King to show support for Canada and speak from throne 70 years after his mother
King Charles will speak from the Throne of the Parliament of Canada on Tuesday and show his support for the country in its ongoing dispute with President Trump.
It's a moment when Charles, as King of Canada, will officially seal his support for this nation, which has been left feeling vulnerable in the wake of threats from the Trump White House.
Canada might have the second largest area of any country on earth, but repeated assertions by Donald Trump that he will annex his northern neighbour has appeared to unite millions of Canadians.
That Canada is a commonwealth realm, where its head of state remains a monarch who lives in London, has increasingly been seen as a cause around which Canadians can rally, rather than an outdated system of democracy that should be imminently reassessed.
Even many communities from Canada's indigenous groups (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) who might once have had reasons to take issue with the British crown, now regard this visit by King Charles as a moment to show solidarity.
Inuit community leader Natan Obed, who is president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, says King Charles' address to the Canadian parliament on Tuesday is 'unequivocally' a sign that Canada's head of state is picking a side and supporting its right to have an independent and sovereign future.
'We want to show the solidarity that we have with the Crown at this time when there are conversations about the legitimacy of Canada's sovereignty and also the future of this nation state,' Natan Obed said.
Canada's immediate future, in legislative terms at least, will be articulated by the King on Tuesday as he reads words which, just like in the UK, are written for him by his government. King Charles holds an audience with ITK President Natan Obed at Rideau Hall, Ottawa, as part of his two-day visit to Canada. / Credit: PA
He will summarise the new administration's ambitions for the new session – the 45th of the Canadian parliament.
It's a less formal occasion than the ceremonial State Opening that many might recognise in the UK; there are no state crowns or robes, just suits and day dresses.
But there is still an open landau carriage to ride in (weather permitting) and a throne to sit in.
In Ottawa, similarities between Canada's parliamentary system and the one in London are to be found everywhere.
The upper chamber is red, just like the House of Lords – and the monarch (or his/her representative in the governor general) is the only person who can sit on the throne.
But the priority for King Charles on Tuesday will be to cement his role as head of state of Canada, representing the people of this North American country, following an election which was dominated by opposition to Donald Trump.
That means, on Tuesday, Charles' role as head of state of the UK will be paused.
Royal sources insist the King has a deep love of Canada, and he won't be afraid to show it, no matter how that might be received in Washington DC.
The issue of King Charles' invitation to the very same Donald Trump to visit the UK for that 'unprecedented' second state visit is a matter for another day.
And as monarch of 14 other realms outside the UK, his role in Ottawa on Tuesday will not faze this King.
'Underpinning it all are the warm personal relationships he has with leaders right across the globe', a palace source told ITV News when asked about the King's separate roles in the UK and Canada. King Charles with Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney at Rideau Hall / Credit: PA
He's been to Canada 19 times before and is deeply fond of the country, but his 20th visit is the first time Charles has arrived as head of state.
Queen Camilla is also being sworn into the Privy Council of Canada – a move which will mirror what happened in 1957, when Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth, made her first visit as Queen of Canada and Prince Philip was enrolled as a member of the Privy Council here.
'It is an honour that matches the weight of our times,' Prime Minister Carney said. He said it was 'a reminder of the bond between Canada and the Crown'.
The late Queen saw many world events and diplomatic crises.
The one King Charles is navigating this week is well within his comfort zone, insists the palace, and his roles in Canada and in the UK remain 'distinct'.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Why I'm scared by a report about Britain's 'minority white' future
A new study has predicted that 'white British' people are set to become a minority in Britain in the next 40 years. Cue the hysteria. I'm not surprised, it feels like this was exactly the intention behind this report. Conducted by Matt Goodwin of Buckingham University, who is also a regular voice on the right-wing TV channel GB News channel, the research claims that the proportion of white Brits will decline from 73% (where it currently stands) to 57% by 2050. It is then thought that white British people will become a minority by 2063 and that by the end of the century they will only constitute a third of the overall population. Referencing his study's findings, Goodwin said that those in favour of 'maintaining the way of life of the traditional majority population' will need their concerns 'recognised, respected and addressed.' Let's be real about what we're looking at here. This is not an impartial, apolitical study of demographic change. Goodwin's definition is so absurdly broad that figures such as King Charles and Winston Churchill wouldn't be considered 'White British' in this instance. Firstly, Goodwin makes frankly insulting and arbitrary decisions about what exactly is considered 'White British'. He defines this as those without at least one immigrant parent – creating a strange conclusion in which some people seem defined only by their 'foreign' side, creating a two-tiered system in which only those untainted by immigrant blood are considered genuinely 'White British' or native. By his definition, as a Muslim with one English parent and one Libyan, I'm not as British as a white non-Muslim, despite being born and raised here. This only reinforces what I have known my entire life – or at least, since I started looking visibly foreign by first wearing the hijab at 15: That I am always defined by my foreignness and never my Englishness. Goodwin's definition is so absurdly broad that figures such as King Charles and Winston Churchill wouldn't be considered 'White British' in this instance. But it is not white people with an American mother or a Greek father who are accused of diluting the native British population when it comes to studies like these. It's people like me whose brown, Muslim lineage renders me a foreigner, despite me being ethnically just as English as I am Libyan. Why else would Goodwin focus on his headline-grabbing statistic that 1 in 5 Britons will apparently be Muslim by the end of the century. In fact, Goodwin's main report on 'religious projections' doesn't even mention any other faiths, simply categorising the UK population along the lines of Muslim or non-Muslim. This sounds chillingly like 'us versus them', 'good guy versus bad guy' or 'native versus foreigner' – all of which fuel hysteria about a Muslim takeover and label Islam and Britishness as mutual exclusives. In fact, just this week we have seen Reform – a party that many predict could soon find its way in Number 10 – raising the issue of a Burka ban. For many, being British is about more than a passport. It looks, sounds and acts a certain way – and that is not Muslim. Studies like the one released this week embolden those holding Islamophobic views, giving them a statistical basis for their bigotry. Research conducted by someone with such incendiary views should be taken with far more suspicion than we have seen with these findings – but I suppose that doesn't matter when there are some catchy fear-mongering soundbites on offer. While the survey has predictably been used as evidence for lowering immigration levels, beneath the odd (frankly racist) categorisation of British identity, it also paints a picture of the birth rates of different communities in the UK and how that will impact future demographics. Given that Britain's birth rate is at an all-time low, we have seen pronatalist policies slowly creep into the mainstream as politicians panic about what the future will look like if nobody can afford to have babies. But what this survey seems to reinforce is that calls to raise the birth rate aren't simply about providing the nation with the next generation of workers and taxpayers. It is, for many, ensuring that the future face of the west remains white and that the so-called native population reproduces quickly enough to balance out other communities like my own, who traditionally tend to have larger families. Last year a peer in the House of Lords made a speech in which he warned about radical Muslims taking over Britain 'through the power of the womb'. More Trending Every year when the name Muhammad inevitably tops the list of most popular baby names, we see another wave of media-manufactured moral panic that Britain overrun by Muslims unless the white British population has more babies. Reports like these don't just legitimise conspiracy theories like this, they help manufacture them, and attempt to make people like me feel more othered, more unsafe. Who knows what this hypothetical Britain will look like in decades time? But if the children and grandchildren of people like me aren't considered part of the future British population, but a hostile outside force, then things are only going to get worse for all of us. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Donald Trump and Elon Musk might make peace – but it will never last MORE: What does Eid Mubarak mean and how should you reply to the greeting? MORE: Universal digital 'BritCards' on an app could soon be used to prove who you are
Daily Record
8 hours ago
- Daily Record
New DWP update on State Pension payments for people not due annual uprating
Nearly half a million people will not get new State Pension payments of up to £230.25 per week this year. Following the 4.1 per cent rise in April, the full New Sate Pension is now worth £921 every four-week payment period, while the full Basic State Pension has increased to £705.80. However, an estimated 453,000 pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government resulting in them not receiving the annual State Pension uprating. This is despite having paid the necessary amount of National Insurance Contributions to receive the state Pension. Campaigners have fought tirelessly to rectify the policy, but on Thursday the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed it has 'no plans to review such reciprocal social security agreements'. Pensions Minister Torsten Bell gave the written response to Liberal Democrat MP Liz Jarvis, who asked if the DWP 'plans to review its policy on freezing State Pensions for people who move abroad'. Just last month, campaigners wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney ahead of the state opening of parliament on May 27, calling for an end to the so-called 'Frozen Pensions' scandal which affects more than 100,000 expats living in the country. Campaigners urged the former governor of the Bank of England, to 'insist' that addressing the frozen State Pensions 'must form part of any further trade, defence or cultural agreements between the UK and Canada'. Around the globe, some 442,000 British pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government resulting in them not receiving the annual State Pension uprating. The result is that many retired expats living in Canada receive such low levels of UK State Pension that they fall under Canadian minimum income thresholds, thus qualifying for Canadian taxpayer-funded benefits. After Australia, the country is the second largest host of UK pensioners impacted by the Frozen Pensions scandal. In the letter to Mr Carney on May 20, the 'End Frozen Pensions' campaign argues that 'bringing an end to this discrimination would reduce Canada's costs,' insisting that ending the Frozen Pensions policy is now 'a matter of fairness, dignity, and economic justice' that is 'long overdue for resolution.' Second World War veteran, Mrs Anne Puckridge, is among the victims of the Frozen Pensions scandal. The 100-year-old moved to Canada in 2001 to be closer to her daughter and receives just £72.50 per week from the UK State Pension. This is less than half the £176.45 weekly rate she would be entitled to if she had remained in the UK, or lived across the border in the USA. Campaigners said the policy has caused her severe emotional distress as, like most other victims, she says she was never told her UK State Pension would be frozen at the point of emigration. As a result, the Canadian government is providing her with additional means-tested financial support to help her afford basic living costs. At the time, Edwina Melville-Gray, Chair of End Frozen Pensions Canada, said: 'It is clear this outdated and deeply hurtful policy is heightening tensions between Canada and the UK." She explained how the State Opening of Parliament was Mr Carney's "chance to set the record straight and insist that it will no longer tolerate paying for British pensioners in Canada while the UK shows no interest in fulfilling its moral duty towards them". The campaigner continued: "Canada more than meets its end of the bargain here by paying out a fully indexed State Pension to all its citizens worldwide, including Canadians in the UK. Mr Carney should insist that if the UK is to meaningfully trade and negotiate with Canada, it must reconsider its own approach to overseas state pensions.' However, despite the letter and turnout of campaigners on the day to have their voices heard, the topic was not raised. The Canadian government has been publicly calling for an end to the 'Frozen Pensions' policy for over four decades and in October last year, a total of 158 Canadian and UK parliamentarians united to urge the Labour Government to redress the situation. Campaigners are urging Prime Minister Carney to leverage this issue ahead of key trade and defence spending negotiations expected between the two countries amid a complex and volatile geopolitical backdrop. The 'End Frozen Pensions' campaign argues: 'Canada fairly adjusts pensions for its citizens living in the UK, but the UK's refusal to enter into a reciprocal agreement not only creates an unjust disparity but also imposes a financial burden on Canadian social services.'
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: The scathing words Prince Charles uttered when Harry was born because he 'wanted a girl'
It is no secret that King Charles has a strained relationship with his youngest son. After quitting frontline royal duties and moving his young family to California in 2020, the Duke of Sussex, 40, has been left in the dark when it comes to his father's cancer battle, only learning of his recent hospital visit on March 27 through media reports, according to People Magazine. And when Harry flew across the pond in early April to attend a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London - a mere 2.5 miles from Buckingham Palace - he did not meet Charles. But the well-documented rift between father and son may go back even further than royal watchers realise. According to Diana herself, Charles was desperate to have two children - one boy and one girl. 'I knew Harry was going to be a boy because I saw on the scan,' she explained to Andrew Morton for his bestselling book Diana: Her True Story In Her Own Words. 'Charles always wanted a girl. He wanted two children, and he wanted a girl. I knew Harry was a boy, and I didn't tell him.' So when Diana gave birth to their second son Harry in the Lindo Wing of St Mary's Hospital on September 15, 1984, Charles could barely hide his disappointment. 'First comment was: "Oh God, it's a boy," second comment: "And he's even got red hair,"' Diana recounted to her trusted biographer Morton. In his own bombshell memoir Spare, Prince Harry said he was 21 the first time he heard the story of 'what Pa allegedly said to Mummy the day of my birth: "Wonderful! Now you've given me an Heir and a Spare - my work is done." 'A joke. Presumably,' Harry penned. 'On the other hand, minutes after delivering this bit of high comedy, Pa was said to have gone off to meet his girlfriend. So. Many a true word spoken in jest.' Outside the hospital, Prince Charles appeared to hide his true feelings and told the waiting journalists: 'He's wonderful. Absolutely marvellous.' It is no wonder the Diana would go on to tell friends that 'spiritually' their marriage 'ended the day Prince Harry was born', according to Morton. Charles told his official biographer Jonathan Dimbleby that he picked things back up with Camilla in 1986. Meanwhile it is alleged Diana's affair with army captain James Hewitt started around the same time. The royal couple, who had separate bedrooms at their homes for years stopped sharing the same sleeping quarters during an official visit to Portugal in 1987. The next few years saw Charles and Diana plagued with rumours of marital problems, culminating in the blistering tell-all of the collapse of their marriage as published by Morton in 1992. The Princess of Wales had secretly contributed to the book by providing Morton with audio recordings which would later be included in a 2017 ITV documentary. Diana claims in the recordings that Charles's disappointment at having a second boy rather than a girl persevered until Prince Harry's christening on December 21, 1984. After the ceremony at St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle, the future king allegedly told Diana's mother Frances Shand Kydd: 'We're so disappointed, we thought it would be a girl.' Frances then 'snapped his head off' and told him he should 'realise you are lucky to have a child', Diana added. The doomed royal couple announced their separation just months after the publication of Morton's book in 1992 and finalised their divorce in August 1996. Elsewhere in Morton's explosive biography, Diana reveals that the birth of her first son William - the heir - came with its own set of issues. The Princess of Wales told Morton she had to choose a date to be induced that fit around Charles's busy polo schedule. 'When we had William, we had to find a date in the diary that suited Charles and his polo,' she said. 'William had to be induced because I couldn't handle the press pressure any longer, it was becoming unbearable. It was as if everyone was monitoring every day for me.' Princess Diana added: 'Anyway, the boy arrived, great excitement. 'Thrilled, everyone absolutely high as a kite – we had found a date where Charles could get off his polo pony for me to give birth.
