Charles III to give ‘Speech from the Throne' in Canada: What to know
King Charles III and Queen Camilla are on their first official visit to Canada since Charles became the British monarch in 2022.
The two-day trip, though brief, carries symbolic weight at a time when Canada has faced tariffs and threats from US President Donald Trump.
Here's what you need to know about the visit.
A major highlight of Charles's visit is his scheduled address on Tuesday from the Canadian Senate.
Often referred to as a 'Speech from the Throne', the address is traditionally used to open a new session of Parliament and is usually delivered by the governor general on the monarch's behalf.
The speech is ceremonial and not tied to any new legislative session. It is expected to include reflections on Canada's democratic institutions, messages of unity, and an emphasis on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Although symbolic, the speech is a rare opportunity for Canadians to hear directly from the monarch in a parliamentary setting. It also serves as a public reaffirmation of the king's role as head of state in Canada.
It is the first such address to be delivered by a British monarch in Canada since 1977.
In a statement on Monday, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney said the speech will outline the government's plan to deliver the change Canadians 'want and deserve'.
This includes defining 'a new economic and security relationship with the United States … to bring down the cost of living, and to keep communities safe,' Carney said.
Charles is set to deliver the speech shortly after 11am local time (15:00 GMT).
The royal couple are in Canada for a two-day tour, which began on Monday.
They came at Carney's invitation. While the visit is short, it has included several important engagements that reflect Canada's historical ties to the monarchy.
The itinerary features official ceremonies, cultural events, and meetings with Indigenous leaders, according to the Canadian government's official website.
Charles's visit to Canada serves multiple purposes, both symbolic and practical. Primarily, it aims to reinforce the enduring relationship between Canada and the Crown, highlighting shared values and historical ties.
The timing of the visit is particularly noteworthy as it coincides with heightened tensions following US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs as well as controversial remarks suggesting the annexation of Canada.
Carney's invitation for Charles to deliver the 'Speech from the Throne' has been viewed as seeking to reaffirm Canada's sovereignty and constitutional framework.
Barbara Messamore, professor of history at the University of the Fraser Valley, said Canadians have found comments by Trump about turning the country into the 51st US state 'deeply offensive'.
'I think it is a good moment to show the world that we are a distinct nation with a distinct history, and we'd like to keep it that way,' Messamore told Al Jazeera. 'We value, of course, our relationship with our American friends and neighbours, but we don't want to join them.'
While members of the British royal family have frequently toured Canada over the years, visits by the reigning monarch are relatively uncommon. Queen Elizabeth II, for example, visited Canada 22 times during her seven-decade reign.
This is Charles's first time visiting the country as monarch. He last visited in 2022, when he was still the prince of Wales.
What is Canada's connection to the monarchy?
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which means the country recognises the king as its official head of state.
While the role is largely ceremonial, the Crown plays a critical function in Canada's political system. The king's duties are carried out in Canada by the governor general, currently Mary Simon, who represents the monarch at the federal level.
The monarchy is built into Canada's constitutional framework. The Constitution Act of 1867 established the king – or queen – as part of the Parliament of Canada, alongside the House of Commons and the Senate.
Beyond politics, the Crown holds particular importance in Indigenous relations. Many historical treaties were made directly with the British Crown, not with the government of Canada.
This has been largely highlighted in local media coverage, Messamore said.
'Indigenous nations are front and centre, and they value that kinship relationship,' she said.
Although support for the monarchy varies across Canada, with many Canadians questioning its relevance, the institution remains embedded in the nation's political and legal foundations.
This is because it has always provided a 'bulwark against American ambitions', Messamore said.
'These moments are really important ones about Canadian patriotism. The reaction to the king's visit has been very positive,' she said.
'We don't always all agree on our form of governance, but we've made it very difficult to change that fundamental aspect of our Canadian Constitution.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
20 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Patently illegal': Critics dispute legality of Trump's Iran strikes
Washington, DC – As United States President Donald Trump lauded what he called the 'spectacular military success' of the strikes he authorised against Iran, Democrats were quick to accuse him of overstepping his authority. Numerous critics accused Trump late on Saturday of violating the US Constitution by launching military attacks against Iran's nuclear sites without the approval of Congress. 'Trump said he would end wars; now he has dragged America into one,' Senator Christopher Van Hollen Junior said in a statement. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution – ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' In the lead up to the US attacks, legislators from both main parties have pushed measures to compel Trump to approach Congress before launching any strikes. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war or authorise the use of force for specific purposes. Trump's 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) base has also been vehement in its opposition to the US joining Israel's war. It has pointed out that Trump won the election on the promise not to commit Washington to yet another war in the Middle East. They want Trump to focus on domestic issues, particularly the economy. 'Grounds for impeachment' Lawmakers' authority over the military was further enshrined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curbed the president's war-making powers. Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump violated the constitution and the War Powers Resolution. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' she said. The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he can order attacks, but his decisions must be within the guidelines of what is authorised by Congress. However, the president can order the military in the case of a 'sudden attack' or to respond to emergencies. Several Democrats were quick to note that Iran's nuclear facilities, which have been operating for years, did not pose an imminent threat to the US. The US intelligence community confirmed in an assessment in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Trump has increasingly relied on executive powers in governing domestically, and now he appears to be sidelining Congress in his foreign policy. But with Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, lawmakers have few tools to influence his military decision. Impeachment is almost out of the question. President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) June 22, 2025 No legal justification for strikes Lawmakers have introduced bills under the War Powers Resolution to ban attacks on Iran without the approval of Congress, but Trump is likely to veto the proposals if they pass. Congress could overturn the veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate, but Trump's strikes have enough support to make that outcome unlikely. The US president has not provided a legal justification for the strikes, but he is likely to argue that he was responding to an urgent situation or cite an existing military authorisation. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed a law allowing then-President George W Bush to launch what would become the global 'war on terror'. Millions of people have been killed and societies devastated due to the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, among others, waged as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. It has also cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers. In 2002, lawmakers approved another authorisation to allow the invasion of Iraq a year later. These laws, known as the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), remain in place, and previous presidents have invoked them to justify attacks that were not specifically approved by Congress. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US programme of the International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, said the attack on Iran is 'patently illegal'. 'Even under the prevailing executive branch doctrine, this is likely to constitute 'war' requiring congressional authorization,' he wrote in a social media post. Statement from Rep. Ilhan Omar on U.S. Bombing of Iran: 'The strikes on Iran, ordered by President Trump and executed without congressional authorization, mark a dangerous and reckless escalation of an already volatile conflict in the Middle East. 'Military strikes will not… — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) June 22, 2025 Key progressive Senator Bernie Sanders was speaking at a rally in Oklahoma when Trump announced the attack. As Sanders told the crowd about the US strikes, attendees started chanting: 'No more war!' 'It is so grossly unconstitutional,' he said. 'All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.' Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers will be 'demanding answers' from the administration. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' she said in a social media post.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump says US intelligence ‘wrong' about Iran not building nuclear bomb
United States President Donald Trump has said his director of national intelligence was 'wrong' when she testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not re-authorised the country's suspended nuclear weapons programme. The comments come after Trump earlier this week cast doubt on Tulsi Gabbard's March 25 report to Congress, in which she reiterated the US intelligence community's assessment. On Tuesday, Trump told reporters, 'I don't care' that the intelligence community's finding contradicted his own claims, saying Iran was in the late stages of developing a nuclear weapon. But speaking on Friday, Trump went further. A reporter asked, 'What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community said they have no evidence.' The president responded, 'Then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' 'Your DNI [director of national intelligence], Tulsi Gabbard,' the reporter replied. 'She's wrong,' Trump said. It is extremely rare for a US president to openly contradict the country's intelligence community, with critics accusing Trump of flagrantly disregarding evidence to justify potential direct US involvement in the fighting, according to Al Jazeera's senior political analyst Marwan Bishara. 'This is not just one person, one team saying something,' Bishara said. 'It's the entire intelligence community in the United States. That he would dismiss them … it's just astounding.' Speaking on Friday, Trump also appeared to downplay the prospect of the US brokering a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, saying he 'might' support such a deal, while adding, 'Israel's doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well.' 'It's hard to make that request right now. When someone's winning, it's harder than when they're losing,' he added. Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou Castro noted that Trump was 'really making a point that he's not going to make an effort to ask Israel to ease up on its aerial bombing of Iranian targets'. 'It seems that Trump is very squarely on Israel's side as things are progressing, and … it appears that he is not leaning towards the diplomacy route, though, again, he is giving himself that two weeks' time to make a final decision,' she said. Trump on Thursday said he would take two weeks to decide the US response to the conflict. Experts say the decision would likely be transformative. The US is seen as one of the few countries with the leverage to pressure Israel to step back from the brink of wider-scale regional war. At the same time, the involvement of the US military is seen as key to Israel's stated mission of completely dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, which hinges on destroying the underground Fordow enrichment plant. A successful attack on the facility would require both Washington's 30,000-pound (13,000kg) GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator and the B-2 bombers needed to deliver it. Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump also downplayed the potential role of European countries in de-escalating the situation. That came hours after Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met the top diplomats from France, the UK, Germany and the EU in Geneva. 'Europe is not going to be able to help,' the US president said.
Al Jazeera
2 days ago
- Al Jazeera
US aiding Israel in war on Iran would be 'catastrophic'
US aiding Israel in war on Iran would be "catastrophic" Quotable US aiding Israel in war on Iran would be 'catastrophic' Bernie Sanders, US senator, calls on Trump to work with the international community, to rein Netanyahu and urgently push for a diplomatic solution to end the fighting with Iran.
