It’s a turbulent time for the monarchy, as fresh revelations in the Epstein files continue to increase scrutiny of the King’s brother. And now Prince William is walking a fine line – with a controversial visit to Saudi Arabia and an audience with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the man said to have ordered the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The Prince of Wales arrived in Riyadh yesterday, on a three-day visit aimed at strengthening relations with a key allied power in the Middle East, despite its infamously poor human rights record. Kensington Palace said the trip was timed to mark 100 years of diplomatic ties between the UK and Saudi Arabia, and would “celebrate growing trade, energy and investment ties”.

What did the commentators say?

The fact that the UK government requested the trip is a sign of confidence that “a visit from the heir to the throne will help burnish ties”, said Megan Specia in The New York Times. William had met the Saudi prince, and de facto ruler of the kingdom, when he visited Britain in 2018, and has seen him fashion himself into a “major geopolitical power player” in the years since Queen Elizabeth II’s death. If William and MBS can “strike up a positive diplomatic rapport, this could lead to a meaningful future relationship between the countries”, royal historian Ed Owens told the paper.

After all, MBS is 40 and William is 43: the millennial princes will in all probability “reign in tandem, on opposite sides of the world, for decades”, said The Telegraph’s royal editor Hannah Furness. If William succeeds in “winning over” the leader of a country where political decision-making rests in the hands of a dozen men, it could have “profound” consequences for the British economy. The Gulf state has invested an estimated £15.3 billion in the UK since 2017, and British politicians have been working to increase that.

As a monarchy, Saudi Arabia is “instinctively more comfortable dealing with fellow royalty rather than elected politicians”, royal historian Robert Hardman told Politico’s Sophie Inge. A foreign secretary or ambassador “cannot open the sort of doors and generate the sort of mood music that a senior member of the royal family can”. The royals’ longevity, compared to “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians, enables the formation of valuable long-term relationships, said Eddie Lister, director of the Saudi British Joint Business Council. And, in the Middle East, “relationships are more important in business than anything else”.

But does Realpolitik mean that “the heir to the throne must cosy up to his murderous Saudi counterpart?” said Middle East expert Malise Ruthven in UnHerd. William has carefully “cultivated an image as a thoughtful, socially conscious public figure”. It “does not befit that persona” for him to associate with a regime implicated in “murderous violence, and repression”.

The British embassy described “the human rights picture as nuanced”, and it’s true that William is visiting a Saudi Arabia that “looks very different to the one his grandmother travelled to”, said the BBC’s royal correspondent Daniela Relph. But its criminalisation of same-sex relationships, oppression of dissent, “enormous limitations” on women’s freedom, and the lingering memory of Khashoggi's murder in 2018 mean that images of William with MBS “will be hard to stomach for many”.

What next?

This royal visit comes “hot on the heels of Trade Minister Chris Bryant’s tour of the Gulf last week”, said Politico. He reportedly said a trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE, as well as Saudi Arabia, was “97.5% done”. William “may now be asked” to “work his royal magic” and “nudge it the remaining few percentage points”.

But the British prince should “decline any invitations to inspect MBS’s yacht, Serena”, said Ruthven in UnHerd. An anonymous Saudi activist claims Khashoggi’s fingers are “kept on board as a trophy”.

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.”

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”.

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.

An animal rights group has accused the Prince and Princess of Wales of being "staggeringly out of touch" for breeding their family cocker spaniel.

Animal shelters are "overflowing with puppies desperate for a second chance at a loving home", said People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and nobody should be "churning out a litter" during an animal homelessness crisis.

Peta is well known for its outspoken views and use of shock publicity tactics but this is not the first time that members of the royal family have been caught up in controversy about their relationship with animals.

What's the history?

The way royals treat animals has brought them both praise and criticism over the years. When Queen Victoria and her husband Albert bought the Balmoral estate in 1852, they were "largely responsible for introducing grouse shooting to Britain's upper classes", said anti-hunting campaign group Protect the Wild.

In 1961, the Queen and Prince Philip posed by the body of a tiger he'd killed during a hunt in India. On the same trip, he also killed a crocodile and six mountain sheep.

In 2004, a "smiling" Prince Harry was photographed crouching over the body of one-ton water buffalo, said the Daily Mail. The picture was taken moments after he shot the animal dead on a hunting trip in South America.

His brother, Prince William, was taken to task for going boar-hunting in Spain and his wife Catherine has been criticised for taking part in grouse and pheasant-shooting with the royal family.

What about all their charity work?

The royals have also supported many animal causes. Prince Philip was long associated with the work of the World Wildlife Fund, becoming its UK president (ironically) the same year as his tiger hunt in India.

Queen Elizabeth II, who famously owned corgis and was an expert on racehorses, was a patron of more than 30 animal charities and helped to raise awareness of issues such as the illegal wildlife trade. She was also a regular visitor to the pigeon lofts at Sandringham and was known for her love of cows.

Prince William has reportedly promised to destroy all the ivory in the Royal Collection at Buckingham Palace, and (ten years after that dead buffalo picture) Prince Harry vowed to protect African wildlife.

What about Charles and Camilla?

Last year, Queen Camilla promised that she would not buy any new fur products. In a letter to Peta, Buckingham Palace said the Queen "will not procure any new fur garments". Welcoming the development, The Independent said Camilla was using her "privilege to set a moral example".

King Charles is a patron of the RSCPA and the charity has praised his "continued" and "invaluable" support for animal welfare. When Charles was crowned, the Coronation Roll (the state record of the event) was produced on paper, rather than the traditional parchment made from animal skin, and the oil used to anoint him was vegan-friendly.

Royal residences no longer serve foie gras, made from ducks or geese which are often force-fed, because, said the BBC, King Charles is a "longstanding opponent" of the food.

The Duke of Sussex has resigned from a charity he set up in honour of his late mother, after a row between the trustees and the chair of its board.

Prince Harry co-founded Sentebale in 2006, to help people in southern Africa living with HIV and Aids. He has stepped down after the charity's chair took legal action over being asked to resign, and relationships between her and the trustees "broke down beyond repair".

His "devastating" exit is the latest chapter in a mixed history of ties between the royals and the charity sector.

What's the history with royals and charities?

The first recorded patronage of a charity by a member of the royal family was George II's involvement with the Society of Antiquaries in the 18th century – a tie that continues to this day, with the Duke of Gloucester as the current royal patron. Patronages are often handed down within the royal family: every monarch has been patron of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, for example, since King George IV took on the role in 1824.

Currently, over 1,000 organisations have a royal patron or president. The engagements and events they attend "draw in other well-connected donors and celebrities", Rob Cope, director of Remember A Charity, told the BBC. There's "no doubt" that royals "drive millions and millions of pounds" to the charity sector every year.

A royal connection is also an "endorsement" that a charity's work is "reputable and high quality", Cathy Pharoah, professor of charity funding at Sir John Cass Business School, City University, London, told the broadcaster.

The royal family say their charitable ties allow them to meet people "from a wide spectrum of national and local life", and "to learn more about the challenges they face". Their patronages "often reflect the interests" of the royal involved, and some royals, like Prince Harry, have launched their own charities. Among these, the best known are probably The Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme and The King's Trust (originally The Prince's Trust), which helps disadvantaged young people and has, it claims, created "£1.4 billion in value to society" over the last 10 years alone.

What happens to the charities when royals go rogue?

When royals face lurid allegations in the media, this can make life uncomfortable for the charities they're tied to. When the Duchess of York was "all over the tabloids" in the early 1990s, the Motor Neurone Disease Association "considered breaking with her", Stephen Cook, editor of Third Sector magazine, told the BBC.

And when Prince Andrew faced a civil action in the US over sexual assault allegations, which he has denied, he was stripped of all his charity patronages. He'd once held around 200 of them, including with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the English National Ballet and the RNID.

Have there been any other issues?

Last year, King Charles and Prince William were accused of taking millions of pounds in rent, through their private estates, from a number of organisations, including cash-strapped charities.

A joint investigation by The Sunday Times and Channel 4's "Dispatches", found, for example, that William's Duchy of Cornwall owns Camelford House, a 1960s tower block on the banks of the Thames, known as "Charity Towers" because so many charities rent offices there. Under a sub-letting agreement, the Duchy has received £22 million since 2005 in rents paid by the building's tenants.

A spokesperson said the Duchy of Cornwall is "a private estate with a commercial imperative" but The Observer wondered how long we will "stomach sermons from royals made rich by their own charities".

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".

The Princess of Wales has made her first official outing since her chemotherapy ended, visiting the bereaved families of the Southport stabbing victims on Thursday. Alongside Prince William, she met the relatives of six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar. The three girls were fatally stabbed at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on 29 July.

She also met the emergency responders who attended the scene of the attack, hugging members of the rescue teams who "rushed to save children stabbed in the ordeal", said The Mirror.

The visit was "initially billed as a solo public engagement for the Prince", said The Telegraph, but it is "understood that just hours earlier the Princess decided to join him". The couple were said to have felt that it was important to "show the community that it has not been forgotten and that they will continue to offer their support".

During the meeting with first responders, the Princess told the fire crews, police officers and paramedics that attended the scene on the "traumatic day" that they had supported the families of the victims through their "darkest" times, reported The Mirror. "On behalf of them, thank you", she said. Later on, the Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales made a donation to the National Police and Wellbeing service to fast track psychological and physical support for emergency responders involved in the attack.

The "royal mother-of-three has appeared in public on merely a few occasions this year as she underwent treatment for cancer", said Tatler, so this is another sign that she is "recovering well from her health battles of the past year".

"In another age, a brisk official bulletin would have sufficed," said James Marriott in The Times. "Or an impassive silence." But people expect more these days, and the Princess of Wales duly obliged last week by releasing a glossy video to mark the end of her chemotherapy treatment and her tentative return to royal duties.

Filmed in the woods and dunes of north Norfolk, it's a video of "remarkable editorial slickness and personal candour". It shows sepia-toned glimpses of family life – the young royals playing on a pile of logs; Kate leaning against a tree, her upturned face lit by sunshine; her and William cuddling. Meanwhile, the princess, in a voice-over, describes her healing process and hopes for the future. With its "filtered, Instagram-worthy look", said Sophie Gallagher in The i Paper, the film could be "a Center Parcs advert or a reimagining of The Famous Five (with a dash of Taylor Swift's 'Folklore')".

It's wonderful news, of course, that Catherine has finished her gruelling cancer treatment, said Anna Pasternak in The Independent. But as powerful as this video is, was it really the best way for the princess to communicate her message? You can only imagine "the howls of derision" had Meghan and Harry released a soft focus film like this. A simple official statement from Kensington Palace, or "happy-family snap", might have been more appropriate. Or, for something more in-depth, a sit-down interview with the BBC. It is a curious video, said Camilla Long in The Sunday Times. It's hard to see what it was meant to achieve, or why it needed to be quite so long, given its minimal content. "I'd have preferred, myself, to skip straight to the bit where we could simply be delighted that Kate was back looking incredible in black at the Cenotaph."

The video was a "little saccharine" for my taste, said Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail, but that didn't bother me much. I'm more concerned about the thinking behind the film: the way that William and Kate are seeking to circumvent the media by taking control of their own image. They may feel that, in the social media era, they can give people what they want by releasing carefully curated content and ignoring the traditional press. But most of us "aren't TikTok aficionados" and don't want "a supposedly perfect, make-believe monarchy". While it's great that Kate is on the mend, Kensington Palace must remember that "the royal family survives, and is justified in the public mind, because it is scrutinised". If it seeks to "repackage itself as a wholly sanitised yet untouchable institution", it tempts disaster.

The Princess of Wales has released a new video confirming that she has completed a course of chemotherapy treatment following her cancer diagnosis.

In the three-minute message released by Kensington Palace, Catherine said this year had been an "incredibly tough" journey through "stormy waters", describing the experience as "scary and unpredictable".

The footage, filmed by videographer Will Warr and filmed in Norfolk last month, shows the Princess of Wales alongside the Prince of Wales and their three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, enjoying time in nature together. Other moments show Kate on her own, wandering through a forest and driving, symbolically suggesting that "she is in control of her life", said The Telegraph. "Much of the footage is shot in an old-fashioned grainy style," reminiscent of "royal videos of old" from the late Queen's reign showing "Royal family holidays at Balmoral or on the Royal Yacht Britannia".

In the video, Catherine says she is "looking forward to being back at work and undertaking a few more public engagements in the coming months when I can". It is thought she hopes to attend the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, and plans to host a Christmas carol concert at Westminster Abbey in December, said The Times.

In March, amid global speculation over her absence from public duties, Catherine announced that she had been diagnosed with an undisclosed form of cancer following abdominal surgery. The diagnosis was made public a month after King Charles revealed that he had been diagnosed with cancer. The king is still believed to be undergoing treatment. In a video statement released at the time, the princess said that it had taken time to explain the news to her children and reassure them that "I am going to be OK".

Catherine made her first public appearance following the announcement at the Trooping the Colour in June, and was also at Wimbledon for the Men's Singles finals in July, where she received a standing ovation from the crowd.

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".

The royal family is facing increasingly wild conspiracy theories about the Princess of Wales following her disappearance from public view to recover from surgery.

Kensington Palace announced in January that Kate Middleton had undergone planned abdominal surgery and would not resume her public duties until "after Easter" at the earliest. 

But the subsequent "void of news and photographs" of the princess has seen "the royal-watching landscape reach a new level of lunacy", said The Telegraph's royal editor Hannah Furness. The gap left by the lack of updates has been filled by the "wisdom of social media conspiracy theorists and trolls making mischief – some glib, others (in light of the princess's inarguable medical needs) grimly sinister".

'Indifference would be worse'

Among the bizarre theories being bandied about is that Kate may be "hiding in a mystery location, in a coma, being cloned, having 'Brazilian butt lift' cosmetic surgery", or simply "waiting for a bad haircut to grow out", said Furness. 

On the "positive side", said the BBC's royal correspondent Sean Coughlan, people are interested because "they care". Public indifference "would be worse".

TMZ claimed this week that the princess had been spotted in the passenger seat of her mother's Audi near Windsor Castle. Amid the "rife" online speculation about her whereabouts, "this sighting is a big deal", the celebrity news site said. 

The reported sighting came days after royal officials responded to the viral speculation. In a statement reassuring the public that her recovery was progressing well, a spokesperson said: "Kensington Palace made it clear in January the timelines of the princess's recovery. We said we'd only be providing significant updates. That guidance stands." 

'Thickening fog of uncertainties'

Kate's absence has stirred the debate over the royal family's right to privacy. Her surgery, the nature of King Charles's cancer and Prince William's recent last-minute withdrawal from a memorial  for his godfather have produced a "thickening fog of uncertainties", said the BBC's Coughlan. Although a "modern monarchy" needs "some mystery to keep its mystique", the "opaqueness" can "look like concealment".

The history of publicity around royal births, "often posing with the newborn royal baby outside of the hospital", has "set a precedent" for what the public can expect about the royals' medical information, said media freedom expert Gemma Horton on The Conversation. So when royals "choose to go against this tradition", it can "frustrate both royal-watchers and publishers".

But Kate's spate of leave "fits into a long and evolving history" of how royals have chosen to handle health issues, said Time. Past generations typically "shrouded them in secrecy", such as when the British public was not told in the 1950s that King George VI had lung cancer.

Further intrusion could be on the cards for Kate, however, after her uncle this week entered ITV's "Celebrity Big Brother" as a housemate. Regarded as the "black sheep" of the family, Gary Goldsmith is a millionaire who was handed a £5,000 fine after he admitted assaulting his wife. A source told The Sun that his royal niece "doesn't need this stress".

The media was told a few years back that William wouldn't stick to the royal line of "never complain never explain" because he "wants to be more open", said Sky News's royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills. But there is a "red line" when it comes to his wife and children. His "anger at perceived intrusion" was apparent when photographers outside the London hospital where Kate was treated were "warned it was best that they leave".

What has "been made very clear", said Mills, is that William "isn't going to change his position" on family privacy, "no matter how noisy the speculation may become".

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 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 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.

With a new king on the throne this year, the role of the monarch and his family has come under renewed scrutiny.

Although King Charles III is the UK’s head of state, “his powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial”, said BBC News. But given that Charles is personally worth about £1.8 billion – according to an investigation by The Guardian – many may wonder how the King and his family spend their time.

Despite their global fame and “the constant flood of royal paparazzi photos and press releases”, said Insider, “it can be tough to discern what it is the family members actually do”.

What does the monarch do politically?

Although the monarch is politically neutral, that’s not the same as being politically uninvolved. First and foremost, the monarch appoints the government. Whoever wins a general election is invited to Buckingham Palace, and the monarch formally asks him or her to form a government.

The King opens each session of Parliament, giving a speech about the government’s plans for the year ahead. Charles also receives daily government dispatches in a red leather box, including briefings and documents needing his signature.

Every Wednesday, he meets the prime minister at Buckingham Palace, who keeps him “informed on government matters”, according to BBC News.

The monarch also has to approve every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament. With “Royal Assent”, legislation becomes law. This is “mostly a formality, though”, noted Insider. No monarch has refused to give Royal Assent since 1707, “when Queen Anne refused a bill that would have recreated the Scottish militia after England and Scotland were formally unified”.

And what about state duties?

The monarch’s days are filled with official “engagements”. They meet foreign ambassadors and host visiting heads of state, as well as carrying out state visits abroad. This year, Charles became the first British monarch to address the German parliament, but questions still abound as to whether he will be able to wield as much diplomatic heft as his late mother.

The head of the royal family also presents citizens with awards and honours, like knighthoods and military achievements.

“As a team,” said Insider, royals attend about 2,000 official engagements a year, entertain about 70,000 people at royal residences for meals, receptions and parties, and answer 100,000 letters a year.

In 2015 the late Queen Elizabeth II carried out 341 engagements, according to The Daily Telegraph, 306 in the UK and 35 abroad – the year before she turned 90. She “put the younger generation of the Royal family to shame”, the paper noted, by carrying out more engagements than Prince Harry, Prince William and Kate Middleton combined.

The King is also head of the Commonwealth, made up of 56 independent countries and comprising 2.5 billion people. He is the head of state of 14 of these, known as the Commonwealth realms, as well as the Crown dependencies like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

What about the military, church and charities?

Technically, the monarch is the colonel-in-chief of the armed forces. The late Queen, all three of her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry also served in the military themselves.

William, for example, is “a skilled pilot”, said Marie Claire, “completing his Royal Air Force training in 2010 and later going on to serve as a search and rescue pilot for years”.

The family “also plays an important role in recognising and supporting the work of the Armed Services”, said the official Royal.uk website. Members have “official relationships with many units of the Forces, paying regular visits to soldiers, sailors and airmen serving at home and abroad”.

The King or Queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, after Henry VIII broke with Roman Catholicism in the 16th century. That involves appointing bishops, archbishops and deans.

“Even so,” noted Good Housekeeping, “the Archbishop of Canterbury is head cleric of the church”.

Charitable work is another duty for many royals. About 3,000 charitable organisations list a member of the royal family as a patron or president, according to Royal.uk. Some also establish their own organisations.

Charles, for example, set up more than 20 charities over 40 years as the Prince of Wales, including the Prince’s Trust.

When he was the Duke of Cambridge, Prince William founded United for Wildlife with The Royal Foundation, to combat trafficking of illegal wildlife products. In June this year, he also launched a five-year programme to try to end homelessness.

As of her 90th birthday in April 2016, the late Queen was a patron of 600 charities.

And the rest of the family?

Working royals “support the King in his many state and national duties”, according to Royal.uk, and “carry out important work in the areas of public and charitable service in their own right”.

These “working royals” include Charles’s sister, Princess Anne, his brother Prince Edward, Edward’s wife Sophie (Countess of Wessex), the Prince and Princess of Wales, and some of the late Queen’s cousins.

In 2015, Princess Anne carried out 456 engagements in the UK and 88 overseas, said The Telegraph, “living up to her reputation as the hardest-working member of the royal family”.

“Involved in upwards of 300 different charity organisations, Anne spent roughly 180 days at royal engagements in 2018, making her the busiest member of the royal family that year,” said Town and Country magazine. The Princess Royal, as Anne is known, is also president of the British Olympic Association, a member of the International Olympic Committee, and since 1986 patron of the Scottish Rugby Union.

Some working royals have even had “day jobs”. William, for example, was a pilot for East Anglian Air Ambulance from 2015-17.

The Prince of Wales’s announcement that his primary philanthropic focus before he becomes king will be to tackle homelessness has received a mixed reception.

In a speech earlier this week, Prince William pledged £3 million as an initial contribution towards his ambitious plan, called Homeward, which aims to eradicate homelessness. However, some commentators have questioned whether the fund is significant enough while others have suggested that someone born into such profound privilege might not be the right ambassador for the issue.

‘A sensible choice, but slightly limited’

In his speech in Brixton, south London, Prince William said he hoped his five-year programme would “inspire belief throughout the UK and beyond that homelessness can be ended for good.”

Taking on homelessness is “a sensible choice” for the Prince, said The Spectator. It is a “fairly uncontroversial cause” and one which is “unlikely to bring him into conflict with his father’s government”, the magazine said. “Yet the future king could do far more than the current, limited project – by turning some of his own land over to the houseless.”

“Whatever your view on equality… it would still, I think, strike you as piquant that a man with housing plenty beyond anything he could ever use would style himself as ambassador for the business of getting people off the streets,” agreed The Guardian’s Zoe Williams.

Yet away from the optics of who the messenger is and the scope of William’s own financial contribution, “what he can do is convene”, said Sky News’s royal correspondent Laura Bundock. “And it’s this power he wants to turbo-charge when it comes to homelessness.”

“The big question,” she said, is whether this will be enough to end the cycle of homelessness? But in Newport, Gwent, at least, one of the six locations being targeted, “there is optimism” that he might, she added.

Fran Richley, the operational manager at Eden Gate, a homeless charity in the city, told Bundock that “one of the main things we want to do is bring about change – not maintain the status quo. And it’s really exciting what His Royal Highness has been saying because that’s exactly where we’re at.”

The campaign is ‘not without risk’

Everyone can agree ending homelessness is a good idea, said Stephen Bush in the Financial Times, but one risk to the Prince of Wales, “is that instead of doing something that everyone agrees with but we aren’t sure how best to do – encouraging young people to set up businesses, say, or to enjoy exercise, or get out in the fresh air – he is instead doing something that everyone agrees with but that governments are historically reluctant to fund”.

Accordingly, his campaign “surely increases the possibility for awkwardness between the heir to the throne and the elected government, regardless of its hue”.

Taking on such a sensitive topic “pushes [William’s] political neutrality to its limits,” agreed Bundock. “But some say it’s what he has to do if he’s to prove his relevance with an ever-apathetic public.”

Yet if anyone can tackle the issue, it’s him, said Seyi Obakin, chief executive of the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, who spent eight years in social housing.

“I believe he’s in a unique position to bring people together, not just to focus on the problem, but actually to say, which solutions could have a lasting impact,” he told The Telegraph.

The greatest contribution the Prince can offer is to help make progress in addressing the stigma associated with homelessness, Obakin added.

A pensioner’s luck has “finally run out” as his car was stopped and it was discovered he’d been driving without a licence for 50 years, reported Metro. When officers from the Derbyshire Police road policing unit pulled a car over for several offences, they discovered the 69-year-old driver had never passed his test or possessed a driving licence, meaning he had been driving illegally for five decades. The police said “the flaw in his dastardly plan was bragging”.

‘Pa’ is a social signifier

The word you use to refer to your father reveals a lot about your class, claims a Telegraph columnist. Petronella Wyatt wrote that “as a scholar of social codes”, she could “say with some authority that ‘Pa’ or ‘Papa’ is not usually used by people who go to comprehensives”. Her remarks came after Prince William referred to his father, the King, as “Pa” during the coronation concert on Sunday.

‘Mortifying’ pasta dumped in New Jersey

Mystery surrounds a massive dump of pasta in New Jersey, reported NPR. A local resident described the 15 wheelbarrow loads of dumped pasta as “funny and humorous and mortifying”. She added: “It’s funny because it’s pasta and not garbage; it’s humorous because you could make a lot of jokes. ... and then I’m horrified because of course it is a potential contamination.” The city says the police department is looking into who is responsible for the pasta dump.

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

Back in December, the furore surrounding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix documentary was all-consuming enough, said Jan Moir in the Daily Mail. Now, just when it seemed to be calming down, Harry “barges into the narrative once more, tootling on his trumpet of ongoing anguish, simply impossible to ignore”.

And this time, in his memoir Spare – and the various TV interviews he has given to promote it – the “grudge-toting manbaby really has thrown all his toys out of the royal pram”. In the past week, we have learnt about everything from his fractured relationship with his brother (“Willy” to his “Harold”) and the negligence of his father, to the danger posed to him by his stepmother: a “villain” in the public eye who redeemed her reputation by sacrificing him “on her personal PR altar”.

Some of Spare is intensely moving, said CNN. Harry recalls that following his mother’s death, when he was 12, he shook the hands of mourners outside Kensington Palace, and found that they were all wet. He had been unable to cry, but these strangers had been weeping. He is haunted by thoughts of the paparazzi who photographed Diana while she lay dying in a Paris underpass. And for years, he says that he fantasised, or dreamed, that she was not dead, and would be coming back to him.

But what really comes across is his anger, said James Marriott in The Times – most of which is reserved for the press. He blames it for his mum’s death, and for every bad thing that has happened to him since then, from revelations of his drug-taking to the break-up of his relationships.

He is scornful of the royals who play the media game, yet he craves being the centre of attention himself, and he is particularly touchy about his status as “spare”. William has the bigger bedroom at Balmoral; William’s apartment at Kensington Palace is furnished with priceless antiques, whereas he and Meghan must make do with Ikea furniture. He is gleeful about William’s hair loss, and delighted when, at his passing out parade at Sandhurst, William is obliged to salute him.

Harry is not the first royal to air the family’s dirty linen in public, said The Observer. When he was a child, his parents gave tit-for-tat TV interviews after the tabloids published lurid stories about their failed marriage. Now, we are seeing the full effects on the prince of “that complex trauma”.

Having felt silenced for years, he “appears to have become besotted by truth-telling”. His account of the row in which William shoved him, breaking his necklace, was headline-grabbing; but more shocking still was his decision to publicise the grim details of his first sexual experience (behind a pub, with an older woman who treated him like a “young stallion”), and the tally of lives taken in Afghanistan. He says he killed 25 Taliban militants, whom he regarded as “pieces on a chessboard”. That last pronouncement was particularly ill-advised, said The Sun. At one stroke, Harry alienated many of his fellow Army veterans, and increased the security risk to himself and his family.

Reading Spare, you do wonder if Harry thought to run it past a friend, said Janice Turner in The Times – or anyone who had no financial interest in it. They might have warned him that talking coldly about killing people of colour could play badly with his liberal-minded admirers in the US. And that even if he doesn’t mind the world knowing about his “todger”, he shouldn’t breach William’s privacy by revealing that they are both circumcised.

Alas, Harry has no self-awareness, said Jennie Bond in The i Paper. He accuses the Palace of failing to defend his wife from media attacks, and yes, perhaps it should have done more. But when his interview with Oprah Winfrey set off a hunt for racists in the royal family two years ago, he let his relatives hang out to dry: only now has he clarified that neither he nor Meghan had ever thought the family was racist, only perhaps guilty of “unconscious bias”.

The overall impression is of a man who feels perpetually sinned against, said Camilla Tominey in The Daily Telegraph. He even blames William for his decision, aged 20, to wear a Nazi uniform to a party. Still, Harry is right about one thing, and that is the viciousness of our media landscape, said Polly Toynbee in The Guardian. Against his father’s advice, he bravely took on the tabloids, by launching a series of lawsuits against them, and they’ve retaliated with a torrent of bile.

He claims that his family has conspired in this, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent, and uses that to justify spilling their secrets. It’s hard to know if that is true: leaks may come from gossipy courtiers, not individual royals. But either way, his book makes one thing clear, said Camilla Long in The Sunday Times. As a traumatised child, Harry was badly let down by his family, and by a rigid and unfeeling institution. This isolated, damaged man should have had help a long time ago.

The royal family have revealed their plans for Christmas Day as they prepare for their first festive season without the late Queen.

The announcement from Buckingham Palace came “just minutes” after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex unveiled a trailer for another Netflix show they have in the works, less than a week after debuting their “bombshell docuseries” Harry & Meghan, said The Mirror.

As a turbulent year for the royals draws to a close, the paper predicted that this year’s festive season will be an “emotional occasion” for the family, “who are still mourning the loss of their mother, grandmother and great-grandmother”.

Return to Sandringham

Buckingham Palace has confirmed that King Charles, Queen Consort Camilla and other senior royals will celebrate Christmas at Sandringham for the first time in three years.

The decision marks a return to royal tradition, after Queen Elizabeth spent the festive season at Windsor Castle during the pandemic.

Royal Christmases at the Norfolk estate usually include a “morning visit to St Mary Magdalene Church”, said Yahoo! News, followed by a “family lunch and a gathering round the television to watch the monarch’s televised address to Britain”.

Charles will be giving his first King’s speech, “and he's likely to pay tribute to his late mother with his words”, said The Mirror.

Prince Louis is also set for a “starring role” in the celebrations, “after stealing the show at the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee”, according to the paper’s Lucy Thornton. The four-year-old prince will reportedly join the family’s traditional Christmas Day walk to church for the first time, amid hopes that he can “give proceedings a lift” – although a “final decision” about the “important Sandringham milestone” will not be made until the big day, Thornton added.

Scaled-back plans

Experts have predicted that the royals’s “much-loved Christmas traditions” will be “scaled back” this year, said Cosmopolitan, and will centre around a “low-key Christmas lunch”.

Former BBC royal commentator Jennie Bond told OK! magazine that without “the linchpin of the Queen holding together an often fractured family, they may suddenly decide to do their own thing”.

The King’s Christmas plans “might be up in the air a bit”, she added, and “the younger royals will probably want to spend time with their own families”, so “two- or three-day celebrations” may be “a thing of the past”.

Frozen out?

According to The Sun’s royal editor Matt Wilkinson, the Sussexes are being “frozen out” of Charles’s first Christmas dinner at Sandringham as monarch. The King and Camilla have “invited large numbers of those dubbed ‘The Loyal Family’”, said Wilkinson.

The guest list is expected to include Camilla’s children, Tom Parker Bowles and Laura Lopes; the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their three children; Prince Edward and his family; and princesses Beatrice and Eugenie plus their husbands and children.

But Harry and Meghan are expected to spend Christmas in California with their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, 18 months, although “it is believed they will share presents with William and Kate”, said Wilkinson.

Prince Andrew ‘masterstroke’

The King’s Christmas guest list is also expected to include Prince Andrew. His ex-wife Sarah Ferguson has reportedly been invited to join the royals for Christmas too, for the first time in 30 years.

A Sandringham source told The Mirror’s royal features writer Jennifer Newton that the former couple would be staying at Wood Farm, a five-bedroom cottage set away from the main house on the 20,000-acre estate.

Royal biographer Ingrid Seward said the decision to allow the disgraced prince and his ex to attend while keeping them “tucked out of sight” was a “masterstroke”.

Charles is “not an unkind person”, Seward told the paper. “There were many times Camilla had to hide away like a fugitive so he understands Andrew’s situation only too well.”.

But the King cannot risk his image “being tarnished by Andrew”, she added, and “he will not allow it to happen”.

The controversy over Harry and Meghan’s Netflix series has led to speculation over how his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, might have felt about her younger son’s actions.

Piers Morgan, a long-standing critic of the couple, wrote on Twitter that Diana “would be appalled” at how Harry is “trying to destroy the Monarchy & attacking Britain”.

However, others have drawn parallels between Harry’s experiences and behaviour and those of his late mother.

A ‘burn-it-all-down gesture’

In her book The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor – the Truth and the Turmoil, author Tina Brown suggested that Diana might have approved of her younger son’s actions.

Harry expresses his “lasting contempt for the press” with “tortured, vocal, frequently ill-judged condemnation, a never-ending flurry of lawsuits” and “a burn-it-all-down gesture that his mother… might have well understood”, she wrote, in a passage adapted for Vanity Fair.

“Have we forgotten the lessons learned from Diana’s experience?” asked MSP Karen Adam in The National. She was commenting on Jeremy Clarkson’s controversial column for The Sun in which he wrote that he was “dreaming of the day” when Meghan is “made to parade naked… while crowds chant, ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her”.

Harry “clearly just wants to keep his family safe”, wrote Adam, because he “knows where this could all end”.

Diana ‘would be ashamed’

But could Harry be manipulating the media in the same way his mother was accused of?

Diana was a “media mastermind”, said Elle, and an “unabashed spin doctor of her own wounded cause”. She was “hunting for a chance to strike back against her separated husband” and as “she knew the power of media”, she “decided to use it”, in the form of her bombshell Panorama interview in 1995.

The director of the Netflix series “works hard to foreshadow the Sussexes’ experience in Diana”, said The Cut, “framing her largely as a victim of the tabloids”. However, it added, the reality was “more complicated – a symbiotic relationship with the outlets that cemented her superstar status”. Diana was “known to have orchestrated her own leaks” and “sometimes called the paparazzi on herself”.

Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi said that Diana would have been “appalled” by the Netflix series and the Daily Mail’s Dan Wootton said Harry’s mother would be “ashamed of her youngest”.

There is also speculation that there is intense disapproval from Harry’s older brother. The Prince of Wales is said to be “livid” at his brother’s “antagonistic” use of Diana’s Panorama footage in the Netflix series, Vanity Fair’s Katie Nicholl told OK! magazine.

“William has campaigned for that footage to never be screened again,” said Nicholl, “so for it to be used in his brother’s own reality TV show will be very frustrating for William.”

A trailer for the new Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan has added a new twist to the royal saga between Princes Harry and William.

The series, which comprises six episodes and is rated 15, will tell the inside story of why the couple decided to step down from royal duties. Although the show has no official release date, the teaser trailer itself revealed a series of previously unseen photographs as well as footage of Meghan wiping away tears.

‘Declaration of war’

The trailer’s release “could hardly have been timed for more explosive impact”, said Louis Chilton in The Independent. The appetiser for the “unprecedented new documentary” comes “just a day after the late Queen’s lady-in-waiting, Lady Susan Hussey, resigned from the palace over a racism scandal”.

And it was only last year that the Duchess of Sussex told Oprah Winfrey in a two-hour TV interview that when she was pregnant with her first child Archie there had been “concerns and conversations” among unnamed members of the royal family “about how dark his skin might be when he was born”.

Dan Wootton, writing for Mail Online, described the 59-second “vile” Netflix trailer as a declaration of “all out war on the British Royal Family”.

Wootton also focused on the timing of the release, but instead claimed it was “specifically designed to derail William and Kate’s already troubled US tour”, the Prince and Princess of Wales having arrived in Boston on Wednesday for a three-day trip centred around William’s Earthshot Prize climate charity.

“It’s confirmation that, despite the hopes of a grieving King Charles, the relationship with his youngest son and daughter-in-law is now forever smashed,” Wootton continued. He added that “there’s no going back after this full-throttled attack on the British monarchy” and called on the King to “go nuclear too by stripping his son and his wife of their royal titles”.

Writing in The Times, Hilary Rose agreed with Wootton, sarcastically declaring the timing of the trailer release a “happy, scene-stealing coincidence”. Rose believes the Sussexes, while their true motivation is anyone’s guess, are attempting to “suck the oxygen out of every single thing the Waleses do between now and kingdom come”. She even admitted to feeling sorry for William and Kate despite their “lives of unimaginable wealth and privilege” for what William’s brother and his Hollywood wife are putting them through.

‘Winning the battle but losing the war’

“What were you both thinking?!” asked Paul Baldwin of the Sussexes in the Daily Express. Baldwin said that before the trailer’s release and in light of the Lady Hussey racism scandal, he had started to think that maybe Harry and Meghan “really were victims”. However, his sympathies have since waned with the release of what he described as a “toe-curling, truly bizarre promo-video”.

In the Daily Mail, Maureen Callahan concluded that while “Harry and Meghan are winning the battle” they are certainly “going to lose this war”. Callahan added that “it’s as if Harry and Meghan have nothing better to do than go through the royal schedule and figure out ways to screw the family over”.

In her conclusion, Callahan asserted that ultimately “these two have nothing new to say”. The couple will not win the attrition war they’re fighting with the royal family because “they exist only in opposition to the royals. They have nothing to offer.”

While criticism of the Sussexes was plentiful across the mainstream media, the New York Post did highlight some support for Harry and Meghan, citing a tweet that argued “imagine being right that staff in the royal household are racist but no-one believed you”, in reference to the widely criticised comments from Lady Hussey.

Hit Netflix show The Crown will court more controversy in its latest season by showing Prince Philip pursuing an affair in episodes set to air just weeks after the Queen’s funeral.

The Sun reported that Season 5 will portray Prince Philip engaging with “high society beauty” Penny Knatchbull, now the Countess Mountbatten of Burma, who was 30 years his junior. The prince will reportedly be shown in “intimate scenes” with Knatchbull, such as “touching hands as he divulges details of his marriage”, said the paper.

The Queen’s former press secretary Dickie Arbiter, who served the late monarch from 1988 to 2000, has branded Netflix’s decision to air such scenes so soon after the Queen’s death as “distasteful” and “cruel rubbish”.

“The truth is that Penny was a long-time friend of the whole family. Netflix are not interested in people’s feelings,” he said.

And the show is likely to cause further upset to the royal family by dedicating an entire episode to re-enacting Princess Diana’s controversial tell-all Panorama interview with BBC journalist Martin Bashir in 1995. Netflix executives reportedly splashed “millions” on making the episode, said the Daily Mirror.

The show has been unafraid of causing controversy throughout its run, with Princess Anne once saying that it was “quite a dangerous thing to do” to create a series based on people who are still alive. Here are some of its most controversial moments.

Princess Margaret’s forbidden marriage

Much of the drama of the first season involved Princess Margaret and her relationship with Peter Townsend, a former RAF group captain and Second World War flying ace. In the series the princess is shown to be given an “impossible choice” after their covert relationship is made public – either marry Townsend and give up her royal title or forget the marriage and keep her position in the royal family, said Hello! magazine.

It is thought that the Queen, as head of the Church of England, was unable to give her consent to the marriage as Townsend had been divorced.

However, documents released in 2004 show that the princess was given “categorical assurance” by Downing Street that she could keep her HRH title and a civil list income of £15,000 a year if she went ahead with the marriage, reported The Guardian. In the end, Princess Margaret called off the relationship in 1955.

The Queen’s secret cousins

Season 4 of the series revealed that the Queen and Princess Margaret had secret cousins who were hidden away in psychiatric institutions for most of their lives.

Rather than simply being the stuff of TV drama, the Queen and her sister did indeed have cousins who were hidden away; Katherine Bowes-Lyon and her sister Nerissa were the daughters of John Bowes-Lyon, the brother of the Queen Mother, and his wife Fenella – making them first cousins to the Queen.

Both sisters were born with “severe learning difficulties”, and following the death of their father, they were admitted to Royal Earlswood Hospital in Redhill, Surrey, in 1941, said The Independent.

The episode revealed that – as in real life – the sisters had been wrongly listed in the 1963 edition of Burke’s Peerage as having died in 1940. But the sisters lived for decades longer: Katherine died aged 87 in 2014, while her sister Nerissa died aged 66 in 1986.

While “many members” of the royal family knew about the sisters, “the majority believed they had died, including Queen Elizabeth II”, said the paper.

Lord Mountbatten’s foiled coup

Season 3 saw Prince Philip’s uncle, Louis Mountbatten, make a grab for power by participating in a plot to overthrow the government in 1968.

The episode showed Mountbatten, played by Charles Dance, as “among a collection of establishment figures” who fear the country is being “run into the ground” by Harold Wilson’s Labour government but is subsequently talked out of the power grab “when an enraged Queen gets wind of the plot”, said The Sun.

The paper adds that in reality, it is believed that Mountbatten was approached to lead a real coup against the government of the day, “but said it would have been ‘treachery’”, according to the paper.

The Soviet spy at Buckingham Palace

Season 3 portrayed Prince Philip being blackmailed in 1964 by the Queen’s art curator, Sir Anthony Blunt, who had just been uncovered as a Russian spy.

Blunt, played by Tobias Menzies, threatened the prince with sketches of him, which he says were made by Stephen Ward, who at the time was at the centre of the 1963 Profumo affair.

This fictionalised version of events is also based partly in fact. Blunt was discovered as a spy in 1964, but was allowed to continue as the Queen’s art historian until his retirement in 1972 to contain the scandal.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher “outed him in a speech to the House of Commons”, after which Blunt would hold a single press conference before doing his best to “fade into the background”, said Town and Country magazine.

Charles and Diana’s relationship

Season 4 was perhaps the series’ most controversial yet, and dealt with the life of the royal family between 1979 and 1990, including, most notably, the fractious relationship between the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

Friends of Charles were particularly outraged over how the former Prince of Wales was portrayed, accusing producers of the drama of “trolling on a Hollywood budget” according to the Mail on Sunday at the time of the season’s release in 2020.

Prince William was also reportedly unhappy with how his parents’ relationship was portrayed in the series, with sources telling the Daily Express that he was “none too pleased with it. He feels that both his parents are being exploited and being presented in a false, simplistic way to make money.”

The ascension of Charles III to the throne has sparked fresh interest in not only his Queen Consort but also her two children.

Laura Lopes and Tom Parker Bowles – the offspring of Camilla and her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles – became step-siblings to Prince William and Prince Harry when their mother married Charles in 2005.

But Camilla’s children “haven’t actually built any trade-off from their relationship with the crown” and are not bestowed with any royal titles or duties, British Monarchs Society founder Thomas Mace-Archer-Mills told the i news site. “This is why they’ve been able to fly under the radar to have very private lives,” he added.

Who is Tom Parker Bowles?

Camilla’s oldest child has the “curious honour” of having Charles as both a stepfather and a godfather, said Town & Country.

Parker Bowles was born on 18 December 1974 in Westminster in London, but grew up in Wiltshire. He was educated at Eton College and Oxford University, where he was a member of the Piers Gaveston Society, a dining club. But despite being an avid foodie, he later recalled having largely “survived on chips and curry sauce”.

“I basically went out all the time and ate crap,” he told the London Evening Standard in 2013.

After leaving university, Parker Bowles went into public relations, but landed in the spotlight himself when the News of the World reported that he was “high on coke” while working at the Cannes Film Festival in 1999. The BBC reported that his godfather had given him a “severe scolding” over the alleged drug use.

Charles was said to have told him: “You’ve been a bloody fool. Pull yourself together.”

In 2001, Parker Bowles left PR to become Tatler magazine’s food columnist. He has since written about food for a host of titles, including The Mail on Sunday, and is the author of a string of books including The Year of Eating Dangerously: A Global Adventure in Search of Culinary Extremes. He has also appeared as a judge on food-themed reality TV shows.

In 2005, he married fashion journalist Sara Buys, with whom he has two children: daughter Lola, born in 2007, and son Frederick, born in 2010. The couple split in 2018.

Parker Bowles was then in a relationship with writer Alice Procope for almost two years, until her death from cancer at the age of 42 last year.

And who is Laura Lopes?

While her brother’s career has made him “something of a celebrity in the UK”, said US Weekly magazine, “Laura has kept a relatively low profile since her mother married into the Royal Family”.

Born in Swindon on 1 January 1978, she was educated at St Mary’s Shaftesbury, a Catholic girls’ boarding school in Dorset, and attended Oxford Brookes University, where she studied history of art and marketing.

After an internship at the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, she had a brief stint as Tatler’s motoring correspondent, in 2001, before returning to the art world. She became a manager at The Space Gallery in London, before co-founding the city’s Eleven gallery in 2005.

The following year, she married former Calvin Klein model-turned-chartered accountant Harry Lopes, the grandson of Massey Lopes, 2nd Baron Roborough. The wedding cake, “made of thousands of chocolate muffins”, was cut with her retired brigadier father’s military sword, Tatler reported.

The “happy couple sped to Claridge’s for the night before heading to Vietnam for their honeymoon”, the magazine added.

They have since had three children: daughter Eliza, born in 2008, and twin sons Gus and Louis, born a year later. When Prince William wed Kate Middleton in April 2011, Eliza was one of the bridesmaids.

Lopes is set to inherit two stately homes, “though not through her mother’s royal connection”, said the Daily Express. Instead, Lopes and and her own aristocratic husband are in line to take over Gnaton Hall in Devon and the Skelpick Estate in the Scottish Highlands, as well as his family’s titles of baron and baroness.

The Prince and Princess of Wales visited the nation for the first time since being given their new titles – but a petition calling to end the use of the title has won tens of thousands of signatures.

The Times reported that the royal couple were given a “warm” welcome in Holyhead on Tuesday as they visited a lifeboat station. William revealed during the day that he needs to brush up on his Welsh language skills and reminisced about time spent nearby on Anglesey, where he and his wife lived for three years after their marriage in 2011.

Despite the welcome, a petition calling for the title of Prince of Wales to be scrapped “out of respect for Wales” has been gathering pace, gaining over 35,000 signatures over the past three weeks.

It argues that the title has “been held exclusively by Englishmen as a symbol of dominance over Wales” and those that have been given the title “have no genuine connection to our country”.

Why is it controversial?

The title of Prince of Wales has long been a controversial one. King Charles himself – who held the title from the age of nine until his ascension to the throne – faced “violent protests” and even a bomb plot co-ordinated by a Welsh paramilitary group at the time of his official investiture ceremony at Caernarfon Castle in 1969, said Nation Cymru.

The dispute has its roots way back in history, to when the last Welsh prince of Wales, Dafydd ap Gruffydd, was “brutally killed” on the orders of Edward I of England in 1283, according to Wales Online. Edward I then went on to make his 16-year-old son, the future Edward II, the first English Prince of Wales in 1301.

The title has since been conferred by English, and then British, monarchs on their heirs – although there have been long periods in history where the title fell out of use. The most recent person to hold the title of Prince of Wales before Charles was Prince Edward, who went on to become King Edward VIII and then the Duke of Windsor after his 1936 abdication.

The petition claims that the use of the title “remains an insult to Wales and is a symbol of historical oppression”. It implies that “Wales is still a principality” thereby “undermining Wales’ status as a nation and a country”.

“In addition, the title has absolutely no constitutional role for Wales, which is now a devolved country with a national Parliament,” the petition adds.

Does the title have a future?

The title of Prince of Wales is not one which is automatically inherited – King Charles declared William, his eldest son, the Prince of Wales during his first speech as monarch after the death of the Queen. Catherine also became Princess of Wales, the first time the title has been used since the death of Princess Diana in 1997.

Kensington Palace said yesterday that there were no plans for Prince William to have a formal investiture ceremony “anything like his father had”.

Charles himself waited 11 years for the formal ceremony to take place after he was officially made the Prince of Wales by the Queen as a child in 1958; his investiture did not take place until 1969.

Lord Elis-Thomas, a former speaker of the Senedd, “revealed earlier this month that he had once told Prince Charles, as he was then, that he hoped there would never again be an investiture at Caernarfon Castle”, reported The Telegraph.

Elis-Thomas claimed Charles had laughed and replied: “Do you think I want to put William through what I went through?”

The paper added that the tradition of a formal investiture ceremony at Caernarfon Castle was only revived in 1911, when George V gave the title to his son, Edward. Before then, the ceremony had not taken place at the castle “for several hundred years”.

The Prince Andrew scandal is threatening to bring down the monarchy, unless drastic action is taken to quarantine him from the rest of the royal family.

That is the view of commentators and royal watchers from across the political spectrum after new revelations concerning his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. A newly released email – dated 28 February 2011 and containing the message “we are in this together” – appears to directly contradict claims made by the prince in his now infamous “Newsnight” interview with Emily Maitlis that he severed all ties with the disgraced financier in 2010.

The BBC said the allegations were “intensely damaging” for the Duke of York, “but perhaps still more significant are the consequences of this never-ending saga on the image of the monarchy”, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail.

“Every good deed” carried out by the royals in recent years “risks being drowned out by the relentless wave of the Andrew scandal”. It “corrodes public support for the royals and emboldens republican voices, which gleefully seize on every indiscretion to scorn the House of Windsor’s credibility”.

Many question whether the institution is fit for the 21st century and what value it brings. Here are the arguments for and against keeping the centuries-old institution.

Pro: popular with public

The monarchy as a whole “has long enjoyed broad, albeit declining, support among Britons, even if several of its individual members have not”, said Time magazine.

Just over half (51%) of people in Britain believe that it is “very” or "quite important" for Britain to have a monarchy, according to the most recent British Social Attitudes survey, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research in 2024. This is a dramatic decline from 86% in 1983, but it’s worth noting that only 15% of those surveyed actually think the monarchy should be abolished entirely.

While there is overall positivity towards the monarchy across most age groups, “there is a sharp generational divide”, said the BBC. According to a new poll on Statista, 81% of 65-year-olds want the monarchy to continue but the younger the person polled, the more likely they are to want to replace the King with an elected head of state, a majority view among 18- to 24-year-olds.

“Modern monarchy no longer depends on divine grace, but the consent of the people,” said Robert Hazell, professor of government and the constitution at University College London, in a 2022 paper for the Institute for Government. He warned that if public support continues to decline, the government might come under pressure to reduce funding for the royals, as has happened in Spain.

Con: cost to taxpayers

The monarchy is supported financially by UK taxpayers via the Sovereign Grant, which covers central staffing costs and expenses for the monarch’s official households, maintenance of the royal palaces in England, and travel and royal engagements and visits.

Accounts for 2024/25 show that the Sovereign Grant that financial year remained at £86.3 million. Yet the “real cost” to taxpayers is nearly six times more, said anti-monarchy campaigners.

Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy, claims the official figure does not account for security, and other "lost income" for taxpayers, including from property businesses controlled by the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which go directly to the King and the Prince of Wales respectively. Republic says the royals' total annual bill is in fact £510 million. "How can we talk about cutting the winter fuel allowance while wasting half a billion pounds on the royals?" Republic's chief executive, Graham Smith, told the BBC last September.

The question of whether the monarchy continues to offer value for money is one that – like positivity towards it in general – divides along generational lines. According to YouGov polling in 2024, 75% of the over-65s believe they do, but only 34% of 18 to 24-year-olds feel the same.

Pro: 'soft' power benefits UK

Like his mother before him, the King is a source of British "soft power" and diplomatic influence, holding state visits and foreign tours that bring benefits for national security, influence and trade.

A 2017 report by consultancy agency Brand Finance said that the monarchy generated an estimated £150 million worth of trade for the UK each year. And combined with contributions including surplus revenues from the Crown Estate, which go to the Treasury, and money from tourism, the total estimated gain for the UK economy was almost £1.8 billion.

"Measuring the wealth-generation of a brand is no easy task, especially when it comes to the royal family," said Sebastian Shehadi at Investment Monitor, but their influence on the UK economy "spans the likes of trade, tourism, media, real estate and heritage sites, foreign investment and much more".

Con: no place in equal society

Critics of the monarchy argue that having a system of hereditary power at the top of the country's political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class divisions and inequality.

The royal family "exist as a glaring symbol of the unearned privilege and inequality that pervades the roots of British society", said political journalist and author Eve Livingston in The Independent.

And it is not just in Britain that the monarch’s role as head of state is increasingly under scrutiny. The late Queen's reign was "bookended by periods of great uncertainty about Britain’s role on the world stage", said Foreign Policy. She "was crowned in 1953 as the sun was beginning to set on the British Empire" and her death came "as the country reexamines its place in the world". There are increasing calls for the UK to "reckon with its colonial history", while republican sentiment is gaining traction in the Caribbean.

Pro: boosts national unity

Supporters of a constitutional monarchy say it "represents a constant and lasting connection to the country's past" and they stress the importance of having a head of state who is "above party politics or factional interests", said Politics.co.uk. This neutrality means "the Crown can help secure smooth and peaceful handovers of political power and restrain abuses of authority", said The Telegraph.

The royal family's official website said that the monarch provides "a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service".

The Queen’s seven decades on the throne was "a low-key but extremely effective unifying force", said Martin Kettle in The Guardian, but it was one "her heirs cannot assume they will be able to replicate".

Con: undemocratic

Republic and other anti-monarchists argue that "hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle". The public cannot hold the royal family to account at the ballot box, so "there's nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money". The monarch should be replaced with an elected head of state.

In reality, the king or queen "can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters", say campaigners. Therefore, "the monarchy is a broken institution" that should be scrapped in favour of an elected head of state who "could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check".

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are reportedly set to snub the Cambridges during a planned visit to the UK next month.

A spokesperson for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said the couple would attend charity events in Manchester and London, as well as popping over to Germany, during their first trip back since the Platinum Jubilee celebrations in early June.

Following the announcement, The Daily Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers said that the California-based couple were “in line for a dramatic reunion” with Prince William and Kate Middleton. But according to The Telegraph’s royal correspondent Victoria Ward, despite speculation that Harry “might take the opportunity to reconcile with his brother, with whom tensions remain”, the Sussexes “have no plans” for a catch-up.

Although the two couples are expected to be staying “just a stone’s throw” from each other on the Windsor estate, “there is no current expectation that they will meet”, Ward reported.

The two brothers are not believed to have spoken face-to-face since last summer, when they unveiled a statue of their mother, Diana, at Kensington Palace. Harry and Meghan have returned to the UK only twice since quitting their royal roles and moving to the US more than two years ago.

The Sun reported last month that the Queen had invited them to join her at the Balmoral estate in Scotland. An insider told the paper that “staff have been told to expect the full list of royals including Harry, Meghan and their children Archie and Lilibet”.

But celebrity news site Page Six said the claims had been denied by “multiple sources close to the couple”.

The September visit is being planned at a particularly tense time for the Royal Family, as Harry prepares to publish a “tell-all memoir” later this year.

The Cambridge children are anything but camera shy, but Princess Charlotte can give her brothers a run for their money in the photo-op stakes.

During a “surprise” appearance with her parents at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham this week, “cheeky” Charlotte amused onlookers by pulling a “variety of funny faces” and “rolling her eyes following a comment from her father” as they watched swimmers compete, said LBC.

The seven-year-old was “clearly in her element”, said Women & Home, and is “just as cheeky as her dad at the same age”.

Charlotte has also been compared to her late grandmother Princess Diana. Body language expert Judi James told the Daily Express that like Diana, the young princess “gives the initial impression of shyness but beneath that appears to be an outgoing, fun personality”.

“She grins, she grimaces, she pouts,” said The Times, which concluded that Charlotte “is a royal photographer’s delight”.

Here are some of the most memorable snaps of her playing up to the cameras.

Charlotte’s Commonwealth Games visit was her first public appearance with her parents without either of her brothers, four-year-old Louis and nine-year-old George. The princess looked “curious and, occassionally, a little apprehensive” as the crowd cheered on competitors in the 1,500m freestyle race, said The Times.

Charlotte and her brothers didn’t seem to enjoy the Trooping The Colour quite as much as the crowds along The Mall in London during her great grandmother’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June.

And Charlotte wasn’t a big fan back in 2019 either, when she stood with her family on Buckingham Palace’s balcony on the Queen’s 93rd birthday.

The princess stole the show once again at the inaugural King’s Cup regatta, hosted by her parents on the Isle of Wight in August 2019. Charlotte was reportedly sticking her tongue out at her grandfather Michael Middleton.

Charlotte has repeatedly been snapped sticking out her tongue, including during celebrations in July 2018 of the centenary of the Royal Air Force. The then three-year-old struck her signature pose while peeking through a Buckingham Palace alongside Prince George as a royal aide looked on.

Charlotte had “showed off her sunny personality” weeks earlier by “entertaining” her family “with quite the gymnastics display” during a day out at the Maserati Royal Charity Polo Trophy at the Beaufort Polo Club in Gloucestershire, said Hello! magazine.

At just 16 months old, Charlotte was already accepting flowers from well-wishers like a true royal pro – including a balloon version made by a magician at a children’s party for military families during the Cambridge’s Royal Tour to Canada.

1. Macron’s nightmare is complete

Jonathan Miller in The Spectator

on new coalitions

The results of the French parliamentary elections have been “much worse” for Emmanuel Macron than “almost anyone anticipated”, writes Jonathan Miller in The Spectator. The French president “has been humiliated by voters, weeks after being re-elected by an unenthusiastic electorate”, he says. “The hyper-president with ambitions to lead Europe looks like he will not even be able to lead France,” and the country “looks more ungovernable than ever”. Having lost his parliamentary majority, Macron “must now hope to create ad hoc” coalitions to pass reforms, “but he has few allies and will pay a high price”. And he “is not only incapable of uniting the country, he bears heavy responsibility for dividing it” too. Macron “commands little to no affection” and is now “doomed to preside over escalating chaos” as France faces cost-of-living, law and order and energy crises.

Read more

2. I’m a trans athlete too – banning swimmers like Lia Thomas completely misses the point

Kylie MacFarquharson in The Independent

on questions of fairness

Fina, swimming’s world governing body, has voted to ban transgender women from elite women’s competitions. People who support the move “sometimes argue that segregation between trans and cisgender women in sports is regrettable, but necessary for fairness”, writes Kylie MacFarquharson in The Independent. They think the performance gap “is so large” that a cisgender woman would “be unlikely to ever win against a trans woman”, a sentiment MacFarquharson would “entirely agree with” if it were “true”. Evidence for trans women’s sporting performance “is sparse at best”, and this writer thinks it “ironic” that people often point to Lia Thomas as an example to “justify their position” given her recent results. Thomas did indeed win the NCAA 500 yard freestyle finals in Atlanta in March “but she didn’t set any records”. This policy “creates a situation where trans women are allowed to compete in name only; never fairly”, and “we can do better”.

Read more

3. I negotiated a Northern Ireland deal that worked. Johnson’s Putinesque strategy will wreck it

Peter Hain in The Guardian

on political motivations

Peter Hain thinks there is “something Putinesque about the government’s framing of its Northern Ireland protocol bill”. Writing in The Guardian, the former secretary of state for Northern Ireland says: “Never mind that it breaks an international treaty the UK signed. Forget very old-fashioned notions of truth.” The “real purpose” of this bill is “dog-whistling to Johnson’s base by triggering a humongous row with the old villain Brussels because that worked so well in the 2016 Brexit referendum”. He says it’s “not the EU that has been gridlocking the negotiations” but the prime minister’s “failure along with first [David] Frost and now Liz Truss to negotiate seriously”. What “pains” Hain is “that the current batch of Tory leaders don’t really give a fig for Northern Ireland” or “even understand it” – and they “don’t know how to play the ‘honest broker’ role John Major extolled and Tony Blair exemplified”.

Read more

4. Humour in the office matters, but can a boss be funny?

Emma Jacobs in the Financial Times

on careers and comedy

Workplace comedy PBC is “niche material for a select audience”, writes Emma Jacobs in the Financial Times. This writer says the accountancy mockumentary “was not LOL-tastic” but it highlighted “a number of issues”. And one is “can a boss be funny?” A CEO once told Jacobs that the higher he climbed up the career ladder, “the funnier and better looking he became. Everyone laughed at his jokes and no one told him he looked rough.” In TV dramas, typically the boss is “a figure of fun rather than great wit”. But this writer wonders “if climbing the corporate or political ladder requires the power hungry to take themselves so seriously that it chips away at their funny bone”. Although Boris Johnson and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are examples of success thanks “in part” to their “comedic skill”, perhaps, says Jacobs, “the truth is that to be truly successful you must also know when to turn the humour off”.

Read more

5. Why I wanted to work with The Big Issue

The Duke of Cambridge in The Big Issue

on homelessness

Prince William says he was 11 when he first visited a homeless shelter with his mother, “who in her own inimitable style was determined to shine a light on an overlooked, misunderstood problem”. Writing for The Big Issue, he says that in the decades since he has seen “countless projects in this space grow from strength to strength”, and the publication is “perhaps now the most immediately recognisable”. Despite the progress, “homelessness is still seen by many as some entrenched phenomenon over which we have little power”. And the duke says there are “worrying signs that things might soon get worse”. He counts himself “extremely lucky” to “meet people from all walks of life” in his role, and he commits to “shine a spotlight on this solvable issue” in the years to come. Princess Diana “instinctively knew” that “the first step to fixing a problem is for everyone to see it for what it truly is”.

Read more

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are set to move into Adelaide Cottage, a “modest” property ten minutes’ walk from the Queen’s new official residence, Windsor Castle, according to reports.

In March this year, the Queen made the historic castle, founded by William the Conqueror in the 11th century, her permanent home and official residence. In the past, she tended to use Windsor Castle only at weekends or during Easter and Royal Ascot week, with Buckingham Palace being her official home.

The monarch appears to have started a trend. Prince William and Kate Middleton are now set to relocate to Windsor, along with their three children: George, nine, Charlotte, seven, and Louis, four, in the “coming two or three weeks”, said The Telegraph.

While life at Kensington Palace “has often been likened to living in a goldfish bowl”, Adelaide Cottage will provide the family with “much more scope for horse riding, walking the family dog and playing away from prying eyes”.

The four-bedroom home needs “no extra taxpayer-funded security or costly refurb”, according to The Sun, and the move means that their three children will be able to start school in the area in the autumn.

According to the Daily Mail royal correspondent Rebecca English, the Cambridges have been planning a move to Berkshire since 2021 and “have enrolled Prince George in a new school there, where he is expected to be joined this September by his siblings”.

Along with being near the Queen, Adelaide Cottage is also closer to Kate’s parents, Michael and Carole Middleton, who have lived for a decade in Bucklebury Manor, a seven-bedroom Grade II-listed Georgian property which is also in Berkshire.

‘Grace and favour’ residence

Built in 1831 as a retreat for William IV’s wife, Queen Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, the Grade-II listed Adelaide Cottage is the Cambridges’ “best and only option”, a royal insider revealed to The Sun’s royal correspondent Matt Wilkinson. The property is thought to have been refurbished as recently as 2015, and is located in the 4,800-acre Windsor Great Park.

Over the years, Adelaide Cottage has been used as a “grace and favour” residence for royal friends including Peter Townsend, the Battle of Britain pilot and equerry to King George VI who became the divorced lover of the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, between 1944 and 1952.

Princess Margaret reportedly spent “many Sunday visits” at the residence while Townsend lived there with his first wife, Rosemary. The princess "played with the children on the lawn and Peter Townsend, off duty, sat back in a deckchair”, according to a 1950 newspaper report, republished The Sun.

It was “also known to be a favourite home of Queen Victoria”, said the Daily Mail, and she “frequently enjoyed taking her breakfast there”.

The property most recently hosted Simon Rhodes, son of the Queen’s cousin and best friend Margaret Rhodes, who died in 2016, said English in the Daily Mail. It is thought to boast “original features including a marble Graeco-Egyptian fireplace and a principal bedroom with a coved ceiling featuring gilded dolphins”.

Along with being used for royal friends, the cottage was famously favoured by Queen Victoria, “who would often have tea or breakfast in this quaint location”, said Women and Home magazine.

The house is “much smaller” than the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s other two homes, said Hello! magazine. Anmer Hall boasts ten bedrooms while their Kensington Palace apartment “also features living quarters for staff”.

Fort Belvedere and Frogmore House, both in Windsor, have also been slated as potential new homes for the Cambridges, but it was thought that the latter would “require significant renovations to become a suitable home”.

The Cambridges are reportedly “very keen for a modest home” when they move to Windsor, a source told The Sun. The pair believe that Adelaide Cottage “fits the bill because it is a four-bedroom home and they do not need any more as they have no live-in staff”.

They are “adamant they didn’t want anything too showy or anything that needed renovating or extra security so as not to be a burden on the taxpayer”, a source told the paper. “The added bonus is they can send George, Charlotte and Louis to school together locally. The three children will enjoy running around and playing in the gardens, which is the kind of life they enjoy so much when at Anmer Hall.”

A ‘new era’

As the family “continue to cement their place among the most influential members of The Firm”, said the Daily Mail, the move will “usher in a new era for the Cambridge clan”, said The Telegraph. The three children will “no longer have their nanny, Maria Borrallo, “on hand 24/7”, making the move to Windsor a “significant change”.

Borrallo, a Spanish Norland nanny, “has been a regular fixture at the family’s side” since she was first hired in 2014. She will remain in full-time employment with the Cambridges, but will “live elsewhere” along with a “handful of other support staff”.

The move “is in keeping” with the wishes of Princess Diana, William’s late mother, “who is said to have strived for a ‘normal life’ for him and his brother”, said the Mail.

Kate’s uncle, Gary Goldsmith, told The Sun this month that she and William would have their “hands full this summer”, as they prepare for the move, but said he believed they “are ready for the next chapter in their lives”. A source told The Mirror that the couple are “extremely excited” about relocating.

Undoubtedly the most famous family in the world, the Windsors have become accustomed to having their private affairs pored over by the press and public.

Now a “bombshell” book containing “countless shocking claims about the royals” has promised to tell all about palace life, the Daily Mirror said, following the key players who have shaped the British monarchy in the last 25 years.

Written by former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor Tina Brown, The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor – the Truth and the Turmoil is based on hours of interviews with more than 120 royal “insiders”. Here are five of the most scandalous revelations.

The Queen worried William was a ‘brat’

As a toddler, Prince William was reportedly an ill-behaved child and was even dubbed a “holy terror” by his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, according to Brown.

The future king became a “cause of concern” to the Queen when he “showed signs of being a brat” as a toddler, Brown said. The monarch reportedly “complained to her husband that their grandson was ‘out of control’ and needed a stricter nanny.”

The Queen “was not amused that he loved to say: ‘When I am king, I am going to make a new rule that…’”.

At the age of four he allegedly had a habit of “yapping” at his nanny, Barbara Barnes, telling her: “No one tells me what to do! When I am king I will have you punished,” Brown wrote.

William and Harry had ‘Olympic rows’

The souring relationship between the two princes has been well documented in recent years following Prince Harry’s marriage to Meghan Markle. But the pair resented each other before then, Brown claimed, adding that their “jokey persona” when together often “concealed resentments greater than is widely known”, according to Town & Country.

One sore spot for Prince Harry was reportedly over royal patronages, as the younger brother struggled to find his place in the family after leaving the army.

“From Harry’s point of view, William was simply ‘hogging the best briefs’, a friend of both of them told me. The younger prince seemed not to have gotten the memo that the future king would always get the juiciest patronages,” wrote Brown.

At the time, Prince Harry was reportedly a “very, very angry man” and the two brothers would have “absolutely Olympic rows” over the matter.

Queen was blindsided by Andrew’s infamous interview

In November 2019, Prince Andrew recorded what was widely dubbed a “car crash” interview with the BBC in which he addressed his long-standing friendship with the late paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

Following the widespread criticism that followed, Andrew stepped back from royal duties.

While the interview is reportedly a “source of regret” for Andrew, according to Town & Country, it seems he had the interview approved by the Queen “under false pretences”. Brown claimed that the interview was only cleared as his mother believed it was a discussion about his royal duties and his Pitch@Palace business initiative.

“Expecting just that, Her Majesty, I am told by a source close to her, watched the broadcast alone in her private sitting room at Windsor after enjoying a light dinner on a tray,” Brown said. “One only hopes she did not upend her favourite champagne nightcap.”

Philip: lowering flag at Diana’s death was a ‘humiliation’

After a public outcry following the death of Princess Diana in 1997, the Queen “capitulated at last to the crowd’s and the tabloids’ demand to lower the Union Jack over Buckingham Palace”, wrote Brown. But Prince Philip saw the move as “a great humiliation”.

The relationship between Prince Philip and Diana seemed to sour after the princess gave her own tell-all interview to Panorama in 1995. During the interview, she publicly disclosed Prince Charles’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles.

According to royal biographer Ingrid Seward, Philip “would make himself scarce” when Diana brought Princes William and Harry to Windsor Castle, said Town & Country.

Harry and Meghan felt snubbed by Christmas broadcast

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step down as senior royals was made after their photograph was not displayed during the Queen’s Christmas broadcast, Brown said. The pair reportedly felt that that snub symbolised that they had been “kicked to the margins of the monarchy”.

“Her Majesty eloquently made the point in her speech by saying nothing,” wrote Brown. “The subtext was all in the flotilla of carefully arranged family photographs positioned on her writing desk, a grouping that, in case anyone thinks is accidental, has been artfully changed every year since the monarch’s first televised seasonal message in 1957.”

Prince William has defended the right of any country to become a republic after returning from a turbulent eight-day tour of the Caribbean with Kate Middleton.

Following what The Mirror described as “a series of PR disasters” during the “tone-deaf” trip to Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas, the Duke of Cambridge insisted that he was not interested in “telling people what to do”. The tour had “brought into even sharper focus questions about the past and the future”, and the path ahead for the Commonwealth countries was “for the people to decide upon”, he said in a series of posts on the Cambridges’ official Twitter account.

Sources said the duke had done “a lot of thinking” about what kind of king he wanted to be, according to The Telegraph. Although he recognised that the Royal Family’s “long-held mantra of ‘never complain, never explain’ had proved effective for decades”, the paper reported, William was “also keen to have his own voice”.

‘The Cambridge way’

The question of how much power a constitutional monarch should exercise appears to have been on William’s mind for some time. In 2016, he told the BBC’s royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell that the issue “occupies a lot of my thinking space”.

It was essential that the Royal Family “stay relevant”, a challenge that he would face as king, said William, who is second in line to the throne after his father, Prince Charles. While the Queen had set an “extraordinary example” during her reign, William said, he would pursue his own “vision” for the role of head of state.

The Caribbean tour has now strengthened his resolve, according to reports. William is said to have held emergency talks with senior aides as criticism mounted.

A source told The Sun that the Cambridges were “bruised” by allegations that their visit “harked back to the colonial age”.

“In future they will rip up the rule-book and do things ‘the Cambridge way’,” the source said. “They’re trying to work out what that will look like.

“It is not a criticism of how it was done in the past. But times are changing.”

An insider told the Daily Mail that William believed that “if the monarchy has something to say then it should say it”. He was said to “respect” the approach favoured by monarch grandmother and father, Prince Charles, but believed the Royals needed to be “agile” to survive and thrive.

‘People’s King’

US Weekly reported last month that William had “high ambitions to be known as the People’s King”. A source claimed that along with his father, William had made “the big decision [of] making and creating a slimmed-down monarchy” that was more relatable to the public.

“The way William and Charles see it, less people means less drama,” the insider said.

And “proving he has his own methods”, said The Sun, “William plans to have around 70 fewer aides when he succeeds Charles as Prince of Wales”.

“He will instead nearly halve the estimated 137 staff his dad relies on to create a more cost-effective and less formal team,” the paper continued.

The Cambridges “will also employ a small staff working on ‘comfortable and credible’ good causes – five or six in total”. Fewer staff will mean “shorter, solo trips” too, along the lines of the duchess’s recent trip to Denmark.

“William and Kate will modernise how they work,” said The Sun’s source. “It’s a breath of fresh air.”

1. It’ll take a radical plan to save the royals now

Clare Foges at The Times

on looking ahead

Seeing Prince William and Kate Middleton in the Caribbean, “waving at locals from an open-top Land Rover… we were catapulted back almost a century”, says Clare Foges at The Times. “Poor William and Kate. They are plainly decent, charming people but they looked like relics. The trip’s PR failures will have been gratifying for those who long to abolish the monarchy”, but not this writer. Foges loves “the pomp and flummery”. But “even” she “can sense – sadly – that people are tiring of this stuff”. Attitudes “are shifting fast”, and though “respect for Her Majesty the Queen has seen off threats to the monarchy for decades… alas, she is not immortal”. Foges says: “Republicans are sharpening their guillotines” as Prince Charles prepares to take the throne. And she thinks that “to secure the monarchy for another century” in the “public’s affections”, the royal family “should leap several steps ahead” of public opinion. “The new king will need to out-revolutionise the revolutionaries”. “Radical reform” is what this writer thinks is needed.

Read more

2. Will Smith’s unbelievable Oscars moment was straight out of Hollywood

Andrew Buncombe at The Independent

on acting or anger?

Twenty years ago, Will Smith was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Muhammad Ali in the film Ali “partly because of his ability to know how to throw a punch”, writes Andrew Buncombe at The Independent. “The ring scenes looked convincing, as did the training regimen. But we all knew it was acting.” That, Buncombe says, is “what everybody thought when Smith walked up to comedian and presenter Chris Rock and took a swing at his face. Hollywood! Ha! What jokers!” But then “the sound was cut” and the actor returned to his seat “looking very, very angry indeed. If he was acting, he was doing a good job.” TV audiences “reached for their phones. What was that? Was that real?” The end of the drama “was literally crafted in Hollywood”. Smith returned to the stage, “this time accepting the award for Best Actor”. As he gave his speech, “his face streaked with tears”. In that moment, “it seemed pretty certain that Smith was not acting”.

Read more

3. Why the UK can’t rely on boosters to get through each new wave of Covid

Danny Altmann at The Guardian

on a fragile situation

Covid-19 vaccines have greatly reduced the likelihood of hospitalisation or death from the virus, but “viral evolution had plenty more to throw at us”, writes professor of immunology Danny Altmann at The Guardian. “The onslaught of highly immune-evasive variants was”, for many experts, “unforeseen”. “Having started out brilliantly, the real-life state of play today is self-evidently suboptimal.” Despite having one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, the UK faces an “unhappy equilibrium” of “more than 300,000 new cases a day… with hospital admissions and excess deaths holding steady at a new – high – setpoint”. Now we face “a precarious truce imposed through frequent mRNA boosters to keep the viral caseload ‘manageable’. But there are signs this isn’t sustainable.” Recent surges in Hong Kong, Denmark and Scotland “emphasise the fragility” of the situation. The pandemic “is very much with us and evolving dynamically, with a long, bumpy road ahead”, says Altmann. “The option to sleepwalk through this… is one we adopt at our peril”.

Read more

4. Beware a phony peace in Ukraine

Thomas D. Grant at The Wall Street Journal

on endgames

“Russia’s war against Ukraine is failing,” writes Thomas D. Grant at The Wall Street Journal. “But serious dangers remain” and “among them are ‘peace’ terms that, like those Russia imposed on past victims of its aggression, would set up Ukraine – and others – for bloodshed in years to come.” Vladimir Putin “is likely to propose terms that look like concessions but are calculated to hobble Ukraine and threaten security far beyond its borders”, writes the senior security adviser. Ceasefire terms have “deliberately debilitated” countries that Russia has previously attacked “by entrenching proxies on each country’s territory and stipulating ‘peace processes’ that Moscow used not to pursue peace, but to prevent countries from stabilising or escaping Russia’s shadow”. It seems Putin hopes to “gain lasting ground from his botched invasion” in the same vein, but “tolerating such an outcome in Ukraine would be a mistake”. “If the world wants peace,” says Grant, “then it shouldn’t impose a settlement on Ukraine that ignores lessons from places where Russia got the endgames it demanded.”

Read more

5. Fertiliser inflation presages a global food supply crisis

Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times

on rising prices

War between Russia and Ukraine has led to rises in food and fuel prices. “This in turn has sparked concern that we may see a repeat of the famine and food riots that took place in 22 countries in the years following the global financial crisis, caused by a perfect storm of rising commodities prices,” writes Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times. US wheat farmers “should be in a good position to help buffer some of the pain” from disruptions to supply, but “they are worried about inflation of another sort – in fertiliser”. Costs “have increased far beyond the levels that agricultural simulation models would have predicted” and “farmers say price gouging is part of the problem”. There are “deafening calls for monopoly actions in the US”. Foroohar says: “Geopolitical instability will certainly lead to more ‘local for local’ production and calls for insourcing…But antitrust actions will be as much about curbing domestic players as foreign ones.” For shifts in the market to take place, we need to “fundamentally” reconsider “how we eat”.

Read more

1. As a historian of slavery, I know just how much the royal family has to answer for in Jamaica

Trevor Burnard at The Guardian

on royal recognition

Royal tours are usually “full of cheering people lining the streets and gushy accounts of glamorous dresses”, writes Trevor Burnard at The Guardian. “There has been some of that” during Prince William and Kate Middleton’s trip to the Caribbean. “But there have also been protests, especially in Jamaica.” And, he adds: “To top it all off”, the country has reportedly “begun the process of removing the Queen as head of state”. Burnard, the University of Hull’s Wilberforce professor of slavery and emancipation, says: “Such a reckoning with Britain and its state is long overdue.” Jamaica “enriched Britain by filling the coffers of the Treasury from taxes levied on sugar and rum” in the 18th century. “Black people suffered greatly for white people’s enjoyment of sweet things”, he writes. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge “might have acknowledged” the fact that “more Africans arrived in Kingston to become plantation slaves than arrived in any other place in British empire… rather than kicking a football around and playing bongos in Trench Town”. Jamaica is today “a poor country”, and it would be a “good thing if Britain recognised its historical responsibility for creating those conditions of poverty, while benefiting from Jamaican wealth”. That recognition could “start with the royal family”.

Read more

2. The art market cannot get enough Andy Warhol Marilyns

John Gapper at The Financial Times

on an ‘artist’s market’

“Amid the world’s problems, the top echelon of the art market is doing just fine,” writes John Gapper at the Financial Times. That’s in response to the news that an Andy Warhol silkscreen of Marilyn Monroe is expected to sell for around $200m when it goes up for auction in May. And while the auction house describes it as “an unmatched example of 20th-century art by the most important American artist”, Gapper says that’s true “up to a point: it is matched extremely closely by four other Marilyn prints” produced by Warhol in 1964. Warhol “grasped early on” that “mechanical reproduction helps to establish an artist’s market”. He was “intrigued by finance” and “multiple prints provide liquidity and price-setting benchmarks”. Gapper says that “a painting becomes a token of something more psychologically valuable – admission to a club of wealthy aesthetes… Buying a Warhol or a Jasper Johns absolves a billionaire of being a mere philistine.” Warhol was “ahead of his time in producing plenty of Marilyns, Maos and Elvises”.

Read more

3. Biden’s Rohingya genocide declaration can’t just be empty words

Josh Rogin at The Washington Post

on stopping atrocities

This week, the US announced that Russia was committing war crimes in Ukraine – “28 days into the invasion”, says The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin. When the same government “announced on Monday that it had determined that Myanmar’s military had committed genocide against the Rohingya, it was more than five years after the violence there began”. The “close timing” of the two statements “is likely no coincidence”, writes Rogin. The Biden administration “wants to signal that the Ukraine crisis hasn’t completely consumed its foreign policy bandwidth”. Of course, “the Ukraine crisis and the Myanmar situation are not the same”. Vladimir Putin’s crimes “are nowhere near the scope and scale of the Myanmar military’s broad campaigns of mass murder, mass torture, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and other horrors – at least not yet. But that’s kind of the point.” That “there have been eight genocides since the Holocaust should tell us that we are not doing enough to stop mass atrocities or hold perpetrators accountable”. If genocide is “normalized, it will imperil our greater goals of stability, security and a common humanity”.

Read more

4. Where are all the gender neutral baby clothes?

Rose Stokes at Metro

on beyond pink and blue

Rose Stokes says it was around her 20-week scan that people started asking “about the sex of my growing baby”. Writing at Metro, she says “it makes sense”, given that’s when “expectant parents can choose to find out the genitals of their child. A lot of parents opt not to find out for a variety of reasons”, but for others, “being able to know the slightest detail about your child in gestation helps to provide some stable ground in the sea of unknowns of impending parenthood”. Stokes and her partner did find out – and her friends wanted to know too, so they could buy clothes in the “appropriate colour: pink or blue”. This writer doesn’t “subscribe to normative gender stereotypes”, and she was “shocked that in 2022, the offering of most high-street brands when it comes to baby clothes is still so antiquated”. While boys clothes “are plastered in words that inspire adventure and physical play”, girls “are offered princesses and unicorns, with words emphasising their physical beauty or fragility”. Given “all the progress” that’s been made, “how have we not all moved on from these rigid stereotypes that do real harm to absolutely everyone?” Only “a few brands” provide “more gender neutral offerings”, and this writer is opting for clothes “in a full kaleidoscope of colours”.

Read more

5. Why everyone, even feminists, likes Mother’s Day

Melanie McDonagh at The Irish Times

on an inclusive festival

Mother’s Day “wasn’t always a thing in Ireland”, writes Melanie McDonagh at The Irish Times. “Until the 1960s it didn’t feature; by the 70s the highlight was a bunch of daffodils” and a card – a far cry from today’s “orgy of consumption”. Mothering Sunday is largely “a southern English custom”, with some early evidence from the 17th century indicating that “servants returned to their own parish church and visited their mothers” on the Sunday midway through Lent. Today’s “full-blown, commercial, sentimental festival” owes “everything to Anna Jarvis of Philadelphia”, who campaigned for a day to “honour all mothers; the first was held in the US in 1908”. McDonagh says: “It took next to no time for US florists, confectioners and greeting-card manufacturers to realise the commercial possibilities” of the occasion – something Jarvis later “revolted at”. “What’s interesting” about Mothering Sunday today “is that it has survived despite being a celebration of the most traditional aspect of women’s identity: being a mother”. This writer says it’s “probably the most inclusive” of festivals in the calendar, “since everyone had or has a mother”.

Read more

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have faced a mixed reaction at the start of their “charm offensive” in the Caribbean.

The royal couple were greeted by a guard of honour from the Belize Defence Force as they landed at Belize City’s airport. The prime minister, Johnny Briceño, told the couple: “We’re so happy you’re here.”

However, Sky News reported, William and Kate cancelled a visit to a cacao farm in the village of Indian Creek on Sunday morning after villagers protested over plans for the couple’s helicopter to land on their football pitch. The village is also involved in a dispute relating to ancestral land with Fauna & Flora International, a conservation group of which Prince William is patron.

On day two, the royals danced with locals and sampled chocolate at a different cacao farm. “They were shaking their waists like nobody’s business,” Laura Cacho, a local festival organiser who danced with William, told the BBC.

There is more controversy on the horizon, said The Independent. A protest calling for slavery reparations is due to take place near the British High Commission in the Jamaican capital of Kingston tomorrow morning.

The tour of Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas is marking the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and is the couple’s first major overseas tour in more than two years due to the pandemic.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrive at Philip S.W. Goldson International Airport in Belize City on Saturday to begin their tour of the Caribbean on behalf of the Queen to mark her Platinum Jubilee

The royals meet Belize’s Prime Minister Johnny Briceño and his wife Rossana. The Cambridges will also visit Jamaica and the Bahamas

William and Kate travel to Hopkins, a small village on the coast of Belize, considered the cultural centre of the Garifuna community

William dances with locals in Hopkins. Organiser Laura Cacho claimed the duke had “beautiful rhythm”, while the Daily Mail called it “proper dad dancing”

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge learn about local food in Hopkins

Visiting a local chocolate farm, the Duchess of Cambridge apparently said their children would be “very jealous”

Kate meets one of the younger members of the Garifuna community in Hopkins, which has a reputation for being the “friendliest village in the whole of Belize”, said the Evening Standard

Prince William has suggested that tech billionaires should focus on saving Earth from the impact of climate change rather than directing their resources into space tourism.

Speaking to the BBC’s Newscast podcast, the Duke of Cambridge told presenter Adam Fleming that “we need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live”.

He added that it is “crucial” to be focusing on this planet “rather than giving up and heading out into space to try and think of solutions for the future”.

Space tourism certainly comes at an eye-watering cost. Jeff Bezos – the world’s richest man – has funded his space company, Blue Origin, with at least $5.5bn of his own money, according to Fortune magazine. This is significantly more than the GDP of several countries including the Maldives, an archipelago that could disappear by the end of the century if the world does not take quick action on climate change.

It is also an extremely carbon-intensive activity. The carbon dioxide emissions of roughly four tourists on a space flight could be “up to 100 times more than the emissions per passenger of a long-haul flight”, according to an estimate by Dr Eloise Marais of University College London.

Another study by researchers at UNSW (University of New South Wales), Australia, found that space travel releases “alumina particles, black carbon and even water vapour” into the stratosphere, which could have dangerous repercussions for the environment, reported Science Focus.

And hybrid rocket engines, which were used on Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo and “run on both solid and liquid fuel”, are particularly destructive for the planet as they release “far more black carbon than kerosene fuel”.

“If hybrid rockets, which are assumed to be relatively cheap to operate, become popular, a climate disaster is looming,” Paul Peeters, sustainable transport and tourism professor at Breda University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands, told Science Focus.

When space tourism inevitably becomes more common, these emissions will become a far greater problem; Virgin Galactic alone eventually aims to launch 400 space flights annually, according to Vox.

But there is an argument that putting resources into space tourism could lead to discoveries that would benefit us all. Thanks to the arrival of inhabitable space stations that “act as orbital laboratories”, we’ve been able to understand so much more about human physiology, wrote space experts Nick Caplan, Andrew Winnard and Kirsty Lindsay for The Conversation.

Research studies completed on the International Space Station since the year 2000 have led to discoveries from “enhanced protein crystal growth for drug development” to understanding the effects of “long duration exposure to microgravity on the human body”. “Space travel-related research has probably already had a more substantial positive impact on your life than you realise,” the authors added.

Seeing Earth from suborbital space may also help remind space tourists of the fragility of our planet and the need to protect it – which is what happened to Bezos after he completed his flight in July. “When you look at the planet, there are no borders,” he said in an NBC News interview. “It’s one planet, and we share it and it’s fragile.”

The entrepreneur then stressed the need for reusable rockets and even suggested that “all heavy industry, all polluting industry” could be moved to space in order to preserve what he described as “this beautiful gem of a planet”. Three weeks ago, he committed to spending $1bn in conservation in places like the Congo Basin, the Andes and tropical parts of the Pacific Ocean, as part of his $10bn Bezos Earth Fund.

In 2017, Princes William and Harry announced that a statue of their late mother would be erected in the grounds of Kensington Palace, her former home.

But the memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales unveiled yesterday in a rare joint public apperance by her sons has fallen flat with critics, with Tristram Fane Saunders’ suggestion in The Telegraph that “opinion is divided” over the statue appearing generous.

The Guardian’s Jonathan Jones laments the figures’ “aesthetic awfulness”, and says that Ian Rank-Broadley’s sculpture is “a spiritless and characterless hunk of nonsense” that is ultimately “nauseating”.

And Rachel Campbell-Johnston’s two-star review in The Times is in agreement, adding that aesthetically it is “so horrible” it can only have been “calculated to appeal to the lowest common denominator”.

Diana stands “arms outspread in the pose of a traditional religious Madonna”, Campbell-Johnston continues, with her hands on the shoulders of two young children with a third hidden just behind.

The illusion to the Virgin Mary “shamelessly plays up to the most mawkish aspects of Diana worship”, writes Jones, with the People’s Princess portrayed as a “modern Mary”.

Mark Hudson’s interpretation at The Independent that the male child "looks out with a resolute, hopeful expression” is at least a little more positive.

The outfit is “somewhat frumpy”, says Campbell-Johnston. Renowned for her style, it seems odd to memorialise Diana in such a way, the belt an already outdated faux-pas, the skirt un-noteworthy. As The Times’s art critic says: “Could it be that Laura Ashley has made it on to a public monument.”

Members of the general public will likely still flock to see the statue, the critics note. A shrine “it will be, but not for art lovers”, says Jones.

Perhaps it was the memorial’s chosen medium that limited the artistic potential of this undertaking. A bronze “belongs to the norms and standards of another time”, writes Hudson, and is a medium better suited to memorials of “colonial generals, Victorian politicians and fascist dictators” than to a forward-looking woman renowned for her grace on the public stage.

Or perhaps it was the choice of artist that let this project down. Had Rank-Broadley fulfilled Jones’s hope that the image “might be wildly provocative” – the secret nature of the sculpture’s design stirring the “fascinating prospect of a naked Diana for everyone to get furious about” – the final result may have been a greater success.

In Campbell-Johnston’s opinion, the sculptor chosen to carry out this prestigious work should “certainly have been female”, not one of Britain’s “most safely established middle-aged white male artists”.

The statue is accompanied by a poem, which could perhaps have redeemed the sculpture's artistic value. But, Fane Saunders says in The Telegraph, the statue is in fact the “better” of the two.

He traces the poetic origins of the selected lines engraved on a slab in front of the statue back to Wallace Gallaher’s 1923 The Measure of a Man, with the word “man” substituted for “woman”. “If you have to re-write it to make it appropriate, you’ve chosen the wrong poem,” he says.

The statue will “play second fiddle to the flower garden in which it is set”, says Campbell-Johnston, and even Jones concedes that the flower beds are “nice”.

That the statue is “by far the best result we could have hoped for under the circumstances”, as Hudson says, feels generous. “Princess Diana deserved something much better”, Campbell-Johnston adds.

A statue has been unveiled by Prince Harry and Prince William at Kensington Palace today to mark what would have been the 60th birthday of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Harry, who has returned to the UK for the unveiling, delivered a speech earlier this week paying tribute to his mother’s legacy. The Duke of Sussex told recipients of the Diana Award, an accolade honouring young people working towards sustainable social change, to “never be afraid to do what's right.

“Stand up for what you believe in and trust that when you live by truth and in service to others, people will see that just as they did with my mum,” he said.

Perceptions of the British monarchy around the world changed thanks, in part, to Diana’s personable approach to her royal role – a legacy her sons are keen to continue.

A softer approach

A stiff upper lip was seen as a key trait of the British monarchy in the days before Diana, one which the “People’s Princess” is often credited with softening. Diana strayed from the expected formalities of royal life, and even the smallest of gestures that deviated from the traditional came to take on significance in the public eye.

Unlike other royals Diana never wore gloves, Vogue’s former deputy editor Anna Harvey, who became a friend of Diana’s, remembers. “She wanted flesh to flesh contact,” she writes.

A tireless advocate for ending the stigma around HIV/Aids, pictures of the princess shaking hands with patients drew much media attention, her actions were “revolutionary” in changing public perception around the disease, says Tatler.

The media made the most of Diana’s candid and authentic approach to her role, and she quickly gained fans around the world. Her state visits were highly publicised affairs and her charitable work quickly established her status as a “prominent philanthropic force”, Harper’s Bazaar says.

She entered a sphere of influence beyond that which the royals had previously inhabited on the global stage, dancing with movie stars at the White House and adorning the cover of Vogue magazine no less than three times during her life. She was “a breath of fresh air”, winning the public round with “her very human flaws and vulnerabilities”, wrote Alicia Carroll in The New York Times almost a decade ago.

“Before she came on the scene in 1980, very few people in the U.S. paid attention to the royals or could tell you the name of the queen of England,” she said. “Diana changed all that.”

Refashioning the firm

Diana’s attitude and manner may have won the public round, but it seems she had to play a more forceful hand to try to change the monarchy’s ways.

In the landmark 1995 Panorama interview with Martin Bashir, Diana said she “would like a monarchy that has more contact with its people”. She took that responsibility on herself and her ability to create connections with the public through an apparent openness would go on to “legitimise the role of feeling in the public space”, wrote Matthew d’Ancona in The Guardian on the 20th anniversary of her death.

The princess’s enthusiasm for her role and popularity with the public caused frictions within the family. The relationship between herself and Princess Anne was “even more tense” than The Crown made out, according to Vanity Fair. The reciprocity between the public and Diana was not mirrored behind closed doors; in the same 1995 interview, Diana told Bashir that her eating disorder was “a symptom of what was going on in my marriage”.

Critics of “the firm” were quick to admonish the royals after Diana’s death – the Queen’s own statement on the tragedy came almost a week after the event. Julie Burchill, the writer widely recognised with coining the “People’s Princess” nickname, wrote in The Guardian two days after the fatal car crash in Paris that Diana had “showed the House of Windsor up for what it was: a dumb, numb dinosaur, lumbering along in a world of its own, gorged sick on arrogance and ignorance”.

Her “brave, bright, brash life will forever cast a giant shadow over” the royals, she predicted.

A lasting legacy?

“Saintly or scheming, misunderstood or manipulative”, Diana divides opinions among commentators, the “reams” written about her painting the princess in contradictory lights, says Reshmi R Dasgupta in The Economic Times. But on one point most can agree: the response to her death marked a change in the general public’s perception of the royals.

The flowers left at Kensington Palace “transformed a London park into something closer to Lourdes”, d’Ancona says. And when the Royal Family faltered in its response to her death, the public took note. “This most enduring of institutions looked as if it might actually implode under the weight of so much emotion,” wrote Sarah Lyall at The New York Times 20 years on from Diana’s death.

It was seen as a turning point in the British sensibility, “a bold punctuation mark in a new national narrative that favoured disinhibition, empathy and personal candour”, as d’Ancona puts it.

But others view the princess’s legacy with scepticism. “It didn’t take long for Britons to tire of [Tony] Blair’s Diana-like emotionalism,” wrote Anne Applebaum on Slate in 2007, at which time the royals remained “pretty much the same, only quieter” than during the years of “Dianamania”. And if Applebaum was correct in thinking that the Royal Family learnt from Diana “that there is such a thing as too much publicity”, it’s surely a lesson they have been reminded of in the past three years amid the ongoing tabloid coverage of Meghan Markle.

Diana left Britain “more inclined to value gut feeling over expert opinion” in both its politics and public discourse, says Lyall.

The “complicated royal rebel” has left “an enduring imprint on the House of Windsor”, said The Independent ahead of what would have been her 60th birthday today. By interacting more “intimately” with the public – “kneeling to the level of a child, sitting on the edge of a patient’s hospital bed, writing personal notes to her fans” – she inspired other royals, including her sons, to “become more human and remain relevant in the 21st century”, says the newspaper.

“Diana didn’t invent the idea of royals visiting the poor, destitute or downtrodden,” it concludes. “But Diana touched them – literally.”

From her first public appearances in the early 1980s, Diana mesmerised the world with her eye-catching wardrobe choices, setting trends, inspiring women and putting the spotlight on British design.

On 31 August 1997, news of Princess Diana's death in a Paris road tunnel stunned a nation and the world. The outpouring of grief for the 36-year-old was unprecedented and has never been repeated.

Two decades after her death, countless documentaries, books and interviews have been published, shedding new light on Princess Diana's life as a royal and her life after her divorce as Diana, Princess of Wales.

Here are ten things we have learnt about Britain's beloved royal since her death:

Diana's thoughts on dating and marrying Prince Charles

Lady Diana Spencer met Prince Charles in 1977 at Althorp, the Spencer family estate. She was 16. He was 29. They got engaged after only meeting a handful of times. During their first evening together as a couple, Diana recalls that Prince Charles "chatted (her) up" and was all over her "like a bad rash". In the early days of their marriage, their sex life was unfulfilling ("sort of once every three weeks"), she told her voice coach, Peter Settelen, on videos made in 1992 and 1993.

Three years after they first met, the couple married at St Paul's Cathedral in London – a televised wedding watched by 750 million people worldwide – but, even at that point, appearances were deceiving.

In a letter to James Hewitt, the British cavalry officer who later became her lover, Diana wrote: "As I was walking down the aisle of St. Paul's on my father's arm, I thought, 'What on earth am I doing here?'"

On Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles

Diana spoke to close friends in the 1980s about her suspicions that her husband was having an affair with his old flame Camilla Parker Bowles.

Diana told her voice coach that Parker Bowles (now Duchess of Cornwall) was a huge strain on the marriage: "If I could write my own script I would have my husband go away with his woman and never come back."

Famously, to Martin Bashir in the BBC Panorama interview in 1995, Diana referred again to Camilla Parker Bowles: "Well, there were three of us in the marriage, so it was a bit crowded."

Diana's eating disorder

During the early years of her marriage, Diana developed an eating disorder that was an open secret among the royals.

"Everyone in the family knew about the bulimia, and everyone blamed the bulimia for the failure of the marriage," Diana said in the recording aired this year on Channel 4's documentary Diana: In Her Own Words.

The eating disorder was the most "discreet" way to harm herself, Diana said, rather than alcohol or anorexia.

On her affair with cavalry officer James Hewitt

While still married, Diana began a five-year affair with cavalry officer James Hewitt in 1986. Diana, who was linked to many men, confessed to the affair in the BBC Panorama programme.

Diana's former protection officer, Ken Wharfe, also wrote about the relationship in his book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret: "Hewitt, a natural womaniser, gave her the attention and affection she relished, and then the passion she yearned for."

On conspiring with her biographer to publish "Diana: Her True Story"

In 1992, Andrew Morton's bestselling biography, Diana: Her True Story, finally lifted the lid off Diana's unhappy life, shattering the fairy tale wedding myth.

The writer had met Diana only briefly when Morton began writing her story. Morton, however, knew Dr. James Colthurst, a close friend of Diana's, who invited him to a cafe to hear recordings on a battered tape recorder.

"For 20 minutes or so I listened as the familiar voice of the Princess of Wales spilt out a tale of woe: her loneliness; her desperation; her husband's relationship with a friend's wife, Camilla Parker Bowles; her illnesses; and suicidal impulses," Morton says.

Dr Colthurst then acted as a go-between, allowing Morton to write questions, which Diana answered on six long tape recordings, telling her side of the story for the book.

On Diana's divorce

Diana shared details of her 'grim' divorce with singer and close friend George Michael in 1996, The Sun reported.

In a call recorded on his answer phone, Diana discussed her break-up, saying: "It's been pretty grim, but we're near the end of it...Not a very loving, compassionate family, this one I'm leaving."

On her affair with Dodi al Fayed

Much has been written about Mohamed al Fayed's playboy son Dodi. Was he the man who swept her off her feet? Or the man she planned to dump, as the Daily Mail reports?

Diana's personal assistant, Jackie Allen, told the newspaper that Diana called her from Dodi's yacht.

"She said how much she was looking forward to getting home, and there was something in the way she said it that gave me the impression she was actually saying, 'I'm bored with this now'. It's very much a personal view, but I don't think she would have seen Dodi again once she got back." Allen said.

Princess Diana's last conversation with her sons

The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry were at Balmoral, the Queen's private Scottish home, and were playing with their cousins when their mother called from Paris. They were in a hurry to hang up and the call still weighs on their minds, the princes said in the documentary Diana, Princess of Wales.

They both regret how short the chat was, with Harry saying it was something he would regret "for the rest of my life". Asked if he remembers what his mother said, William replied "I do", but he did not disclose details of the conversation.

On the night of her death in Paris in 1997

The 36-year-old divorcee and Dodi al Fayed, 41, were staying at the Ritz Hotel in Paris in late August when they were driven at high speed to Dodi's apartment in a Mercedes S-280. The car crashed into a pillar in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel, just after midnight. Diana, Dodi, and driver Henri Paul, all died. Diana's bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived.

Her former butler, Paul Burrell, told reporters that he's haunted by questions about the tragedy. Why had the couple left the hotel late at night, instead of staying in Dodi's suite at the Ritz? "Knowing her, she'd rather be tucked up in bed early", Burrell said.

Burrell questioned why safety-conscious Diana was not wearing a seatbelt that evening: "She always wore a seatbelt… so why wasn't she that night?"

Diana's dying words

Fireman Xavier Gourmelon was one of the first responders to the crash and vividly recalls the night Diana died. Gourmelon told The Express that he found her alive in the back of the car. He could see that Diana's right shoulder was slightly injured but did not see any blood.

"I held her hand and told her to be calm and keep still, I said I was there to help and reassured her. She said, 'My God, what's happened?'"

Diana was placed on a stretcher. An official report said that the royal suffered a ruptured blood vessel next to her heart, which caused internal bleeding and other injuries. Hours later, Diana was pronounced dead at 4am.

Thirty-eight years ago today, Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer were married 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, says the BBC. In the UK, 600,000 well-wishers lined the streets of London while 28.4 million watched on the BBC and ITV.

Diana was 20 when she married Charles, 32. Fifteen years later, the couple divorced - and one year after that, Diana died in a car crash in Paris, along with her lover Dodi Fayed.

The wedding was one of the most scrutinised in the world - but almost four decades later, newspapers and broadcasters are still unearthing fresh behind-the-scenes details. Here are a few facts you may not have known about the 1981 royal wedding.

Diana was only allowed 100 guests

A new documentary, Charles and Di: The Truth Behind their Wedding, aired on Channel 5 at the weekend. It revealed that Diana was only allowed to invite 100 guests to the wedding, despite the full guest list in the Cathedral totalling 2,000. The claim was made by Mary Robertson, an American businesswoman who employed Diana as a nanny (on just over £4 an hour) before her engagement to Prince Charles. Despite Diana’s limited allocation, Robertson and her husband were invited to the wedding.

A whispered comment hinted at trouble

The Daily Mirror recalls this week that it ran a story five days before Charles and Diana were married, which hinted at trouble to come in the relationship. At a garden party for people with disabilities at Buckingham Palace, a Mirror journalist overheard Diana saying she had had a row with Charles.

Features writer John Edwards recalled Diana telling a member of the public: “There was a terrible row last night between Charles and me. It had been his stag party.”

Diana was in tears seven days before

Diana was left in tears a week before the wedding, according to biographer Christopher Wilson. She apparently “spotted a package with the name of Camilla on it on the desk of Prince Charles’s private secretary, Michael Colborne”, reports the Daily Express. “After insisting to see what was inside of it, Diana found a gold bracelet with the letter G and F engraved, the initials for the nicknames Charles and Camilla used for each other - Gladys and Fred,” said the newspaper.

Wilson told the Channel 5 documentary: “She was absolutely in tears, in a terrible state about it. It was clear that this was Prince Charles' farewell present to Camilla.”

Dress altered several times

Elizabeth Emanuel, who designed Diana’s wedding dress with her ex-husband David, said the Princess of Wales lost so much weight in the run-up to the wedding that they had to alter the dress several times. “Her waist was a size 23 at the end. She was tiny like a model,” said Emanuel.

Charles told friends his bride was ‘a child’

Saturday’s Channel 5 documentary also revealed that Charles told his friends shortly before the wedding that he was concerned about Diana’s youth. According to the Daily Express, he said: “She is exquisitely pretty, a perfect poppy. But she is a child.”

The Prince is said to have added: “She does not look old enough to be out of school, much less married.”

BBC “lies” fuelled Princess Diana’s “fears and paranoia” in the final years of her life, Prince William has claimed following the release of a damning report on the methods used to obtain the infamous Panorama interview with his late mother.

Martin Bashir’s 1995 interview was a “major” contributing factor in making his parent’s relationship “worse”, the Duke of Cambridge said in a broadcast statement to the BBC’s rival ITV News. “It effectively established a false narrative which, for over a quarter of a century, has been commercialised by the BBC and others,” William added.

The royal rebuke is “unprecedented”, says The Times, and piles further pressure on the national broadcaster after Lord John Dyson’s inquiry found that Bashir “deceived” Diana’s brother, Earl Charles Spencer, to secure an introduction to her.

The independent investigation by retired judge Dyson concluded that the journalist breached BBC rules by using fake bank statements that suggested a member of Spencer’s staff was leaking stories to the press, in order to gain his trust.

Yet an internal BBC inquiry in 1996 cleared Bashir of any wrongdoing.

Around 23 million people worldwide tuned in to watch his world-exclusive interview with Diana, during which she revealed intimate details of her life including her struggles with bulimia and self-harm.

Prince William argues that the “deceitful” methods of “BBC employees” who “lied and used fake documents” to secure the interview “substantially influenced what my mother said”.

The Royal described his “indescribable sadness” over how “the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to her fear, paranoia and isolation, that I remember from her final years with her”, adding: “What saddens me most is that if the BBC had properly investigated the complaints and concerns first raised in 1995, my mother would have known that she’d been deceived.”

Prince Harry has also spoken out about his mother following the publication of Dyson’s report. In a separate statement, the Duke of Sussex said that the “ripple effect of a culture of exploitation and unethical practices ultimately took her life”.

Unethical practices in the media “are still widespread today”, he continued, warning that the problem was “bigger than one outlet, one network or one publication”.

“Our mother lost her life because of this, and nothing has changed,” Harry concluded. “By protecting her legacy, we protect everyone, and uphold the dignity with which she lived her life.”

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond notes that while, in the past, “it's been Harry that's been so angry” with the media, the “visceral attack” on the BBC by William is “a sign of his deep hurt and deep dismay”.

The brothers' onslaughts and “absolutely blistering” tone of the Dyson report have left the BBC “severely injured and probably scarred”, the broadcaster’s media editor Amol Rajan told BBC News at Ten yesterday.

And with widespread anger among the public and cabinet ministers too, the BBC is in a “dreadful place”, he added.

Indeed, the cost of the scandal to Auntie is “incalculable”, writes Andrew Neil, former host of several flagship BBC programmes and chair of the soon-to-launch GB News, in an article for the Daily Mail. Having “scaled the moral high ground” during the tabloid phone-hackings scandal while “drawing a veil over its own cesspit”, the BBC is now paying the price, says Neil.

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said last night that in the wake of the “damning” inquiry findings, the government would consider whether the BBC’s governance should be reformed.

Meanwhile, BBC Director-General Tim Davie said that while Dyson’s report states the Diana “was keen on the idea of an interview” with the broadcaster, the “process for securing the interview fell far short of what audiences have a right to expect”.

Today is the 39th birthday of Prince William, the father-of-three who is second in line to the throne.

It has been a difficult year for the Duke of Cambridge, who not only lost his grandfather, Prince Philip, but has also had to navigate his brother’s move to Los Angeles and high-profile falling out with the Royal Family.

Back in March, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle revealed to Oprah Winfrey that an unnamed member of what they dubbed “the firm” had discussed how dark their baby would be.

Meghan also told the TV host that a 2018 rumour that she had made Kate Middleton cry ahead of Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress fitting was untrue - and in fact the Duchess of Cambridge had been the one to leave the former Suits star in tears.

Kate will “be aware that this year has been tough for William and will want both his birthday and Father's Day to be special for him”, royal expert Katie Nicholl told OK! Magazine. Nicholl predicted that William would spend the day at Kensington Palace with his wife and children, George (seven), Charlotte (six) and Louis (three).

On Father’s Day, the day before William’s birthday, the Duke of Cambridge and his two eldest children thrilled participants of an inaugural race around the Queen’s Sandringham Estate in Norfolk by making a surprise appearance.

“William, George and Charlotte arrived just before the half marathon got underway,” reports the Eastern Daily Press. “They walked to the stage holding hands, before sending runners on their way.”

William’s birthday had initially fallen on “freedom day” - the day the UK’s remaining lockdown restrictions had been set to ease and normality to resume.

But the rapid spread of the Delta variant and the UK’s increasing coronavirus infection rate has led the big day to be pushed to July 19 - meaning that the Duke of Cambridge will have to wait another four weeks before throwing any major birthday celebrations.

The Royal Family has faced drama after drama over the past few years, before the world pandemic was even thrown into the mix.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex rocked the institution by quitting their senior roles and leaving the country last year, which took some of the focus away from Prince Andrew’s links to disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Almost two million people watched the Duke of York grilled on Newsnight in November 2019 in what was later described as a “car-crash” interview, but the numbers paled in comparison to the 12.4 million viewers who watched Harry and Meghan’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey last month.

There have been car crashes and hospital stays for Prince Philip, Covid diagnoses for Prince Charles and Prince William, and persistent rumours about family feuds.

In brighter news for the family, Princess Eugenie and Zara Tindall, daughter of Princess Anne, have had babies this year, Princess Beatrice had a secret wedding last summer and the Queen was praised for her uplifting speech during the early months of the coronavirus outbreak. So what does the British public make of all of this?

The view on ‘Megzit’

A Deltapoll survey for the Daily Mirror, published today, found that just over half of the 1,590 British adults questioned thought that Harry and Meghan had “damaged the reputation of the royal family”. Around a third thought they had made no difference to the family’s standing, while just 9% thought their reputation had been improved.

Younger people were more sympathetic to the couple, but overall “a margin of more than two to one – 58% against 23% – believe they should be stripped of their royal titles”, notes the Mirror.

The most popular royals

Prince William is the favourite royal, according to YouGov, which tracks the family’s popularity every quarter. The opinion ratings, for the final few months of 2020, show that the Queen is in second place, followed by the Duchess of Cambridge. Princess Anne and Prince Philip round out the top five. Prince Harry and Meghan are in eighth and eleventh place respectively.

The Queen’s abdication

Only 41% of those surveyed by Deltapoll thought the Queen should remain on the throne until her death, 21% thought she should abdicate while in good health, while 27% thought she should step down if she was in poor health.

The future of the monarchy

The same survey found that only 27% of people wanted Prince Charles, the next in line to the throne, to eventually take over from his mother. Nearly half, 47%, wanted Prince William to become king instead of his father.

In addition, 18% of respondents said Britain should no longer have a monarchy when the Queen’s reign ends.

Prince Harry’s decision not to return to royal duties may pave the way to a reconciliation with his brother, sources are predicting.

Buckingham Palace confirmed in a statement on Friday that the Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan Markle would not “continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service” and would be stripped of their royal patronages. The couple “remain much loved members of the family”, the statement added.

This love is still evident between the two princes, according to The Times, which reports that William “hopes that his brother’s final departure from royal duties will help to mend the rift between them”.

“Removing work as the thing to cause tension between them will hopefully allow a relationship of brothers to rebuild,” a source told the paper. “But there’s a long way to go.”

One possible stumbling block is the Sussexes’ response to the Palace’s statement last week. The couple insisted that they would still be living “a life of service” - a response that another source told The Sunday Times was “petulant and insulting to the Queen”.

The Royals are also believed to be concerned about Harry and Meghan’s decision to record a potentially explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, due to be broadcast on 7 March.

All the same, some insiders have suggested that as long as the couple “refrain from making any personal attacks, the damage caused in recent years could be fixed”, The Telegraph reports.

A source to the paper that “there is hope that they can all move forward now these loose ends have been tied up once and for all” during the one-year review following what has been dubbed “Megxit”.

“Now it has finally been resolved, it allows all parties to work on purely family matters,” the source added.

However, the Daily Mail tells a very different story, claiming that William was “left furious and saddened” by the Sussexes’ response to the Palace statement last week.

The row has “placed even further strain” on the relationship between the brothers, with some in the Palace warning of “the most serious royal rift in decades”, the paper reports.

The once-close relationship between princes William and Harry was fractured when the former asked their uncle to stop his younger brother rushing into marriage with Meghan Markle, a new book claims.

According to Battle of the Brothers: William and Harry by historian Robert Lacey, the Duke of Cambridge called in Princess Diana’s brother Earl Charles Spencer after getting “brusque” and “peppery reactions” to his own attempts to convince Harry not to rush the relationship.

“For his part, William was worried that his brother was going too fast in his courtship and he didn’t shrink from saying so when Harry started talking about getting hitched,” Lacey writes in an extract published in the Daily Mail.

“William couldn’t understand how Harry could contemplate marrying this still unknown and untested quantity less than two years after their first meeting,” the book continues.

But “the result of the Spencer intervention was an even more bitter explosion”, according to Lacey, although Harry “understood why Diana’s brother should want to help” and “didn’t blame his uncle”, who walked with the princes and their father behind Diana’s coffin at her funeral, in 1997.

“Yet he was furious with his elder brother for dragging other family members into the row,” the author claims.

In a press release about the book, to be published on 15 October, Lacey says that “these two brothers - once inseparable and now separated by much more than mere distance - have been acting out the contradictions that go back into their childhoods and even before that: into their parents’ ill-fated marriage”, People magazine reports.

“We have seen conflicts between heir and spare in every recent generation of the Royal Family - but nothing so profound as this,” he adds.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will “never resume official roles” after the publication of a tell-all book detailing their rift with the Royal family.

The pair have “torpedoed” any possibility of creating new positions in the family, after Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family outlined their “soured relationship with the monarchy in excruciating detail”, the Daily Mail says.

The book, described by the paper as the “gospel according to the Sussexes”, contains a “string of incendiary claims about how they were shunned” by the Royals, as well as “page after page of score-settling and vicious swipes at the Royal Family, courtiers and the media”.

A royal household source told the paper that “it’s hard to see how they can now salvage the new role”, while another added that the book has seen “very private family matters… aired in public, seemingly with their blessing. That will be hurtful”.

However, other sources told The Sun that the contents of the book “was all to be expected”, adding that the couple “have got whatever they want to get off their chests”.

According to the authors of the book, Royal correspondents Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the tensions that ended in “Megxit” began when Prince William advised his brother to “take as much time as you need to get to know this girl”, The Guardian says.

The Duke of Sussex was allegedly angered by the words “this girl”, perceiving it as “snobbish” and “condescending”, the paper adds.

William was at first pleased that his brother was “happy and content” with Meghan but worried about the pace at which the relationship was developing, the authors write. “He just wanted to make sure that Harry wasn’t blindsided by lust.”

Extracts of the books, serialised in The Times and The Sunday Times, outline “the early days of their courtship”, describing how “from their first date Harry ‘was in a trance’”.

After their second date, Harry “knew they would be together”, while every time anyone questioned their relationship, Harry would ask “is this about race? Is it snobbery?”.

“Ever sensitive to racism and snobbery,” The Times adds, Harry “cut off one of his friends when he gossiped about Meghan”.

The authors also allege that one senior royal referred to Meghan as “Harry’s showgirl”, while another allegedly said: “She comes with a lot of baggage”. A senior courtier is also alleged to have said “there’s just something about her I don’t trust”, while a palace staffer referred to her as “the squeaky third wheel” of the family.

The book also claims Prince Harry and Meghan came to feel that “there were only a handful of people at the palace they could trust”, The Guardian says, while friends of the couple referred to Royals as “the vipers”.

Scobie and Durand say the book was written with the “participation of those closest to the couple”, adding that they had access to Prince Harry and Meghan’s “inner circle”.

The pair have publicly denied giving an interview to the authors, but their statement “failed to address whether they had given permission for their closest friends, staff and associates from collaborating with it”, the Daily Mail notes.

The charitable foundations of Prince Harry and Prince William have been reported to the Charity Commission over alleged “conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of funds and a lack of independence”.

Anti-monarchy campaign group Republic claims that Prince William and Kate Middleton’s Royal Foundation gave £145,000 as a grant to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s now-defunct charity Sussex Royal, reports the Daily Mail.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s foundation is also alleged to have handed a further £144,901 to Travalyst, “which was then under the umbrella of the Sussexes’ charity as ‘an activity in the sustainable tourism space’”, adds The Telegraph.

The Republic campaigners argue that “the only rationale” for the grants decision “was the personal relationship between two patrons, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge”.

In a letter to the charities watchdog, the campaign group’s chief executive Graham Smith added: “Neither patrons are trustees of the Royal Foundation, so there is also a question mark over the independence of the trustees of the Royal Foundation.

“The Sussex Royal charity has since decided to close, and it is reported that they will transfer all their funds to Travalyst.

“Again, this appears to be a personal decision by a trustee [the Duke of Sussex] to fund another of his projects, rather than to ensure the funds are being used for the original purposes for which they were donated.”

A spokesperson for Prince Harry said the claims were “false” and “salaciously created”, reports Sky News.

“To this point, it is deeply offensive to today see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work. It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with,” the representative said.

Harry has never had any “personal financial interest” and all of his charitable work has been “transparent and above board”, according to the Royal’s legal team. “To suggest otherwise is unequivocally wrong and will be acted upon accordingly with the weight of the law,” the lawyers said.

A Royal Foundation spokesperson added that the grants made to Sussex Royal “were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently”.

The Charity Commission said it was assessing the information in the complaint to decide whether it was appropriate to investigate. A spokesperson added: “We have not made any determination of wrongdoing.”

Prince William is reportedly hoping to return to work as a helicopter pilot for the Air Ambulance service in order to do his bit during the UK’s coronavirus outbreak.

According to Tatler magazine, the Queen’s eldest grandson “hinted” at the idea during a visit to an NHS Call Centre in Croydon earlier this month.

And a source told The Sun this week: “William has been seriously considering returning as an air ambulance pilot to help in the current pandemic. He knows the whole country is doing its bit and he wants to help.”

The Duke of Cambridge - whose father Prince Charles has tested positive for the Covid-19 coronavirus - flew as a medic for the East Anglian Air Ambulance for two years from 2015.

However, his possible return to the job could prove “complicated as he was originally grounded from the job so that he could become a senior working royal”, said The Sun’s source.

“That role is even more important now given that Charles has been ill, Harry has walked away with Meghan, and Andrew has been effectively barred from public life,” the insider explained. “But William is very keen to do anything he can to help.”

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The 37-year-old royal is currently self-isolating in his Norfolk country retreat Anmer Hall with the Duchess of Cambridge and their three children, Prince George, six, Princess Charlotte, four, and Prince Louis, one.

Anmer Hall was also his base during his original stint as an air ambulance pilot - and another source told Cosmopolitan that being there during the coronavirus outbreak could be convenient if he returns to the job.

“There are all sorts of practicalities to overcome such as fitting in on shift patterns,” the source said. “But he’s in the right place now if he wants to do it.”

When he began the piloting role back in 2015, William felt it would be a “natural progression from his previous job as a search-and-rescue pilot with the Royal Air Force”, The Guardian reported at the time.

His air ambulance pilot duties saw him clocking up 20 hours a week alongside doctors and paramedics as part of a team providing emergency medical cover across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and also Essex and Hertfordshire at night.

William gave up the job in 2017 to take on more royal duties on behalf of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh.

A rabbi has warned that a biblical prophecy shows the coronavirus outbreak will plunge the world into its toughest periods for hundreds of years. The Israeli mystic Rabbi Yosef Pinto says the lethal disease was predicted in the Book of Ezekiel. Warning that the catastrophe could kill more people than the Holocaust, he urged people to “pray and repent”.

Woman plays violin during brain surgery

A woman has had a brain tumour removed while playing her violin during the procedure. Dagmar Turner, a professional musician, started the operation under general anaesthetics, but surgeons woke her to play her instrument, to help the medics avoid the area of her brain used in playing the violin.

Kensington Palace haunted by deformed ghost

Kensington Palace is haunted by a deformed ghost that lives in Prince Louis' room. According to reports, there have been multiple reported ghost sightings in 1A, the apartment where Prince William and Kate Middleton reside with their three young children. The spirit is said to be the ghost of a feral boy who was discovered naked and alone in a German forest in 1725.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– For more outlandish tales and news to make you smile, sign up for our new Tall Tales email at theweek.co.uk/sign-up-for-the-tall-tales-email. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The year has only just begun but 2020 has already proved particularly dramatic for the Royal Family.

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan’s decision to step back as senior royals has dominated the headlines, deflecting some attention from Prince Andrew’s links to the disgraced billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

With the Queen due to turn 94 this year and rumours swirling about the health of her husband Prince Philip, the House of Windsor is facing an uncertain future.

Here is a brief guide to the famous family’s members.

The Queen and Prince Philip

Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953 at Westminster Abbey. During the ceremony her husband Prince Philip, now the longest serving royal consort in history, was the first to pledge his allegiance to the new Queen.

The pair married six years earlier, also at Westminster Abbey. The marriage was not without controversy as Philip had no financial standing, was foreign-born and had sisters who had married German noblemen with Nazi links.

Vanity Fair notes that the Queen has been a “steady, stoic leader for some 63 years”, the longest reign in British history. The Duke of Edinburgh, meanwhile, has committed his career to animal conservation causes.

Commenting on their relationship, the Queen’s former private secretary Lord Charteris says: “Prince Philip is the only man in the world who treats the Queen simply as another human being. He’s the only man who can. Strange as it may seem, I believe she values that.”

Prince Charles and Camilla

Prince Charles, first in line to the throne and the Prince of Wales, made Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, his second wife, after the very public collapse of his first marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales.

Charles is also heavily committed to environmental causes, but sparked some controversy with the so-called “black spider memos”, a series of letters he sent to British ministers in 2004 and 2005 expressing his views on political issues. Royals are supposed to remain politically neutral.

Camilla works to raise awareness of rape and sexual abuse, literacy, animal welfare and poverty. She is an active campaigner for sufferers of bone-weakening disease osteoporosis, from which her mother, who died in 1994, suffered. Camilla divorced her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, in 1995.

The Cambridges

Prince William and Kate Middleton married in 2011, having originally met while flatmates at the University of St Andrews.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have three children: Prince George (now six), Princess Charlotte (four) and Prince Louis (one).

William, who is second in line to the throne, is an advocate for sufferers of HIV/Aids, an issue close to the heart of his mother, Princess Diana. He has also spoken extensively about environmental issues and mental health, drawing on the experience of losing his mother aged 15. Alongside his brother Prince Harry, he initiated the mental health awareness campaign Heads Together in April 2016.

Kate’s charity work focuses mainly on issues surrounding young children, addiction and art. In 2012 and 2013, Time magazine selected her as one of its “100 Most Influential People in the World”, while the media use the term the “Kate effect” to describe her impact on fashion trends.

The Sussexes

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are currently dominating headlines following their decision to step down from their royal duties. The couple married in 2018 and have the titles the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The couple now plan to split their time between Canada and Britain. Their son Archie (eight months) is expected to be educated in Canada in a break from royal tradition, according to reports.

Like his brother William, Harry is vocal about his support for mental health causes and is a patron of various charities that champion war veterans and de-mining efforts. Harry also served with the British Army in Afghanistan.

Before marrying Harry, Meghan was an actor, appearing most prominently in the US drama series Suits. She is a passionate supporter of gender equality charities and social movements.

The couple have had a number of run-ins with the media over perceived invasion of privacy, especially relating to Meghan’s estranged father, Thomas.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world - and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda - try The Week magazine. Start your trial subscription today –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Princess Anne and family

Princess Anne is the second child and only daughter of the Queen and Prince Philip.

Known for her charitable work, she is patron of more than 200 organisations and also became the first royal to represent Great Britain at the Olympic Games when she competed in the three-day event equestrian discipline in 1976.

The Princess Royal, as she is known, has been married twice. She wed Captain Mark Phillips in 1973, divorcing in 1992, and married Timothy Laurence later that year.

She has two children with Phillips; Peter Phillips (42) and Zara Tindall (38). The latter has also represented Great Britain in equestrianism at the Olympics and is married to former England rugby player Mike Tindall.

Prince Andrew and family

The media glare on Prince Harry and Meghan has distracted somewhat from the scandal that engulfed Prince Andrew (pictured above) in late 2019.

The Queen’s second youngest, and some claim favourite, child’s link to the late billionare sex offender Jeffrey Epstein resulted in a car-crash BBC interview and the Duke of York’s suspension from royal duties.

He has since stood aside from all 230 of his patronages, including the London Metropolitan University, the Foundation for Liver Research and the Children’s Foundation.

Andrew served in the Falklands War and his only marriage – to Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York – ended in a high-profile divorce in 1996. The pair have two children: Princess Beatrice of York, who is 31, and Princess Eugenie (pictured above), 29.

Prince Edward and family

Prince Edward is the youngest of the Queen’s four children and has had a career in television and documentary production.

The Earl of Wessex joined the Royal Marines after graduating from Jesus College, Cambridge, but dropped out three months into the year-long training course causing some controversy in the British press.

He then founded television production company Ardent Productions, but was accused of using his royal connections for financial gain.

Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones, Countess of Wessex, in 1999 and the couple have two children: Lady Louise Windsor, 16, and James, Viscount Severn, who is 12.