Trump is making the monarchy great again

Donald Trump is quantitative easing for the British monarchy. Following Trump’s repeated rhetorical predations on Canada’s sovereignty, the last thing a besieged and bewildered Canada would now risk is to become a republic — thus removing a key constitutional obstacle to merger with the United States. For years, Canadian public opinion has been drifting apart from the monarchy — and not only in francophone, antimonarchist Quebec. Moreover, King Charles has been a particularly unpopular royal. It seemed a matter of time before an increasingly multi-ethnic Canada would follow other Commonwealth nations in removing the British monarch from their currency. 

Trump has thus unwittingly cemented Charles III’s future as Canada’s symbol of a very un-American idea of sovereignty. If the point is to further differentiate Canada from the US (and it is) how much clearer can the Canadian government be than to ask the British king to read out its agenda to the public? As it happens I was in Canada on Monday and Tuesday, which coincided with Charles and Camilla’s brief visit to Ottawa, including his “speech from the throne”. I was there to speak at the University of Toronto to the Canadian International Council about my book, Zbig (Brzezinski spent 12 very formative years in Montreal). 

At a private dinner afterwards, much of the conversation focused on what Canada could do to resist Trump’s insistent designs on their country. The discussion took place under the Chatham House Rule so I cannot name names. But it included one former Canadian prime minister. I had nothing practical to suggest about how Canada could build up its military defences against that very slim chance Trump would send the 82nd airborne across the border. The correct answer is that resistance would be futile. 

But Canada, like most of Europe, should anyway be spending more on its defence: we have been infantilised by America’s security umbrella for too long. It is also worth noting that the US republic was won partly as a result of one of modern history’s first instances of asymmetric warfare. George Washington’s revolutionaries were the Vietcong of their time (with Britain playing the role of the US and France the Soviet Union). Perhaps Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, should set up a Royal Canadian Institute for the Study of Guerrilla Warfare? You could have almost as much fun with that as the King’s speech. 

As a student of euphemism and hints, I enjoyed Charles’ address, which of course was mostly written by Carney’s office. “A confident Canada . . . can seize this opportunity by recognising that all Canadians can give themselves far more than any foreign power on any continent can ever take away,” he said. Canada and the US were working together on a new economic and security relationship, Charles declared. In the next line, he added, “In parallel, the government is working to strengthen its relationships with reliable [italics mine] trading partners and allies around the world.” He ended the address a little more unsubtly by quoting from “O Canada”, Canada’s national anthem. “As the anthem reminds us: The true north is indeed strong and free!” 

It was mission accomplished for Carney, who is proving himself to be a very deft politician. For a study in contrasts, observe how meekly Britain’s Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, is handling Trump. Admittedly, Trump isn’t yet coveting British territory, though the Bahamas cannot be far off. But in his February Oval Office encounter with Trump, Starmer played the Charles III card somewhat differently. He handed Trump a royal invitation for a second state visit to the UK. Trump was visibly delighted. Carney, by contrast, was “not impressed” by that move. 

Trump, meanwhile, remains possibly the worst boss on the planet. Before the King’s visit, Pete Hoekstra, Trump’s US ambassador to Canada, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that Canadians should drop all this talk of their becoming America’s 51st state — as if it were Canadians who had broached the subject. “Move on,” said Hoekstra. “If the Canadians want to keep talking about it — that’s their business. I’m not talking about it; Donald Trump is not talking about it.” Shortly after Charles finished his speech, Trump posted that Canada could have the protection of his “Golden dome” for free if it became America’s 51st state, or he would charge Canada $61bn if it remained independent. You can thus see Charles’s Canada visit either as very cheap or very expensive. I prefer to see it as cheap. If Trump wants to stay at Buckingham Palace he will have to leave Canada alone. 

I am turning this week to my colleague Robert Shrimsley, the FT’s UK chief political commentator. Robert, I have one hypothetical question. In the unimaginable scenario of Britain and Canada going to war with each other, would Charles be required to “advise” each nation to beat the shit out of the other? More seriously, is Charles’s standing with the British public undergoing a similar uptick as it is in Canada?

Recommended reading

My column this week looked at America’s rising ‘moron premium’. Much as Liz Truss added an idiot tax on UK government borrowing, Trump is doing the same for US Treasury bonds but with far more dramatic potential global effects.

My colleague Brooke Masters had an interesting column on whether ordinary US retirement accounts should be investing in private assets. At a time when returns on alternative investments are falling, and the fees for public funds are higher than for high net worth private ones, this might be a bad time for the Trump administration to loosen regulations.

Finally do read the transcript of this astonishing interview with Elon Musk by Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain. People keep thinking Musk will regain his senses but his vindictive tone and seeming obliviousness to the damage he hath wrought — including to beneficiaries of USAID — is quite stunning. 

Robert Shrimsley replies

Greetings Ed. It’s always striking how much the royal family gains from comparison with politicians. To dodge your facetious question, it is hard to imagine a war between Britain and Canada which was not preceded by the declaration of a republic so the enquiry is probably moot. It is also fairly hard to imagine a less likely conflict, but we do live in strange times.

As to Charles’s standing, yes, it has definitely risen over the years since the lows of the early post-Diana years and he gained a bump when he became King. He has been easily accepted as monarch and news of his illness has provoked sympathy. The UK has largely sided with him in his feud with his second son, Harry.

Having said all that, his current popularity rating which hovers around 60 per cent is not especially high for a King. It is well below his mother’s at her death (82 per cent). The truth is that the monarch does not much intrude on daily life and there is a significant cohort, especially of younger citizens, who are simply indifferent to the King. His illness has also limited his appearances. His personal ratings are very much in line with the general view of the monarchy. Happily for the institution the Prince of Wales stands far higher in the public’s estimation — see this YouGov poll.

The lesson from Canada, however, is that citizens can see the merits of monarchy in moments of crisis. There are many successful republics, but one look at who the British might choose if we had an elected head of state is generally enough to convince a majority to stick with the system we know.