The life of the Royal Family: What’s it like in the gilded cage?

Published

3 years ago

May 5, 2023

admin

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.

Coronation latest: King delights fans on palace walkabout as Kate poses for selfies

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

“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.

Because, perhaps, there is simply no way out.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

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.

UK

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Published

13 hours ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Starmer and Reeves ditch plans to raise income tax in budget

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have scrapped plans to break their manifesto pledge and raise income tax rates in a massive U-turn less than two weeks from the budget.

The decision, first reported in the Financial Times, comes after a bruising few days which has brought about a change of heart in Downing Street.

I understand Downing Street has backed down amid fears about the backlash from disgruntled MPs and voters.

The Treasury and Number 10 declined to comment.

The decision is a massive about-turn. In a news conference last week, the chancellor appeared to pave the way for manifesto-breaking tax rises in the budget on 26 November.

She spoke of difficult choices and insisted she could neither increase borrowing nor cut spending in order to stabilise the economy, telling the public “everyone has to play their part”.

The decision to backtrack was communicated to the Office for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday in a submission of “major measures”, according to the Financial Times.

Tory shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve had the longest ever run-up to a budget, damaging the economy with uncertainty, and yet – with just days to go – it is clear there is chaos in No 10 and No 11.”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

Published

1 day ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Economy grew by 0.1% in third quarter, official figures show

The UK’s economic slowdown gathered further momentum during the third quarter of the year with growth of just 0.1%, according to an early official estimate that makes horrific reading for the chancellor.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a surprise contraction for economic output during September of -0.1% – with some of the downwards pressure being applied by the cyber attack disruption to production at Jaguar Land Rover.

The figures for July-September followed on the back of a 0.3% growth performance over the previous three months and the 0.7% expansion achieved between January and March.

Money latest: The £110 benefit 1.1 million older Britons don’t claim

The encouraging start to 2025 was soon followed by the worst of Donald Trump’s trade war salvoes and the implementation of budget measures that placed employers on the hook for £25bn of extra taxes.

Economists have blamed those factors since for pushing up inflation and harming investment and employment.

ONS director of economic statistics, Liz McKeown, said: “Growth slowed further in the third quarter of the year with both services and construction weaker than in the previous period. There was also a further contraction in production.

“Across the quarter as a whole, manufacturing drove the weakness in production. There was a particularly marked fall in car production in September, reflecting the impact of a cyber incident, as well as a decline in the often-erratic pharmaceutical industry.

“Services were the main contributor to growth in the latest quarter, with business rental and leasing, live events and retail performing well, partially offset by falls in R&D [research and development] and hair and beauty salons.”

When measured by per head of population- a preferred measure of living standards – zero growth was registered during the third quarter.

The weaker-than-expected figures will add fuel to expectations that the Bank of England can cut interest rates at its December meeting after November’s hold.

The vast majority of financial market participants now expect a reduction to 3.75% from 4% on 18 December.

Data earlier this week showed the UK’s unemployment rate at 5% – up from 4.1% when Labour came to power with a number one priority of growing the economy.

Since then, the government’s handling of the economy has centred on its stewardship of the public finances.

The chancellor was accused by business groups of harming private sector investment and employment through hikes to minimum wage levels and employer national insurance contributions.

The Bank has backed the assertion that hiring and staff retention has been hit as a result of those extra costs.

There is also evidence that rising employment costs have been passed on to consumers and contributed to the UK’s stubbornly high rate of inflation of 3.8% – a figure that is now expected to ease considerably in the coming months.

Rachel Reeves has blamed other factors – such as Brexit and the US trade war – for weighing on the economy, leaving her facing a similar black hole to the one she says she inherited from the Conservatives.

Her second budget is due on 26 November.

She said of the latest economic data: “We had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year, but there’s more to do to build an economy that works for working people.

“At my budget later this month, I will take the fair decisions to build a strong economy that helps us to continue to cut waiting lists, cut the national debt and cut the cost of living.”

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride responded: “Today’s ONS figures show the economy shrank in the latest month, under a Prime Minister and Chancellor who are in office but not in power.”

UK

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

Published

1 day ago

November 13, 2025

admin

Scottish government yet to pay up after losing legal battle over definition of a woman

The Scottish government and For Women Scotland’s long-running legal battle over the definition of a woman is yet to come to a close.

For Women Scotland (FWS) won the case in April when the country’s highest court ruled “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.

The Scottish government was ordered to pay a portion of the campaign group’s legal costs.

FWS told Sky News the bill of costs for the Supreme Court element of the case was more than £270,000, however various parts have reportedly been disputed by the Scottish government.

That has now been submitted to the court for determination and a decision is awaited.

The Outer and Inner House element of the case at the Court of Session in Edinburgh was said to be more than £150,000.

Trina Budge, co-director of FWS, said the group is also due an uplift – a small percentage of the final expenses awarded.

Ms Budge claimed Scottish ministers are yet to enter into any negotiations on settlement and a date has been set in January for a hearing before the Auditor of the Court of Session to confirm the amount the government will have to pay.

Ms Budge said: “The delay always suits the paying party but I think it’s quite unusual to decline to enter into any discussions at all.

“It’s highly likely this is a deliberate tactic in the hope of starving us of funds to prevent us continuing our latest case on the lawfulness of housing male prisoners on the female estate.

“However, it should come as no surprise to the government that we have massive support and we will, of course, be continuing regardless of any sharp practices.”

It is understood the bill of costs for the Supreme Court case was lodged by FWS in August, while the expenses linked to the Court of Session action was submitted in September.

Figures revealed by a recent Freedom of Information (FOI) request show the Scottish government has spent at least £374,000 on the case.

Final costs are yet to be confirmed but will be published once complete.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “There is an established process to be undertaken to agree the final costs for a legal case and these will be calculated and published in due course.”

In August, FWS lodged fresh action at the Court of Session.

The group claimed Holyrood’s guidance on transgender pupils in schools and the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) policy on the management of transgender people in custody were both in “clear breach of the law” and “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court judgment.

The following month, the Scottish government issued updated guidance which said schools across the nation must provide separate toilets for boys and girls on the basis of biological sex.

If possible, schools can also provide gender neutral toilets for transgender students.

However, court proceedings continue over transgender prisoners.

Current SPS guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the female estate if the inmate does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis “to suppose” they could pose an “unacceptable risk of harm” to those also housed there.

First Minister John Swinney and Justice Secretary Angela Constance have both dodged questions on the case, citing it would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.

On Tuesday, Ms Constance was accused by former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross of “misleading” Holyrood, saying she could give full answers under contempt of court legislation.

Scottish Tory MSP Tess White, the party’s equalities spokesperson, added she was “spine-chillingly concerned” of a repeat of the Isla Bryson case.

Bryson, a transgender woman born Adam Graham, was initially sent to a women-only prison despite being convicted of raping two women.

The offender was later transferred to the male estate following a public outcry.

Speaking to Sky News, Ms White said: “John Swinney was quick to waste taxpayers’ money fighting a case which confirmed what the vast majority of the public knew beforehand: a woman is an adult human female.”

The MSP for North East Scotland urged the SNP administration to “pay up and finally respect the clear judgment from the Supreme Court”.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: “It is the Scottish government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish ministers to comment on live litigation.

“In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We do not want the government to ever be seen as interfering in the work of the independent courts.”