He’s very much alive and has been seen in public since the false rumors came out.

So the British Royal Family has been going viral yet again, but this time it’s not about Kate Middleton, but about the King himself. According to Russian news wire Sputnik, they reported that “King Charles III of Great Britain has died at the age of 75, according to media reports. There is no information about this on the Royal family website or British media.”

But where did they get the news from?

Well, the false statement was first published on Telegram by two popular Russian channels, Baza and Mash, then picked up by Russian news outlets and spread worldwide. It spread so fast that many news outlets around the world started posting the news that the King was dead, which forced Buckingham Palace to get involved, making an official statement: “We are happy to confirm that The King is continuing with official and private business,” the palace shared in a statement to the Russian state-run TASS news agency on Monday.

Why did people believe the rumors at first?

Whoever created the original post made it look very convincing, and with the recent news in February that King Charles III was diagnosed with some form of cancer. The official statement read “During the King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted,” it continued, “Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer.”

Where’s King Charles III now?

After Buckingham Palace confirmed that the King is in fact alive, In fact, a photo shared to the royal family’s social media pages shows the 75-year-old meeting with veterans of the Korean War on March 19, further proving he’s carrying on with his duties.

Why would Russia share something like this?

In the whirlwind of international politics and the public’s fascination with royalty, the spread of rumors and misinformation can often have multiple layers of motives and origins. The recent buzz could indeed have numerous explanations. Keep in mind the following text are just theories and not facts.

One possibility is that geopolitical entities, such as Russia in this context, might be engaging in a sophisticated form of information warfare. By stirring up distractions, they can subtly shift the public dialogue away from their own contentious activities, in this case, their military operations against Ukraine. The art of misdirection is not new in the realm of international relations, where creating a smoke screen can often help in downplaying or overshadowing events that might put a country in a negative spotlight.

Alternatively, the British Royal Family, a perennial subject of public intrigue and scrutiny, could also have reasons to redirect the media’s gaze. If the conjecture about Kate Middleton’s reduced public appearances holds any weight, it’s plausible to suggest that the institution might be attempting to manage the narrative. By influencing the news cycle, attention can be diverted towards less sensitive topics, providing a respite from potentially unfavorable reports.

Lastly, the theory that some individuals aim to spread fictional stories purely for the thrill of going viral on social media cannot be dismissed. In the digital age, the speed at which a story can traverse the globe is unprecedented. A concocted tale, especially one involving high-profile figures or sensational topics, can rocket to widespread attention, bringing a dubious form of prestige or notoriety to the originator.

It’s vital to recognize the complex interplay of these potential scenarios, and while the truth remains nebulous, the implications of such misleading narratives are far-reaching. They serve as a reminder of the ever-evolving challenges we face in the digital landscape when it comes to discerning fact from fiction.