When Prince Harry and wife Meghan visited Australia in 2018 as working royals they were “welcomed by rapturous crowds”, said The Guardian. There was “little sign” of that “ecstatic reception” today when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who stepped down as working members of the royal family in 2020, arrived in Melbourne, said Reuters.

The couple have embarked on a tour that includes “engagements covering sport, mental health and veterans’ affairs”, but in their capacity as private citizens – an arrangement that has raised some eyebrows among their hosts.

Commercial activities  

During their four-day visit Harry will make a solo stop-off in the capital, Canberra, to meet military veterans. He and Meghan will then attend a ⁠mental health summit in Melbourne before rounding off the joint leg of their trip with sailing and rugby events in Sydney. It “still looks very much like a royal visit” even though “officially, it very much is not”, said ABC News.

But unlike on their previous visit, they’ll also “undertake commercial activities”, said Reuters. Meghan will host a wellness retreat at a luxury beachside hotel in Sydney, which will include yoga, manifestation and sound healing. Tickets cost A$2,699 (£1,417) including accommodation, or A$3,199 (£1,680) for a more VIP experience, including a group table photo with Meghan.

Meanwhile, Harry will be a star speaker at InterEdge’s “psychosocial safety” summit, a two-day professional development event with ticket prices as high as A$2,378 (£1,249) for the platinum option. For both of them, their sojourn in Australia is not only “private” but also “promotional”, said The Guardian.

Royal expert Giselle Bastin told the ABC that the commercial aspect of the tour was “unusual” and said the royal family would not be impressed that the Sussexes were “monetising their visit to Australia”.

Quasi-royal disaster

The “quasi-royal tour” was “already a disaster” before they set off, said The Times last month. “Early signs” showed that Australians “aren’t all that excited about their visit”; a recent Ipsos Australia poll found that only 40% of Australians view Harry favourably, while 46% view him unfavourably. Meghan “fares even worse”, with 55% holding a negative view of the US-born duchess.

The “honour” of this visit “comes with a hefty price tag”, said Bevan Shields in The Sydney Morning Herald. Although their travel expenses for the visit are being privately funded, ⁠local media reported that some of the policing costs would be paid by Australian taxpayers. Harry and Meghan are “laser-focused on building a healthy bank balance” now that their lucrative deal with Spotify has “imploded” and most of their Netflix projects have “fallen flat”. “Does anyone seriously believe they are coming to our shores for reasons other than financial and reputational?”. Our warm welcome back in 2018 clearly made Australians “look like a soft target”, so now they are back to “use us as an ATM”.

I “can’t begrudge them trying to make a living”, said Hello! magazine’s royal editor, Emily Nash. The reception of the Australia tour will be a “real litmus test for what else they may do this year”, with an Africa visit potentially on the cards, but it is also “something for the wider royal family to watch”. “The sorry saga” of the former prince Andrew and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson is a “reminder of how blurred the lines can become when titles and influence are mixed with personal gain”. If the Sussexes are able to “effectively operate alongside the working royals, but outside the carefully managed framework that governs royal duties”, that would represent a “headache” for the King.

As the US continues to attack Iran and Donald Trump continues to criticise Keir Starmer, calls are growing to delay or cancel King Charles’ state visit to America.

The visit hasn’t yet been formally announced but Buckingham Palace has been preparing for the King to visit Washington and New York in April, to mark the 250th anniversary of US independence. The hope was that the visit, the first by a British sovereign in nearly two decades, would help smooth fractured relations between the two nations.

But as violence in the Middle East intensifies, it may be “safer to delay it”, said Labour’s Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs committee. It would be going ahead “against a backdrop of a war and that, I think, is quite difficult”, she told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme. “The last thing that we want to do is to have their majesties embarrassed.”

What did the commentators say?

“While the war is continuing”, the visit is “problematic”, said Peter Westmacott, former British diplomat and former deputy private secretary to King Charles. The US is conducting a war that the UK “initially thought clearly was illegal”, he told The Times. The UK government has “a duty to protect the monarchy in a situation like this”, and “a duty to reflect public opinion in this country”. How will a state visit be perceived? Might the King appear to be “endorsing” what the US president is doing?

Nearly half (46%) of Britons think the visit should definitely be cancelled, according to a YouGov poll of 12,002 adults last week. Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said going ahead with it would hand a “huge diplomatic coup” to Trump. But postponing, rather than cancelling, is the way to avoid offending “thin-skinned” Trump and protect the “special relationship”, said Westmacott. That’s “a statesmanlike way of managing the issue”.

A state visit would “be nothing but a show of political appeasement” towards an administration that is “leaning more towards authoritarian instincts every day”, said Alex Hannaford in The Independent. It is “betraying the very values” of democracy that America’s 250th birthday is meant to celebrate. Plus, the timing “could not be more fraught” for the King. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest last month “reignited the Epstein scandal”, and the “spectre of awkward questions” from victims’ lawyers and advocacy groups “looms over the visit”.

The case for cancelling is indeed “powerful”, said Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. Trump will certainly “exploit a royal visit” for personal gain. But if the King didn’t go, it might seem “prompted by domestic politics” and would be “a severe blow to Anglo-American relations”. It would be “better by far” to “elevate it well above the level of current events” and let it honour the tight links between Britons and Americans that have held since US independence. A state visit is “a bonding of nations”, not governments.

What next?

Trump said yesterday that Charles would be visiting “very shortly”. Hosting Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin at the White House, he told reporters: “I do look forward to seeing the King.”

Official travel by the King and Queen is subject to the approval and advice of the government. Downing Street’s current refusal to comment on the matter “suggests an understandable indecision”, said The Guardian’s Jenkins. All could depend on how long the war continues. “Leaving the question open might add to pressure on Trump for an early ceasefire.”

Downing Street won’t want to risk “subjecting the monarch to Trump’s frequent rants against Britain”, Westmacott told CNN. Nor will it want to risk “angering the president” by cancelling. Still, “there could be a moment when the government decides that the risks of going ahead are greater than the risk of causing offence”.

What happened

Britain’s Thames Valley Police Thursday arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III, on suspicion of misconduct in public office tied to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The former prince was “released under investigation,” meaning he has not yet been charged nor exonerated, after almost 12 hours of questioning.

Who said what

Mountbatten-Windsor was detained early Thursday, his 66th birthday, after unmarked police cars arrived at his new home on the king’s Sandringham Estate. The Thames Valley Police is “accustomed to playing a different role for Britain’s royal family — as protectors,” said The New York Times, but confirmed earlier this month that it was investigating whether Mountbatten-Windsor improperly shared confidential government documents with Epstein while serving as a U.K. trade envoy from 2001 to 2011.

The “arrest of the senior royal, eighth in line to the throne, is unprecedented in modern times,” Reuters said. It was a “catch your breath moment” made “even more dramatic by the unprecedented statement” from Charles, “offering no hiding place or protection” for his brother, said BBC royal correspondent Sean Coughlan. “Let me state clearly,” the king said: “The law must take its course.”

The last senior member of Britain’s royal family to be arrested in connection with a serious crime was King Charles I, who was beheaded for treason in 1649 following his defeat in the English Civil War. Misconduct in public office, the potential charge for Mountbatten-Windsor, carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

What next?

“This is the most spectacular fall from grace for a member of the royal family in modern times,” Craig Prescott, a legal expert at the University of London, told The Associated Press. “And it may not be over yet.” Police said earlier this month they were also looking into another report from the Epstein files, that a woman was taken to an address in Windsor in 2010 “for sexual purposes.” Even if no other revelations emerge, The Wall Street Journal said, a “lengthy police investigation — and a possible criminal trial — could see the shadow of the Epstein scandal hanging over the British royal family for months to come.”

The arrest on Thursday of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, “the fool formerly known as a prince, marks the definite end of public reverence toward the British monarchy”.

“I write that as an Englishman who is rather fond of it,” said Tim Stanley in The Washington Post.

The King has said that the authorities “have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation” in their investigation into his brother, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein. But the latest twist in the sorry tale has raised questions as to whether the royals have the full and wholehearted support and cooperation of the nation.

What did the commentators say?

While the arrest has prompted a “sliver of misty-eyed, ‘good on us Brits for actually clearing out the rot’ commentary” said Harry Cole in The Sun, “that’s far eclipsed by discussions about the very future of the Crown not heard since those dark days following the death of Princess Diana”.

Indeed, “how does this work out any way other than badly for the Palace, the Royal Family, and the monarchy?” asked the BBC’s royal correspondent Jonny Dymond. Some believe the royals have done enough to distance themselves from Andrew’s actions but while he “may not have been on the Buckingham Palace balcony for a while”, any distinction between him and the royals, “is entirely lost on most people” as “the Palace, the Royal Family, the monarchy, all seem as one”.

But where there might be a distinction is between the actions of the family and the future of the monarchy, said Jonathan Dimbleby, the King’s biographer and friend. “I don’t think that it damages the monarchy,” he said of the arrest to the BBC. “I think we have to separate the notion of a family from the institution of the monarchy.”

Republicans “hope that the scandal will lead to the collapse of the crown itself”, said The Economist. Graham Smith, chief executive of the campaign group Republic, said Andrew’s arrest “threatens the whole monarchy”. It’s a sentiment that is “ambitious, even if it is a chance to erode support for the institution”, said the magazine. But Andrew does embody a “monarchy that is reduced in stature in a country that is itself getting poorer and crasser”, said Stanley in The Washington Post. The Crown is just one of a number of institutions that the country has inherited, “the purpose of which it can’t recall”.

“If we’re not careful, if their reputation sinks any lower, we might finally join the US and wipe them away in a fit of revolutionary disgust.”

What next?

While it may not result in the end of the monarchy, a “change in culture is long overdue”, said The Times in an editorial. “Under cover of royal deference and secrecy, far too little was done for far too long to rein in Mountbatten-Windsor’s behaviour.” Transparency is the only way to change public opinion and “records should now be released, and staff encouraged to speak honestly about what they saw.”

The royals “will be holding crisis talks today with a mixture of sorrow and panic”, said The Spectator’s Alexander Larman. They had hoped that, when it came to this particular scandal, “the worst was past”. But “it is now clear that far worse is almost certainly yet to come, and the question is what anyone can do about it”.

What happened

The U.K.’s King Charles III on Thursday stripped his brother Andrew of all his remaining titles, including prince, and forced him to vacate his Royal Lodge mansion near Windsor Castle to “move to alternative private accommodation,” Buckingham Palace said. The demotion, as the king seeks to “distance the royals” from Andrew’s “links to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal,” was “one of the most dramatic moves against a member of the royal family in modern British history,” Reuters said.

Who said what

Andrew had survived “years of shameful scandals” and “decades of tawdry headlines about shady business deals, inappropriate behavior and controversial friendships,” The Associated Press said. But a “new round of public outrage” over his Epstein links — including emails showing they had kept in touch longer than admitted, and a newly published memoir in which late Epstein trafficking victim Virginia Giuffre said Andrew acted as if “having sex with me was his birthright” — proved the final straw.

The “censures” against Andrew “are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him,” Buckingham Palace said. “Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

What next?

The former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, was expected to move to a residence on the king’s Sandringham estate. The royal family hopes this “ripping off the bandage moment” will “finally draw a line under the endless oil slick of bad news stories about Andrew,” said BBC royal correspondent Sean Coughlan. But “it will take more than taking away his titles to dispel” the public anger over his perceived “unchecked privilege” and “ugly entitlement.”

Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir is published today, and Buckingham Palace is braced for further allegations about Prince Andrew and his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

Extracts from “Nobody’s Girl” by Giuffre, who claims she was coerced into sex with Andrew when she was 17, have already rocked the royal family. “I vigorously deny the accusations against me,” Andrew said on Friday. But he also announced that his Duke of York title and Order of the Garter knighthood would be “put into abeyance”, much like his HRH title was in 2019.

Only an act of Parliament can remove Andrew’s dukedom completely but, such is the heat around the scandal, there are already moves afoot in the House of Commons to try to do just that.

What did the commentators say?

There was “a sense of relief” at the Palace when Andrew agreed to stop using his titles, said Sky News’ royal correspondent Laura Bundock. But now, there is “a sense of dread over what else could emerge”. Andrew’s “disgrace and downfall” is far from over, and it could be that we are “reaching the endgame”.

The Palace has “failed to grasp the magnitude” of the scandal, Andrew Lownie, the Yorks’ biographer, told The Telegraph. They are putting “a little bit of a plaster on a huge problem”. Charles should have had Andrew’s titles removed, rather than simply ordering him not to use them, and he should have forced Andrew to cooperate with US authorities about the extent of his dealings with Epstein. “I think this is just window dressing,” Lownie said. The fact that Andrew will still “get to live as he always has done” will make people “feel he hasn’t really paid any penalty for what he’s done”.

Charles apparently believed that putting Andrew’s titles in abeyance was “sufficient”, said Caroline Davies in The Guardian. But Prince William is “prepared to take a more ruthless approach if required” when he takes the throne. He reportedly considers his uncle a “threat” and “a reputational risk to the monarchy”.

When William becomes king, Andrew’s “limited role in public life will disappear entirely – starting with the coronation”, said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. A recent “surprisingly revealing” interview with actor Eugene Levy suggested that “banishing Andrew to Siberia” would not cause William “too many sleepless nights”.

It seems that the “nuclear royal option – to strip Andrew of his princely title grows more inevitable by the day”. This “will not be an easy or fast process, and is likely to damage the very institution of the monarchy”. But “the embarrassment and headlines” may be “worth it in the longer term”.

The Palace is “walking a fine line between cutting loose a reprobate member” and infuriating Andrew to the point that he “vents criticism of the main figures in the monarchy”, said Anne McElvoy in The i Paper. The “aloof tone and huffiness” of his statement on Friday signals that he still perceives his treatment as unfair, and “as the royals discovered in the Diana era” that can turn a person into “a powder keg”. The point is not whether or not Andrew “has a leg to stand on”; it’s that “he feels he does”. The more aggressively the palace seeks to exclude him, “the greater the risk of him seeking his own retribution”.

What next?

MPs have now lodged a parliamentary motion to strip Andrew of his dukedom. The government has previously said that it would be “guided” by the royal family on any decision to remove Andrew’s titles.

Whatever happens, Andrew’s “stubbornness” is “not going to change”, said McElvoy. The monarchy now has an “involuntary hermit” on its Windsor estate – still a part of the institution he was born into, however “inconvenient that may be”. How “sustainable this stand-off will prove is questionable”.

And the latest allegations are “just the tip of the iceberg”, Lownie told The Telegraph. The palace is “worried about new allegations that will emerge Stateside. They know there is more damaging stuff to come.”

What happened

The director of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library was forced out this week after declining to hand over a sword for President Donald Trump to give King Charles III during the president’s recent state visit to Britain, The New York Times reported Thursday. Todd Arrington — a longtime federal historian who had been at the Eisenhower library in Abilene, Kansas, for a year — told the State Department he was legally obligated to preserve Eisenhower’s sword for the American people.

Who said what

“They asked for a sword and we said, ‘Well, we do have swords, but we can’t give them away because they’re museum artifacts,’” Arrington told Kansas City NPR affiliate KCUR Thursday. A State Department liaison, using the personal email account “giftgirl2025,” originally contacted Arrington to ask for “like a sword or something,” the Times said. Instead, Arrington said, he worked with officials for two months to find the West Point replica sword Trump gifted to the king.

Arrington told CBS News that officials in the National Archives, which manages 13 presidential libraries, told him to “resign — or be fired” on Monday, because “apparently, they believed I could no longer be trusted with confidential information” about “the sword” and a plan to let the private Eisenhower Foundation build an education center on the federal campus. “I never imagined that I would be fired from almost 30 years of government service for this,” he told the Times.

What next?

Trump has fired tens of thousands of government workers since taking office and is threatening more mass layoffs during the government shutdown, though “senior federal officials have quietly counseled several agencies” against that, “warning that the strategy may violate appropriations law,” The Washington Post said.

When he becomes king, Prince William will have “change” on his agenda – “change for the good”. So he’s told actor Eugene Levy in a revealing new interview for “The Reluctant Traveller”, Levy’s Apple TV+ show.

Britain’s future monarch also said he doesn’t fear change, and won’t be “restricted” by history.

What did the commentators say?

“When the crown lands on his head,” will William “be a disruptor” or “a steady hand at the tiller?” said ITV's royal editor Chris Ship. It’s “a question many have asked but it seems it took a Hollywood actor, born in Canada, to get the answers”.

William clearly wants “a different kind of monarchy”, and he “refuses to feel overwhelmed by the weight of history on his shoulders”. The picture that emerges from the interview is that “tradition will stay” but William’s reign will “speed up the process of change”.

People close to William “would say it’s the most publicly vulnerable we have seen him”, said Rhiannon Mills, royal correspondent for Sky News. He’s “not signalling that he will politically interfere”, as his father has been accused of doing, but he’s laying out a plan for “evolution, rather than revolution”. It’s clear he respects tradition but, crucially, he is “not afraid to ask why certain things happen, and question if it's really fit for now”.

The Prince of Wales has previously referred to his approach as putting “a smaller R in royal”, said Daniela Relph, the BBC’s senior royal correspondent. That said, we shouldn’t “expect the big stuff to change dramatically”: there will “definitely be a coronation”, and Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Sunday will “remain fixed and important parts of the royal year”.

To understand how William “might change an ancient institution”, look at how he’s “already done it” with the “billion-pound business empire” of the Duchy of Cornwall, said The Times in April. He’s “set about instigating changes across the vast estate like a modern-day CEO”, including a bid to “get the estate to net zero by 2032, and a focus on mental health and new accommodation for the homeless”.

It’s “widely expected” that he’ll be a “transformative monarch in a way that his father has not been”, said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. “His comments that he will not be looking to the past were more telling than might have been intended.” It may be that a “trusted courtier or two” will “convince him that change” on a “significant scale” isn’t “always a good or even necessary thing” but, “in any case, a reign that many have pre-emptively dismissed as dull might yet surprise the world”.

What next?

There have been recent rumours of a rift between William and King Charles, said Kristin Contino in Marie Claire, although “multiple palace insiders” insist there are “no issues between the King and his heir”. And yet “it was notable” that William “talked fondly about his grandmother at several points during the interview” while “his father was barely mentioned”, said The Spectator’s Larman. The “recent gossip” of a “strained” relationship between father and son “will only be fanned by this, rather than dispelled”.

Tell me about a woman “behaving poorly”, and I am likely to take her side, said Rebecca Reid in The i Paper. Sarah Ferguson is a case in point. When I was growing up in the 1990s, adults would often make snide comments about Fergie – for having her toes sucked, or fronting Weight Watchers ads. Her antics were deemed vulgar and unregal, but they endeared her to me. Now, though, Fergie turns out to have done something that cannot be laughed off as an awkward blunder.

‘Only denounced him to protect her career’

In March 2011, with pressure mounting on her and her ex-husband, the Duke of York, about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, she gave an interview in which she said that she had made a “gigantic” mistake in accepting a £15,000 loan from the convicted child sex offender. She said that she “abhorred paedophilia”; and vowed never to have anything to do with him again. Yet last weekend, it emerged that only six weeks later, she’d sent Epstein a fawning email, in which she described him as a “supreme friend”.

The duchess told Epstein that he must feel “hellaciously let down” by her – and apologised “to you and your heart for that”. She promised that she’d not used “the P-word” [paedophile] about him, and said that she’d only denounced him to protect her career as a children’s author and philanthropist. This week, her spokesman insisted that she only wrote that email because Epstein was threatening to sue her for defamation, said Kate Mansey in The Times. “One wonders why she would have worried about such a lawsuit. But only she can answer that.”

‘She sold herself very cheap, did Fergie’

A patron of children’s charities gushing to a child sex offender? No wonder those charities were rapidly severing their links to her this week, said A.N. Wilson in the Daily Mail. Now the King, having recently readmitted Ferguson to some private events, may feel he has to banish her, to protect the royal family’s reputation, said Melanie McDonagh in The London Standard. Once again, Fergie finds herself in the gulag, brought down by her poor judgement and profligacy. After splitting up with Andrew, she lived so high on the hog, she ended up millions in debt; so in 2010, she accepted the £15,000 from the disgraced financier to stave off bankruptcy. “She sold herself very cheap, did Fergie.”

Maybe not, said royal biographer Andrew Lownie in the Daily Mail. I have heard that Epstein lent her more like £2m; she denies this, but it would explain why they stayed close. He wouldn’t have done this because he had a kind heart; he’d have expected some secret or favour or contact in return. So the question is, what did he want from her? And did she give it?

There are two things Donald Trump seems to value that money can’t buy. One is the Nobel Peace Prize; the other a chance to hobnob with royalty.

As the US president prepares for an “unprecedented” second state visit to the UK, all eyes will be on Keir Starmer and King Charles as they look to perform a potentially perilous diplomatic dance.

The PM will be hoping the “gilt-edged reception” laid on by the King “will help to deliver the UK’s message on awkward issues such as Ukraine and trade tariffs”, said the BBC. “And if anyone can get the US president’s attention and influence him, surely King Charles III and the Royal Family can.”

What did the commentators say?

To call Trump divisive would be an understatement. A YouGov poll published in July found the British public were split about whether this week’s state visit should even go ahead.

Those opposed to the trip accuse the government of “legitimising a leader they say has fuelled division, weakened democratic norms and dismissed the urgency of climate change”, said The Independent.

“Others argue that diplomacy requires pragmatism” and “whatever one thinks of Trump personally”, he remains “a critical ally for trade, defence and global security”.

With tensions already running high, the events of the past week have transpired to make the president’s visit even more politically fraught.

The fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk has fuelled Trump’s attacks on the left, ramped up rhetoric about free speech and “intensified the consideration of potential threats”, said The New York Times. Then there was the massive far-right rally in London on Saturday, when protesters clashed with police and Elon Musk called for the effective overthrow of the government. The “Unite the Kingdom” rally was condemned by Starmer, who is under pressure to do more to tackle rising nationalist sentiment, which is being driven by US figures with links to the president.

But it is the sacking of UK ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that is “especially awkward” and “threatens to overshadow the proceedings”, said The Guardian.

“All three major figures involved in the trip are embarrassingly tangled in the Epstein web, and have no wish to be reminded of it,” said Sean O’Grady in The Independent; Trump “because of past association”, Starmer “via Lord Mandelson”; and the King through his brother Prince Andrew.

“The uncomfortable chill that will descend at the mention of Jeffrey Epstein from the media will be unbearable for those present and tangible even to a television audience. It will be quite the moment.”

For all the focus on palace pomp and political psychodrama, it is easy to forget the bigger picture. “The primary objective of the state visit is to shore up the emotional connection the president holds with Britain, and the secondary objective is to demonstrate a modern geopolitical underpinning for the special relationship,” said Sophia Gaston, an analyst at the Centre for Statecraft and National Security at King’s College London.

In practice, said Liam Byrne, chair of the Commons Business and Trade Committee, on Politico, this means convincing Trump that “for all his unhappiness with America’s trade deals of yesterday, the future is the greater prize – and by working together, our countries can build a deeper partnership that helps keep the West safer, stronger and richer at a pivotal moment in world history”.

What next?

Because of the many potential pitfalls, this will be an especially “unusual and carefully crafted” state visit, said the BBC, with Windsor Castle “being used like a royal theme park”.

Trump is scheduled to arrive in London on Tuesday evening for a whirlwind one-and-a-half-day visit, packed with a series of events involving Starmer and the royal family. This means he will spend little time in the capital itself and, with Parliament in recess, will sidestep any awkward interaction with hostile MPs.

Despite these efforts to keep the US president away from the British public and unscripted moments to a minimum, it is impossible to predict what will happen when “the tangerine tyrant/saviour of Western civilisation, touches down”, said O’Grady.

“For all concerned, it could just as easily turn out to be a triumph as a disaster, with a mixture of both the more likely outcome. It should certainly be eventful.”

Prince Harry and King Charles shared a private tea in London on Wednesday, marking the first time the pair had met in 19 months.

Although “we know very little” about what transpired during the 54-minute meeting at Clarence House, Harry, “his family and we, the public” are now all left pondering, said Caitlin Moran in The Times. “Have we missed him after all? Now that things have died down a bit, would it be kinda cool to have him back?”

Despite years of friction – from the bombshell Oprah interview and the publication of his memoir “Spare” to a legal battle over the prince’s security – “as long as the royal family aren’t actively firing on Harry, there’s still a way back”.

We’re all aware that “when it comes to real star power” in the royal family, “the only real big-hitters left on active duty are the King, the Queen and William”, said Moran. “And that’s just not enough manpower.” In due course, the prince will “have to come back to the franchise where it all started”.

It will take more than ‘a cup of tea’

Harry’s “brief pseudo-royal tour” is a reminder of the prince’s “instinctive and eye-catching common touch”, which at one time made him one of the most popular royals, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail.

But it’s likely that “it will take more than an act of philanthropy and a cup of tea” to bury the hatchet. “Overtures are one thing, but a proper thawing of relations is fraught with peril.”

And “while not yet catastrophic”, polling isn’t exactly leaning in the royals’ favour, said Tessa Dunlop in The Independent. In 1983, when the British Social Attitudes survey was first carried out, a “staggering 86% of the population endorsed monarchy”. By 2023, that number had plummeted: just 54% of the population “expressed any commitment to royalty”, and supporters skewed older. Younger generations have “signed out”, and as long as this “unseemly royal impasse persists”, they have little incentive to sign back in.

Harry “retains a reach and appeal in areas where traditional monarchy is at its weakest”, so he may be just what the royal family needs to recover – “after all, William is many things, but cool is not one of them”. Now, it may be up to William to embrace forgiveness – “an important life skill”, especially “essential” for a future monarch.

‘There’s always a reunion’

Despite it being “19 months in the making" and under an hour in duration, the private tea between Harry and the King “marked a first step in the family reconciliation”, said Emily Nash in Hello! magazine.

The meeting was “very much what Harry has been longing for”, but details on what was discussed likely won’t emerge for some time. If the detente is to work, “it’s vital for the King to know that he can trust his youngest son to keep their discussions private” – especially following the publication of “Spare”, the prince’s candid memoir, in 2023.

With the prince looking “happier and more relaxed on home turf than I’ve seen him for a long time”, we can only hope “this marks a fresh start for the King and his son”. After all, “it doesn’t matter how febrile the break-up was”, said Moran. From the Spice Girls to Fleetwood Mac, “in the end, there’s always a reunion”. In general, people are “irrevocably compelled to try to get the band back together”. So, even if this trip doesn’t seal the deal, at some point soon “the healing will begin”.

The Prince and Princess of Wales are planning to make a fresh start in a new home, after a tumultuous few years that included Queen Elizabeth II's death, the controversial departure of the Sussexes to the US, and a series of major health scares.

A Kensington Palace spokesman confirmed that William, Kate, and their children George, Charlotte and Louis will leave their current residence, Adelaide Cottage, in the grounds of Windsor Castle, and move into Forest Lodge, an eight-bedroom Grade II-listed Georgian property in Windsor Great Park.

Private home, no live-in staff

Windsor Great Park is part of the Crown Estate and is largely open to the public. Forest Lodge, in one of the private areas of the park, was built in the 1770s and acquired by the Crown in 1829. Over the years, it has been home to Edward VIII's equerry and Princess Margaret's private secretary. It's thought Sarah Ferguson wanted to move there in the 1990s after her divorce from Prince Andrew but, apparently, her request was vetoed by Prince Philip. A more recent occupant was wealthy US philanthropist and socialite Alisa Swidler, dubbed "London's most connected woman", before her sudden death in 2019.

The house is said to be worth up to £16 million. Its eight bedrooms and six bathrooms spread across three floors, and there's a ballroom and a tennis court. In 2001, it underwent a £1.5 million restoration before being put on the rental market. But a planning application approved earlier this year suggests further work will be done before the Wales' moves in.

William and Kate are paying for the rent and the move themselves "at no extra cost to the taxpayer", said The Sun. They are also footing the renovation costs, unlike Harry and Meghan who "splashed £2.4 million of taxpayers' money" on doing up Frogmore Cottage before decamping to the US.

The family will continue not to have any live-in staff as they focus on creating as private a family home as possible. The house is only a few miles from Lambrook, the private prep school attended by all three children.

William and Kate's desire for privacy has had consequences for other residents of Windsor Great Park, however. "Earlier this summer, two separate families who lived in cottages next to the country mansion were asked to vacate their properties," said The Mail on Sunday. The families were said to have been "surprised" at being asked to leave but "no evictions orders were served" and "the tenants have moved to similar or better housing elsewhere" in the the 4,800-acre park.

'String of challenges'

According to insiders, "the royal couple see this as a move for the long-term and view Forest Lodge as their forever home", said the BBC.

It therefore "appears unlikely", said the Mail on Sunday, that William and his family will ever live in the 775-room Buckingham Palace, official home to the British monarch since 1837, "raising the possibility of it being opened up to the public and used for only major royal functions".

It also means William may "become the first monarch not to live in a palace or castle when he succeeds Charles as King".

The Wales' have lived in the four-bedroomed Adelaide Cottage since 2022, when they relocated from apartments at Kensington Palace. In their three years there, they have dealt with "a string of challenges", including the King's cancer diagnosis and Kate's own cancer treatment, said The Independent.

"Moving is an opportunity to leave some of the more unhappy memories behind," a royal source told the BBC. And this home, they hope, will be a place they can make some happier memories somewhere new.

Senior aides representing King Charles and Prince Harry reportedly met last week, sparking rumours of a possible reconciliation between the pair.

The Mail on Sunday published leaked images of the meeting, with an unnamed source saying that there was a "long road ahead, but a channel of communication is now open for the first time in years".

The Duke of Sussex's team was "understood to be frustrated" by the publication of the images, denying it had leaked them, said The Telegraph. The worry now is this has "jeopardised the fragile peace operation".

'A bid to start afresh'

The meeting was allegedly a "bid to start afresh", with both the prince and the King's teams "recognising that an open communications channel would benefit them all". But these are "sensitive talks" over a relationship that has been "almost non-existent in recent years".

"Given the animosity", it is "interesting" that the summit was able to happen at all, said The Times. Harry's "past behaviour" makes "rebuilding a relationship with his family" particularly "tricky", but he "wants to see his father" and is also keen to be "welcomed back with open arms". But for this to happen, the King may "require" an apology from Harry rather than the other way around.

However, it would be the "right thing" to take in someone who "is in as much pain as Harry clearly is", said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail. He is still suffering "complex, deep-seated emotional wounds" from the death of his mother, Princess Diana, and Meghan Markle has "re-opened or even rubbed salt" in those wounds" and "helped him turn his back" on the royal family. It "would be miles better" for both sides if the Sussexes were to be "brought in from the cold".

'Back to business as usual'

No matter how reconciliation begins, any "positive effects" from the clandestine meeting have been "immediately jeopardised by the leak", said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. Harry's team has "loudly insisted that it is not behind" the leak, which seems plausible. But some of the Sussexes' choices have been "similarly nonsensical" and, "given everything that has happened", not many will be fully "convinced that this is the beginning of a renewed bond between father and son".

For now, things are "back to business as usual" as the "two camps are bickering over who leaked the details" to the press, said New York magazine. Having the "two sides fighting over their attempt to stop fighting" isn't a "good sign".

There is still hope that this "first step" is the start of a "long road towards reconciliation", said People. Sources "close to the palace" have "downplayed the long-term significance of the meeting", and it has been painted as a "professional exchange" between royal staff. However, it still means "lines of communication appear to be reopening" for a "dialogue" that "hasn’t taken place in the recent past".

Emmanuel Macron has arrived in Britain for the first state visit by an EU leader since Brexit as the UK seeks to reset its ties with the bloc it left in 2020.

The French president and his wife Brigitte were welcomed by the Prince and Princess of Wales at RAF Northolt today, before meeting the King and Queen in Windsor.

A state banquet this evening is expected to be the "highlight of the trip", said the BBC, with a host of glamorous guests, a "showcase menu", and a message from the King about the "shared history and culture between our two peoples". He will urge the UK and France to stand together against a "multitude of complex threats" and warn of dangers in defence, technology and climate change. King Charles will also highlight risks "emanating from multiple directions" and challenges "that know no borders" from which "no fortress can protect us".

"Our two nations share not only values, but also the tireless determination to act on them in the world," the King is expected to say at the banquet, which will be held at Windsor Castle.

What did the commentators say?

"Few scenes convey British pomp and soft power more than the King and Queen in a carriage procession through the picturesque streets of Windsor," said the BBC.

With the Prince and Princess of Wales in attendance, a royal salute planned, and Macron set to inspect a guard of honour, there will be much pomp and ceremony. But at a time of "jeopardy" in Europe, this visit promises "much more than ceremony"; it brings "genuine hope" that it will strengthen both nations.

The UK and EU agreed less than two months ago to "reset" relations, and ties with France have warmed "considerably" since. The two countries have much in common: both are nuclear powers, permanent members of the UN Security Council, and keen to update the 15-year-old Lancaster House treaties, which established a 10,000-strong Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, which they now hope to expand with other Nato and European allies. It was not so long ago that Boris Johnson "accused France of wanting to punish the UK for Brexit". That "difficult chapter" now "appears to be over".

Defence cooperation "is the most significant aspect of this rapprochement", said Le Monde. Since Brexit, Europe has "shifted into a new era: that of large-scale war waged by Russia against Ukraine". It is Britain and France who are leading a "coalition of the willing" in Europe, "seen as capable of guaranteeing Ukraine's security in the still distant event of a peace agreement". And as the only two nation states with nuclear weapons and the two European permanent members of the UN Security Council, Keir Starmer and Macron have "a particular responsibility" – that of "taking a leading role in strengthening Europe in the face of an increasingly aggressive Russia and a decreasingly supportive US".

But while Starmer will play a role, the three-day visit is "very much the Charles and Macron show", said Politico. The King, a known Francophile with a "long-standing and close relationship" with Macron, shares the French president's passion for "climate diplomacy".

The full royal household is now being deployed to celebrate "how much Britain and France have in common", and the King's banquet speech will be "watched for hints about where he thinks the two allies have further to go".

Only a few years ago Boris Johnson sent Royal Navy frigates to Jersey during a dispute with France over fishing rights, and Liz Truss "declined to say whether she considered the French president, Emmanuel Macron, to be a friend or foe to Britain", said The Guardian. Now, at a time of "acute geopolitical instability" it is "overwhelmingly in the interests of both countries", as well as Europe, "that a fully functioning entente cordiale is restored".

What next?

Before tonight's state banquet Macron will address MPs in the Palace of Westminster's Royal Gallery, before taking part in a UK-France summit with Starmer on Thursday.

Defence, growth, security, migration and French tactics on tackling small boats are likely to be discussed, with the two leaders also expected to dial in to speak with other allied leaders looking to support any future peace deal in Ukraine.

As the drama around Labour's attempted welfare cuts continues to shake the Palace of Westminster, another palace down the road is faring far better.

The royal family received £86.3 million in government funding in the 2024/25 financial year, according to the annual accounts statement released by the Royal Household on Monday. And that will rise to £132 million next year after a big jump in the profits made by the Crown Estate.

The yearly lump sum paid by the government to the royal family, known as the Sovereign Grant, is by law identical to the three previous financial years – and has long been a source of controversy, with republican groups calling for it to be abolished.

How is the royal family funded?

The three main sources of income are the Sovereign Grant, the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall, as well as personal property and investments.

The Sovereign Grant is a percentage of the profits made by the Crown Estate, a vast portfolio of land (separate to the monarch's personal property) valued at £15 billion. Ever since 1760, the monarch has given the Treasury the profits from the Crown Estate in exchange for an annual grant – the Sovereign Grant – from the government, or taxpayer.

The Crown Estate is owned by the monarch as part of his or her "public estate", i.e. by virtue of being the King or Queen. It includes Regent Street in London, nearly 300,000 acres of land and forests, more than half the coastal land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and nearly all of its seabed within 12 miles of the coast. There, it racks up vast profits from offshore wind farms.

Last year the Crown Estate made £1.1 billion in profit, thanks to a huge "boom in the offshore wind sector", said The Guardian. That's more than double their level two years ago, of £442.6 million. The monarchy receives 12% of Crown Estate profits, so Charles will earn an official annual income of £132 million next year.

How is the Sovereign Grant made up?

The Sovereign Grant pays for the maintenance of palaces and the official duties of the royals. It is made up of a £51.8 million "core grant", said CNN, which "functions like an expense account for the monarch and their representatives, covering the costs of their public duties, including travel, staff and upkeep of historic properties". The rest is a £34.5 million fund for the ongoing major refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

It does not, however, pay for security, which "also incurs a high cost given the royals' numerous public engagements".

What does it cost the UK taxpayer?

The Sovereign Grant costs about £1.29 per UK citizen, said the Royal Household, but the taxpayer foots many other bills. Security costs, which are paid for by the government, are not disclosed – guesses range from a few million to £100 million a year. There is also the cost of policing royal events.

The coronation of King Charles, for example, cost taxpayers £72 million, the government revealed last November. There are indirect costs, too, such as the royal family's exemption from inheritance tax.

The grant will be £132 million in 2025/26 – a 53% increase – thanks to that massive increase in profits from the Crown Estate.

What is the criticism of the Sovereign Grant?

"The grant system is mad," said Graham Smith, a campaigner for the anti-monarchy group Republic, in a statement this year. "The palace has recycled the excuse of needing the money for refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, an excuse used to double the grant 10 years ago."

Anti-monarchists also argue that "in debates about public spending and tight finances, then the full picture of royal funding needs to be recognised", said the BBC.

Republic has analysed the "true cost" of the royal family to the public, and claimed it now exceeds £500 million a year.

"It's time that half a billion pounds was put to good use, that there was proper accounting for the cost of the monarchy and for that cost to be slashed to just a few million pounds," said Smith.

What is the counter-argument?

There are "harder-to-measure economic benefits from the royals", said the BBC, such as "boosting tourism and supporting overseas trade". A YouGov survey in 2023 found that 55% of Britons viewed the monarchy as good value for money; 30% saw it as poor value.

"Soft power is hard to measure but its value is, I believe, now firmly understood at home and abroad," said James Chalmers, the King's Keeper of the Privy Purse and treasurer to the King, in a statement to accompany the report this week.

Royal family members undertook more than "1,900 public engagements in the UK and overseas", the latest Sovereign Grant Report said.

Michael Stevens, the former King's Keeper of the Privy Purse, said last year that he expected a reduction in the size of the Sovereign Grant as part of the review in 2026/27.

Over 20 years after receiving his OBE, David Beckham is set to finally receive a knighthood in the King's birthday honours.

The former footballer, who turned 50 last month, will be knighted after having "struck up a firm friendship with King Charles", reported The Sun.

One thing is for sure, Beckham has "certainly put the hours in" said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. "Not since Mohamed al-Fayed’s (doomed) attempts to obtain a British passport has anyone so assiduously cultivated a friendship with the royal family in order to achieve their desires."

Last year, Beckham "revealed he had swapped beekeeping tips with the King before being given an ambassadorial role with the monarch's charity", said The Telegraph, while he has "repeatedly rubbed shoulders with the King and Queen, and wore a new rose named in the King's honour when he met them at the Chelsea Flower Show last month".

A long time coming

"Year after year", Beckham had been notably absent from the honours list, said the Daily Mirror. Despite being the face of British sport for over a decade, as far back as 2011 Beckham's nomination for a knighthood was rejected outright after his tax affairs were deemed too complex and controversial to allow him to be made a Sir.

Then in 2017, it seemed as if "his chances were dashed" for good "when explosive emails were leaked where he reportedly lashed out at the Honours Committee for not including him on the list", said the Mirror.

After some much-needed diplomacy, and a huge amount of charity work, many thought a knighthood "would finally come in 2022, after he spent 13 hours queuing with the public to pay his respects at Queen Elizabeth's coffin", said The Sun. But Beckham again missed out. Then, to add insult to injury, The Sun reported that Beckham was overlooked again last December with the honour instead going to Gareth Southgate, the former England manager.

'Seemingly Teflon'

Despite his "fame, wealth and good looks", Beckham "has not always been his own greatest advocate", said The Spectator's Larman. In fact, "there has always been a faint ridiculousness to him, as if Frank Spencer had inhabited the body of Brad Pitt".

But this knighthood is testament to the fact that Beckham's brand is "seemingly Teflon", said The Telegraph's Marianka Swain. Despite "some major reputational blows, from the 1998 World Cup sending off and Rebecca Loos' 2004 claims of an extramarital affair to controversy over the Qatar-hosted 2022 World Cup", the former footballer "is entering his golden years more professionally successful and adored than ever".

The people who know Beckham best "talk about someone who shows absolutely no signs of slowing up and is utterly determined, with the help of some very skilful people around him, to keep building his own brand", said The Athletic's Daniel Taylor. But while he has often got what he wanted, the knighthood is something "he has craved for longer than he would probably wish to remember". If it is to be "Arise, Sir Goldenballs" then "it just might be the birthday present he wanted above all".

Sir Geoffrey Vos's judgment last week "was delivered politely and calmly", said Hugo Vickers in The Independent, bringing to an end a years-long legal battle over Prince Harry's security. The Court of Appeal judge found that the decision to downgrade Harry's police protection after he stepped back from royal life in 2020 was legally justified – though he said he understood Harry's fears and his "sense of grievance".

Harry had lost, and at this point, anyone else in his position would have retreated to quietly nurse their wounds (and pay their significant legal fees). But not Harry, said Rebecca English in the Daily Mail. Instead, he gave a "frankly extraordinary" interview to the BBC in which he described the decision as a "good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up", and claimed it wasn't safe for him to bring his wife Meghan and their children to the UK. He even set hares running over the health of the King, who is battling cancer, saying: "I don't know how much longer my father has. He won't speak to me because of this security stuff."

As Harry tells it, said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail, he and his family "are victims of a massive conspiracy", perpetrated by an "utterly ruthless organisation called 'the Royal Household'". "They" are trying to kill him by removing his police protection; "they" use security to control members of the family. "On and on it goes, an endless litany of perceived injustices" – wilfully ignoring the fact that Harry deliberately chose to step away from royal life and all its trappings, including security.

After firing off those "missiles", said Roya Nikkhah in The Sunday Times, Harry then had the gall to say he hoped for "reconciliation" with his family. He still doesn't get it, does he? To go on the attack just as the royals were about to commemorate VE Day "goes to the very heart of what he keeps getting wrong".

"The interview was awful, slick with entitlement and ignoring the harm done by his own hostility," said Libby Purves in The Times. But Harry is clearly suffering, and the magnanimous thing at this stage would be for his brother and father to grit their teeth and try to welcome him back into the fold (though of course, with his history of spilling royal secrets, they would have to watch what they said).

The King should accept his "wounded" son's appeal for reconciliation, agreed Peter Hunt in The Observer. If not, this family sore will continue to "fester" – casting a shadow over Charles's reign. According to Harry, his father once implored: "Please, boys – don't make my final years a misery." The King should avoid turning that prophecy to reality

Security at Windsor Castle is under heightened scrutiny after burglars smashed their way through a security barrier at an entrance to the famous royal estate.

Two vehicles were stolen from a property within the Windsor estate, and the raid last month "follows other security breaches in Windsor" in recent years, said ITV News.

In February a man was detained under the mental health act after being found close to King Charles's private apartments. And on Christmas Day in 2021, a man appeared at Windsor Castle brandishing a crossbow with plans to assassinate the Queen. Jaswant Singh Chail, 21, had scaled the perimeter of the castle with a nylon rope ladder and was in the grounds for two hours before officers confronted him with tasers. He was jailed later for nine years for treason.

What security is there at Windsor Castle?

There is a "layered system of protection" for members of the royal family in Windsor, said ITV News. There are "a number of entrances and exits available for any royal convoy leaving or arriving at the Castle" and the royal protection teams regularly change their routes "to avoid creating a pattern, should anyone be watching their movements".

Police guards and surveillance cameras are "intended to be the first line of defence" and an intruder "would have to get through many more layers of security" before "reaching a member of the Royal Family".

What about Buckingham Palace?

Security at the Palace was called into question in 2003 when an undercover reporter "exposed flaws" in the system by getting a job as a footman at Buckingham Palace "by using a false reference", said the BBC.

Ryan Parry worked at the Palace for two months, despite "unprecedented security" being in place for the visit of US president George Bush. "Had I been a terrorist intent on assassinating the Queen or American president George Bush, I could have done so with absolute ease," said the Mirror reporter.

Nowadays, Buckingham Palace is "carefully kitted out with state-of-the-art CCTV cameras that monitor the grounds 24/7", said Hello! There is also the "physical presence" of armed guards outside, who are trained to "stop any threats to the palace and to the royals". There are "strict rules around the airspace" in that part of central London, and it is believed the palace is "full of secret passageways" and the walls are "equipped with spikes".

Buckingham Palace reportedly has panic rooms "encased in 18in thick, bullet-resistant, fire-retardant steel walls", said Global Citizen. They are "designed to withstand poison gas, bombs or terrorists attacks" and have secure communications, beds, washing equipment and "enough food and water for the royals to survive for at least a week".

Have intruders ever reached the royals?

In July 1982, a man broke into Buckingham Palace and spent 10 minutes talking to the Queen in her bedroom. Michael Fagan, 31, scaled the walls around the palace and climbed a drain-pipe up to the monarch's private apartments.

It was the sixth breach of security at the palace that year and raised "serious questions" about "how well protected" the monarch was, said the BBC.

But it was "the first time that private royal apartments have been penetrated" since Queen Victoria's reign, although the Queen Mother "disturbed an army deserter" in her bathroom during the Second World War.

After the Fagan incident, security was stepped up and a 24-hour police presence was introduced outside royal apartments. But even this was "light by American standards", said The New York Times at the time, because "traditionally, the royal family has preferred a minimum of security so as to limit the disruption to their lives and the barriers from the people".

The King's Duchy of Lancaster estate makes £829,000 a year renting a warehouse to an NHS trust to keep ambulances.

That's just one of the findings from a joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's "Dispatches" into how the monarchy's centuries-old property portfolios are used in lucrative contracts with public bodies and charities. The investigation also revealed how the royal duchies receive millions from the armed forces, schools, prisons and fire and ambulance services.

Adding to the royal family's woes, a separate investigation by The Mirror and "Dispatches" found "scores" of rental properties owned by Prince William as part of his Duchy of Cornwall estate are riddled with damp and mould and fail to meet the minimum legal energy efficiency standards for landlords.

What did the commentators say?

The royal family making millions of pounds a year in rent from the NHS and the armed forces is a "PR disaster" that could have serious consequences for the future of the monarchy, said Libby Purves in The Times.

The 185,000 acres that make up the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have over time become "cash cows", raking in more than £50 million a year for King Charles and Prince William. That neither pay capital gains or corporation tax is already contentious, but the "real embarrassment" lies in the detail of their tenants – covering some of the most venerated public institutions in Britain.

For the modern monarchy, "perception is everything, and underpinning its popular support is the expectation that the royal family use their position for the public good", said Craig Prescott, a lecturer at Royal Holloway, University of London, also in The Times.

"Any suspicion that the monarchy is pursuing its public functions for private gain would be incendiary", something senior royals are "acutely aware" of.

While the Crown's vast land holdings are "no secret," said Zoë Grünewald on the i news site, "the scale of profit and hypocrisy is striking". The public outrage is "unsurprising" especially at a time of "widespread sacrifice for citizens" and when Labour is raising taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

There's nothing unusual about the royals' tax affairs, Ben Goldsmith, a British financier and environmentalist, told The Telegraph. "The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are private assets which generate an income for members of the royal family, on which they pay full tax," he said. "The royal family owns stuff, like many families in this country. And?"

While there is no question of impropriety, it's "not a good look" for the monarch and heir to the throne, said The Express, "especially not making money from mining activities in Cornwall" given their much-touted green credentials.

What next?

The King is "under growing pressure" to refund the cash-strapped NHS, said the Daily Mail. But the revelations have "raised fresh questions" over the royal family's wider tax arrangements, said The Telegraph.

Their tax exemptions are, in fact, "outdated and indefensible" said Grünewald. It is time for Labour to "harness the public's frustration" and build on the momentum of its "redefining budget and the appetite for change" by ensuring the monarchy pays its share of corporation and capital gains taxes.

This would "benefit the Crown as well". By taking a lead in supporting national unity and public services, "the royals could redefine their role in modern Britain".

Prince Harry is looking at ways to repair his relationship with his father as the first step in a potential return to the royal fold, the Mail on Sunday has reported.

Having grown increasingly "dissatisfied" with advice from US-based image experts, the Duke of Sussex has sought out former trusted aides in a bid to "rehabilitate" his image and "mastermind a return from exile in the US", where he has lived with his wife, Meghan, and their two children since 2020.

But "well-placed sources" told the BBC's royal correspondent Sean Coughlan that Prince Harry "is not planning a permanent move back to the UK" as it is "understood that concern over his and his family's security in the UK remains an issue". 

Operation bring Harry in from the cold

"Harry is feeling more and more isolated in California, which is why he has been reconnecting with old friends back home", a source "close to his inner circle" told The Sun. The 39-year-old royal "feels as though he has lost his way since moving to the US and has become 'The Spare' again" after being "overshadowed" by his wife, LBC reported.

Part of a strategy dubbed "Operation Bring Harry In From The Cold" in the Daily Mirror may involve performing "very low-key royal duties" to rebuild public trust, although sources have been quick to stress the couple would not move back to the UK permanently.

"He is clearly reaching out thinking, 'I need to do something different because what I'm doing is clearly not working'," said one source. "In short, he is rethinking the way he operates.

"If Harry comes back to the UK with zero fuss, and does zero publicity and attends very mundane events, he could prove himself and win over the British public again." 

But there is an "ongoing, labyrinthine legal wrangle with the Home Office over his security status in the UK", said the BBC's Coughlan, which "has become a thorny issue in any discussion about a return".

Healing royal relationships

William and Harry have not been on speaking terms for years, but were last week spotted in the same room for the first time since the May 2023 coronation of their father.

The Sun said Harry and William both made an appearance at the funeral of their uncle, Lord Robert Fellowes, in Norfolk. They arrived "very discreetly", a source told the paper with a local adding "but we never saw them speak to each other and they were keeping their distance".

Last month, People reported that Harry's recent texts, letters and phone calls to William have gone unanswered, with a royal insider describing the rift between the brothers as "very bad" if not "irreparable".

"Unless matters change very considerably, it is unlikely that either the King or Prince William will countenance any kind of formal return for Harry into the royal family," said The Spectator's Alexander Larman. It would be too humiliating after what has happened, and would risk making the institution a laughing stock.

Harry has, however, been trying to repair his relationship with his father for some time, said The Times, with the paper reporting in February that he was willing to return to a temporary royal role in the UK to support the family as the King was treated for cancer.

Although Harry had sought a position that involves limited royal duties but allows him to continue living in the US, Buckingham Palace has "opposed such an arrangement" said the paper, sticking to the line of his late grandmother, Elizabeth II, who insisted he could not be "half in, half out".

Stamps, banknotes and the national anthem – just three of the things that changed after King Charles took to the throne. Another change is that the UK has got wetter.

The first 18 months in which the new monarch "rained over us" were the wettest in England since 1836. No one is suggesting that Charles is to blame – but why is it getting wetter and what does this mean?

Is it getting wetter?

Last winter was the eighth wettest since records began more than 150 years ago and  England and Wales then had more than one and a half times their average rainfall in March.

The average UK winter has become around 1C warmer and 15% wetter over the past century, new analysis from Carbon Brief found. Combing through more than 100 years of data on temperature, rainfall, wind speed and snow, the researchers found that wet winters are becoming more common.

Why is it getting wetter?

The "simple answer" is that warm air is able to hold more moisture, said the BBC.

For every degree of warming, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases by around 7%, which fuels "more intense rainfall". So for as long as the Earth's climate continues to warm, the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapour will "continue to increase".

Back in spring of this year, jet streams spun up areas of low pressure, which usually bring rain. Imagine low pressure areas "as sponges full of water", said the BBC. Climate change means "they'll be loaded with even more water than before", so "when they're wrung out, we'll see more rainfall".

What does this mean for the future?

Well, there's good news and bad news. The Met Office has predicted that by 2070, winters in the UK will be up to 30% wetter than they were in 1990 and rainfall will be up to 25% more intense. The most severe downpours, 30mm or more rain in an hour, are expected to occur twice as often.

This means the risk of flooding will increase, with ground becoming saturated by persistent winter rainfall and drainage systems being "overwhelmed".

"Rainy old England" is certainly getting wetter, said Politico, and "Britain isn't ready". Experts paint an unsettling picture of the future. The danger of "very intense rain cells", Environment Agency boss Philip Duffy said last year, "genuinely keeps me awake at night".

John Curtin, a former Environment Agency boss with more than three decades of experience in flood management, recalled the 1953 flood, when 326 people died along Britain's east coast. "If a 1953 flood – which was 'once in a century' – becomes annual", he said, "what on earth does a 'once in a century' storm look like?"

The good news is that scientists recently found that rain can make us happy and improve our mental health. After drops of water hit a hard surface, negative ions can be formed in the air. Several scientific studies suggest that inhaling these negative ions has a positive effect on your health and mood.

"Nobody really knows exactly why that happens," Dr Niek Buurma, of Cardiff University’s School of Chemistry, told the BBC, but there are clear indications that "people feel more positive after inhaling negative ions".

"Nothing quite divides opinion like a royal portrait", and the latest attempt to depict our reigning monarch King Charles III is "no exception". 

The striking portrait was unveiled at Buckingham Palace yesterday, said The Art Newspaper, and shows Charles "bathed in red", and wearing the uniform of the Welsh Guards, sword in hand and with an "eco-friendly" Monarch butterfly landing on his shoulder – said to have been suggested by the King himself as a nod to his interest in conservation and the environment.

'Yes, you've got him'

The "vivid red work" is the first official portrait of the King since his coronation, and its creator, artist Jonathan Yeo, is no stranger to high-profile commissions, having painted Tony Blair, David Attenborough and Malala Yousafzai, said the BBC's culture editor Katie Razzall. Still, unveilings are "always a little nerve-wracking" for both the sitter and the artist. But this one appears to have had the royal seal of approval. Queen Camilla is said to have seen the painting before its unveiling and told Yeo: "Yes, you've got him."

Royal portraits have traditionally played an important role in "signifying power and projecting an image", said the broadcaster, with one of the most memorable being Henry VIII painted by Hans Holbein. But our relationship with royalty has shifted since the days of the Tudor dynasty, said Yeo. 

"On the one hand, we know they're real people with quirks and personality traits. We've seen that much more of them. On the other hand, we still want to buy into the mysticism and the fairy tale that they're different from us, that there's a bit of magic there." This portrait was an attempt to "figure out how to do both at once", he told the broadcaster.

'One of the spookier paintings I have ever laid eyes on'

Despite the many "poignant" details of the royal portrait, some members of the public are "sceptical" said The Mirror. One social media user commented that the painting had a "sinister look" about it, while another wrote: "What in the fiery depths of hell is this monstrosity? Is #KingCharles announcing he's an Antichrist?" 

"Is the likeness convincing?" wondered Alastair Sooke, The Telegraph's chief art critic. To me, the King resembles both his father, Prince Philip, and George W Bush in this painting. But Yeo's "faceted approach to rendering skin emphasises the King's furrows and wrinkles; he looks his age, and even slightly worried, as if he's just got dressed in his colonel's uniform following a long, dark night of the soul". His "apprehensive mien jars with the jaunty palette", and only reminds us of the "youthful beauty" portrait-painters could exploit in Queen Elizabeth II's early years as monarch. "And is that a ceremonial sword he's holding – or a stick?" added Sooke. "A millennium ago, Edward the Confessor ruled over us. Now, seemingly, it's the turn of Charles the Unsteady."

Art may be subjective, "but I am finding it hard to subject myself to this new portrait of King Charles," which is one of the "spookier paintings I have ever laid eyes on", said Danielle Cohen in The Cut. The image "does not exude the aura of calm and comfort one expects from a monarch who sells jam and sings to his plants" and instead resembles "a disembodied spectre of death floating between violent brushstrokes". In any case, with hit Netflix show "The Crown" still fresh in the public's mind, "does this guy really think now is a good time to remind us of our associations between himself and blood?"

Prince Harry is in London to celebrate a decade of the Invictus Games, but a visit to his father, the King, will not be on the agenda.

Today's Invictus thanksgiving service at St Paul's Cathedral will be the "first major event Harry has attended in Britain for some time", said Sky News. It is also the first time he has been back to the country since his "rushed visit to see the King in February after the monarch's cancer diagnosis". 

But he will not be seeing his father this week "due to His Majesty's full programme", said a spokesperson for Prince Harry. The Duke was said to be "understanding of his father's diary" and "hopes to see him soon".

At around the same time as the St Paul's service and "just round the corner (or a mere five stops on the District Line)", said Kevin Maher in The Times, King Charles is expected to attend the first Buckingham Palace garden party of the year. "It's almost as if there was something other than practicalities keeping them apart."

The apparent snub represents the "second blow in the space of 24 hours" for the Duke, after Buckingham Palace announced that Prince William is to officially become colonel-in-chief of the Army Air Corps, the home of "Harry's old regiment", said The Independent. The honour would have likely passed to Prince Harry had he remained a working royal.

The Prince of Wales and other senior royals were reportedly invited to the service at St Paul's, but they are not expected to attend. Prince Harry founded the Invictus Games a decade ago as a Paralympics-style sporting event for military personnel and veterans.

With plans underway for the first winter hybrid Invictus at Vancouver Whistler next year, Prince Harry said the team behind the games was "eager to celebrate the Invictus Spirit once again".

You won't see her featured on The Crown and you've probably never heard of her, but the Duchess of Gloucester has undertaken more than 5,000 engagements as she has been thrust into the spotlight.

She "never expected to undertake royal duties" when she married Prince Richard of Gloucester, said The Times, but a twist of fate meant she would, and she is now supporting the Queen at public events while the King "scales back his work to look after his health".

Who is the Duchess of Gloucester?

The daughter of a Danish solicitor, Birgitte Eva van Deurs Henriksen was born in 1946 in Odense, the birthplace of Hans Christian Andersen, and educated at a Swiss finishing school and the Scandinavian Academy of International Fashion and Design at Copenhagen.

She first met Richard, a grandson of George V, in the 1960s when both were studying in Cambridge. When the couple announced their marriage, the New York Times ran the headline "Queen's Cousin Will Wed a Secretary".

After they married in 1972, the "dashing" best man, his older brother Prince William, was expected to inherit the dukedom, so Richard "planned for a non-royal professional career", said Town and Country.

But William died six weeks later, when his racing aircraft crashed at an aerodrome near Wolverhampton. The death would mean that Richard became the Duke of Gloucester and Birgitte the Duchess.

The couple have undertaken tours to America and represented Queen Elizabeth at the coronation of King George Tupou of Tonga in 2008, but it is the duchess who is the most enthusiastic.

A documentary showed the Duke visiting a school in Croydon, southeast London, watching a troupe of children perform a dance routine to the Kenny Loggins song "Footloose". During the enthusiastic performance, he turned to a teacher, pointed at the ceiling and asked: “Is this an insulated roof?”

Why is she in the spotlight now?

The Duchess is regarded as more of a natural, and although she has "never given an interview or courted publicity", she now "finds herself with newfound attention", says The Times.

The Daily Express noted that this year, the "unsung hero" has helped Camilla hand out the Queen's Anniversary Prizes to universities and colleges. She joined the Queen and Queen Mathilde of Belgium for a reception at Buckingham Palace to mark International Women's Day.

Another engagement came at a ceremony at Clarence House when the Queen was made an honorary liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Fan Makers, a philanthropic body whose members are drawn from all walks of life, trades and professions.

She is patron for around 60 charities, including the National Asthma Campaign, and her work for the Lawn Tennis Association has included appearances in the royal box at Wimbledon as well as opening public courts in Tottenham, north London.

She and the Duke, who have an apartment, the Old Stables, at Kensington Palace neighbouring William and Kate, have three children and six grandchildren.

'All sides would benefit from regime change — in Israel'

Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post

Ending the Israel-Hamas war requires "regime change," and not just in Gaza, says Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post. Obviously, "Hamas cannot continue to control Gaza from where it terrorizes both Israel and Palestinians." The Palestinian Authority also needs to "find credible leadership." But to resolve the conflict, Israel must undergo its own transformation by repudiating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and "his far-right government." They've "lost the confidence of the country" by undermining democracy and mismanaging the war.

Read more

'Trump's immunity defeat isn't the setback it seems to be'

Michael Conway at CNN

The appeals court rejection of former President Donald Trump's immunity claim allows the case against him over "his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection to move forward," says Michael Conway at CNN. But it's not "a clear-cut victory for efforts to try Trump before Election Day." The 28 days it took the court to rule and the appeals Trump has left probably ensure his "strategy of delaying the outcome" of his trial until after November will work.

Read more

'Republicans are lying about their own border bill'

Linda Chavez in The Bulwark

Republicans are so desperate to criticize the tough border security bill they themselves negotiated that they're resorting to making things up, says Linda Chavez in The Bulwark. Their "biggest lies" include the claim President Joe Biden can halt illegal immigration without a new law — he can't — and that the bill would create "a mass amnesty" — it won't. Republicans just want to kill the bill to "keep the issue alive for the 2024 election."

Read more

'Nikki Haley hilariously loses to 'None of the Above' in Nevada'

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air

Nikki Haley thought she had a "foolproof plan" to notch a victory by being "the only prominent candidate" to enter Nevada's Republican primary, says Jazz Shaw at Hot Air. Everybody else just competed in the GOP caucus. But it backfired when she got trounced by the "none of these candidates" option on the ballot. There were no delegates at stake, but 60% of the voters decided to "trudge out" to vote "in favor of Donald Trump."

Read more

'Immigrants make America stronger and richer'

Paul Krugman in The New York Times

"The mess at the border needs to be fixed," says Paul Krugman in The New York Times. And it could be, "if Republicans would help solve the problem instead of exploit it for political advantage." But let's never forget that "immigration is one of America's great sources of power and prosperity." Foreign-born workers pay taxes that help fund programs like Medicare and Social Security. "Cut off the flow of immigrants," and our system becomes "much less sustainable."

Read more

'King Charles III shows Lloyd Austin how to lead'

Washington Examiner editorial board

"You would expect a retired four-star Army general to be a better leader than a foreign monarch," says the Washington Examiner editorial board. But when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he hid it from the public and from President Joe Biden. Britain's King Charles III "seems to understand basic leadership better." He promptly announced his cancer diagnosis, offering "a difficult personal honesty in order to put the national interest first."

Read more

'Biden's job approval rating is abysmal. Here's why he might beat Trump anyway.'

Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times

No president has won reelection with approval ratings as bad as President Joe Biden's, which are stuck around a "stubbornly low" 40%, says Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times. "Fortunately for those who want Biden to win — or who really just want Donald Trump to lose — that number" might not matter. Trump is essentially an incumbent, too, and his outgoing approval ratings were even worse. This will be a referendum on both of their first terms.

Read more

'GoFundMe is a health care utility now'

Elisabeth Rosenthal at The Atlantic

GoFundMe got started as a tool "for underwriting 'ideas and dreams,'" from honeymoons to church missions, says Elisabeth Rosenthal at The Atlantic. But it has increasingly become a last resort for people trying to pay astronomical medical bills. "The most damning aspect of all this" might be that it's "no longer seen as unusual; instead, it is being normalized as part of the health system, like getting blood work done or waiting on hold for an appointment."

Read more

As the nation absorbs the news of King Charles's cancer diagnosis, what happens if he becomes unable to fulfil his constitutional duties is another concern.

"Much of his private work will continue," according to the BBC's political editor Chris Mason, and the monarch will still "receive his red boxes, the daily exchange of paperwork at the heart of his role".

It is also thought that his weekly meetings with the prime minister will continue during his treatment. But if the King were to become seriously ill, a piece of legislation called the Regency Act could come into play.

What is the Regency Act?

The Regency Act of 1937 was introduced during the reign of King Charles's grandfather, King George VI. It states that if the monarch "by reason of infirmity of mind or body" is "incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions”, a "Regent" would be appointed to take their place until they have recovered.

The act also states that if the throne passes to someone aged under 18, a regent is appointed to rule for them until they reach the age of 18.

The sovereign "does not control when or for how long a regency occurs", said academic and lawyer Anne Twomey on The Conversation. Instead, it must be declared in writing by three or more out of the following: the sovereign’s spouse, the lord chancellor, the speaker of the House of Commons, the lord chief justice of England and the master of the rolls.

The UK’s Regency Act rules that Prince William would currently be regent, as he is the next adult in line of succession to the crown. The regent has the powers of the King with regard to the UK, but cannot change the order of succession to the crown.

What about counsellors of state?

King Charles could delegate some or most of his functions to counsellors of state, as he has already often done when travelling overseas. Two counsellors of state act jointly in exercising royal powers such as assenting to laws, receiving ambassadors and holding Privy Council meetings.

Counsellors of state have sometimes carried out important royal functions. In February 1974, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret declared a state of emergency and dissolved Parliament. However, counsellors of state can no longer dissolve Parliament, except on His Majesty's express instruction.

Have the rules been changed?

Yes. In 1953, following the succession of Queen Elizabeth, a significant tweak was made that allowed the Duke of Edinburgh to rule as regent should one of their children ascend the throne as a minor, said Royal Central.

In 2022, King Charles announced that he would be asking Parliament to amend the Regency Act to increase the number of counsellors of state who can conduct official public business while the monarch is overseas or otherwise indisposed.

His decision to add Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, and his younger brother, Prince Edward, to the list of counsellors of state was a "generous spirited recognition of the services" that they had "undertaken for decades", said The Spectator. But it was less good news for Prince Harry and Prince Andrew, who will not be called upon as they are no longer "working royals".

The King's request was debated by both the Lords and the House of Commons before being passed into law.

Will a regent be needed?

It is too early to tell, but the messages from Buckingham Palace have been positive. In a statement, the royal household said that although "a number of the King's forthcoming public engagements will have to be rearranged or postponed", he remains "wholly positive" and "looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible".

The Prince of Wales is expected to cover some of his father's engagements while the King receives treatment for cancer.

King Charles has been diagnosed with cancer and will postpone public duties during his treatment, Buckingham Palace has announced.

The King "remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible," the Palace said in a statement. Rishi Sunak wished the monarch a "full and speedy recovery", as did Labour leader Keir Starmer and heads of state worldwide.

The man "once known as the longest-serving heir to the throne" has now been forced to contemplate "not what he can do" with his reign, said The Telegraph, "but what he can manage". The Palace has given "no indication" that the King intends to step down, said The Independent. Rather, senior royals "are expected to stand in for him" while he recuperates.

Insiders reportedly said that the diagnosis came as a shock, but the disease is "understood to have been caught at an early stage", said The Times. Palace staff are "keen to remind people" that the "mood remains genuinely ­positive", the paper added. 

Despite stepping back from public events, the King will "continue with paperwork and private meetings as head of state", the BBC said.

Nevertheless, said The Guardian, the diagnosis will "cast doubt" on the monarch's "future role". The King’s illness "comes just as he was making a mark and as his popularity was growing", the paper added.

The Princess of Wales will remain in hospital for up to two weeks following successful abdominal surgery, while King Charles will be admitted to hospital next week to receive treatment for an enlarged prostate.

Kate Middleton attended a private clinic in London for planned surgery on Tuesday and is recovering well, Kensington Palace said. It is unclear what the surgery was for, but it is "understood not to be cancerous", said the Daily Mail.

The 42-year-old's admission was not due to a "sudden development", said The Telegraph. "As recently as the end of last week" her aides had been "planning engagements" and had "appeared to expect the forthcoming tours to go ahead". Two overseas trips have been postponed, while Prince William has also cancelled upcoming engagements as he remains "committed to caring for her".

Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace announced – just 90 minutes after Kensington Palace had put out its statement – that the King would be required to attend hospital for his own procedure. The timing of the revelations is "understood to have been an unavoidable coincidence", The Telegraph reported.

The King, 75, has also postponed some engagements "on his doctor's advice", said The Sun, as he prepares for surgery on an enlarged prostate that should require an overnight stay in hospital. Unlike the Princess of Wales's condition, which has been kept under wraps so far, the King wanted to "share the details of his treatment to encourage other men to go for checks" if they were experiencing symptoms, the paper said.

The King was staying "at his private home" on the Balmoral estate when he received his diagnosis, reported the Daily Mail, but it is unclear whether he will remain in Scotland for the treatment or return to London.

King Charles III joked about having "sausage fingers" with his son Prince William during rehearsals for the coronation, a new documentary has revealed.

The "affectionate", "behind-the-scenes" BBC programme, which follows the build-up to the coronation in May, shows the "playful and warm relationship" the monarch enjoys with his elder son, said the BBC.

In one of the final rehearsals in Westminster Abbey, the cameras captured Prince William "rather tenderly supporting his father", said the broadcaster. When the prince struggles to fasten one of the ceremonial robes, the King tells him not to worry, as he does not have "sausage fingers" like his father.

Charles's "large fingers" have "previously drawn public attention and concern", said The Times, but the monarch has "often been the first to poke fun at his swollen digits". In a letter to a friend after William was born, Charles reportedly wrote that his baby son "really does look surprisingly appetising and has sausage fingers just like mine", said the paper. 

In 2012, he joked about his "sausage fingers" after getting off a long-haul flight to Australia, noted the Irish Mirror. As public comment on the issue grew, a "cheeky" New Zealand butcher sold sausages called "King Charles Sausage Fingers" to "cash in" on the matter, according to the New York Post.

Images of Charles's fingers have "prompted speculation from various members of the medical community", said The Independent, who have "suggested the swelling could be caused due to a condition called oedema", or a build-up of fluid.

Yet the documentary shows that the King "had a big fear for Prince William" but then "proclaimed his son Wills does not have ginormous" fingers after all, said the Daily Star. "Royal watchers" are said to be "hanging out of the bunting" in celebration at the news.

The 90-minute documentary, "Charles III: The Coronation Year", will be screened on Boxing Day at 6.50pm on BBC One and iPlayer.

A grandmother who charges her family for their Christmas dinner has raised the price for 2023, noted Lad Bible. For the past six years, Caroline Duddridge from Cardiff has been insisting that her guests cover the cost of the meal. "Obviously there were a few moans and grumbles saying 'I've got a few children'," she said, "but at the end of the day that's not my problem really, is it?" This year, she said she has got "a bit of stick" after putting up prices by £2. 

King 'hasn't got sausage fingers'

Royal watchers are "hanging out the bunting" after "King Chas III" announced that his son Wills "does not have ginormous sausage fingers", said the Daily Star. William was filmed closing a small clasp that held a lavish robe around his regal father during coronation rehearsals. “On the day, that’s not going to go in," quipped William, making his father laugh. “No, you haven’t got sausage fingers like mine," replied the monarch.

Santa Claus' reindeers get US clearance

Santa Claus and his deer have been given clearance by the US Department of Agriculture to enter the US. The government department said its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued a transit permit "to Mr. S. Nicholas Claus of the North Pole, a distributor with Gifts and Good Cheer, Inc". Last week, Santa Claus was granted official permission by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar to enter Irish airspace, noted the Daily Mail.

A painting found in an Oxfam charity shop has fetched £25,000 at auction, reported The Telegraph. The unwanted impressionist painting by 20th century British painter Henry Scott Tuke of a nude figure had been donated with several other unknown and unvalued artworks to the Oxfam shop in Stamford, East Midlands. A leading auctioneer noted the back story of the piece and the proceeds from the sale are expected to go mainly to Oxfam.

Psychics predict Harry woe

A medium has predicted that Prince Harry will lose his royal roles, but it will not be King Charles III that strips him of them. Craig Hamilton-Parker claimed the Duke of Sussex will soon lose out on his royal privileges – with the government potentially playing a part in the drama. On a YouTube livestream, his fellow psychic Jane Hamilton-Parker hinted at an "inner circle" threatening Harry, noted the Daily Star.

Snake in drawer shocks family

A US family made a "shocking discovery" on their houseboat in the form of a snake hiding in a sock drawer, reported UPI. The family said they were on their boat in Florida when they opened a sock drawer and found a yellow Eastern rat snake staring back at them. A friend who agreed to capture the snake ended up with a bite on his hand, but the injury was not serious. The non-venomous snake was relocated to its natural habitat.

King Charles is facing criticism for appointing as head of the royal medical household a doctor who has advocated for homeopathic remedies and claimed that Christian healers may be able to help the chronically ill.

Dr Michael Dixon, "a champion of faith healing and herbalism", has "quietly" held the senior position for the last year, revealed The Sunday Times.

While it is the first time the role has not included acting as the monarch's personal physician, duties include managing a team of doctors at Buckingham Palace, having overall responsibility for the health of the King and the wider royal family, "and even representing them in talks with government", said The Guardian.

'A less orthodox choice'

A "less orthodox choice" than his predecessors, Dixon is "one of the nation's most outspoken advocates of alternative medicine, including homeopathy", said The Sunday Times.

Dixon has long championed non-traditional treatments being made available on the NHS, including "thought field therapy", aromatherapy and reflexology, and has written papers arguing that Christian healers, however "unfashionable", may be able to help the chronically ill, reported the paper. He has also claimed the effects of homeopathy "may be real", citing a test tube experiment that suggested Indian herbal cures diluted with alcohol could kill breast cancer cells, added The Sunday Times.

While Dixon is yet to personally respond to the revelations, a Palace spokesperson denied that the doctor believes homeopathy can cure cancer. "His position is that complementary therapies can sit alongside conventional treatments, provided they are safe, appropriate and evidence based," they said. The Palace described him as a "practising GP" and fellow of the Royal College of GPs and Royal College of Physicians.

'Complementary medicine means precisely what it says'

Dixon and the King, who have known each other for decades, have "both been criticised for their support for homeopathy", said The Telegraph. 

Homeopathic remedies have not been available through the NHS since 2017, after its then chief executive Lord Stevens described them as "at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds".

News of Dixon's appointment has therefore been described as "worrying and inappropriate by academics and campaigners", The Guardian reported. Michael Marshall, project director at the Good Thinking Society, which promotes scientific scepticism, told the paper the move "isn't appropriate" and suggested the King might still be supporting complementary medicine behind the scenes.

"The whole promotion of alternative medicine undermines the trust in real medicine," said Graham Smith, chief executive of the campaign group Republic. Putting Dixon in place is "really irresponsible" and "raises questions" about the King's judgement.

The Palace said the King's position on "complementary therapies, integrated health and patient choice" was well documented when he was Prince of Wales. "In his own words: 'Nor is it about rejecting conventional medicines in favour of other treatments: the term 'complementary' medicine means precisely what it says'."

A new book that promises to make the royal family feel "ashamed" may prevent a "thawing in relations" between the King and Prince Harry, experts warn. 

In "Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival", Omid Scobie, who is "famous for writing about Harry and Meghan", makes a number of "highly controversial allegations" about the royals, said The Telegraph.

These days, "warts-and-all tell-alls seem to be as integral to the Windsor brand as weddings, jubilees and blockbuster funerals", said The New York Times. But what is in this book and what has the reaction been?

The background

Scobie is one of the UK's most prominent commentators on the royal family, and has taken a particular interest in the lives and thoughts of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

In 2020, Scobie co-authored a book about the couple with US journalist Carolyn Durand. "Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family" sold more than 31,000 copies in the UK in its first five days on the shelves.

"In revealing the depth of the divide that developed between William and Harry after Meghan came on the scene, it cemented Scobie in many people's eyes as Meghan's cheerleader, crusader and chum," said The Sunday Times.

The latest

His new book promises to be as explosive as its predecessor. "Tone-deaf, racist and financially reckless” are three charges "hurled" by Scobie at the monarchy, said The New York Times. 

Scobie writes that "when Queen Elizabeth II was at the helm she managed to keep much of it at bay". But the new King "comes in for a walloping", with allegations that  Charles is "often envious" of his sons' popularity. 

The book is equally critical of Prince William, who is portrayed as "snapping at Charles' heels" as the "ambitious" prince eyes the throne, said The Independent. The heir apparent is cast as a "hot-headed" company man who is "increasingly comfortable with the Palace's dirty tricks and the courtiers who dream them up".

Scobie claims that Harry was "left completely by himself" after the Queen's death. Meanwhile, the Princess of Wales considered her future sister-in-law Meghan a "rival" from the moment she appeared on the scene in 2016, according to Scobie.

Indeed, the book "rips into every member of the royal family – apart from a certain couple in California", said The Sunday Times. Harry and Meghan have denied any connection to "Endgame". Asked by the paper if Meghan contributed to the book, Scobie replied: "No, and I'm not her friend." But he admitted that he does share "mutual friends" with the duchess – something he says "helps with getting information and breaking details" about the royal family.

The reaction

Readers "hoping for a final death blow of gossip will be disappointed", said The New York Times, because "we've heard much of it before". But the book is "crammed with gripping gems about the bilious backbiting among the royal family" and is a "pacey, well-written account of where the modern monarchy could be heading if it doesn't adapt and appeal to a new generation".

Experts said that the new biography is "threatening a potential thawing in relations between the King and his youngest son", the Daily Mailreported. The royal family is in for a "bumpy ride", said Honey.

Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the extracts from Scobie's book. Nevertheless, said the BBC, the royal family "continues to provide inspiration for authors, book editors and television commissioners", so we can expect plenty more. 

For "royal critics, fans and observers alike", it's "not going to be a quiet week", said Deadline.

King Charles, who celebrates his 75th birthday today, has not always had the easiest relationship with the British public.

In truth, few public figures "enjoy unwavering popularity for decades", said The Daily Telegraph. Even the seemingly unassailable late Queen saw her approval ratings plummet after her misjudged response to the death of Princess Diana.

Her son and heir King Charles III is "no exception to the rule that when it comes to public opinion, what goes up must come down, before it goes back up again", said the paper.

'Potential for much to go wrong'

Charles became king a little over a year ago with the "potential for much to go wrong", said The Wall Street Journal. He was following Britain's much-loved and longest-serving monarch, had a record of outspoken activism and was facing the most divided royal family in decades.

But Charles this year has been "much more about stability and reassurance than about change or reform", agreed the BBC's royal correspondent Sean Coughlan. "Any expectations of a modernising monarch have so far been put on hold."

"It's been surprising in its lack of surprises," said royal commentator Pauline Maclaran. "People have very quickly become used to him as King."

This is borne out in the polls, which show that nearly two-thirds of the British public think Charles is doing a good job. He has been aided in this by the positive perception of Queen Camilla.

"He is popular, as he has never been before," wrote Max Hastings in The Japan Times. Accession, the prize for which he waited until late in life, has "mellowed and cheered him" and "he appears willing to heed advice, good advice, as in the past he was not".

'Safety-first approach'

Critics of Charles, who had waited longer than any other heir in British history to take the throne, had predicted he might seek a "radical overhaul of the monarchy and abandon his mother's staunchly neutral and apolitical approach to the role", reported Reuters. "But, in keeping with earlier promises, he has put aside his campaigning on the environment and climate change and remained within the accepted boundaries."

Since the day of his mother's death, said Hastings, "he has toured his kingdom meeting and greeting; conducted a highly successful state visit to Germany; and appeared to cast off much of his accustomed gloom both about himself and the world in which he lives".

He may have adopted a "safety-first" approach but he has not completely given up on the passions he pursued as Prince of Wales.

Last week, King Charles rebranded his charities as the King's Trust and King's Foundation, "which will send another message of keeping working rather than slowing down or handing over the reins to the next generation", said the BBC. 

'Monarchy steady on its foundations'

"Not everything has been plain sailing," said Reuters, with the most high-profile issue remaining his own family and questions around the royal finances. 

A year into Charles's reign, these remain "shrouded in secrecy", said Hastings, and with Britain’s economy in the doldrums, "it seems extraordinary that nobody is making a fuss about the self-indulgence of the royal lifestyle, which we expected to be curtailed after Queen Elizabeth II’s death."

He has nonetheless "won praise for his deft handling of Prince Andrew's fall from grace, and sympathy for a very public falling out with his younger son, Harry", said The Telegraph.

He still faces the twin challenges of winning over younger Brits (a recent YouGov survey found just 35% of those aged 18 to 24 were in favour of keeping the monarchy) and perhaps the bigger task of maintaining support for the Commonwealth.

In this, said Zoe Williams in The Guardian, Charles suffers in comparison to his mother in that he "lacks the Queen's inevitability, that sense that he is there because he always has been", and "that aura of self-abnegation, of having surrendered himself to duty".

For many republicans, the death of the Queen and accession of King Charles was long seen as the moment when the British public would finally fall out of love with the Windsors. But "our monarchy – in this 21st century, Britain's foremost anachronism – has not for ages appeared so steady on its foundations", said Hastings. That is perhaps King Charles's greatest achievement.

King Charles will become the first member of the royal family to convey "sorrow" over Britain's handling of the Mau Mau uprising when he visits Kenya this week.

According to his deputy private secretary, Chris Fitzgerald, the King will "acknowledge the more painful aspects of the UK and Kenya's shared history”, including the so-called "Emergency" period from 1952-1960, in which Britain violently suppressed an uprising against colonial rule.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the King "will acknowledge that Kenyans were tortured during the reprisals for the 1950s revolt" but will "stop short of issuing an official apology". 

A royal source told the paper that Charles would "be working on his speeches for the state visit up to the last minute and always has sensitivity in mind", adding: "He will be mindful of expressing deep sorrow."

In 2013, the government agreed to pay almost £20 million in compensation to the Kenyan victims of torture during the uprising. The Kenya Human Rights Commission has estimated that 90,000 Kenyans were executed, tortured or maimed during Britain's crackdown after the rebellion.

King should 'cough up' official apology

King Charles should "stop choking on those two words, 'I apologise'," said Caroline Elkins in The Observer, and just "cough them up". An official apology "will probably trigger all sorts of liability issues" for the King and the British government, but the monarchy could use its £20 billion of wealth "to cover this".

And there would be "no better place" for a "first formal apology for colonial crimes" than Kenya, continued Elkins. It was there that Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne in February 1952 "and where, just a year later, her picture, in full regalia, hung in the detention camps where thousands of Africans were tortured, often while being forced to sing God Save the Queen."

King will be 'walking a tightrope'

As the King's first state visit to an African nation, and his first to a Commonwealth member, since he ascended the throne last year, the trip will be "closely watched" around the world, said The Associated Press. The King "has already shown a willingness to address difficult issues" such as by "opening the royal archives to researchers studying the monarchy's links to the slave trade", and before succeeding his mother, acknowledging the "appalling atrocity of slavery" during a speech in Barbados.

Yet, the King should avoid turning the trip into a "misery tour", said Richard Eden in the Daily Mail's Palace Confidential newsletter. "Our Royal Family should be optimistic, joyful ambassadors for Britain" and not "miserable apologists for empire".

Royal visits to former colonies have "long been delicate", said The New York Times (NYT), "but in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement, they have become fraught". King Charles will be "walking a tightrope" during the visit, said Nic Cheeseman, professor of democracy at the University of Birmingham. "He wants to say something strong enough to show that he gets it", but not so strong that it would open the British government, and the monarchy, to "calls for more reparations".

Buckingham Palace will also be trying to avoid the "public relations donnybrook" of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's tour of the Caribbean last year, from which the "lingering image was one of William, in a white dress uniform, riding in the same open-top Land Rover that had carried the queen and Prince Philip in 1962", an image that, for many Jamaicans, resembled "a caricature of a colonial proconsul inspecting his troops", continued the NYT.

The Royal Mint has unveiled a new collection of coins overseen by King Charles III, inspired by plants and animals from the four UK nations and designed to appeal to children.

The coins, which will be in circulation by the end of the year, depict "the flora and fauna found in different parts of the UK", said The Guardian, and "reflect his [the King's] interest in conservation and nature". It marks the first time the UK's coins have been entirely redesigned since 2008.

The new 1p shows a hazel dormouse, the 5p an oak tree leaf, the 20p a puffin, the 50p an Atlantic salmon and there are two bees on the pound coin. The 10p piece depicts a capercaillie, a critically endangered (and formerly extinct) game bird found in parts of Scotland. The £2 coin "features a rose for England, a daffodil for Wales, a thistle for Scotland and a shamrock for Northern Ireland". 

An effigy of the King, by sculptor Martin Jennings and presented by the Royal Mint in 2022, will remain. However, the monarch's portrait faces to the left, in the opposite direction to that of the late Queen Elizabeth II, "in line with British coinage traditions". It is inscribed with "IN SERVITIO OMNIUM" – "in the service of all". 

The collection is "a real gear change", Chris Barker, information and research manager of the Royal Mint, told The Daily Telegraph. "We have had feedback and input from the King himself," Barker said. "He is very keen to ensure that the idea of having a naturalistic theme across the coins that fits him and also fits this era particularly well."

The designs mark "a significant shift" from the coins featuring the late Queen, said the paper, as there is "very little heraldic imagery – depictions of Britannia alongside shields and royal family crests". Images of Britannia, "the helmeted female warrior who represents the nation, a staple on coins between 1672 and 2008", are no longer featured. 

But the size of the lettering "has been increased to make them more accessible and to help children learn numeracy skills".

"The large numbers will be very appealing to children who are learning to count and about the use of money," Rebecca Morgan, director at the Mint, told the BBC. "Also the animals and everything you see on these coins will appeal to children."

There have been commemorative coins circulating featuring Charles, noted the BBC, but these designs, "officially known as definitives", mark "the final chapter of the King's transition onto coinage".

King Charles was presented with the Scottish crown jewels this week at a ceremony in St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh to mark his coronation.

Among the wellwishers and onlookers were 200 protesters who “claimed a prime spot outside the cathedral”, said The Telegraph.

Speaking at the pro-republic protest was Scottish Greens co-leader and minister Patrick Harvie, who said he wants the UK to “be a modern, democratic republic where the power of the head of state is elected rather than inherited”.

A YouGov poll for BBC “Panorama” in April “showed support for the monarchy”, with 58% of those polled “preferring the institution to an elected head of state”, said Insider. But enthusiasm among younger people “remained significantly lower”, with just 32% between 18 and 24 supporting the monarchy.

“Nothing lasts forever,” the i news site added, and Nick Barber, professor of constitutional law and theory at Oxford University’s Trinity College, “feels certain that one day the nation will command its king or queen to stand down”. But what would the UK be like if this were to happen?

What did the papers say?

The monarchy “works really well when you have a monarch like the late Queen, who is able to act as a figurehead”, said Barber. But because “you appoint the monarch on the basis of birth”, sooner or later somebody “who doesn’t have the talents to perform that role” would be appointed.

Although it “would almost certainly take decades at least”, the site continued, but Barber thinks “it’s inevitable that we will move to a republic”.

Countries including Greece and Bulgaria have abolished their monarchies “through public referendum”, said Insider.

Britain would need a “two-step” referendum, Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at the Constitution Unit of University College London, told i news. The first would be for the people to decide if they wanted to become a republic, he said. The second would be on how to choose the head of state.

Barbados became a republic in 2021. Then, “two days after the Queen’s death”, Antigua and Barbuda’s prime minister said the nation would “probably hold a referendum” within three years.

A “stampede” of republicanism isn’t expected immediately” but there may be a “domino effect around the Commonwealth”, Barber added. And he thinks “we’ll see Australia and New Zealand and possibly Canada saying they no longer what to be monarchies” within the next decade. This “would come too soon to encourage British voters to do the same straight away” but it may “begin a gradual shift”.

Without a royal family, “the people of Britain would have a more fair and even democracy”, according to The Latch. This is because it would mean the end of a process called the Queen’s or King’s consent, under which more than 1,000 laws were “vetted by Queen Elizabeth and King Charles before they got the stamp of approval”.

The House of Lords “would likely go” too, with an end to Parliament’s second chamber meaning an end to the 92 hereditary peers who “are from bloodlines that inherit political power”.

What next?

Abolishing the monarchy would, however, carry implications for Britain’s place in the world. “We live in an era of soft power,” said royal writer Robert Hardman at a debate hosted by The New Statesman in May. “Of course the monarch is irrational,” he added. “But the fact is, it has served us incredibly well, and it would be an act of monumental folly and self-harm to get rid of it.”

Some “fear a republic could lead to a politician grabbing even more power” than the prime minister holds, said i news. An alternative may be “people who have never held political office” appointed as heads of state, said Hazell. An example is the “largely ceremonial” Irish precedency.

Buckingham Palace “could become a permanent tourist attraction” in the event the monarchy was abolished and the King “were to officially move out”, said Insider. The palace belongs to the Crown Estate, but “is not the private property of the King”, according to its official website.

This would also apply to Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. It’s likely either Balmoral Castle or Sandringham “could be chosen as a new permanent residence”.

While “it’s possible that Charles would retire from public life if the monarchy was abolished”, the younger royals such as Prince William and Kate Middleton “would follow Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s lead and try to shape their own careers”.

Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last September, King Charles has led the nation in mourning, played host to world leaders and taken centre stage at the most prestigious of royal celebrations.

It was “inevitable” that this would be “a year of firsts” for the new monarch, said Town & Country. Charles “took his inaugural salute as sovereign” at Trooping the Colour – or officially, the King’s Birthday Parade – on Horse Guards Parade at the weekend, before leading the Order of the Garter service at Windsor Castle yesterday.

The official birthday celebrations are “the most colourful and impressive of Royal events – save only the Coronation itself”, said Alan Cochrane in The Telegraph. Some 1,400 soldiers, 400 musicians and 200 horses took part in the military parade, which marked the first time a monarch had ridden on horseback at the ceremony since his mother did in 1986.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s absence from the weekend’s celebrations did not go “unnoticed”, said Town & Country. The King’s youngest son and his wife were not invited to attend the event, and while a rift remains in the royal household, “it seems that even a desire to put on a show of unity has been put to one side”.

One very notable presence, however, was five-year-old Prince Louis, who “has a track record of lightening the mood at formal royal events”, said Sky News. The young royal “thoroughly enjoyed” watching the fly-past with his family on the Buckingham Palace balcony, seemingly pretending to ride a motorbike as the planes flew overhead.

As Charles’s year of “firsts” begins to draw to a close, take a look back at some of the most memorable moments of his reign so far.

The Chelsea Flower Show, Britain’s most celebrated horticultural event, is underway in London.

Held annually within the picturesque grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, this five-day exhibition represents “the pinnacle of horticultural excellence with showstopping designs, innovative materials and glorious blooms”, said the show’s organisers, the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS).

King Charles and Queen Camilla visited the show this week as tributes were paid to Queen Elizabeth II, with displays honouring her memory. Throughout her 70-year reign, the Queen “rarely missed” the annual event, visiting the show “more than 50 times”, said the BBC.

The Princess of Wales made a “surprise” appearance, the Evening Standard reported, joining school pupils at the event’s first ever children’s picnic, where she met youngsters from 10 schools taking part in the RHS Campaign for School Gardening.

Female designers will outnumber their male counterparts at this year’s show, “putting men in the minority for what is believed to be the first time”, said The Times. “In 2013, women made up only 27% of garden designers,” said the paper.

The Chelsea Flower Show has been held every year since 1913, apart from pauses during the two world wars and in 2020, when the pandemic caused the event to be online only. The RHS expects more than 150,000 visitors to attend this year’s event.

The British monarchy is entering a new era with the coronation of King Charles III. The king has pledged to be a transformational head of state, helping to bring the institution into the 21st century. A noted increase in diversity within the coronation ceremony itself, as well as Charles' commitment to climate change issues, may be indicative of where the crown is heading.

However, the royal family has long been at the center of criticism regarding the modern role of the monarchy. Protesters demonstrated across the U.K. in the leadup to the king's coronation. One of the most contentious issues remains the desire by some to see reparations given to former British colonies.

The U.K. has seen renewed calls for backpay to people whose ancestors were subjugated to the horrific realities of the British Empire. This includes a push for reparations to Caribbean and African nations, many of which were colonized, enslaved, and plundered. India and Pakistan have also sought $45 trillion in restitution from the U.K. However, the British government has often been passive in committing to this backpay, and some Britons don't feel they should pay for the actions of their ancestors.

Pro: It's morally correct

Reparations are not only about money, but "about the 'mass murder, the human suffering, the annihilation of spiritual, intellectual, and creative forces, which are without parallel in the history of mankind,'" Afua Hirsch writes for The Guardian, borrowing a parallel from Jewish reparatory justice claims.

Providing these reparations could help offset decades of wrongdoing, Hirsch adds, especially because "unceasingly since the 18th century, Black people have stated the case [for reparations] in petitions, correspondences, pamphlets, public speeches, slave narratives, and judicial claims."

Con: Reparations punish the wrong people

Even while seeking forgiveness, it must be recognized that "the past is past and that we must guard against some of the modern equivalents of imperial exploitation that are still amongst us," John McKenzie opines for BBC News, adding, "Economic growth and improvements in health and social life must come from aid, support, fair and free trade."

McKenzie also argues that in countries such as India, British companies "have indulged in a form of reparations" by using "'outsourcing' of such functions as 'call centers' which, together with its remarkable response to the opportunities of the latest digital technologies, has ensured that the balance has shifted in India's favor."

Pro: It would go a long way toward racial justice

British colonialism "resulted in an intergenerational legacy of trauma and inequities in key social indicators such as high incarceration rates and endemic poverty in affected Indigenous communities," Ali MC writes for Al Jazeera.

As a result, the heads of many former colonies have called for reparations to help balance racial hierarchies. A letter to Charles from 12 Commonwealth nations asks him to "commit to starting discussions about reparations for the oppression of our peoples, plundering of our resources, denigration of our culture and to redistribute the wealth that underpins the Crown back to the peoples from whom it was stolen." The U.K. should begin "a process to right the wrongs of the past and to continue the process of decolonization," the letter adds.

Con: Colonialism was in the past

While acknowledging atrocities is one thing, "we have become too trusting of activists who demand that we always accept the worst possible interpretation of our history," David Abulafia writes for The Telegraph. Any apology offered by former colonizers "should be on the basis of historical fact rather than supposition – especially when there are calls for financial compensation as well."

Even as European nations played the largest part in the slave trade, "the role of African rulers in capturing and selling the slaves cannot be ignored," Abulafia says. He adds that "paying out large checks will not alter the past," as important as it is to teach future generations about history's atrocities.

Pro: The U.K. and its former colonies could move on

Much of Great Britain still sees the colonial era as civilized, Luke Moffett, a researcher at Queen's University, tells PBS. As a result, "There's no real ownership of responsibility. So there is recognition that what happened in the past was bad, but we're not responsible now." Providing reparations would "[separate] the monarchy or British government from the past," Moffett adds.

Reparations "could change the destiny of the descendants of slavery in the Caribbean," Kenneth Mohammad writes for The Guardian. Financial aid could help prop up many poorer nations by bringing "real, impactful development initiatives in infrastructure, education, health and transportation."

Con: The process would be convoluted

One problem is that "it's not entirely clear to ordinary people in the Caribbean, what a demand for reparations would mean for them materially," David Scott, an anthropology professor at Columbia University, tells PBS.

Even British authorities have opined on this problem. Asif Ahmad, a former U.K. diplomat, tells Jamaican newspaper The Gleaner, "The reason why [reparations] will not prosper is because who do we pay it to? The people who were harmed directly are no longer here." Ahmad adds that a better solution would be to help countries like Jamaica through direct investments instead.

For many of us, the coronation will have passed by in a rainy blur of “pomp, quiches and bunting”, said Sonia Sodha in The Observer. But for members of the campaign group Republic, “things took an altogether more sinister turn”.

Its chief executive Graham Smith had spent months liaising with police over arrangements for a coronation day protest against the monarchy in Trafalgar Square. But when he arrived with other protesters at 7.30am last Saturday to unload placards, Smith and five others were arrested – apparently because police suspected that the straps they had brought to secure their signs might be used for a “locking on” protest.

They were handcuffed, bundled into the back of a police van, and held in custody for 16 hours. In total, 52 people were arrested on suspicion of planning to disrupt the event. Suspected offences included planning a breach of the peace, and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

‘We are not Russia, are we?’

In arresting the members of Republic, the police were making use of authoritarian new powers under the recently passed Public Order Act, said Suzanne Moore in The Daily Telegraph. The measures are aimed at countering the “guerrilla tactics” of groups such as Extinction Rebellion: blocking roads, “locking on” to buildings and so on. Some will be in favour of “disrupting the disruptors”. I would say: “be careful what you wish for”. This pre-emptive crushing of a respectable protest was a “stain” on the coronation, and a sign of a worrying new intolerance towards dissent. “We are not Russia, are we?”

The Act bans “disruption”, which it defines very broadly and vaguely, said Ian Dunt in The i Paper. This is absurd, because the purpose of protest is, to a large extent, disruption. It is “a direct attack on freedom of speech”.

‘Not a police state’

Freedom of speech and the ability to protest are “precious features of democracy”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. But so, too, is the freedom for people to go about their own business – enjoying the coronation, say – without interference from others. The Metropolitan Police said they had “serious and reliable” intelligence that protesters planned to disrupt the processions by, for instance, using rape alarms to panic horses and sow havoc. That nothing of this kind took place is “a triumph”.

With hindsight, it’s clear that some of the police activity “was over the top”: in the case of Graham Smith and his Republic colleagues, the Met has admitted its error and apologised. But the police had a difficult balance to strike. And the fact that they got it wrong in a few cases does not mean that Britain has “turned into an incipient police state”.

The coronation of King Charles III took place to both fanfare and controversy on Saturday, battling high expectations and appalling weather to please the maximum number of subjects.

More than 20 million people in the UK tuned in to watch the ceremony on TV, according to CNN, and tens of thousands braved the rain to stand outside and see the newly crowned King appear on the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

Any national event with such pomp and ceremony will undoubtedly mean some mixed opinions. The Week takes a look at a few of the most cited highlights and lowlights over the weekend.

Highlight: Penny Mordaunt

The leader of the House of Commons, Penny Mordaunt, became an unexpected star of the coronation after her performance as Lord President of the Council, the first woman ever to hold the role.

The former defence secretary and Conservative Party leadership candidate carried the “sword of state”, a 17th-century four-foot ceremonial weapon weighing eight pounds, according to Politico. She then exchanged it for the “sword of offering”, decorated with diamonds, emeralds and rubies.

Many commented in awe at the stamina of Mordaunt, 50, as she carried the heavy sword upright in front of her for a significant period of time. “I’ve been doing some press-ups to train for that,” she told Times Radio. “We get to practise with some replicas which are weighted,” she added, saying that her military training had helped.

It was “one of the most spectacular consolation prizes of all time”, said Politico. Mordaunt was effectively sidelined from the great offices of state by former prime minister Liz Truss after losing to her in the race to become Tory leader.

Mordaunt wore a widely praised, custom-made teal dress and headband embroidered with the gold fern motif of the Privy Council, rather than the standard black-and-gold court dress. “Penny Mordaunt looks damn fine!” Labour MP Emily Thornberry tweeted. “The sword bearer steals the show.”

“Penny Mordaunt’s sword is the ‘Pippa Middleton’s Bum’ of the coronation,’”, journalist Caitlin Moran said.

Lowlight: police arrests

“UK human rights groups have accused police of attacking civil liberties,” said the Financial Times, after the Metropolitan Police arrested 64 people, mainly “to prevent disruption” of the coronation.

The Met confirmed that 52 of the arrests “related to concerns people were going to disrupt the event, and arrests included to prevent a breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance”.

The government had “pushed through new powers to prevent protests just days before the coronation”, added the Financial Times. The Public Order Act makes “certain types of disruptive protest a criminal offence” and gives police “the right to intervene to stop protests before they happen”, the paper added.

Six members of the anti-monarchy group Republic were arrested. “There is no longer a right to peaceful protest in the UK,” its chief executive Graham Smith tweeted.

“We regret that those six people arrested were unable to join the wider group of protesters in Trafalgar Square and elsewhere on the procession route,” the Met said last night. Bail for the six has since been cancelled and no further action will be taken.

Among those arrested were three volunteers from Westminster Council’s safety team, who were handing out rape alarms to women. Mic Wright, a journalist who spoke with the volunteers, wrote on Twitter: “The Met arrested members of the City of Westminster’s Night Safety team. They are volunteers. They were pulled last night at 2am and have been held for 14 hours. One of them came out of the station in tears. Police didn’t apologise.”

The Met said there was intelligence that some groups had planned to disrupt the procession with rape alarms. The three volunteers have since been given police bail.

Highlight: music

The coronation was “a magnificent celebration of choral, orchestral and liturgical music-making”, said Classic FM.

The line-up featured pieces by Handel, Bach, Holst, Vaughan Williams and William Byrd, among others, new musical compositions based on the King’s favourite hymn, solo performances from Pretty Yende and Roderick Williams, and a coronation anthem written by Andrew Lloyd Webber: “Make a Joyful Noise”.

In a “historic first”, the entire coronation was recorded and released as an album on Saturday.

“Music was almost constantly present,” said The Guardian, “treated as peripheral until it was needed to deliver on the grandest scale.”

Lowlight: weather

“The crowning of Charles III in relentless rain followed a long tradition of wretched weather on coronation days that goes back centuries,” said The Times.

The weather was so bad that the planned military flypast over Buckingham Palace had to be scaled back.

Charles “remained upbeat about the weather”, said the Daily Mirror. “I hope you don’t all get soaked,” he had reportedly told campers on The Mall on Friday. “Rain is a blessing… except for your camera!”

“Royalty. Regalia. Rain. It’s what Britain does best,” said The Daily Telegraph. The London crowds “flatly refused to let the weather dampen the celebratory mood”, it said, “with good humour, stoicism, and a phalanx of sturdy umbrellas”.

Highlight: Prince Louis’ facial expressions

“Prince Louis may be known for his reputation of show stealing balcony antics at royal events,” said the Daily Mail, “and today was no different for the little royal.”

The third child of the Prince and Princess of Wales “couldn’t contain his excitement at Buckingham Palace as he gestured into the crowd”.

The five-year-old joined a number of other working royals on the balcony, with an enthusiastic double “jazz hand” wave. He was also filmed yawning during the ceremony.

“What a cheeky little chap Prince Louis is, made me chuckle,” one spectator tweeted.

Lowlight: Mistimed carriage arrivals

The Diamond Jubilee State Coach, carrying King Charles and Queen Camilla, arrived at Westminster Abbey five minutes early. The two then had to wait in the carriage while the coach carrying the Prince and Princess of Wales caught up.

The king was seen on camera speaking to Camilla, with a seemingly disgruntled expression. A lip reader told Sky News that they believed he said: “We can never be on time. There’s always something… this is boring.”

King Charles III was crowned monarch of the United Kingdom on Saturday, during a once-in-a-generation, pageantry-steeped coronation that came amidst continuing questions over the monarchy's modern role.

The ceremony took place at Westminster Abbey in London, where Charles, accompanied by his wife, Queen Consort Camilla, began by saying he had come "to serve, not to be served." The coronation was led by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who anointed Charles with oil as the king swore a series of oaths.

After being presented with several of Britain's crown jewels, including a sword, scepter, and orb, Welby placed St. Edward's Crown atop Charles' head as cries of "God Save the King!" rang out. This was accompanied by cannon salutes across the country.

Inside Westminster for the coronation were dignitaries from around the world. This included Ukrainian first lady Olena Zelenska and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, NPR reported. Following tradition, President Biden did not attend the festivities, though the United States was represented by first lady Jill Biden.

British leaders in attendance included Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, along with former Prime Ministers Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Tony Blair.

Following their departure from Westminster, the king and queen consort made their way down a procession to Buckingham Palace, where the royal family greeted crowds on the balcony.

While Charles' coronation was more muted compared to the 1953 ceremony of his mother, Elizabeth II, the crowning came as protesters have been pushing back against the royal family for days. The festivities are expected to cost British taxpayers up to £100 million, TIME reported, and were held even as the U.K. faces a cost of living crisis and skyrocketing inflation.

Opposition to the monarchy is largely along generational lines, with a poll cited by CNN finding that just 31 percent of Britons under 35 said they would watch the coronation.

The first child of the late Queen and former Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, Charles was born at Buckingham Palace on 14 November 1948. He became heir apparent at the age of three, when his mother became Queen.

In a recent interview with the Canadian channel CBC News, Anne spoke about the role and duties of her brother saying: “Well, you know what you’re getting because he’s been practising for a bit, and I don’t think he will change. You know, he is committed to his own level of service and that will remain true.”

Educated at Hill House in West London, Cheam Preparatory School in Berkshire and Gordonstoun in northeast Scotland, Charles became the Prince of Wales at the age of 20 at an investiture ceremony at Caerfarnon Castle in July 1969 presided over by the Queen.

As well as a naval career, and his official and ceremonial duties, Charles has helped establish more than 20 charities over 40 years, including The Prince’s Trust, The Prince’s Foundation and The Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund.

Charles married Lady Diana Spencer on 29 July 1981 at St Paul’s Cathedral in London. The event marked a “high point in the popularity of the Royal Family” and was watched by a global audience of 750 million people in 74 countries, said the BBC. The couple had two sons: Prince William, born on 21 June 1982; and Prince Harry, born on 15 September 1984. But his marriage to Diana was dissolved on 28 August 1996 and Diana died in a car crash in Paris 12 months later.

Having visited Papua New Guinea in 1975 to mark its independence from Australia, Charles returned in 2012 with his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. Charles spoke in the local language called Tok Pisin as he introduced himself as the “nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin” – which translates as the number one child belonging to Mrs Queen.

“More than 30 years after their romance first began,” said the BBC, Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married in April 2005. After a civil ceremony at the Guildhall, Windsor, there was a service of blessing at Windsor Castle, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

King Charles’s visit to Germany in March was a “resounding success”, according to the i news policy editor Jane Merrick, reinforcing his reputation as a diplomat. In 2019, the then Prince of Wales, known for his strong stance on climate change, needed those skills when he met US President Donald Trump, known for his “contradictory – and confusing” views on the subject.

When the Queen died last September, the throne passed immediately and without ceremony to her eldest son, Charles. In a televised speech after her death, he pledged, “throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation”.

This morning, eight months later, King Charles III was crowned in Westminster Abbey. The ceremony combined rituals that date back 1,000 years, including the anointing with holy oil, with elements created anew for the first 21st-century coronation.

Rehearsals were underway this week for Saturday’s coronation of Charles III and his wife Camilla.

It will be the 40th such ceremony held at Westminster Abbey since 1066. The service will feature the rite’s usual key elements – the recognition; the oath; the anointing; the investiture and crowning; and the enthronement and homage – but will depart from tradition in some respects.

It will begin, for instance, with Charles being greeted by a 14-year-old chorister, to whom the King will say: “I come not to be served but to serve.” And whereas previous coronations featured a “Homage of Peers”, this one will have an “Homage of the People”, which will involve the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby inviting everyone – both in the abbey and watching at home – to pledge allegiance to the King.

Most diverse coronation in British history

The coronation will be the most diverse such ceremony in British history. It will, for the first time, include female bishops and leaders of other faiths, as well as languages other than English. There will be a prayer in Welsh – Charles was the longest-serving Prince of Wales ever – and a hymn sung in both Scottish Gaelic and Irish Gaelic. At the very end of the service, the King will be greeted by a group of peers representing the Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and Buddhist communities – or “neighbours in the faith”, as they will be called. This part will not be amplified so that the rabbi may observe Shabbat regulations, which forbid the use of a microphone on the Jewish day of rest.

The service is due to be attended by some 2,000 guests – about a quarter of the number that attended the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953 – including about 100 foreign heads of state. Among the congregation will be Prince Harry, US First Lady Jill Biden and the singer Lionel Richie, who is chairman of The Prince’s Trust’s Global Ambassador Group. MPs and campaigners decried China’s decision to send Vice-President Han Zheng as its representative – a man regarded as the architect of Beijing’s crackdown on freedom in Hong Kong. Some were also unhappy about the attendance of Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s leader in Northern Ireland. O’Neill said she hoped her presence would help “build good relations between the people of these islands”.

Almost half the nation plan to watch

I attended a party the other day at which a guest turned up with a King Charles III tea towel as a gift, said Charlotte Ivers in The Sunday Times. Neither she nor the host “could quite work out whether the gift was ironic or not”, but everyone loved it. That sums up the “complex British relationship with our royal family”. Most of us affect not to care about the monarchy, yet polls suggest that almost half of us plan to watch the coronation, and millions of us will happily join in with the festivities at street parties on Sunday.

I won’t be celebrating, said Norman Baker in The Guardian. What’s the point of blowing an estimated £100m on some “huge candy-floss PR event for the royals”? There’s no legal need for a coronation at all. Every other European monarchy dispensed with this archaic rite decades ago. Spain’s last one was in 1555.

We’ve been treated to lots of negative views like this lately from parts of the media, said Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph. The BBC and others have gone out of their way to interview critics and to instigate debates about whether the royals cost too much or have lost the support of the young. This is unrepresentative – given that a clear majority of the public think the monarchy is “broadly a good thing and should stay” – and rather mean-spirited. A coronation is not the right moment for such arguments.

On the contrary, said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian, it’s a perfectly appropriate moment. We can all relate to royal births, marriages and funerals on a personal level. But there’s no real-life equivalent of a coronation, which showcases “the institution of monarchy, stripped of its human softening edges”, giving us a clearer perspective on it. In this context, it was foolish to incorporate a new “Homage of the People” into the ceremony. The idea, which reportedly originated in Lambeth Palace, has not been well received, and no wonder: to a public that mostly regards the royals with “benign apathy”, it sounds “positively feudal”. The fuss over the oath of allegiance will be forgotten soon enough, but the irritated response to it “shows what a tightrope” the royal family is walking.

Reign on the parade

Officials have written to the anti-monarchist campaign group Republic, warning its members about a new anti- disruption law that took effect this week, reports The Guardian. The Home Office claims the timing of the introduction of the new powers is coincidental.

Early forecasts suggest that rain may fall on the King’s parade, just as it did on those of his mother and grandfather, says The Daily Telegraph. Britain experienced what was described as “really quite miserable weather” when Elizabeth II was crowned; and 8.2mm of rain fell on the day of George VI’s coronation in 1937.

The government is “in no way complacent” about security for the coronation of King Charles III, the security minister has said following the arrest of an armed man outside Buckingham Palace last night.

Tom Tugendhat told Sky News that “the intelligence services, the police and others have been working on this extremely effectively for months”. A huge security operation, code-named Operation Golden Orb, in place for the coronation on Saturday, which will draw world leaders and dignitaries from around the world.

Fears of protests and potential attacks were heightened after the unnamed man was arrested after throwing suspected shotgun cartridges into the palace grounds. He was held on suspicion of possessing an offensive weapon.

The Metropolitan Police said the suspect had a knife but was not carrying a gun. He was also found to be in possession of a “suspicious bag”, BBC News reported, and a “controlled explosion was carried out as a precaution following an assessment by specialists”.

The incident is not being treated as terror-related, but rather “as an isolated mental health incident”, the broadcaster added.

Neither the King nor Queen Consort Camilla – who live at nearby Clarence House – were in the palace during the incident and planned overnight rehearsals for the coronation went ahead.

Police have “put a ring of steel around London” as the preparations ramp up, said the Daily Mail

Tugendhat told TalkTV today that he believed protesters had been plotting for months to disrupt the coronation. The security operation, he said, aimed to counter “not just the kind of protest that we might face here, but of course with foreign leaders from around the world, heads of state and government, it could be protests from anywhere in the world”.

Tugendhat “stressed that MI5 and the intelligence services, MI6 and the GCHQ spy listening centre, were involved in the huge security operation, which will see hundreds of police officers deployed on the streets” of the capital, the London Evening Standard reported.

Snipers “will also be positioned on nearby rooftops”, said the Mail, plainclothes officers “will walk among the crowds”, and blockades “to stop vehicles being driven into spectators” will be erected. Other security measures are expected to include airport-style screenings, armed patrols and a no-fly zone above central London.

Police have also “spent weeks on a pre-emptive operation looking at potential threats posed by royal obsessives and looking through social media for intelligence”, the paper added.

Chris Phillips, the former head of the UK National Counter Terrorism Security Office, told the BBC that police had been planning for the coronation for years.

Plans to update the coronation of King Charles III by including a new Homage of the People have triggered anger and mockery as the big day approaches.

During the historic ceremony on Saturday 6 May, millions of viewers worldwide will be invited to “cry out and swear allegiance” to the monarch, said ITV News, marking “the first time in history” that the public will play “an active role” in a coronation.

The Homage of the People will replace the traditional Homage of Peers, in which hereditary peers would pledge allegiance to the monarch in person. But while the change seems intended to “widen access and engagement” with the ceremony, said LBC, critics claim the “tone deaf” oath “holds the people in contempt”.

‘A very generous invitation’

According to The Sun, a “furious Palace row" erupted on Sunday after the office for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, unveiled plans for millions of citizens to “pay homage” to King Charles during the coronation. Viewers will be invited to say in unison: “I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

The oath idea must have seemed like “an easy win for inclusivity and modernity”, said The Daily Beast’s Royalist correspondent Tom Sykes. But “it seems no one thought to check with the people first”, and “turns out they aren’t so keen”.

In an online poll for ITV’s Good Morning Britain, 86.5% of more than 164,000 respondents said they would not participate.

Foreign Secretary James Cleverly told Sky News that the pledge was “an invitation, a very generous invitation, to expand what has traditionally been quite an exclusive function”.

“If you want to do it, and I will, great. If you don’t want to do it, fine,” he added.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday that he “hopes people do” swear the proposed oath. Labour elections campaign chief Shabana Mahmood also welcomed the “lovely idea to involve the people”.

But other politicians were “more sceptical”, said The Guardian’s Whitehall editor Rowena Mason.

‘Offensive and tone-deaf’

Labour MP Clive Lewis told The Guardian that the oath would be “unwelcome or ignored by many”. He added: “As Jesus is said to have said: ‘Give unto Caesar what is his.’ And this ain’t it.”

Anti-monarchist organisation Republic claimed the oath was “an offensive and tone-deaf gesture that holds the people in contempt”.

Both Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace were “clearly taken aback” by the “strength of feeling” about what was meant to be a “well-meant rallying cry” for the nation, said the Daily Mail. According to the paper, many felt that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call had “played into the hands of Republicans and critics of the ceremony generally”.

A senior source told The Sun that the spiritual leader had “gone off-piste on this one”. Palace officials issued a clarification yesterday about the oath, which was an “invitation” for people to vocally offer their “true allegiance” to the monarch rather than an “expectation or request”.

But senior aides fear the controversy is “casting a cloud over the celebrations” said the newspaper.

On May 6, King Charles III and Camilla, the queen consort, will be crowned during a coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey in London. This won't just be one celebration — there will be events across the United Kingdom to mark the occasion, including street parties and a concert at Windsor Castle.

What is a coronation?

A coronation is "the formal investiture of a monarch with their regal powers," says the Royal Collection Trust, and while it's an "occasion for pageantry and celebration ... it is also a solemn religious ceremony and has remained essentially the same over 1,000 years." It is also a state event paid for by the U.K. government. But a monarch isn't required to have a coronation, says BBC News, noting that Edward VIII reigned without one. When his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, died on Sept. 8, 2022, Charles automatically became king.

What can people expect from King Charles' coronation?

Buckingham Palace says the event will "reflect the monarch's role today and look towards the future, while being rooted in longstanding traditions and pageantry." The last coronation was in 1953, for Queen Elizabeth II, and Charles' is expected to be smaller in scale with more religions represented, BBC News reports.

Charles and Camilla will ride from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey in the horse-drawn Diamond Jubilee State Coach, built for his mother's 60th anniversary on the throne. The procession will follow a 1.3-mile route, and pass through Admiralty Arch and by Trafalgar Square and the houses of Parliament.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will conduct the coronation service, during which Charles will be anointed with holy oil, presented with royal ceremonial objects like the Sovereign's Sceptre with Cross and Sovereign's Orb, and crowned with the St. Edward's Crown. For the first time ever, female bishops will participate in the ceremony, as will religious figures from outside the Church of England, including Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh leaders. "The service contains new elements that reflect the diversity of our contemporary society," the archbishop said in a statement. "It is my prayer that all who share in this service, whether they are of faith or no faith, will find ancient wisdom and new hope that brings inspiration and joy."

In another first, hymns and prayers will be sung in Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, and Irish Gaelic. The king has also selected 12 new pieces of music for the service, including a coronation anthem by Andrew Lloyd Webber. Greek Orthodox music will be played in honor of Charles' father, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was born on the Greek island of Corfu. Members of the royal family will be involved in the ceremony, with Charles' grandson, 9-year-old Prince George, serving as one of the pages of honor.

For their return to Buckingham Palace, Charles and Camilla will switch to the Gold State Coach, which has been used in every coronation since William IV's in 1831. It weighs 8,800 pounds, and due to its heaviness, moves at a walking pace, The Associated Press reports. For decades, royals have been remarking on how bumpy the ride is in this coach, with Elizabeth II calling it "horrible" and William IV saying it was like "being aboard a ship tossing in a rough sea." Once the procession is over, Charles and Camilla, joined by their relatives, will make an appearance on Buckingham Palace's balcony.

Are people being asked to swear allegiance to the king?

The traditional "homage of peers," during which hereditary peers swear allegiance to the new monarch, is being replaced with an "homage of the people." At this point in the service, people inside Westminster Abbey and those watching at home "who so desire" are invited to say together, "I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

This change is possible "because of technological advances," a spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, told BBC News, adding, "Our hope is at that point, when the archbishop invites people to join in, that people wherever they are, if they're watching at home on their own, watching the telly, will say it out loud, this sense of a great around the nation and around the world in support for the king."

Who will attend the coronation?

More than 2,000 people have been invited. Because the guest list is smaller than Queen Elizabeth's — 8,251 people attended her coronation — it's likely there won't be too many U.K. politicians, but senior Cabinet ministers and opposition leaders are expected to make an appearance. The White House said President Biden called Charles to let him know he won't be attending and to convey "his desire to meet the king in the United Kingdom at a future date." First lady Jill Biden will lead the U.S. delegation. Several foreign royals are expected to RSVP "yes," including Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco, and invitations have also been extended to 450 recipients of British Empire medals and 400 young people from organizations chosen by Charles and Camilla, Buckingham Palace said.

After several months of speculation, the palace announced on April 12 that the king's younger son, Prince Harry, will be at the coronation, but his wife, Meghan Markle, will stay back in the United States with their two young children (the coronation coincides with the 4th birthday of their son, Archie). Ever since Harry and Meghan stepped back from their royal duties in 2020 and moved to California, tensions between father and son have been high — and the publication of Harry's bombshell memoir, Spare, certainly didn't help.

How will the public be part of the coronation?

There will be a three-day weekend in the United Kingdom, with May 8th as an extra bank holiday. Residents are encouraged to participate in community events, including the Coronation Big Lunch on May 7 and the Big Help Out on May 8. The lunch is a way for neighbors to get together for a meal or street party, while the Big Help Out is a day for volunteering. For those who'd like to hang out at their favorite watering hole, pubs, clubs, and bars in England and Wales will be able to stay open for two extra hours on May 6 and 7, BBC News says.

On May 7, a Coronation Concert and light show will take place at Windsor Castle, with 10,000 free tickets available for the public; those who are unable to secure a spot can watch the show live on BBC. The lineup includes Andrea Bocelli, Lionel Richie, Katy Perry, Take That, Sir Bryn Terfel, Freya Ridings, and Alexis Ffrench. Richie and Perry are both judges on American Idol, and have longstanding relationships with Charles — Richie is the First Global Ambassador and First Chairman of the Global Ambassador Group for The Prince's Trust, while Perry is an ambassador of The British Asian Trust, a charity co-founded by king.

The French region that is the home of the quiche has been “taken aback” by the plan for Brits to eat a quiche to mark the coronation. The people of Lorraine worry that Buckingham Palace is “under a misapprehension”, said The Times, because “purists say that what is intended as the plat de résistance of the Big Lunch parties is not really a quiche at all”. Évelyne Muller-Dervaux, the grand master of the Brotherhood of the Quiche Lorraine, said: “I think I would call it a savoury tart.”

Student eats banana artwork

A student ate artwork of a banana duct-taped to a museum wall because he was hungry, reported CNN. The art student from Seoul National University removed the fruit from off a wall at the Leeum Museum of Art in Seoul, South Korea where it was displayed and consumed it. “The student told the museum he ate it because he was hungry,” a museum spokesperson told the outlet. The work, by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan, is entitled “Comedian”.

Piano removed from Japanese train station

Authorities in the Japanese city of Kakogawa have removed a street piano, saying people were playing for longer than the 10-minute limit or too loudly. The instrument was put in the main railway station concourse six months ago to entertain travellers, noted The Guardian. However, people were “singing loudly” or had played “at great volume”, even during station announcements, said city officials. A boy said he was “very sad” to see the piano go.

For more odd news stories, sign up to the weekly Tall Tales newsletter.