Throne speech was an 'emotional moment' for the King, Buckingham Palace says
Some observant royal watchers thought King Charles looked emotional at times throughout his trip to Canada last week — and a Buckingham Palace spokesperson confirms to CBC News that the normally stoic monarch found delivering the throne speech to be a particularly poignant moment.
"His Majesty was deeply moved and touched by the enthusiastic response to his visit," the palace spokesperson said.
"On the speech, the standing ovation in particular was an unexpected and emotional moment for His Majesty. You can hear his voice go a bit crackly in the final lines."
Footage shows Charles looking pleased by the warm reception he received as the assembled dignitaries rose to applaud him and his speech.
Charles's line about Canada "indeed" being the Truth North "strong and free" was particularly well received in the Senate chamber. There was no act of protest like when an Australian Indigenous senator shouted at the King in Parliament during his visit to that realm last year.
WATCH | King Charles gets a standing ovation in Parliament:
'The True North is, indeed, strong and free,' says King Charles in throne speech
7 days ago
Duration 1:32
His voice then wavered and his eyes appeared to well up as he said the final line to the gathered parliamentarians: "May you honour the profound trust bestowed upon you by Canadians, and may God bless and guide you in all your duties."
Charles also seemed to tear up outside the Senate building as thousands of people watched him arrive in the royal landau and inspect the military honour guard while the Royal Canadian Air Force band played O Canada. After the speech, he cheerfully greeted many of the onlookers and there were no obvious signs of protest.
"It was the warmest of welcomes and the fondest of returns to a nation and a people we love," Charles and Queen Camilla themselves said in a joint statement released after they left Ottawa.
WATCH | The royal parade to Parliament:
King Charles and Queen Camilla parade to Parliament
7 days ago
Duration 2:35
The U.K. press took note of Charles's unusual display of emotion on this trip — his 20th official visit to Canada and his first as monarch.
"Royals don't normally 'do' emotion, at least they do their very best to hide whatever feeling they have. But for some reason, King Charles seemed unable to do that on this occasion at the end of a short, but highly significant, visit," ITV's royal correspondent Chris Ship wrote in his coverage of the speech.
In an interview with CBC News, Justin Vovk, a royal historian at McMaster University, said there was "more emotion than we've come to expect from members of the royal family."
"I think Charles was taken aback somewhat. The King had been itching to get here and eager to make his presence felt in Canada but no one really knew what kind of reaction he would receive," Vovk said.
"Journalists, academics, royalists, we were all watching and wondering: would there be a tepid turnout? Would there be protests? And I think once Charles saw the level of reaction from the people, it floored him; it seems he wasn't expecting it."
The emotion may also have been driven by just how high-stakes the visit was for him and the country, Vovk said.
In the face of American taunts and insults, Prime Minister Mark Carney pressed Charles into service, asking the head of state to assert Canada's sovereignty in the first throne speech delivered by a monarch in nearly 50 years.
It was a diplomatic balancing act because Charles, as the sovereign of 15 realms, had to fulfil his duties as King of Canada without torpedoing Anglo-American relations given there's a sometimes mercurial president in the Oval Office and the U.K. is also facing trade threats.
"Opening Parliament, reading the speech from the throne, these are the most significant constitutional roles that the sovereign plays in our political system," Vovk said.
"He understood the weight of it politically, personally and dynastically," he said.
Plus, Vovk said, for Charles, "Canada has deep meaning for him and deep meaning for his family."
The King's favoured relative, his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and his own mother, Queen Elizabeth, made dozens of trips to Canada and wrote and spoke fondly about their experiences. Those sentiments have seemingly rubbed off on him, Vovk said.
The Queen Mother, writing to Princess Margaret in 1958, said: "I have a feeling that Canada gives one a boost. They are so nice and so loving and the Mounties are so beautiful and so romantic."
Looking back at her historic 1939 tour with King George VI on the eve of the Second World War — the first time a reigning monarch had been in North America — the Queen Mother said: "Canada made us."
Queen Elizabeth, who personally witnessed seminal moments in the nation's history including the repatriation of the Constitution, described Canada as "home."
"Charles is acutely aware that he and his family have had a presence in Canada at crucial moments. This is one of those moments," Vovk said.
"He delivered, very deliberately, slogan-worthy, quotable lines — the True North, strong and free, Canada seeping into his bloodstream and straight to the heart. Those will be phrases associated with the monarchy in Canada for a very long time," he said.
As for whether Charles's ongoing cancer battle may have played into his emotional reaction, Vovk said it's hard to say.
"It's impossible to speculate on what goes on behind the curtain with the sovereign," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
27 minutes ago
- CTV News
Neighbours accuse Toronto builder of gaming system to uproot beloved tree for parking pad
A tree stump and chopped up branches are shown after a tree was removed from a property in Toronto, in this undated handout photo. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Handout TORONTO — The big, backyard honey locust had a seating area set up under its canopy and a swing hanging from a sturdy branch. It was one of many trees in Leaside, a residential neighborhood northeast of downtown Toronto that is famous for its old growth and green space, but it was special, says Karen Hwang. It was nothing short of an 'oasis' for her neighbour, who liked to entertain in the backyard. It also benefited Hwang's family next door from the time they moved in 34 years ago, supplying fresh air and blocking noise pollution. 'That tree provided, you know, the wonderful shade, the beautiful esthetic,' she recalled in a recent interview. 'It just had so many positive environmental impacts.' Without the city's permission, the beloved giant was recently brought down, in a case that has sparked neighbourhood outrage and calls for change at city hall. On the morning of June 26, Hwang said she and her husband were eating breakfast while watching the news when they heard a 'big bang' and their television screen went dark. The couple rushed outside to check what happened, and they saw the tree was being cut down, and a big branch had hit their satellite dish. At the time, developer Modcity was preparing to build a fourplex and garden suite on the property after Hwang's neighbour sold her house. The city confirmed there was no permit to remove the tree before construction began. It said it has launched an investigation. The Canadian Press made several unsuccessful attempts to reach Modcity for comment, including email inquiries and a visit to a location listed on its website as the company's address. Privately owned trees with a diameter of 30 centimetres or more are protected under the city's tree protection bylaw. The diameter of the one removed was closer to 80 centimetres, according to neighbors. Kim Statham, the city's director of urban forestry, said there was an application to remove a privately owned tree in October, and city staff worked with the builder for five months to revise the multiplex's design to protect the tree. 'The revised tree-friendly multiplex design created a minor variance that was approved by the Committee of Adjustment,' Statham said. 'The honey locust tree was to remain and not be removed.' Rachel Chernos Lin, the councillor representing the area, said the intent was to protect the tree by moving the building's footprint onto the front yard closer to the street. The developer removed the tree anyway without the city's support. And to add insult to injury, Lin said, the developer applied to place a parking pad where the tree had stood. For community members, the idea of paving a little piece of paradise to put in a parking spot was a bridge too far. 'People feel like (the developer) has really taken advantage of the system and disregarded the rules, and people really care and are very angry about that,' Lin said. Currently, the offence of removing a tree without a permit can carry a fine between $500 and $100,000. It has no impact on permits issued under Ontario's Building Code. The current fine structure is not enough to disincentivize the practice, Lin said. On Thursday, city council adopted a motion Lin proposed that would make tree removal more difficult and add 'additional tools' to protect the city's tree canopy. The motion requests that the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing add the tree bylaw as an applicable law for the purposes of issuing building permits. It also suggests repeat offenders be named and shamed publicly. City staff are expected to report back about progress towards achieving these goals by the end of the year. 'I want to make sure this doesn't happen again,' said Lin. Geoff Kettel, co-president of the Leaside Residents Association, said the builder should not be able to use the revised footprint after taking out the tree that the new design was meant to protect. The supposed compromise allowed the builder to put the multiplex more than two metres closer to the sidewalk, and Kettel said neighbours' bungalows and two-storey homes are now at greater risk of being overshadowed. 'If they destroyed the reason for moving it forward in the first place, there's now no reason to move it forward,' he said. 'People should be obeying the law. They should be doing it right, following the best practices,' he added. 'It's very, very disappointing.' Last week, The Canadian Press visited the construction site, where a concrete foundation had been laid and tree roots were still visible under a pile of soil. Elizabeth Marsden and her friend Ann Aveling walked by the area and stopped to comment on the tree's unfortunate fate. 'It was a beautiful, big red locust and there are not many red locusts,' said Marsden who has lived in the neighborhood for four decades. 'It was just a lovely tree,' she said. 'I was angry. How dare they?' She said she thinks the fines given to builders for such violations are 'peanuts,' and there needs to be better enforcement. Aveling said the uprooting was 'totally unnecessary' and it made her feel sad, especially as the life cycle of many other trees in the neighbourhood is coming to a natural end. 'What drew us to Leaside 40 years ago was the trees, the tree canopy, and you'd have these beautiful shaded streets,' she said. 'Which of course we're now losing.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 26, 2025.
Globe and Mail
27 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: Hulk Hogan told a simple story, but his life was far more complex
Article content Hogan did have charisma, as much or more than any other performer in any field. Wrestling is all about lights and music and grand entrances, but Hogan was his own source of energy, uniquely able to connect with mass audiences. The frenzy of a full Saddledome that night was a formidable thing — a frenzy that the world would see at the Silverdome the following year when Hogan body-slammed the Giant. Article content It was the capacity for public frenzy that struck teenage me as a bit frightening. I recall a woman, climbing atop her chair, face contorted and screaming, resembling a woman possessed. She was my mother's age, so should have known better. Article content The performers in the ring were scripted, directed toward telling a story. The frenzy on the outside was harder to control. In time, others would learn, in wrestling and the broader culture, that frenzy could be put to other purposes. Article content In the 1980s, McMahon presented Hogan as utterly wholesome, advising kids to 'train, say your prayers, and take your vitamins.' Eventually, Hogan's fans would discover that he 'trained' with steroids, said nasty racist things, and took other men's wives. Alongside that, as is always necessary in wrestling, Hogan became a villain. Frenzied adulation or frenzied vituperation matters less than the frenzy itself, which generates attention and relevance and revenue. Article content Article content Fifteen years after the Saddledome, Hogan fought The Rock at the Skydome in the most memorable match of WrestleMania X8 (18). Remembered now as one of the historic moments in wrestling history, it was the pro-Hogan frenzy of the crowd that determined the outcome of the story, an unusual reversal of manipulators and manipulated. Article content Toronto 2002 would be the effective end of the Hogan era. Then, nearly fifty years old, boasting a litany of back and hip and knee surgeries, Hogan was losing the sheer athletic ability demanded of professional wrestlers. Soon, he would descend into scandal and, despite WWE's attempts to restore him to prominence, his last wrestling appearance ended in an embarrassment of booing. The frenzy had turned. Article content Hogan's career then slipped from wrestling into reality TV — and eventually to politics. For those of us who long ago explained that Donald Trump could not be understood apart from professional wrestling, Hogan's introduction of Trump at the Republican National Convention last summer was sad confirmation of a malign cultural force converted to demoralizing political effect. The frenzied woman of 1986 was the Trump voter long before there was Trump to vote for. Article content Article content WWE will honour Hogan in death, recalling the glory days of the 1980s. Vince McMahon himself will not do so, banished from the company he built after a flurry of sexual misconduct claims. Perhaps his wife Linda might, serving as she does as Trump's secretary of education. Article content
