There's Just No Way The UK Is In A Constitutional Crisis!

Back in February, I noted that the then-controversy over Prince Andrew's ties to Jeffrey Epstein was being called "the worst crisis for the Royals since 1936." But another crisis has been simmering, and this one is closer to the monarchy itself, and thus a little closer to the 1936 crisis for Edward VIII. The specific problem last week was that Charles was scheduled to deliver the King's Speech on Thursday (May 13), which is the formal opening of Parliament. But with the intense controversy over Keir Starmer's continued leadership, the potential appearance of the king endorsing Starmer created a delicate situation.

Sir Keir Starmer has reportedly been asked by Buckingham Palace whether or not His Majesty the King should proceed with the King's Speech as planned. It comes amid a swirl of ministerial resignations and growing demands for Sir Keir to step aside ahead of the royal speech being delivered tomorrow.

The embattled Prime Minister is said to have been urged by the Palace 'do not bring us into it' as the ongoing struggle around his premiership continues. The King is due to deliver the speech, written by the Prime Minister outlining his government's priorities for the next parliamentary session, tomorrow.

Politico, a news website, reports that people familiar with the matter have made clear to No10 officials how important it is for the King not to be used for political purposes.

"The Palace view is ‘we do not want to be any part of this conversation — do not bring us into it,'" the publication was told.

This was also at the basis of Charles's granduncle Edward VIII's abdication. If he married Wallis Simpson against the wishes of the government, it would create a "king's party" in a political divide, when the king is supposed to be above politics. The problem for Charles right now is that the highly unpopular Labour government is nevertheless "His Majesty's Government". This will continue to be a problem even if Starmer steps down as prime minister, which as of this morning seems increasingly likely.

Keir Starmer has told close friends he intends to stand down as Prime Minister and set out an orderly timetable for his departure.

A member of the Cabinet told me late yesterday afternoon: 'Keir understands the political reality.

'He realises the current chaos is unsustainable. He simply wants to be able to do it in a dignified way and in a manner of his own choosing. He will set out a timetable.'

Labour's problem is somewhat similar to the Canadian Liberal Party's problem when Justin Trudeau announced he planned to resign as prime minister. The Liberal adership selected Mark Carney to succeed him, but Carney wasn't a member of parliament. Althoug he could observe debate without being a member, he would have to be elected to a seat to participate actively. Following both Canadian and UK tradition, it was quickly arranged for Carney to run and be electef to a safe seat in a local election as soon as possible. However, this means that under the Canadian and UK parliamentary systems, the prime minister isn't directly elected but is installed by the machine.

The same situation is developing in tne UK now. Wes Streeting resigned as health minister in the Starmer government to increase pressure on Starmer to resign and has since made it clear that he wishes the machine to consider him as Starmer's replacement. However,

Wes Streeting has called for a “proper contest” to replace Sir Keir Starmer and confirmed he would stand if the race is triggered, as he and other senior Labour figures make their pitch to replace the Prime Minister.

In his first public appearance since resigning as health secretary, Mr Streeting set out a fledgling policy platform for a run at the Labour leadership.

He said Britain must pursue a “new special relationship” with the European Union and signalled he wanted to see the country rejoin the trade bloc in the future.

. . . His intervention comes after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham was cleared to run for selection in the Makerfield by-election.

Mr Burnham has said he is prepared to “fight to the highest level”, as he and other senior Labour figures jostle to lead the party in the future.

. . . Mr Streeting also said he did have enough support among MPs to trigger a contest, but suggested his challenge would “lack legitimacy” without Mr Burnham being given a chance to return to Parliament.

Nevertheless, the language Streeter is using strongly suggests that any "proper contest" for the prime ministership is going to be a charade with only a veneer of "legitimacy", and beyond that, the contest will be between two Labour machine politicians whose policies will differ little from each other's or Starmer's -- especially pro-immigration and pro-Islamist appeasement. The next opportunity to vote out Labour, unless something major intervenes, will be in August 2029.

Yesterday's enormous Unite the Kingdom demonstration in London is attributed, at least for now, as the reason for Starmer's planned resignation:

Everyone who turned up today and behaved impeccably ended this tyrant . Thank you https://t.co/uIHDC9ViWe

— Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 (@TRobinsonNewEra) May 16, 2026

But all that results, for possibly three more years, will be a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Labour Party's Titanic. The question is whether the level of popular sentiment displayed in Unite the Kingdom will be satisfied with just a change in Labour leadership without any impact on how the country is run. The US Constitution provides for House elections every two years, which is a much better politicsl safety valve. At least King Charles and Prince William seem to be aware of the threat posed by seeming too close to His Majesty's Government.