Prince of Wales, Current Events 2: Oct 2025 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
29,639
City
Amsterdam
Country
Netherlands
218px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_Prince_of_Wales.svg.png

Arms of The Prince of Wales

Welcome to The Prince of Wales Current Events, Part 2

Commencing 14 October 2025

A previous thread can be found here

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules



· 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.



***
 
Last edited:
The Prince of Wales accompanied Crown Prince Hussein during a visit to RAF Benson today, October 15:
Crown Prince Hussein is on an official visit to the UK since October 13.


** gettyimages gallery **




 
The Prince of Wales visited the London Ambulance Service at its headquarters in Waterloo today, October 17:


** gettyimages gallery **





 
It's not really an Aston Villa scandal. The decision has been made by the Safety Advisory Group, based on the advice of the West Midlands Police. Villa cannot legally stage the match without a safety certificate, so they've been given no choice in the matter.

Much as I would love William to say that the West Midlands Police are in the wrong, there's no way that he can wade into what's turned into an international diplomatic incident, with the leaders of four main political parties here, as well as Israeli politicians, all criticising the decision and trying to get it overturned.
 
The Prince of Wales attended the COP30 World Leaders Summit in in Belem, Brazil, today, November 6:


** gettyimages gallery **








 
The Prince of Wales in Belem today, November 7:




 
Somewhat confused with William's "warning" given that he himself chose to holiday on a superyacht less than 4 months ago. Then, surely, it's a bit rich to implore others to take action, or does he consider himself exempt from the commitment he implores other people to make?
 
During Prince William's 2020 TED Talk, where he launched the Earthshot Prize, he emphasized optimistic, innovative solutions to the climate crisis rather than drastic regression or sacrifice. He stated: "If we achieve these goals by 2030, our lives won't be worse and we won't have to sacrifice everything we enjoy. Instead, the way we live will be healthier, cleaner, smarter and better for all of us." - So I would say William doesn't preach about the climate, he wants to find solutions that fit with the modern world.
 
That sounds very sensible to me. People are not going to stop flying. I'm certainly not, unless someone wants to arrange for me to have three months of paid leave so that I can travel around by train and boat. People are not going to give up their superyachts. So other solutions need to be found.

Just to add - we're hearing this morning that the National Health Service has spent £1.4 billion "trying to achieve net zero". Maybe that works for fit, active, healthy people who go around chucking orange powder at Stonehenge, but it really doesn't work for people who've spent months and months on waiting lists for medical treatment. IMHO, William is quite right to talk about optimistic solutions.
 
Last edited:
At the COP, William was actually talking at the World Leaders Summit. He wasn't talking to individuals. If a house is on fire, one doesn't normally ask the resident to extinguish it on his own. IMO the state has to provide at least a framework, to make individual measures easier.
 
I think its good to focus on solutions to make what we do greener rather than thinking everyone is going to stop flying, driving or more.

That said, moderation is always good. I don't begrudge William and his family holidays at all, but choosing the least environmentally friendly way to holiday doesn't have to be an option either IMO - if nothing else, to avoid discussions like this.

What Earthshot is doing is very good work IMO.
 
That said, moderation is always good. I don't begrudge William and his family holidays at all, but choosing the least environmentally friendly way to holiday doesn't have to be an option either IMO - if nothing else, to avoid discussions like this.
But are we sure about how exactly they are holidaying? A superyacht should be quite attention-grabbing I would think, but IIRC there was speculation about a few different yachts. How can that be? I even read about different alleged dates, even though William was in Switzerland shortly afterwards.
 
Fair enough, maybe they didn't use a yacht, or only used it for a day, maybe they just went somewhere else on a private jet for their holiday. Or maybe they stayed at (their 3rd) home for the holidays.
None of those options are necessarily hugely environmentally friendly IMO. Again, I absolutely don't begrudge them a holiday at all, I understand private jets are probably used for security reasons. We all have choices when it comes to the environment.
 
I don't mind that very much, because for example according to Earthshot (as of march 2025), the cohorts have contributed to 4.8 million tonnes of CO2e being avoided or captured. Maybe it wouldn't be as much without the Earthshot Prize and I assume it would be less, if William would stop flying altogether. So William might have, through his initiative, contributed more to climate protection, than he personally is harming the climate.

I still do agree that the royals should do more than an average person, because they have the means to do it, but who knows what they might have implemented already.
 
Last edited:
During Prince William's 2020 TED Talk, where he launched the Earthshot Prize, he emphasized optimistic, innovative solutions to the climate crisis rather than drastic regression or sacrifice. He stated: "If we achieve these goals by 2030, our lives won't be worse and we won't have to sacrifice everything we enjoy. Instead, the way we live will be healthier, cleaner, smarter and better for all of us." - So I would say William doesn't preach about the climate, he wants to find solutions that fit with the modern world.
On Tuesday, during his interview with Christiane Amanpour, he again said that he doesn't think it's helpful or effective to preach to people and that was why he wanted Earthshot to focus on solutions and ways to scale them, rather than focusing on the pessimistic aspects of climate change.
 
The problem is not whether or not William preaches – with all due respect, reducing it to that is whataboutism. The same goes for arguments comparing William to an average individual with average ressources. He is the heir to a major institution – he is first in line to be one of the "world leaders" he was addressing. The problem is that his own actions actively contribute massively to the damages made to the environment. So it is deeply ironic for him to speak of "urgency" when he himself is unwilling to make changes to his lavish lifestyle (changes that would actually have an impact because that scale on which he and other very wealthy and privileged people emit CO₂ is incomparable to the average person).

If you suggest that it is possible to "find solutions" that would make the use of superyachts environmentally friendly... I'd say you're naive. But then, surely the argument should be that William halts his use thereof until these solutions exist.

But are we sure about how exactly they are holidaying? A superyacht should be quite attention-grabbing I would think, but IIRC there was speculation about a few different yachts. How can that be? I even read about different alleged dates, even though William was in Switzerland shortly afterwards.
A few different yacht – but they were all superyachts. And no, we don't have published pictures of the Wales' on the yacht itself. Might that be because the last time the Wales' were pictured holidaying, they didn't hesitate suing the publication that published those pictures? Regardless of whether or not you agree with that practice, objectively it does conveniently conceal practices in William's private life that are at odds with his official beliefs.
 
A few different yacht – but they were all superyachts. And no, we don't have published pictures of the Wales' on the yacht itself. Might that be because the last time the Wales' were pictured holidaying, they didn't hesitate suing the publication that published those pictures? Regardless of whether or not you agree with that practice, objectively it does conveniently conceal practices in William's private life that are at odds with his official beliefs.
I don't need a photo. I generally tend to believe tabloids and "sources", if I feel that a story is congruent, but in this case with different things being mentioned online, I think that we shouldn't criticise them for things that don't seem to be clear enough.

I may add something else. I don't think that the Wales lead some kind of jet set lifestyle. I think we would have heard about that. But I still think that they can't holiday like everybody else. Of course they could stay in a hotel in Mallorca and go on a public beach like other people, but I think they wouldn't have privacy. I even think it's not the same for them to walk in the streets in London, even though we don't see many pictures of them doing that. So I understand if they would have to fly to Norfolk or some remote villa abroad or even a ship. Are they supposed to stay in Windsor every time there is a school holiday, just to avoid using a plane? I don't think this would be realistic. But IMO it's still better to fly to Norfolk regularly, than to, for example, jet set around the world just for fun every weekend, which would be a longer flight.

But they can do other things. They can use renewable energies or something like that, and I think they should do that, if it's possible to implement that in the castles.
 
I don't need a photo. I generally tend to believe tabloids and "sources", if I feel that a story is congruent, but in this case with different things being mentioned online, I think that we shouldn't criticise them for things that don't seem to be clear enough.
But the only incongruence is the name of the yacht in question? Both of the yachts named were superyachts so how why should that deter anyone from criticism? I have a hard time seeing this as anything but whataboutism.

I may add something else. I don't think that the Wales lead some kind of jet set lifestyle. I think we would have heard about that. But I still think that they can't holiday like everybody else. Of course they could stay in a hotel in Mallorca and go on a public beach like other people, but I think they wouldn't have privacy. I even think it's not the same for them to walk in the streets in London, even though we don't see many pictures of them doing that. So I understand if they would have to fly to Norfolk or some remote villa abroad or even a ship. Are they supposed to stay in Windsor every time there is a school holiday, just to avoid using a plane? I don't think this would be realistic. But IMO it's still better to fly to Norfolk regularly, than to, for example, jet set around the world just for fun every weekend, which would be a longer flight.

But they can do other things. They can use renewable energies or something like that, and I think they should do that, if it's possible to implement that in the castles.
If this is in reply to my comment about their usage of a superyacht, I sincerely hope you're not suggesting they were forced to holiday on one of the largest sources of emission you can possible choose. Arguing that this in any way is a case of "superyacht or forced to stay at home" is utter nonsense.

No one (here at least) is criticising their flying. My gripe with the performativeness of William's comments about "urgency" in terms of climate change is specifically with the fact that not even 4 months ago, he chose to whisk his family away on a superyacht, so maybe he should start not using superyachts as a solution to halt climate change.
 
The problem is not whether or not William preaches – with all due respect, reducing it to that is whataboutism. The same goes for arguments comparing William to an average individual with average ressources. He is the heir to a major institution – he is first in line to be one of the "world leaders" he was addressing. The problem is that his own actions actively contribute massively to the damages made to the environment. So it is deeply ironic for him to speak of "urgency" when he himself is unwilling to make changes to his lavish lifestyle (changes that would actually have an impact because that scale on which he and other very wealthy and privileged people emit CO₂ is incomparable to the average person).

If you suggest that it is possible to "find solutions" that would make the use of superyachts environmentally friendly... I'd say you're naive. But then, surely the argument should be that William halts his use thereof until these solutions exist.


A few different yacht – but they were all superyachts. And no, we don't have published pictures of the Wales' on the yacht itself. Might that be because the last time the Wales' were pictured holidaying, they didn't hesitate suing the publication that published those pictures? Regardless of whether or not you agree with that practice, objectively it does conveniently conceal practices in William's private life that are at odds with his official beliefs.
That is correct they did sue and won , the photographs were long lens photographs of the children, at the house they were staying in. They were intrusive, photographs taken of children without the parents consent.

They are entitled to a private life, to take the children on holiday . to avoid banks of photographers lining up. We all recall what William and Harry had to put up with as children and it was not right. I do not blame William or Harry for protecting the privacy of their children.
 
But the only incongruence is the name of the yacht in question? Both of the yachts named were superyachts so how why should that deter anyone from criticism? I have a hard time seeing this as anything but whataboutism.
I read about three alleged names being mentioned actually. I‘m confused about the alleged date too. The first articles that were posted here were these, both with july 21 as publication date. The second one has a link to an article in greek with the publication date of july 19 but to be fair, I don't understand what it says. Later there were articles like this that mentioned an alleged arrival on july 21. IMO the first reports that were posted here "knew too much" for a vacation that allegedly only started on the same day. It sounds almost like real time reporting and that doesn't make much sense to me for a discreet vacation and not a public event.

They visited Wimbledon on july 13 and Switzerland on july 27. Somebody wrote here, that they allegedly arrived in Basel from Norfolk, and not from London. Of course it would be possible, but I think it sounds stressful to do all that in such a short period of time if july 21 would be correct, when they have more weeks of vacation at their disposal. Holidaying in Greece should be relaxing after all, but maybe that's just me.

No one (here at least) is criticising their flying. My gripe with the performativeness of William's comments about "urgency" in terms of climate change is specifically with the fact that not even 4 months ago, he chose to whisk his family away on a superyacht, so maybe he should start not using superyachts as a solution to halt climate change.
I think we need systemic change and after reading the quotes of Williams speech, I have the impression that this is what he meant too. IMO even rich people might not be able to use for example sustainable airplanes, if nobody invests in new technologies. I'm no expert, but I just think it wouldn't be possible. While I believe that a yacht may cause more emissions than a commercial flight for example, I also think that there are more commercial flights in the world. It just makes sense to me to advocate for systemic change, even if it might not be fair.
 
Last edited:
I saw it too! I hope he shows up again on the finals to support Robert.

If Australia choose to remain a constitutional monarchy, then he might be Robert Irwin's Head of State too.:ausflag2:
 
In another fifteen to twenty or so years? Most unlikely, imo.
And Robert Irwin, who isn’t extraordinarily popular in Australia anyway, seems to be spending a lot of time over in the US in past months, along with his sister Bindi and her American husband who seem to have settled there.
 
In another fifteen to twenty or so years? Most unlikely, imo.
And Robert Irwin, who isn’t extraordinarily popular in Australia anyway, seems to be spending a lot of time in the US over past months, along with his sister Bindi and her American husband.
Do you mean that William will not be King for another 15 or 20 years .
I do not think the poster was referring to Robert Irwins popularity in Australia just that he is Australian.
 
No, I meant that there will probably be a referendum on a republic in Australia in another fifteen to twenty years. By which time younger Aussies, too young to vote in general elections now, will be voting on the issue.

And yes, Robert Irwin is Australian. His mother Terri Irwin is an American and perhaps because of family ties, career opportunities or whatever, both Robert and Bindi Irwin have spent a lot of time doing things in the US lately.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom