| 9 mins read
Earlier this month saw the state visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to the UK. Significantly, it was the first state visit by a French president since Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008, and the first by any EU leader since Brexit. The visit also came at a time of heightened political tensions between the two countries, notably over channel crossings, with the number of migrants arriving in the UK from France currently at record numbers. As is customary, the monarch played a central role during the ceremonial aspects of the state visit. But unusually, King Charles’s role went further than a purely ceremonial one when he delivered a controversial speech in which he explicitly referenced illegal migration. But in talking about ‘borders’, did he overstep boundaries of his own–of a constitutional kind?
Divisive?
State Banquet Speeches are a fixture of state visits, which tend to be replete with anodyne sentiments extolling the 'common values and shared interests (which) unite' the two countries. However, Charles made headlines for using the most divisive language to refer to the most divisive of issues. He began by noting that 'our two countries face a multitude of complex threats, emanating from multiple directions…these challenges know no borders: no fortress can protect us against them this time.' Listing some of these specific threats, he explicitly referenced 'the profound challenges of terrorism, organised crime, cyber-attacks and, of course, irregular migration across the English channel' (emphasis added).
Public speeches made by the monarch, including the State Banquet Speech, are typically written by ministers. This is to preserve the all-important political neutrality of the monarch. As Vernon Bogdanor states in Monarchy and the Constitution, 'the crucial requirement of constitutional monarchy, that the sovereign must be politically impartial, is achieved through the principle that almost all the public acts of the sovereign are taken on the advice of his or her ministers', a constitutional rule known as the Cardinal Convention.
However, it is noteworthy that just last month, King Charles delivered the Speech from the Throne at the Opening of the Canadian Parliament during his own state visit to the country which, unusually, was written by the Canadian Federal Government'in collaboration with the Palace'. This would suggest that there is now scope and precedent for the Palace to work with the government when drafting state visit speeches, especially in the UK where Number 10 and Buckingham Palace are working more closely than ever as Keir Starmer and King Charles jointly seek to tackle issues of mutual concern, such as knife crime, housing and the environment.
The language of borders
So far, there is no indication that the Palace had a hand in the drafting of the Banquet Speech. However, given the inherently political nature of this visit, it would perhaps have been wise for it to have done so, such as by asking the Government to omit the explicit references to borders and irregular migration. This is because via the Speech, not only did a supposedly-politically neutral King explicitly refer to 'Britain’s most toxic political issue', but in so doing he implicitly expressed a view on that other most toxic of British political issues: Brexit.
The language of borders is inherently political: a key slogan during the divisive Brexit debate was to 'take back control of our borders'. In stating that the issue of irregular migration 'knows no borders' and that nothing 'can protect us against' it, Charles was arguably implicitly commenting on Brexit; certainly, the remark reads like a rebuke. Indeed, the next day President Macron himself, explicitly expressed that the British people had been 'sold a lie' that leaving the EU would 'make it possible to fight more effectively against illegal immigration'.
In The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy, Bob Morris notes that the monarch should play a 'non-partisan' role during ceremonial events like state visits in order to maintain political neutrality. Robert Hazell adds that there is value in a political system of a constitutional monarch acting as a 'pouvoir neutre: someone above the political fray, with a legitimising role, whose legitimacy derives precisely from their complete neutrality' which enables them to carry out ceremonial constitutional functions, such as representing the nation when hosting visiting heads of state.
However, as a result of his speech, the perception of Charles' political neutrality has been compromised. For example, leading Reform UK MP Richard Tice–whose party is surging in the polls and whose comments won't go unnoticed–has criticised the King for ending up in a 'pickle' by referencing the highly politicised issue of irregular migration. The images of the King warmly clasping the hand for 30 seconds of a man with whom he has a 'long-standing and close relationship' will only further serve to embed Charles’ image as an ally of the pro-EU French President, and do little to repair his image in the eyes of Brexiteers.
One of Tice’s criticisms was that 'the late Queen wouldn't have included any of that language about the boats' had she delivered the State Banquet Speech. It is hard to argue against this claim. For example, the last French State Visit to the UK in 2008 did not take place in a political vacuum. Rather, President Sarkozy arrived in the UK against a backdrop of 'testy topics', including Europe (the EU's common agricultural policy was a particular challenge), defence (notably the issue of nuclear power) and migration. Yet the closest the Queen came to addressing this contested political backdrop in her Banquet Speech was to state that 'within Europe, though we may–just occasionally–differ, we also, far more often–agree.' Notably, there was no mention of any of the delicate political issues raging in the background of the visit. In talking about 'borders' during this state visit, therefore, Charles arguably overstepped boundaries of his own –of a constitutional kind.
Dignified and efficient parts of the constitution
The 19th-century constitutionalist Walter Bagehot famously distinguished between the dignified and efficient parts of the constitution. The former were designed to 'excite and preserve the reverence of the population', while the latter referred to the day-to-day running of the country. During state visits, the role played by the monarch has traditionally been a dignified one, leading the very ceremonial displays of pomp and circumstance but staying well away from the politics which underpin them. While both the French State Visit and his own State Visit to Canada in June had plenty of pomp, they also both saw Charles take a more politically active role.
For example, during the Speech from the Throne, which normally 'totally avoids the political issues of the day', Charles spoke of the need to 'protect Canadians and their sovereign rights’' uphold the values of 'democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination and freedom' and guard 'fundamental rights and freedoms'. At a time when President Donald Trump has threatened to make Canada the 51st US state, his words could hardly have been a clearer indication of the dim view he takes of the US President’s threats to Canadian sovereignty.
Both speeches, therefore, perhaps sow the seeds for an emerging trend of Charles evolving the long-standing constitutional role of the monarch during state visits. Rather than simply being a ‘dignified’ and symbolic figurehead there to represent the nation and lead ceremonial events, the King is also involving himself in the ‘efficient’ discussions which have traditionally been left for the politicians. As Charles prepares to welcome US President Donald Trump to the UK for his second state visit this September–a man with whom he notably differs on key political issues like climate change–it is a trend well worth keeping an eye on.
