I sympathise with much of Simon Jenkins’ reasoning on why King Charles should confirm his presence at celebrations of the US’s declaration of independence, but ultimately come to a different conclusion (The king’s visit to the US must go ahead despite Trump’s terrible military aggression, 13 March). As Jenkins points out: “Separating headship of state from daily politics is a virtue of hereditary monarchy.” I am just not convinced that the king’s host will be capable of understanding that level of subtlety. He will instead see what he wants to see: a king come to pay tribute to him personally. We should have no part of that and should not expect our king to have any part either.
We can think about a visit once the would-be monarch of America apologises for his most recent slights on our nation, most notably on the men and women who fought and died in support of his nation’s cause that he so easily dismissed.
Nicholas Avery
Felixstowe, Suffolk
• Re Simon Jenkins’ attempt to elevate the potential state visit by King Charles III to the US above politics, in reality this would be seen once again to be pandering to Donald Trump’s narcissism and the optics would be awful. The impression around the globe would be that the UK tacitly accepts, or even worse, doesn’t care, what the Trump administration is doing in the Middle East and elsewhere. The king should not go, and the American people will understand the reasons perfectly well.
Roderic Cameron
Teignmouth, Devon
• Should the king be received by Donald Trump at the White House, a suitable gift to present would be a magnificent replica of the Magna Carta in a beautiful gold frame.
Susanne MacGregor
Tonbridge, Kent
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
