The King's Speech: Does Charles's Trip to Canada Even Matter?
A look at CA/UK/US media pre-coverage of the King's visit to open Parliament
By the time you receive this, King Charles will be on Canadian soil, gearing up for the opening of Parliament. He will read the "Speech from the Throne", written by the government, with brief opening remarks from the King. It’s the first time in 50 years a monarch has opened Parliament (Queen Elizabeth did so twice during her reign).
In a different world, where the King wasn’t diagnosed with cancer, his first trip as sovereign to Canada would have occurred in 2024. It’s hard to imagine what the coverage of this trip would look like without:
A Trump 2nd Term—Specifically, the President’s repeated outlandish calls to make Canada the 51st state.
Kensington Palace’s efforts to position William’s future reign and, in the process, treat Charles like a transitional King.
Charles will spend 20 hours in Canada. Before he has uttered a word, this is being framed in the media as either a win for soft power, an interesting, but on the whole, not very politically significant move, completely ridiculous, or not really about Charles at all.
Let’s look at some of the pre-coverage from the US, UK, and Canada to see how outlets are covering KC III’s trip.
Canadian Pre-Coverage of KC’s Visit
I checked out CBC—Canadian public broadcasting—to see what they were writing about. The first article is from their “Royal Fascinator” section, which has a twice-a-month newsletter that you KNOW I signed up for.
Royal historian Justin Vovk sums up the trip this way:
On the one hand, nothing is riding on it, because of the constitutional mechanisms that separate the head of state from the prime minister. Even if the visit is a gaffe, our system of governance will continue … and it won't negatively impact the lives of Canadians," he said.
But at the same time, we know that Washington will be watching. We know that the president will be watching. We know that the other Commonwealth realms will be watching.
TLDR: The King’s attendance brings press attention in other parts of the world.
Next up, a well-balanced report from the Politics section.
The author does something unheard of…equal time for different points of view!
Here’s the pro-visit side from Philippe Lagassé, a professor at Carleton University who specializes in the role of the Crown in Canada's political system.
"If you want to make a point about Canadian sovereignty, what better symbol than the embodiment of that sovereignty?"
On the other side are Quebec sovereigntists like Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Bérubé, who called the King an "archaic and colonial symbol."
Catherine Gentilcore, also part of Parti Québécois MNA, echoed that sentiment, saying:
"So to express Canada's power, you have to go get a foreign king?"
The significance of this visit depends on your feelings about the role of the monarchy in Canada. Often, in pieces from UK media, these opposing points of view do not appear in print. A UK piece I discuss further down generalizes all Canadians as welcoming this visit. Could have checked in with CBC reporting first.
U.K. Pre-Coverage
Most of the BBC—a public service broadcaster in the U.K.—took on the tenor