by Trump for personal political gain, so he can be expected to exploit a royal visit.
Downing Street’s refusal to confirm the visit suggests an understandable indecision. As with the energy markets, all could depend on how long the war continues. Leaving the question open might add to pressure on Trump for an early ceasefire. But, from the start, the war’s course seems to have been dictated by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as appears still to be the case.
What is certain is that cancellation would be a severe blow to Anglo-American relations. The king is not the head of Britain’s government, nor does he represent the British people, who never elected him. Academic texts on his status, by people ranging from Walter Bagehot to Vernon Bogdanor, read more like theological tracts than practical guides. The king contrives “to embody” the British state in a fashion that continues to puzzle and sometimes fascinate Americans.
The monarch is the dignified rather than efficient arm of the constitution, which means his opinions are as irrelevant to public policy as is his compulsory Protestant faith. The executive authority of the Crown is semantic. Parliament alone is sovereign, and has been so since the Bill of Rights of 1689. This is a fact that merely adds to Starmer’s problem. Cancellation might appear to be prompted by domestic politics and would add to the bad taste left by Trump’s censored second state visit last year, when he could not even show his face in London.
Not to allow the visit to proceed would be a mistake. Better by far would be to elevate it well above the level of current events. Attention should rise above daily political disputes. Instead, the bonds of finance, science, education, culture and even matrimony that have long joined our nations should be honoured. Trump, a son of Scotland, is a case in point.
At the Peace of Paris in 1783, which secured American independence, a French delegate commented on how generous the defeated British had been to the Americans. A British delegate is reported to have replied with a smile, “Yes sir, and they will all speak English; every one of ’em.” That answer has secured a closeness between Britons and Americans that has held over the centuries ever since. It is a closeness this visit should celebrate.
As for what the king might discuss with Trump – not to mention Queen Camilla with Melania – that may be left to conjecture. With Iran and Jeffrey Epstein off limits, perhaps they can turn to revivalist architecture, onshore wind turbines and the latest Oscars. Charles has never been shy of political conversation, but he is also the master of small talk. Trump may yet test his minimalism.
Now is an occasion for the British nation to present itself as respecting the American people in their handling of a president who appears to be uncertain as to where he is leading them. That may require sympathy rather than criticism. The United States has embarked on a terrible aggression and that fact cannot be sidestepped. But a state visit is a bonding of nations, not governments, of cultures, not commentators.
The eternal weakness of the American presidency is that it must embody the union of states in one nation and yet do so through the medium of partisan politics. Time and again the stature required of a president – self-styled leader of the western world – is tarnished by polarisation and short-term gain.
Separating headship of state from daily politics is a virtue of hereditary monarchy. Now is its time. Charles will present that headship as holding a dignity above the political round. I am sure the American people would respect him as such. That is why the visit should go ahead.
-
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist and the author of A Short History of America: from Tea Party to Trump
