Why King’s coronation guest list is breaking convention and causing controversy

Published

2 years ago

May 6, 2023

admin

For the world’s most powerful, there can be no fixture quite as rare, glittering and sought after as a British coronation.

There has not been one for seven decades and leaders and their retinues are flying in to take part.

For Britain, it is a chance to show off its best assets and exude and exert as much soft power as is diplomatically possible at the start of the Carolean era.

King delights fans on palace walkabout – coronation latest

Convention has for centuries dictated that other crowned royals do not attend British coronations. Not this time.

At least four kings and queens and a clutch of princes and princesses are on their way. There will be 90 heads of state in attendance.

US President Joe Biden is following convention and not coming, represented by his wife, the first lady, instead. But most presidents or prime ministers that you would expect will be there.

The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) says 450 foreign dignitaries will be in Westminster Abbey in total – that is about a quarter of the congregation, with 200 nations, realms and Commonwealth countries being represented.

Seating them all will require strict adherence to protocol to avoid causing offence.

In front rows will be foreign royals and representatives of the realms, those 14 countries that still regard the king as head of state.

Behind them, representatives of overseas territories, then representatives from other commonwealth nations with their own heads of state. Behind them, other guests will be seated in strict alphabetical order.

In all, the FCDO will be hosting 220 foreign delegations this weekend.

The list of countries not to receive an embossed invitation from Buckingham Palace is short and predictable. Afghanistan, Belarus, Myanmar, Russia, Syria, Iran and Venezuela. North Korea has been invited but only at ambassadorial level. Nicaragua likewise.

But China has been asked. And that is causing considerable controversy because the man Beijing is sending is widely regarded as the oppressor of Hong Kong. China’s President Xi Jinping has turned down the invite and is sending his vice president instead.

Han Zheng is the Chinese official who did most to rip up the British-Chinese agreement over the former colony, order a brutal crackdown on protests and send hundreds to jail.

The Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation told Sky News: “It is pretty disgraceful that the architect of Hong Kong’s demise has been invited to the coronation of King Charles III while other partners with whom the UK has an excellent relationship with, such as Taiwan, have been excluded.

“Who calls the shots in Britain, is it Beijing or our prime minister? Why are we kowtowing to Beijing for the guest list to our own coronation?”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith, who has been sanctioned by the Chinese government, told Sky News: “Han Zheng is primarily responsible for the crack down on democracy campaigners in Hong Kong under the brutal new national security law. Many are British passport holders, particularly Jimmy Lai, journalist and owner of Apple Daily [the Hong Kong pro-democracy paper].

“The architect of this brutal policy in Hong Kong will rub shoulders with the British PM and the King whilst Jimmy Lai and others have lost their freedom.”

Undeterred by the controversy, Britain’s Foreign Secretary James Cleverly will be meeting Han Zheng ahead of the coronation.

His officials say he will be discussing “points of criticism” with the vice president. Among them will be China’s treatment of the Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province and failure to abide by commitments in Hong Kong.

But former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten says Han’s attendance at the coronation shows that China does not give “two hoots” about the UK.

Ministers are exploiting the presence of a host of foreign dignitaries in London for less controversial meetings on the sidelines of the event.

The government will be hoping the coronation will be a powerful projection of Britain’s soft power – not least the attendance of globally-known celebrities, from Joanna Lumley and the Beckhams to Mr Bean (aka Rowan Atkinson).

Among the last to arrive at Westminster Abbey will be the 90 foreign heads of state and at least a dozen royals from other nations.

This time they will be arriving under their own steam we understand unlike for the Queen’s funeral when almost all foreign dignitaries were bussed in from Chelsea.

They will be seated according to strict protocol. By tradition foreign royals do not take part in British coronations. Until now the ceremony had been considered too intimate a moment between the monarch and his or her Creator to have other royals involved.

This time at least four kings and queens and a good number of princes and princesses are expected and will have pride of place. They will be seated in the front rows of foreign dignitaries along with representatives of the Commonwealth realms, those 14 countries that still regard the British monarch as their head of state.

We have already had glimpses of some of the world’s most powerful who have flown in for what must be the most sought after fixture in their calendar, giving the rarity, exclusivity and glittering pageantry of this event. Many attended a pre coronation event last night at Buckingham Palace.

Other countries cannot hope to offer that extraordinary combination. French presidential inaugurations may have pomp and circumstance and the glamorous backdrop of Paris but they have no royals at the centre of it, having despatched theirs by guillotine in the 19th century.

American presidential inaugurations are sought after tickets too for the world’s rich, famous and powerful but they happen every four years and also cannot offer the bling, tradition and ceremony of today’s coronation.

Noone can put on a show quite like the British monarchy and 450 foreign dignitaries are in town to make the most of it.

UK

Infected blood victims are ‘waiting to die in limbo’ – with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Published

4 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Infected blood victims are 'waiting to die in limbo' - with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Victims of the infected blood scandal say they are “waiting to die in limbo”, with just hundreds having received compensation to date.

For decades, more than 30,000 NHS patients were knowingly given infected blood products, and more than 3,000 people died as a result. Survivors are left living with long-term health complications, including HIV and hepatitis.

An inquiry into the scandal, which published its final report in May 2024, accused the NHS of a “pervasive cover-up”. Recompense payments for the victims and survivors were ordered, with the government setting aside £11.8bn to do this.

Earlier this year, the inquiry was reopened to examine the “timeliness and adequacy” of the compensation, and its report – published today – has accused the scheme of “perpetuating” harm.

Just 2,043 people have been asked to start a claim, 616 have been made offers, and 430 of those have been paid.

“For decades, people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again, decisions have been made behind closed doors, leading to obvious injustices,” says Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry.

“It is not too late to get this right. We are calling for compensation to be faster, and more than that, fairer.”

In his latest 210-page report, Sir Brian says yet more people have been harmed by the way they have been treated by the scheme.

It highlights how the compensation scheme was drafted without any direct involvement from the people most affected – the expert group that advised the government on how financial support should be delivered was not allowed to take evidence or hear from any victim of the infected blood scandal.

“Obvious injustices” within the scheme include the exclusion of anyone infected with HIV prior to 1982 and the unrealistic requirements for proving psychological harm.

How did the infected blood scandal happen?

Between 1970 and the early 1990s, more than 30,000 NHS patients were given blood transfusions, or treatments made using blood products, which were contaminated with hepatitis C or HIV.

The infected blood was used because the NHS was struggling to meet the domestic demand for blood products, so sourced around 50% of them from abroad, including the US.

But much of the blood had been taken from prisoners, drug addicts and other high-risk groups who were paid to give blood.

Blood donations in the UK were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991, 18 months after the virus was first identified.

As a result, more than 3,000 people have died, and survivors have experienced lifelong health implications.

In 2017, the government announced a statutory inquiry into the scandal to examine the impact on families, how authorities responded, and the care and support provided to those affected.

The Infected Blood Inquiry published its findings last year and a multi-billion-pound compensation scheme was announced in its wake.

This included payments for a group of people with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia, who were subjected to “unethical research” while at school and included in secret trials to test blood products.

HIV infections before 1982

The current scheme means any person infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 will not be compensated – something the latest report calls “illogical and unjust”.

The rule “completely misunderstands (or ignores) the central fact that blood products used [before this date] were already known to carry a risk of a dangerous virus – Hepatitis”, the report says.

The rule appears to have been made based on legal advice to the government.

One mother says her daughter was invited to claim compensation, only to be told she was likely “ineligible” because she had been infected prior to 1982.

“To reach this stage of the proceedings to be faced with the unbearable possibility of her claim being declined is yet another nightmare to be somehow endured… This unbearable and intolerable situation is cruel and unjust,” she says in the report.

One person who is not named in the report said: “It feels as if we are waiting to die in limbo, unable to make any progress in our lives and fearing that as our health declines, we may not ever get the compensation we deserve.”

Analysis by Sky correspondent Laura Bundock: Victims’ painful battle continues – and in some cases time is running out

This is another deeply damning report into the infected blood scandal.

We now know the damage and suffering caused by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS is far from over.

So many were promised long-overdue compensation. But those infected and affected by the scandal are still being harmed by delays, injustices, and a lack of transparency.

Over a year since his final inquiry report was published the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, does not hold back in his criticism of the compensation scheme.

He finds the system sluggish, slow and difficult to navigate.

What was set up to help the infected blood community, failed to properly involve victims of the scandal. Opportunities were missed opportunities to consult, and decisions were made behind closed doors.

The end result is an unfair, unfit system leaving people undercompensated. What’s worse, very few have received any money. And in some cases, time is running out.

This additional report makes yet more recommendations. Sir Brian is clear that despite a bad start, it’s not too late to get things right. What he says is an important moment of vindication for the victims, who’d felt their voices were being ignored.

They’ve campaigned and fought for this inquiry for decades. Most assumed the battle was over once Sir Brian’s report was published last year. But despite promises and pledges from politicians, their anger and upset hasn’t gone away.

The government says it’s taking steps to speed up the process. For victims, trust in the authorities remains low.

It will take more than warm words to restore faith, as they continue through the painful struggle for justice.

Unrealistic expectations

The report also highlights the unrealistic evidence requirements for someone proving psychological harm.

The current regulations require a consultant psychiatrist to have diagnosed and treated someone, either as in-patient, or in hospital for six months.

But the report says, at the time the scandal was unfolding, “consultant psychiatric services were not the norm across every part of the country”.

“It would be wrong to set a requirement for compensation that such services be accessed when it was not a practical proposition that they could be.”

Those infected were also unlikely to have told even close friends and family about their diagnosis due to the stigma and ostracism.

Therefore, the expectation of having received medical care “would have involved revealing to an unknown clinician what that person dared not reveal, especially if there was a chance that it might leak out”.

Other exclusions

The report also highlighted other exclusions within the compensation scheme.

It says the “impacts of infection with Hepatitis is not being fully recognised in the scheme as it stands”. The scheme also fails to recognise the devastating impacts of interferon, used to treat Hep C. The vast majority of people who received interferon suffered severely, both psychologically and physically.

The compensation regulations also withdraw support for a bereaved partner if the infected person dies after 31 March this year. The argument being that they are eligible for compensation in their own right as an “affected” person.

But removing these payments immediately after death means infected persons “see themselves as worthless and [ignites] fears of leaving partners destitute”.

One man reports being denied compensation as victims of medical experimentation because – despite having evidence it took place – the hospital where he was infected was not named in the regulations.

UK

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

10 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

UK

UK and France have ‘shared responsibility’ to tackle illegal migration, Emmanuel Macron says

Published

15 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

UK and France have 'shared responsibility' to tackle illegal migration, Emmanuel Macron says

Emmanuel Macron has said the UK and France have a “shared responsibility” to tackle the “burden” of illegal migration, as he urged co-operation between London and Paris ahead of a crunch summit later this week.

Addressing parliament in the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday, the French president said the UK-France summit would bring “cooperation and tangible results” regarding the small boats crisis in the Channel.

Politics latest: Lord Norman Tebbit dies, aged 94

Mr Macron – who is the first European leader to make a state visit to the UK since Brexit – told the audience that while migrants’ “hope for a better life elsewhere is legitimate”, “we cannot allow our countries’ rules for taking in people to be flouted and criminal networks to cynically exploit the hopes of so many individuals with so little respect for human life”.

“France and the UK have a shared responsibility to address irregular migration with humanity, solidarity and fairness,” he added.

Looking ahead to the UK-France summit on Thursday, he promised the “best ever cooperation” between France and the UK “to fix today what is a burden for our two countries”.

Sir Keir Starmer will hope to reach a deal with his French counterpart on a “one in, one out” migrant returns deal at the key summit on Thursday.

King Charles also addressed the delegations at a state banquet in Windsor Castle on Tuesday evening, saying the summit would “deepen our alliance and broaden our partnerships still further”.

Sitting next to President Macron, the monarch said: “Our armed forces will cooperate even more closely across the world, including to support Ukraine as we join together in leading a coalition of the willing in defence of liberty and freedom from oppression. In other words, in defence of our shared values.”

In April, British officials confirmed a pilot scheme was being considered to deport migrants who cross the English Channel in exchange for the UK accepting asylum seekers in France with legitimate claims.

The two countries have engaged in talks about a one-for-one swap, enabling undocumented asylum seekers who have reached the UK by small boat to be returned to France.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈       

Britain would then receive migrants from France who would have a right to be in the UK, like those who already have family settled here.

The small boats crisis is a pressing issue for the prime minister, given that more than 20,000 migrants crossed the English Channel to the UK in the first six months of this year – a rise of almost 50% on the number crossing in 2024.

Elsewhere in his speech, the French president addressed Brexit, and said the UK could not “stay on the sidelines” despite its departure from the European Union.

He said European countries had to break away from economic dependence on the US and China.

“Our two countries are among the oldest sovereign nations in Europe, and sovereignty means a lot to both of us, and everything I referred to was about sovereignty, deciding for ourselves, choosing our technologies, our economy, deciding our diplomacy, and deciding the content we want to share and the ideas we want to share, and the controversies we want to share.

“Even though it is not part of the European Union, the United Kingdom cannot stay on the sidelines because defence and security, competitiveness, democracy – the very core of our identity – are connected across Europe as a continent.”