Re-visiting the King's visit to America

 From Steve Schmidt, ‘The optics were disgraceful, but the message was not’ Substack, April 29, 2026

The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man who has waged a political war against the Pope, threatened genocide, claimed to be Jesus Christ, stands accused by at least 28 women of sexual assault, and appears in the Epstein files that turned the Duke of York into Mr. Mountbatten Windsor over 38,000 times.

Not now. Not under these circumstances. Not when the means of the American presidency is being contested in ways unseen since the Civil War. Not when the United States’ alliances — the very architecture of Western stability — have been treated with disdain, contempt, and reckless indifference.

The British monarch shouldn’t have appeased the ego of a man who has threatened Canada and Denmark, while insulting the British army and navy, as well as the valor, sacrifice and legacy of British forces.

The King’s visit was an appalling decision, which rebuked his grandfather’s historic visit of 1939, during which the cornerstone of the “special relationship” was laid.

Yet, I must be acknowledge that the King’s words hit their mark in the desecrated American Congress, the worst in our 250-year history. His Britannic majesty delivered a history lesson badly needed in an era of seething ignorance and moral cowardice.

“The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man…..

Prior to this visit, I was in full agreement with Mr. Schmidt that King Charles must not visit the United States under the current administration and circumstances. And yet…

For decades, as an Anglican, I have wondered about the meaning of the structure of the monarchy serving as Head of State and also Head of the Church of England. There is the participation of the monarch in the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as serving as advisor to the man or now woman who serves in that capacity, and, upon the coronation of the monarch, him or herself receiving, accepting and reflecting on the blessing and benediction from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the question of the meaning, application and incarnation of the Head of the Church of England, as a religious leader has always puzzled me. It seemed that ritual, performative words and gestures, for example in and through the monarch’s formal words delivered on Christmas Day, as well serving as patron to multiple ‘worthy causes’ were the extent of the public evidence of the Head of Church title and role.

Well…for me things have changed, and it was a rather sudden sort-of “aha” moment that struck me when I read the quoted line from Mr. Schmidt’s substack.

As one of the mainline Christian churches, the theology of the Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England is not the private preserve of  the clergy or the monarchy, the laity or the ecclesial hierarchy. And one of the core tenets of the Christian theology, one that Princess Diana exemplified in her parenting of William and Hency, was the ‘walk, talk, accompany’ model of Jesus with all of the very most unacceptable of his time and place.

From the point of view of politics, history and public morality, (disregarding the 250^th year of the republic) the royal visit seems inappropriate, and effectively an act of appeasement by the monarch of the multiple and growing malfeasances of the current occupant of the Oval Office. There were cries from many quarters that the monarch desist from any planning and from the ultimate decision to make the trip.

Nevertheless, surprisingly, to some shockingly, and to others shamedly, King Charles, both monarch as Head of State, and Head of the Church of England, demonstrated both personal courage and, it has to be noted, considerable Christian faith, not only in and through his presence, and in and through his choice of words, phrases and examples, but also in his ‘ministry’ to the president. Whether or not that ‘ministry’ is even heard and reflected upon by the chief executive remains in doubt.

It is, and will continue to be for forever, a living example of Christian discipleship for this monarch to permit himself and his spouse to enter into the ‘fray’ and the ‘fracas’ that is the United States under the current administration. Not only did the monarch reinforce common shared values, laws, history, and ethics, between the UK and the US; he also leaned into such controversial issues as the need for continuing support for Ukraine against her illegal invasive enemy, Russia. Referencing both Teddy Roosevelt on the need to protect and preserve the environment and Abraham Lincoln for his memorable quote about being remembered, not so much for ‘our words’ as for ‘what we do’….the speech to Congress served so many over-lapping goals, including both the diplomatic ones of reminding everyone of the multiple links, bridges, laws (even and especially the Magna Carta, 1215) between the UK and the US, that it will be impossible for American politicians, including the president, to either ignore or to escape the from the beam of truth and light that King Charles shone on the wider, global situation.

For those of us sceptics, who might have pooh-poohed the ‘head of church’ role as merely symbolic, and who had also considered much of the Christmas messages of years gone by to be somewhat boilerplate, in royal-speak, diplomacy, history, and social empathy, the King seemed to don the mantle of both the prophet and the pastor.

As prophet, he reminded the Congress (and can we hope that the president was watching and listening), that co-operating, collaboration, planetary protection and sharing cyber/digital projects are not undertaken merely as ‘sentiment’…but are all inherent aspects of national security as well as global security. As prophet, he also took the diplomatic wraps off what might have been a ‘forbidden file,’ the war with Iran. Inter-dependence, shared academic opportunities, (some 2300 American students enabled to study in the UK under the Marshall philanthropic program) illustrated his real-life-real-time grasp of the proof of the themes he articulated.

As pastor, and this is the part that caught my attention, given the apparent irony of a monarch adopting the mantle of parish priest, whose daily, hourly, minute-by-minute encounters walk beside those in the deepest pain, the most intractable distress, and the least-hopeful, least inspiring and seemingly dead-end-desperate situations. For many of us, the world seems to be slipping into similar, if not identically described, hopelessness.

Likely for many in the Senate, his words may have rolled off  ear-drums and minds as glossy and hollow and performative. And for those who choose that perception/reception/interpretation, that is all they are or will be. Nevertheless, for those whose faith reaches into those dark, dank, damp and unforgiving caves of hopelessness, we can see and hear and be grateful for the  glimpse of the light of faith in a God whose light will not be blocked no matter how hard we try to turn a blind eye and a dear ear to its hope.

This is not merely optimism, (although I could have and would have heard those words from my own poverty of perception previously). This monarch, we all know ever so well, is far from a perfect human being. Indeed, his biography has caused considerable angst among his own family. Nevertheless, his faith in God and his discipline from his service in the Royal Navy, his loyalty to his family’s traditions and expectations and his life-long authentic vision for a healthy, safe and secure planet for people everywhere were all palpably evident for the world to see, to hear and to digest.

And one of the most significant, of all of the intended audiences of his words, is the president of the United States.

There is a nugget of theology, Christian, from the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk, from his book, Honest to Jesus, which seems to have relevance here.

Having intently studies the gospels from the perspectives of many academic disciplines, by men and women of strong faith themselves, as part of his summary of their work Funk writes:

Jesus makes it clear that all rewards and punishments are intrinsic. According to Jesus, reward for loving one’s neighbour is an unqualified relation to that neighbour. However, the church developed a doctrine of extrinsic rewards and sanctions to undergird its power and authority. (Funk, Honest to Jesus, p. 312)

The state and the culture have also adopted a system of extrinsic rewards and sanctions. It is clear, on the other hand, that King Charles, in expressing love for his neighbour, both the president and the United States of America, experienced the unqualified relation to that neighbour, as its own reward for his love. And even the foundational ethic challenges the ‘extrinsic-classical conditioning of the culture, just another way the monarch may well have been attempting to open some hearts, minds and eyes.

Not only has the monarch’s visit challenged some deeply held, if ‘old wine’ perceptions of statecraft, monarchy and politics. He has conveyed a theology that  challenges some of our most deeply embedded stereotypes.