King Charles’s US state visit was never in doubt

Mark Twain famously wrote that “rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”, and similar rumors have proliferated about King Charles’s state visit to the United States not taking place as a direct result of the ongoing conflict in Iran. Dubiously-informed sources have suggested either that Charles himself is so personally offended by the outbreak of war that he has refused to head to America in a month’s time, or alternatively that the British government, smarting from the tongue-lashings that President Trump has handed out to the hapless Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, have suggested that it would be a bad idea for the trip to go ahead at this time, and that the king should postpone the visit to the fall.

However, state visits do not take place under the purview of conventional politics, and the monarch regards himself as existing above such mundane concerns. Therefore it comes as little surprise to discover, following on from similar briefings to British media sources, that the New York Post has offered a well-informed summary of the plans for Charles’s three-day visit, which is designed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America’s independence from its former masters. The trip will include a state dinner in the White House, a visit to New York and, most intriguingly of all, an address to both houses in Congress, which the articulate monarch will undoubtedly relish. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the packed schedule will not allow for a trip to Montecito for Charles to reconcile with his estranged younger son Prince Harry, but this is public, not private, business, and will be approached on that basis.

It says a lot for the difficulties that both the so-called “special relationship” and the royal family are currently facing that there was ever any discussion, unfounded though it might have been, about the trip being either postponed or cancelled altogether. President Trump has visited Britain twice now, with the second, unprecedented state visit taking place last year, and appeared to thoroughly enjoy the pomp and ceremony that was wheeled out for him.

A committed royalist and Anglophile (who, for a long time, was a greater supporter of Starmer than many voters in Britain, until political differences intervened), Trump will be looking forward to the state visit as much, if not more so, than Charles, as he will relish the opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with the monarch – especially in the context of his country’s independence celebrations. He recently remarked that the king was “a great guy” who will be “coming in very soon”. These are not the words of a president reluctantly hosting a tiresome visiting dignitary, but someone who is counting off the days for a heaven-sent PR opportunity.

Not everyone in Britain shares his enthusiasm. The left-wing Labour politician Emily Thornberry told the BBC that the visit should not take place for reasons of royal dignity, saying “If it was to go ahead, it would go ahead against a backdrop of a war, and that, I think, is quite difficult, and the last thing that we want to do is to have Their Majesties embarrassed.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, Buckingham Palace and the White House have chosen not to heed Thornberry’s advice. A well-run state visit is something that bolsters both countries, and even though it is not believed that either the British government or Charles himself will attempt to hijack the event to make any political capital out of, it is a useful reminder of the soft power that the monarchy continues to wield, even in these troubled times.

Still, these troubled times are nothing if not unpredictable, and who can say what will develop in the world – or domestically – over the coming weeks. Yet a trip such as this has been months in the planning and preparation, and it would be far more embarrassing and difficult for it not to take place than for it to happen, albeit against a more dramatic backdrop than anyone would have liked.