{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreigosmjah5qkww2yznax5uipk7gow5azl3c2usoqc5saw4kk5cwuwm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:oznbnvgr7dmvddiyvr7dih52/app.bsky.feed.post/3mij722ajlp62"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreiae4w3aiays4gwp6hykswjue3q6pbmza6tuvwdxd7ohhqr4gzgzaq"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 48473
  },
  "path": "/royal/king-charles-keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-appointment",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-02T11:50:00.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.gbnews.com",
  "tags": [
    "The GB News Editorial Charter"
  ],
  "textContent": "\n\n\nKing Charles wrote two separate notes expressing reservations about Peter Mandelson's selection as Britain's ambassador to the United States.\n\nWhen asked to formally approve the appointment as constitutionally required, the monarch reportedly attached a note posing a question along the lines of: \"Do you really think that's wise?\"\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nA second communication from Buckingham Palace similarly conveyed His Majesty's misgivings about granting the controversial peer such a prominent diplomatic posting.\n\nThe King and Sir Keir Starmer also discussed the matter during their regular weekly audience according to Private Eye.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nTRENDING\n\nStories\n\nVideos\n\nYour Say\n\nReports indicate King Charles was taken aback that the Foreign Office's formal approval letter contained a complimentary CV that failed to mention Lord Mandelson's previous government resignations or his Epstein connections.\n\nIt comes as scrutiny on the Prime Minister over his decision to appoint Lord Mandelson to the Washington role continues.\n\nQuestions are now being raised about whether correspondence between the King and ministers regarding the appointment will feature in forthcoming document releases.\n\nSir Keir has pledged to publish an extensive range of materials connected to the peer's selection, with an initial batch of files made public last month.\n\nA further set of papers is expected to follow, though certain documents will likely be held back.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nMaterial may be withheld either due to its relevance to the ongoing police inquiry into Lord Mandelson, or because disclosure could compromise national security or diplomatic relations.\n\nLord Mandelson received the ambassadorship in December 2024, but the Prime Minister dismissed him from the position in September of last year after fresh details emerged concerning his association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.\n\nThe removal represented the third occasion on which the New Labour architect had departed a government post under difficult circumstances.\n\nHe had previously resigned twice from Tony Blair's Cabinet amid separate scandals.\n\nLord Mandelson has stated he will cooperate fully with investigators and intends to clear his name.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nHe maintains that US documents released about Epstein do not demonstrate any lawbreaking or personal gain on his part, whilst acknowledging regret over his friendship with the financier.\n\nThe Crown Prosecution Service confirmed on Wednesday that prosecutors are providing early investigative advice to police conducting inquiries into Lord Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's connections to Epstein.\n\nBoth men were taken into custody last month on suspicion of misconduct in public office.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nThe former Duke of York and Lord Mandelson have subsequently been released while investigations continue.\n\nMr Mountbatten-Windsor has rejected any suggestions of wrongdoing.\n\nThe Foreign Office letter seeking royal approval for Lord Mandelson's appointment was among the documents published in the initial release of files last month.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter**",
  "title": "King Charles 'raised concerns to Keir Starmer over appointing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador'"
}