Charles III, Current Events Part 1: September 2022-

[JessRulz]

Arms of The British Monarch​

Welcome to King Charles III's
Current Events Thread

Commencing September 8, 2022​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[iceflower]

King Charles has received the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves, and Eloise Gonsalves at Balmoral today, October 1:


** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** pa images gallery **

 

[Saragli]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...s-to-attend-cop27-following-liz-trusss-advice

The new PM is certainly off to an "interesting" start in the UK...

 

[US Royal Watcher]

This confirms that he intends to step back from getting involved with policy. It's going to be difficult because he is so passionate about the environment.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This confirms that he intends to step back from getting involved with policy. It's going to be difficult because he is so passionate about the environment.

He has an heir who is equally passionate so it will still be raised by The Prince of Wales - just William rather than Charles.

 

[wbenson]

I'm not sure this is even so much to do with climate advocacy—the late Queen spoke to COP26 and would have attended in person—as it is with sending the head of state to a new country. No British monarch has ever visited Egypt, and the government may not wish for that to happen at all, let alone in the context of a crowded summit. (I thought maybe the late Queen had at least transited through the Suez Canal in 1954, but she bypassed it by flying from Aden to Uganda and then Libya.)

The Queen didn't ever attend this kind of event abroad, except for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings, and the government originally didn't want her going to those. The monarch heading delegations at summits (as opposed to acting as a host) would be a big change, and arguably a big expansion of the monarch's political role. I can see why the government would be cautious.

 

[MARG]

Unfortunately the Prince of Wales lacks the gravitas of the King. Charles's interest in "alternatives" was born of a deep love for the countryside and the knowledge that not everything has the ability to regenerate. His social responsibility toward housing his tenants in "living" environments and even building an entire village was just one of his many, many projects. Apart from the fact that he left his heir, the new POW, a flourishing countryside and the magnificent Highgrove Estate to illustrate his dedication to sustainability and climate change.

Unfortunately, William has a very, very small resume in this arena and in no way could he take his father's place, he just doesn't know enough or have done enough, to have experience. On the other hand, since the late Queen spoke a Cop and didn't disgrace herself and her country, we can only surmise that the new PM has just plain disrespected Charles and gave him a massive vote of no confidence.

What an incredible waste of an opportunity because Charles is well aware of his limits and would never embarrass himself or his country just as his mother did before him. The delegation he would have taken with him would have networked on a grand scale and he would have facilitated them with introductions that will possibly be not forthcoming.

 

[FattenedUpMonarchy]

I have seen journalists pointing out that the story in the Times appears to have been briefed by the Palace. So while the headline is "Liz Truss advises King Charles to stay away from Cop27 climate summit", the real story is that KCIII isn't happy about it.

 

[VictoriaB]

I have seen journalists pointing out that the story in the Times appears to have been briefed by the Palace. So while the headline is "Liz Truss advises King Charles to stay away from Cop27 climate summit", the real story is that KCIII isn't happy about it.

The King will do what the government advises. If the government advises the King not to attend then the King wont attend. It’s as simple as that.

 

[FattenedUpMonarchy]

The King will do what the government advises. If the government advises the King not to attend then the King wont attend. It’s as simple as that.

I see it as him showing that while he will do what he's told, he won't do it quietly. It has resulted in an article that many people will think does not reflect well on an already unpopular PM.

 

[Denville]

I see it as him showing that while he will do what he's told, he won't do it quietly. It has resulted in an article that many people will think does not reflect well on an already unpopular PM.

Is there any evidence that Charles "wont do it quietly?@

 

[FattenedUpMonarchy]

Is there any evidence that Charles "wont do it quietly?@

The existence of the article. It either came from the government or the Palace. It has lengthy comment from a "Senior Royal Source" and the tone is sympathetic to KCIII in my opinion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I see it as him showing that while he will do what he's told, he won't do it quietly. It has resulted in an article that many people will think does not reflect well on an already unpopular PM.

Where is the evidence?

This event is not a fair assessment as it was already known that The Prince of Wales aka Charles, was going to be attending.

Thus a decision for him not to attend now he is King always had to be made and he has simply indicated that he will be doing the government's bidding - as he is obliged to do.

Until we see events where we had no idea he wanted to attend and the government says no and he lets it be known he was stopped we don't know that he won't do as he is told 'quietly'.

 

[FattenedUpMonarchy]

Where is the evidence?

This event is not a fair assessment as it was already known that The Prince of Wales aka Charles, was going to be attending.

Thus a decision for him not to attend now he is King always had to be made and he has simply indicated that he will be doing the government's bidding - as he is obliged to do.

Until we see events where we had no idea he wanted to attend and the government says no and he lets it be known he was stopped we don't know that he won't do as he is told 'quietly'.

If it had just been announced that he was no longer attending, we would have all assumed that it was his decision in his new role. We never needed to know about the government's input.

 

[Alison H]

The Guardian is an anti-royalist, anti-Conservative "newspaper", so I wouldn't take any article which it prints as being an accurate reflection of what's actually happening. More neutral sources suggest that it was agreed that Charles shouldn't attend as the climate crisis is seen by some to be political, and the King can't be seen to get involved in politics.

According to Sky News:

Sky News understands from palace sources that any suggestions his attendance was a point of disagreement is categorically untrue and that the decision not to attend was agreed in consultation.

It is likely that there may have been intense discussions about his attendance this year, especially when the climate crisis is still seen to be a "political" issue by some, and as King he is expected to remain politically neutral at all times.

It is understood that government advice was sought, advice was given and it was unanimously agreed by the palace and Number 10 that this would not be the right occasion for the King to go to the conference in person as his first overseas visit as sovereign.

 

[FattenedUpMonarchy]

The Guardian is an anti-royalist, anti-Conservative "newspaper", so I wouldn't take any article which it prints as being an accurate reflection of what's actually happening. More neutral sources suggest that it was agreed that Charles shouldn't attend as the climate crisis is seen by some to be political, and the King can't be seen to get involved in politics.

According to Sky News:

Sky News understands from palace sources that any suggestions his attendance was a point of disagreement is categorically untrue and that the decision not to attend was agreed in consultation.

It is likely that there may have been intense discussions about his attendance this year, especially when the climate crisis is still seen to be a "political" issue by some, and as King he is expected to remain politically neutral at all times.

It is understood that government advice was sought, advice was given and it was unanimously agreed by the palace and Number 10 that this would not be the right occasion for the King to go to the conference in person as his first overseas visit as sovereign.

The original article is from the Sunday Times, The Guardian article above is basically reporting on the Times' report. (Is it acceptable to post an archive link to the Times article to get around the paywall?)

The comments from the Palace after the article have certainly been more diplomatic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If it had just been announced that he was no longer attending, we would have all assumed that it was decision in his new role. We never needed to know about the government's input.

Anyone who knows how these things work at the level of the monarch will know that NO overseas visit is ever undertaken without the express approval of the government so any decision to withdraw, unless for medical reasons, will always be because the government said 'no'. It is the way it works. The monarch has the least amount of rights in the UK as they can't say anything or do anything without the approval of the government of the day. Charles has had to give up his freedom of speech, his freedom of movement, certainly going overseas and many other things the rest of us take for granted.

 

[iceflower]

King Charles received the Governor of Victoria, Australia, Linda Dessau, at Balmoral, today, October 5:


** Pic ** rex gallery **

 

[LauraS3514]

Anyone who knows how these things work at the level of the monarch will know that NO overseas visit is ever undertaken without the express approval of the government so any decision to withdraw, unless for medical reasons, will always be because the government said 'no'. It is the way it works. The monarch has the least amount of rights in the UK as they can't say anything or do anything without the approval of the government of the day. Charles has had to give up his freedom of speech, his freedom of movement, certainly going overseas and many other things the rest of us take for granted.

Elizabeth II once argued, successfully, that she could visit Commonwealth countries and her other realms without consulting the UK government. IIRC it was during the 1960s and she went to a CHOGM meeting against the wishes of the UK PM at the time.

That being said, Charles III recognized a few years ago that his time of speaking his mind would end once he was King: "I'm not that stupid!"

 

[Somebody]

The Guardian is an anti-royalist, anti-Conservative "newspaper", so I wouldn't take any article which it prints as being an accurate reflection of what's actually happening. More neutral sources suggest that it was agreed that Charles shouldn't attend as the climate crisis is seen by some to be political, and the King can't be seen to get involved in politics.

According to Sky News:

Sky News understands from palace sources that any suggestions his attendance was a point of disagreement is categorically untrue and that the decision not to attend was agreed in consultation.

It is likely that there may have been intense discussions about his attendance this year, especially when the climate crisis is still seen to be a "political" issue by some, and as King he is expected to remain politically neutral at all times.

It is understood that government advice was sought, advice was given and it was unanimously agreed by the palace and Number 10 that this would not be the right occasion for the King to go to the conference in person as his first overseas visit as sovereign.

This news ended up in a Dutch comedy show that came up with 5 ways for Charles to defy the PM and still go to the conference. Check this video (starting at 5.18 - although for those who understand Dutch you might want to start at 3.30):

 

[tommy100]

Also worth pointing out that the former PM (Johnson) made a point of pushing green policies and setting out a plan to achieve "net zero", even though there has not been a change of party the new PM (Truss) is much less bothered by green issues and achieving net zero. Thus what may have been a visit by an heir which also supports the governments policies and ambitions is now a visit by a new King that highlights an area that the government is less willing to promote and push.

Add to that the fact no British monarch has visited Egypt and becomes really quite understandable that Charles isn't visiting. Plus, with the leaking of it the royal PR team can claim it shows the long stated point that Charles will listen to government advice as Sovereign.

 

[gerry]

I do love Arjen Lubach and his wonderful sense of humour, thank you for pointing out the many many options available to King Charles. Nevertheless, the King will stay at home grinding his teeth, Ms Truss will have to deal with the dental fall out!

 

[MARG]

Anyone who knows how these things work at the level of the monarch will know that NO overseas visit is ever undertaken without the express approval of the government so any decision to withdraw, unless for medical reasons, will always be because the government said 'no'. It is the way it works. The monarch has the least amount of rights in the UK as they can't say anything or do anything without the approval of the government of the day. Charles has had to give up his freedom of speech, his freedom of movement, certainly going overseas and many other things the rest of us take for granted.

Excluding the Commonwealth of course, and on personal holiday should they so choose. However, the way I see it (IMO) the new Prime Minister merely wanted to put King Charles II in his place, firmly under her personal thumb and failed to look deeper at what Cop27 means and the possible gains to the UK.

The reason I say this is that the movers and shakes of the world are present and Charles knows almost all of them. He has introduced government representatives to enable them to network to the advantage of sustainable trade (think British wool) and they have been facilitated by a man that is and was well before his time.

He, more than any UK monarch before him, is well aware of the constraints placed on him in his role as King of a Constitutional Monarch just as his mother, the late Queen did when she addresses the Cop26 meeting held in the UK.

A speech by Her Majesty The Queen delivered via video message to the COP26 Evening Reception.

Thank you, Prime Minister Holness, for your kind words of introduction.

I am delighted to welcome you all to the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference; and it is perhaps fitting that you have come together in Glasgow, once a heartland of the industrial revolution, but now a place to address climate change.

This is a duty I am especially happy to discharge, as the impact of the environment on human progress was a subject close to the heart of my dear late husband, Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh.

I remember well that in 1969, he told an academic gathering:

“If the world pollution situation is not critical at the moment, it is as certain as anything can be, that the situation will become increasingly intolerable within a very short time … If we fail to cope with this challenge, all the other problems will pale into insignificance.”

It is a source of great pride to me that the leading role my husband played in encouraging people to protect our fragile planet, lives on through the work of our eldest son Charles and his eldest son William. I could not be more proud of them.

Indeed, I have drawn great comfort and inspiration from the relentless enthusiasm of people of all ages – especially the young – in calling for everyone to play their part.

In the coming days, the world has the chance to join in the shared objective of creating a safer, stabler future for our people and for the planet on which we depend.

None of us underestimates the challenges ahead: but history has shown that when nations come together in common cause, there is always room for hope. Working side by side, we have the ability to solve the most insurmountable problems and to triumph over the greatest of adversities.

For more than seventy years, I have been lucky to meet and to know many of the world’s great leaders. And I have perhaps come to understand a little about what made them special.

It has sometimes been observed that what leaders do for their people today is government and politics. But what they do for the people of tomorrow — that is statesmanship.

I, for one, hope that this conference will be one of those rare occasions where everyone will have the chance to rise above the politics of the moment and achieve true statesmanship.

It is the hope of many that the legacy of this summit – written in history books yet to be printed – will describe you as the leaders who did not pass up the opportunity; and that you answered the call of those future generations. That you left this conference as a community of nations with a determination, a desire, and a plan, to address the impact of climate change; and to recognise that the time for words has now moved to the time for action.

Of course, the benefits of such actions will not be there to enjoy for all of us here today: we none of us will live forever. But we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children and our children’s children, and those who will follow in their footsteps.

And so, I wish you every good fortune in this significant endeavour.

Pretty tame stuff, huh? Obviously, the PM did not trouble herself to look at the work done by Prince Philip as well as Charles to know that Climate Change is not just a political buzz work but the result of decades of sheer hard graft, putting their money where their mouths were and, in Philip's and now Charles cases, doing it within the constraints of the consecutive governments.

 

[Toledo]

Anyone who knows how these things work at the level of the monarch will know that NO overseas visit is ever undertaken without the express approval of the government so any decision to withdraw, unless for medical reasons, will always be because the government said 'no'. It is the way it works. The monarch has the least amount of rights in the UK as they can't say anything or do anything without the approval of the government of the day. Charles has had to give up his freedom of speech, his freedom of movement, certainly going overseas and many other things the rest of us take for granted.

I read it as a security matter concerning his safety since he is, like QEII was, a major target for terrorists because of the symbolism for any group to injure or take their lives will create a chain reaction. Correct me if memory fails but his mother Queen EII survived at least three men trying to get into her private chambers to hurt her.

If he took off on a plane to, lest say have tea with Queen Margrette, mobilizing security that fast on both sides can make government doubt his ability to follow safety protocols. If Charles became a victim of an attack, other terrorist groups could see it as a challenge to dare take more lives of other heads of states.

Re his freedom of speech or freedom on anything, the sacrifice comes with the job. You can't be running your mouth on a TV show or acting in a comedy skit and the next minute being all Regal. When you are the head of state you represent the country, just like a CEO. Ok, bad example if we think of E Musk, but you know what I mean.

 

[muriel]

Excluding the Commonwealth of course, and on personal holiday should they so choose. However, the way I see it (IMO) the new Prime Minister merely wanted to put King Charles II in his place, firmly under her personal thumb and failed to look deeper at what Cop27 means and the possible gains to the UK.

The reason I say this is that the movers and shakes of the world are present and Charles knows almost all of them. He has introduced government representatives to enable them to network to the advantage of sustainable trade (think British wool) and they have been facilitated by a man that is and was well before his time.

He, more than any UK monarch before him, is well aware of the constraints placed on him in his role as King of a Constitutional Monarch just as his mother, the late Queen did when she addresses the Cop26 meeting held in the UK.

Here is my take. I think the world is in a very different place since COP26, with an ongoing war in Ukraine that shows no signs of ending any time soon, energy prices at record highs, inflation out of control, interest rates rising, slowing economies all around, a huge cost of living crises, so all in all, not a great position all around. The green agenda is clearly going to be put back by most governments for some time. My sense is that the PM did not want to expose HM to the embarrassment of being at an international event where the politics might possibly get messy.

 

[FigTree]

Here is my take. I think the world is in a very different place since COP26, with an ongoing war in Ukraine that shows no signs of ending any time soon, energy prices at record highs, inflation out of control, interest rates rising, slowing economies all around, a huge cost of living crises, so all in all, not a great position all around. The green agenda is clearly going to be put back by most governments for some time. My sense is that the PM did not want to expose HM to the embarrassment of being at an international event where the politics might possibly get messy.

There is absolutely no way the green agenda should be pushed back. We don’t have the time.

 

[muriel]

There is absolutely no way the green agenda should be pushed back. We don’t have the time.

The fact of the matter is that neither your, mine or the opinion of the King is being sought on the matter, it will be a decision for the government of the day. That is just the way it is. We elect MPs and governments, and they make these decisions on our behalf. The King has previous little to say on the matter, other than to warn and guide, and to ensure the constitution is upheld.

 

[An Ard Ri]

How long will the king stay in Balmoral?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Until he is ready to move south.

Based on past years he will probably return to London this weekend or early next. He has basically extended his normal Scottish time by the two weeks he had to be south due to the death of The Queen.

I wonder whether he will keep up his past routine:

First half of January in Scotland.

London until about a week or so before Easter and then about a month in Scotland.

Late July to Early August back to Scotland and stay there until early October.

Back to Scotland on Boxing Day or the day after (and even some years on Christmas Day itself).

For all the love the late Queen had for Scotland and Princess Anne clearly has for the country it is interesting that it is Charles who has traditionally spent about a third of the year there.

 

[Iain]

Until he is ready to move south.

Based on past years he will probably return to London this weekend or early next. He has basically extended his normal Scottish time by the two weeks he had to be south due to the death of The Queen.

I wonder whether he will keep up his past routine:

First half of January in Scotland.

London until about a week or so before Easter and then about a month in Scotland.

Late July to Early August back to Scotland and stay there until early October.

Back to Scotland on Boxing Day or the day after (and even some years on Christmas Day itself).

For all the love the late Queen had for Scotland and Princess Anne clearly has for the country it is interesting that it is Charles who has traditionally spent about a third of the year there.

I think the King might decide to spnd a lot more time in Scotland. When Belgium shared a King with the Netherlands the King spent 6 months in the Hague and 6 months in Brussels. The King might do something similar dividing his time between Edinburgh and London.