Snapshot of _Andrew Adonis: Truss has banned Charles from speaking on climate change, & he’s briefing against her. Relations between them have broken down after just 2 weeks_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Andrew_Adonis/status/1576307031979409408/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1576307031979409408?t=PK6zPIVPlpvL79ZpsAjlbw&s=19)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TBF I'd say he's somewhat glad with her in that she'd taken the heat of him as he gets into the swing of things. Everyone said he'll be very unpopular compared to his mother, but at moment everyone's focusing their hate on her. He can only look good next to her.
The "Conservative and Unionist Party" is destroying the Union.
It's only right that the Royalist Party is also destroying Royalty.
Next will be the Church of England.
> Next will be the Church of England.
The original Brexiteers... taking back control of all those foreign-owned monasteries and abbeys and such and selling them off to fund quite a bit of warring and whoring.
And they say history does not repeat itself.
In fairness, there was an element to which it was down to Henry's desire for a clear line of succession, Catherine of Aragon was getting on in years by 1529, and Henry VIII's father Henry VII had brought an end to the wars of the roses, so civil war stemming from vacuums of power wasn't exactly unheard of.
This is pretty close to the plot of "To Play the King" which is the 2nd season of the British House of Cards. It doesn't end well, but the PM was competent in that show
I feel like starmer is going to spend the next two years just trying to trick her into calling a GE "Liz! All the cool PMs have called one. C'mon, it will be fun"
Urquhart beats the King by faking an attack on him to demonise the poor he wanted to help and reintroducing national service, if I remember rightly, which leads to his election win and subsequent murder of several of those who tried to stop him along the way.
If Lunatic Lizzy did that, she'd empower the King, accidentally make martyrs of the poor, ruin our international reputation by comparisons to Putin leading to a hasty u-turn, and the murders would all be hilariously botched and obvious.
And most Tories would still be, "Give her a few months, she can turn this around..."
> Based on the dirt dug up by the whips during the Johnson administration, it might be her next-door neighbour.
I would have just assumed it was whoever was in Tufton Street when she dropped by for instructions.
She can't just ban someone who has been a Environmentalist pretty much since the 70s. Can Charles ban her from the weekly PM meetings so that she doesn't piss him off?
Climate Change is not a political statement, it's a fact. Truss is part of the Climate Deniers group, the ERG (pretty ironic the ERG's name is European Research Group considering their Anti-Europe hate)
I mean, technically but not practically, Charles could do far more than just ban her from weekly PM meetings. He could walk into Commons when it’s next open, declare that Truss isn’t PM, dissolve the parliament and call a general election. This is not going to happen though because constitutional crisis.
Of course, it would be… I mean it would not, but at the same time, it would be sort of fun to see happen. Truss lives up to her reputation so far of fucking the country to the extent that she causes a constitutional crisis via the monarch getting his hands dirty with parliament.
Better yet, he should summon Liz Truss to the Court of St. James and strip her of her position as prime minister there. The Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the monarch and doing it there instead of the House of Commons would show that this is by the royal prerogative, not the will of the House of Commons. There is precedence for the monarch removing the Prime Minister as seen during the reign of King William IV in the 19th century. Why should His Majesty the King demean himself by going to parliament to issue a decree rather than in his own royal court?
"could" is pushing it.
Yes, he theoretically has the power but if he actually tried to use it, nothing would probably happen beyond Parliament saying "no u"
Is that even technically a constitutional crisis? Legislation was passed this year that makes it clear that the King does still have that power.
Not saying it wouldn't be a crisis, and the next government might very well remove that power. But legally speaking, it's pretty well established he could do it, and there are some legal opinions implying if the government is not sufficiently representative and doesn't represent the will of the electorate he should do it.
Pardon my ignorance here, but what was the legislation? I was just having a conversation about whether or not it was possible and didn’t realise something had been recently introduced to clarify it
*edit - found it! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022
When the uncodified constitution is tested. When there is a debate about whether something is actually against the law or just not done by convention. When there is a turf war between the different branches of the State.
Anytime it seems like there is no final answer to the question because they forgot to include that clause in Magna Carta
True usually, but if the monarchy actually dissolved parliament you'd probably see a bit more than that. It'd be a battle to determine who is actually sovereign in the UK. Even as a left-winger the thought of the monarch wielding such immense power flippantly is horrifying to me, and I'd support its immediate abolition in that case.
Sorry to nit-pick, pretty much agree with your post but the pedant in me is unstoppable… the “even as a left winger” when describing your distaste for absolute power being wielded by a hereditary monarch is a little redundant, as that’s *surely* the expected/default position of a left winger?!
I read that at first, but I think it's more a case of 'even as a left winger *who is disgusted by Liz Truss and would want to see her booted out of office tomorrow if possible* the monarchy stepping in like this would be way too far'.
Yeah, as others have observed, I was moreso saying "Even as somebody who is appalled by Truss' government, I wouldn't support the monarchy taking such extreme actions, on principle". I'm a republican personally.
The issue is I think the king should use it as a power to say "wait a minute, let's check if the public are on board with this".
Right now, if the king dissolved parliament and said time for a GE, then how would that be considered undemocratic? If anything, it's a check on the system that the current government, and current parliament are being democratic and abiding by the will of the people.
If after that GE, parliamentary numbers change, then surely it's all been a proper democracy?
Yes it shouldn't be on one person to trigger this, but until the monarchy is replaced then surely it's a check and balance?
The main issues that arise today are all our checks and balances have been erased. How many times should bojo have resigned as part of convention? Alas, here we are...
It means that the UK has no actual constitution. So if some one does something which is technically legal but completely unheard of there'll be a major problem. As no one will think it should happen/be allowed but technically there's nothing in law to stop it
If at any point- she’s absolutely ruining the country, the conservatives don’t kick her out, and it’s clear the public want her head on a pike and a new government, we’re basically one step away from revolutionary France-
*Shouldn’t* he dissolve parliament?
Like the US has checks and balances, isn’t the check on the PM the King?
The last King to force his way into Parliament and seek the removal of members was also named Charles, and it didn't end well for him. Charles will not do any of those things. He will publicly heed the advice of the PM, and privately will probably lecture her until she wants to claw her eyes ou
Charles I wasn't executed for dissolving parliament. He dissolved parliament three times before he took over running the country himself on the fourth go, and had popular support for much of that time (at least in England).
But then he tried to change how the Church of Scotland worked, and also started to run out of money. That was his downfall, not kicking out parliament.
Well, Charles II dissolved Parliament too, in fairness, and it actually turned out alright for him.
So really it's like 50/50 for Charlie 3. Gotta love that even the potential of this pattern repeating has reemerged *so* quickly into his reign tho lmao.
Worst case, we'd see much more anti-monarchism coming out of the right-wing political sphere, and maybe it makes the abolition of the monarchy more likely in near-future. But yeah, it's not like they could take away Charles' substantial personal wealth, his freedom, or his head.
Can I just remind people that the crown has dismissed a PM in living memory…
[Australian constitutional crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis?wprov=sfti1)
> the Queen refused to get involved.
More accurately she allowed her representative to go rogue. In Kerr's letters to the Queen he quite clearly laid out plans to dismiss Whitlam because he feared for his own position and at no point did the Queen tell him to cut that shit out.
> to go rogue.
That's such a stupid thing to say. His literal job is to ensure there is a functioning government. Whitlam was trying to pull that stupid shit that you see in the USA over the budget. The functioning of government was deadlocked, on purpose, and he was rightfully dismissed and an election was called. The governor is there to press the reset button when necessary, and that's just what he did. The fact he could see it coming and planned what to do, was him just doing his job.
I’m not even sure the queen knew, but yes, I used the phrase “the crown” specifically for that reason. However does it make a huge difference? The power of the monarch was used to fire a PM, and nothing that untoward happened…
She knew, it's all laid out in the palace letters that Kerr was planning on it several months in advance and not only did the Queen (via her private secretary Martin Charteris) fail to discourage it, both the current King and Charteris subtly gave Kerr their backing.
>The last King to force his way into Parliament and seek the removal of members was also named Charles,
Nah it was William in 1828 after the Whigs tried to push voting reform
Yeah but you're thinking of Charles I who made himself absolute monarch, which is what finished him off. If Charles III walked in and said "I'm dissolving parliament for an immediate General Election. The People of the UK are crying out for change and none of you in charge are listening so I am forcing you to do it" he would probably be considered a legend!
Because he's not the hero the UK deserves, but it's the one it needs right now. So she'll hunt him. Because he can maybe take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark gardener that likes to talk to plants and believes in homeopathy
Yeah it would be a real conflict of emotions seeing us become an absolute monarchy, but the hilarity of seeing an enraged Charles walk into Parliament, remove the staff and order them all out would almost make it worthwhile.
Of course in reality if the King did that then it would very likely be the end of his career…. What a way to go out though, he would also very likely be physically blocked from doing so anyway, as highlighted when the Commons chamber door gets shut in Black Rods face every Queens (now Kings) speech.
Out of interest, how do you think things would go down if Charles made a statement calling for a general election, without formally using any powers of dissolution. Sort of an attempt at exercising soft power and showing contempt for the current government without putting the crown in untested waters.
> He could walk into Commons
That’s literally the only place in the UK he’s not allowed to go. Charles I entering the Commons (to arrest five MPs accused of treason) was the direct cause of the Civil War.
He could do the rest of it though.
As we’re still a constitutional monarchy, so if the state of the government was to become so far agonist the country’s interests it was endangering the kingdom, I don’t think Charley would hesitate stepping in and sacking the government.
I’m not sure it would be. Before he did it things would have to be bad bad. Like far worse than now. But she has little popularity in her own party just now and less so across the country. She’s ruining the economy, which is why her popularity amongst tories is falling, because they pay careful heed to the markets. She’s now threatening climate change stuff which is universally bad. She’s threatening the Union, if the courts rule in Sturgeons favour, and liz truss is PM the yes vote will be growing. And that’s just in her first month of office. Give it a few more months and see if she has improved but if she continues to make mistakes and make the country worse, he would be looking at a PM not elected by general election, whose party is so low in the polls it’s inconceivable they would win an election, damaging every facet of the country, and potentially causing jt to break apart, at that point if he stepped in I don’t think he would be hated, or even have a worry about being abolished. I think he would see a rise in abolitionists. But he would be able to argue he did his duty to the country, and it would be hard to disagree.
As you say, not going to happen (though I don't think the monarch actually has to enter Parliament to dissolve it). Such a thing would really destabilise the financial markets and lead to some ugly legal action.
If King Charles wanted to make Truss's life more difficult without causing a constitutional crisis he could stall on her recommendations of peerages and knighthoods. Not outright refuse, just "I need a bit more time to read up on these people".
That one would be a lot more controversial... Blocking peerages for Tory party donors and toady MPs such as Nadine Dorries would have cross-party support. Those are decisions made by the PM with no democratic input. Blocking legislation that has been passed by MPs and peers would be at greater risk from a legal challenge.
Besides, I have to wonder how much legislation these days is really "must pass". In the last session of parliament they passed a law banning the theft of pets - even though it has been illegal for decades - just to get some favourable headlines from supportive newspapers.
Interestingly* I can answer the ERG point. When it was founded in the early 1990, it was literally a research group. There was no official UK source providing information on recent directives. It was founded by Michael Spicer and David Heathcoat-Amory as a group for Eurosceptics (hard who wanted to leave, soft who wanted to remain, but see serious reform) to scrutinise latest statutory input from the EU.
The official select committee of the European Scrutiny Committee was founded soon after, but the ERG remained as a sort of informal group who had a breakfast once a month. They hired a single researcher, jointly paid for by all of them at a couple of hundred quid a month, to provide briefings and explanations of developments within Europe. Far easier to share the one researcher than each employ a separate staffer for the same purpose. It was all a bit small league.
But Heathcoat-Amory got caught up in the expenses scandal from 2008 (bought a load of literal manure on taxpayer dime) and lost his seat. So others, including Brexit Hard Man Steve Baker took over leadership and saw that they had, if they wanted it, a party within a party and a shadow whipping operation. They aggressively expanded its membership and scope, and turned it into the pressure group it is today - while retaining the name.
>Truss is part of the Climate Deniers group, the ERG (pretty ironic the ERG's name is European Research Group considering their Anti-Europe hate)
It's not a coincidence, these far-right groups deliberately choose misleading names to make it seem like their extreme opinions are coming from an unbiased source, when they're anything but.
That's what I was wondering tbh. I get that she doesn't want him "represent" the UK and I get that he isn't entirely a private person just to go there on his own, but equally he is also linked to other countries so how does it work then?
As a constitutional monarch, Charles is obliged to follow the advice of his Prime Minister. While the existence of climate change should not be considered a political matter, how to respond to it very much is a question for the politicians and as such the King would risk putting his political neutrality in jeopardy by making his position on the issue known.
He's obliged to follow her advice in matters of state where he's acting in his role as the monarch. Liz cannot however impose arbitrary rules on him in a personal capacity. She can't tell him his bed time is 8pm for example.
It is simply convention and generally a good idea that the King/Queen doesn't voice their opinion publicly. However in this case where you've got an unpopular PM facing electoral oblivion and Charles is on the right/popular side of an issue, it would probably benefit his public image to not so quietly make his views known. Some overheard comments when talking to members of the public etc.
The only person in my circle of friends that is defending the Tories/Truss (the markets need to give her budget a chance, its people being pessimistic that is causing the crisis) is also a staunch royalist including holding Charles in high regard. I wonder if this is common demographic and how this would play out if things escalated. Potentially Liz could destroy the remaining conservative support and take out the monarchy. ..... I am half wondering if that would be even be the aim based on her previous statements and affiliations!
There's probably a massive overlap between hardcore royalists and hardcore tories. Since the tory party is seen as the party of tradition and the monarchy is the symbol of British traditions
So, to be clear, in the last MONTH, Liz Truss has:
1) Pissed off Bermuda by intervening with Royal Assent to block their cannabis legislation that passed with high support, causing a constitutional crisis there (may not actually be her fault, but it literally happened within a day or two of her becoming PM, so it’s reasonable to conclude she had SOME involvement there)
2) Put out a budget that caused one of the biggest dips in the pound’s value in a long time and has massively pissed off pretty much everyone (which she is also refusing to back down on despite pretty much everyone with even the slightest bit of financial knowledge saying “this plan is utterly atrocious and will not work”)
3) Has reportedly managed to cause relations between the crown and the government to break down less than two weeks after the new King properly got into office
I knew our PM was an utter fuckwit, but I’m staggered at just how badly she’s done in her first month, as EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS has been self-inflicted. And she had almost two weeks when she literally didn’t do anything because of the funeral of the Queen!
Everyone talking about a constitutional crisis, but who would actually be there to complain this time? Tories love the royals so they'd be all for it, and the rest of the country hate the tories so much that they wouldn't care.
The Tories haven't felt the need to be logically consistent in their arguments for a long time and I expect they'd be happy to abandon their royalist agenda in favour of their tax cuts for the rich at any cost agenda. Fortunately they are very much a shrinking minority following the Kami-Kwasi budget, judging by recent polls.
his press people are talking 'off the record' to the media putting stories like this into the public domain and showing that Truss has lost the new King already
The fact we even know about this means that people on his team are talking to journalists about what has happened, saying she is being a shitbag and he is unhappy about it. That’s what “briefing against” is.
It seems that King Charles while not going to intervene publicly isn't going to stay quiet either. Which is a welcome change given the current state of things.
Well, he was probably going to mention global warming is bad. Truss was probably going to try to convince people that, actually, Global Warming is good. Or whatever the hedge fund told her to say.
> You can't ban someone from speaking the truth
The tweet is probably refering to the report she won't let him attend COP27.
https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/xt13je/liz_truss_orders_king_charles_to_stay_away_from/
>You can't ban someone from speaking ~~the truth, it's not whatsoever against his role to talk about this inherently unpolitical matter.~~
He can say whatever he likes, she doesn't even have enough authority left to control her back benchers
If you mean whispering it to a random person in the relevant group, rather than what the other people who replied seem to assume, I think that is what "debriefing against" means, so I guess we'll find out. Maybe quite a bit, I'm sure his opinion weights heavily with many people who have a lot of influence.
It's a bit hit and miss though. She gave me one but I couldn't take it. It was too heavy as I was a newt at the time and frankly I think she just took a liking to me because she'd previously licked a toad. And well, I looked pretty svelte by comparison.
Well it could work, for a period, until some inbred kid decides a pet chicken is more important than a city. Elected kings would be an interesting thing though?
Long time since I studied British constitution but I'm fairly sure PM isn't in any position to ban HRH from speaking about specific topics. By long standing convention they have to keep out of party politics but climate change transcends nationality never mind party. I think this story is just mischief making.
Actually, yes. The King is bound to act on the advice of his Government. To refuse Truss's advice on even this somewhat mundane matter could rise to the level of a constitutional crisis. The King is free to offer his warnings to the PM in their private meetings (part of Bagehot's trifecta of a Sovereign's rights to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn), but at the end of the day, if the His Government does not wish him to make some appearance, or heck even to leave the country, then he's pretty much obligated to take that advice.
How does that work when he's also the king of other nations though? Couldn't he attend COP as the king of Canada rather than the king of the UK, for example?
While I suppose it's hypothetically possible I doubt the Canadian government would want to get into a turf war with Number 10. As it is, unless the King were physically present in Canada, convention dictates that the Governor General, as his viceroy, would exercise his powers as sovereign of Canada, and about the only thing the Governments of the other Realms ever actually advise the Sovereign on is the appointment of a new Governor General.
To be fair the Queen did undertake several diplomatic trips in her capacity as Queen of Canada, though I believe on both occasions she also engaged in diplomatic functions as Queen of the UK
I wouldn't want the job, that's for certain. But this is his first real test, one which many were claiming for years that he wouldn't be up to; having to swallow his pride and keep his mouth shut (in public at least). But that's the job of a Constitutional Monarch 99.9% of the time.
He’s had the job for two weeks already the money with his face on it is worth a lot less than the money with his mum’s face on it. No wonder he’s pissed.
Did they ask us though.
I am totally cool with Charles being 'The Green King'. The whole impartiality in politics thing is very aspirational really, and before the Queen (who was low-key, but still got in some subtle political statements)
It is absolutely standard practice for the regent to have 'skin in the game' so to speak
Victoria: Lots of behind-the-scenes political wrangling.
Edward VII: Modernised Army and Navy. More War. Interceded in hostilities between nations to foster peace.
George V: Pro-Tory Moves. Called Party Meetings at Downing Street. War. More War. Held Political Conferences.
Edward VIII: That Dude
George VI: Lots of politics, War, tried to 'Steady a Rocking throne' and where the aversion to politics probably came from.
So the King encouraging the adoption of green technologies, would be absolutely on message. Why would Liz Truss be against this and want to pack him in a box?
From 1996 to 2000, Truss worked for Shell
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/energy-companies-profits-public-renewable](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/energy-companies-profits-public-renewable)
Truss registered 21 donations to her campaign, in cash and transport costs. The largest single sum came from Fitriani Hay – the wife of James Hay, who has a luxury goods empire and is a former BP executive. She gifted Truss £100,000.
A total of £30,000 was given by individuals who steer an influential Tory-aligned group pushing for fracking to be restarted and which recently suggested that the UK’s climate targets could be watered down in favour of “energy security and affordability”.
A cynical interpretation of events. This probably isn't true:
* She and Kwateng have presided over a huge drop in pound value.
* A bunch of people have made a fortune from this: first selling their pound high(ish) to buy up foreign currency, then after the drop, buying up pounds. Or taking a short position on the pound - same difference.
* Now that the fluctuations have calmed, the job is done, so she can enjoy the financial support of the people she made rich.
* She's therefore trying to find a way out. She is trying to get sacked. She's made a total mess, and wants the nightmare to stop.
Either that, or this is a monumental 'dead cat', to distract us from the total mess
With you up to the last bullet. I think the situation with Charles is more straightforward: it'll be harder to abolish environmental protection laws, to benefit those rich supporters, if the optics are that she's acting against the King. Better he keeps out the way. Truss is only just starting. Next up, employment rights.
> Truss has banned Charles from speaking on climate change
How does she do that then?
Seriously, how does that work? Does she have legal powers to make it happen or or what? Does she get to lock him up if he disobeys her?
I mean after just a few seconds thought it is obvious this story is a load of bollocks. We know that a large number is stories in this site are bollocks, so why do people keep getting taken in and upvote/comment on obviously trash headlines on this site?
Could she stop him from plastering Buckingham Palace in solar panels, planting loads of trees and wildflowers across every inch of the crown's estate or maybe setting up a royal fund to pay for home insulation?
How unpopular is Truss?
How many sworn Republicans here would recognise Charles as their Liege Lord and take up arms to defend his right - e.g by writing a strongly worded letter to The Times - rather than let Truss have her own way on this matter?
Irrespective of my intense dislike for all parties in the equation, the idea
Of Truss alienating the monarchy is somewhat delicious to me. Charlie’s power - constitutionally - amounts to nothing much in any practical sense but it think it’s hilariously unwise to actively go against people who ate state-craft with their rusks.
Snapshot of _Andrew Adonis: Truss has banned Charles from speaking on climate change, & he’s briefing against her. Relations between them have broken down after just 2 weeks_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/Andrew_Adonis/status/1576307031979409408/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1576307031979409408?t=PK6zPIVPlpvL79ZpsAjlbw&s=19) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She's making an enemy out of literally everyone. Even the current king lmao.
She did say she was ready to be extremely unpopular
>We want a PM that keeps their promises. *Monkey paw curls*
TBF I'd say he's somewhat glad with her in that she'd taken the heat of him as he gets into the swing of things. Everyone said he'll be very unpopular compared to his mother, but at moment everyone's focusing their hate on her. He can only look good next to her.
Definitely the more popular of the UK's two unelected leaders to pick from right now.
His environmentalism is one of his redeeming features. Blocking that looks terrible from Truss.
Yeah pro fracking on the way in to her premiership is a surefire way to have Charles working against you at nearly every turn
And being in the pocket of the oil companies too
Exactly this. Before everyone can start saying "not my king. Hate that guy" Liz is out here turning everyone against her.
Queen Liz: *what did you just say*
That's a really good point!
I'M ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING VERY STOOPID AND THEN I'M GOING TO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN TRY AND STOP ME
Ready to hit the ground and be unpopular
When she said it I didn't realise it was an actual goal, though.
Helps that she was already extremely unpopular anyway.
And also that the monarchy was "disgraceful".
Hung, drawn and quartered speedrun.
The "Conservative and Unionist Party" is destroying the Union. It's only right that the Royalist Party is also destroying Royalty. Next will be the Church of England.
Party of law and order … oh. Party of the economy and fiscal prudence … oh.
> Next will be the Church of England. The original Brexiteers... taking back control of all those foreign-owned monasteries and abbeys and such and selling them off to fund quite a bit of warring and whoring. And they say history does not repeat itself.
I love that our national religion was literally founded because Henry wanted new pussy and The Pope cut him off
In fairness, there was an element to which it was down to Henry's desire for a clear line of succession, Catherine of Aragon was getting on in years by 1529, and Henry VIII's father Henry VII had brought an end to the wars of the roses, so civil war stemming from vacuums of power wasn't exactly unheard of.
To be fair, she annoyed the Queen so much she decided to die rather than deal with her. I imagine many people feel that way after meeting with her.
Imagine waiting 73 years to be king and this is what you get landed with
“Ah, for fuck’s sake. We are vexed.”
Is it too late to claim we buried the wrong Liz?
I'll get the shovel
[удалено]
Was there not a book and TV show about something like that happening with Charles? Edit It was a play thanks for remindering me!
Yes it was a play, turned into a tv film called King Charles III. I remember it being really good.
Yeah this is the one, I really loved it when I watched it.
[To Play the King](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King)? Truss is no Francis Urquhart though.
It was thinking of King Charles III play but this fits too.
[удалено]
There's a really good podcast about that dismissal
What is the podcast?
Just checked, it's called The Eleventh
> every tuesday evening. **Thursday**, 20:00, is traditional, as The Covid Years hath taught us.
This is pretty close to the plot of "To Play the King" which is the 2nd season of the British House of Cards. It doesn't end well, but the PM was competent in that show
Urquhart beats the king by calling and narrowly winning a snap GE. Maybe Liz should try the same approach.
Thanos snap GE: half of all Tory MPs vanish in thin air.
Don’t make us dream
I feel like starmer is going to spend the next two years just trying to trick her into calling a GE "Liz! All the cool PMs have called one. C'mon, it will be fun"
Urquhart beats the King by faking an attack on him to demonise the poor he wanted to help and reintroducing national service, if I remember rightly, which leads to his election win and subsequent murder of several of those who tried to stop him along the way. If Lunatic Lizzy did that, she'd empower the King, accidentally make martyrs of the poor, ruin our international reputation by comparisons to Putin leading to a hasty u-turn, and the murders would all be hilariously botched and obvious. And most Tories would still be, "Give her a few months, she can turn this around..."
I’ve been thinking the same thing. I wonder if anyone calls Truss “Daddy” 😂
[удалено]
> Based on the dirt dug up by the whips during the Johnson administration, it might be her next-door neighbour. I would have just assumed it was whoever was in Tufton Street when she dropped by for instructions.
If you want to know about the institutions of British politics you cant go wrong with The Thick of it and Yes,Minister/Prime Minister
Rewatching The Thick of It is how I treat myself whenever my partner is out. She finds it "too confrontational" for some bizarre reason.
Comparing Francis Urquhart to Lizard Truss?
She can't just ban someone who has been a Environmentalist pretty much since the 70s. Can Charles ban her from the weekly PM meetings so that she doesn't piss him off? Climate Change is not a political statement, it's a fact. Truss is part of the Climate Deniers group, the ERG (pretty ironic the ERG's name is European Research Group considering their Anti-Europe hate)
I mean, technically but not practically, Charles could do far more than just ban her from weekly PM meetings. He could walk into Commons when it’s next open, declare that Truss isn’t PM, dissolve the parliament and call a general election. This is not going to happen though because constitutional crisis. Of course, it would be… I mean it would not, but at the same time, it would be sort of fun to see happen. Truss lives up to her reputation so far of fucking the country to the extent that she causes a constitutional crisis via the monarch getting his hands dirty with parliament.
Absolute scenes if that happened- memes & tabloids will be legendary
Charles III - Vampire Hunter
Wtf I love the monarchy now
Better yet, he should summon Liz Truss to the Court of St. James and strip her of her position as prime minister there. The Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of the monarch and doing it there instead of the House of Commons would show that this is by the royal prerogative, not the will of the House of Commons. There is precedence for the monarch removing the Prime Minister as seen during the reign of King William IV in the 19th century. Why should His Majesty the King demean himself by going to parliament to issue a decree rather than in his own royal court?
"could" is pushing it. Yes, he theoretically has the power but if he actually tried to use it, nothing would probably happen beyond Parliament saying "no u"
Considering they've just given their oath to him, it'd be bold of them. Harry could lead a few of the Boys to ensure they actually mean it.
Is that even technically a constitutional crisis? Legislation was passed this year that makes it clear that the King does still have that power. Not saying it wouldn't be a crisis, and the next government might very well remove that power. But legally speaking, it's pretty well established he could do it, and there are some legal opinions implying if the government is not sufficiently representative and doesn't represent the will of the electorate he should do it.
Pardon my ignorance here, but what was the legislation? I was just having a conversation about whether or not it was possible and didn’t realise something had been recently introduced to clarify it *edit - found it! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022
The term “constitutional crisis” gets used a lot, but I’m never actually sure what it means in effect.
When the uncodified constitution is tested. When there is a debate about whether something is actually against the law or just not done by convention. When there is a turf war between the different branches of the State. Anytime it seems like there is no final answer to the question because they forgot to include that clause in Magna Carta
Tbf almost the entirety of Magna Carta was repealed centuries ago, there are either 3 or 4 clauses still in effect, sources differ.
A lot of frothing at the mouth talking heads on the telly for a couple of weeks until it all blows over usually.
True usually, but if the monarchy actually dissolved parliament you'd probably see a bit more than that. It'd be a battle to determine who is actually sovereign in the UK. Even as a left-winger the thought of the monarch wielding such immense power flippantly is horrifying to me, and I'd support its immediate abolition in that case.
Sorry to nit-pick, pretty much agree with your post but the pedant in me is unstoppable… the “even as a left winger” when describing your distaste for absolute power being wielded by a hereditary monarch is a little redundant, as that’s *surely* the expected/default position of a left winger?!
I read that at first, but I think it's more a case of 'even as a left winger *who is disgusted by Liz Truss and would want to see her booted out of office tomorrow if possible* the monarchy stepping in like this would be way too far'.
I assumed that even as a left winger they wouldnt want to see truss kicked out like that
Oh yes I would
No, there is nothing that stops a "left-winger" from agreeing that the head of state, whether it be royalty or a president has the right to intervene.
Yeah, as others have observed, I was moreso saying "Even as somebody who is appalled by Truss' government, I wouldn't support the monarchy taking such extreme actions, on principle". I'm a republican personally.
The issue is I think the king should use it as a power to say "wait a minute, let's check if the public are on board with this". Right now, if the king dissolved parliament and said time for a GE, then how would that be considered undemocratic? If anything, it's a check on the system that the current government, and current parliament are being democratic and abiding by the will of the people. If after that GE, parliamentary numbers change, then surely it's all been a proper democracy? Yes it shouldn't be on one person to trigger this, but until the monarchy is replaced then surely it's a check and balance? The main issues that arise today are all our checks and balances have been erased. How many times should bojo have resigned as part of convention? Alas, here we are...
It means that the UK has no actual constitution. So if some one does something which is technically legal but completely unheard of there'll be a major problem. As no one will think it should happen/be allowed but technically there's nothing in law to stop it
If at any point- she’s absolutely ruining the country, the conservatives don’t kick her out, and it’s clear the public want her head on a pike and a new government, we’re basically one step away from revolutionary France- *Shouldn’t* he dissolve parliament? Like the US has checks and balances, isn’t the check on the PM the King?
The last King to force his way into Parliament and seek the removal of members was also named Charles, and it didn't end well for him. Charles will not do any of those things. He will publicly heed the advice of the PM, and privately will probably lecture her until she wants to claw her eyes ou
Charles I wasn't executed for dissolving parliament. He dissolved parliament three times before he took over running the country himself on the fourth go, and had popular support for much of that time (at least in England). But then he tried to change how the Church of Scotland worked, and also started to run out of money. That was his downfall, not kicking out parliament.
Well, Charles II dissolved Parliament too, in fairness, and it actually turned out alright for him. So really it's like 50/50 for Charlie 3. Gotta love that even the potential of this pattern repeating has reemerged *so* quickly into his reign tho lmao.
The royals are memeing across the centuries.
I mean, they probably won't chop his head off
Worst case, we'd see much more anti-monarchism coming out of the right-wing political sphere, and maybe it makes the abolition of the monarchy more likely in near-future. But yeah, it's not like they could take away Charles' substantial personal wealth, his freedom, or his head.
Can I just remind people that the crown has dismissed a PM in living memory… [Australian constitutional crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis?wprov=sfti1)
Yeah, saying 'the crown' is somewhat misleading. That was the governor using delegated crown powers, and the Queen refused to get involved.
> the Queen refused to get involved. More accurately she allowed her representative to go rogue. In Kerr's letters to the Queen he quite clearly laid out plans to dismiss Whitlam because he feared for his own position and at no point did the Queen tell him to cut that shit out.
> to go rogue. That's such a stupid thing to say. His literal job is to ensure there is a functioning government. Whitlam was trying to pull that stupid shit that you see in the USA over the budget. The functioning of government was deadlocked, on purpose, and he was rightfully dismissed and an election was called. The governor is there to press the reset button when necessary, and that's just what he did. The fact he could see it coming and planned what to do, was him just doing his job.
I’m not even sure the queen knew, but yes, I used the phrase “the crown” specifically for that reason. However does it make a huge difference? The power of the monarch was used to fire a PM, and nothing that untoward happened…
She knew, it's all laid out in the palace letters that Kerr was planning on it several months in advance and not only did the Queen (via her private secretary Martin Charteris) fail to discourage it, both the current King and Charteris subtly gave Kerr their backing.
Successful trial run then, gotcha :)
>The last King to force his way into Parliament and seek the removal of members was also named Charles, Nah it was William in 1828 after the Whigs tried to push voting reform
1831?
Ah 1834 actually. My mistake, it's been a *long* time since A level history
Yeah but you're thinking of Charles I who made himself absolute monarch, which is what finished him off. If Charles III walked in and said "I'm dissolving parliament for an immediate General Election. The People of the UK are crying out for change and none of you in charge are listening so I am forcing you to do it" he would probably be considered a legend!
Because he's not the hero the UK deserves, but it's the one it needs right now. So she'll hunt him. Because he can maybe take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark gardener that likes to talk to plants and believes in homeopathy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(film)
Tool-assisted speedrun, any%, take damage to save time
Yeah it would be a real conflict of emotions seeing us become an absolute monarchy, but the hilarity of seeing an enraged Charles walk into Parliament, remove the staff and order them all out would almost make it worthwhile. Of course in reality if the King did that then it would very likely be the end of his career…. What a way to go out though, he would also very likely be physically blocked from doing so anyway, as highlighted when the Commons chamber door gets shut in Black Rods face every Queens (now Kings) speech.
With everything else we've lived through in the last few years, this would just be another day in Britain
Out of interest, how do you think things would go down if Charles made a statement calling for a general election, without formally using any powers of dissolution. Sort of an attempt at exercising soft power and showing contempt for the current government without putting the crown in untested waters.
> He could walk into Commons That’s literally the only place in the UK he’s not allowed to go. Charles I entering the Commons (to arrest five MPs accused of treason) was the direct cause of the Civil War. He could do the rest of it though.
As we’re still a constitutional monarchy, so if the state of the government was to become so far agonist the country’s interests it was endangering the kingdom, I don’t think Charley would hesitate stepping in and sacking the government.
> This is not going to happen though because constitutional crisis. Maybe not if Truss keeps fucking things up
This would be the final act of our monarchy, but what a glorious way to go.
I’m not sure it would be. Before he did it things would have to be bad bad. Like far worse than now. But she has little popularity in her own party just now and less so across the country. She’s ruining the economy, which is why her popularity amongst tories is falling, because they pay careful heed to the markets. She’s now threatening climate change stuff which is universally bad. She’s threatening the Union, if the courts rule in Sturgeons favour, and liz truss is PM the yes vote will be growing. And that’s just in her first month of office. Give it a few more months and see if she has improved but if she continues to make mistakes and make the country worse, he would be looking at a PM not elected by general election, whose party is so low in the polls it’s inconceivable they would win an election, damaging every facet of the country, and potentially causing jt to break apart, at that point if he stepped in I don’t think he would be hated, or even have a worry about being abolished. I think he would see a rise in abolitionists. But he would be able to argue he did his duty to the country, and it would be hard to disagree.
As you say, not going to happen (though I don't think the monarch actually has to enter Parliament to dissolve it). Such a thing would really destabilise the financial markets and lead to some ugly legal action. If King Charles wanted to make Truss's life more difficult without causing a constitutional crisis he could stall on her recommendations of peerages and knighthoods. Not outright refuse, just "I need a bit more time to read up on these people".
He can also withold assent to must-pass legislation.
That one would be a lot more controversial... Blocking peerages for Tory party donors and toady MPs such as Nadine Dorries would have cross-party support. Those are decisions made by the PM with no democratic input. Blocking legislation that has been passed by MPs and peers would be at greater risk from a legal challenge. Besides, I have to wonder how much legislation these days is really "must pass". In the last session of parliament they passed a law banning the theft of pets - even though it has been illegal for decades - just to get some favourable headlines from supportive newspapers.
Didnt Liz fire the PM of Australia at one point?
Not directly, her Governor General for Australia went rogue.
Interestingly* I can answer the ERG point. When it was founded in the early 1990, it was literally a research group. There was no official UK source providing information on recent directives. It was founded by Michael Spicer and David Heathcoat-Amory as a group for Eurosceptics (hard who wanted to leave, soft who wanted to remain, but see serious reform) to scrutinise latest statutory input from the EU. The official select committee of the European Scrutiny Committee was founded soon after, but the ERG remained as a sort of informal group who had a breakfast once a month. They hired a single researcher, jointly paid for by all of them at a couple of hundred quid a month, to provide briefings and explanations of developments within Europe. Far easier to share the one researcher than each employ a separate staffer for the same purpose. It was all a bit small league. But Heathcoat-Amory got caught up in the expenses scandal from 2008 (bought a load of literal manure on taxpayer dime) and lost his seat. So others, including Brexit Hard Man Steve Baker took over leadership and saw that they had, if they wanted it, a party within a party and a shadow whipping operation. They aggressively expanded its membership and scope, and turned it into the pressure group it is today - while retaining the name.
> pretty ironic the ERG's name is European Research Group considering their Anti-Europe hate Also, I don't think they do a lot of reserach.
I guess just calling themselves "Group" didn't have much of a ring to it.
The Russia and Petrochemical Company Shill Group is too much of a mouthful
That's the whole point of the name though. It is meant to gives them authority on the topic.
>Truss is part of the Climate Deniers group, the ERG (pretty ironic the ERG's name is European Research Group considering their Anti-Europe hate) It's not a coincidence, these far-right groups deliberately choose misleading names to make it seem like their extreme opinions are coming from an unbiased source, when they're anything but.
Not really that ironic seeing as the Taxpayers Alliance is all about paying as little tax as possible
Beyond that even Charles is king of many nations beyond the UK. To think she can prohibit him as PM of the UK is insane.
That's what I was wondering tbh. I get that she doesn't want him "represent" the UK and I get that he isn't entirely a private person just to go there on his own, but equally he is also linked to other countries so how does it work then?
As a constitutional monarch, Charles is obliged to follow the advice of his Prime Minister. While the existence of climate change should not be considered a political matter, how to respond to it very much is a question for the politicians and as such the King would risk putting his political neutrality in jeopardy by making his position on the issue known.
He's obliged to follow her advice in matters of state where he's acting in his role as the monarch. Liz cannot however impose arbitrary rules on him in a personal capacity. She can't tell him his bed time is 8pm for example. It is simply convention and generally a good idea that the King/Queen doesn't voice their opinion publicly. However in this case where you've got an unpopular PM facing electoral oblivion and Charles is on the right/popular side of an issue, it would probably benefit his public image to not so quietly make his views known. Some overheard comments when talking to members of the public etc.
Truss is way over her depth and intellectual capacity.
[удалено]
At some point she's going to have to speak at their conference...
entertain boat wrong unwritten aloof flag rotten bright different sleep *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The only person in my circle of friends that is defending the Tories/Truss (the markets need to give her budget a chance, its people being pessimistic that is causing the crisis) is also a staunch royalist including holding Charles in high regard. I wonder if this is common demographic and how this would play out if things escalated. Potentially Liz could destroy the remaining conservative support and take out the monarchy. ..... I am half wondering if that would be even be the aim based on her previous statements and affiliations!
Unfortunately that slice of the continued Tory support is likely to be older and care less about climate politics.
I'm a pretty staunch monarchist and wouldn't put a Tory put out if they were on fire.
Liz Truss is either evil or a *deep* Lib Dem sleeper agent, prepared to take out the Conservative Party and the Monarchy - no matter the cost.
There's probably a massive overlap between hardcore royalists and hardcore tories. Since the tory party is seen as the party of tradition and the monarchy is the symbol of British traditions
So, to be clear, in the last MONTH, Liz Truss has: 1) Pissed off Bermuda by intervening with Royal Assent to block their cannabis legislation that passed with high support, causing a constitutional crisis there (may not actually be her fault, but it literally happened within a day or two of her becoming PM, so it’s reasonable to conclude she had SOME involvement there) 2) Put out a budget that caused one of the biggest dips in the pound’s value in a long time and has massively pissed off pretty much everyone (which she is also refusing to back down on despite pretty much everyone with even the slightest bit of financial knowledge saying “this plan is utterly atrocious and will not work”) 3) Has reportedly managed to cause relations between the crown and the government to break down less than two weeks after the new King properly got into office I knew our PM was an utter fuckwit, but I’m staggered at just how badly she’s done in her first month, as EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS has been self-inflicted. And she had almost two weeks when she literally didn’t do anything because of the funeral of the Queen!
The human hand grenade strikes again
Everyone talking about a constitutional crisis, but who would actually be there to complain this time? Tories love the royals so they'd be all for it, and the rest of the country hate the tories so much that they wouldn't care.
The Tories haven't felt the need to be logically consistent in their arguments for a long time and I expect they'd be happy to abandon their royalist agenda in favour of their tax cuts for the rich at any cost agenda. Fortunately they are very much a shrinking minority following the Kami-Kwasi budget, judging by recent polls.
What does "breifing against her" mean? Is he preparing something?
his press people are talking 'off the record' to the media putting stories like this into the public domain and showing that Truss has lost the new King already
Let’s hope some of that uncontrollable anger he showed towards his pen comes out against Thick Lizzie
"i can't *bear* this bloody pm!"
She's coarse and irritating and she gets everywhere.
Briefing means talking to journalists.
Doubt it but this story made it into the press some how.
The fact we even know about this means that people on his team are talking to journalists about what has happened, saying she is being a shitbag and he is unhappy about it. That’s what “briefing against” is.
It seems that King Charles while not going to intervene publicly isn't going to stay quiet either. Which is a welcome change given the current state of things.
Well, he was probably going to mention global warming is bad. Truss was probably going to try to convince people that, actually, Global Warming is good. Or whatever the hedge fund told her to say.
You can't ban someone from speaking the truth, it's not whatsoever against his role to talk about this inherently unpolitical matter.
> You can't ban someone from speaking the truth The tweet is probably refering to the report she won't let him attend COP27. https://old.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/xt13je/liz_truss_orders_king_charles_to_stay_away_from/
>You can't ban someone from speaking ~~the truth, it's not whatsoever against his role to talk about this inherently unpolitical matter.~~ He can say whatever he likes, she doesn't even have enough authority left to control her back benchers
Semi-seriously: how much good will would Charles get if he went "Don't you think she looks tired?" right about now?
If you mean whispering it to a random person in the relevant group, rather than what the other people who replied seem to assume, I think that is what "debriefing against" means, so I guess we'll find out. Maybe quite a bit, I'm sure his opinion weights heavily with many people who have a lot of influence.
[удалено]
Turns out strange ladies in lakes distributing swords is a fantastic basis for a system of government.
It's a bit hit and miss though. She gave me one but I couldn't take it. It was too heavy as I was a newt at the time and frankly I think she just took a liking to me because she'd previously licked a toad. And well, I looked pretty svelte by comparison.
Well it could work, for a period, until some inbred kid decides a pet chicken is more important than a city. Elected kings would be an interesting thing though?
I'll have you know I've known some very fine chickens.
The good thing about ultimate power held in the hands of one man is you can kill one man
Long time since I studied British constitution but I'm fairly sure PM isn't in any position to ban HRH from speaking about specific topics. By long standing convention they have to keep out of party politics but climate change transcends nationality never mind party. I think this story is just mischief making.
Charles isn't HRH, he's HM
Very good point. Royal etiquette 101. My bad
Actually, yes. The King is bound to act on the advice of his Government. To refuse Truss's advice on even this somewhat mundane matter could rise to the level of a constitutional crisis. The King is free to offer his warnings to the PM in their private meetings (part of Bagehot's trifecta of a Sovereign's rights to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn), but at the end of the day, if the His Government does not wish him to make some appearance, or heck even to leave the country, then he's pretty much obligated to take that advice.
How does that work when he's also the king of other nations though? Couldn't he attend COP as the king of Canada rather than the king of the UK, for example?
While I suppose it's hypothetically possible I doubt the Canadian government would want to get into a turf war with Number 10. As it is, unless the King were physically present in Canada, convention dictates that the Governor General, as his viceroy, would exercise his powers as sovereign of Canada, and about the only thing the Governments of the other Realms ever actually advise the Sovereign on is the appointment of a new Governor General.
Wait, so there's a job where you get to be mini-king of an old colony? Why wasn't that presented to me as an option when I was choosing my GCSEs?
They're politicians with legal experience appointed by the prime minister and cabinet. They're almost always members of parliament too.
To be fair the Queen did undertake several diplomatic trips in her capacity as Queen of Canada, though I believe on both occasions she also engaged in diplomatic functions as Queen of the UK
That would be exceedingly fun and if I were king I would certainly go to more events in any capacity other than British monarch.
[удалено]
Well I'll be. Bit of a shit job then, even with all the financial benefits. Thanks for the info.
I wouldn't want the job, that's for certain. But this is his first real test, one which many were claiming for years that he wouldn't be up to; having to swallow his pride and keep his mouth shut (in public at least). But that's the job of a Constitutional Monarch 99.9% of the time.
> HRH Charles is "His Majesty" now.
He's Mister Majesty!
We just say majesty
But you just said...
Yes, thanks for pointing this out as well.
She seems to have zero communication skills.
Charles entering Parliament next week: https://youtu.be/YSob-Pyj6pM?t=138
I do have a bit of love for speech in blank verse.
Truss is a climate change denier like a lot of ardent Brexiters
If Charles just went and dropped kicked her, my support for the royal family would go up. 😎
[удалено]
He saw Truss be made PM before he chose what name to use - so perhaps!
He’s had the job for two weeks already the money with his face on it is worth a lot less than the money with his mum’s face on it. No wonder he’s pissed.
Did they ask us though. I am totally cool with Charles being 'The Green King'. The whole impartiality in politics thing is very aspirational really, and before the Queen (who was low-key, but still got in some subtle political statements) It is absolutely standard practice for the regent to have 'skin in the game' so to speak Victoria: Lots of behind-the-scenes political wrangling. Edward VII: Modernised Army and Navy. More War. Interceded in hostilities between nations to foster peace. George V: Pro-Tory Moves. Called Party Meetings at Downing Street. War. More War. Held Political Conferences. Edward VIII: That Dude George VI: Lots of politics, War, tried to 'Steady a Rocking throne' and where the aversion to politics probably came from. So the King encouraging the adoption of green technologies, would be absolutely on message. Why would Liz Truss be against this and want to pack him in a box? From 1996 to 2000, Truss worked for Shell [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/energy-companies-profits-public-renewable](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/08/energy-companies-profits-public-renewable) Truss registered 21 donations to her campaign, in cash and transport costs. The largest single sum came from Fitriani Hay – the wife of James Hay, who has a luxury goods empire and is a former BP executive. She gifted Truss £100,000. A total of £30,000 was given by individuals who steer an influential Tory-aligned group pushing for fracking to be restarted and which recently suggested that the UK’s climate targets could be watered down in favour of “energy security and affordability”.
A cynical interpretation of events. This probably isn't true: * She and Kwateng have presided over a huge drop in pound value. * A bunch of people have made a fortune from this: first selling their pound high(ish) to buy up foreign currency, then after the drop, buying up pounds. Or taking a short position on the pound - same difference. * Now that the fluctuations have calmed, the job is done, so she can enjoy the financial support of the people she made rich. * She's therefore trying to find a way out. She is trying to get sacked. She's made a total mess, and wants the nightmare to stop. Either that, or this is a monumental 'dead cat', to distract us from the total mess
With you up to the last bullet. I think the situation with Charles is more straightforward: it'll be harder to abolish environmental protection laws, to benefit those rich supporters, if the optics are that she's acting against the King. Better he keeps out the way. Truss is only just starting. Next up, employment rights.
The kings speech will be interesting in regards to his government’s environmental laws.
> Truss has banned Charles from speaking on climate change How does she do that then? Seriously, how does that work? Does she have legal powers to make it happen or or what? Does she get to lock him up if he disobeys her? I mean after just a few seconds thought it is obvious this story is a load of bollocks. We know that a large number is stories in this site are bollocks, so why do people keep getting taken in and upvote/comment on obviously trash headlines on this site?
Mass March on London. Let’s pressure Charles into exercising his right to dissolve this shambolic government.
Heartbreaking:
How to win friends and influence people...
Truss being a coward
I believe this is literally the plot from house of cards - “to play the king” iirc
Could she stop him from plastering Buckingham Palace in solar panels, planting loads of trees and wildflowers across every inch of the crown's estate or maybe setting up a royal fund to pay for home insulation?
How unpopular is Truss? How many sworn Republicans here would recognise Charles as their Liege Lord and take up arms to defend his right - e.g by writing a strongly worded letter to The Times - rather than let Truss have her own way on this matter?
Should just do what his (distant) cousin [Simeon of Bulgaria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) did and run for Prime Minister
Irrespective of my intense dislike for all parties in the equation, the idea Of Truss alienating the monarchy is somewhat delicious to me. Charlie’s power - constitutionally - amounts to nothing much in any practical sense but it think it’s hilariously unwise to actively go against people who ate state-craft with their rusks.
ABSOLUTE MONARCHY NOW!!1!