King Charles III Won’t Be out and About Much Over the Next Six Weeks Amid Election Campaign 

Britain's King Charles III meets members of the public during his visit the Discovery Center and Auld School Close to hear more about the 3.3million pound (4.1 million US dollars) energy efficient housing project in the area, in Tomintoul, Scotland, on Sept. 13, 2023. (AP)
Britain's King Charles III meets members of the public during his visit the Discovery Center and Auld School Close to hear more about the 3.3million pound (4.1 million US dollars) energy efficient housing project in the area, in Tomintoul, Scotland, on Sept. 13, 2023. (AP)
TT

King Charles III Won’t Be out and About Much Over the Next Six Weeks Amid Election Campaign 

Britain's King Charles III meets members of the public during his visit the Discovery Center and Auld School Close to hear more about the 3.3million pound (4.1 million US dollars) energy efficient housing project in the area, in Tomintoul, Scotland, on Sept. 13, 2023. (AP)
Britain's King Charles III meets members of the public during his visit the Discovery Center and Auld School Close to hear more about the 3.3million pound (4.1 million US dollars) energy efficient housing project in the area, in Tomintoul, Scotland, on Sept. 13, 2023. (AP)

King Charles III won’t be out and about much over the next six weeks — and it’s not because of his ongoing cancer treatments.

Shortly after UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called an early parliamentary election for July 4, Buckingham Palace said that all members of the royal family were canceling most public engagements until after the vote to avoid doing anything that might divert attention from the campaign.

That announcement is just one of the ways that Charles will seek to play his part as a unifying head of state during the election, without violating a constitutional ban on interfering in politics. While the king’s role in government is largely ceremonial, it's bound up by traditions that embody the way royal powers were gradually transferred to Parliament over the last 800 years.

Here’s a look at the monarch’s role in the run up to the election, including a few dos and don’ts.

DID CHARLES PLAY ANY ROLE IN CALLING THE ELECTION? The decision to call an election was entirely Sunak’s. But before he could do so, the king had to grant permission to dissolve Parliament early.

Technically, the king still has the power to refuse a dissolution request if he believes an election would be detrimental to the nation. But the last time this happened was in 1835.

Ignoring that precedent “would expose the monarch to allegations of political interference of an undemocratic nature, even if the intention of the refusal was to preserve the good functioning of democracy,” according to the Institute for Government, an independent think tank.

WHAT’S NEXT FOR THE KING? The current session of Parliament will be “prorogued,” or ended, on Friday based on an order that Charles approved during a meeting of the Privy Council on Thursday at Buckingham Palace.

The king won’t attend the formal end of the session, a ceremonial affair where the speaker of the House of Commons and other members of Parliament will troop into the House of Lords to hear a speech written by the government.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE PUBLIC APPEARANCES? The royal family is barred by law and tradition from interfering in politics at any time, but ensuring that those rules are strictly followed is even more important during an election.

That means the royals can’t campaign for candidates, endorse policies, or even let their political preferences be known.

Buckingham Palace spelled it out soon after Sunak's announcement, announcing that members of the royal family would postpone all engagements that “may appear to divert attention or distract from the election campaign.’’

That meant the king on Friday ditched trips to a Bentley car factory and a community center helping people who are struggling financially.

WHAT’S A MONARCH TO DO? Well, some things are above reproach.

The king and queen still plan to attend ceremonies marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day on June 6.

Other engagements will be examined on a case-by-case basis, the palace said.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER? One of the modern monarchy’s primary roles is to provide a unifying figurehead who is seen as above politics and can provide a sense of stability in difficult times.

This is the first general election of Charles’ reign. His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, oversaw 21 during her 70 years on the throne.

George Gross, a royal expert at King’s College London, said elections are by definition moments of turbulence in which people look to the monarchy for continuity.

“There is ... a power vacuum in political terms. Power is now handed back to the British people, and they will review the offering over the next six weeks,” Gross said. “So what that means, though, is that the head of state has a new role. Or rather, (the) key role of stability and continuity comes to the fore. Now, (the royals) cannot be political in any way.”



Protecting 1.2% of Earth Would Prevent Most Extinctions, Study Says 

Mexican gray wolves, an endangered native species, are seen resting in their enclosure at the Museo del Desierto in Saltillo, Mexico July 1, 2020. Picture taken July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
Mexican gray wolves, an endangered native species, are seen resting in their enclosure at the Museo del Desierto in Saltillo, Mexico July 1, 2020. Picture taken July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
TT

Protecting 1.2% of Earth Would Prevent Most Extinctions, Study Says 

Mexican gray wolves, an endangered native species, are seen resting in their enclosure at the Museo del Desierto in Saltillo, Mexico July 1, 2020. Picture taken July 1, 2020. (Reuters)
Mexican gray wolves, an endangered native species, are seen resting in their enclosure at the Museo del Desierto in Saltillo, Mexico July 1, 2020. Picture taken July 1, 2020. (Reuters)

Setting aside an additional 1.2% of the world's land as nature preserves would prevent the majority of predicted plant and animal extinctions and cost about $263 billion, according to a study published on Tuesday.

The world is racing to meet a goal to protect 30% of the world by 2030 to protect wildlife that is being decimated by climate change, pollution and habitat destruction.

Global policymakers will meet at a United Nations summit in Colombia in October to discuss plans for reaching that goal.

The study in the journal Frontiers in Science aimed to identify the highest value areas in hope that they be included in those protection plans, said Carlos Peres, a study co-author and conservation ecology expert at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

"Most countries do not actually have a strategy," Peres said.

"The 30-by-30 targets still lack a lot of details because it doesn't actually say what 30 percent should be protected."

The study's proposed protections would cover an additional 1.6 million square km (633,000 square miles) - an area about a fifth the size of the United States - across 16,825 sites globally that are home to rare and threatened species.

That's on top of the nearly 16% of the world that already have some level of protection.

The study estimated the $263 billion bill is how much it would cost to acquire the new areas, many of which include private property, at current value over the next five years.

"Time is not on our side because it will become increasingly more expensive and more difficult to set aside additional protected areas," Peres said.

Land acquisition makes up most of the cost of creating protected areas, and the study did not consider the upkeep costs for policing the reserves.

About three-quarters of the sites are tropical forests, as those are the world's most biodiverse ecosystems. The Phillipines, Brazil and Indonesia are home to more than half of the high-value sites.

Russia is the single country with the most high-valued area ripe for conservation with 138,436 square km identified in the study, an area the size of Greece.

Several African countries also topped the list with Madagascar having the fourth-highest number of sites overall while the Democratic Republic of Congo had the largest area targeted for conservation on the continent.

The United States is the only developed nation among the top 30 countries in the analysis, with 0.6% of the sites or an area twice the size of Delaware.

The researchers only considered land and freshwater ecosystems but not oceans or marine protected areas. Researchers did not include invertebrates in the study, as the geographical distributions insects and other such animals are not well mapped.