The King once admitted he was an “interferer and meddler” as heir to throne, airing his opinions fully and freely.
Charles, when he was the Prince of Wales, was known for his outspoken views on the environment, GM crops, nanotechnology, monstrous carbuncles, farming and complementary medicine over the decades.
Politicians were said to have regularly moaned about the number of letters they received from the crusading prince – known as “black spider” memos for his distinctive handwriting and abundant use of underlining and exclamation marks.
Concerns were often raised as to how his opinions would feature when he became monarch.
The head of state is a non-political figurehead and must remain strictly neutral.
But when he turned 70, four years before he became King, Charles insisted his meddling would not continue.
“No, it won’t. I’m not that stupid,” he told a BBC documentary in 2018. “I do realise that it is a separate exercise being sovereign. So of course I understand entirely how that should operate.”
In his first historic address to the nation as King, Charles signalled his new role had brought fundamental changes to the way he operated.
He said: “My life will of course change as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.”
The King’s engagements with political leaders have been in the spotlight this week.
On Monday, Charles went on a rare joint visit with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to see a sustainable Cornish housing project which was inspired by the monarch.
Downing Street denied dragging the King into politics, with the trip coming two days before the Government unveiled a further £350 million to help build 1.5 million homes ahead of the next election.
The King, Sir Keir and Ms Rayner carried out three engagements in Nansledan, a 540-acre extension to the seaside town of Newquay, on Duchy of Cornwall land.
The visit was described as the King showing rather than telling, with Sir Keir said to have expressed an interest in seeing the development in person, and Charles offering to show him around.
On Wednesday evening, the King is hosting the Prime Minister and leaders of the devolved nations at a “dine and sleep” event in Windsor Castle.
The unusual move differs from the soirees the late Queen used to hold at the historic Berkshire castle, which would include a mix of famous names from actors and actresses, to astronauts, politicians and bishops.
Buckingham Palace has declined to comment as to why the King has decided to invite only politicians to what has been described as an informal social dinner at the royal residence.
Early in his reign, he found himself at the centre of a contentious row over a “constitutionally unwise” meeting with the head of the EU.
The King had European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to tea at Windsor in February 2023, on the day she signed a new post-Brexit deal on Northern Ireland with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak.
Leading Conservative Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was wrong to involve Charles in the “immediate political controversy”, while Baroness Foster, the former Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader and first minister of Northern Ireland, also criticised the move.
“I cannot quite believe that No 10 would ask HM the King to become involved in the finalising of a deal as controversial as this one. It’s crass and will go down very badly in Northern Ireland,” Lady Foster said.
Buckingham Palace insisted Charles was acting on “the Government’s advice”, but Downing Street said it was “fundamentally” a decision for the King.
The meeting took place despite warnings that it could draw the King into the process of the UK and EU agreeing a deal, or be seen as tacitly endorsing it.
The agreement was controversially named the “Windsor Framework” – a move which appeared to give it an air of royal authority.
There has also been controversy in recent years over a long-established parliamentary procedure in which the British monarch is notified of draft Bills and asked for consent to debate them, if they potentially affect the prerogative or interests of the Crown.
Research by The Guardian in 2021 found that more than 1,000 laws had been vetted by the late Queen Elizabeth II or Charles, as the then-heir to the throne, including whether conservation laws affected Charles’s Duchy of Cornwall business interests and whether national traffic rules applied to the Queen’s private estates of Balmoral and Sandringham.
Sources close to Charles told The Guardian in 2014 that he would break with tradition and make “heartfelt interventions” in national life.
They said he would not follow his mother’s discretion on public affairs but instead speak his mind on issues such as the environment.
Catherine Mayer’s 2015 biography of Charles said the prince was planning to introduce a “potential new model of kingship” but that the Queen was concerned about the potential style of the monarchy under her son.
But Charles’s senior aide at the time, principal private secretary William Nye, came to his defence, saying Charles understood “the necessary and proper limitations” on the role of a constitutional monarch.
In 2002, Charles found himself at the centre of a constitutional row following disclosures that he had been “bombarding” ministers with letters attacking government policy.
Letters he wrote to a number of government departments between 2004 and 2005 became the subject of a protracted legal battle with Guardian journalist Rob Evans over whether their contents should be disclosed.
The eventual publication of the correspondence showed the prince lobbied then-prime minister Tony Blair and other ministers on a range of issues from badgers and TB to herbal medicine, education and illegal fishing.
He also tackled Mr Blair over a lack of resources for the armed forces fighting in Iraq.
In 2006, Charles’s former aide, Mark Bolland, disclosed at the High Court that the prince saw himself as a “dissident” working against current political opinion.
During the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, the prince attempted to prevent the cull of cattle, supporting vaccination instead.
In 2004, the prince was lambasted for declaring that continuing research into nanotechnology could result in a thalidomide-style disaster.
A leaked letter to Mr Blair in 2002 ahead of a large pro-hunt march in London showed Charles had relayed, and said he agreed with, a Cumbrian farmer’s views that the campaigners were being treated worse than other minorities.
He was also outspoken on architecture, and sparked a row between classicists and modernists which one architect said it had taken the industry the best part of 20 years from which to recover, when he branded the proposed National Gallery extension a “monstrous carbuncle” in 1984.
In 2005, the then-prince said it was wrong to knock down old buildings where they could be restored more economically.
It came amid plans by John Prescott, the then-deputy prime minister, to demolish up to 400,000 homes in the Midlands and the North.
In 2008, referring to his involvement in a restoration project in Bradford, Charles said: “Being an inveterate interferer and meddler I couldn’t possibly stand back and do nothing.”
