Liz Truss has told King Charles not to go to the COP27 meeting next month

Volver, you sound like Elinor in Sense and Sensibility.

A GE would be good, and even better if the new PM brought in laws to limit the powers of the government, and make clear the limits of their reach into the fabric of our democratic system.

I don't want to derail the thread, but it's a safe bet that we will have a new government soonish. How much of the damage the Tories have done to democracy can realistically be reversed when that happens? Have we become less democratic for all time, or can things be rolled back?

In what way Caleo?

I keep thinking about this.... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play)

?

Andrew Adonis

The breakdown in relations between Truss and Charles - something that never happened between his mother & any of her 16 prime ministers - is of huge constitutional significance. I’m not a supporter of an activist monarchy, but unwise of her to ban him speaking on climate change

Lucca

He doesn’t look too thrilled

The way that she is gripping his hand is really odd. Very strange body language.
I’d be interested to see some footage of them together.

But! Look at the bright side, if the King really does dislike Truss, he might be more likely to call for a GE. ?

If you read the palace statement it ain’t gonna happen. King Charles took the PM’s advice and is mindful of the sovereign’s role to act on the government’s advice. He has already said he will stand back from his previous roles.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF A KING, HONESTLY?

Sorry, was I shouting?

I heard, no need to shout!

The same reasons as having an a-poliical President, perhaps?

But without more upheavals with elections every four years?

For goodness sake, she didn’t TELL him not to go. Charles specifically asked her advice her feelings were that he shouldn’t.
He had planned to go when he was Prince but of course now he’s the Monarch it wouldn’t be appropriate to attend and give a lecture would it?
Talk about a fuss about nothing.

Quite, JenniferEccles.

it wouldn’t be appropriate to attend and give a lecture would it?

Yes it would. Heads of State often make speeches about things that affect the whole world. Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate? His mother made a speech at the last one. (By video, of course.)

He had already said he would have to remain politically neutral when he became monarch, just as any non-political HofS would be.

It will be difficult but he can do as his mother did, encourage environmental projects, try to give a positive, practical lead.

I expect he's simmering away quietly.

I'm going to shout again, apologies in advance.

THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT POLITICAL.

Callistemon21

I expect he's simmering away quietly.

Like the planet.

YES!

She's overstretching her authority (or whatever)

Anyway whether you feel it’s appropriate or not,Charles decided not to go.
The idea that the PM ordered him not to go is preposterous.

Preposterous? Why?

(I don't think she ordered him either. But I expect she tried.)

"Look, dear, you know it makes sense"

Callistemon21 your comment...Priceless

Palace cooks will now no doubt be sticking pins in pastry effigies of La Truss. If we suddenly hear that she’s unfortunately incapacitated by some ailment we are not allowed to know about, it’ll be an extreme case of piles. ?

The optics are so bad though.

The idea of preventing your head of state from turning up to talk about climate change is ridiculous.

Whitewavemark2

The optics are so bad though.

The idea of preventing your head of state from turning up to talk about climate change is ridiculous.

It really is - particularly when he has made it his 'thing' for so long.

THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT POLITICAL.

It is actually because information we are being fed is based on the mistaken premise that the planet exists in a state of delicate nurture which any human impact destroys, making that immoral.

To anyone genuinely interested I cannot recommend enough the arguments of Alex Epstein in his book Fossil Future in which he reframes the whole issue in terms of well documented evidence and a starting point of human flourishing, especially with respect to the 3 billion or so people who still live (and die at young ages) with little energy except their own muscles.

I decided to read the book because I had come across Epstein's ideas on Twtr and decided I needed to read what he has to say in order to be able to refute it. His arguments are well expressed and argued with philosophical and moral conviction.