Here are some photos of King Charles last week, visiting the HMS Prince of Wales. The Royal Navy is preparing for a “major global deployment to the Indo-Pacific this spring.” Charles made a point of wearing his Canadian military honours with his uniform. Canadians noticed that and they were reportedly pleased that Charles made the choice to subtly show his alliance to Canada. He is, after all, king of Canada too. This too is all part of Charles’s delicate diplomatic dance with Britain’s North American allies. Just as Donald Trump was calling for America to “annex” Canada, Charles sent Trump a hand-written letter, inviting Trump to come to the UK for a de facto second state visit. That invitation was received by Trump one day before Trump and JD Vance went apesh-t on President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, childishly berating the Ukrainian president. All of which to say, there are now widespread calls for Charles to rescind the invitation and publicly distance himself from all things Trump. An excerpt from Simon Heffer’s latest piece in the Telegraph:

The day after Donald Trump and JD Vance ambushed Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, an American friend (who is no fan of the US president) railed at me by text message about what she considered the King’s poor judgment in asking Trump to pay a state visit – and an unprecedented second one at that. Why was His Majesty bestowing this honour on a head of state who had publicly humiliated a supposed ally in this way?

I explained that the King acts in all political matters (which include the diplomatic decision about a state visit), only on the advice of his ministers. This convention exists to keep the Crown above politics. That the King had written to President Trump – a letter the president joyfully flaunted during his meeting last week with Sir Keir Starmer – inviting him to Britain was, I told her, not because His Majesty wanted it, but because his Prime Minister thought an invitation was in the national interest.

Once Starmer had told the King his ministers’ wishes, His Majesty had to comply. “The King will not be dragged into politics. He will follow the advice of his Prime Minister. State visits are a vital part of soft power. And soft power is all we have left,” says one senior politician.

It might, of course, be the case that the King accepted the pragmatic argument for a state visit, which will doubtless help Starmer’s efforts to court Trump as America’s relationship with the rest of the world becomes increasingly uncertain. If the King did object, however, refusing would have precipitated a constitutional crisis – the resignation of the Prime Minister and the Government, and a general election on the issue. If, after such an election, Starmer remained in office and the King still refused, it could force an abdication.

After the Zelensky incident, politicians from various parties said the invitation should be rescinded. The Scottish National Party leader, John Swinney, said it was “hard to believe” it could stand; Alicia Kearns, a Tory MP, wanted it cancelled. There are rumours of disquiet in Labour’s ranks, whose considerable cohort of Trump-haters have so far kept quiet. Calls to reconsider the invitation also came from Canada, which Trump believes should become America’s 51st state. “I don’t think Trump realises the King is Canada’s Head of State too,” says a former minister. “If he persists in trying to annex Canada, that would change everything.” In an interview with The Telegraph this week, Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, Canada’s wealthiest province, publicly urged the King to stand up to Trump over his threat to annexe the Commonwealth nation.

Starmer refuses to withdraw the invitation. An unpleasant tone emerged from Washington, with hints of consequences for the UK/US relationship if the visit were stopped. Public feeling appears strong against the visit. A poll published five days after the Zelensky ambush showed 42 per cent of Britons opposed to it, and 51 per cent saying Trump should never have been asked in the first place. Two petitions demanding the visit be cancelled quickly attracted 280,000 signatures. A petition against his 2019 state visit garnered 1.8 million signatures, when the provocation was less.

The poll was conducted before the president’s decision to “pause” military aid to Ukraine. As it becomes clear that the Trump administration no longer shares the same stance on Ukraine and Nato as Britain or much of Europe, opposition to a visit meant to reinforce a shared commitment could increase. This shift could have significant constitutional implications, which the Prime Minister will need to address, with the King remaining vigilant.

Serious public disquiet, or even civil disobedience, arising from the visit or even just from its imminence, could well drag the King into politics – the very thing the constitutional monarchy was designed to avoid. In 2019 a demonstration of an estimated 75,000 people filled central London for Trump’s first visit; the public perception that Trump had bullied and abandoned Ukraine could provoke a far larger one. His Majesty, however unfairly, might be identified with the presence and the actions of the unpopular president. That might not merely damage the King’s reputation; it could damage the institution of monarchy, something the constitution has evolved to avoid. These are delicate issues, as they always are when trying to renew relations with a head of state whose behaviour leaves much to be desired. The Government will have to decide whether more damage might be done by Trump’s coming, or by his not coming. It could be one of the most important decisions Starmer ever has to make.

[From The Telegraph]

Yeah, it’s as I’ve said all along – it’s not Charles’s call to send OR rescind the invitation to Trump. He’s doing what Keir Starmer wants, and Starmer is trying to maintain the European alliances along with the American alliance. Can I just say? All of this hand-wringing over dinner invitations a year in advance is SO British. It’s actually what British commentators do with everything involving the monarchy and the Windsors, and it’s wild to see this kind of thing extend to the world of politics. There was no timeline offered in Charles’s invitation to Trump, not even a general “let’s see if we can make this happen next year.” By all accounts, it would take a year or longer for Buckingham Palace to even plan a state visit like this. Do British people know how much can change in a year?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.