The recent royal tour to Australia and Samoa, led by King Charles III and Queen Camilla, has sparked a wave of controversy, culminating in public protests and boos directed at the monarch.

The trip, which ended with Charles facing significant criticism, has raised questions about the timing of the journey given the King’s ongoing battle with cancer and the associated health risks.

While public opinion in Australia remained divided, there was also significant backlash in the UK.

Critics raised concerns about the monarchy’s decision-making in light of the King’s health, with many arguing that Charles should have deferred the tour to someone else in the family, especially given the substantial risks involved.

However, others argue that pausing his treatment for such a trip may have been a misstep, especially when the King’s health is still fragile and uncertain. As the public weighs in on the decision, it has sparked a larger debate within the royal household: Where should the line be drawn between personal health and royal duty?

Throughout the trip, the royal team was highly proactive in ensuring Charles’s safety. His medical staff implemented health protocols that included ensuring a team of doctors was on standby and that he had the necessary medical equipment on hand, including blood supplies, to manage any potential emergencies. A former secretary to Queen Elizabeth II, who spoke to *Hello* magazine, explained, “The King carried these supplies with him as a precaution, knowing the availability of the correct blood type might not be guaranteed at every stop. It was a sensible, albeit costly, decision.”