In February 2010, Prince Andrew celebrated his 50th birthday with a glittering reception at St James’s Palace. Jeffrey Epstein, recently released from jail for soliciting sex with a 14-year-old girl, declined an invitation. But hundreds attended, including the model Naomi Campbell and the banker Evelyn de Rothschild, said Alexi Mostrous in The Observer.

Sixteen years on, the man now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor marked his 66th birthday in radically altered circumstances. At around 8am last Thursday, a fleet of unmarked police cars arrived at the former duke’s temporary residence on the Sandringham Estate, and arrested him on suspicion of misconduct in public office. While Andrew was detained in custody, officers searched his homes. Eleven hours later, as he was driven away from Aylsham police station, a photographer snapped him sitting slumped, ashen-faced, in the back of a Range Rover. The next morning, this image was splashed on front pages across the world; two days after that, anti-super-rich activists hung a copy in the Louvre in Paris, above a card reading: “He’s sweating now”.

Ruined man

Even before his arrest, Andrew – who denies any wrongdoing – was a “ruined man”, said Adam Boulton in The i Paper, stripped of his titles, and his Windsor mansion, as the Epstein files confirmed that much of what he’d told Emily Maitlis in his “Newsnight” interview in 2019 had been untrue. The files suggest that he had met Virginia Giuffre – the Epstein survivor who accused him of having sex with her when she was 17 – though he said he had no memory of her; and that, far from cutting ties with Epstein in late 2010, he was in close touch with the paedophile for years afterwards (with their discussions about complex business deals often conducted via an intermediary, Andrew’s adviser David Stern).

Andrew’s arrest was prompted by evidence that, both before and after that date, he’d passed Epstein confidential information he had gleaned as a UK trade envoy. The offence of which he’s suspected carries a possible life term; and the bad news for Andrew is that his brother seems prepared to let them throw the book at him. As the King put it coldly last week, the “law must run its course”.

The King had reportedly objected to Andrew ever being appointed a trade envoy, said Gordon Rayner in The Daily Telegraph. When the idea was mooted in around 2000, he argued that his brother was not suited to the job; but the Queen overruled him – with the support of Peter Mandelson, the former trade secretary.

Red flags ignored

I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time, said Hilary Rose in The Times. Having just left the Navy after 22 years, Andrew had no discernible income, and needed something to do. Why not send him abroad, to drum up business for Britain? And yet, nothing in the personality of this most spoiled and entitled of men made him fit for it.

Four years ago, a former maid at his home reported that he would shout at her if she failed to arrange his 72 teddies as he liked them. But even as a toddler, Andrew had a reputation for being “difficult”, prone to kicking dogs and taunting staff. In his teens, he behaved so badly a footman is said to have punched him – and been kept on, because the Queen felt Andrew had deserved it. He had a brief golden period, after his service in the Falklands War, but it didn’t last. On a trip to the US in 1984, he sprayed a press pack with paint – a “prank” that overshadowed the tour. Visiting Lockerbie after the Pan Am disaster of 1988, he shocked grieving residents by telling them that the Americans had had it “much worse”.

During his decade as a trade envoy, ambassadors fed back that he was a liability – rude and visibly bored at engagements, said Zoe Williams in The Guardian. According to his biographer, Andrew Lownie, his staff often asked for attractive women to be invited to events. He insisted on travelling with a large entourage of valets and equerries, who were put up in luxury hotels; he even reportedly put massages on the taxpayers’ tab. Yet these red flags were ignored; and nor were other warning signs heeded – though there were clear questions to be asked about how Andrew and his immediate family were funding their famously extravagant lifestyle. Both he and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson regularly claimed to be broke – but it never dented their lavish spending.

Given all we know about the man, it is hard to muster sympathy for Andrew, said Sean O’Grady in The Independent. He is “the author of his own misfortunes”, and the police may still dig up more damning evidence against him. And yet, however deserved, his “descent into disgrace must be hard to bear”, and his future must seem very bleak. We “can vilify him all we like”; but his brother, and the authorities, owe Andrew “the moral duty of care” that he seems to have “failed to show to others”.

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

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

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

What did the commentators say?

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

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

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

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

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

What next?

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

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

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”.

“To have one parent mired in scandal is unfortunate,” said Joy Lo Dico in The Independent. “To have two? This is where the luckless Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice now find themselves.”

If it wasn’t bad enough that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor used Beatrice’s Pizza Express birthday party in Woking as an alibi against Virginia Giuffre’s accusations in his infamous “Newsnight” interview back in 2019, matters have now been made worse by their mother. In the latest slew of Epstein emails, Sarah Ferguson has hit the headlines for taking Beatrice and Eugenie (then aged 19 and 20) to meet the disgraced financier in Miami, just days after he had been released from prison for his conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. But should the princesses have stayed at home and “declined their mother’s invitation”?

‘Excruciating’ exchanges

The “incomprehensively misjudged” meeting is not the only time the princesses have been “dragged into the quagmire of disgrace that Epstein has come to embody”, said Rosa Silverman in The Telegraph. Their names appear in the files several times, in incidents that will likely bring them “varying degrees of embarrassment”. The most “excruciating” is an email from “Sarah” telling Epstein she is “waiting for Eugenie to come back from a shagging weekend!!”

While there is no evidence of Beatrice and Eugenie doing anything wrong, there is a “strong suggestion” that the princesses were “used as pawns in their parents’ unedifying quest to curry favour with the wealthy Epstein”. Ferguson’s motivations are not “hard to fathom”; other emails reveal her telling the financier she “urgently” needed £20,000 to pay her rent, and in a “particularly desperate exchange” offering to work for Epstein “organising your houses”.

There will be a degree of “sympathy for the daughters” for being drawn into the scandal. But there’s “no doubt whatever that they should have refused to be part of their mother’s [actions]”, royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told the publication.

That the princesses should have to answer for their parents’ mistakes is “deeply unfair and wholly undeserved”, said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. However, it is inevitable that “interest is going to alight on them”. The pair have already faced criticism over everything from their looks to their privileges and jobs. Now they will be asked what they knew. “A pile-on towards these young women is coming, and it will be brutal.”

Mounting pressure

Beatrice and Eugenie are “sitting on a ticking time bomb”, said Tessa Dunlop in The i Paper. Public opinion is clear that it is “unforgivable to maintain friendly communication with a convicted paedophile”. But things are murkier when the “villains of the piece are your father and mother”. The princesses refrained from commenting following their father’s disastrous “Newsnight” interview, but the “pressure has mounted” as the scandal has intensified. Despite their parents’ sins, “few would expect either princess to entirely renounce their dad”.

It seems the sisters are “taking different positions”, said Isaac Bickerstaff in Tatler. Beatrice was spotted on a horse ride with Andrew last week before the latest files were released, and invited her parents to the christening of her daughter in December (though they were both absent from the pub afterwards). However Eugenie is said to have stopped seeing her father altogether. “It’s Brooklyn Beckham level – she has completely cut him off,” a source told The Mail on Sunday.

“Who could blame them at this point for doing a full Jeremy Kyle and ditching their parents publicly?” asked Lo Dico in The Independent. Estrangement from the royal family isn’t easy, though. Attempts to create some distance by the likes of Prince Harry have been met with accusations of “betraying the great traditions of the family”.

The “wisest” course would be for the princesses to renounce their titles, “retire from public life, run their charities and bring up their families”, Andrew Lownie, author of “Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York” told The Telegraph. Beatrice and Eugenie “may yet retain their dignity despite their parents’ downfall”. For others in the disgraced financier’s sphere, “it is surely too late”.

The upcoming trial of the son of Norway’s crown princess has rocked the already beleaguered royal family.

Marius Borg Høiby, stepson of the Crown Prince (and future king) Haakon, is facing charges including the alleged rape of four women, abuse of two women, and threat to kill a man. His lawyer says Høiby “denies all charges of sexual abuse, as well as the majority of the charges regarding violence”. If convicted, the 29-year-old faces up to 10 years in prison.

The trial, much of which will be open to the public, begins in Oslo on Tuesday. The “extraordinary” case adds to the “already considerable woes of the Norwegian royal house”, said The Sunday Times.

‘Horrific’ attack

Crown Princess Mette-Marit, a single mother from a non-aristocratic background, married Crown Prince Haakon in 2001. Her son Høiby, whose father was in prison for drug offences at the time of his birth, was four when his mother married the heir to the throne. Høiby was raised as part of the royal family but without any claim to the throne.

In August 2024, police were called to a flat in an “upmarket district of western Oslo” over a case of suspected domestic violence. They found “a knife embedded in the wall and the chandelier shattered into fragments”. The victim said she had been hit, pinned to the bed and “repeatedly choked so that she could not breathe”, according to prosecutors.

“The ferocity of the attack, thought to have been the culmination of months of abuse, made it especially horrific,” said The Sunday Times. “But it shocked Norwegians for another reason” – the alleged perpetrator was Høiby; the victim his then girlfriend.

In a statement, he said he had acted “under the influence of alcohol and cocaine after an argument”, having suffered from "mental troubles” and been struggling “for a long time with substance abuse”.

Another ex-girlfriend claimed that she had also been abused “physically and psychologically” – claims “echoed by Høiby’s next partner”. “Even more serious” revelations followed Høiby’s second arrest in September that year, and third in November.

Høiby was charged last August with 32 offences; this week, the public prosecutor’s office added six more. The “most serious” of the new charges occurred in 2020, said Vanity Fair. Høiby is “said to have received and transported at least 3.5kg of marijuana” to a location an hour and a half away by car. Høiby, “once seen as a symbol of the openness of the monarchy, has acknowledged those allegations as true”.

Tarnished reputation

The case is just “one of the challenges” facing Norway’s royals. Harald V, who has been king since 1991, is 88 and “in delicate health”. Last month, the royal palace announced that Mette-Marit will probably need a lung transplant after “years of chronic illness” that forced her to withdraw from royal duties.

And just weeks after Høiby’s first arrest, the king’s eldest daughter, Princess Märtha Louise – whose “money-making antics have been a constant source of embarrassment” – married Durek Verrett, “an American conspiracy theorist and self-professed shaman”, said The Sunday Times.

Last year, a Netflix documentary about the couple “premiered to immediate controversy in Norway”, said Royal Central. The royal family was “rocked by the revelations” in “Rebel Royals: an Unlikely Love Story”, which, among other things, “established that the couple had broken their agreement with the royal family to not use their titles in connection with business ventures”.

Membership of the republican association Norge som republikk has “more than tripled in the last two years”, according to its leader Craig Aaen-Stockdale, said The Guardian. The royal family “has traditionally seen high levels of support”, he said. They were “viewed as a relatively harmless bunch”. But many Norwegians “are now reconsidering their position”. The “ongoing omniscandal” has “really tarnished the reputation of the younger royals”.

MPs will put the Crown Estate under the microscope as questions fly over the renting arrangements of the royal family.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has announced an inquiry following the public outcry over the revelation that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor paid a mere “peppercorn rent” for more than 20 years for his vast Royal Lodge mansion at Windsor.

What are MPs looking into?

The Crown Estate, which MPs on the committee will investigate, is an independent commercial business that manages an extensive portfolio of land and developments owned by the monarch. It can trace its history back to the Norman conquest.

The inquiry, which will begin in 2026, will consider leases given to members of the royal family, as well as wider work based on analysis of the estate’s annual accounts. “Having reflected on what we have received, the information provided clearly forms the beginnings of a basis for an inquiry”, said the PAC chair, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Thanking the Treasury and Crown Estate for responding to initial questions, he said the MPs’ “overall” mission would be to “secure value for money for the taxpayer”.

What are royal rents?

Instead of paying annual rent for his “sprawling 30-room Windsor mansion”, Andrew made “large lump-sum payments up front”, including for renovations, and had a rental agreement described as a “peppercorn”, said the BBC. This meant a “small sum such as £1” can be paid every year on a long lease, as part of a legal arrangement between a tenant and the landlord. “In this case there was no payment at all.”

Andrew is expected to stay in Royal Lodge until the new year and the PAC found that that he’s unlikely to get any compensation for the lease ending early “once dilapidations are taken into account.” He will eventually move into an undisclosed residence on the King’s Sandringham Estate.

How much do royals pay?

Princess Alexandra’s rent arrangement for Thatched House Lodge in “sought-after” Richmond Park is “complicated” and “involves two leases”, said the Daily Mail. But “taken together” the paper suggested she pays “around £225 a month”.

According to the terms of Prince Edward’s lease extension, signed in 2007 with his company, Eclipse Nominees Limited, he paid £5 million up front for a lease of 150 years on his Surrey mansion, and pays only a peppercorn rent, said The Times.

Campaigners have “questioned” whether Edward, who is 15th in line to the throne, can “justify his occupation” of a property that could “otherwise” be leased by the Crown Estate for the benefit of taxpayers.

William and Kate reportedly pay “market rent” on Forest Lodge, Windsor, which is estimated to be between £32,000 and £100,000 a month, said the Daily Mail.

The Duke of York has been marched down the honours hill, and persuaded to give up his royal titles after continued accusations about his association with the sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

It is a remarkable fall from grace for the late Queen’s favourite son, who was once second in line to the throne and widely feted as a Falklands War hero. Here’s how he went from popular prince to public pariah:

1999: first meets Epstein

Andrew is introduced to Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell. The British socialite, daughter of press baron Robert Maxwell, was Epstein's girlfriend at the time and had met Andrew when she was at university.

The trio quickly develop a “close friendship”, according to The Independent. Andrew is said to have invited the couple to Balmoral, his mother’s Scottish residence, that same year. In June 2000, Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are guests at a party hosted by Queen Elizabeth II at Windsor Castle and, that December, Epstein joins Andrew at a shooting weekend at Sandringham, the royal family’s Norfolk estate.

2001: infamous Virginia Giuffre photo taken

According to Virginia Giuffre, then known as Virginia Roberts, this is when she first meets Andrew. In a lawsuit filed in 2019, she said that, after a sweaty night of dancing at London’s Tramp nightclub, Andrew had sex with her at Maxwell’s townhouse – where the now-infamous photo of the three of them was allegedly taken. On two other occasions – in Epstein’s New York flat and at an “orgy” on Epstein’s private Caribbean island – she is forced to have sex with Andrew, she alleged. At the time, she is 17, and a minor under US law.

2008: Epstein jailed for sex offences

Epstein is charged by Florida prosecutors with “soliciting prostitution” and “soliciting prostitution with a minor”. He pleads guilty, after making a controversial plea deal that gives him immunity from other federal sex abuse charges, and is sentenced to 18 months in prison.

2010: Epstein released

Shortly after Epstein’s release from prison, Andrew is photographed walking with him in New York’s Central Park. Andrew later claimed his sole purpose in meeting Epstein then was to end their friendship.

2015-2016: Andrew linked to Epstein in court documents

In 2015, Buckingham Palace denies “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors” on the part of the prince, after he was named in US court papers related to an Epstein legal case.

A year later, Andrew is again named as part of a defamation suit brought by Giuffre against Maxwell, with Giuffre claiming she was paid $15,000 (£11,180) to have sex with the prince. But these court documents are sealed, and not released until 2019.

2019: Epstein dies; Newsnight interview

In August, the court documents from the Giuffre v Maxwell case are unsealed on public interest grounds. The next day, Epstein is found dead in the New York jail cell where he had been awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He has apparently committed suicide.

In November, Andrew gives a wide-ranging interview with BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis. He says he has "no recollection" of ever meeting Giuffre, and could not have sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter on the day in question. He also refutes Giuffre’s description of him sweating while dancing because, he said, he has been unable to sweat since serving in the Falklands War.

The interview is widely seen as disastrous. Four days later, Andrew announces that he will be stepping back from public duties,

2021-2022: Giuffre sues; royal status downgraded

In August 2021, Giuffre files a civil suit against Andrew in the US, alleging that she was forced to have sex with him in the early 2000s. Andrew’s status as a member of the royal family is downgraded in early 2022, after a US judge rules that the case can go ahead. Andrew is stripped of his military affiliations, his royal patronages and the use of his HRH title, after more than 150 veterans write to the Queen.

In February, Andrew settles the civil case brought against him by Giuffre with an out-of-court payment of £12 million but no apology and no admission of liability.

2025: Guiffre dies; Andrew gives up titles

In April, Giuffre dies by suicide, aged 41, at her farm in Western Australia. In a statement, her family say that “she lost her life to suicide, after being a lifelong victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking”.

In October, the Mail on Sunday publishes a newly unearthed email proving that Andrew continued contact with Epstein after the 2010 New York meeting at which he’d claimed to end the friendship. The mail, dated 28 February 2011, says “we are in this together”. The BBC says the allegations are “intensely damaging” for the prince.

Just days later, after a “discussion” with the King and the Prince of Wales, Andrew gives up the use of his Duke of York title, as well as all his other remaining honours, including his membership of the Order of the Garter. It’s understood that he will not attend royal family events over Christmas. For the time being, he will continue living at Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park.

In Giuffre’s memoir, published posthumously in late October, she claims that Andrew considered it “his birthright” to have sex with her. The release of the memoir adds to the “air of gloom at Buckingham Palace, which has tried to distance itself from Prince Andrew” and “heaps further pressure on the institution of monarchy”, said ITV News.

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”.

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

‘Only denounced him to protect her career’

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

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

‘She sold herself very cheap, did Fergie’

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will take more than ‘a cup of tea’

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

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

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

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

‘There’s always a reunion’

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

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

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

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

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

Private home, no live-in staff

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

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

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

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

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

'String of challenges'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'A bid to start afresh'

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

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

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

'Back to business as usual'

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the royal family funded?

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

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

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

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

How is the Sovereign Grant made up?

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

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

What does it cost the UK taxpayer?

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

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

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

What is the criticism of the Sovereign Grant?

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

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

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

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

What is the counter-argument?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a "tedious, expensive and miserable way to live", said Joanna Williams in The Times. Last week, Prince Harry was back in the UK, fighting yet another legal battle – this time at the Court of Appeal, where he is challenging the Home Office's decision to strip him and his wife Meghan of their round-the-clock, taxpayer-funded security when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

Ravec, the body responsible for the protection of royals and VIPs, decreed that, instead, the level of security offered to the couple would be decided on a case-by-case basis. Ever the victim, Harry claims he has been singled out for "unjustified and inferior treatment". Is there no limit to his sense of entitlement, asked Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail. Why should we "keep paying for him and the Duchess", when "they are no longer working royals and don't even live here"? Besides, if Harry really thinks he is at risk in Britain, said Kate Mansey in The Times, why did he fly 5,000 miles to a hearing he could have followed from his mansion in Montecito?

This case is "at the heart" of Harry's rift with his father, said Victoria Ward in The Daily Telegraph. He claims that he was promised that he could keep his protection at the Sandringham summit in 2020, held days after he and Meghan announced that they were leaving for California – and that the "Establishment" later reneged on that promise to "punish" them, and to try to dissuade them from leaving. Harry says the King could get Ravec's decision reversed – and that if he did, it would be "swords down" between the warring royals.

It would also be the right thing to do, said Alison Phillips in The i Paper. Yes, Harry is a "self-absorbed" idiot who has repeatedly wounded his family, but he didn't choose to be a royal, and is as deserving of "proper security" on British soil as any other British VIP. Liz Truss is eligible for automatic protection, for goodness sake – and she caused far more harm in her 49 days as PM than Harry has done. Besides, imagine if he were to be attacked. It would be a national scandal; and it would have happened not because his wife was in "Suits" and now flogs jam, but because his father is King Charles III. "It seems churlish and unfair for the nation not to recognise that."

Prince Harry was just 20 when he visited Lesotho during his gap year, said Tessa Dunlop in The Independent. His adolescence had been turbulent and self-destructive, but in the tiny landlocked country he found "meaning" and purpose. Two years later, he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho founded Sentebale – a charity dedicated to orphans of the Aids epidemic – in memory of their late mothers.

The cause was clearly very close to Harry's heart, and he raised millions for it; so "no one was surprised" when Sentebale (which translates as "forget me not", his mother's favourite flower) remained in the Sussexes' portfolio after they left the UK. Last week, however, Harry revealed that he had made the "devastating" decision to stand down as its patron, in solidarity with its trustees. Mainly members of his "establishment old guard", they had resigned following a power struggle with its new chair, Sophie Chandauka, a Zimbabwean lawyer and former trustee.

In the war of words this triggered, few facts are agreed, said Roya Nikkhah in The Sunday Times. The trustees have briefed that Chandauka had wasted vast sums on consultancy fees, in a failed effort to attract US donors. She denies this, and counter-claims that the charity had been damaged by the "toxicity of its lead patron's brand" – arguing that Harry's fall out with his family had deterred commercial partners. She says the trustees refused to discuss this, and accuses them of weak management, bullying, "misogyny and misogynoir".

She also implies that Harry had used the charity to enhance the Sussex brand. She claims that he forced a fundraising polo match to be moved, so that he could bring a Netflix camera crew; and that he'd ordered her to issue a public defence of his wife Meghan, who had turned up at the event unexpectedly, and been criticised for seeming to "manage" Chandauka out of a photocall with Harry. Now, she says the duke is playing the "victim card", while "unleashing the Sussex machine" against her.

Chandauka aimed her attacks well, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail. She has turned Harry's victim status against him, and undermined his claim to be "awake" to injustice. And she has a point about the charity's funding: these days, it doesn't look good for a charity serving Africa's poor to be mainly funded by white men playing polo. Still, you have to feel for Harry. Sentebale was his passion project and, without it, his in-tray will look even emptier, while his wife's is "overflowing". Whoever is to blame, this dispute is surely "a crushing blow" for the prince.

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".

Almost 17 years ago, Nepal's King Gyanendra Shah "bowed to the inevitable" and stepped down from the throne, handing over a crown made of "yak's hair and emeralds", said The Times.

After "widespread protests" against his authoritarian rule, Gyanendra fled the royal palace to "live the life of a commoner". But now, the king has returned to the Himalayan nation, and to a hero's welcome. He arrived in Kathmandu on 9 March greeted by crowds of thousands – some of who had taken part in the protests against him – demanding the "immediate restoration" of the monarchy, amid growing frustration over poverty and corruption.

"Vacate the royal palace for the king," the crowds chanted. "Come back king, save the country."

The Nepalese royal massacre

Gyanendra, 77, was never meant to be king. He was the brother of the king, the far more popular Birendra. But one night in 2001, the king's son Dipendra drunkenly opened fire on a party in the royal palace. He killed nine members of his family, including his father, mother, brother and sister, before shooting himself in the head. It would become known as the Nepalese royal massacre.

Dipendra's motives are still a mystery, but the killings followed a longstanding disagreement between Dipendra and his parents, who "objected" to his wish to marry an Indian aristocrat, said The Diplomat. The "needle of suspicion" also pointed at Gyanendra, who wasn't at the palace on the night of the murder. But Gyanendra denied any involvement, and inherited the crown.

At first, he ruled "without executive or political powers", said Al Jazeera. But in 2005, he "seized absolute power". Claiming he was acting to "defeat anti-monarchy Maoist rebels", he disbanded the government, jailed politicians and declared a state of emergency, using the army to rule.

This "triggered huge street protests", which forced him to hand power to a multi-party government in 2006. That government signed a peace deal with the Maoists, ending a decade-long bloody civil war. Two years later, parliament voted to abolish the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy, "transforming the nation into a secular republic".

A failed republic, or a glorified past?

But many Nepalis are increasingly "frustrated" with that republic, said The Associated Press. It has "failed to bring about political stability" – Nepal has had 13 governments since the monarchy was abolished – and they blame it for the struggling economy and "widespread corruption".

"I was in the protests that took away monarchy hoping it would help the country," said one 50-year-old in the crowds greeting Gyanendra. "But I was mistaken and the nation has further plunged so I have changed my mind."

Political leaders, mainly from the "big three" parties, "carry the taint of corruption allegations", said The Indian Express. Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli, with his "totalitarian tendencies", has "earned more enemies than ever before".

On social media there has been "a surge of pro-monarchy posts and videos", said Nepal Times. Monarchists are using these to "fan nostalgia of the golden age of royalty", with former kings "glorified" as nationalists who "upheld Nepal's sovereignty" and "commanded respect worldwide". They believe "public disillusionment" with the country's leaders is "at breaking point".

Young Nepalis are "attracted to the idea of reinstating the monarchy as a form of anti-incumbent protest", added the news site – "but also because they have little to no memory of living under an authoritarian absolute monarchy."

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might have hoped that their decision to exile themselves from the royal family five years ago would temper the lurid gossip and intense speculation about their private lives. But if anything, absence has made the heat grow stronger.

The latest article about them by ­Vanity Fair – which has "American Hustle" on its cover – "has proved to be difficult reading for the Sussexes", said The Times. The feature made several claims about their marriage, community relations in Montecito, California, and business challenges, which the couple reportedly found "distressing".

Markle in particular has taken considerable flak recently. Her public support of the Los Angeles wildfires relief efforts, where she was filmed on a walkabout in the badly affected Altadena and Pasadena districts, saw "'Princess Markle'" being "castigated for being no better than an 'ambulance chaser' in a city where she doesn't 'live'", said The Independent. Then her "With Love, Meghan" cookery series on Netflix, originally due to begin last Wednesday, was delayed "as we focus on the needs of those impacted by the wildfires in my home state of California". But that announcement was also met with cynicism.

It appears the "actor-cum-duchess can't do right for wrong. And to trawl back, beyond the recent fire-disaster, is to be reminded that it was ever thus."

'Mean Girls'

Accusations of bullying levelled at Markle date back to 2018, said The Times, when palace staff were said to have been left in tears by her behaviour.

Last week, Vanity Fair spoke to people who had worked for Markle. They said that it was "very painful". One staff member described how there was "talking behind your back" and "gnawing at your sense of self" in a manner reminiscent of teenagers in the movie "Mean Girls". According to Vanity Fair, one former employee who was excited to begin working with the couple on media projects did not believe reports that Markle had bullied palace aides. After working with her, this person realised: "Oh, any given Tuesday, this happened," it is alleged. Sources close to the Sussexes said that previous employees had gone on record in the past to dispute these claims.

"Even the Sussexes cannot deny, however, that they have an unusually high team turnover," said Tatler. Their chief of staff, Josh Kettler, recently left his position after just three months in what was reportedly a mutual decision, with both sides agreeing "it wasn't the right fit". But Kettler himself has called the couple "dedicated and hardworking", while Ben Browning, the couple's former head of content at their foundation Archewell, told Us Weekly that he had found the pair to be "positive and supportive", adding: "The narratives we've seen suggesting the contrary are untrue."

'Misogyny and racism'

So is there something more insidious behind the hatred towards the Sussexes, and Markle in particular? The recent furore over her new Netflix show "marks a sad and tedious continuation of the misogyny and racism" surrounding her, said Vogue. Many of the comments accuse Markle of stealing the IP of Emma Thynn, Marchioness of Bath. "Because the world doesn't have space for more than one Black woman married to an English aristocrat who happens to cook on television."

The "act of hating her" has "evolved into the art of projecting the various wrongs of the world onto a woman", said Mamamia. The accusations of bullying have seen her "become a stand-in for every person who has treated us badly in the workplace or within our own families and is still publicly adored".

After the backlash over the wildfire relief efforts, publications such as People magazine later confirmed the couple worked a full day at an evacuation centre, "but that was not the story that rose to the surface", said Mamamia. The desire to be "the first one to the Meghan Markle commentary or critique has overridden our desire to look for the truth, the empathy or even the humour".

An alleged Chinese spy who reportedly sought to gain influence in the UK by becoming a close confidant of Prince Andrew was named today as Chinese businessman Yang Tengbo.

The suspected agent, previously only identified as "H6", was banned from the UK last week. Yang, also known as Chris Yang, appealed against his initial ban in March 2023, but the decision was upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. In a published ruling, the judge said that the then home secretary, Suella Braverman, was "entitled to conclude that [H6] represented a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom".

This is not the first time questions have been raised about those attempting to get access to members of the royal family. An alleged Russian spy met Prince Charles and Prince William in the late 2000s after working for MI6, the Daily Mail reported earlier this year.

And before he became King, Prince Charles faced scrutiny over his access to confidential cabinet papers, information that was only revealed after a three-year battle under freedom of information legislation.

What did the commentators say?

The Duke of York has long been "dogged by questions about two overlapping problems – his judgement and his finances", said the BBC. The latest revelations are a reminder "of how the royals can be targeted by those wanting to build links either for their own personal ambition or for a strategic political agenda".

Prince Andrew is no longer a working royal and "operates outside the royal fold". A letter found in Yang's possession "suggests the risks of such a position", describing the prince as "in a desperate situation and will grab onto anything".

Indeed, the letter reveals just how blind Andrew is to his own "vulnerability" from a national security perspective, said The Guardian "The alarm bells didn't ring for him," constitutional law expert Craig Prescott told the paper. "He could ultimately have been put in a very, very compromised position had MI5 not raised the alarm, ultimately."

The revelations that the alleged Chinese spy "was able to befriend Prince Andrew and enter Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace and Windsor Castle at his invitation is scarcely believable", said The Sunday Times in an editorial.

But the affair goes beyond the Duke of York's conduct and speaks to deeper issues with a royal family whose chief members "instinctively loathe transparency" and "supine" MPs who are all too willing to overlook "dubious associations and opaque finances".

What next?

Prince Andrew's office has said he has "ceased all contact" with Yang after receiving advice from the government, and claimed the two never discussed sensitive matters.

Yang today issued a statement in which he said he has "done nothing wrong or unlawful". He added: "The widespread description of me as a 'spy' is entirely untrue."

But the allegations are likely to cause some trouble for Keir Starmer and his bid to establish closer ties with Beijing. Labour MPs are "among those urging caution about the government's warmer approach to China", said The Guardian.

Buckingham Palace is to allow tourists to enter through its famed front gates for the first time, following the success of the east wing's opening in the summer.

"Paying visitors" will be able to walk into the palace "the same way as guests at garden parties and royal receptions", said The Telegraph.

The palace is typically closed during the winter months, but this year tours will continue from January to May as part of King Charles' initiative to give the public greater access to the monarchy's headquarters throughout the year.

The working palace is the King's official residence in London, though he and the Queen do not currently stay overnight there. The royal residence is in the midst of a £369 million refurbishment, updating its electric cabling, plumbing and heating system over the course of the next 10 years.

This summer, the historic east wing of Buckingham Palace was opened to the public for the first time since it was built 175 years ago, drawing a record-breaking number of visitors. Continuing on the success, the Royal Collection Trust is now offering a 90-minute guided tour for £90, which will include views of the central balcony and Victoria Memorial and provide an in-depth history of the wing's rooms.

The tours will wind through the 240ft-long principal corridor, through the yellow drawing room and the centre room. "Highlights" of the centre room include a glass chandelier resembling a lotus flower and two Chinese 18th-century imperial silk wall hangings, said the Daily Mail.

The palace's east wing was built between 1847 and 1849 and features "some of the finest ceramics and furniture in the Royal collection", which were brought to the palace from George IV's "opulent, oriental-style" palace in Brighton.

The trust also announced new £1 tickets to Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyroodhouse for 2025, a move to further improve the inclusivity of the royal residences. The reduced entrance fee will be available between January and April to people receiving Universal Credit.

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 held her first official meeting since announcing the end of her cancer treatment a week ago, a milestone on her return to public life following her diagnosis with the disease earlier this year.

According to the Court Circular, which lists all official royal engagements, Catherine held a meeting at Windsor Castle yesterday afternoon with her Early Years team. The Early Years Centre is part of the Royal Foundation, of which the princess is co-patron along with her husband, and aims to improve education and care for children under five. "The palace has not issued any pictures of the meeting or shared specific details of what was discussed," said Sky News, but the project "has long been a cornerstone of the princess's charitable work".

Catherine is believed to have started carrying out some work from home, but this is "the first official meeting to appear under her name in 2024", said The Times. Health permitting, Catherine "will attend more meetings to assess the progress of her projects with the royal foundation".

The meeting is part of the princess's "carefully managed return", said the BBC, which also includes planned appearances later this year at Remembrance events in November and her annual Christmas carol concert. Catherine made limited public appearances over the summer, attending a Trooping the Colour ceremony in June and the Wimbledon men's tennis finals in July.

There is still "great caution about her health", however. In her video message last week, the princess said her "path to healing and full recovery is long and I must continue to take each day as it comes".

"I am however looking forward to being back at work and undertaking a few more public engagements in the coming months when I can," she added.

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".

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

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

'Yes, you've got him'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Japan's Emperor Naruhito ascended the Chrysanthemum Throne in May 2019, after the abdication of his father, he vowed to bring the royal family into the modern age.

Five years later, the world's oldest continuing monarchy is grappling with a question as old as monarchy itself: succession. Under the Imperial Household Law of 1947, succession is limited to male heirs on the emperor's father's side (i.e. down the paternal line). Naruhito, the grandson of Japan's longest reigning emperor, Hirohito, has only a daughter with Empress Masako: 22-year-old Aiko, Princess Toshi.

According to a Kyodo News poll published this week, 72% of respondents said they felt a "sense of crisis" about the stability of the succession. And 90% would support the idea of a reigning empress, as the imperial family "struggles with a shrinking number of male heirs". 

Emperor Naruhito's succession problem 

Japan's imperial line, said to be able to trace its roots back to the sun goddess Amaterasu in 600BC, has included eight empresses down the patrilineal line, with the last on the throne in the 18th century. 

But in all the nation's imperial history, there has never been a single emperor or empress from the matrilineal line, said Japan Today.

Naruhito only has three heirs: his younger brother and heir presumptive Fumihito, Crown Prince Akishino (58); his 17-year-old nephew Prince Hisahito; and his paternal uncle Prince Hitachi (88).

The birth of Aiko in 2001, while "much celebrated", did not resolve Naruhito's succession problem, said the BBC – especially because his brother Fumihito had only two daughters. However, it did lead the Japanese government to begin debating whether to change the law to allow women to ascend to the throne.

The issue appeared to be resolved in 2006, when Fumihito's wife gave birth to Prince Hisahito. But governments have since realised that "a single male heir is not a long-term solution", said DW.

The pressure on Naruhito's wife Masako also became evident, added the BBC, as she "disappeared from public view for more than a decade".

In 2021, a government panel tasked with ensuring stable succession shelved a decision on whether to make women (or matrilineal family members) eligible for the throne. The country is almost split by the decision, with 52% of respondents to the Kyodo News poll saying they agreed with the panel's postponement, while 46% said they disagreed. 

The ruling party's 'shift' in position

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) "appears to be inching toward changing the law to expand the imperial family and head off a succession crisis", said DW. 

In January, the LDP "indicated a shift in its position", saying that the 2021 proposals are now "reasonable". 

The first suggestion is to allow female members of the imperial family to retain royal status after they marry instead of becoming commoners who cannot produce male heirs (as is the current rule). 

The second is to reinstate branches of the family that were "lopped off" after Japan's surrender at the end of the Second World War, as occupation officials aimed to "dramatically reduce" the emperor's influence. 

Both proposals would give the family "a far larger pool of descendants" to the emperor, and a greater likelihood of a male heir.

The party's shift "appears to be a good sign, a sign that the LDP is finally listening to the opinion polls on the future of the imperial family", Hiromi Murakami, a professor of political science at the Tokyo campus of Temple University, told DW. 

Representatives from across the political spectrum are set to meet in May to address the issue, but critics caution that conservative lawmakers "still intend to ensure that any new legislation does not open the way for a woman" to assume the throne. 

"Both these plans are the result of machinations of conservatives opposed to female emperors," said Yohei Mori, a professor at Tokyo's Seijo University and imperial family researcher. These traditionalists have "lobbied hard" to persuade others in the LDP that the male lineage is Japanese "tradition". 

By contrast, the Japanese public is "broadly in favour" of legal changes that would enlarge the family and allow a female or female lineage emperor, he said. After all, it is "unreasonable to limit the number of emperors to men in an age when gender equality is being called for".

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

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

Who is the Duchess of Gloucester?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is she in the spotlight now?

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

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

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

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

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

What happened?

Britain's royal family posted a Mother's Day photo of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children, the first official image of the former Kate Middleton since she was hospitalized for abdominal surgery in January. The Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and Getty news agencies retracted the photo with "kill" notices Sunday night.

Who said what?

A caption attributed to Kate thanked people for their "kind wishes and continued support" since January. "It appears that the source has manipulated the image" in violation of editorial standards, AP said.

The commentary

The photo was "meant to dampen" the "storm of rumors and conspiracy theories" whirling around Kate, who has not appeared in public since Christmas, The New York Times said. Instead, it is "damaging for the royals," said former BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt. "People will now question whether they can be trusted and believed when they next issue a health update" on Kate.

What next?

Kensington Palace has said Kate will not resume public duties until March 31, and it will provide only "significant updates" on her health.

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".

Rarely has a website caused as much consternation as one newly revealed by the Prince Harry and Meghan Markle that uses their royal titles – the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

The couple's new site, sussex.com, replaces their previous archewell.com, and "will bring more personal updates about the Duke and Duchess's activities", said The Independent. The website features a large photograph of the pair at last year's Invictus Games, overlayed with their royal coat of arms and the title: "The office of Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex".

Some royal observers are less than impressed, though. One told the Daily Mail that the use of their Sussex title and royal crest for what appears to be commercial purposes "could provoke complaints from the Palace".

"They are going to have real trouble with the use of Sussex. It is a royal title and if there is any hint of commercialism about this it will be shut down. It's just staggering they cannot see how gauche it is."

Latest rebrand for Harry and Meghan

The launch of the new site comes as the King's "slimmed-down monarchy has been put under pressure in a way not seen before during his reign", said ITV, with the 75-year-old monarch postponing his public-facing duties after his cancer diagnosis, and the Princess of Wales recuperating from abdominal surgery.

The website marks the latest rebrand for Harry and Meghan, who distanced themselves from the Sussex title in 2020 after their departure for the United States. After quitting their roles as working royals, the use of the "Sussex Royal" tag "became a topic of debate at Buckingham Palace", said The Independent. As the pair had stepped down from royal duties, it meant that they were entitled to use their duke and duchess titles, but not the "HRH" styling.

Archewell then replaced the Sussex Royal brand, with the name inspired by their son Archie, combining the Greek word "arche", meaning "source of action", and "well", meaning "a plentiful source or supply; a place we go to dig deep". The new website has links to the couple's non-profit organisation the Archewell Foundation and their production company Archewell Productions.

'If he can't use the royal coat of arms, who can?'

Sussex.com has "fuelled speculation" that the couple are "trying to reinvigorate their media careers", said the Daily Mail. The online rebranding comes at a time when they "may be seeking new production companies to work with" after their £18 million deal with Spotify recently came to an end. There have also been "rumours" that streaming giant Netflix "may not renew its £80 million contract with them", said the paper

While there's been some "ill-natured" commentary about the Sussexes' use of their title and royal coat of arms, "to do Harry justice, he is actually the King's younger son", said Melanie McDonagh in the London Evening Standard. "If he can't use the royal coat of arms, who can?" The couple can use the title "even if dukes once didn't go in so openly for monetising their assets".

But one would assume that if Harry and Meghan really were so keen to be "shot of their miserable lives as royals" they would rid themselves of the royal title bestowed on them by the late Queen and instead "simply style themselves 'Mr and Mrs Windsor-Mountbatten' and be done with it", said Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail. "But, of course, they won't because that would affect their currency as royals. Hence the name of the new website."

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

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

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

What is the Regency Act?

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

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

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

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

What about counsellors of state?

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

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

Have the rules been changed?

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

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

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

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

Will a regent be needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denmark's Queen Margrethe II is preparing to hand the throne to her former "party prince" son after announcing her surprise abdication on live TV.

Addressing her nation on New Year's Eve, the world's only reigning queen and Europe's longest-serving monarch said she would step down on 14 January – 52 years to the day since she became queen following the death of her father, King Frederik IX.

The throne will go to her 55-year-old son, Crown Prince Frederik, described by Agence France-Presse (AFP) as a once "rebellious teen" turned "'woke' family man" who champions Denmark's "drive to find solutions to the climate crisis". His Australian-born wife, Crown Princess Mary, will become queen consort on his accession to the throne.

The background

As a "lonely and tormented" youth in the early 1990s, said AFP, Frederik "sought solace in fast cars and fast living, and was considered a spoiled party prince". 

"He was not strictly speaking a rebel," Danish royals expert Gitte Redder told the agency, "but as a child and young man, he was very uncomfortable with the media attention and the knowledge that he was going to be king."  

But public perceptions of Frederik began to change after he became the first Danish royal to complete a university education, graduating from Aarhus University in 1995 with a master's in political science, after spending a year at Harvard University. 

He later joined the Danish Navy, serving in the Frogman Corps and becoming one of only four of the 300 recruits to pass its rigorous tests. During a scuba diving course, he earned the nickname "Pingo", after his wetsuit filled up with water, "forcing him to waddle like a penguin", according to the Daily Mail.

His wife of 19 years, Princess Mary, grew up on the island of Tasmania and was working as a lawyer when the pair met in 2000, at a bar in Sydney during the Olympic Games. Then a commerce and law student working as an advertising executive, Mary reportedly had no idea that he was a royal.

"The first time we met we shook hands," she once told an interviewer, "I didn't know he was the prince of Denmark. Half an hour later someone came up to me and said, 'Do you know who these people are'?"

Her journey from "commoner" to Denmark's throne has been compared to that of the Princess of Wales, with some describing them as "royal sisters", said The Telegraph. 

Frederik and Mary are extremely popular in Denmark, with a recent poll for Danmarks Radio putting their approval ratings at 84% and 85% respectively, putting them on a par with Queen Margrethe.

The latest

In her New Year's Eve televised address, the 82-year-old monarch said her decision to step down from the throne came after a "period of reflection" following surgery on her back in 2023.

The surgery had "prompted thoughts about the future", Margrethe said, and "whether it was time to pass on the responsibility to the next generation".

A popular figure in Denmark, most Danes had expected the chain-smoking royal to remain on the throne until her death. "She is to us what Queen Elizabeth was to you," Danish journalist Tine Gotzsche told the BBC.

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen thanked Margrethe for her service "lifelong dedication and tireless efforts for the kingdom".

"Many of us have never known another regent," said Frederiksen. "Queen Margrethe is the epitome of Denmark and throughout the years has put words and feelings into who we are as a people and as a nation."

The reaction

It was an "abdication that can only take place in Denmark", said Martin Krasnick in Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. Margrethe's New Year’s Eve speech was "personal and perfectly balanced", with "no drama, no unnecessary pathos". 

But her abdication, which came as a total surprise to the Nordic nation, may be part of a "calculated strategy" to save the marriage of her son and future king,  The Telegraphsuggested.

Frederik has been "dogged" by recent rumours of an affair after being photographed in Madrid with Mexican socialite Genoveva Casanova. Spanish magazine Lecturas published images of them "visiting a Picasso exhibition and reportedly sharing an intimate dinner", and of Frederik allegedly leaving Casanova's apartment the morning after.  The royal family have not commented on the reports. 

But others have speculated that Queen Margrethe may have stepped down to avoid a "Prince Charles situation".

Commentators have suggested that Margrethe may have wanted Frederik to avoid the fate of Britain's now king, who only acceded to the throne at the age of 73, after Queen Elizabeth II died in September 2022 at the age of 96.

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.

Prince Harry has won nearly half of his claims of phone hacking and unlawful information-gathering against the Daily Mirror publisher in a ruling that could have "profound implications" for British media and the royal family.

The Duke of Sussex sued Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for damages, claiming journalists at its papers "were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called 'blagging' or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities", said the Daily Mirror. At the High Court, Mr Justice Fancourt ruled in favour of Harry on 15 claims, awarding him £140,600 in damages – "just under a third of the £443,000 he'd asked for", said the newspaper. 

Harry, 39, claimed that 33 articles about him published between 1991 and 2011 involved unlawful information-gathering. MGN denied that 28 of the 33 articles were unlawfully produced. 

During the trial this summer, Harry became the first member of the royal family to give evidence in court for 130 years, said The Times. He said the articles "left him paranoid" and he ended relationships with those he suspected of leaking information.

The ruling will have "profound implications for the British media", said The Guardian, as the judge ruled that there was "extensive" phone hacking – "even to some extent" during the Leveson Inquiry into media standards held in 2011-12.

There might even be "a rapprochement between Harry and the rest of the royal family", posted Craig Prescott, author of the upcoming book "Modern Monarchy", on Twitter (now X).

"Today is a great day for truth, as well as accountability," Prince Harry said in a statement read by his lawyer. He also urged the Metropolitan Police to "do their duty" and investigate the unlawful information-gathering in his case. He claimed that MGN directors, legal team and Piers Morgan – then the editor of the Daily Mirror – "clearly knew about" the phone hacking. They "even went as far as to lie under oath" at the Leveson Inquiry, he said. 

Responding to the outcome of the trial, Morgan said he "never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone" and blamed "old foes of mine with an axe to grind" for the claims to the contrary.

MGN said: "Where historical wrongdoing took place… we apologise unreservedly." 

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

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

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

'A less orthodox choice'

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

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

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

'Complementary medicine means precisely what it says'

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

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

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

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

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

Ever since the Oprah Winfrey interview in 2021 in which the Duchess of Sussex reported that a senior member of the royal family had speculated over the colour of her unborn child's skin, there has been public fascination with the identity of the so-called "royal racist", said Alexander Larman in The Spectator. 

The Duchess never named any names, bar assurances it was neither the late Queen nor Prince Philip. But last week, with the publication of Omid Scobie's book about the royal family, "Endgame", all was revealed. The English version was tactfully silent, but the Dutch translation asserted that not one but two royals expressed "concern" about Archie's likely skin colour: King Charles and the Princess of Wales. 

Scobie said the revelation was a mistake: a "translation error". But the Dutch translator said she had merely translated what she was given – leading to suspicions that this "accident" was in fact a tawdry publicity stunt. 

Inside scoop?

Some of us are bound to wonder what part Harry and Meghan played in this book, said Allison Pearson in The Daily Telegraph. In it, Scobie takes various swipes at Catherine, calling her "Katie Keen" and painting her as a "Stepford Wife", and at the King. 

Scobie has repeatedly denied acting as the Sussexes' "mouthpiece", and says the couple had no direct input into this book. But last year, Meghan had to apologise in court for "failing to remember" that she'd authorised a senior aide to supply information for his previous one. At any rate, "Endgame" will have made the prospect of a family reunion any time soon still more unlikely. 

A 'ridiculous' row

The whole royal racism saga is pretty ridiculous, said Trevor Phillips in The Times. It's normal for families to speculate about who the baby is going to look like. I have no idea what the King said to Meghan, but having met him a few times, I very much doubt that he would express "antediluvian" views on the subject: he has, after all, "probably met more black folk than any public figures outside Africa". 

I am not naive about the "depth of racial prejudice" that exists in some British families. But this particular issue is trivial, and worse: talking about it endlessly "sends a sour, unwelcoming message" about Britain out "across the globe".

The Spanish royal family is no stranger to high-profile scandals, with the former King, Juan Carlos, rarely out of the news despite abdicating in 2014.

But this time it is his daughter-in-law, Queen Letizia, who is dominating headlines after claims that she was unfaithful to King Felipe, Juan Carlos's son and successor. 

Jaime del Burgo, a businessman and former husband of Letizia's sister Telma, posted an image on social media on Sunday of the Queen in which "she is visibly pregnant", said The Daily Telegraph. Letizia and Felipe's daughters were born after their marriage, in 2005 and 2007. Del Burgo claimed that Letizia sent him a selfie with the message: "I am counting the hours until we see each other again, love you, get out of here. Yours."

The Spanish royal household has made no comment, but the family has been "rocked" by the claims, said the i news site, as it tries to "shake off a series of financial and romantic scandals linked to the disgraced former king Juan Carlos". 

The allegations are "perhaps calculated at a time when the Spanish monarchy seems to be recovering a forward momentum", said Tatler, amid a surge in popularity for Letizia's daughter Princess Leonor, who recently turned 18. 

But Spain is still extremely divided over its royal family. A recent poll by El Diario suggested that 45% of Spaniards would support a republic if there were a referendum on the monarchy and 43.5% back the royals.

The background

In a recently published book "Letizia y yo" (Letizia and I) by royal reporter Jaime Peñafiel, Del Burgo, 53, described a romantic relationship with Letizia, 51, before her wedding to Felipe in 2004. 

He claimed he kept "photographs, videos, mobile phones and text messages" in a bank vault as evidence of a romance with Letizia, who was then a popular news anchor on the state-owned TV channel. Del Burgo also claimed he was planning to propose to Letizia in 2002, the day she told him she was dating Felipe. He went on to be a witness at their wedding in 2004, but claimed that the night before getting married, Letizia begged him to "never leave me". Del Burgo then married the Queen's sister Telma in 2012, before they divorced two years later. 

Del Burgo also alleged that Letizia told him she loved him during her marriage, while they lay in hammocks by the pool at the royal residence, La Zarzuela. This, he said, prompted him to write an unpublished play in English called "The Hammock". One of the most "sensational claims", said i news, is that Letizia suggested that she and Del Burgo should have a child together using a surrogate in Los Angeles. 

The latest

The claims surfaced on Monday in "an obscure online magazine", said The Times. Peñafiel told El Cierre Digital that Letizia was Del Burgo's "great love". Now the claims have "gone mainstream" after an influential commentator "sprang to Letizia's defence", railing against detractors who were "spreading dirt" about the Queen. 

The book "does not allege that any affair was conducted during Letizia's marriage to Felipe", noted The Telegraph. But on X (now Twitter), Del Burgo said the book "had not told the whole truth".

"Seemingly in a bid to stand up the claims made in the book", Del Burgo posted on his account "what appears to be an undated selfie" taken by a pregnant Letizia in a bathroom, said the Daily Express – the implication being that they were still lovers during her marriage. 

Del Burgo also posted descriptions of several alleged romantic encounters with Letizia, and claimed to have received death threats about the allegations. However, he provided "no evidence confirming either the picture or the accompanying message had been sent to him by Queen Letizia".

The reaction

Although the posts have been deleted, Del Burgo is facing a remarkable backlash in Spain, with some accusing him of "machismo". Del Burgo's claims were a "sexist attack on her privacy", posted Carolina Alonso, spokeswoman of the left-wing and anti-monarchist Unidas Podemos group, on social media.

Many have been "shocked by what is regarded as a crass attack on the privacy of a married woman in the public eye", said Tatler. 

But Letizia "was subject to much of the same sexist and classist scrutiny as Catherine Middleton", with "utterly undue vitriol" poured on her around the time of her marriage due to her status as a "divorcee and middle-class professional". 

Courtiers must be "choking on their churros", said The Times. Why Del Burgo is airing such allegations now – and whether they are true – is unclear. Next May will be Letizia and Felipe's 20th wedding anniversary, though "whether it will be much of a celebration remains to be seen". 

Prince Harry was due back in court today to argue he was unfairly treated when denied security protection in 2020 shortly after he announced he and his wife were stepping back as working members of the royal family to move abroad.

The "three-day High Court battle" is part of legal action against the Home Office's decision not to afford him the "same degree" of personal protective security when visiting Britain, said The Telegraph. The Duke of Sussex has claimed members of the royal household should not have been able to influence the process, after it emerged that Sir Edward Young, the late Queen's assistant private secretary, and the Earl of Rosslyn, the Master of Prince Charles's household, were both on the committee making the decision.

The hearing comes on "the heels of a royal scandal", said The Independent, when a new book by Omid Scobie appeared to name King Charles and the Princess of Wales as the royals who speculated about the colour of the Sussexes' first child. Buckingham Palace is said to be "considering all options" including legal action of its own.

What other cases is Harry involved in?

Last month, the High Court ruled legal action brought against the publisher of the Daily Mail by Prince Harry and seven other high-profile defendants, including Sir Elton John and Dame Doreen Lawrence, could proceed.

Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is facing accusations of alleged unlawful information-gathering, including listening in on private telephone conversations, accessing confidential records and even planting bugging devices within vehicles.

The decision was a "significant blow" to ANL, which had – until now – escaped the barrage of lawsuits related to illegal phone-hacking, reported The Guardian.  

To be fair, "it's hard to keep up with the various cases that he is involved with", said Alexander Larman at The Spectator. At the last count, Prince Harry is engaged in litigation against ANL over unlawful information gathering, the Home Office over withdrawing protection, and ANL again over libel claims relating to his Home Office legal action.

He is also awaiting judgment in a privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror, after giving what the BBC described as "unprecedented" testimony when he became the first senior royal in more than 130 years to give evidence from the witness box. He is among more than 100 other people, ranging from actors, sports stars and celebrities, suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for "widespread unlawful activities between 1991 and 2011", Reuters reported.

There is also the case against the Murdoch-owned News Group Newspapers (NGN), publishers of The Sun and now-defunct News of the World. A ruling in July blocked parts of Prince Harry's claim relating to allegations of phone hacking against the publisher and the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, also refused to allow the Duke to rely on an alleged "secret agreement" between the royal family and senior executives working for Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim. He did, however, give the Duke's claim over other allegations – including use of private investigators – the green light to go ahead to a trial, which the Press Gazette suggested might not be until January 2025.

What does he hope to achieve?

Harry would argue, said Larman at The Spectator, that he is "attempting both to stand up for his and his family's privacy, and that by taking on the venal forces of British tabloid journalism – and winning – that he will not only ensure that false and inaccurate stories about him are not published, but also that he is a sufficiently powerful and high-profile figure to stand as a champion of those without the same level of influence".

Whatever the motives, there is a "lot on the line here for the prince", said The Guardian's media editor, Jim Waterson, in reference only to The Mirror case. "He could lose a lot of money in legal fees if he has not signed a 'no win no fee' agreement with his legal team, and British newspapers will probably pillory him further if the verdict does not come out in his favour," he said.

With so many cases on the go at once, he risks spreading himself far too thin, concluded Larman. "At the back of his mind, there is the uncomfortable knowledge that he has to win every single action he is involved in. The alternative can only be humiliation, and a persistent irritation with this most litigious of members of the royal family, who has long since ignored the Firm's edict to 'never complain, never explain'."

A government minister has spoken out in support of the two senior royals who were named in connection with the royal race row.

Tom Tugendhat praised the "dignity" and "grace" of the King and the Princess of Wales after Dutch copies of Omid Scobie's book "Endgame" suggested they were the two royals alleged to have asked about the skin colour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's unborn baby, Archie.

Appearing on TalkTV, Tugendhat, the security minister and former Tory leadership candidate, said that "some individual has written some rumour and scuttlebutt that has made various claims about His Majesty the King that are, frankly, completely unproven".

Tugendhat added that he regarded the book as "just rumour, hearsay and an attempt to disparage somebody who's served our country" for "many many years", noted The Times.

Scobie has insisted he does not know how the Dutch translation of "Endgame" came to include the names. He told the BBC it was not a deliberate publicity stunt.

He said a "full investigation" was under way to discover how the names were included, adding the English version of the book, which he "wrote" and "edited", didn't include the names.

However, Saskia Peeters, a Dutch translator who worked on Scobie's book, said she had not inserted any names into the copy sold in the Netherlands and simply translated the words she was given. Speaking to Mail Online, she said that "as a translator, I translate what is in front of me," and "the names of the royals were there in black and white".

King Charles and the Princess of Wales were identified as the two royals earlier this week by Piers Morgan on his TalkTV show. Asked about reports that Buckingham Palace was considering legal action over Morgan naming them, a Palace spokesperson said "we're exploring all options".

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

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

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

The background

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

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

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

The latest

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

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

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

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

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

The reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Potential for much to go wrong'

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

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

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

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

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

'Safety-first approach'

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

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

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

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

'Monarchy steady on its foundations'

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

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

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

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

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

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

After turning 18 on Tuesday Princess Leonor completed a ceremonial commitment to become Spain's future queen. 

The royal household is hoping its "Generation Z princess", can "strengthen support for the monarchy among young people" as well as "dispel the cloud of scandal" hanging over it, said Graham Keeley at the i news site.

Spain has "been gripped by 'Leonormania'", Keeley added in a piece in the Independent, and "appears to have won over" a "sceptical" nation that under 100 years ago "voted to rid Spain of its kings and queens".

Princess Leonor's 18th birthday has thrust her "into the spotlight" and marks the beginning of her life as a "very public figure" after years of "having her image carefully shielded", wrote Guy Hedgecoe at the BBC. But questions remain about the exact "role she will play as an adult royal".

'Plan to create the perfect queen'

Leonor's transition into an adult royal “has gone smoothly”, added Hedgecoe, and since she graduated from the UWC Atlantic school in Wales, the media in Spain has “closely followed” her basic army training and the officer's course she began this year.

The "surge in her popularity" has raised questions, however, about whether the "princess is simply blessed with natural charm" or whether she has been "part of a plan to create the perfect queen", said Laura Llach at Euronews.

Set to become Spain's first queen in the modern era of the monarchy, she will eventually succeed her father King Felipe VI, whom she has already surpassed as "the most popular member of the royal family".

That rapid increase in popularity could be due to being "out of the limelight for so many years", added Llach, with the "lack of knowledge" about her meaning "now everyone wants to know who she is".

As Leonor begins her role as an adult royal, so too will she have to take on the "less solemn role as a figure orbiting Spain's celebrity universe", wrote Hedgecoe. Already there have been "rumours that she was romantically linked" with Spanish footballer Gavi, which "turned out to be false", as well as headlines about "the Bulgari earrings that Leonor had worn" to an awards ceremony. The growing media coverage has "highlighted the appetite in some quarters for the princess to be a part of pop culture", added Hedgecoe.

'The spectre of her grandfather'

Leonor's increasing prominence comes after years of scandal that have beset the Spanish royals. She has a "big challenge on her hands" to try and "restore its image", wrote Keeley, particularly while the "spectre" of her grandfather, former King Juan Carlos, "still hangs over the monarchy".

Juan Carlos, 85, who was handed power by former dictator General Francisco Franco in 1975, abdicated the throne in 2014 and left Spain in 2020 to live in exile in Abu Dhabi "amid a cloud of financial scandals", said Ciarán Giles in The Washington Post. While Leonor's parents Felipe and Letizia have "recovered a lot of the institution's good image", for much of the public the role of the monarchy is "still questioned". The princess has been "groomed by her father and mother" to be ready to take on the polarising role of the queen in the future, but public opinion on the monarchy is "difficult to gauge" given Spain's leading polling body "stopped asking Spaniards what they think of the royals in 2015 amid the myriad scandals".

She may face an increasingly tough challenge to unite the Spanish public behind the monarchy as "support for a republic rises among left-wingers", said Keeley. A number of far-left politicians snubbed Leonor's parliamentary ceremony this week, a reminder that "despite all the fanfare, Spain is not a nation of traditional monarchists".

While Spain may be currently experiencing 'Leonormania', it "remains to be seen", concluded Keeley, whether "the appeal of the 'Pop Princess' can win over the Spaniards".