Welcome to the Deep Dive. We jump straight into
the source material to get you fully informed
fast. Today we're diving deep into King Charles
III, Charles Philip Arthur George, the man who
spent, well, basically his entire adult life
in a very public apprenticeship. It's really
quite something when you think about it. He wasn't
just the longest serving heir apparent in British
history. He also became the oldest person ever
to actually take the throne. 73 years old. 73.
An heir apparent basically from the moment his
mother... Elizabeth II became queen back in 1952.
He was just, what, four? Four years old. Yeah.
So he officially became Duke Cornwall, Duke Rothesay,
all those titles instantly. He passed Edward
VII's record for longest wait way back in 2011.
And that, wait, that's really the core of what
we want to unpack today, isn't it? 70 years in
the public eye. 70 years forming views, building
things, weathering. Frankly, huge personal crises.
So our mission in this deep dive is to explore
that preparation. How does a man known for being,
let's say, passionate... interventionist even,
and someone who went through so much private
turmoil, how does he prepare for and then step
into the role of a strictly neutral monarch?
Yeah. We'll be looking at his pretty unique education,
those very public, very polarizing marriages,
and his surprisingly deep activism on everything
from, well, buildings to environmentalism. It's
a fascinating journey. Okay, so let's start right
at the beginning. Born 1948, Buckingham Palace,
Caesarian section, which was noted. at the time.
But his path afterwards, educationally, was really
quite new for an heir, wasn't it? Completely
new. I mean, the big thing is he was the first
heir apparent to actually go to school. No more
just private tutors hidden away. Right. That
was a very deliberate break. Started at Hill
House School in 56, then Cheem School. But the
place that really looms large in his story, and
maybe not always positively, is Gordonstone.
Ah, Gordonstone. The famously tough boarding
school in Scotland. His father, Prince Philip,
went there too. He did. And this is where...
As you said, the narrative gets complicated.
Charles, in that authorized biography, called
it coldets and kilts. Wow. Yeah. He blamed his
father, suggesting Philip ignored his more sensitive
nature and just forced him into this really rough
environment. Sounds like he felt quite isolated.
Reports of bullying, too. That image of him being
miserable there definitely stuck for years. It
dominated the press. Yeah. And the sources back
up that emotional difficulty. But, and this is
important, his view seemed to, let's say, evolve
over time. Later on, Charles actually praised
Gordonstoun. Really? After coldets and kilts?
Well, he said it taught him a great deal about
myself and my own abilities and disabilities.
He even followed his father in becoming head
boy. And more recently, became its patron in
2024. So it's complex. A lifelong kind of negotiation
with those expectations, maybe. Maybe that time
away helped. He had a break in 66, didn't he?
Spent some time in Australia. Yes, absolutely
crucial. Two terms at Timbertop, the Geelong
Grammar School campus in Victoria. He described
that as the most enjoyable part of his entire
education. Much freer, less stifling than Gordonstoun,
it seems. And after leaving school in 67, he
kept breaking the mold straight to university,
not the military first. Exactly. Another huge
departure from royal norms. He had Trinity College,
Cambridge, started with archaeology and anthropology,
interestingly, then switched to history. And
he made that effort to learn Welsh, too, didn't
he? Preparing for the Prince of Wales role. He
did spend a term at the University College of
Wales in Aberystwyth, specifically studying Welsh
history and language. That was, you know, Correctly
relevant to his future investiture. Which all
led to another first for the monarchy. Yes. Charles
graduated in 1970, becoming the first British
heir apparent ever to earn a university degree.
People often point to the grade. The 2 .2, lower
second class honors. For our audience who followed
this closely, that detail often comes up. Was
it seen as a bit disappointing or just amazing
he did it at all? Overwhelmingly, it was seen
as a massive achievement. You have to remember
the context. Before him, it was tutors, maybe
some military college. The media focus wasn't
really on the 2 .2, which is a perfectly respectable
pass. By the way, it was the fact he was there
sitting exams alongside everyone else. Right.
It instantly modernized the perception of royal
education. He later got his Master of Arts in
75 too, just following the standard Cambridge
practice at the time. So degree in hand, he then
did fulfill that more traditional expectation,
military service. But it sounds like it was pretty
hands -on. Oh, absolutely. Not just ceremonial.
His service ran from 1971 to 1976. He actually
started his RAF training while still at Cambridge.
Got his wings in 71. Then it was off to the Royal
Naval College, Dartmouth. Served on proper warships,
HMS Norfolk, Minerva. Jupiter. He didn't just
get handed things. He qualified as a helicopter
pilot, too, right? And commando training. Yes.
Qualified helicopter pilot at RNAS Yeovilton
and did the demanding commando course at Limestone.
You don't just breeze through those. His final
stint the last 10 months was actually commanding
a ship. Commanding. A real command. A real command.
The coastal mine hunter, HMS Bronnington. So
he held a proper command rank before retiring
as a commander in 1976. But his flying days ended
quite suddenly later on. There was an incident.
There was. A serious one in 1994. He was actually
a passenger on a BA -146 aircraft of the Queen's
Flight, invited onto the flight deck. It crash
-landed on Aisley. The inquiry found the crew
negligent. After that, Charles decided to stop
flying Royal Aircraft himself entirely, put a
firm stop to that part of his life. So once he
left active service, Charles really stepped into
the role he'd been preparing for his whole life.
Prince of Wales. And that meant stepping into,
well, an incredibly intense public spotlight
for the next, what, five decades? 50 years. He'd
technically held the title since 1958 when he
was a boy. But the big moment was that investiture
ceremony in 1969. Carnarfon Castle televised.
That really put him on the political map, didn't
it? Absolutely did. It was this huge grand affair.
But it was also really tense. There was a lot
of Welsh nationalist feeling at the time. Protests,
even bomb threats. Right. So that effort he'd
made earlier. Learning Welsh at Aberystwyth.
That was a direct attempt to kind of, you know,
smooth things over, show respect. It showed early
on he understood the political tightrope he was
walking. And he didn't shy away from the political
sphere back home either. The sources mention
his maiden speech in the House of Lords in 1974.
Why was that significant? It was huge because
it broke such a long precedent. No royal had
spoken from the floor, as it were, in the Lords
since the future Edward I, way back in 1884.
nearly 90 years wow so him doing that immediately
signaled i'm going to engage i'm interested in
policy this was long before the whole black spider
memos thing blew up it set a pattern he wasn't
going to be just a ribbon cutter And on the world
stage, he was essentially the queen's main representative
during some really pivotal, sometimes tricky
moments for the Commonwealth. Exactly. He was
there for Fiji's independent celebrations in
1970, Zimbabwe's in 1980. And crucially, perhaps
most symbolically, he represented the queen at
the Hong Kong handover ceremony in 1997. So he
was right there navigating those complex transitions.
Right in the middle of it. His presence meant
he was part of managing the U .K.'s relationship
with its former empire as it evolved. These international
duties also put him in real danger sometimes.
The sources highlight a couple of quite scary
security incidents. Yeah, you can't forget the
risks. There was that assassination attempt plot
in New Zealand in 1983. An individual who'd already
targeted the Queen tried to get Charles during
his tour with Diana and baby William. Chilling.
And then Australia. Australia, 1994. A young
man named David Kang fired two blank shots right
at Charles during an Australia Day event in Sydney.
Blanks, thankfully, but still terrifying. Was
it political? Yes, very much so. Kang was protesting
the Australian government's treatment of Cambodian
asylum seekers. Charles was the target simply
because he was the symbol, the representative
figure. It highlights the vulnerability that
comes with the role. Okay, let's move into the
area that really defines so much of his public
image in the 80s and 90s, his personal life,
the marriages, the scandals. It seems his great
uncle, Lord Mountbatten, played quite a role
early on. Mountbatten's advice has become infamous,
hasn't it? Basically, he told Charles to sow
his wild oats, have as fun as a bachelor. But
when it came to marriage, the bride had to be
suitable, attractive, and sweet -charactered.
And crucially... With minimal romantic history.
Exactly. Minimal experience. That criteria really
narrowed the field and pointed directly towards
the very young Diana Spencer. They married in
that huge fairytale wedding in 1981. But the
age gap, 13 years, and just basic incompatibility
meant it soured incredibly quickly. The press
dubbed them the glums. It really didn't take
long. Within about five years, the marriage was
visibly struggling. And that set the stage for,
well... arguably the biggest royal crisis of
the modern era. The timeline is important here,
isn't it, about the affairs? It is. Charles himself
confirmed in that big TV interview in 1994 that
he had started his relationship with Camilla
Parker Bowles again in 1986. And this was his
key point. He insisted it was only after his
marriage to Diana had, in his words, irretrievably
broken down. Right. And then came Diana's own
bombshell interview in 1995, the Panorama one.
The Panorama interview where she delivered that
line that just absolutely stunned everyone. Well,
there were three of us in this marriage, so it
was a bit crowded. Devastatingly effective. But
even before those admissions, the public had
already been exposed to something incredibly
private and, frankly, humiliating. You mean tampon
gate or camilla gate, as it was also known. Yes.
That bugged phone call from 1989. Yeah. The tabloids
got hold of and published transcripts of this
incredibly intimate, frankly bizarre and embarrassing
phone conversation between Charles and Camilla.
The content itself was shocking enough. The tampon
reference became notorious. Exactly. Yeah. But
beyond the sheer cringe factor, why was that
particular leak so damaging constitutionally?
Good question. It wasn't just personal embarrassment.
It fundamentally undermined the perceived moral
authority of the future king. The monarchy runs
on a degree of, you know, mystique, tradition,
projecting a certain standard. This revealed
the heir actively involved in adultery, showing
incredibly poor judgment about security and privacy,
and frankly made him look ridiculous to many.
It colored public perception of both him and
Camilla for literally decades. Decades. And even
after the divorce. in 1996 and Diana's tragic
death a year later, the shadow of that period
continued, including those very serious claims
made by Diana's butler, Paul Burrell. The note,
claiming Diana feared Charles was planning an
accident. Yes. Burrell published a note he said
Diana wrote in 1995, alleging Charles was plotting
some kind of car incident so he could remarry.
Now, it was never proven, became huge tabloid
fodder, but it led to something extraordinary.
Charles being questioned by the police. Exactly.
The Metropolitan Police, during Operation Paget,
their investigation to Diana's death, actually
interviewed Charles. He stated he knew nothing
about the note, couldn't understand why she might
feel that way. The police eventually concluded
their investigation in 2023, taking no action.
But it's still part of that whole grim aftermath.
Yet, despite all that history, all the public
negativity towards Camilla, Charles eventually
made it clear. Their relationship was non -negotiable,
which led to their wedding in 2005. And getting
to that wedding involved navigating some very
specific royal and legal hurdles. They opted
for a civil ceremony, a first for a senior royal
in England. But they couldn't just have it at
Windsor Castle, could they? No, that's a fascinating
bit of legal trivia. Why Windsor Guildhall instead?
Because English law states that if you get a
license for civil marriages at a specific venue,
like Windsor Castle, then that venue has to be
available for any member of the public who wants
to get married there. Right. They'd have had
weddings booked at the castle every weekend.
Pretty much. So to avoid that, they had to use
an already licensed public venue, the Gill Hall
nearby. It just shows the weird technical hoops
the royals sometimes have to jump through. And
the queen's role at the wedding. Also significant.
As supreme governor of the Church of England,
she didn't attend the civil ceremony itself.
That might have been seen as... endorsing something
the church at the time still had issues with.
But she did attend the religious blessing service
afterwards and hosted the reception at the castle.
That was the crucial public signal of acceptance,
really. OK, so beyond the personal dramas, what
really marks Charles out, what filled those decades
as Prince of Wales, was this deep... Almost restless
activism on social and environmental issues.
He wasn't just turning up. He was driving agendas.
Highly unusual for a future king. That's absolutely
the defining characteristic of his time as heir.
He wasn't passive. He poured his energy into
creating things. Huge charitable ventures. It
started with the Prince's Trust back in 1976.
Found it with his own money. Yeah, his Royal
Navy severance pay. Just 7 ,400 pounds. From
that small start, it grew into something enormous.
The King's Trust, as it is now, is huge, isn't
it? Massive. It became the UK's largest multi
-cause charity setup, raising over $100 million
a year, helping young people, environment, arts,
architecture, you name it. The stats are pretty
staggering by 2020. Supported over a million
young people, helped start 125 ,000 businesses.
That's a very real, tangible legacy. But, and
it's a big but, this charitable empire wasn't
without serious controversy, particularly around
where some of the money came from. We need to
tread carefully here, but it's important for
understanding the scrutiny he faced. Absolutely.
This is where you see that constant tension.
Needing big money for big projects versus the
absolute need for squeaky clean ethics when you're
the heir to the throne. This high -profile case
involved cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin
Jassin Jabir al -Thani, the former prime minister
of Qatar. And we're talking significant cash,
3 million euros between 2011 and 2015. Yes. And
the detail that really caught the public eye,
as the sources reported, was how it was delivered.
Sometimes allegedly in Fortnum and Mason carrier
bags, sometimes even a suitcase or a hold -all
full of banknotes. I mean, the optics of that
are just terrible, regardless of legality. Precisely.
It looks awful. Now, the Charity Commission looked
into it. They reviewed the information and closed
the case in July 2022. No further action. They
said there was no evidence the payments were
illegal or that they weren't intended for the
charity. But the way it was done, accepting huge
bundles of cash, that raises questions about
judgment, doesn't it? About due diligence within
his team? It absolutely does. The failure to
see the massive reputational risk was really
the core issue there. And it wasn't the only
funding controversy. There was also the one million
pound donation accepted in 2013 from Bakker and
Shafiq Bin Laden. Osama bin Laden's half brothers.
That sounds incredibly problematic. How is that
justified? Well, the Prince of Wales, the charitable
fund trustees argued they'd done due diligence,
consulted widely. They stressed the money came
from the half brothers who had no known links
to terrorism themselves. But again, the public
perception, it's difficult. The Charity Commission
looked at this, too, and basically said it was
a decision for the trustees. No formal investigation
needed. It paints a picture of constant tightrope
walking, doesn't it? balancing fundraising needs
with the impeccable image required by the crown.
Exactly. And there was a third major issue. The
Metropolitan Police investigation into cash for
honors claims linked to the Separate Princes
Foundation. Allegations that big donations might
lead to gongs or citizenship? That was the allegation.
Foreign donors giving large sums and potentially
getting honors in return. Again, the police investigated
and announced in 2023 that no further action
would be taken. But taken together, these three
situations meant his charities, despite all the
good work, were operating under this cloud of
financial scrutiny right up until he became king.
Let's shift focus to another of his great passions,
architecture. He wasn't just interested, he was
a fierce advocate for a particular style. new
classical, and a very vocal critic of modernism.
Fierce is the word. His whole philosophy was
about traditional urbanism, keeping things on
a human scale, conservation. And he wasn't afraid
to voice his opinions, often quite bluntly. The
most famous example, the one everyone remembers,
was in 1984, talking about a proposed extension
to the National Gallery in London. A monstrous
carbuncle on the face of a much -loved friend.
That phrase became legendary. But was it just
talk? Did his criticism actually change things?
Oh, absolutely. That's the crucial point. His
intervention had real power. Because he said
that, the proposed design was completely scrapped.
It showed he could and would use his platform
to basically impose his aesthetic views. It wasn't
just an opinion. It had consequences. And he
didn't just criticize. He started building his
own vision, didn't he? Poundbury. Exactly. Poundbury
in Dorset is the ultimate real -world test case.
An entire town built on Duchy of Cornwall land,
designed according to his traditional principles.
He tried something similar in Scotland, too,
with the Knockroon development people called
it the Scottish Poundbury. He even intervened
in private projects like Chelsea Barracks. He
did. He famously wrote to the Qatari royal family
who owned the Chelsea Barracks site back in 2009.
He told them Lord Rogers' modern design was unsuitable
and urged them to reconsider. And they did. It
showed the reach of his influence. That same
level of deep, long -term commitment is obvious
in his environmentalism, too. He was talking
about this stuff way before it became mainstream.
Decades before. His first major speech on pollution
and plastics was in 1970. He was 21 years old.
Think about that. Remarkable foresight. Truly.
And he put his money where his mouth was, became
a huge advocate for organic farming, launched
his own organic food brand, Dutchie Originals,
in 1990. And that was successful. Didn't make
money. Very successful. And significantly, all
the profits, millions of pounds, over 6 million
pounds by 2010 alone, went straight to his charities.
It wasn't a vanity project. It was integrated
into his philanthropic work. He also waded into
the political side of food science, didn't he?
GM foods. He did. He was a very outspoken critic
of genetically modified crops. He even wrote
privately to Prime Minister Tony Blair about
it in 1998, laying out his concerns. So again,
you see that pattern of private intervention
on policy. And as the climate crisis became more
urgent, his rhetoric became stronger. Copy 26,
copy 28. Very strong. At COP26 in Glasgow, he
warned world leaders it was the last chance saloon.
And he called for a vast military -style campaign
to get the private sector mobilized on climate
action, a phrase he repeated at COP28 in Dubai.
Really forceful language. It seems his personal
habits reflect these beliefs, too. Some quite
specific dietary things. They do. We know he
famously skips lunch, apparently, to fit more
into the day. But more pointedly, in 2021, he
revealed he cuts out meat and fish entirely two
days a week and dairy one day a week, specifically
for environmental reasons. And foie gras. And
from all royal residences now. He'd actually
banned it from his own homes years before becoming
king. It shows these aren't just public positions.
They're deeply held personal convictions. And
it's exactly this passionate interventionist
approach that caused so much constitutional friction
when he was Prince of Wales, especially with
the government. Which brings us to the Black
Spider memos. Ah, yes. The famous memos. Called
that because of his handwriting apparently quite
sprawling and, well, spidery. These were letters
he regularly sent to government ministers on
all sorts of topics. What kind of things? Oh,
everything. Farming subsidies, helicopter specifications
for the military, architectural conservation,
alternative medicine. A really wide range. Critics
immediately jumped on this as political meddling.
arguing it breached that core rule of royal neutrality.
There was a long legal battle to get them published,
wasn't there? The Supreme Court ruled on it.
Yes, after years of the government trying to
block their release, the Supreme Court cleared
the way in 2015. But when they finally came out,
the reaction was a bit of an anticlimax, wasn't
it? Yeah, the general consensus seemed to be
they were mostly underwhelming, maybe even harmless.
Some said the whole thing backfired on his critics.
That was the dominant take. But your earlier
point is critical here. Yeah. Even if the content
wasn't earth shattering, wasn't the real constitutional
issue. In fact, he was lobbying ministers privately
at all, whatever the subject. Exactly. It's the
principle. The heir to the throne trying to influence
policy behind the scenes consistently over years.
That's the potential problem. And the concern
was real enough that senior cabinet ministers
reportedly warned him about needing to change
his approach once he became king. which led to
him making a very public promise in 2018. He
addressed it directly in an interview, didn't
he? He did. He was asked if his meddling would
continue as king. His answer was blunt. No, it
won't. I'm not that stupid. I do realize that
it is a separate exercise being sovereign, so
of course, I understand entirely how that should
operate. A clear statement. Yet we have to connect
this history of interventionism to his role in
things like the World Economic Forum's Great
Reset project. That feels important for understanding
his global influence. It's absolutely crucial.
The Great Reset initiative, which he co -launched
with the WEF in 2020, aiming to reshape economies
sustainably after COVID. That's perhaps the ultimate
example of his using his platform for massive
systemic change proposals. Officially nonpolitical,
maybe, but hugely influential on global policy
discourse. And even very late in his time as
prince, his private opinions on government policy
were still making headlines. The Rwanda asylum
plan. Yes. Sources reported in 2022 that he had
privately described the U .K. government's plan
to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as appalling.
Whether it was meant to leak or not, it showed
those strong personal views on policy hadn't
just vanished. So after that record -breaking,
wait, September 8th, 2022, Queen Elizabeth II
passes away and Charles becomes king. There had
been so much speculation beforehand about his
regnal name. Would he avoid Charles's? Yeah,
because of the historical baggage. Yeah. Charles
VIII beheaded. Charles II, the merry monarch
known for his affairs. There was talk he might
choose George VII after his grandfather. But
he didn't. He stuck with Charles III. He did.
And right from the start, there was a signal
of wanting to do things a bit differently, perhaps
more openly. His accession council ceremony,
that ancient ritual formally proclaiming him
king. It was televised. For the first time ever.
Exactly. Letting cameras in on that moment felt
like a statement. A nod towards transparency,
maybe modernizing the monarchy's image from day
one. And that modernizing theme carried right
through to the coronation, Operation Golden Orb,
on May 6th, 2023. It was very carefully designed.
The key themes were shorter, smaller, less expensive
than his mother's coronation in 53. And crucially,
more representative of different faiths and communities
across the UK, trying to reflect the country
as it is now. There was a lovely detail that
connected back to his environmentalism too, wasn't
there? The anointing oil. Yes. The holy chrism
oil. Traditionally, it contained animal products
like civet oil and ambergris. But Charles' coronation
oil was specifically made to be vegan. Based
on olive oil from the Mount of Olives, where
his grandmother is buried, scented with sesame,
rose, jasmine, cinnamon. A really personal, symbolic
touch, reflecting his own values right at the
heart of that sacred ceremony. Since becoming
king, he seems to focus quite heavily on diplomacy,
especially in Europe. Historic speeches. He really
hit the ground running there, especially focusing
on rebuilding ties post -Brexit. March 2023,
he became the first British monarch ever to address
the German Bundestag. German news parliament.
In German, partly. Yes, switching between fluent
German and English. Then later that year, September,
another first, addressing the French Senate.
These weren't just state visits. They were deliberate
acts of political symbolism, using the monarchy's
soft power to smooth relations. He also faced
that very difficult issue of colonial history
head on during his state visit to Kenya in 2023,
calls for an apology. That must have been incredibly
tricky to navigate. Extremely delicate. Kenya
was the site of the brutal Mao Mao uprising suppression
in the 1950s. Charles directly addressed it.
He acknowledged the abhorrent and unjustifiable
acts of violence committed during that colonial
period. Strong words. But not quite an apology.
No, he stopped short of a formal apology. That
would have huge constitutional and potential
legal implications, opening up debates about
reparations. So it was a carefully calibrated
statement. Expressing deep regret and acknowledging
wrongdoing, but staying within the constitutional
bounds. That balancing act is key to modern royal
diplomacy. And his commitment to reconciliation
in Ireland was already well established, wasn't
it, that handshake with Gerry Adams? That was
a landmark moment back in 2015, years before
he became king, shaking hands with the leader
of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, in Galway, especially
poignant given that the IRA had murdered his
beloved great uncle, Lord Mountbatten. It showed
a real personal willingness to move beyond historical
enmity for the sake of peace. He also seemed
to handle the Commonwealth's evolution pragmatically,
attending Barbados becoming a republic. Yes.
In 2021, he was there representing the Queen,
but also as the acknowledged future head of the
Commonwealth, a role that isn't hereditary, remember.
His presence signaled acceptance of Barbados'
decision, supporting the Commonwealth framework
even as its structure changes. Domestically,
he's made some quite significant moves on the
financial side, pushing for modernization and,
it seems, fiscal discipline. This has been one
of the most striking aspects of his early reign,
I think. In 2023, he agreed to maintain the sovereign
grant, the public funding for the monarchy, at
12 percent of the Crown Estate's profits. But
the really big move concerned the huge boom in
profits from offshore wind farms on Crown Estate
land. Right. Those profits surged massively.
What did he do? Instead of letting that windfall
automatically inflate the sovereign grant, which
historically would have happened, Charles requested
that the extra billions be used for the wider
public good. Essentially, he put a cap on his
own funding increase out of principle. It was
a powerful statement about financial responsibility.
And he got rid of the royal train. He did. Approved
its decommissioning in June 2025 after 180 years
of service. Again, the reasoning given was fiscal
discipline, cutting costs, even symbolic ones.
It sends a message that traditions aren't untouchable
if they don't make financial sense anymore. He
also maintained that direct engagement with Commonwealth
realms, like visiting Canada in 2025. Yes, making
his first visit there as king. And notably, he
opened the 45th Canadian Parliament in person
and delivered the speech from the throne the
first time a Canadian monarch had done that since
his mother back in 1977, reasserting that direct
constitutional link. Of course, early 2024 brought
those very public health concerns, the cancer
diagnosis. Yes, that was a shock. First, the
announcement about treatment for a benign enlarged
prostate in January 2024. Then the news that
during that procedure, a separate issue cancer,
though not prostate cancer, had been discovered.
Which immediately raised questions about continuity,
workload. Absolutely. The palace was clear he
would continue his constitutional duties, the
paperwork, state boxes, audiences, while undergoing
outpatient treatment. But his public -facing
engagements were postponed for a period. Which
meant Queen Camilla had to step up quite significantly.
She did. She represented him at several events,
including the traditional Royal Maundy service.
It showed the firm has mechanisms to cope, but
it certainly put the focus on the king's health
and the line of succession. He made a public
return later in the spring. Yes, a very visible
and I think well -received return to public duties
in April 2024. There was another brief hospitalization
reported in March 2025 due to side effects. But
generally, the narrative has been one of carrying
on. And interestingly, his public approval ratings
have actually climbed quite sharply since he
became king, up to 59 percent by August 2025.
Quite a turnaround from the difficult years.
And he's even getting recognition for his style.
Believe it or not, yes. British GQ called him
a true guardian of traditional British menswear.
And Time magazine included him in their 100 most
influential people list in 2023. So his image
seems to be consolidating in a fairly positive
way. Let's touch on some of the more personal
aspects, his beliefs, his interests. He seems
quite a philosophical, spiritual person. How
has that translated into his role as king, especially
regarding religion? It's been quite deliberate.
He is, of course, a confirmed member of the Church
of England, and as king, he's the supreme governor.
But he made a point, even before accession, of
saying he wanted to be seen not just as defender
of the faith singular, meaning Anglicanism, but
as a defender of faith, plural. So protecting
religious diversity. Exactly. Committed to creating
space for all faiths to flourish in the UK. He's
also, remember, a member of the Church of Scotland
when he's north of the border. This multi -faith
commitment wasn't just talk, it was actually
woven into the coronation ceremony itself. How
so? Wasn't it still a very Anglican service?
The core oath and anointing were, yes. But they
added a special preamble, spoken by the Archbishop
of Canterbury right near the start, explicitly
acknowledging the king's duty to foster an environment
in which people of all faiths and beliefs may
live freely. That was new. and a direct reflection
of Charles' stated aim, making the ancient ceremony
feel relevant to modern, diverse Britain. Beyond
religion, he's always been deeply involved in
the arts, hasn't he? Especially painting. Very
much so. He's a keen watercolorist himself. Quite
accomplished, actually. He exhibits his work,
sells lithographs, apparently raised over two
million pounds just from sales at Highgrove over
the years, all for his charities. He founded
a drawing school, too. Yes, the Royal Drawing
School in 2000. He's passionate about promoting
traditional skills, and he's patron of loads
of performing arts organizations, Royal Opera,
Royal Shakespeare Company, the list goes on,
over 20 of them. And he was quite the sportsman
in his day. Polo was a big part of his life.
A huge part. He played competitive polo quite
seriously for decades, only really stopping around
2005. He was also keen on fox hunting, until
the band came in that same year. He wasn't afraid
of the physical side of things. Picked up a few
injuries along the way. Definitely. broke his
arm playing polo in 1990, fractured his shoulder
in 2001, several other knocks. He certainly didn't
wrap himself in cotton wool. OK, finally, we
have to talk about the money. Royal finances
are always complex and often controversial. What's
the picture regarding Charles's personal wealth?
It's substantial. Estimates in 2023 put his personal
fortune around $1 .8 billion. A significant chunk
of that was inherited, tax -exempt, from his
mother, the queen. But his main income stream
for all those decades as Prince of Wales was
unique. The Duchy of Cornwall. Exactly. This
vast private estate land property investments
covering about 133 ,000 acres. It generated millions
in income for him every year. And the Duchy itself
hasn't been immune from financial scrutiny over
the years. No, it hasn't. Because it's a private
estate, it's exempt from corporation tax, which
has always raised eyebrows. It also got caught
up in the Paradise Papers leak, which shone a
light on some of its offshore investments. There
were earlier allegations about tax avoidance,
too. It highlights the very unusual, privileged
financial status the heir enjoys through the
duchy. So now he's king, his income source changes
to the sovereign grant. And William gets the
duchy. That's right. William is now the Duke
of Cornwall. and receives the duchy's income.
Charles's funding comes from the public sovereign
grant linked to crown estate profits, which he
himself has now helped regulate regarding those
wind farm profits. Which leads to that slightly
strange situation with Highgrove House, his longtime
family home. It's a very odd reversal. Highgrove
is owned by the duchy of Cornwall. So Charles,
who lived there and developed the gardens for
decades, now has to essentially pay rent to the
duchy, controlled by his son William. How much
rent? The figure reported is around 700 ,000
pounds a year. It's a constitutionally necessary
arrangement, but yes, a bit strange on a personal
level, paying rent to your son for your own home.
So looking back over this deep dive, what we've
seen is this incredible arc. From that sensitive
boy sent off to Gordonstown through the intense
scrutiny and scandal of his middle years to becoming
this deeply driven Prince of Wales. A man who
really defined his half century as air by launching
ambitious projects often ahead of their time
on the environment, architecture, youth opportunity.
And often wading into controversy while doing
it. Absolutely. And he finally inherits the throne
as arguably the best prepared, most experienced,
yet also one of the most publicly known and analyzed
monarchs in history. And that transition from
Charles, the lifelong activist prince, to Charles,
the neutral king, is where the real tension lies,
isn't it? Our sources, the record, it's crystal
clear. He spent decades using every tool available
to him, those black spider memos, his public
speeches, his charitable foundations, his architectural
interventions, his global platform with things
like the Great Reset, to push his deeply held,
sometimes very contentious views. That vast military
-style campaign for sustainability he called
for. Not exactly neutral language. Not at all.
His life as prince was defined by interventionist
advocacy. He clearly believes passionately in
these causes. Yet he gave that very clear promise.
I'm not that. stupid. He said he understood he
had to operate differently as sovereign, that
the meddling would stop. Exactly. And that fundamental
conflict is where we want to leave you, our listeners
today. We know he promised neutrality, but we
also know his entire life has been about passionate,
hands -on advocacy for causes he demonstrably
still believes in. We see hints in the vegan
anointing oil, the fiscal discipline on the sovereign
grant. So the provocative question we're left
with is this. In a modern monarchy where neutrality
is constitutional law, how will King Charles
III channel a lifetime of passionate interventionist
advocacy without speaking a single political
word? And how will his established global influence,
such as his leadership in the Great Reset, continue
to shape global policy from a position of silence?