No, King Charles shouldn't leap to Canada's defence against Trump
The problem is Keir Starmer, not the King of Canada
A cacophony of hand-wringing among Canadian commentators, journalists, and current and former politicians has erupted following yesterday’s meeting between Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer presented Trump with a formal invitation from King Charles for a state visit, and later dodged a question about the King’s feelings regarding Trump’s threats to annex Canada.
Instead of alarm at Starmer’s apparent lack of vocal support for Canada, it seems the commentariat is more upset that King Charles would invite Trump and that he has not launched into his own public defence of Canada.
To give just one example, former federal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna wrote on Bluesky “If King Charles fails to be clear with Trump that Canada is a sovereign country & he must stop making references to Canada being the 51st state, I really think it’s time to become a republic.” McKenna was far from alone in expressing this sentiment yesterday.
The problem is that this view belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of King in our system of government. King Charles has no discretion to wade into a diplomatic fight. His role as head of state is a formal and symbolic one. He does not wield practical political power, and we shouldn’t want him to. If the Government of Canada decides they need the King of Canada to make a statement, his Majesty’s ministers can advise him to do so.
A more understandable concern is that the King’s actions, via the state invite to Trump, signal approval or appeasement of the Orange Buffoon at a time when he is threatening Canada with economic warfare. But the real issue here is Starmer and his government, and the apparent failure of what should be our closest ally in the fight against the US to stand with us. The invite from the King doesn’t really come from the King - this is not Charles acting on his own volition but as the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of the Starmer government.
Starmer’s approach is obviously to appease Trump and avoid tariffs against the UK. This presents a political and diplomatic challenge for Canada. But it is not a problem involving the monarchy. When Charles acts as the UK head of state, he is not acting as Canada’s head of state. It may be awkward, complicated, or inconvenient to have a single person wearing multiple hats, but that does not make it accurate for people to pretend that Charles is somehow acting as the King of Canada when exercising diplomatic relations on behalf of the UK.
This, of course, raises the thorny theoretical question of what happens if the Government of Canada decided it wants to bring Charles into the fight. First, I think for the very reasons already outlined, it would be unwise for Canada to do so. But if the federal cabinet advised the King to issue a statement condemning US aggression, constitutional theory suggests he would be obliged to do so. And in theory there would be nothing Starmer could do to prevent it, precisely because Charles would be acting in his capacity as the King of Canada and not as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That is, of course, the theory. The political reality of such a conflict between the UK and Canada over the King’s role would be far more complicated behind the scenes. It would be, as far as we know, an unprecedented situation to have the King subject to directly conflicting advice between two of his realms, and Charles and his own Palace advisors would be free to advise the respective governments to try to work out the situation. At the end of the day, however, a decision to go against the wishes of the government of Canada in his capacity as King of Canada would obviously be perilous for the King and his continued status here.
But all of this is dramatically jumping the gun. Despite all the histrionic social media commentary, nothing ‘inappropriate’ or even controversial has happened yet, at least in so far as it involves Charles himself. Our concern as Canadians should be directed at our supposed allies, the elected leaders of countries that need to be aligning against Trump, who currently stands as the greatest threat the democratic world has faced in most of our lifetimes. If the UK proves it is not a true ally of Canada’s, then our work at home take on an even more pressing aura, one that should not be distracted by unnecessary and uninformed handwringing over our symbolic monarch.
I was hoping you'd address this issue and I think your analysis is spot on. No fault attaches to Charles (yet) but my God, it was nauseating to see Starmer behave in that cowardly, servile manner in front of Trump. "A second state visit! It's unprecedented! A first in history!" And to make it worse: "You're trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist...we didn't discuss Canada." Jesus.
I fully understand he didn't want to poke Trump in the eye by mounting a furious defence of Canada, but he still could have said something along the lines of: "Canada is a long-standing member of the western alliance of democratic nations. We will never forget the price Canada has paid to support both Britain and the US in many, many military efforts both decades ago and more recently." It doesn't go far enough but it would have been something at least.
In the end...even Starmer knows he beclowned himself, and despite all that, there's no guarantee that his desperate performance will save the UK from Trump's crosshairs.
It’s not just Starmer, but the whole of the UK that’s the problem here. They’ve weakened themselves through Brexit, which makes them easy picking for the bully in the White House.
Even so, it’s an example of what one commentator calls the first rule of foreign relations: “Nations don’t have friends. They have interests.” The UK will only act to support Canada if and to the extent it is in their interest to do so.
As for the King, I agree 100% this is for the 2 governments to resolve. There’s a minor but instructive precedent in the effort to give Conrad Black his peerage. The offer was made by HM on behalf her UK government, only to be told no by her government in Canada. The palace told the 2 governments to work it out.