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

Brother of Manchester Arena bomber attacks prison officers, union says

Published

3 hours ago

April 12, 2025

admin

Brother of Manchester Arena bomber attacks prison officers, union says

Three prison officers have been attacked by the brother of the Manchester Arena bomber.

The Prison Officers Association (POA) said 28-year-old Hashem Abedi – the brother of Salman Abedi – threw hot cooking oil over the guards before stabbing them with homemade weapons.

He was sentenced in 2020 to at least 55 years in prison after being found guilty of 22 counts of murder over the 2017 atrocity.

The three officers were taken to hospital after the attack at category A Frankland prison, in County Durham, shortly before 11am on Saturday.

A female officer is understood to have now been discharged.

The POA said they suffered “life-threatening injuries” including burns, scalds and stab wounds.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said on X: “I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.

“The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.”

The POA said the attack happened in a separation centre, a small unit sometimes referred to as a “prison within a prison”, usually used to house dangerous prisoners and those deemed a risk of radicalising other inmates.

The union’s national chair Mark Fairhurst called for a review of the freedoms granted to those prisoners.

“I am of the opinion that allowing access to cooking facilities and items that can threaten the lives of staff should be removed immediately,” he said.

“These prisoners need only receive their basic entitlements and we should concentrate on control and containment instead of attempting to appease them. Things have to change.”

General Secretary Steve Gillan added: “This is a disgraceful and cowardly attack on prison officers at Frankland prison who were carrying out their duties.”

Durham police said: “An investigation is underway following a serious assault which occurred at Frankland prison, Durham today.

“Three victims were taken to hospital to be treated where two remain with serious injuries and a third has been discharged.”

Hashem Abedi was previously found guilty, along with two other convicted terrorists, of attacking a prison officer at south-east London’s Belmarsh prison in 2020.

The officer was hit with a chair, repeatedly punched and kicked when he was set upon by Hashem Abedi, Parsons Green Tube bomber Ahmed Hassan and Muhammed Saeed, who spoke about carrying out a knife attack in London.

Hashem Abedi was found guilty by a jury of 22 counts of murder, attempted murder and plotting to cause an explosion likely to endanger life over the Manchester Arena bombing.

The court heard he helped source, buy, stockpile and transport the components for his brother’s bomb using a number of phones, vehicles and addresses in preparation for the attack.

Twenty-two people were killed when suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated an explosive as people were leaving an Ariana Grande concert at the venue.

He died in the attack, while hundreds of others were injured.

UK

Newcastle United boss Eddie Howe admitted to hospital after being ‘unwell for a number of days’

Published

4 hours ago

April 12, 2025

admin

Newcastle United boss Eddie Howe admitted to hospital after being 'unwell for a number of days'

Newcastle United’s head coach Eddie Howe has been admitted to hospital after feeling “unwell for a number of days”, his club have said.

In a statement, they confirmed the 47-year-old will miss the team’s next match against Manchester United on Sunday “due to illness” after feeling unwell “for a number of days”.

“The Magpies’ head coach was admitted to hospital late on Friday evening having felt unwell for a number of days,” the statement said.

“Medical staff kept Eddie in hospital overnight for further tests, which are ongoing.

“He is conscious and talking with his family, and is continuing to receive expert medical care.

“Everyone at Newcastle United extends their best wishes to Eddie for a speedy recovery, and further updates will follow in due course.”

The club said assistant Jason Tindall and coach Graeme Jones will lead the side at St James’ Park on Sunday.

Speaking when he stepped in to perform pre-match media duties on Friday, Tindall said: “He’s been really poorly in the last couple of days but we’ve been in daily contact.

“We’ve been speaking three or four times a day so it’s not affected any of the preparations. We’ve still got a couple of days and I’m sure he’ll be fine for the weekend.”

The assistant manager added “its not very often that’s he unable to come to work”, and that “it’s a bit different” not having Howe around the training ground.

Tindall also joked: “He’s probably got a live feed there now, his attention to detail – he’s top, and that’s why he’s one of the best managers that’s out there.”

Howe, who has been tipped as a future England manager, ended Newcastle’s silverware drought last month, leading them to a first domestic trophy in 70 years after beating Liverpool in the Carabao Cup.

Currently sitting fifth in the Premier League table, the Magpies still have Champions League football next season firmly in their sights.

They have won each of their last four games in all competitions, with league victories over West Ham, Brentford and Leicester either side of their Carabao Cup final success.

Newcastle beat Manchester United 2-0 at Old Trafford in December and will run out eight places and 15 points better off than Ruben Amorim’s men this weekend.

But they have not completed a league double over the Red Devils since the 1930-31 campaign.

UK

A remarkable step by the government – and Donald Trump, China and Reform UK have all played their part

Published

14 hours ago

April 12, 2025

admin

A remarkable step by the government - and Donald Trump, China and Reform UK have all played their part

When the sun sets on Scunthorpe this Saturday, the town’s steelworks will likely have a new boss – Jonathan Reynolds.

The law that parliament will almost certainly approve this weekend hands the business secretary the powers to direct staff at British Steel, order raw materials and, crucially, keep the blast furnaces at the plant open.

This is not full nationalisation.

But it is an extraordinary step.

The Chinese firm Jingye will – on paper – remain the owner of British Steel.

But the UK state will insert itself into the corporate set-up to legally override the wishes of the multinational company.

A form of martial law invoked and applied to private enterprise.

That will come at a cost to the taxpayer.

Follow latest: Live politics updates

No number has been specified, but there are wages to pay and orders to make at a site estimated to already be losing £700,000 a day.

There is also clear frustration in government at how the Chinese owners have engaged in negotiations around modernising the Scunthorpe site.

“Jingye have not been forthright throughout this process”, said the business secretary in his department’s official announcement about the new laws.

Time is so tight because of the nature of the steel-making process.

Once switched off, blast furnaces are very hard to turn back on.

If this had happened in Scunthorpe – as seemed likely in a matter of days – then it would have been game over.

This move keeps the show on the road and opens up more time for talks over the long-term future of the plant.

While the official line in Whitehall is that “all options are on the table”, nationalisation seems increasingly likely.

That would need more legislation, if it was done – as seems likely – without the approval of the current owner.

Finding an alternative commercial partner has not been ruled out, but one is not waiting in the wings either.

As for what that long-term future looks like, with just five years of life left in the Scunthorpe blast furnaces, modernisation is inevitable.

Port Talbot’s plant saw its blast furnaces closed last year amid a switch to the more environmentally friendly electric arc furnaces and a loss of thousands of jobs.

Political figures in Wales are now questioning why nationalisation wasn’t on the table for this site.

The response from government is that the deal was done by the previous Tory administration and the owners of the South Wales site agreed to the terms.

But there is also a sense that this decision over British Steel is being shaped by the domestic and international political context.

Labour came to power promising to revitalise left-behind communities and inject a sense of pride back into places still reeling from the loss of traditional industry.

With that in mind, it would be politically intolerable to see the UK’s last two blast furnaces closed and thousands of jobs lost in a relatively deprived part of the country.

Reform UK’s position of pushing for full and immediate nationalisation is also relevant, given the party is in electoral pursuit of Labour in many parts of the country where decline in manufacturing has been felt most acutely.

The geo-political situation is perhaps more pressing though.

Just look at the strength of the prime minister’s language in his Downing Street address – “our economic and national security are all on the line”.

The government’s reaction to the turmoil caused by President Donald Trump’s pronouncements on tariffs and security has been to emphasise the need to increase domestic resilience in both business and defence.

Becoming the only G7 nation unable to produce virgin steel at a time when globalisation appears to be in retreat hardly fits with that narrative.

It would also present serious practical questions about the ability of the UK to produce steel for defence and the broader switch to green energy production.

Then there is the intriguing subplot around US-China trade.

While this decision is separate from discussions with the White House on tariffs, one can imagine how a UK move to wrestle control of a site of national importance from its Chinese owner might go down with a US president currently engaged in a fierce trade war with Beijing.

This is a remarkable step from the government, but it is more a punctuation mark than a full answer.

The tension between manufacturing and decarbonisation remains, as do the challenges presented by a global economy appearing to fragment significantly.

But one thing is for sure.

As a political parable about changes to traditional industry and the challenges of globalisation, the saga of British Steel is hard to beat.