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.