King Charles wants a cookie for not interfering in Liz Truss’s political calamity

King Charles III has lost his first prime minister. Charles and Liz Truss were both new on their respective jobs back in that dreadful week in September, when Charles’s mother died shortly after meeting Liz Truss. I’m not saying Liz Truss’s presence killed the queen, but I’m not NOT saying it either. In any case, Truss’s government has come to an inglorious end in just a brief 44 days. What a wild ride it was – Charles barely got a chance to brief against Truss, but he did make one valiant effort when he practically gave a full interview to the Times about how Truss banned him from going to a climate conference. Still, the new king demands a cookie for not “interfering” in the Tory political crisis in the first seven weeks of his reign. From Vanity Fair’s curious story about how King Charles weathered the Truss storm:

Charles’s penultimate meeting with Truss: When King Charles III and then prime minister Liz Truss convened at Buckingham Palace for their first weekly meeting on October 12, the recently installed monarch tried to lighten the mood with a quip in a video that was later distributed to the press. “So you’ve come back again?” he asked. “Dear, oh, dear.” The BBC later reported that he was commenting on a logistics snafu that meant she had been to the palace twice that day. But as frustration mounted with Truss and the financial and political crises she had seemingly sparked in a matter of weeks as prime minister, Charles’s apparently weary comment seemed to reflect the national mood. Ultimately, it might be all we ever hear from the king about the last month of tumult at 10 Downing Street.

Please give Charles a cookie for not interfering: Though Charles is famously opinionated, he has said he understood his job would change when he became king. It was always going to be a difficult adjustment no matter what was going on in the British government, but Truss’s struggles with her own party have likely outstripped his nightmares. In that sense, his ability to serve as head of state without making waves throughout the Truss tenure may mark the first major test of his reign. To remain silent on the declining ratings and grim economic outlook, the king instead engaged in a bit of counterprogramming, [making appearances to charities and initiatives in Scotland and London.]

Charles looked busy & stable compared to Truss’s wall-to-wall shambles: It was a good example of why the monarchy has come to stand for stability—as the head of state, his schedule isn’t at the whims of a functioning government. But of course, there must be limits to how long the diplomatic work can continue while everything else is in shambles.

Neutral Charles: From the death of Queen Elizabeth II to the fiscal crisis caused by the introduction of a budget calling for ample tax cuts, Truss’s six weeks at the helm of the British government were uniquely complicated, and Charles made it through without compromising his neutrality or weighing in publicly. But the challenges facing the British political system are just beginning, and an energy crisis is just around the corner. If the Conservative Party can’t come to a solution that pleases the general public, it will raise questions about the ability of the constitutional monarchy to function in its current form.

[From Vanity Fair]

Again, I have to underline the point: a nearly 75-year-old man – an actual KING – is desperate for credit and praise for not inserting himself into the political catastrophe that is the Tory Party. Charles desperately wants people to see him as a wise elder statesman, so he has to POINT OUT that he was not doing anything while the British government imploded in a blaze of bad policy, Tory-on-Tory crime and general incompetence. I mean, it’s true – he didn’t insert himself. Truss burned out in 44 days without any interference from Charles. But surely one could ask: if the point of a monarch is to not do anything, even in a time of calamitous political crisis, then what’s the point of having a monarch?

Also: the whole reason King Charles III didn’t insert himself into the Trusshambles is because his focus for the past month has almost solely been on his unhinged campaign against The Crown.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Jane Barlow/Avalon.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

42 Responses to “King Charles wants a cookie for not interfering in Liz Truss’s political calamity”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Emily_C says:

    How is someone a “statesman” for doing absolutely nothing? A head of state who actually did things would be more useful I’d think.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      Modern monarchy is merely a decorative institution. They have very little say in matters of state. The royal family is like having porcelain figurines in your living room, they don’t call the shots in the household. The royals cost a lot of money to support yearly but the United Kingdom is so wealthy most of the taxpayers don’t care.

      • Snuffles says:

        Like a royal Elf on a shelf watching over and terrifying you in the middle of the night.

      • AlpineWitch says:

        “The UK is so wealthy most taxpayers don’t care”

        Hmm, no – a majority of working class taxpayers are actually convinced they’re not paying for them and that the BRF is a rich institution that gets money from tourism and their estates.
        I wish I was joking but I had this conversation many times with working class people and they’re totally unaware how it works.

        If this was widely known, the monarchy would have 20% in the polls, believe me.
        Also the UK enjoys the widest gap between rich and poor in Western Europe, and the monarchists also hold the most of the UK wealth in their hands.

      • Flowerlake says:

        @Alpine Witch, didn’t know about the widest gap between rich and poor, but am not surprised.

        I hope it becomes better known how the RF obtains money.

  2. Moderatelywealthy says:

    ” Tory-on-Tory crime “- love this expression!

    • Flowerlake says:

      I know right? Brilliant article.

      Also “his unhinged campaign against The Crown.” made me laugh

  3. Snuffles says:

    I mean, Truss clearly flamed out on her own, but I’m sure Charles joined the chorus of people who wanted her gone.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think he’s probably glad she’s gone sooner rather than later, but he’s got to be a little worried about what comes next. Oh well Charles, I heard there’s a new season of an Emmy-winning show coming to Netflix on November 9, you might find solace watching that.

    • Josephine says:

      The thing is, she did exactly what she said she was going to do. So she may have done that all on her own, but her party put her in position precisely because she promised to do what she did. I guess they didn’t calculate how horribly unpopular it was going to be. I have zero sympathy for her but it’s really the entire party that flamed out but they will, of course, blame it on the woman.

      • DK says:

        I’ve read her party put in her in charge on purpose – so she’d crash and burn, thus paving the way for BoJo to come back.

        Sounds to me like the Conservative Party has just been f’ing around with the lives of real UK residents for their own power plays.

        I’m American so I don’t understand this, can anyone explain: who gets to decide when there is a general election? By now, after so many PMs in a row have flamed out in votes of no confidence, scandal, etc., wouldn’t most UK voters be eager for a chance to elect someone new, possibly of a different party? But all this Prime Minister turnover seems to be decided by members of one party only?

        How is this not…on the verge of a totalitarian government if only the ruling party gets to decide who is in charge, when elections occur, etc., despite so many of them clearly doing a bad job?

        (I don’t mean that to be offensive, I hope it doesn’t come across as such. And obviously between the Electoral College and voter suppression, not to mention TFG, I don’t mean to suggest the US system is without serious issues and isn’t running into its own type of fascism. Just trying to understand what’s going on in the UK!)

  4. Esmerelda says:

    What I’m getting from this:
    – this very article is Charles briefing against the Tories
    – no one trusts Charles to keep his mouth shut, he’ll sink the Monarchy sooner rather than later, and the establishment seems reluctantly resigned to the phasing out
    – just my opinion, but if you have an unelected head of state, better for them to do nothing than to interfere when you can’t force them out. Keep Charles busy with “The Crown”, it’s a public service at this point – until the UK has bandwidth to focus on removing the monarchy in an orderly fashion.

    • Colby says:

      I agree especially on the last point. But then I ask, what is the point of someone who does nothing?

  5. Nanny to the Rescue says:

    I thought keeping their mouth shut was the actual role of these monarchs. Elizabeth II did it too.

    He should just stay out of it (it’s not like he could give any valuable input) and parade around wearing a crown and a sceptre. I’d add “and look pretty/handsome”, but that’s not gonna happen within next two monarchs.

  6. C-Shell says:

    “ I’m not saying Liz Truss’s presence killed the queen, but I’m not NOT saying it either. ” 🤣🤣

    QEII might have lived a long life and reign largely trying to avoid and evade controversy, but she picked a fine time to check out and leave behind a real dumpster fire in her wake.

    This article says OUTRIGHT that CIII was doing nothing while the government of which he is the head of state was burning down. Nope. No cookies/biscuits for Chuck.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      Lol my mum lives in another country and she thinks the Queen literally decided to pass away after seeing Truss 🤣🤣

    • Truthiness says:

      In her youth Liz Truss was an anti monarchist, calling it disgraceful. Charles doesn’t deserve what he has now let alone another cookie. Er biscuit.

  7. teehee says:

    …And its men who run most of the world—?

  8. Eurydice says:

    Whew, what a relief! “Charles made it through without compromising his neutrality or weighing in publicly.” So, the time-honored method of sticking one’s head in the sand still works…for the RF.

    • Josephine says:

      my interpretation is this: man who has never had a job in his life will continue to never have a job. living off the dole for his entire life

  9. Brassy Rebel says:

    So the definition of stability is not doing anything while everything around you crashes and burns.

    So now I suppose he’ll go to the climate conference and pretend to be an environmentalist.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Right? That was so odd. Imagine saying your schedule never changes. Never changes! How could that possibly be considered a good thing?

  10. FHMom says:

    Remember her name. She’s sure to be an answer on Jeopardy. Who was the last PM to serve QE2 and the first to serve KC? Or who was the shortest serving PM?

  11. Cerys says:

    This is the one time that a large majority of Brits would be happy if he meddled in politics if it meant a general election would be called.

    • Lady D says:

      Think they are going to call for a general election, Cerys? What I saw on the news last night was civilians everywhere asking for the election. Can they afford to have a general election?

      • Cerys says:

        We can’t afford not to have a general election but I think the Tories will cling to power for as long as they can. I don’t know what it will take the oust them.

      • Lady D says:

        Countries are going to hell in a handbasket all over the flipping world. All we can do is watch. (and vote when they allow us)

  12. Tessa says:

    Charles was busy complaining about the pens and making it known how he felt about the crown.

  13. UNCDANCER says:

    It is all very weird and archaic. The government is formed in his Majesty’s name, but his Majesty can do nothing. At the same time the expectation is the monarchy do public philanthropy but nothing too progressive or political and certainly nothing close to celebrity philanthropy we see in the States. So what are they exactly good for?

  14. Amy Bee says:

    Whatever Charles. He briefed against Liz Truss the first chance he got and he will brief against the new PM too.

  15. Laura D says:

    Maybe he just didn’t have time to interfere. In the past (as POW) he has put a LOT of pressure on ministers to change the law to benefit his estate(s). It also shouldn’t be forgotten his mother wasn’t adverse to using royal assent to change laws if it looked as if she might be losing out. Liz Truss wasn’t in power long enough to dip his oar in. So, I’ll be keeping my cookie; thank you very much.

  16. BeanieBean says:

    ‘His nightmares’? What might those be? Is he lying awake at night wondering if he’ll be able to heat his many castles this winter? Worrying about whether his staff will find enough candles to light his way during the rolling blackouts this winter? Which pen he might have to confront the next day?

  17. kelleybelle says:

    Ugly man, ugly soul. Deplorable. He surely got the face he deserved.

  18. Renae says:

    Now that Truss has wilted, does she retire to her produce farm?

  19. Chantal says:

    C-Rex wants credit just for breathing so congrats? Also, he clearly can’t multi task since he can only try to sabotage one enemy at a time (non butt kissers are enemies)! His current single minded focus on his image is an unknowing favor for the Tories, as they try to regroup. Unfortunately, its quite apparent that this “king” doesn’t give a damn about his “subjects” and the continually brewing disasters around him.

  20. Athena says:

    There’s talk about bringing back Boris, I’m not sure Charles is looking forward to dealing with Boris. Rishi Sunak? that would be interesting, Charles couldn’t handle having a POC as a daughter-in-law, the palaces he resides in only hire POCs in low level staff position, can he handle siting down every week across a POC who is his prime minister.

    At the last go round, the Tories voted in someone who was totally ill prepared for the role so as not to vote in a POC. Now they’re talking about bringing back Boris, so as not to vote for a POC. It’s interesting watching this play out.

    It annoys me that Liz failed, and she failed because she was a bad candidate to begin with but I’m concern that it might translate into women are not up to the job.

    There should not have been an article about how Charles feels about what has happened with the prime minister. This is what comes of having a communication person who lives and breathes tabloid journalism. If Boris comes back it will be a sh*t show with both Charles and Boris leaking against each other.

  21. Jaded says:

    A “Truss” is a belt-like contraption used to hold in a hernia, but in most cases it’s only a temporary stop-gap until surgery can be performed, otherwise the hernia will continue to enlarge.

    I’ll show myself out.

  22. Lucy says:

    “…his schedule isn’t at the whims of a functioning government.”

    I laughed out loud. Readers, not to worry, the King can faff around in his various castles whether the government is drowning or not.

  23. Flowerlake says:

    If it keeps going like this, he might break his mother’s record of having the most prime ministers.

  24. jferber says:

    I don’t think he should be smiling about the train wreck that just happened in his country. His own institution, the Royal Scam, should have burned down centuries ago. He should take no pride in his ancestors who schemed, killed, plundered and caused great injustice, poverty and misery in the world. In his own lifetime, he’s personally done many, if not all, of the horrors I just cited above.