The King and Queen are due to arrive in Australia on the
18th October where they will be welcomed to Parliament
House in Canberra by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
and they will attend a reception for political
and community leaders.

Prominent Australians who have demonstrated achievement in
fields such as science, health, arts, culture, sports will
be on the guest list.

The Royals have a busy schedule. They will attend engagements
in Sydney on the 20th and 22nd October and visit Canberra
again on the 21st before returning to Sydney the next day.

In Sydney they will conduct a fleet review of the navy, attend
a community barbeque and visit the Opera House.

They will lay a wreath at the Australian War Memorial and also
visit the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Memorial.

King Charles will also visit CSIRO as part of the agency's
effort to tackle bushfires. King Charles will also meet with
prominent scientists to learn about their ground-breaking
cancer research.

King Charles will meet with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
representatives and groups.

It's a very full schedule for a monarch combating cancer and
having decided to put off his weekly treatment to come and visit
us.

This will be the King's first visit since he became King and the
first visit by a reigning British monarch since 2011.

His Majesty first visited Australia in 1966 and he has a strong
personal affection for Australia.

His Majesty has made 15 official visits to Australia. Most
recently in 2018 for the Commonwealth Games.

By coming here he's done us proud.

We need to return the gesture by welcoming him and his wife
to this land of mateship and a fair-go.

Which is obviously lacking in our state premiers
all of whom have said they are too busy to meet with the King.

Shame on them. Whether you're pro-Republic or pro-Monarchy -
the fact remains - King Charles is our current Head of State
and our politicians need to- follow
protocol and meet and greet the visiting monarch to whom they've
taken an oath to serve.

Hi Foxy

I agree. I'm a lifelong republican, but to me the Premiers' refusal to meet the king seems petulant and rude.

Hi Rhian,

Thanks.

It just seems odd that all the state Premiers have
declined the invitations to meet the Royals saying
they were busy with engagements. Surely these
engagements could have been postponed. The Royals
will only be in Australia for a few days.

I just can't understand it. Especially when the
premiers are under an obligation to follow
correct behaviour in the offices they hold.

.

I happen to have English and Irish blood in my veins, but I would, personally, prefer the land of my birth, as a third-generation Australian, to become a full democracy in which we freely elect our rulers, including our head of state, rather than continue to perpetuate the constitutional monarchy we inherited from the UK.

I don’t mind if we change to a republic or continue to remain a constitutional monarchy, so long as we elect our head of state – president or monarch – man or woman (or whatever). Nor do I mind what nationality our head of state may happen to have. We have never had an Australian head of state since the nation exists.

Nevertheless, I consider it imperative that our head of state be a permanent resident of and in Australia.

As regards our UK head of state’s occasional touristic visits, I see that the net worth of the British royal family is estimated at $AUS 41.3 billion (£21.3 billion), according to Forbes. In addition, Queen Elizabeth II had a separate personal fortune of $AUS 738.3 million (£380.7 million), inherited by her son King Charles, according to Forbes.

I find it quite shocking that the Australian taxpayer should pay the bill for these Royal tourist visits.

Here are some of the bills :

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's 16-day tour in 2018 cost an estimated $1 million; Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales' 10-day visit in 2014 cost about $470,000; and the late Queen Elizabeth II's 10-day stay in 2011 cost more than $1.5 million.

Since 1867, the British royal family has visited Australia over fifty times in those 157 years and we Australians have always borne the costs. That’s a lot of taxpayer money.

So far as I am aware, the Royal family has never reciprocated with an invitation to any Australian taxpayers to tour the UK at their cost.

I don’t mind inviting friends home to dinner occasionally, but if I did that fifty times and they never reciprocated, I can’t say I would find that very polite.

Would you ?

.

All the "republicans" who want to do away with the Crown and elect everyone should really give some thought to the quality of the people that they have been electing since they got the vote, and where that has got them.

There is little support for a republic in Australia. Albanese has erased the ridiculous “assistant minister for ‘the republic’”. THE republic, when no such thing existed.

The disrespect shown to the King of Australia is extremely childish, but not unexpected from the trash we keep voting for. Just imagine trying to pick a suitable President from the rubbish that would be presenting itself for the job; or the rubbish selected by whichever rubbish Prime Minister is hanging about at the time.

I believe that most Australians, no matter what they think of our Constitutional Monarchy, would be appalled by the childish behaviour of the petty little state Premiers. It might make some of the “republicans” think again about the dignity and history of the Monarchy compared with gauche politicians.

What an embarrassment for all of us!

The British monarchy is an anachronism, and even less relevant to most Australians than it is into the majority of Poms. As a republican ditching the monarchy is not a high priority with me, there is a cost involved with this sort of state visit nonsense, but it is relative small in the scheme of things. I have nothing against Charlie as such, I wouldn't like to see Old Charlie go the way of Louis XVI of France, and ending up headless.

I was hoping that we'd see a diversity of opinions in this
topic.

I'll repeat what I've said in previous discussions .

We're a country that doesn't like disturbances,
valuing stability. We are suspicious of demagoguery.
We have a fondness of long-standing norms and
conventions but most of us are comfortable when
these are challenged with merit and through due
process.

We've allowed a wide diversity of people into this
country but we also prize the arms-length distance from
the world that our geography allows.

Whether you're pro-Republic or pro-Monarchy I feel that
the behaviour of the state premiers in declining to meet
with the Royals is just rude. King Charles
is our current Head of State,
and you may not approve of that - but that's the present
reality and as a government official - you should be able
to perform the duties required.

A decision has been made by the government to welcome the
Royals - and as government officials - the premiers should
have to perform their jobs. The excuse that they have meetings
to attend is just not good enough. Meetings can always be
re-scheduled.

As for the costs involved of the Royal visit?

We've always paid for visiting dignitaries. And welcomed
them with dignity and pride showing them the best our
country has to offer. And King Charles is our Head of
State. The cost of the visit should not come into question.
At least - not yet. Not until we have another referendum
on the republic.

King Charles has made it quite clear (as did his mother)
that he will not block Australia becoming a republic. That
this was a decision for the Australian people to make.
He won't stand in the way.

I find it interesting that our state premiers have
declined to meet with the Royals and yet - the
Royals will be meeting with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander representatives and groups - who
have accepted their invitations.

They could have refused with good reason because
the negative affects of colonization are still having
an impact on Indigenous people every day often in drastic
ways.

These 18th century colonial attitudes set in motion events
and policies and established systems and institutions that
continue to have an impact on Indigenous people today,
despite Indigenous people's determined efforts to resist
and overcome their adversity.

Their behaviour is admirable - in accepting their invitations
to meet with the Royals compared to the behaviour of the
state premiers.

There's more at the following:

http://bbc.com/news/articles/cg563r671zpo

.

Our old colonial constitution is the legal framework for how Australia is governed. There is nothing in it about a head of state. It does not exist.

We could continue inviting the British Royal Family on the occasional tourist trip to Australia and wave flags at them if that’s how we want to spend our tax money, but we don’t really need their services as head of state.

The Prime Minister could do that for representation on the world scene if required.

.

Dear Banjo,

At present King Charles is our Head of State and as
such he should be met with respect and civility
by all our federal and state representatives.
What the future brings regarding King Charles
we shall have to wait and see.

I understand what you're saying. However, what I am
questioning is the state premiers refusing to meet with
the King during his visit here. I find their behaviour
inappropriate.

The premiers have deliberately decided to be rude to the King & Queen.
They have only demonstrated what poor quality people we have voted into government.
It appears that Albo demonstrates better manners.

.

The phrase "head of state" is not used in the constitution of:

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Belize
Canada
Grenada
Jamaica
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
The Bahamas
United Kingdom
.

The phrase "head of state", referring to the King, is used in the constitution of:

New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
.

As of June 2022, 36 of the 56 member states of the (British) Commonwealth of Nations have become independent republics. Brunei and Eswatini both have their own monarch, Lesotho and Malaysia are constitutional monarchies with their own king, and Tonga is a semi-constitutional monarchy, with its own king.

In Malaysia, the head of state is an elected monarch, chosen from among the nine state sultans every five years. The head of government is the prime minister.

.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Yes, I think we should always be polite, whatever the circumstances.
.

http://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/89/0f/fc890f26af0ec465d91c2582545c15be.jpg
.

http://www.tiktok.com/@flutteringpositivity/video/7390935753695481119?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc

.

The insulting behaviour of the ignorant state premiers goes against the sentiments of most Australians. A poll last weekend showed that the monarchy had actually increased in popularity since the death of the Queen two years ago. Those wanting a republic are fewer in number than those who voted yes to the notorious Voice.

Australians, irrespective of political leanings, seem to be more in tune with the King and Queen of Australia than we are with our bloody awful politicians.

Speaking of bloody awful politicians, an even worse one might be joining them after the coming election in the ACT.

James Cruz ACT Green candidate for 19 Oct election has brought attention to himself. Wanting to become a politician himself, he has had this to say:

“ f..king kill politicians” or “send them to The Hague and hang them in the street”.

On Israel:

“F..k Israel” and “their genocidal regime”; and”:

“I don’t give a s..t how many of their occupying forces die when they couldn’t care less about indiscriminately slaughtering civilians, and actively cheer as they die.”

I wonder where he stands on "hate speech". Oh,that's right. Hate speech comes from others, not the Greens.

I appreciate reading all of your views.

As always, it's good to see the logic behind each post.

I'm looking forward to the visit by the Royals.

I just hope that there won't be any political protests.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the information and the two links.

Talking about spankings and punches in the face?

I'm reminded of the Jim Henson quote:

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and it may be
necessary from time to time to give a misinformed
beholder a black eye".

Dear Banjo,

You however are not misinformed - and deserve a big hug.

The Royals have had a very difficult time since both
King Charles and his daughter-in-law both received
cancer diagnosis and underwent cancer treatment.

Whether you like the Royals or not - we've got to
admit it could not have been easy for them
and their families.

It's now just days away since King Charles and Queen Camilla
will be touching down in Australia for the King's first tour
since his coronation.

Reports have circled that the King is "barely holding on".
Let's hope that this visit proves to be a boost for him.
It may just be what the King needs. He's paused his
cancer treatment during his 11 day tour of Australia.

All we can do is wish him well and try to make his visit
a positive one for him and for us.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

In inheriting the British Crown from his mother, King Charles III inherited not only the kingdoms of the 14 other Commonwealth realms, but, also, the immense fortune estimated by Forbes at $AUS 41.3 billion (£21.3 billion), plus Queen Elizabeth II’s separate personal fortune of $AUS 738.3 million (£380.7 million).

All this added to his personal assets prior to inheritance of $AUS 3.9 billion (£2 billion) makes a total of approximately $AUS 46 billion.
He suddenly became the richest person in the UK by far, and the 61st richest person in the world.

The richest Australian, Gina Rinehart, ranks N° 60 in the world with total assets of $AUS 46.5 billion.

Unfortunately, shortly after acceding to the throne, it was discovered that the new king had a form of cancer.

It seems that only 5% to 10% of cancers are linked to the genes that are inherited from parents. The large majority are caused by gene changes that start in a single cell over the course of a person's life.

Maybe the cancer was part of the inheritance Charles received from his mother, or maybe it wasn’t. But, if it was, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he would have preferred to have inherited nothing from his mother whatsoever – neither kingdoms nor riches nor genes !

He waited so long, but what for, and was it all worth it ?

I wish Charles and his wife a very pleasant trip in Australia and hope it will not be the last.

.

ttbn,

Too bad you are offended by some blunt comments by a prospective politician in the ACT. From your comments you are not fazed in the slightest by the deaths of 42,000- innocent men, women and children at the hands of the murderers the blokes banging on about.

Some moans complain about the costs of royal visits. Well, we pay the costs of all visiting dignitaries, and the rest of the time the UK pays for Australia's royal family. We just pay for the GG and state governors wages.

Over 13 years, royal visits have cost us $6 million all up.

The one-off cost of the 90s republic referendum (failed) cost us $133 million.

The also failed one only Voice referendum cost us $450 million.

Oh no, not this again.
Couldn't they have chosen some other country to visit.
What does his lordship want now?
Why is he really here?

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for the information.

I also hope that this visit won't be his last.
And that it will an enjoyable visit.

Hi AC,

King Charles has always had a great affection for Australia.
And we can only assume that due to his health he's wanting
to visit - in case it may be his last.

I hope not.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

The total annual cost in 2024 of employing the Governor General and the six State Governors is about $AUS 4 million. That includes salaries, office expenses and motor vehicles. The two Territories don’t have Governors. They get along fine without them.

If we didn’t have a part-time monarch who lives on the other side of the world and whom we have to share with the UK and the 14 other Commonwealth realms (Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu) I can’t help thinking we could do without them at the federal level and in the six States as well.
.

You indicated :

« The one-off cost of the 90s republic referendum (failed) cost us $133 million. »
.

That’s odd. The Australian Electoral Commission’s 1999 referendum report indicates a total cost of $66 233 682. Here are the details :

http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/1999_Referendum_Reports_Statistics/Appendices.htm#b

Maybe they’re missing something. Please check and let me know where the difference of $67 million comes from.
.

Your estimate of $450 million for the Voice referendum seems realistic.
.

I agree that the way we run our referendums is a waste of money. It’s a labyrinthine system in which the question almost inevitably gets lost.

Our old Colonial Constitution is beyond repair. We need a new one.

.

King Charles and Queen Camilla are due to arrive in
Sydney this evening for their Australian visit.

We certainly could use some happy news.

Hi Foxy,

I have no objection to a visit by King Charlie and Queen Godzilla to our friendly shores. I believe they are flying economy on 'Nostar' Airlines. They are being put up at the "Matthew Talbot", gratus for a couple of nights whilst in Sydney. Besides taking in the usual sights, Kings Cross, Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Kings Cross for a second times, Charlie thinks its a very regal place, the name and all, etc, Charlie is very keen on a day out at Luna Park, he loves the dodgems and the roller coaster, but he's forbidden from putting the balls in the clowns mouth anymore, last time a ball got stuck in Godzilla's throat, and it took a week for her to cough it up! Tonight its palatial dining down at Harry's Cafe De Wheels, at Woolloomooloo, the young couple will be enjoying Harry's signature dish, 'Pie And Peas', unfortunately Charlie will not be partaking of his favourite, a foot long 'Dogwood Dog', watching his weight and all, but a creamy waffle or two after will be okay. Then its up up and away, off to spent a mouth in sunny Antarctica with other loyal subjects, the penguins, or some such place.... who knows.... who cares.

"Please check and let me know where the difference of $67 million comes from."

The estimated costs of the various Yes/No campaigns.

"they are being put up at the "Matthew Talbot","

I hear there's a rather luxurious place in Copacabana that's not currently occupied although I gather the PM would rather not talk about it right now.

AS to BJ's estimates as the royal fortunes, its all smoke and mirrors. While on paper the numbers might stack up (although I don't think they do), this wealth is illusory since its not fungible. Comparing Charles III's wealth to Rinehart's is invalid. While all of Gina's assets are saleable if she so desired, much of the royal wealth isn't. Things like Windsor or Buck Palace might be impressively valuable and add to the apparent royal wealth, but they aren't and never will be for sale. So their true market value is zero.

Given the right question, I'd vote for a republic. But I find all this anti-royal rhetoric to be just a tad childish with a large dollop of virtue signalling.

No matter how you view the Royals, for some people
having a constitutional monarch feels like a safety
net in a world that's producing people like Putin,
Netanyahu, Donald Trump and Brexit.

The Royals remain separate. Above party politics.
Above those of Prime Ministers and World Leaders.

BTW:

According to news reports - North Korea is sending troops
(they're already supplying Russia with rockets) to help
Russia against Ukraine.

Russia's tentackles could spread.

The tour of the Royals by all accounts has been a
great success. The speech that King Charles made in
Parliament House was especially moving.

As for the minor hiccup of Senator Thorpe?
Her attempted media grab certainly did both her cause harm,
as well as losing any support she may have had earlier.
Such stone-age behaviour is totally disgusting. Hopefully
she will not get re-elected. Australians expect more from
their politicians and leaders.

"Australians expect more from
their politicians and leaders."

Do they? This is precisely the type of thing I'd expect from this women. After all, anyone so crazy that even the Greens couldn't stand her, isn't playing with a full deck.

Still she says what the more moronic elements of the left (especially the ABC) want to hear, so she'll always have an audience.

One Australian - yours truly - doesn't “expect more from (my politicians)”. And we don't have “leaders”. In fact, I am expecting much less from the dimwits in the future. They get madder by the minute.

The Senator, who is mentally incapacitated, made a fool of herself again, in a crowd of people who would definitely disagree with her lunacy - or they wouldn't have been there.

The Greens would have been proud of her, and very thankful that they have such a nutter to do things that most of them wouldn't do. That’s why she hasn't been disendorsed.

Foxy says the Premiers should 'follow protocol'.

Following protocol seems like a bit of a grey area these days.
- I remember when public toilets were reserved for the exclusive use of each gender, now you can just choose your own, like ordering a pizza.
Not even much point wasting the money on the 'mens' and 'ladies' signs anymore.

Nobody should be expecting anything good from Australian politicians who allow terrorists to be glorified in Arabic on our streets, but who sooled the police onto an 82 year old woman who made a couple of phone calls to a mosque; and who also ignored more than 200 abusive phone calls to Scott Morrison’s Church when he became Prime Minister.

No more of this utter crap about Australia being the "best country in the world", please.

The Royal Tour is going ahead splendidly.
It's been an overwhelming success. The Royals
have met with various Indigenous representatives
and groups - and there's more to come today.
As for Senator Thorpe? She unfortunately is
getting the media attention that she was after.
Grandstanding does not achieve anything really
productive. If she really thought of her people
rather than herself - she would have taken a
different approach.

Also, if she's so against the "system" she should
resign instead of accepting the salary "the system"
that she despises - is paying her.

What has she actually achieved for her cause -
except just yelling a lot?

She can't be compared to genuine Indigenous leaders
and elders - who actually work for their people.
just yelling a lot does not count. Any kid can do that.
She should resign - if she has any principles at all.

Well the Australian tour of the Royals has ended on a
high. It was quite evident that many Australians
appreciated the sincerity with which the Royals
appreciated Australia. They took an interest in meeting
as many people as was possible. And as one child said
when asked why he wanted to meet the King - "Because
he's special. He's a king!"

Yes, King Charles certainly is. And he's also above politics.
Which does make him special indeed.

While the UK media obviously wrote Thorpe off as a "fruit loop", they had more to say about the rudness and disrespect shown to the King by the state premiers/grunts.

I don't understand what the behaviour of the state
premiers was all about. Although I did notice that
the NSW premier did get to meet with the Royals
afterall - hosting several events for them.

In any case - I'd say the Royal Tour was a success
all round. Something so many will never forget.

Hi Foxy,

We may not see eye to eye on the subject of royalty, and their place, or lack of, in society. Charlies has certainly lived a privileged and insulated life, he gives meaning to the saying; "born with a silver spoon in his mouth", although in his case it was more like a diamond encrusted 24ct gold spoon. He was probably the first, and most senior member of the Windsor family to have a real understanding, if that's possible from such a privileged position, of the world and the people in it. Personally, other than being rather toffee-noised, he's probably a fairly decent old chap, if one can be decent and hold such a privileged position at the same time. From an elite prospective his visit was a success, and a winner for the status quo. Lots of bowing and scraping by the common folk, and lots of platitudes from the figure head always goes down well with some in society.

On Lidia Thorpe, she has a right to speak and be heard, that's part of the democratic process, She may not have the support of all people, including all Aboriginal people, who does, but a healthy democratic society needs its "Lidia Thorpe's" if its to remain healthy. BTW she didn't speak lies, as many more acceptably staid politicians do.

Dear Paul,

When I look at the US - a country that produces people
like Donald Trump, I appreciate the stability of King
Charles and the monarchy. King Charles has made it quite
clear that it is up to the people of Australia to decide
where their future lies.

As for Senator Thorpe? Of course she is entitled to her
opinion. However, while choosing to run for a government
position - she should not bite the hand that feeds her.
She should have the common decency to know what's
expected of a person in that officialt position. She
could have done things in a different way.

By her actions she did more harm than good. But then she's
been grandstanding all along. Her "Black Power" salutes
are provocative. Which is what she does best. Provoke -
and divide, not gain support and unite. And achieving nothing
selling newspapers.

I prefer Megan Davis and Marcia Langdon.

It is now known that thuggish Thorpe advised the media before the even that she intended to burst in, insulting and abusing the King.

Had the information been passed on, the lunatic could have been stopped at the door. But, there wouldn't have been another story about this horrible woman publicising herself.

It's hard to know which group is the biggest danger to Australia and Australians: elected politicians, unelected bureaucrats, or the main stream media.

It is concerning when we see democratic decline which
has ramifications throughout society. This impacts
certain changes in public attitudes. The decline in
independent media is a concern, as is the decline in
a vibrant education system. And an engaged civil society.

All are very concerning.

Hi Foxy,

There has been a decline in the "Western Democratic Process" for some time. On Lidia Thorpe, a healthy democracy needs people voicing non-violent radical opinions, not lies in way Trump does, but opinions, and their voice should be heard as it is important to arouse pubic thinking on issues. If Thorpe "insulted" Charles, which I don't believe she did, her actions give attention to the issue of Aboriginal sovereignty in a way that other well meaning people more moderate in their approach than Thorpe have failed to achieve in more than 200 years.

ttbn asks; "It's hard to know which group is the biggest danger to Australia and Australians" The answer is the violent extremists like the "Black Ninjas" in Melbourne recently who want to silence opposition, and other opinion by all means possible.

The King has managed to take the shine of his visit by reverting to his old habits, in Samoa, of chuntering on about climate change, “disinformation” and all the political nonsense best left to crappy politicians and activists. All very unbecoming for a Monarch.

I don't think that the King has any official or real
input into what countries like Australia who are
constitutional monarchies do. He may be our Head of
State - but he does not interfere in the running of our
country.

On the matter of 'head of state', we are often told by staunch monarchist Prof. David Flint that we do have an Australian (the GG) as head of state. This has to be rejected, as the GG represents the Monarch. King Charles is definitely our head of state. There should be no problem with accepting that, as we are a constitutional monarchy. Charles is the King of Australia; not just the 'King of England' or 'a foreign King' as republicans like to keep repeating.

I have the greatest respect for David Flint, but I believe he is also wrong to talk about Australia being a "crowned republic". There can be no such thing.

But, the Monarchy might well be losing some of its magic and allure with Charles reverting to his old habit of having a say on political matters: those mentioned previously, and the now popular one with activists, slavery and compensation.

The codswallop about slavery and reparations - colonialism as well - has nothing to do with the past: it is about NOW and the increasing attempts to denigrate the West, by the usual suspects and the Third World gangs looking for even more money than our pathetic politicians have already given them.

The Monarch should stay well clear of this nonsense, as did his mother for 70 years.

Following the quick royal down under tour to Australia and the conference in Samoa, one UK writer has suggested that it is time for Britain to launch a new Pacific push, given that Communist China is aggressively forging ties with local governments. “Britain must step up its game”. (Marcus Ray, ‘Britain cannot leave the Pacific to Xi Jinping’)

Britain was once the prevailing power in the area, with vestiges of its influence persisting in “the Westminster and common law systems that many island nations inherited”.

The author describes Britain's absence as “striking”, abandoning as it did Australia and New Zealand “to shoulder the main burden” of the islands. And Canberra and Wellington are now facing “stiff competition from an increasingly assertive Beijing.”

Washington and Paris have “ratcheted up” their presence in the area; Britain must do the same, writes Ray. Britain has two patrol vessels in the Pacific, but with King Charles presiding over the Commonwealth summit, Britain should make “an emphatic declaration of its commitment to a region it has long forsaken”, based on partnership with Australia and New Zealand.

These sentiments and the possibility of security options in troubled times is something about the ties with our King and the Commonwealth that might have been overlooked by republicans.

Lets not forget what was signed on 1 Sept 1951.
The Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand,
and the United States (ANZUS) - which has been
in operation for more than 60 years to protect the
security of the Pacific.

King Charles has been warning us about climate change
since the 1970s when he was just 21 years old.

I don't believe that he has spoken too much or that he's
stepping outside the bounds of a monarch taking political
sides.

Climate change has nothing to do with political sides. Nor is it
solely a political issue. It's something that should be addressed
by everyone on our planet.

People used to ridicule his views. His views on his love of
nature. On sustainable farming. On natural remedies. On
wild life and their problems. Today people have different
opinions on his views.

People are starting to realize these days that his views are
not about politics. They're about science

The "science" has not been able to prove that carbon dioxide, or human behaviour, has anything to do with climate change. The closest thing there is to a "climate scientist", geologist Professor Ian Plimer, has spent a lot of his time asking proponents of the human-caused theory of climate change has not received a single piece of evidence that it is so. Climate changes itself.

There is no "climate crisis";there is a global socialist crises, whereby a perfectly normal phenomenon is being used in an attempt to shame and blame the West and extort money from it. So far, it's working very well, and we are all paying dearly, thanks to the scam.

King Charles has allowed his emotions to run away with him, like so many other people have. He/they need someone to blame when their love for and interest in natural should surely tell them that nature does what nature does quite independently from man, and the only part man is playing in climate change is the invention of a scam to make money. HM the King is just a handy, well-meaning, but not very smart dupe.