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

Published

2 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

Rishi Sunak’s former aide among 15 people charged with election betting offences

Published

2 hours ago

April 14, 2025

admin

Rishi Sunak's former aide among 15 people charged with election betting offences

Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide when he was prime minister has been charged along with 14 others with election betting offences.

The 15, also including a current Welsh Senedd member and a former police officer, have been charged with cheating related to bets placed on the timing of the 2024 general election.

They are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court at 10am this Friday to face the charges.

Politics latest: China makes first statement after UK takes control of British Steel

The Gambling Commission said its investigation, which began in June last year, “focused on individuals suspected of using confidential information – specifically advance knowledge of the proposed election date – to gain an unfair advantage in betting markets”.

It opened the investigation after former Montgomeryshire MP Craig Williams, Mr Sunak’s former parliamentary private secretary, admitted placing a £100 bet on 19 May 2024 that the election would be in July.

Mr Sunak announced the general election would be on 4 July, three days after Williams, who was also an election candidate, placed the bet.

Williams, who was dropped as a candidate, admitted last June to placing a “flutter” on the election and said he “committed a serious error of judgement, not an offence”.

Current Senedd member, police officer and Tory campaign director charged

Among those charged is Russell George, a Conservative member of the Welsh Senedd, who returned to the front bench in October after stepping back from his role as spokesman for mid-Wales in June.

Over the weekend, the Welsh Conservatives re-selected him to be a candidate in the Senedd elections next year, but have now suspended him “pending outcome of the justice process”.

Other notable people charged are former police officer Jeremy Hunt, Tony Lee, the Conservatives’ former campaign director, and his wife, Laura Saunders, a former Tory election candidate, and Nick Mason, the Conservatives’ former chief data officer.

Many others are, or were, also Conservative Party staff. The party has said those still working for them have been suspended.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “The Conservative Party believes that those working in politics must act with integrity. Current members of staff who have been charged are being suspended with immediate effect.

“These incidents took place in May last year. Our party is now under new leadership and we are cooperating fully with the Gambling Commission to ensure that their investigation can conclude swiftly and transparently.”

Who are the 15 people charged?

• Simon Chatfield, 51, from Farnham
• Russell George, 50, from Newtown, Wales (suspended Welsh Conservative Senedd member for Montgomeryshire)
• Amy Hind, 34, from Loughton, Essex
• Anthony Hind, 36, from Loughton, Essex
• Jeremy Hunt, 55, from Horley (a former police officer, not the ex-chancellor)
• Thomas James, 38, from Brecon, Wales
• Charlotte Lang, 36, from Brixton
• Anthony Lee, 47, Bristol (known as Tony, former director of Conservative Party campaigning)
• Iain Makepeace, 47, from Newcastle Upon Tyne
• Nick Mason, 51, from Gillingham (former Conservative Party chief data officer)
• Paul Place, 53, from Hammersmith, London
• Laura Saunders, 37, from Bristol (Tony Lee’s wife and Conservative 2024 candidate for Bristol North West who was then dropped)
• James Ward, 40, from east London
• Craig Williams, 39, from Llanfair Caereinion, Welshpool
• Jacob Willmer, 39, from Richmond, London.

Labour candidate Kevin Craig was included in the investigation after placing a bet that he would lose his bid to become an MP, but was cleared of any wrongdoing in December.

Ellie Reeves, chair of the Labour Party, said: “This is a very serious development. The British people will expect that anyone found guilty of wrongdoing faces the full force of the law.

“Kemi Badenoch must make crystal clear that anyone found guilty of using insider information to cheat the system to try to enrich themselves has no place in the Conservative Party. No ifs, no buts.

“Labour is turning the page on 14 years of Conservative chaos and scandal and we’re turning our country round through our Plan for Change. Only Labour can be trusted to deliver security for working people and the renewal Britain needs.”

Met Police investigation

After the Gambling Commission began its investigation last June, the Metropolitan Police opened an inquiry into whether any of the political figures or police had committed misconduct in public office.

In August 2024, the Met said they would not be charging any of them, but they remained under investigation by the Gambling Commission into whether they had broken criminal gambling laws.

UK

Rise in suicide attempts linked to HMRC tax crackdown as MPs criticise ‘sham’ review into loan charge schemes

Published

2 hours ago

April 14, 2025

admin

Rise in suicide attempts linked to HMRC tax crackdown as MPs criticise 'sham' review into loan charge schemes

Four more people have attempted to take their own life in relation to the loan charge scandal, which has left tens of thousands of contractors facing huge bills for tax their employers should have paid, Sky News has learnt.

HMRC has made 17 referrals to the police watchdog (Independent Office for Police Conduct) over the suicide attempts of 14 people, up from the 13 referrals of 10 people previously known about in October 2023.

The figures, revealed in response to a Freedom of Information request by Sky News, come on top of the 10 known suicides of people caught up in the controversial tax crackdown, which has alarmed MPs across the political spectrum.

The loan charge was announced in George Osborne’s 2016 budget and made freelancers liable for years of retrospective income and national insurance tax after being paid their salaries in loans.

HMRC has been accused of harassing ordinary people who were victims of mis-selling, as the arrangement was widely promoted by lawyers, accountants and tax professionals in the 2000s and 2010s.

Labour has launched an independent review into the policy but campaigners have branded it a “sham” and “cover-up” as it doesn’t look at the principle of the loan charge, only ways to make people settle.

‘Trapped in an endless nightmare’

Father-of-three Ray Newton is one thousands of people who paid an umbrella company to manage his fees while working as an IT contractor for Barclays Bank from 2009-2010.

They paid him in tax-free loans on the assurance it was “completely above board”, but in 2016 he was hit with an unexpected HMRC bill of £16,000.

Ray paid it off, but last year he suddenly faced demands for another £15,000 in income tax and £14,000 in interest that had been accruing the whole time without his knowledge. The “bombshell bill” also included £12,000 of inheritance tax on the loans despite them being classed as wages.

“Instead of going for the tax that was avoided they are going for the jugular,” said Ray, 70.

The bill arrived in the post after eight years of sporadic letters from HMRC saying Ray still needed to settle but not explaining why or by how much, often ignoring him when he inquired. It nearly destroyed him.

“I was literally begging – please tell me what it is I owe. It made me look as though I was a bad person… my wife actually left me and I got really in a state over this,” he said.

“I was having counselling, I was on antidepressant drugs, I was on sleeping pills. You know, my whole world was sort of falling apart. It was like being trapped in an endless nightmare.

“I did attempt suicide but I was stopped by a member of the public.”

Ray is now in a better place and is back with his wife, while HMRC has recently accepted the inheritance tax isn’t owed and giving him misleading or incorrect information.

But he is sceptical about the review.

“The government can’t afford or don’t want to afford the implications of a proper inquiry. This is going to be a whitewash.”

HMRC says it takes the wellbeing of all taxpayers seriously and is committed to identifying and supporting customers who need extra help with their tax affairs. It says it has made significant improvements to this service over the last few years.   

Sky News spoke to several loan charge victims who said while they didn’t dispute owing tax, HMRC’s chaotic communication was making it harder to settle and move on.

“The impact has been devastating”

For father-of-two Stephen Bishop, the long drawn-out battle contributed to the breakdown of his marriage and led him to express suicidal thoughts.

He was told to join a loan scheme by the company which hired him and has since faced demands in unpaid tax ranging from £80,000 – more than he’d earn in a year – to £20,000 while a payment plan set up in 2018 was randomly cancelled.

It took many more years to reach a new settlement and after £18,000 was finally agreed upon, he was whacked with a £10,000 interest bill for the late payment.

HMRC continued to contact him after he requested to go through his accountant due to his deteriorating mental health, with an inspector even showing up at his door.

“I can honestly understand why so many people have taken their own lives over this. The impact has been devastating on me,” he said.

What is being reviewed?

Since 2016, HMRC has agreed 25,000 settlements with employers and individuals over their use of loan schemes, which will raise around £4.2bn in revenue.

However, over 40,000 people and 5,000 employers are yet to settle.

Labour promised an “independent review” in opposition, with Treasury minister James Murray saying the loan charge had “become a nightmare for ordinary people… who are the victims of mis-selling and face financial ruin”.

After winning the election Mr Murray also attended a “harrowing meeting” where many loan charge victims “broke down in tears”, according to Greg Smith, Tory co-chairman of the Loan Charge and Taxpayer Fairness all-party parliamentary group (APPG), who suggested the “partial review” was down to “wilful ignorance or the bottom line” and warned it could lead to more suicides if people continue to face financial ruin.

Campaigners hoped the inquiry would look at the principle of retrospective tax legislation, the role of promoters who made profits from the schemes and HMRC’s conduct.

However, it will only examine the barriers facing those who have yet to settle and recommend ways for them to so do by the summer. And it is being run by former HMRC boss Ray McCann, leading some to question its independence.

‘Internal stitch-up’

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader and another long-term critic of the loan charge, called the review an “internal HMRC stitch-up… ran by an ex-HMRC honcho”.

He said the loan charge is a “disaster” made by the tax office for being slow to crack down on the loan schemes and the government should “draw a line under this and write the debt off”.

“It seems to me any MP that goes to be a minister of the Treasury gets taken prisoner by them. This should be a full-scale review where apportioning blame is part of this,” Mr Duncan Smith added.

In a letter responding to concerns of the APPG, Mr Murray said it would have been “irresponsible for the government not to acknowledge the challenging fiscal circumstances that we inherited” and “that is the context in which this review takes place”.

He also defended Mr McCann’s independence, saying the former president of the Chartered Institute for Taxation is “a highly respected figure in the tax world whose name was suggested by one of the loan charge campaigners”.

The government declined to comment further while the review is ongoing.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK