What now for UK politics under King Charles III?

14 September 2022 , categories: Meetings

Following the recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II, we discussed the implications for UK politics under King Charles III.

In advance of our meeting on 14th September 2022, the following article was circulated as food for thought:


As always during our meetings, a mixture of views was expressed during the course of the evening.

They included praise for the Queen’s long service, and admiration for keeping her vow to serve and stay out of politics, without revealing her own political views.   Others felt she was not politically neutral because she represented ‘the establishment’, including all political parties, and the British system of democracy – which, some argue, mostly fails to serve its citizens.

Some felt that King Charles had made a good start in the days since his mother’s death, but that his reign was likely to encourage more republicanism.  Reference was made to Charles’s intention to modernise and reduce the royal family.

Charles’s promise to be politically neutral and refrain from voicing his own political interests came under scrutiny.  He has spoken out on so many issues during his time as Prince of Wales it is hard to believe that becoming king transformed him – overnight – into an apolitical monarch.  Some wondered if he intends to pursue his political objectives behind the scenes via another outlet – the new Prince of Wales, for example.

Some expressed criticism over Charles’s involvement with networks such as the World Economic Forum, United Nations and COP26, and speeches given by him over the years relating to the ‘Great Reset’, ‘Build Back Better’ and ‘Net Zero’.  As head of state, will he be representing the best interests of UK citizens, or is he following one or more other agenda?

Charles’s role as defender of the faith came into question, due to the reduction of people participating in organised religion.  The ability of organised religion to provide ‘absolutes’ for moral and behavioural guidance for its followers, the apparent decision of Christian faiths to step back from this role in deference to other orators, and the impact of this development upon British society also came up.  Some agreed that the human hardwiring which drives us to conform and fit in, is causing us to become followers of new ‘religions’ (complete with doctrine, chants, and intolerance of doubters and heretics) such as Net Zero, the NHS and Government policy on Covid.

The role and continuation of the Commonwealth was discussed, and whether the members currently sharing the UK’s head of state, will continue to do so.  The trade benefits of Commonwealth membership, and tax haven opportunities were highlighted.

We talked about the need for a head of state.  Some felt the head of state acted as the nation’s poster boys and girls to promote the UK overseas.   Others felt it was useful to have continuity, constitutional expertise, and an order of succession as a long-serving, apolitical, national figurehead.

Some felt that this week’s media coverage of recent royal events had been informative regarding the role of a constitutional monarchy, and its relationship with the government, and citizens.  Explanation of the origins and symbolism of British pageantry and state rituals is also of value.

Others felt it was media overkill and the concept of ‘social mania’* was raised.  In other words,  with the bombardment of continuous media coverage to the exclusion of all other news stories, came overt and covert messaging that the ‘correct’ response of the entire British public to the Queen’s death was to experience and express “an outpouring of love and grief”.

There was also talk of Truss’s conduct since becoming Prime Minister two days before the royal death – some felt she had presented herself well, while others felt she would soon be undermined by her narrow support base.

Some spoke of Truss’s energy statement in Parliament before news of the Queen’s passing was made public, and the Government’s disastrous energy policy, on interference with free markets, dishonest energy pricing policies, and whether the political emphasis on renewable sources of energy was based on junk science.

*For an explanation of Lionel Shriver’s term ‘social mania’, please see the article below: