King Charles has now met with two Canadian prime ministers in the space of a few weeks. First, he entertained outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on 3 March at Sandringham during the hastily arranged Ukraine Summit in London. The readout from the King’s side indicated the scope of the King’s role in uncertain times: ‘As a global statesman and a head of state for both the UK and Canada, the King’s role is highly significant, and his majesty is determined to play his part, within appropriate parameters.’ And on 17 March he met new Prime Minister Mark Carney at Buckingham Palace. Carney declared afterwards that ‘Canada is fortunate to have a steadfast defender in our sovereign’.
The very visible meetings between the prime ministers and the King were of course no coincidence. Over both, the figure of President Trump loomed large following his economic and sovereignty intimidation of long-term ally Canada in the form of punitive tariffs and threats to make Canada the 51st state. Not so subtle hints that the US could remove Canada from the historic five eyes intelligence sharing alliance have added to the aggressive tone from Washington. The President is of course still waiting his turn to be entertained by King Charles.
Such international turmoil, much of it instigated by the chaotic and confrontational politics of the US President, has placed King Charles in a rather awkward diplomatic position. The King is Head of State of four members of the five-eyes alliance. This mutual sharing of intelligence has been predicated on the avoidance of any major diplomatic rifts and has bound the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand together in a postwar Western Alliance. Unprecedented discord between members might come to place the monarch in a position where he is forced to choose between the diplomatic interests of his nation subjects.
Symbolic gestures
Many Canadians have been seeking a vocal expression of support from the Head of State. Yet as a Palace spokesperson pointed out ‘His role by necessity and constitutional obligation is to offer symbolic gestures, rather than express comment.’ Regular Royal watchers will be expert at spotting and amplifying such symbols including the planting of a maple tree in Buckingham Palace gardens, the King’s wearing of Canadian medals on a military visit, and the Canadian chair the King sat on at Commonwealth day celebrations (the same event that Katherine wore red and white to). Subtle and not so subtle symbolic gestures are very much part of the royal messaging. The Queen insisting on driving the Saudi Prince Abdullah around Balmoral estate herself in 2003 was quite an obvious nod to the restrictions on women driving in Saudi Arabia at that time. The less subtle flourish by Prime Minister Starmer of the King’s invitation to President Trump for a second state visit demonstrates how the monarchy can be deliberately drawn into diplomatic politics when required, though.
Canadian republicanism
There has been disquiet in some Canadian quarters at the lack of a more robust defence of a Commonwealth member and one of the 14 countries of which the King remains Head of State. As Jennifer Welsh, Director of the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University, Montreal wrote in this context, words matter, and ‘They need to be spoken in public, not just behind diplomatic closed doors, with an eye to multiple audiences’. The hectic and dysfunctional diplomacy from the Trump administration, upending longstanding alliances, has drawn the usually slow-moving monarchy into the glare of global politics. Traditional forms of engagement seem less relevant in times of polycrisis and existential threats.
During the Queen’s reign she could be accepted as a nominal Canadian, she made 22 official visits to Canada, more than to any other Commonwealth nation. However, the recent celebration of 60 years of the Canadian maple leaf flag points to Canada’s gradual dislocation from the monarchy. The maple leaf flag was adopted in 1965 as a replacement for the unofficial red ensign with its union jack motif and since then the constitution which was patriated in 1982 gave Canada the freedom to amend its own constitution and ended any dependence on UK legislation.
Onto the present, the coronation of King Charles in 2023 prompted a ripple of commentary on Canadian republicanism, an opportunity to reassess the value of a constitutional monarchy for a modern Canada. Of course, in common with many other Commonwealth countries who have retained the monarch as Head of State, the crown there is a borrowed and distant one; a last vestige of a colonial tie. It is also one that is becoming less popular with the public – opinion polling since Charles became King has indicated that around two thirds now favour replacing the monarchy. With Barbados choosing a republican route and the Australian government of Anthony Albanese suggesting that a new republican vote may be on the cards if they are elected for a second term, a direction of travel is emerging. Indeed Anthony Albanese has appointed Matt Thistlethwaite to a newly created post: assistant minister for the republic; and declined to put King Charles on the new $5 banknotes. Much of this has been driven by contemporary reappraisal of British imperial rule, embodied by the monarchy, and visible, for instance, in calls for reparations in Jamaica.
Awkward moments
Navigating tricky diplomatic and political situations should not be new to the monarchy, though. The late Queen awkwardly had to entertain dictators and despots across her reign. The monarch has no choice over the heads of state who are invited. Guests hosted by the Queen included President Putin (twice), Bishop Muzorewa from Zimbabwe, Nicolae Ceauşescu from Romania, President Xi Jinping of China, and of course President Trump. One of the most infamous cases apparently involved the Queen hiding in a bush to avoid having to make small talk with Ceaușescu, thefirst Communist leader to be granted a state visit in 1978. During her reign she also had to manage difficult Commonwealth issues such as coups in Fiji (the second one in 1987 removed the Queen as Head of State) and the US invasion of Grenada in 1983 after the 1979 military coup.
The US invasion of Grenada to remove the Cuban-linked Marxist leaders was particularly challenging for the Queen, though, as US President Reagan gave Downing Street only 12 hours of notice that the US was going to invade the Commonwealth member. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Queen as head of state of Grenada, and the Governor-General had all been kept in the dark. Britain opposed military action, and the invasion represented the first US intervention in a former British colony and a member of the realm. Even though Reagan and Thatcher had a good relationship, the move remains evidence that the US will act in its own interests before considering others, a pointer perhaps to future US action in the current climate.
Back to symbols…
So, what then can King Charles do? The answer is very little in terms of active intervention. After all, Royal visits are controlled by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and not the Palace, and are made to align with the UK’s interests, not just that of the head of state – recall that Liz Truss intervened to stop King Charles going to COP27. Any diplomatic interventions in the form of comments or read outs will be based on advice from a government who are themselves attempting to balance relationships with both the US and Canada.
As Head of State, King Charles should be a symbol of independent Canadian nationhood, an independence that has been challenged by President Trump. The King therefore has to balance this responsibility to Canada with the task of representing the UK government in delicate relations with President Trump. This has come into sharp focus with the King due to host the President on a second state visit, at the behest of the UK government. Though not in his gift, the King has had calls from Canadians to rescind the invitation. Beyond this, there is the added danger that the King’s role gets drawn into the recently called general election campaign, one likely to be dominated by relations between the US and Canada.
There is, though, an opportunity for the King to act as a unifier since Trump has indicated some level of respect for the King. Indeed, he has recently signalled that he would be interested in joining “the club of former British colonies”, as reported by Politico, were the King to ask. Whilst the spectacle of President Trump being feted on a state visit will not go down at all well in Canada, the King will be particularly conscious of the value of facilitating respectful relationships with successive US Presidents, as his mother did. There will not be policy nuanced statements, but the Palace can sometimes be adept at pushing subtle messages out in public and more pointed ones in private. Doubtless Carney’s ‘steadfast defender’ line would have been cleared with the Palace, and so we might be seeing the King attempt to walk this tightrope between a Canadian public with high expectations and UK government with entirely different objectives.
Yet this tiptoeing merely demonstrates the passive nature of the monarchy and in the current climate, Canadians are looking for much more than symbols and excuses from their UK-based sovereign. The threat to Canada and the pace of events looks likely to accelerate republican sentiment and potentially diminish the role and reach of the monarchy in that country. If Canada indeed seeks to dislocate itself, that may be a blow to the monarchy’s prestige. But building on what Robert Hazell has written regarding the sovereign’s workload, any departure from the realm may even come as a relief to a monarchy conscious of the wider reputational risk of enduring as an unwanted figurehead and symbol of an absent empire.
Mark Bennister.
Mark Bennister is an experienced academic researching comparative political leadership, prime ministerial power, governance, public policy, and accountability in parliament. He is a Visiting Reader at Queen Mary, University of London, an Affiliate Research Fellow at the Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge, and Honorary Senior Fellow, University of Lincoln.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.