[Dr. Sivana]

First, Charles is only the head of state of Great Britain in ceremonial position, so it would be inappropriate for the President to show up and recognize King Charles ceremony.

You make it sound like it is the UK equivalent of the Miss America Pageant. While the King may not rule, it is more than merely ceremonial. Just as Americans do not identify with the whole monarchy thing, we have to understand that the monarch to a British subject is not merely ceremonial. Every week, the Monarch meets with the Prime Minister, we don't know what they talk about, but you can bet that even a non-political Monarch has influence over aspects of the government. In the case of QE II, she learned a whole lot over 70 years that has been useful to any UK Prime Minister wise enough to hear her out.

Even in a ceremonial role, a King or Queen helps set a steady cultural tone for the country, blunting the effects of a cad like Clinton or a saboteur like Obama or a puppet like Biden on these fronts.

The people of England can have a Monarchy if they choose, and our head of State paying respects to a special ally in no way undermines our own preference for a Republican form of government. I would leave the proselytizing to the Communists who demand everyone conform to their way.

[Jonty30]

I’m sure the Monarchy does play a role in the legislative process of Great Britain, at least in a consultative role. But that is still not the place for US President to be there for the coronation.

I’m not dissing the Royal Family, just pointing out that attending their coronation is the place of the President. A Presidental cabinet minister, certainly. But not the President himself.

[McCarthysGhost]

Well said.

It wouldn’t hurt for The President to be there. In fact, it might help relations.

[Jamestown1630]

Very good and thoughtful post.