Why Trump's state visit could spark a constitutional crisis

Yahoo

07-03-2025

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.
Happily, no monarch has tried to ignore the wishes of his or her government since the 17th century, which is why the monarchy attracts such respect.
Perhaps the most controversial state visit in living memory was that of Hirohito, the Japanese emperor, whose throne had survived despite his country's defeat in 1945. Japan's economic power had persuaded the Heath administration that it was worth cultivating Hirohito. However, just a quarter of a century after that war, many veterans were still alive, including some who had suffered appallingly in Japan's bestial prisoner-of-war camps.
Opposition to the visit was widespread. In October 1971, thousands of protesters lined The Mall as Emperor Hirohito and the late Queen passed by in an open carriage. They stood in silence and turned their backs on Hirohito. Some wore red gloves, marking the bloodshed for which they held him responsible. 'We cannot pretend the past did not exist', the Queen said at the state banquet.
Seven years later she tried to pretend the Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceaușescu did not exist, when the Callaghan administration asked him and his wife to Britain to try to improve relations with the Soviet bloc. To avoid having to talk to them the Queen hid behind a bush in the gardens of Buckingham Palace while walking her dogs. Valuables were hidden to prevent them being stolen. Worse, the Queen was forced to give the dictator a knighthood (of which he was later stripped).
Ceaușescu's barbarism and corruption were well known, as were Robert Mugabe's, who came in 1994. Putin came in 2003 and even then met protests. David Cameron's strategy of ingratiating Britain with China led to a visit from Xi Jinping in 2015, and human rights protests. The then Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall missed the state banquet, disliking Xi's human rights record. However, princes have more freedom of action than monarchs.
In addition to his recent transgression in the Oval Office, Trump is accused by his detractors of misogyny and racial prejudice. He has also described climate change – a cause championed by the King over many years – as 'one of the great scams of all time.' It is not difficult to believe that the King might privately take a dim view of the president's past antics and abhor the way he treated Zelensky last week.
The King is not, however, powerless. The 19th century constitutional writer Walter Bagehot famously said that three rights had evolved for sovereigns under constitutional monarchy: the right to be consulted, the right to advise and the right to warn.
The King would have been consulted about the Trump visit by the Prime Minister. What we do not know, and will only know when documents are released decades hence, is whether the King advised Starmer on how the invitation should be couched, or even warned him that it might have regrettable consequences. Starmer could decide to ignore such a warning. A courtier tells me that the King's style is very different to his late mother's, and that if the situation
deteriorated he might issue a 'trenchant' warning to his Prime Minister; he is 'highly sensitive' to public feeling.
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.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.