King Charles's Visit

STOP IT!!!🤣🤣🤣 pic.twitter.com/XbW9BYbIKJ

— il Donaldo Trumpo (@PapiTrumpo) April 27, 2026

Here's what The Mew York Times thinks important about the King's visit:

One meeting that appears to be absent from King Charles III’s carefully planned schedule in the United States this week is any reunion with Prince Harry.

On a four-day state visit intended in part to repair bruised U.S.-British relations, Charles’s itinerary currently includes no plans to see Harry, his 41-year-old son, who lives in California with his wife, Meghan, and their two children.

Buckingham Palace officials declined to comment when asked whether the king and his younger son would meet. Charles and Queen Camilla are scheduled to be in Washington on Tuesday and New York on Wednesday before departing on Thursday.

Fox News sees things more clearly:

Trump has expressed frustration with Britain’s refusal to fully join the U.S. campaign against Iran, and has urged U.S. allies to get involved militarily or operationally, particularly around protecting oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz.

"This is not Winston Churchill we are dealing with," Trump said on March 3, referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "By the way, I’m not happy with the U.K. either," the president continued, referring to Starmer blocking the United States’ use of U.K. bases to launch attacks on Iran.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "How much discretion does the UK monarch have to negotiate policy on a state visit?" It replied,

The UK monarch has no personal discretion to negotiate policy during a state visit. As a constitutional monarch, the King is bound by convention to act only on the "advice" of his ministers, meaning the government retains full control over the political and policy-related aspects of these visits.

No Policy-Making Power: The King cannot negotiate treaties, set government policy, or speak freely on partisan political matters.

Government-Driven Agenda: State visits are tools of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to serve UK strategic, economic, or security interests.

So we have the problem that Trump is unhappy with the Prime Minister, at least the one who's barely holding onto his office now:

MPs are to vote on Tuesday over whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer should be investigated in Parliament for allegedly misleading the House of Commons.

It relates to several comments he made about the process of appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK's ambassador to the US in December 2024. Lord Mandelson was sacked the following September over his links to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On Monday night Sir Keir told Labour MPs the accusation he had misled the House was "totally baseless" and accused the Conservatives of a "political stunt".

So as far as I can parse this out, if the King utters a single word to Trunp that could be interpreted as relating to the current uncertainty for Starmer, it could be interpreted as causing a constitutional crisis. Conversely, he is duty bound to support his current Government in all matters. I asked Chrome AI mode, "What in the UK would be interpreted as a 'constitutional crisis' as it applies to the king, and how would it be resolved?" It replied,

In the United Kingdom, a "constitutional crisis" involving the King typically refers to a situation where the monarch's reserve powers (legally held but conventionally unused) clash with modern democratic practices. Because the UK has an uncodified constitution based largely on convention, a crisis arises when these unwritten rules are broken or come into direct conflict with the will of Parliament.

. . . Public Political Interference: King Charles is constitutionally required to remain politically impartial. Any attempt to publicly lobby or campaign on political issues could destabilize the monarchy’s role.

Resolution usually depends on the severity of the standoff and historical precedents:

Abdication: If the King’s personal choices or actions make his continued reign [un]tenable, he may be pressured to abdicate, as seen with Edward VIII in 1936.

. . . General Election: In extreme cases, a snap election can be called to let the public decide on a mandate, effectively forcing the monarch’s hand if the returned government maintains its position.

But Charles's visit to the US comes at a time of increasing conflict, when the UK is forced to rely on its membership in NATO for defense, since it has depleted its own armed forces, while Trump is less willing to allow free rides on defense by NATO members. If Charles is expected to achieve some purpose in his visit, for instance to make up in some way for the bad feelings between Trump and Starmer, he is going to have to sail very close to the wind vis-a-vis his constitutional position.

• I don't see how he can make any sort of remark, however humorous, informal, or off-the-record, apologizing in even the vaguest way for Starmer or the Government
• I don't see how he can make any sort of remark, however humorous, informal, or off-the-record, suggesting the bipartisan policy of successive Governments to deplete the UK's armed forces is in any way counterproductive or ought to be changed
• I don't see how he can make any sort of remark, however humorous, informal, or off-the-record, commenting in any way on the UK immigration crisis
• I don't see how he can make any sort of remark, however humorous, informal, or off-the-record, commenting on either the US or UK political scene.

In other words, there's very little he can say, and aboslutely nothing he can do, to accomplish anything positive for UK-US relations. He can be charrming, and he can probably observe that having met Pope Leo, he seems quite a good chap.

But if anything remotely interesting comes out of the vistt, it will provoke a constitutional crisis.