It is Christmas 1951 and the royal train is puffing through dank, grey-green English countryside.
As it reaches a cutting, people run towards the track, waving and calling out.
Seconds later, the carriages sweep through a station. Dozens of onlookers scurry down the platform, trying to catch a glimpse of King George VI and Princess Elizabeth.
The camera cuts to Prince Philip – an alpha male, a military man of action. His face is a mixture of emotions, led by anxiety and completed by trepidation.
This box set sequence, viewed by millions of modern viewers, gives a glimpse of what it is like to be royal, of living in the “gilded cage”. People with no discernibly special skills are being hounded and idolised simply because of the family they belong to.
“All royals are victims,” says Professor Robert Hazell from University College London’s Constitution Unit. He adds that, while Harry and Meghan’s Netflix documentary series “conveys the impression that they have been uniquely victimised, the difficulties they have faced are shared by all the royal families of Europe”.
Monarchy makes “extraordinary demands” and “takes a toll” on every member of the family, he says, listing several basic rights, including privacy, freedom of speech and of career, which ordinary people have but royals lack.
The most egregious imposition, he thinks, is press intrusion, referencing “Camillagate”, when the transcript of an intimate, late night conversation between Charles and Camilla was revealed by a Sunday tabloid in 1993.
Advertisement
Image: The King has become monarch at an age when many people have retired. Pic: Shutterstock
Royal historian Dr Ed Owens views things differently, however.
“I’m not convinced by the narrative of burdens and hardship,” he says.
“It sounds quite a lot of fun to me. When they’re not in the public eye they have considerable time – let’s call it playtime – to enjoy themselves in their homes in the countryside.”
He also points out that far from being troubled by their royal status, at least one of the Windsors – Prince Andrew – has appeared to enjoy the life it provides.
“We have to remember that the second Elizabethan age was partly anchored in an idea that to be royal is to be burdened with a sense of duty, a sense of public service – it’s a life of self-sacrifice,” he says.
“There’s nothing about Prince Andrew that speaks of self-sacrifice. He turns that model on its head in a very ugly way, and that’s why he’s such a problem.”
Nor is Dr Owens convinced by the lack of privacy. “There’s a lot of emphasis on how their lives unfold in the limelight, but that’s less than half the story,” he says.
The “gilded cage” is a “deliberate public relations narrative” the family itself has promoted, he contends.
“We need to be careful not to take it at face value because it does obscure the positive sides of this lifestyle, and there are lots.
“They mustn’t be seen to enjoy themselves, and that’s why all the positives are kept out of the public eye.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:56
‘Every stinking time’: King shouts at pen
So: what is it like to be royal? In King Charles’s case, extremely rich – enough to make rollover lottery winners wild with envy. The Sunday Times recently estimated the monarch’s net wealth at £600m – £230m more that its last calculation of the Queen’s fortune.
That could be a gross underestimation, however, because The Guardian has put Charles’s private wealth at £1.8bn, including “country piles, diamond-encrusted jewels, paintings by Monet and Dali, racehorses and rare stamps”.
Certainly no sign of a cost of living crisis.
“Materially speaking, they want for nothing,” Ed Owens says.
“They are surrounded by huge entourages of servants we don’t see very much of. When we do glimpse (the servants), it’s usually for the wrong reasons, like a king trying to move an inkwell out of the way – that sort of thing.”
They also have “large country estates at their disposal, often have family members living gratis, close to them in grace and favour accommodations”, and go to the “best private schools, followed by a job for life”.
But what is the point of a palace if people gawp at you every time you go out?
“It’s got to be a very frustrating life for many,” observes royal author Professor Pauline Maclaran, who says some members of the family may feel “confined”.
That is the feeling one gets while watching the scene on the train described earlier, from the very first episode of The Crown.
Personality must play a part, though. Princess Margaret, who liked to sing and party, was perhaps more suited to public life than the Queen, who may have been much happier living a country life tending to her horses.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
King has his cake – and eats it
Then there is the scrutiny of the royals’ appearances. Prof Maclaran observes: “What good is having a large house and money if you feel you can’t go out the door without people remarking on anything from your walk to your look to your manner?”
Prof Hazell says he would “hate” to live at Buckingham Palace because of its “huge, echoing rooms and flunkies”.
“When you’re ‘at home’, you don’t have very much privacy,” he points out, although Dr Owens says all the servants have signed non-disclosure agreements.
What of the life of a working royal?
“Really artificial” is how Prof Hazell describes it.
“Imagine that week in, week out, you are dispatched to different parts of the country,” he says. “You have to do a lot of prep to learn the names of the people you’re going to see, you put on your best dress and your best smile, and you have to keep your best smile on throughout the visit, knowing that for these people, it will be a really special day. But, almost certainly, you’re never going to meet any of them ever again. And you do that week in, week out, day, after day, after day. I would find that really difficult.”
Meghan Markle was put off by the harsh reality of working royal life, he suspects.
“When the palace asks you to go up to Newcastle on a wet Wednesday to open a new hospital wing they expect you to go and do it.”
He also senses a “clash of expectations”.
“I think her idea of being a royal was all rather glittery – going to premieres in the West End, where they roll out the red carpet, and the more mundane side of it – which is what most royal visits consist of – I think she found quite hard to take.”
Image: Prince Harry has ‘let light in on the magic’
“Brands have to satisfy their customers, and the royal family is a brand,” points out Prof Maclaran.
Part of being royal – especially in a world of global, non-stop digital media – is knowing how much of yourself to display, and what to keep back.
Prof Maclaran adds: “They do tread an incredibly fine line between the idea of the mystique and the accessibility that is expected from consumers (who) demand that from their idols.
“Most of the time they are keeping up appearances (and it) must be very difficult.
“They have to put on these smiling faces and be these loving, caring people.”
Walter Bagehot, in his book The English Constitution, published in 1867, said: “Above all things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it… Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.”
But they cannot simply stay in, or behind barriers. The Queen knew the value of making public appearances. “I have to be seen to be believed,” she said, according to biographer Sally Bedell Smith.
Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare, was an exercise in “letting in daylight” – from the loss of his virginity in a field behind a pub to the number of Taliban fighters he killed in Afghanistan.
It sold extremely well, but his personal ratings have plummeted since its publication. Readers have lapped up the personal revelations, while not necessarily respecting him for divulging them.
So why didn’t he and Meghan opt out completely? Give up the titles and never speak about the Royal Family again.
Prof Hazell points out that spares are “ultimately dispensable” and it is “only those in direct line of succession who count”.
Nevertheless, the spares are “subject to the same personal restrictions as the immediate heirs”.
He goes on: “Even if he said I’m no longer going to be the Duke of Sussex, I’m giving up all the privileges, and I’m just going to be plain Mr Windsor, the press would still write about him as Prince Harry.”
The moment he was born he was royal – and that will never change.
Four people have been charged after £7m of damage was caused to two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.
The investigation into the incident early on Friday 20 June was led by counter-terror police.
They have been charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK – and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
Image: Two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton were damaged. PA file pic
The four charged have been identified as:
• Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, of no fixed abode
• Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 35, from London
• Jony Cink, 24, of no fixed abode
More from UK
• Lewie Chiaramello, 22, from London
They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court later today.
A 41-year-old woman arrested last week on suspicion of assisting an offender has been released on bail until 19 September.
Meanwhile, a 23-year-old man detained on Saturday was released without charge.
Last month’s incident at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire was claimed by the activist group Palestine Action.
Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.
A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.
A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.
UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.
Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead
It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.
The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.
But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”
Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.
“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.
Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.
Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.
“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”
Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
Image: Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.
A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”
Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.
Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.