King Charles' US State Visit Should Proceed Despite Trump's Military Aggression
Should King Charles' state visit to the United States next month be cancelled? The argument for cancellation is compelling, given the current geopolitical climate. America, under President Donald Trump, is engaged in an unprovoked war against Iran, resulting in the tragic deaths of over 1,000 innocent civilians. The collateral damage to the global economy, including Britain's, is escalating to astronomical levels. Trump has further strained relations by insulting Britain's prime minister as a "loser" and "no Winston Churchill" for refusing to join the conflict. In light of this, should the monarch honor such a leader by attending a Washington banquet?
The Delicate Balance of Public Opinion and Diplomacy
The decision is a close call. The visit coincides with the 250th anniversary of the United States' founding, marked by the Declaration of Independence—an occasion that undoubtedly merits celebration. However, timing is critical. British public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the US war on Iran. Recent polls indicate that 46% of Britons believe the royal visit should be abandoned, while only 36% support it proceeding, with 18% undecided. Trump, who has staged the war for personal political gain, is likely to exploit a royal visit for similar purposes.
Downing Street's hesitation to confirm the visit reflects understandable indecision. Much like the volatile energy markets, the outcome may hinge on the war's duration. Keeping the visit in limbo could pressure Trump into an early ceasefire. Yet, from the outset, the war's trajectory appears to have been influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a dynamic that persists.
The Risks of Cancellation and the Monarchy's Role
Cancelling the visit would deal a severe blow to Anglo-American relations. King Charles is not the head of Britain's government, nor does he represent the British people, who did not elect him. Academic analyses of his status, from Walter Bagehot to Vernon Bogdanor, often read more like theological tracts than practical guides. The king embodies the British state in a manner that continues to perplex and intrigue Americans.
The monarch serves as the dignified, rather than efficient, arm of the constitution, meaning his opinions are as irrelevant to public policy as his compulsory Protestant faith. The executive authority of the Crown is largely semantic. Parliament alone holds sovereignty, a fact established since the Bill of Rights of 1689. This reality complicates Prime Minister Keir Starmer's dilemma. Cancellation might seem politically motivated, exacerbating the discomfort from Trump's censored second state visit last year, when he avoided public appearances in London.
Elevating the Visit Above Political Turmoil
Allowing the visit to proceed is the wiser course. It should be elevated beyond the fray of current events, focusing instead on the enduring bonds between nations. Attention must rise above daily political disputes to honor the deep connections in finance, science, education, culture, and even matrimony that have long united Britain and America. Trump, with his Scottish heritage, exemplifies these ties.
At the Peace of Paris in 1783, which secured American independence, a French delegate noted the generosity of the defeated British toward the Americans. A British delegate reportedly replied with a smile, "Yes sir, and they will all speak English; every one of 'em." This sentiment has fostered a closeness between Britons and Americans that has endured for centuries—a closeness this visit should celebrate.
Navigating Conversations and Symbolic Significance
As for what King Charles might discuss with Trump—or Queen Camilla with Melania—that remains speculative. With topics like Iran and Jeffrey Epstein off-limits, they could turn to revivalist architecture, onshore wind turbines, or the latest Oscars. Charles has never shied away from political dialogue, but he is also adept at small talk. Trump may yet test his minimalist approach.
This is an opportunity for Britain to present itself as respecting the American people, even as they navigate a president whose leadership direction seems uncertain. It may require sympathy rather than criticism. While the United States has embarked on a terrible aggression that cannot be ignored, a state visit symbolizes the bonding of nations, not governments, and of cultures, not commentators.
The inherent weakness of the American presidency lies in its need to embody national unity through partisan politics. Time and again, the stature required of a president—self-styled leader of the western world—is tarnished by polarization and short-term gains.
Separating headship of state from daily politics is a virtue of hereditary monarchy. Now is its moment. Charles will present that headship as holding a dignity above the political fray. The American people are likely to respect him for it. That is precisely why the visit should proceed.
