Prince Charles was today meeting the brave firefighters from Greater Manchester who took part in the rescue mission following the Haiti earthquake.
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall asked to meet the team after following their heroic efforts in the devastated country.
Camilla earlier visited the set of Coronation Street and pulled a pint at the Rovers Return while Charles toured the Museum of Science and Industry.
Click on the grey box below to follow the visit live.
The nine firefighters rescued a two-year-old girl called Mia who had been trapped in the rubble of a collapsed school for three days.
They also assisted in the rescue of a 39-year-old trapped woman during their 10-day spell in Haiti.
Prince Charles, as President of the British Red Cross, closely followed the situation in the country and requested a meeting with the team to say thank you during his visit to the city today.
Clarence House spokesman Paddy Harverson said: “The Prince and the Duchess are very keen to meet them and thank them for their fantastic work helping the people in Haiti recover from the disaster.”
Charles and Camilla arrived in Manchester on the Royal Train this morning.
The Prince was touring the Museum of Science of Industry while the Duchess visited the set of Coronation Street to mark the show's 50th anniversary.
The pair then plan to visit Salford Lads' Club to launch an initiative for young people – Youth United.
The day will also include the Prince visiting M&I Materials factory in Trafford Park to celebrate its commercial success while Camilla will meet environmentally-conscious children at Canon Burrows Primary School in Ashton-under-Lyne.
Mr Harverson said: “The day in Manchester is to celebrate the diversity and success of the city in all its different guises – the cultural successes like Coronation Street, the great history of the city at the museum, the contemporary success of business like M&I and the great wok the city is doing for the environment to improve sustainability.”
Greater Manchester Fire Authority Chairman Coun James Pearson, who will also meet the Prince, said: “These firefighters and officers have upheld not only the values of our fire and rescue service but also those of Greater Manchester.
“Their colleagues, family and friends should be extremely proud, as I am, that His Royal Highness has chosen to recognise their courage and professionalism, a recognition that is rightly deserved.”
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 12:47)
Liz Cummins, Walkden (04/02/2010 at 13:01)
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (04/02/2010 at 13:59)
I respect your points of view, and obviously I can't comment on any of your posts that haven't been published by the MEN, but pleas note that not all of us need to take our moral guidance from the bible; nor from any of other religious text for that matter.
djg (04/02/2010 at 14:07)
arachne, The Web (04/02/2010 at 14:37)
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 14:42)
Nij, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 15:13)
Every single vehicle was stopped by these outriders who clearly having been watching too many films about the JFK assassination, just so these vehicles could have a traffic free and red light free route.
This sickening over-policing is typical of GMP.
Later on in Bolton, I also noticed 24, yes 24 officers conducting roadside spot checks...I'm sure our new, open, honest Chief Constable will explain this total waste of taxpayers money as necessary.
Belrock, England (04/02/2010 at 17:00)
Saw the firemen pulling the young girl from the rubble and brought a tear to my eye when she gave a little dance. Fantastic work by the fire crew and we should not allow the visit of two over privileged members of a disfunctional family to distract us from the real heroes.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (04/02/2010 at 17:16)
manchesterpaul, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 18:04)
How can these people be elevated and held in respect as examples of decency ?. Without meaning to sound as if i'm Jesus Christ 'the second'. If i had a fraction of their money, I would be building and funding Hospitals, Health Care and Education. That is the measure of decency and good. Not passing down amongst a small family circle from generation to generation, money and riches they could never hope to spend.
Let's not forget either, that they are merely the inheritors of their ancestors greed, theft and murder.
Schwyz (04/02/2010 at 18:55)
Algernon Blabbermouth, eccles (04/02/2010 at 20:09)
Don't give me the "Duchy of Cornwall" rubbish..the whole ethos of privelege should be condemned to history,and the whole lot of them be told to earn a living in the real world!
I just cannot believe that the people of this country,in this day and age, bow down to this lot!
Vive le Republik of Mancunia!
AngryMcNasty, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 21:31)
The sooner this country is a republic the better.
Blunt (04/02/2010 at 23:55)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (05/02/2010 at 08:13)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 08:34)
Ace and your republican rabble - move to Russia!
Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 08:40)
Surely you two can settle what is just a minor difference. You're both bootlickers, you just have a different opinion on whose boots are the right ones to lick.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 08:45)
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 08:54)
Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 08:59)
They're a long line of parasites, although, it has to be said, incredibly effective ones, due to the fact that, throughout history, they've been able to see the long game and give gradual concessions to bring other parasites into the fold.
As I've said previously, the state is a protection racket. This one has been so successful because it's had the good sense to know when it needs to conceed a bit of ground in order to prevent its own removal.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 09:12)
Would you rather live in a republic - like America - the land of the free. If not, with what would you replace our current (highly successful and much admired)system.
Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 09:47)
Not really.
"I bet you are too clever to wear the argument about them providing a positive contribution to the economy, not to mention pleasure to millions."
If there's some solid economic analysis of their contribution, I'd be prepared to look at it, but I've yet to see any, just lots of wishy washy piffle about tourism. Do they provide pleasure to millions? Even if they do, so does football, but I don't see that as a reason to fund it through taxation.
"Would you rather live in a republic - like America - the land of the free. If not, with what would you replace our current (highly successful and much admired)system."
I'm not really that fussed whether we have a republic or a monarchy. The state itself is a vehicle for parasites to feed on the productive. Worrying about which people have control of it just seems like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.
I don't really know if you could replace it with anything which would be fundamentally different. Get rid of one protection racket and given the level of state-worship and complete lack of self-reliance which seems to pervade a good proportion to the population, another one would most likely spring up in its place and continue along the same path, or even worse.
I think that, far more important than the form the system takes, is making it clear to the people within it that you won't stand for any nonsense from them.
Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 10:25)
"If there's some solid economic analysis of their contribution, I'd be prepared to look at it"
That's very gracious of you. Thank you.
"but I've yet to see any, just lots of wishy washy piffle about tourism"
I think most people coming to London as tourists would agree that the royal parks, houses and personnel form part of the whole.
"Do they provide pleasure to millions?"
Yes, I think they do. They still get fantastic turnouts - even in Australia.
"Even if they do, so does football, but I don't see that as a reason to fund it through taxation".
But we do to a degree, in the form of policing.
"I'm not really that fussed whether we have a republic or a monarchy. The state itself is a vehicle for parasites to feed on the productive".
Oh dear, that sounds rather old school soviet. Come on chin up.
"Worrying about which people have control of it just seems like re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic".
Doesn't that attitude somehow exclude you from commenting on the way things are run?
"I don't really know if you could replace it with anything which would be fundamentally different."
So why criticise what we have?
"Get rid of one protection racket and given the level of state-worship and complete lack of self-reliance which seems to pervade a good proportion to the population, another one would most likely spring up in its place and continue along the same path, or even worse".
See previous response.
"I think that, far more important than the form the system takes, is making it clear to the people within it that you won't stand for any nonsense from them."
Or else what? In your words, our only sanction is to replace them with something similar.
You make it all sound rather depressing. You frequently say that as long as people aren't hurting you, they should be allowed to do as they wish. Then why can't royalists be so without being referred to as bootlickers?
Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 10:58)
The parks and houses don't require the royals as people, so that argument at the outset is unlikely to tell us much.
"But we do to a degree, in the form of policing."
Maybe we do, but I don't think we're obliged to.
"Oh dear, that sounds rather old school soviet. Come on chin up."
If anything, it has more of a ring of this quote:
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean. power over people, power to the State.'
Or maybe this one:
'government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem'
They were said by those old school soviets Thatcher and Reagan, respectively.
"Doesn't that attitude somehow exclude you from commenting on the way things are run?"
Not at all. If I live an area where a protection racket comes round to my house once a week and demands money from me under the pretence of offering me protection, I think it's quite reasonable to say that I don't think changing the man at the top of the protection racket would make much difference, while at the same time objecting to their methods and looking for ways to keep them at bay.
The same applies here.
"Or else what? In your words, our only sanction is to replace them with something similar."
But they don't want that, which makes it a valuable bargaining tool, hence why the monarchy has gradually agreed to restrain it's power - they didn't want to go the same way as Charles I. In many ways, Cromwell's regime was worse than what it followed, but it did result in the monarchy learning its lesson and behaving better following the restoration.
"You frequently say that as long as people aren't hurting you, they should be allowed to do as they wish. Then why can't royalists be so without being referred to as bootlickers?"
I have no problem with you doing that, so long as you don't think your activities give you any moral right to control me and you pay for them yourself. By the same token, if I think that what you do makes you a bootlicker and I want to call you a bootlicker, then I should be free to do so. That's just me enjoying the same freedom as you.
Ace Riley, outsidethebox (05/02/2010 at 12:31)
Britain's Real Monarch.Dr Jones had discovered strong proof that the 15th-century English monarch Edward IV was illegitimate, thus throwing into question the legitimacy of all the kings and queens who followed.