The latest excerpt from Robert Hardman’s book Elizabeth II: In Private. In Public. The Inside Story, appearing in the Daily Mail, recounts a private December conversation between the author and President Donald Trump. In the passage provided to CBC News, the president reportedly talked about acquiring territory close to the U.S.-Canada border and even revived earlier interest in Greenland. The exchange, according to Hardman, shifted when the subject of the British monarch’s constitutional role in Canada was raised.
Hardman’s portrayal suggests that the president’s territorial rhetoric was tempered by an awareness—real or perceived—of the Canadian connection to the British crown. When told that King Charles remains Canada’s head of state, the president paused and asked whether Canada still recognized the monarch. That reaction, in Hardman’s telling, led to a walk-back of the more aggressive language about absorbing territory and indicated that the monarchy played a role in shaping his private calculations.
What was said and why it mattered
In the exchange detailed by Hardman, Mr. Trump lamented the way the border had been drawn and suggested, in essence, that the map could have been shifted northward to avoid cross-border proximity. He described Canadian politicians as “terrible” and noted that a large share of the population lives just above the U.S. line. Hardman recounts replying that an attempt to absorb Canada would likely damage alliances such as NATO, and he asked the president to “leave Canada alone“—a request that prompted the president’s question about the monarchy.
Land, lines and public perception
The episode underlines how territory can be discussed in casual terms by powerful figures, but also how historical and institutional realities complicate such musings. The notion that a border was merely a straight line susceptible to unilateral amendment simplifies decades of legal, diplomatic and cultural ties. Hardman’s anecdote frames the monarchy—and specifically King Charles—as a symbolic constraint on overtly imperial ambitions, since any move to annex Canadian land would, in his words, make “the King of Canada” unhappy.
Monarchy as a diplomatic brake
Hardman interprets the president’s reaction as the closest thing to an admission that, while he entertained aggressive ideas, he was not prepared to challenge the symbolic authority of the crown. The author notes Mr. Trump’s high regard for the late Queen and his praise for her son, suggesting that the monarch’s stature influenced the president’s restraint. That dynamic offers a glimpse into how personal respect and international protocol can intersect with geopolitical ambitions.
The wider diplomatic backdrop
The excerpt appears against a backdrop of continuing high-profile royal and political interactions. The president’s fondness for the British monarchy is widely known and was on display during an official welcome by King Charles in September. The Canadian government has likewise referenced the monarch in parliamentary contexts—the King delivered the speech from the throne last May and cited the country’s anthem, prompting applause in the Senate. Hardman’s anecdote is therefore couched in a live diplomatic environment where ceremonial ties carry everyday weight.
Tone and tactics in recent months
Observers have also tracked a change in the president’s public posture toward Canada. Once framed as a potential target for coercive measures—he once spoke of using economic force—his statements have shifted to derisive nicknames and policy-oriented complaints. A recent social media post, cited by commentators, mentioned a plan to coordinate with the governor of Michigan to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species and quipped about a hypothetical “future Governor of Canada, Mark Carney.” Meanwhile, CBC News has sought comment from both the Prime Minister’s Office and the White House regarding Hardman’s account.
What this anecdote reveals
Whether viewed as a telling moment of deference or as an amusing anecdote, Hardman’s excerpt highlights how the interplay between symbolism and statecraft can influence rhetoric. The reported exchange does not change formal relationships or legal realities, but it does suggest that even informal conversations among leaders may be guided by respect for institutions such as the monarchy. For students of diplomacy, the passage serves as a reminder that national symbols continue to matter when powerful actors weigh provocative options.
In short, the book excerpt paints a portrait of a president whose territorial imaginings encountered an unexpected constraint: the personal and symbolic influence of a reigning monarch. That constraint may have been enough, at least in this conversation, to deter talk of annexation and redirect the discussion to less drastic measures.
