As seen
in Canada, Charles has pushed the boundaries of politics as king – and got away
with it
Martin
Kettle
Right now,
the monarch’s political leanings appear in sympathy with the mood of Britain.
But what if the public moves further to the right?
Thu 29 May
2025 07.00 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/29/king-charles-politics-monarchy-visit-to-canada
It requires
an effort to keep reminding yourself of the sheer historical oddity of
monarchy’s healthy survival into the modern democratic age. Yet so rooted is
the monarchy in the mental furniture of Britain that most people in our
politics barely think about it. This week, however, the modern British monarchy
has stood up and demanded to be counted, doing something new and perhaps
genuinely consequential.
Judged by
any yardstick, Charles III’s visit to Canada was an audaciously disjunctive
event. The idea that a vibrant democracy such as Canada, with a highly
sophisticated sense of its own complex identity, might summon an elderly
hereditary monarch from across the ocean to provide a focal point for its
resistance to Donald Trump’s existential threat takes some believing. Yet that
was exactly what played out this week, when the king travelled to Ottawa to
open the new Canadian parliament.
No monarch
had bothered to make this trip for nearly 50 years. During that time, however,
Canada has transformed itself into a major global power and has decisively
slipped its old colonial bonds. Yet Trump’s threat to Canada is such that the
country’s prime minister, Mark Carney, judged a summons to Buckingham Palace
would send a useful newsworthy signal about its national sovereignty that would
help bind the nation while sending a shot across the US president’s bows.
At least as
significantly, when seen from Britain, King Charles was happy to oblige. Just
as with the speech he delivers at Westminster at the start of a parliamentary
session, Tuesday’s in Ottawa will have been scripted by the elected government.
But the Ottawa speech had a far looser and more personal format than the
Westminster version. This allowed the king to speak words that clearly mattered
to him, and by which he will be judged.
Trump was
not mentioned by name. Even so, he permeated the speech. The king endorsed
Canadian national pride and said democracy, law, pluralism and global trade
were on the line. He said Canada’s relationships with Europe would be
strengthened and, speaking in French, he said Canada faces challenges
unprecedented in the postwar era. He was proud that Canada was “an example to
the world in her conduct and values, as a force for good”, and he ended,
quoting from the Canadian national anthem, by saying “the true north is indeed
strong and free”.
All this is
an unmistakable rebuke to Trump’s rudeness, aggression and greed. The words are
not neutral but committed. Whether the king sought approval from Keir Starmer
for his visit and speech is not clear. His main adviser concerning the visit
will have been Carney, who may have liaised with Downing Street. Starmer,
committed to engaging with Trump, will have been content to keep his distance.
The larger point, however, is that this was a willed act by the king. Charles
did not have to travel and did not have to make the speech. But he did both,
even while continuing to be treated for cancer.
The contrast
with his mother is impossible to miss. Elizabeth II’s hallmark throughout her
70-year reign was a studied neutrality on public affairs. She was much praised
for it during her lifetime, leading some commentators to assume that neutrality
was now a precondition for monarchy’s survival, and others into infantile
speculations about the symbolic messages that may, or may not, have been
implied by what the queen was wearing. Even when Elizabeth did let slip a view
– as in her “think very carefully about the future” comment during the 2014
Scottish referendum – the words could be as gnomic as they were rare.
During his
long years as heir to the throne, however, Charles became a controversialist.
He expressed views about a wide range of issues, from architecture to farming
and the climate crisis. He lobbied ministers in handwritten “black spider”
memos about them. This habit led some to predict that, when he succeeded to the
throne, Charles would continue to be a protagonist on causes that mattered to
him. In Mike Bartlett’s 2014 play King Charles III, the future monarch even
abdicates rather than give his assent to a government bill restricting the
freedom of the press.
In nearly
three years as king, however, Charles has proved many doubters wrong. Monarchy
watchers who suspected he would not change his ways now concede he has not
overstepped any significant constitutional lines. Yet he has done the job his
own way, not his mother’s. As the palace itself acknowledges, the king is
walking a tightrope.
Charles’s
visits and speeches push the boundaries. Ottawa is now the most dramatic
example, but it is not the only one. At home, Charles has championed the UK
union against national separatists. He took Starmer and Angela Rayner to visit
a housing project in Cornwall. He has made visits to EU capitals, most recently
to Rome, which harmonise with Starmer’s attempt to improve relations with
Europe. He very publicly hosted President Zelenskyy only days after Trump’s
savage assault on the Ukraine leader in the Oval Office. His most recent
Christmas message focused on praising health workers.
So far,
Charles has gotten away with it. Public concern for his own health, and for
that of his family, has probably helped him. So has public sympathy over the
behaviour of the Sussexes. To criticise Trump is also popular rather than
risky. Amid all this, the public has cut Charles enough slack to be more
himself. Those who warned that his more committed approach to public affairs
could threaten the monarchy and boost republicanism have, at least at this
stage, been proved wrong.
But this
benign circle may not continue indefinitely. Monarchy is still an oddity. The
tightrope is still there. Charles is still balanced on it. His approach to the
job has won him approval, including grudging acknowledgment from some who
previously disapproved of him. But these things are not static. Charles’s role
carries risks which, when faced with a less patient public mood or different
circumstances, could cause trouble for him and for the monarchy.
Assuming
that Charles remains in good health for years to come, how might he handle a
change of government? If the current feeding frenzy about a Nigel Farage prime
ministership really came to pass in 2028-29, Charles could be faced with a
government that might embrace a Maga president in Washington, abandon European
alliances, dismiss the net zero agenda, and go out of its way to antagonise
Scotland and Wales.
That would
present Charles or the future King William with a very different Britain from
the one with which they appear in sympathy. Yet it is a Britain that may be
only three or four years distant. According to most evidence and most received
wisdom, a generally well-disposed public is content to stick with the monarchy.
Yet when so much else about the British state is struggling to adapt, and when
monarchy remains historically improbable, why would the monarchy itself not
struggle too?
Martin
Kettle is a Guardian columnist
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário