Paul Burrell’s royal career ended when Princess Diana died in 1997, but the former palace butler originally worked as a footman to Queen Elizabeth before moving to Highgrove House in 1987. King Charles’s country retreat was a welcome escape for the then-Prince of Wales, but as Burrell tells Marie Claire, life in Gloucestershire became increasingly “difficult” as Charles and Diana led separate lives.

Burrell, speaking on behalf of Champions Speakers Agency, said Camilla would visit Prince Charles during the week, when Princess Diana, Prince Harry and Prince William were in London.

“Now, I was finding my job very difficult by this time because I realized that my duties were to be split between my princess and her boys at the weekend and Charles and his friend during the week,” Burrell says. “So it was difficult to keep those two worlds apart.”

When Diana came to stay at Highgrove, Burrell says he would join the family for “lovely outings to Alton Towers, to Bristol Zoo” and events like birthday parties. “William would drive his replica Aston Martin car down to our house to give my boys a ride around the estate,” he shares, describing his relationship with them as “kind of one big family.”

However, tensions between the prince and princess made working at Highgrove less “fun” for the butler. He describes one incident when Diana called “late at night” asking to speak to Prince Charles.

“I said, ‘I'm sorry, Your Royal Highness, he's not in,’” Burrell recalls. After Diana asked where her husband was, the butler said he wasn’t sure.

“She said, ‘You do know, Paul, because you know where he is 24-7. So either you're not telling me or you're lying for him,’” Burrell says, sharing that he asked her to not “drag” him into the situation.

“This was long before you knew there were troubles,” he says of Diana and Charles's marriage, sharing that the call put him in a tough spot because his “whole world” depended on his job.

After Diana called Charles the next morning, the now-King called Burrell in to speak with him. The former butler claims that Charles was livid, asking, “But why couldn't you lie? Why couldn't you say that you couldn't find me? Why couldn't you say I'd gone for a walk at 11 o'clock at night?”

After telling his boss that it wasn’t his “job to tell lies,” Charles allegedly showed off his “legendary temper” and “picked up a book and threw it” at the butler.

Following Charles and Diana’s separation in 1992, Burrell relocated to Kensington Palace to live with Diana and the boys, with Burrell sharing that the princess “rescued” him from the uncomfortable situation at Highgrove House.

“I thought, my time's up. My time is up. Diana rescued me,” he says.

As Princess Diana struggled with her position in the Royal Family, she revealed intimate details about her life to biographer Andrew Morton. This series of audio tapes shared with the author formed the basis of his bestselling 1992 book, Diana: Her True Story, which was released just six months before Diana and Charles announced their separation. At the time, Princess Diana denied collaborating with Morton, but there was one member of the Royal Family who didn’t buy it.

In his new biography of the late Queen—serialized in the Daily Mail this week—Hugo Vickers explored how Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip reacted to the breakdown of their eldest son’s marriage. When it came to the release of Morton's tell-all, Vickers wrote that “it seems almost incredible that so many people accepted Diana’s denial of any involvement in the book.”

However, he continued that Diana’s father-in-law was convinced she had authorized the biography. “One person who wasn’t fooled, though, was Prince Philip, who read the book on flights to and from Canada in July and clearly detected her hand in it,” Vickers wrote. “Feeling that too much had been revealed, he was not impressed.”

Diana and Charles then held “a sticky meeting at Windsor” with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to discuss the state of their relationship, with Vickers writing that the late Queen “maintained her neutrality.” But Prince Philip wrote Diana a series of letters between June and October 1992 in hopes that his son’s marriage could be saved.

In the letters, which Vickers has read, Philip offered counsel to the struggling princess, and she replied to one that “it was clear that he ‘really cared.’” However, Prince Philip became concerned after he saw “one or two phrases from his correspondence with Diana popping up in the press.”

“This made him worry that every time there was a private discussion between Charles and Diana, details would appear in the Daily Mail,” Vickers wrote.

Although Princess Diana denied collaborating with Morton, the biographer eventually revealed that he had, in fact, received audio tapes from the princess. “Within a month of Diana’s death, Andrew Morton exposed to the world the full extent of her cooperation with his book,” Vickers wrote, adding, “Prince Philip had been right all along.”

Prince Charles and Princess Diana separated in 1992, but according to numerous sources, their marriage was doomed from the start. In his upcoming biography of Queen Elizabeth, royal author Hugo Vickers also dives into how members of the Royal Family viewed Charles and Diana’s relationship and breakup, including the late Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret.

Margaret had gone through her own divorce in 1976, splitting from her husband, Lord Snowdon, after 16 years of marriage. In a serialized version of his book in the Daily Mail, Vickers said that Princess Margaret, who died in 2002, spoke to him about her nephew Charles’s marriage as 1993 came to a close.

“The trouble was that he undermined her [Diana] consistently from the start, and gave her no support,” reportedly Margaret told Vickers of the now-King. “Then he began to get difficult over the children, which was the cause of all the trouble last year.”

The late Queen’s sister added that she knew a thing or two about being “undermined.” She told Vickers, “It was the same with me and Tony [Lord Snowdon]. He undermined me.”

Princess Margaret also spoke to the biographer about Princess Diana joining the Royal Family for Christmas at Sandringham in 1993, despite her separation from Charles. “I don’t know why she wanted to come back [to Sandringham],” she told Vickers, per the author. “I longed to tell her to go away.”

However, it was Margaret who reportedly asked her nephew if it was okay to stay friendly with Diana after their split. According to Vickers, the princess said to Charles, “‘Do you mind if I go on being friends with her?’ and he said that was fine.”

Known for her quick wit, Princess Margaret remarked on their shared situation in December 1992 as she sat alongside Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Prince Charles at Princess Anne’s wedding.

“We’ve done well. We’re all divorced,” she reportedly quipped to the brothers.

Prince Edward is marking his 62nd birthday on March 10, and he combined royal duties with celebrations while attending the Paralympic Games in Cortina, Italy with Duchess Sophie. After once being called “Prince Brat,” the Duke of Edinburgh has become an increasingly important member of the Royal Family in recent years, especially after he took over his father, Prince Philip’s, duke title. Reflecting on Edward’s growing role, one royal expert has noted that Prince William can count on his uncle as a “steady” influence when he eventually takes the throne.

Royal journalist and author Robert Jobson told the Daily Express that with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor “permanently out of the public eye,” King Charles is lucky to have another brother he can count on.

“In Edward, The King has found a trusted, steady hand—dependable and discreet—supported by his equally grounded wife, Sophie,” Jobson said. “Together, they present a wholesome, scandal-free image that has quietly bolstered the monarchy’s relatability in modern times.”

Jobson noted that with fewer working royals to go around, King Charles “has increasingly turned to Prince Edward to shoulder the duties once shared among the younger generation of their era.”

And when Prince William becomes King, he'll need to rely on his uncle even more as the pool of full-time senior royals shrinks even more.

Edward, who shares daughter Lady Louise and son James, Earl of Wessex with the Duchess of Edinburgh, quietly carries out engagements on behalf of the Crown, such as his work with the British Paralympic Association.

“He has stepped up at a time when Charles and William need loyal, experienced support—and Edward delivers it without fuss,” Jobson said. “His decades of quiet service and his unblemished record have also positioned him as a valuable bridge between generations.”

The royal family is never short on drama or immune from gossip, but few moments of modern royal scandal can compare to the fallout from King Charles' affair with his now-wife, Queen Camilla, during his first marriage, to Princess Diana.

While the general public did learn about all of the scandalous details until the early 1990s, some members of the royal family's social circle got a sneak peek at the drama during a birthday party in 1989.

In his book Rebel King: The Making of a Monarch, royal author Tom Bower details a tense moment when Diana and Camilla (who was still married to her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, at the time) unexpectedly ran into each other at a birthday party for Lady Annabel Goldsmith.

According to excerpts from the book quoted by the Daily Mail, things quickly turned tense when "Diana arrived unexpectedly" at the party.

"Charles was with Diana, while both the Parker Bowleses were already there. As the room fell suddenly silent, Diana challenged Camilla to leave Charles alone," according to the Daily Mail's excerpt.

Camilla reportedly "controlled her fury" at Diana during the incident—but still made a point to tell the Princess of Wales that her behavior was "unacceptable in a private house."

"The princess, she said was poorly placed to complain," Bower wrote. "While Camilla confined herself to a single, conventional relationship, Diana, she had been told by friends, was 'working her way through the life guards.'"

The confrontation drew mixed reactions, apparently. While Bower wrote that "Camilla's intimates blamed the bruising encounter on Diana for creating 'such a public scene,'" he added that "others accused Camilla of b*tchiness."

As the Daily Mail notes, Diana's negative feelings about Camilla's relationship with Charles weren't without merit at this time, since by 1989, Charles and Camilla had been spending "more and more time together." In addition to vacationing together in Turkey (along with Andrew Parker Bowles), Camilla had been spotted wearing a bracelet with the initials "G" and "F," in a nod to "Gladys and Fred," the nicknames Camilla and Charles used with each other.

After she and Charles separated in 1992, Diana officially made the affair part of the public record when she mentioned it in her authorized biography, Diana: Her True Story.

Although it was no secret that Charles and Camilla began seeing each other after their respective divorces in the mid-1990s (Camilla and Andrew divorced in 1995 and Charles and Diana's divorce became official in 1996), they kept their relationship low-key at first, not making their first public appearance together until 1999 and marrying in a small civil ceremony in 2005.

Unlike modern royal brides like Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle, or Sophie Rhys-Jones, Princess Diana came into the Royal Family already holding a prestigious pedigree. As a Spencer of "special ancient stock and rarefied upbringing" and the daughter of an earl, Lady Diana wasn't quite a princess growing up, but she might as well have been. The new book Dianaworld: An Obsession by Edward White dives into the late royal's life through the lens of the public and those who knew her—and she was "exceptionally proud" of her Spencer background.

While Middleton might've been mocked for having a former flight attendant mother, Lady Diana Spencer was born into one of the oldest and most aristocratic families in Britain. White wrote that some have told "tales of Diana waving away her background," but that couldn't have been further from the truth.

The princess "was exceptionally proud of her heritage," he penned, adding that it wasn't necessarily the closeness to her family, "but everything entailed in being a Spencer." Diana appreciated "centuries of inherited specialness which supposedly was the very thing that allowed her to relate to everyone."

Marrying into the Royal Family wasn't as wild of a concept to someone like Diana as it would've been to Middleton or Markle—after all, Lady Di was well acquainted with the royals, and Queen Elizabeth even served as Diana's brother Charles's godmother. But although Princess Diana proudly wore her family's Spencer Tiara on her 1981 wedding day, the fairytale ended soon afterward.

The then-Prince and Princess of Wales struggled with their marriage from the start, and according to White, Diana "was far prouder" of her Spencer title "than of being royal."

In fact, Diana's friend Rosa Monckton told White, "Whenever things got too much for her, she would say to herself: 'Diana, remember you're a Spencer.'"

Her Spencer pride extended to the way she raised her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry. Instead of sending them to Gordonstoun, the same school as Prince Charles, or to a more down-to-earth option, she chose Eton College—the school where Spencer men were traditionally educated.

The author continued that another friend, Elsa Bowker, also confirmed "that the princess took great strength from her Spencer heritage."

"When I came here, I had my title. I don't need your title," Diana reportedly told Prince Charles during one argument about divorce.

At the end of the day, White wrote that Diana was a fascinating contradiction in many ways as she came from such a high-born background but claimed to be, "as she put it once, 'closer to people at the bottom than to people at the top.'"

However, he noted that today, "the Spencers are as close to being the people's aristocrats as it's possible to get—and Diana remains at the center of it all."

Before the bells of St. Paul's Cathedral rang out or a certain sapphire engagement ring was given, Lady Diana Spencer was slowly getting to know Prince Charles. The early stages of their royal courtship were marked by a few polite outings—they met only 13 times before getting married on July 29, 1981—and apparently, one such meeting came with an awkward suggestion.

According to Andrew Morton's biography Diana: Her True Story—In Her Own Words (via Hello!), Prince Charles took Lady Diana to his new country home, Highgrove House, in the summer of 1980.

"During that first weekend, Prince Charles showed Diana around Highgrove, the 353-acre Gloucestershire home he had bought in July—the same month he had started to woo her," Morton penned.

Apparently, the Prince of Wales, as the now-King was then-known, decided that the stylish Miss Spencer was the right woman to help him sort out the home's decor...despite the fact they barely knew each other at the time.

"As he took her on a guided tour of the eight-bedroom mansion, the Prince asked her to organize the interior decoration," Morton wrote. "He liked her taste, though she felt that it was a 'most improper' suggestion as they were not even engaged."

"Improper" or not, Prince Charles clearly admired her opinion, and the couple went on to announce their engagement on February 24, 1981. They would later pose for beautiful family photos in the gardens at Highgrove with their two children, Prince William and Prince Harry.

The snapshots feature the young family standing in a field of flowers and exploring its gardens, including some more casual pictures of Diana and the children playing on a swing set and Prince William riding a pony.

Prince Charles was also photographed inside the property in 1982, providing a rare glimpse of Highgrove's interior. One image shows him seated on a light-colored sofa with pale green floral cushions while reading a book. The room features coordinating curtains in the same floral pattern, a potted plant, and framed photographs displayed on a dark wooden table behind the prince. It's bright, homey and not too stuffy—and the view of the gardens out the window completes the perfect royal picture. All thanks to Diana, it seems.

When Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer married in 1981, the world saw what they thought was a Disney fairytale come to life. But behind palace walls, their relationship was anything but. From the start, their 12-year age gap caused tension, with Charles—an intellectual man in his thirties—struggling to connect with his 19-year-old bride. According to a former royal journalist, one aspect of Diana's personality took a huge toll on their marriage.

Jane Moore, who stars on Loose Women (think the U.K.'s answer to The View), formerly served as a royal correspondent, and she opened up about the late princess during a recent episode of "Loose Women: The Podcast."

Moore frequently came across Diana during her work and noted, "She could be quite mercurial. One minute she'd be quite chitty chitty chat chat with you, and then if there was something that happened that she didn't like, she would be very frosty."

"She was quite moody, I suppose, and I think that was what Charles found very difficult to cope with because she was a lot younger than him," Moore added. On the other hand, Charles—who is known to be particular about his daily rituals—"just likes things how he likes things."

Moore continued that Charles, used to doing life his own way, was "suddenly dealing with this young woman who has all these moods." Co-host Sunetra Sarker chimed in, proclaiming the couple was like "chalk and cheese."

Sarker also asked her colleague what she thought about how Diana would've reacted to the rift between Prince Harry and Prince William. "I think she would have been devastated," Moore said. "Had she been alive through it, I don't think it would have got to this point."

"I think she would have loved Meghan," she continued, adding Princess Diana likely would've been a fan of "her independence" and "the fact that she was American."

Sarker wondered if Diana "would have brokered a situation where they would have sat around the table" to work everything out, but Moore said she thought Diana would have privately spoken with Meghan to help her fit into royal life.

The former royal journalist noted that even though Princess Diana came from an aristocratic British family, unlike the Duchess of Sussex, becoming a member of the Royal Family was "a shock for her and she had to adjust." Moore added that Diana "would have seen that look in Meghan's eye" and "taken her under wing and said, 'Look, I felt this way too.'"

"I don't think she had anybody like that," Moore said of the duchess.

Prince Charles and Princess Diana headed on what should have been a romantic honeymoon aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia following their July 1981 wedding. But, as the world would later learn, the trip was anything but the loved-up vacation either of them had planned.

The couple embarked from Gibraltar on a whirlwind trip including destinations like Tunisia, Algeria, Sicily, the Greek islands, Egypt and Scotland. According to Penny Junor, author of The Duchess, Prince Charles, who—like his grandkids today—has always enjoyed art, took plenty of supplies with him on their honeymoon.

"He’d taken along his watercolours, some canvases and a pile of books by the Afrikaner mystic and writer Laurens van der Post, which he'd hoped he and Diana might share and then discuss in the evenings," Junor wrote in the book.

However, the plans didn’t exactly go over well with Princess Diana, who "was no great reader."

"She hated his wretched books and was offended that he might prefer to bury his head in one of them rather than sit and talk to her. She resented him sitting for hours at his easel, too, and they had many blazing rows," the author wrote.

One such argument resulted in Diana throwing such a fit that she actually trashed his artwork and everything that went along with it, Junor penned.

"One day, when Charles was painting on the veranda deck of Britannia, he went off to look at something for half an hour. He came back to find she'd destroyed his painting and all his materials," the royal biographer added.

While she was likely bored and frustrated with her husband’s choice of activities, the other problem that reared its head during their honeymoon was Prince Charles’s ex-girlfriend (and now wife), Camilla Parker Bowles.

"On our honeymoon, cufflinks arrive on his wrists," Diana later said in a Channel 4 documentary (via the Daily Mail). "Two Cs entwined like the Chanel ‘C.’ Got it. One knew exactly. So I said, 'Camilla gave you those, didn’t she?'"

"He said, 'Yes, so what’s wrong? They’re a present from a friend,'" the royal continued. "And boy, did we have a row. Jealousy, total jealousy. And it was such a good idea—the two Cs—but it wasn’t that clever."

Decades later, Diana's former butler Paul Burrell went on to tell Marie Claire that giving the princess anything with the Chanel logo on it "would have been a bad mistake."

Growing up at Kensington Palace, Prince Harry and Prince William had a chef to prepare all of their meals, but according to one former royal cook, Princess Diana and Prince Charles disagreed about how they approached family mealtimes.

Mervyn Wycherley, who served as a palace chef for 33 years, recently spoke to the Sun about working with Diana and Charles, joining Princess Diana's former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe on the publication's Royal Exclusive show. “Diana really wanted to experiment away from Mervyn’s food at the palace at that time," Wharfe shared.

The princess—who enjoyed dining out at restaurants with friends in London—was keen for Prince Harry and Prince William to experience a taste of normal life, as former BBC reporter Jennie Bond recently wrote in a column for the i Paper. "I remember William's mother, Diana, telling me that she wanted her two boys to be brought up in a way no other royal princes had been," Bond wrote. "And she did her best to give them an idea of what life beyond the palace walls is like."

Diana even took them to places like theme parks and is said to have treated her kids to McDonald's. However, Prince Charles "was very peculiar about the food that he wanted his family and the staff to eat," per the former security guard, and "believed the army marched on its stomach."

Wharfe revealed one particular instance where the then-Prince of Wales showed clear "disdain" for Prince William's dining choices. “As William got older, of course, he was very keen to go to burger bars and pizza places, but that didn't really sit that comfortably with his father," the former protection officer shared.

Wharfe recalled "coming back from the pizza place and the burger in Kensington High Street" with Prince William, who told his father, "‘Oh papa we just had these amazing burgers!'"

“And there was this sort of look of disdain with him across the prince's face," Wharfe continued, adding that Prince Charles said, "'I don't know why you eat that food when I have this marvelous army of chefs at Kensington Palace."

Chef Mervyn explained that when it came to eating out at restaurants like pizza joints, Harry and William "really didn’t often do that sort of thing, because all of their friends used to do it." Instead, the princes "stuck at home and had real nursery food, it was the old treacle tarts and things like that.”

The King is known for his love of gardening and a real farm-to-table philosophy when it comes to food, so it's not surprising he's not quite a burger and pizza guy. In fact, his stepson Tom Parker Bowles told the Telegraph that King Charles "would be a fantastic food writer" if he wasn't the monarch.

While Charles had his own more formal preferences, Princess Diana would often hang out in the kitchen "reading the Sun," Wycherley shared. "I think it was part of Diana's character, because she had this sort of very friendly approach to all members of the staff actually, and the kitchen—like in everyone's house really—is a focal meeting point for life," Wharfe added.

Queen Camilla and King Charles are currently undertaking a royal tour of Australia and Samoa.

On Sunday, October 20, Charles and Camilla visited St. Thomas's Anglican Church in Sydney, Australia, where they signed the country's first official Bible and the book of common prayer. Outside the church, Queen Camilla greeted fans and acquiesced to taking a selfie.

"While there is no royal rule regarding selfies, it is generally discouraged for members of the Royal Family to pose for selfies," the Express reported. It's possible, of course, that the rule regarding selfies has relaxed since King Charles took the throne. However, Royal Family selfies still remain fairly rare, suggesting that they're not common practice.

The monarch and his wife initially planned to undertake a three-week trip that would also include Fiji and New Zealand. However, the royals shortened the official visit due to King Charles' continuing cancer treatment.

Charles and Camilla's royal tour of Australia and Samoa has been met favorably by most members of the general public. However, the couple's trip has also faced anti-monarchy sentiment, with Australian senator Lidia Thorpe heckling the King in Parliament, per The New York Times.

The couple traveled separately to Australia, with People reporting that Queen Camilla made an extra stop during the long flight from the United Kingdom.

"Queen Camilla is said to have a fear of flying and has previously departed early for royal tours, breaking up the trips with a stop at a favorite spa," the outlet reported.

According to People, Camilla favors the Soukya holistic health center, which is close to Bangalore, India. Described as "a residential medical institute," the Soukya holistic health center is "focused on 'healing, prevention or rejuvenation' through naturopathy, homeopathy, yoga, Ayurveda and more."

On Friday, Oct. 18, King Charles and Queen Camilla kicked off their first trip to Australia since taking the throne in 2023, but four decades ago, Charles experienced a much different tour with his then-wife, Princess Diana.

In March 1983, the then-Prince and Princess of Wales embarked on their first major overseas tour. Diana, who was only 21 and had been married for less than two years, was still new to royal life. Her decision to bring 9-month-old Prince William along for the trip to Australia drew criticism since in the past, royals like Queen Elizabeth left their children behind in England for months at a time.

The pressure of being "on" 24-7 for so many weeks was a daunting prospect, and Diana didn't try to hide it. "She seemed uneasy, even glum, and looked at the tarmac with downcast eyes throughout much of the brief airport picture session," The Age reported when the couple first touched down in Australia.

"Whatever the reason, Princess Diana had to work mightily to produce for the photographers the smile of a proud and happy young mother," the media outlet continued.

The trip—as royal biographer Andrew Morton wrote in the New York Post—was a "terrifying baptism of fire" for the new princess. However, she began to find her feet and quickly charmed the Australian people, which was precisely the reason the prince and princess were asked to travel there in the first place.

Republican sentiment, which is a familiar topic as Charles and Camilla take on their 2024 tour, was growing, and the Royal Family was counting on the glamorous and popular couple to win over Australians and help keep the country as part of the constitutional monarchy.

As anyone who watched The Crown knows, Charles—who was nearly 13 years older than his wife—grew increasingly frustrated as the trip progressed. Princess Diana's popularity soared, with crowds chanting her name and reaching out to touch her. The prince found himself relegated to the sidelines.

Their diverging approaches to royal duties became apparent. While Charles gave formal speeches, Diana connected with people through casual conversation and shy smiles.

"The people of this most sophisticated of Australian cities went wild for the delicate 21-year-old English rose and mobbed her from one side of town to the other," the Newcastle Evening Chronicle reported of Diana's popularity in Sydney (via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

Diana fever took over, and Prince Charles didn't take it well. "Victor Chapman, the press secretary on the tour, got used to late-night phone calls from Charles complaining about the scant coverage of himself in the press compared to the hagiographic acres accorded of his wife," Tina Brown wrote in The Diana Chronicles.

But while the Aussies loved her, Morton wrote that the tour was "utterly traumatic" for the princess. "He took it out me," Diana told the royal biographer of her husband. "He was jealous; I understood the jealousy but I couldn't explain that I didn't ask for it."

Morton, who was a trusted confidant of the princess, wrote that she "cried her eyes out, unable to handle the constant attention" from the Australian public.

Despite the stress, the tour was considered a resounding success, with Brown writing in The Diana Chronicles, "By the end of Charles and Diana's tour a poll in Australia found that monarchists outnumbered republicans two to one, and that was the point, wasn't it?"

Whether Charles and Camilla's 2024 trip has the same result seems unlikely. Even though this is the first time a British king has toured Australia (Queen Elizabeth II was the first British monarch to visit), the premiers of all six Australian states have turned down invitations to attend a reception for the royals amongst growing republican sentiment.

King Charles has a lot of responsibilities as the British monarch, some of which may be unexpected. One of the most surprising problems the King is reportedly dealing with relates to the so-called "ideal" town of Poundbury.

Charles was actually responsible for the creation of Poundbury in Dorset, which was based upon "the principles of architecture and urban planning" detailed in the King's book, A Vision of Britain. The town was built on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which was originally owned and operated by Charles and passed over to Prince William after the Queen's death.

Unfortunately, residents of the town have become dissatisfied with problems that have recently arisen in Poundbury.

"There are rats everywhere and the smell is awful," one resident told The Telegraph. "No-one seems to be bothered."

For some reason, one area of the town has caused extra concern as people's trash cans apparently aren't being collected on a regular basis, leading to overflowing rubbish.

According to the Daily Mail, there may be some confusion as to who is meant to empty trash cans at a particular property, adding to the chaos.

One resident said of the trash issue, "I wish they weren't in a bad state—I don't even know how often they get collected."

Another resident suggested that people were upset with the overall state of Poundbury, saying, "It reflects badly on us, and it's not nice to be living around this. It is an eyesore as no-one wants to come here and see rubbish."

An older resident of Poundbury told The Telegraph, "The King would be horrified ... it's like this every week."

One local told the publication, "There are rats about—it's a disgrace."

A spokesperson of the Duchy of Cornwall responded to the complaints, saying in a statement, "The Duchy of Cornwall worked closely with Dorset Council to ensure appropriate measures for refuse management are available to residents through the design of Poundbury." They continued, "We continue to encourage the local authority, residents and housing providers to work together so collection issues can be resolved efficiently."

Hopefully, Poundbury's problems can be rectified quickly so that King Charles' "ideal" town can be restored to its intended glory.

King Charles will celebrate his 75th birthday on November 14, and according to a new report, the monarch wants to call time on the alleged Royal Family feud before then.

"King Charles wants nothing more than peace to be restored in his family," a source reportedly told the Express. "He wants to draw a line under their past feuds and for Prince William and Prince Harry to get along—and what better timing than his birthday to bring them together."

In recent months, multiple reports have suggested that numerous Royal Family members have hoped to end the rumored royal feud. Sources have claimed that Princess Beatrice, Zara Tindall, Kate Middleton, and Meghan Markle have all been working to end any ongoing rift between William and Harry. Now, it would appear as though King Charles is striving to repair fractured family relations, too.

"King Charles has been through an awful lot since becoming King, and has been gallant in carrying out his duties while facing his own health woes," a source told the Express. "Now he wants to make memories with his wife, sons and grandchildren. This is what he will treasure the most—especially as his milestone birthday approaches."

King Charles shared news of his cancer diagnosis in February. The monarch is reportedly planning to take a break from cancer treatment in October when he travels to Australia and Samoa for 11 days with wife Queen Camilla.

As for how Charles plans to spend his 75th birthday, the King is reportedly hoping for a quiet affair.

"His Majesty is not given to fuss over such things as it is, but he is [also] acutely conscious there have been many set-piece royal events of late, and his firm thinking is that events to mark his birthday will be minimal," a source explained to the Daily Mail.

According to The Sun, Camilla will host an intimate dinner party for Charles' birthday at Highgrove. However, don't expect the King to stop working, even on his big day.

"He never, ever stops working," Camilla said of her husband in a 2013 interview with The Telegraph. "He’s exhausting. No matter what the day, he is always working. I am hopping up and down and saying, 'Darling, do you think we could have a bit of, you know, peace and quiet, enjoy ourselves together?' But he always has to finish something."

Camilla continued, "He is so in the zone … you are outside … but he is always there in the zone, working, working, working … he’ll stick with his papers, I know he will, while I am trying to sing 'Happy Birthday.' I might just even have to hold up a sign saying, 'Happy birthday, darling.'"

King Charles has been resisting his wife's rules amid news he's planning to take a break from cancer treatment in October. According to a new report, despite the monarch's reservations, he has apparently relented, with "some reluctance," and agreed to follow Queen Camilla's advice.

A source, who spoke to the The Mail on Sunday, alleged that the King had been forced to start eating lunch everyday. The 75-year-old royal has reportedly always forgone lunch, claiming to be too busy to stop and eat. However, "on the orders of his wife, aides and doctors, he has grudgingly started eating in the middle of the day to keep his strength up," the outlet reported.

"With some reluctance, he now has something to eat at lunchtime—a snack, really," a source told The Mail on Sunday. "He now eats half an avocado to sustain him through the day. It's important, particularly if you have got an illness."

Buckingham Palace confirmed that King Charles had been diagnosed with cancer in February 2024. It was later reported that Queen Camilla didn't want Charles to share his cancer diagnosis with the general public, but she was "overruled."

Queen Camilla's son, Tom Parker Bowles, recently shared an update on his stepfather's health. While promoting his new book, Cooking and the Crown: Royal Recipes from Queen Victoria to King Charles III, Parker Bowles explained (via the Express) that Charles' "doctor says the treatment is going well."

Parker Bowles also revealed that his mom, Queen Camilla, was remaining as strong as possible while her husband underwent cancer treatment. "She's tough, my mother," he said.

While Charles has allegedly only agreed to eat half an avocado each lunchtime, the King is a huge fan of food. Writing for the Daily Mail, Parker Bowles said of his stepdad, "There is no man who knows more about food and farming, from the best of British cheeses, through rare breeds of sheep and cow, to heritage varieties of plum, apple and pear, than the King."

Parker Bowles also revealed that King Charles ensures he eats as much fresh food each day as possible. "Just like the sovereigns before him, his kitchens are filled with the seasonal bounty of the royal estates and gardens, from game, beef and lamb, to peas, strawberries, raspberries and chard," Parker Bowles wrote. "That, along with state banquets, and the importance of tea as a mid-afternoon meal, is a tradition that has endured through the ages."

Princess Diana reportedly had some thoughts about Queen Camilla, formerly known as Camilla Parker Bowles, and her relationship with the then-Prince Charles.

It's now widely understood that King Charles and Queen Camilla were allegedly engaged in a sprawling affair while they were both married to other people. And according to former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond, Diana actually had some praise for her husband's rumored longtime mistress.

During an appearance on The Sun’s "Royal Exclusive Live!" show, Bond opened up about her private visits to Princess Diana at Kensington Palace.

"She was complicated and confusing but I liked her a lot," Bond said of Diana. "She invited me to the Palace a couple of times for talks."

Bond continued, "We had long, long, long chats and she told me everything, practically, almost everything in Panorama."

Diana, of course, gave an interview to BBC journalist Martin Bashir for the well regarded news show Panorama in 1995. An inquiry has since called the way the interview was obtained "deceitful." However, Diana made several revelations during the candid interview, which included discussing her feelings on her failed marriage to King Charles.

According to Bond, "[Diana] said, 'There were three of us in this marriage,' and [discussed] whether she had affairs and her view on Camilla. She told me she thought that Camilla was loyal and discreet and deserved some form of recognition."

The Sun's royal photographer Arthur Edwards responded to Bond, saying, "I’ve never heard that before Jennie. That's really terrific."

As for why Bond had never revealed the surprising comments previously, she explained, "Diana said as I was leaving, every time, 'Jennie this is just between you and me.' So what can you do?"

It was previously reported that Diana antagonized Camilla by wearing clothing designed by Dale "Kanga" Tyron, who was allegedly also having an affair with King Charles.

Meanwhile, Diana's protection officer, Ken Wharfe, discussed the former Princess of Wales' ire when her husband allegedly disappeared with Camilla at a party. Speaking to ITV's Lorraine (via the Mirror), Wharfe claimed, "I went out and there was Diana, who said, 'You've got to come with me, I can't find my husband or Camilla.'"

He continued, "Now, I couldn't say no, clearly this woman was in some distress, and eventually we found the Prince and Camilla sat on a sofa in the basement of this property just talking."

Earlier this year, Buckingham Palace revealed King Charles had been diagnosed with cancer. In a statement, the palace noted (via the BBC), "He remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible."

The statement also explained why the king wanted to share his personal health journey with the general public. "His Majesty has chosen to share his diagnosis to prevent speculation and in the hope it may assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer," the statement said. However, not everyone was on board with King Charles' decision to reveal he had cancer, according to a new report in The Independent.

Royal biographer Robert Jobson opened up about the king's decision to be candid, telling the publication, "Queen Camilla had initially been against disclosing his condition, but the King overruled her as he felt it was a chance to take a lead and in doing so to encourage men experiencing similar symptoms to seek timely medical attention." Jobson also revealed that the king's candor appeared to have a positive affect, saying, "There was a significant increase in searches related to enlarged prostate... following the monarch’s revelation."

Despite Camilla's apparent resistance, Charles allegedly wanted to avoid any "fake news" circulating regarding his health. Jobson noted, "He was lauded for doing so, with commentators saying he had ushered in a new era of transparency in matters of health and the royal family."

Just last month, a report by the Daily Mail’s royal editor Rebecca English revealed that Camilla's friends "had never seen her so worried," following news of Charles' diagnosis. English explained Camilla's fear, saying, "Not because the King’s prognosis was particularly bad, it should be stressed, but because on a human level, cancer is such a genuinely terrifying prospect for both patients and their partners."

Back in May, during a royal excursion, Charles shared he'd lost his sense of taste while undergoing chemotherapy. His continued openness about his health has certainly helped the monarch connect with more people. Meanwhile, Prince William's wife, Princess Kate, was also diagnosed with cancer in 2024, meaning the royal family has faced a truly challenging year.

Princess Kate shared her cancer diagnosis with the world in March 2024. Revealing she'd been undergoing preventative chemotherapy, Kate said in a video shared on X, "It has been an incredibly tough couple of months for our entire family." She continued, "It was thought [in January] that my condition was non-cancerous... However, tests after the operation found cancer had been present."

While promoting his new book, Catherine, the Princess of Wales: A Biography of the Future Queen, author Robert Jobson spoke to Us Weekly about Prince William's reaction to his wife's diagnosis. "It was devastating for him," Jobson explained. The royal expert also described William as being "completely crestfallen," particularly as his father King Charles III had recently been diagnosed with cancer, too.

Elaborating on William's potential reaction to discovering Princess Kate had cancer, Jobson suggested the prince had "a lump in [his] throat" and an "empty feeling in his stomach." "It wobbled him," Jobson explained. "There’s no doubt about that."

Jobson suggested that Princess Kate and King Charles encouraged Prince William to lead the royal family during the troubling time. According to Jobson, Kate and Charles told William, "We need you now to stand up to the plate."

As Princess Kate and King Charles both reduced their official duties, William's workload reportedly multiplied. But according to Jobson, Kate remained supportive of her husband as he became the public face of the royal family. "[Kate] has been good in making sure that that happens," Jobson told the publication. "She’s shown him that she’s there for him as well as him there for her."

In an interview with Hello! magazine, Jobson also discussed Kate's approach to raising her kids, especially in light of her recent diagnosis. "With her children, she made it very clear to both the late Queen and to the Prince of Wales, as he was—now the King—that she's not going to be rushed into doing things that she doesn't necessarily want to do," he explained. Suggesting Kate was exceedingly brave for taking a stand about the issue, Jobson continued, "That takes quite a lot of courage, because you're in a very alien world... But I think she realizes that she only has one shot at this. She's got three young children, and they have to come first."

Lady Diana Spencer broke the royal mold when she eliminated the word “obey” from her vows when she, just barely 20 years old, married Prince Charles on July 29, 1981—nearly 43 years ago. But the reason she opted to remove the key word is heartbreaking—The Mirror reports she made the change to her wedding vows to Charles amid her growing fears about his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Royal brides before her like Queen Elizabeth, Princess Margaret, and Princess Anne had all promised to “obey” their husbands in their wedding vows, as prescribed in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer dating back to 1662, The Mirror reports. But Diana nixed that for herself, and instead said during the widely-watched ceremony at St. Paul’s Cathedral that she would “love him, comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health”—no obeying in sight. 

At the time, The New York Times reported that Charles and Diana held “very serious” discussions about the inclusion (and, ultimately, exclusion) of the word with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Robert Runcie.

Dr. Edward Carpenter, the Dean of Westminster Abbey, said in an interview that he was “absolutely delighted” by Charles and Diana’s ultimate decision, saying “Marriage is the kind of relationship where there should be two equal partners, and if there is going to be a dominant partner, it won’t be settled by this oath,” he said. “I think this is much more Christian.”

The Mirror reports “The decision was controversial at the time, and other royal brides who followed did vow obedience when they married into the royal family,” like Sarah Ferguson when she married Prince Andrew in 1986 and Sophie Rhys-Jones when she married Prince Edward in 1999. But, in perhaps a show of solidarity for their late mother-in-law, both Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle eschewed the use of “obey” when they married William and Harry in 2011 and 2018, respectively. 

When speaking to Andrew Morton for his book Diana: Her True Story—which came out in 1992—Diana “recalled her growing suspicion that Charles and Camilla were still having an emotional affair, having reportedly discovered a personalized bracelet that Charles had bought for Camilla shortly before the wedding,” The Mirror writes. (When Diana: Her True Story came out, it was assumed to be a biography; after her death five years later, Morton confirmed that Diana was a primary source for the book, making it more of an autobiography.)

Diana wanted to call off the wedding entirely, but her sisters, Lady Sarah and Lady Jane, talked her out of it. Diana also claimed that, on their honeymoon, Charles wore cufflinks given to him by Camilla, who ultimately resumed her affair with Charles.

Charles and Diana separated in 1992, finalized their divorce in 1996, and, one year and three days later, Diana died in a car accident in Paris at just 36 years old. Not quite eight years later, Charles and Camilla married on April 9, 2005, and celebrated 19 years of marriage earlier this year.

The Prince of Wales’ full name is Prince William Arthur Philip Louis—but it was almost something else entirely, had his father, then Prince Charles, gotten his way.

Instead, William’s mother Princess Diana won out, and William was the name chosen for the former Prince and Princess of Wales’ eldest son. Charles, The Mirror reports, wanted Albert or Arthur for his firstborn—but Diana nixed it. In an interview for Andrew Morton’s book Diana: Her True Story—released in 1992 as a biography, but revealed after her death in 1997 that it was really more of an autobiography, as Diana was a contributor to the tell-all—Diana revealed that she actually chose not just William’s name but Prince Harry’s, too (his full name is Prince Henry Charles Albert David—but more on him in a moment).

When asked who picked out the boys’ names, Diana said “I did,” and added “I chose William and Harry, but Charles did the rest [meaning the middle names]. He wanted Albert and Arthur [for the first names], and I said no. Too old!”

Sorry, just trying to imagine William and Harry as Albert and Arthur. Anyway…

Back to Harry: in 2022, while speaking with winners of the WellChild Awards, Harry was talking with a child named Henry when he said “My name is Henry, as well,” he said. “But everyone calls me Harry. I have no idea why.”

The Mirror reports that “Harry is the diminutive form of Henry, a popular nickname that dates back to medieval England,” the outlet reports. “Most monarchs given the name Henry in the past have been nicknamed Harry, including the infamous Henry VIII.”

The more you know!

For the record, Albert and Arthur did end up in the boys’ (well, men now) names after all—if you’ll notice, one of William’s three middle names is Arthur, and one of Harry’s three middle names is Albert. A compromise, if you will, between Charles and Diana—but Diana, you picked well. 

Whatever advice you think the late Queen Elizabeth gave her soon-to-be daughter-in-law Camilla Parker-Bowles on her wedding day to Prince Charles on April 9, 2005—we guarantee that’s not the advice Her late Majesty actually gave.

Apparently, according to The Daily Mail and a lip reader combing through footage from that day 18 years ago, the late Queen’s advice—as well as the topic du jour of the day—centered around Camilla’s decision to wear an elaborate feathered headpiece, which nearly blew away in a gust of wind at the ceremony. 

A lip reader unearthing footage from the day said that Queen Elizabeth warned Camilla to not wear it, but Camilla didn’t pay heed, and Camilla “famously battled the wind to keep her headpiece in place as she and Prince Charles emerged from their civil marriage ceremony at Windsor Guildhall,” The Daily Mail writes.

Of the moment when Camilla’s feathers almost flew away, Queen Elizabeth told her eldest son Charles, simply, “I did warn her, wearing feathers.”

Thankfully, Camilla was able to keep the headpiece in place as she and her brand-new husband chatted briefly to members of the public outside of the Guildhall, before they went off to have their marriage blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle (where Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and, a few months later, Jack Brooksbank and Princess Eugenie, would later marry in 2018).

As Charles and Camilla emerged from the Guildhall as husband and wife, they were smiling, talking to one another, and waving at the cheering crowd; but then, much like the new Duchess of Westminster (formerly Olivia Henson) at her high-society wedding this past Friday, June 7, “they were battered by big gusts of wind,” The Daily Mail reports. 

“Hold on tight,” the lip reader claimed Charles said, before, four seconds later, the future King declared “All well done.” Then, in a remark about the crowd, he apparently said “Everyone is coming; they are very curious,” to which Camilla responds “Are they?” Charles then tells his bride “You made it down/now,” before speaking about the wind, saying “I’m not sure we should’ve.” (What would we do for entertainment if not for lip readers dissecting in detail 18 year old wedding videos?) “They’re carrying on regardless,” Camilla then exclaimed, to which Charles tried to reassure her, telling her “We can have a long chat.” Camilla, in response, simply said “Yes.”

But then, the feather debacle again—at this point, “the Queen [Elizabeth] is seen on footage joining the newlyweds, and is greeted by Charles as she stands behind to Camilla’s left and speaks to her,” The Daily Mail writes. As a flustered Camilla tried to hold down her headpiece, she told Queen Elizabeth “Oh, my hair. I think the feathers are flying!” Queen Elizabeth, bemused by this point, makes a quick response before moving to stand directly behind Charles, who said “Oops.” Camilla, still on this subject somehow, then said “I wish I hadn’t had feathers,” to which Charles joked “They look awful.” (Not quite as harsh as “Whatever in love means,” but not what one wants to hear out of her groom’s mouth, nonetheless.) 

Seemingly the vast majority of the conversation outside is about these damn feathers; Charles joked again, telling Camilla “You’re only going to poke my eye,” to which Camilla, defeated, replied “If only they’d blow away. It really wasn’t a very good idea.” (Pro tip: always listen to Queen Elizabeth.)

As Charles and Camilla go to greet the crowd assembled, Queen Elizabeth then turns to talk to her husband, Prince Philip, telling him “We’re leaving immediately. It’s so windy.”

Camilla, in addition to this disastrous headpiece, wore a pale blue chiffon gown with a golden embroidered long-sleeved coat over the top of it; and, though the lip reader certainly sensed her frustration at the headwear choice, all that mattered in the end was that, after such a rollercoaster to get there, Charles and Camilla were married. As they greeted well-wishers and began to make their way towards leaving the Guildhall, Charles said both that “It was wonderful” and, sweetly, “I must say, it was something special.”

Eighteen years later, we hope it still is.

When Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer married on July 29, 1981, there were 3,500 people at St. Paul’s Cathedral to watch them exchange vows, and an additional 750 million people watching from home. “Decades later, we now know the fairytale ceremony didn’t continue into a fairytale marriage,” The Mirror writes. “But that does not mean the day itself wasn’t something to behold.”

The outlet added that “excitement reached fever pitch” when Diana, who had just turned 20 years old earlier that month, emerged from her carriage at St. Paul’s in her ivory silk taffeta gown, “and there were cheers all around when the couple said ‘I do.’” Now, nearly 43 years later, lip readers have decoded what the late Queen Elizabeth said to her new daughter-in-law, Princess Diana, on the famed Buckingham Palace balcony as throngs of people waited to see them below. As they waved at the crowds assembled, Her late Majesty, according to the lip reader, advised Diana to look at the people who had been there “all day to see her.”

Charles also apparently told his bride “you look perfect” when he first saw her during the ceremony, and then asked her to give him her hand. He then, interestingly, said “kissy.”

The couple’s interaction on their wedding day is fascinating to pay attention to, considering what had happened the day before. The Mirror reports that, on the eve of their big day, to ease the rather shy Diana’s tensions, Charles sent his bride-to-be a secret note that offered sweet advice: “The night before the wedding, which Diana spent at Clarence House with her sister, Jane, he [Charles] sent her a note, along with a signet ring bearing the Prince of Wales feathers,” royal author Penny Junor wrote in her book The Duchess: The Untold Story. Charles wrote “I’m so proud of you, and when you come up I’ll be there at the altar for you tomorrow. Just look ‘em in the eye and knock ‘em dead.”

But, as sweet as that was, that note was in opposition to the admission Charles made to Diana, also the night before the wedding, because he “did not want to go into the marriage on a false premise,” according to Diana’s astrologer Penny Thornton, who worked closely with the then Princess of Wales. Thornton said that Charles told his soon-to-be wife that he didn’t love her, which naturally left Diana devastated.

“One of the most shocking things that Diana told me was that the night before the wedding, Charles told her that he didn’t love her,” Thornton said on the ITV documentary The Diana Interview: Revenge of a Princess. “I think Charles didn’t want to go into the wedding on a false premise. He wanted to square it with her, and it was devastating for Diana.”

Charles’ heart was likely otherwise occupied by one Camilla Parker-Bowles, now known as Queen Camilla, whom he had met and fallen head over heels for in the early 1970s. Charles and Camilla carried on an extramarital affair for a large chunk of Charles and Diana's marriage; Charles and Diana ultimately separated in 1992, 11 years after marrying that day in 1981. Their divorce was finalized in 1996, almost one year to the day before Diana died in a car accident in Paris at just 36 years old.

Just before Princess Diana died in the summer of 1997, royal author Ingrid Seward said that the then-Princess of Wales divulged to her why her 15-year marriage to then-Prince Charles collapsed—and it wasn’t because of his affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Speaking to The Sun, Seward recalled a conversation she had with Diana not long before her untimely death, which came just 368 days after her divorce from Charles was finalized on August 28, 1996. (The two married on July 29, 1981, separated in 1992, and ultimately finalized their split four years later; Diana died on August 31, 1997 as a result of a car accident in Paris.) In that conversation, Seward revealed that Diana told her that Camilla wasn’t the reason for their relationship’s demise. 

“She had this specter of Camilla in her head the whole time,” said Seward, who, in addition to writing numerous books about the royal family, is editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine. “She was obsessed. Yet, when I last spoke to her, I brought Camilla up, and she said, ‘Oh, it wasn’t Camilla that ruined our marriage.’”

What, pray tell, was the cause? “She said, ‘It was the people around my husband,’” Seward continued. “I thought to myself, ‘It wasn’t Camilla? You’ve been complaining and complaining about her all these years.’”

Seward added “But she changed tack and said it was the environment in which keeping a royal marriage together, you’ve got to be very strong, and probably far more mature than she was.”

Camilla has stepped up and stepped in for her husband, now King Charles, for most of 2024 as he battles a form of cancer still undisclosed to the public. “People really respect her,” Seward said of the Queen. “She was 50 when she got into this family, and now she’s 76. Unless you’re born into it, it’s quite hard. The Windsors have massive energy. Charles as a young man used to run everywhere, Prince Philip would run everywhere. Camilla doesn’t have that kind of energy, and it really takes it out of her and I think a lot of people have a lot of respect for her.”

In a new interview discussing her book My Mother and I—about the relationship between the late Queen Elizabeth and her eldest child, King Charles—author Ingrid Seward said Her late Majesty knew Charles’ marriage to Princess Diana was headed towards its demise before they actually split. (Charles and Diana were married in 1981, separated in 1992, and ultimately divorced in 1996; Diana died 368 days after her divorce was finalized in a car accident in Paris on August 31, 1997.)

According to Seward—who is editor-in-chief of Majesty Magazine—Diana used to complain to Her late Majesty about Charles and, according to Seward, “Diana used to go to her private room in between appointments that the Queen had, which were every 20 minutes, and burst into tears,” she said, per OK. “[She would say] ‘Everybody hates me, mama, and I hate my husband. He’s a nightmare.’” 

Seward added that “The Queen would just stand there [horrified], and Diana would be getting more and more hysterical,” she said. “[The Queen] didn’t know how to handle it, but she thought Charles should know how to handle it. That was a very low point in the relationship.” Seward continued that the late Queen “couldn’t understand how” Charles, who was 12 years older than his wife, “couldn’t handle” the situation.

“And [the Queen] didn’t understand, because she didn’t have the experience to understand something like that,” Seward said. “Remember the cloistered world of the royal family, especially in those days. They didn’t have to ever deal with moral conflict because there was always someone else to do it for them. If you didn’t want to talk to someone, the switchboard at Buckingham Palace would just not put them through. So, you never had to take on things. And the Queen wasn’t used to doing this.”

Seward said that, from an outsider’s perspective, it was easy to understand why Charles and Diana’s marriage failed: “Charles wasn’t a very mature man,” she said. “She [Diana] was incredibly immature. They were completely unsuited. Diana said many, many, many years later to me, ‘If only we’d met at a different time in our lives.’ Diana was 19 when she met Charles, and she was a very naive 19. She had a fixed idea in her mind of what she thought Charles was, and he wasn’t at all.”

King Charles and his daughter-in-law the Princess of Wales are said to enjoy a warm relationship; Marie Claire reported recently that Kate is even closer to the King than Prince William is. (William, of course, is Charles’ eldest son and Kate’s husband. But you knew that.)

Charles and Kate have another commonality as of this month (and one neither probably wanted): they are both currently patients at The London Clinic, where Kate underwent abdominal surgery on January 16, and Charles underwent a corrective procedure for an enlarged prostate on January 26. Both are said to be doing well and recovering.

William and Kate have been a couple for over two decades and, as such, Kate has been a part of the royal fold for a long time. After the couple got engaged in 2010, they sat down for a revealing post-engagement interview with Tom Bradby, and one of the topics covered was Kate’s reaction after meeting the then Prince of Wales during her courtship with William.

Kate admitted she was (naturally) anxious about meeting Charles—“I was quite nervous about meeting William’s father,” she said, per The Mirror—but added “he was very, very welcoming, very friendly. It couldn’t have gone easier, really, for me.”

Of meeting William’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, Bradby asked “Meeting the grandmother, the Queen, again not your average meeting with a grandmother,” he said. “Were you nervous about that, too?”

Kate responded, “I first met her at Peter [Phillips, William’s cousin and Princess Anne’s son] and Autumn’s [Kelly] wedding and, again, it was amongst a lot of other guests, and she was very friendly.” William added “She was very welcoming. She knew it was a big day and everything was going on with Peter and Autumn. She wanted to meet Kate for a while, so it was very nice for her to come over and say hello.” (That wedding took place in 2008; William and Kate met in 2001 and began dating around 2002 or 2003.)

William also opened up about meeting Kate’s family, the Middletons, comprised of Kate’s parents, Michael and Carole, and her younger siblings, Pippa and James. The Middletons embraced William as a part of their close-knit family early on: “Mike and Carole have been really sort of loving and caring and really fun,” William said. “They have been really welcoming towards me, so I’ve felt really a part of the family.”

William and Kate’s wedding was five months after they announced their engagement on November 16, 2010. The two married on April 29, 2011, and will soon celebrate 13 years of marriage.

Princess Diana made a Sandringham Christmas gaffe the first time she was included in the festive royal celebrations.

As Marie Claire previously reported, the then-Princess of Wales gifted Princess Anne a cashmere sweater because she hadn't been informed about the gag gift tradition the royals typically engage in—with the Princess Royal giving her a toilet roll holder in exchange. Yikes.

Commenting on the incident previously, royal expert Angela Mollard blamed Diana and then-Prince Charles' lack of communication for the mishap.

"When Diana first went she didn't know that there was this joke present tradition. So she had got Princess Anne this gorgeous cashmere jumper," Mollard said on the Royals podcast (via Express).

"It was all very sensible and expensive. And she handed it over and she hadn't been made aware that it was just novelty presents."

She added, "Poor thing! They don't communicate very well."

Royal writer Zoe Borrell chimed in, "Charles should have told her that before they went!"

Mollard answered, "I don't think they were talking much! They got married in August and I don't think they were talking by December.

"So he didn't give her that information and she was very annoyed about it."

Thankfully, Diana came prepared the year after that, gifting her sister-in-law Sarah, the Duchess of York, a leopard-print bath mat. The two women were fast friends throughout their time in the Royal Family, so it was especially appropriate for them to joke with each other.

By contrast, Prince Harry made sure to tell his then-fiancée Meghan Markle about the gag gift thing before she attended the Sandringham festivities for the first time. Therefore, the Duchess of Sussex famously gifted the late Queen a singing toy hamster. The lucky recipient apparently quipped, "It can keep my dogs company."

On Thursday, part two of season six of Netflix’s The Crown will premiere; we know it will run up until 2005 and will feature the wedding of then-Prince Charles to then-Camilla Parker Bowles, which took place that April.

After initially meeting and falling for one another in the 1970s, both married other people—he, Princess Diana; she, Andrew Parker-Bowles—but at some point in the 1980s resumed their love affair, which lasted into the 1990s and both Charles and Camilla’s respective divorces. Eight years after Diana’s death in a Parisian car crash in 1997 (which was covered in part one of season six), Charles and Camilla finally married on April 9, 2005, in a civil ceremony held in the Windsor Guildhall, followed by a marital blessing in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. Because both Charles and Camilla had been divorced, the couple opted for a civil ceremony rather than a church service, The Independent reports; in doing so, Charles became the first British royal to marry in a civil ceremony. Though she greatly supported Camilla at the end of her life—even encouraging the public to refer to her as “Queen Consort” on what would become her final Accession Day on February 6, 2022—originally Queen Elizabeth was not a supporter of hers and did not attend Charles and Camilla’s wedding. Her late Majesty’s husband, Prince Philip, was also not in attendance; Charles’ sons Prince William and Prince Harry did attend, however, as a show of support for their father.

After it was announced in February 2005 that Charles and Camilla were to be married in two months’ time, Buckingham Palace released a statement that the late Queen would not be in attendance because of her role as head of the Church of England, which discourages divorce. (Enter into the conversation Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.) “Because the Queen didn’t want to be seen as going against her royal duties, she instead attended the religious service at St. George’s Chapel after the civil ceremony,” The Independent reports.

“The Queen decided not to attend the civil ceremony at Windsor’s Guildhall because the couple wanted to keep the ceremony low-key and her presence would not allow that to happen,” a Palace spokesman told CNN back in 2005. Though she didn’t attend the civil ceremony, her attendance at the religious service was a show of love for her eldest son, and she also hosted a reception for the newlyweds at Windsor Castle later that same day.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, issued a statement at the time clarifying that the arrangements were “consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage,” which Charles had fully accepted “as a committed Anglican” to the church.

At the time, The Telegraph reported that the Queen disapproved of the wedding venue, Windsor Guildhall, because she didn’t want to attend a humiliating “town hall” service. But it wasn’t the location that was the issue, a senior royal aide said: “The venue was never the issue for the Queen,” they said. “The civil nature of the service was the issue. She did not feel it was appropriate for her to attend.”

In September, Netflix teased that the final installment of season six—which doubles as the final installment of the series, period—would show the wedding at St. George’s Chapel, writing on X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) “After six seasons, seven years, and three casts, The Crown comes to an end later this year. Here’s a hint at what’s to come in our final season,” read a message written alongside a photo of the program for the royal wedding of Charles and Camilla. 

It may be hard to believe now—she is, after all, Queen, standing right alongside her husband, King Charles, and widely accepted by the British people—but there was once a time when Camilla Parker-Bowles was one of the most vilified women not just in the U.K., but globally. Though she and Charles fell in love long before Charles and Diana Spencer were married in 1981, the then Camilla Shand was considered an unsuitable bride for the then Prince Charles; she married Andrew Parker-Bowles in 1973. Charles is said to have been devastated, but they remained close friends, and Camilla was even present at Charles and Diana’s wedding eight years after her own. At some point (it’s a fool’s errand to speculate when), Charles and Camilla’s romantic relationship resumed, and Camilla was “the other woman”—the third party—in Charles and Diana’s fractured marriage. Both Charles and Camilla were divorced from their respective spouses by 1996 (both Charles and Camilla having two children each), and, finally, after over 30 years of being in love, the two married in 2005. From there, rehabilitating her image was a priority, and today Camilla enjoys a reputation as a hard-working senior royal who truly loves her husband.

But there were difficult years, where not only the public was reticent to accept her, but Charles’ own family as well. OK reports that the late Queen Elizabeth had a years long rift with Charles over his affair with Camilla, according to royal expert and royal author Andrew Morton, and, though at the end of her life she and Charles had become quite close, the pair’s relationship was “fractured for a bit due to Charles’ scandalous love triangle with Princess Diana and Queen Camilla,” the outlet reports. (Just imagine, in, say, 1989, having the intel that Camilla would one day be Queen. Most wouldn’t believe it.)

The affair didn’t sit well with Her late Majesty. “The Queen and her advisers, her courtiers, her private secretary—they all believed that Prince Charles should give up Camilla,” Morton said. “He could love her, but he needed to leave her. And that’s because they felt she was damaging to the monarchy, which she was. There’s no question about that.”

Look—no matter how you feel about Charles and Camilla, no one can deny that their relationship is a love story. It has been reported that having Camilla in his life was a non-negotiable for Charles, and that he even told his mother so. “The presence of Camilla in Charles’ life did cause a rift between the Queen and her eldest son, one which took several years to patch up,” Morton said. “And what’s the Queen’s job? It is to preserve the monarchy. She sees this woman who is damaging the monarchy remaining in place. So it took a long time for that to be resolved.”

The late Queen and her son did end up mending fences, but it took some outside help to do so, Morton said. “It wasn’t until the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, intervened and said, ‘Look, I’ve spoken to Camilla on numerous occasions. She’s dedicated and loving. And her feelings for Charles are not going away,’” Morton said.

Upon their 2005 marriage, it was understood at the time that Camilla would only ever be called Princess Consort when Charles ascended to the throne. In February 2022, on her own Accession Day, Queen Elizabeth released a statement that read “When, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife Camilla the same support that you have given me; and it is my sincere wish that, when that time comes, Camilla will be known as Queen Consort as she continues her own loyal service.”

After Queen Elizabeth’s death in September 2022, Camilla was initially referred to as Queen Consort, because “it made sense to refer to Her Majesty [Camilla] as the Queen Consort in the early months of His Majesty’s reign, to distinguish from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,” a source explained to CNN at the time. “The Coronation is an appropriate time to start using ‘Queen Camilla’ in an official capacity. All former Queen Consorts have been known as ‘Queen’ plus their first name.”

As the Coronation invitations were released, they said “Queen Camilla” on them, signaling in no uncertain terms the protocol as to what Camilla would henceforth be known as—a far cry from yesteryear, further proving that, yes, anything is really possible.

There really is nothing new under the sun, and when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey aired in March 2021 (and then, more recently, Harry’s cornucopia of television interviews to promote his book, Spare), it wasn’t the first time a royal had taken to the airwaves to express their truth. Those alive in the 1990s (or those who tuned in to season five of The Crown) remember that it was the then Prince Charles who shot first, appearing in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994, followed by Princess Diana’s response in kind with Martin Bashir the next year.

So the idea that Charles could return to television to break his silence about Harry isn’t a completely ridiculous notion, and, multiple outlets report, it’s in talks to happen—and, to tie it all together with a bow, with Dimbleby on the BBC, no less, all a part of the media coverage in the leadup to his Coronation in May.

The Mirror reports “Jonathan Dimbleby may have a chat with King Charles on camera for the Coronation celebrations—and he could address troubles with Harry and Meghan since their Netflix show and memoir Spare.” Nearly 30 years after the first Dimbleby interview, “Palace aides are discussing the possibility of the monarch using his chat to give his side of the story,” the outlet reports, which would break the unspoken (or spoken, who knows) code of silence amongst the royal family to not say a word about Harry and Meghan’s recent forays into the limelight.

Dimbleby is apparently a longtime friend of Charles’, and the BBC wants to do a piece about Charles’ life and plans as monarch. “Palace aides are concerned about the line of questioning,” The Mirror writes. “But sources say the monarch is mulling over the interview offer.”

“Plans are already up and running for Coronation coverage at the BBC, including the profile on the monarch,” an insider tells the outlet. “It is not the done thing to avoid subjects in interviews, so it makes matters tricky. Even one small comment on Harry and Meghan would make worldwide news. It could also prompt a response from Harry, which would be unpredictable, like so much. Everything is very delicate.”

Apparently, ITV has also come to the table to ask the King for an interview, but that’s less likely after Harry already sat down with the network’s Tom Bradby earlier this month to promote Spare.

There also remains the option that Charles could dodge a pre-Coronation interview altogether and release his own footage for use by the media, much like the traditional Christmas Day message from the monarch.

“There remains an option for the family to simply produce a Coronation speech or content they film and supply,” the source says. “It allows control over what is said and would not address the Sussexes.”

These next three months will be nothing if not interesting…

ICYMI, tensions are reallll high between Prince William and Prince Harry right now.

In his memoir Spare, the Duke of Sussex spent a whole lot of time airing his grievances against his older brother, the "heir" to his "spare," and describing the rivalry they have had all their lives.

While the Prince of Wales has not officially responded to any of the material in his brother's book, he is thought to be extremely upset by it all.

For one royal expert, the brothers' late mother could have prevented things from getting quite so bad.

“Princess Diana would be appalled at the way things have turned out," royal correspondent Charles Rae tells Marie Claire on behalf of Spin Genie.

"However, I doubt very much that she would have allowed it to get to this level of bitterness if she was alive, particularly between her sons. She always tried to ensure that both boys were treated fairly.

"She would never allow other members of the family to show favoritism to William, as the heir to the detriment of the spare. Harry from a very young age always knew he would never be king, but Diana had hoped that Harry would be in a unique position to support his brother when he is king.

"But unfortunately, Harry, who should have been William’s wingman, has turned into his hitman."

Sounds about right, considering Harry himself described his brother as his "arch-nemesis."

For Rae, this whole situation is likely to be incredibly painful for Prince William, who—because of his role—has to keep calm and carry on.

"I think it has been and still is very difficult for William in particular to speak out, not just about the particular accusations against the Prince of Wales, but for the very fact that both William and Harry were so close," Rae says.

"I also believe William feels very betrayed by his younger brother, who may well harbor the same feelings of betrayal by his older brother."

Not good. Not good at all.

Spoiler alert: The relationship between Prince Harry and the rest of the royal family is a bit strained at the moment, to put it mildly. (But you knew that, unless you’ve been living under a rock.) The cause? Well, mostly Harry’s explosive memoir, Spare (and the subsequent interviews in the press surrounding it), which takes aim at Prince William in particular, and also King Charles, Camilla, Queen Consort, and even the Princess of Wales at points. With the king’s coronation looming on May 6 at Westminster Abbey, The Sun reports that “the royal family are set to told peace talks with Prince Harry before the king’s coronation” with the hopes of mending fences before the big day.

“Royal sources believe peace talks could take place in the coming months, with Harry flying over from the U.S. to meet King Charles and Prince William,” the outlet reports. “One source believes the relationships are ‘fixable’ but are ‘going to take flexibility on all sides.’”

“It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and the Prince of Wales and a couple of other family members,” a source tells The Sunday Times. “Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong.”

Another source speaking to the outlet adds “They have to invite them [Harry and wife Meghan Markle] in before the coronation, or it will become such a circus and distraction.”

The coronation sits about three-and-a-half months away and will coincidentally be held on the fourth birthday of Harry and Meghan’s son, Archie.

Potential peace talks come to the fore after Harry told ITV journalist Tom Bradby in an interview promoting Spare that “the ball is in their court” for reconciliation, referring to the royal family. He also revealed that he does want to attend his father’s coronation.

“There’s a lot that can happen between now and then,” Harry said. “But the door is always open. The ball is in their court. There’s a lot to be discussed and I really hope that they’re willing to sit down and talk about it.”

A source tells The Sun that senior royals do not want Harry at the event because they fear whatever they say will “end up in paperback,” as possibly an addendum to Spare’s already bombshell contents.

“There have been discussions among the family, including [Prince] Edward and [Princess] Anne,” a source tells the outlet. “They do not want private conversations at the coronation making it into the paperback edition of Spare.” 

Heretofore, as contents of Prince Harry’s forthcoming memoir Spare have leaked, we’ve heard criticisms of his brother, Prince William, his father, King Charles, and even his sister-in-law, Catherine, Princess of Wales. But nothing substantial yet of his stepmother, Queen Consort Camilla—until tonight’s 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper.

Harry minced no words about Camilla, calling her “dangerous” and that “there was going to be bodies left in the street” as Camilla rose from a disgraced mistress to the Queen Consort she is today.

Per The Sun, Harry said Camilla showed an “open willingness” to trade information with the British press as she rehabilitated her image to eventually marry the then Prince Charles in 2005.

After Cooper asked why Harry referred to Camilla as dangerous in Spare, Harry said “because of the need for her to rehabilitate her image. That made her dangerous because of the connections that she was forging within the British press. And there was open willingness on both sides to trade information. And with a family built on hierarchy, and with her, on the way to being Queen Consort, there was going to be people or bodies left in the street because of that.”

After meeting in the early 1970s, Charles and Camilla embarked on a romantic relationship before Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles and Charles married Diana Spencer. By the mid-1980s, Charles and Camilla were enmeshed in an affair that lasted through the end of the Parker-Bowles’ marriage and the then Prince and Princess of Wales’ marriage, which officially ended in 1996 after a separation was announced in 1992. In 2005, Charles and Camilla married, and in the past 17 years Camilla’s image has undergone a radical transformation, from a vilified mistress to a celebrated senior member of the royal family who, in May, will be crowned alongside her husband at his coronation at Westminster Abbey.

Earlier in the interview, Harry parroted claims of Camilla being “the other woman,” saying “she was the villain. She was the third person in their marriage. She needed to rehabilitate her image.”

The Prince and Princess of Wales kickstarted Christmas yesterday morning by posting on Instagram, writing a simple “Happy Christmas!” caption to an impressive painting by their eldest son, Prince George, who is also heir to the throne.

The watercolor painting features a reindeer, two small birds, and a blue backdrop with snow falling—and is a work of art his parents are obviously (and rightly!) proud of.

According to People, “from the late Prince Philip to King Charles III and now George, a talent for painting runs in the royal family.” The King has painted numerous watercolors himself, typically of royal residences like Balmoral Castle in Scotland and his country home, Highgrove, in Gloucestershire, England. This past October, a print of a painting of Balmoral—where Her late Majesty passed away in September at 96 years old—painted by Charles sold at auction for about $6,500, despite being valued at roughly $675, People reports. The painting is signed in pencil by the King, with the year marked 2001. In addition to being the place where she passed away, the late Queen spent her late summers there annually, typically visited by members of the royal family.

Earlier this year, 79 of Charles’ watercolor paintings were displayed at The Garrison Chapel in London—the first full exhibition of his artwork. People reports the exhibition featured outdoor scenes created in Scotland, France, Africa, and other locales.

George’s mother, the Princess of Wales, also has artistic talent—though hers tends to be in the medium of drawing. In 2021, Kate “used her artistic skills to thank the people of Scotland that she and Prince William met during their royal tour of the country this week,” People reports. “Kate, who has a degree in art history from the University of St. Andrews, shared an impressive sketch of the couple’s college town where they met and fell in love on a thank you note.” She and William signed the card “To the people, communities, and organizations we visited and heard from; and those who stopped to wave and make our return to Scotland so special—thank you!” Kensington Palace revealed that the impressive sketch was from 2002, when Kate was in her early years at the university.

Another of Kate’s drawings was included in the program at the wedding of her younger sister, Pippa, in 2017. For the order of service, Kate drew St. Mark’s Church in Englefield, where the wedding was held, according to The Daily Mail. Famously, Kate is also a keen photographer, and the subjects of her work are usually her children—George and his younger siblings Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. 

In Netflix' Harry & Meghan Volume 1, Prince Harry addresses his mom Princess Diana's Panorama interview, and a clip from the controversial conversation is included in the docuseries.

This comes after Prince William has expressly wished for the 1995 interview never to be shown on air again. "It is my firm view that this Panorama program holds no legitimacy and should never be aired again," he said last year.

"It effectively established a false narrative which, for over a quarter of a century, has been commercialized by the BBC and others.

"This settled narrative now needs to be addressed by the BBC and anyone else who has written or intends to write about these events."

Harry & Meghan was able to include excerpts from Panorama without permission from the BBC under "fair dealing" agreements.

Royal expert Jennie Bond thinks that this decision takes specific aim at the Prince of Wales.

"I think Harry and Meghan's decision to include Diana's Panorama interview was pointedly hurtful," Bond told OK!.

"To go against your brother's express wishes about your mother.

"He's not respected William's wishes. I doubt he phoned his brother and said 'By the way we're going to be using that clip.'"

"It's blatantly, openly and pointedly hurtful."

It's worth noting that Prince Harry had nothing to do with the editing of the Netflix docuseries, and won't have been the one who decided to include clips from Panorama. It also feels like his right to speak about such a painful episode involving his mother. With that said, Bond is right that it's likely William wasn't warned about the inclusion beforehand, although Harry will have known about it before the doc aired.

There are all sorts of claims floating around about royals on both sides of the Atlantic these days, and Bond believes it's up to the Sussexes to set the record straight.

"We’ve got sources from the palace denying having done any harm to Harry and Meghan," she continued.

"We can’t determine who is telling the truth.

"So, I think the onus has to be on Harry and Meghan who are making the allegations to stand them up and stop throwing out general slurs against their family.

"It’s getting really unpleasant and dirty. Harry talked about it being a 'dirty game,' well this is dirty.

"We’ve seen so much of the Royal Family’s dirty laundry aired in public and this is a whole lot more."

Christmas at Sandringham Estate was famously one of Queen Elizabeth II's favorite times of year, when she got to celebrate the holiday with her very large extended family.

But for royal commentators, the first royal Christmas at Sandringham without the Queen may prove to be much more low-key than it was under her helm.

First of all, royal expert Jeremy Archer suggested that Prince William and Princess Kate might spend Christmas on the Norfolk estate, but move their little family back down south to spend New Year's with the Middletons in Berkshire.

"It is going to be different, but Christmas at Sandringham works well for the family," Archer told OK!. "Unlike Windsor and Buckingham Palace, it’s a sporting venue and fits in well with their traditional Boxing Day shoot.

"The Prince of Wales has his house, Anmer Hall, quite close by, so it wouldn’t inconvenience him and Kate."

Fellow royal expert Jennie Bond also thinks the Waleses won't spend too much time at Sandringham this year. "The younger generation might want to do their own thing for at least part of the time," she said. "So they may just have Christmas lunch [at Sandringham]."

Bond added, "I think the King’s Christmas plans might be up in the air a bit. The younger royals will probably want to spend time with their own families, so I think the two or three-day celebrations of the past may, indeed, be a thing of the past.

"While I imagine there will be a gathering at Sandringham, whether it will be quite as extended as it used to be with the Queen, and with quite as many people, I’m not sure.

"Without the linchpin of the Queen holding together an often fractured family, they may suddenly decide to do their own thing."

Of course, beyond logistical arrangements, there will be a feeling of sadness and nostalgia in the royal household over the holidays.

"It’ll be the first time since all the turmoil following her death that the royals will stop for a moment and, as a family, reflect and raise a glass to her," Bond continued.

"She leaves a massive hole in their lives and that empty seat, once occupied by the Queen, will now presumably be occupied by King Charles."

While the Waleses used to only come to Sandringham certain years, they now seem to be a mainstay at the royal celebration. Still, we don't exactly how long they plan to stay there this year.

Prince William and Princess Kate are in Boston for three days this week, culminating in the Earthshot Prize awards gala on Friday. Here's a recap of what has happened during their U.S. trip so far.

They took a commercial British Airways flight for the benefit of the environment, and were described by fellow passengers as "utterly delightful," Hello! reports.

Upon landing in Boston on Wednesday, the royal couple learned about the racist incident that occurred at Buckingham Palace this week.

One of William's godmothers, Lady Susan Hussey, harassed a Black guest with racist questions, before apologizing and resigning.

The Palace responded within hours, and a spokesman for the Prince of Wales said: "I was really disappointed to hear about the guest's experience. Racism has no place in our society. These comments were unacceptable and it's right that the individual has stepped aside with immediate effect" (via People).

The Waleses carried on with their engagements as planned, and William released a statement on social media, which read:

"Catherine and I are delighted to be back in the United States and are extremely grateful to Governor Baker and The First Lady of Massachusetts for their warm welcome into Boston."

He also took the opportunity to pay homage to the late Queen:

"On this, our first overseas visit since the death of my grandmother, I would like to thank the people of Massachusetts and particularly of Boston for their many tributes paid to the late Queen. She remembered her 1976 bicentennial visit with great fondness."

He then tied it all back into the work at hand, that is the fight for the climate:

"My grandmother was one of life's optimists. And so am I. This is why last year we launched the Earthshot Prize with the ambition to create a truly global platform to inspire hope and urgent optimism as we look to save the future of our planet."

He concluded:

"To the people of Boston, thank you. I'm so grateful for you allowing us to host the second year of the Earthshot Prize in your great city. Catherine and I can't wait to meet many of you in the days ahead."

The royal spouses were then welcomed by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu at City Hall, followed by a public event outside City Hall with governor-elect Maura Healey.

For this, the Waleses paid tribute to Bostonian green. The princess donned a Burberry tartan dress in shades of green, under a forest green coat by Alexander McQueen, and accessorized with green suede heeled pumps and a matching Mulberry handbag.

The prince wore a green tie and a blue-green wool coat.

Braving the elements, William said in his speech, "May I say thank you to all the hardy Bostonians braving the rain this evening. Catherine and I are absolutely delighted to be with you today for our first engagement in the great city of Boston, as we start the countdown to the Earthshot Prize awards this Friday."

Royal photographer Chris Jackson gave further insight into the weather via Instagram, where he captioned a picture of the princess with the words, "The Princess of Wales looks up during a torrential downpour at the 'Welcome to Earthshot' event at Boston Town Hall today (I’m still drying off)"

As royal expert Christine Ross previously predicted to Marie Claire, Bostonians came out en masse to catch a glimpse of the royals. They variously held up umbrellas, smartphone cameras and signs professing their love for the couple.

Lastly, because the Waleses only have three days in Beantown, they packed in one last must-do event before calling it a day: They attended an oh-so-American basketball game between the Boston Celtics and the Miami Heat at TD Garden, sitting courtside à la Pete Davidson and Emily Ratajkowski.

For this event, the princess rewore her royal blue vintage Chanel blazer from an October engagement.

The sporty royals looked to be having the time of their life.

If this were CNN, I'd leave you with: more as we have it.

Ahead of its release, The Crown season 5 dredged up a whooole lot of drama. Royal insiders appeared very worried about how it would treat a sensitive period in recent royal history, especially with regards to Princess Diana.

Prince William was reportedly displeased that the show had decided to depict his late mother's 1995 Panorama interview with the BBC's Martin Bashir, which is completely understandable. Equally, of course, from the show producers' point of view, leaving this crucial episode out would have been out of the question.

For royal expert Nick Bullen, not only was the depiction of the Panorama interview a sensitive subject to tackle, but The Crown didn't exactly get its facts right. 

"Look, it’s drama. It’s fiction that’s somewhat based on fact," he told Us Weekly.

"Virtually all of it was—certainly—sort of widened the mark. I think they didn’t even go far enough in looking at how Bashir got the interview. I mean, they sort of touched on it, you know, it was incredibly fraudulent what went on there."

Bullen also believes that Diana's reaction in the aftermath of the interview wasn't shown accurately.

"I think in the initial days after [the interview] she really felt she’d got her voice out there," he added.

"She also believed what Bashir had told her about the security services listening to her and what was going on. I think as more clarity set in it became more and more apparent it was a huge mistake."

During the interview, the Princess of Wales opened up about Prince Charles' affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, as well as her personal mental health struggles.

"To be fair, what The Crown did get right was the fact that Charles Spencer, her brother, had started to have misgivings about Bashir before the interview and had tried to persuade Diana this perhaps wasn’t the right way to go about it," Bullen added.

"As we all saw in the show, Bashir was recreating bank statements, trying to claim that people were being paid by the security services. And if someone shows you that, you probably do believe it, even if you are not already paranoid about what’s going on. I think she did regret it."

Echoing a sentiment from many other commentators, Bullen warned viewers to take the Netflix drama with a pinch of salt. "What The Crown is very clever at is it does take sort of enough fact to be able to spin up a version of the truth," he said.

"I think people have gotta watch it with an eye to this is drama that is based on real life events. But that’s the danger … is how far the real life events go."

Andrew Morton has been busy lately—in addition to serving as a consultant for season five of Netflix’s The Crown (where he is part of the storyline), he also has a new book out this week called The Queen: Her Life, heavily excerpted here. The book details another storyline we’ve seen portrayed onscreen in season five: the oftentimes complex relationship between Her late Majesty and Princess Diana, both of whom Morton has written books about. “She was very supportive of Diana,” Morton says of the Queen, per People. “Diana always felt that the Queen was a kind of marital referee and that the Queen should really intervene over her husband’s relationship with Mrs. [Camilla] Parker Bowles. But the Queen’s policy was to hope for the best.”

Morton calls the 1990s “probably the worst decade of her reign,” as Her late Majesty had to contend with the divorce of not just Diana and her son, Prince Charles, but the divorces of two of her other four children, as well (and the suffocating press attention around all of it); her “annus horribilis” of 1992, including the Windsor Castle fire; and, of course, the worst of all, Diana’s tragic death in 1997 and how it affected her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.

On June 14, 1992, Morton’s biography—later revealed as more of an autobiography—of the Princess of Wales, Diana: Her True Story, was released. The public response to the book was “explosive,” Morton writes in The Queen, and “though the Queen had been painfully aware of the marital rift [between Charles and Diana] for some time, she was unprepared for such a detailed public exposition…Behind the scenes the Queen and her aides tried to manage the unhappy situation. Her private secretary Robert Fellowes asked the princess point-blank if she had cooperated with the book. She looked him in the eye and told him a bald-faced lie: ‘No.’”

Days after she and Charles’ 1992 separation announcement, Diana made an appointment to meet with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. “When she entered the Queen’s suite, she burst into floods of tears, Diana claiming that everyone was against her. ‘The Queen didn’t know what to do,’ recalled a lady-in-waiting afterward. ‘She has always hated this kind of emotional confrontation and, frankly, has never had to deal with it before or since.’” During their hourlong conversation, Morton writes, the Queen reassured Diana that, “come what may, she would never be challenged regarding custody arrangements for her two boys. This was a profound relief for the princess, who had fretted about this issue long before the actual separation.”

For the next few years, the so-called “War of the Waleses” continued, and “much against the better judgement of her mother and sister [the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret], the Queen tried to keep Diana within the fold, quietly hopeful that at some point Charles and his wife could effect a reconciliation.” Diana, for her part, “was playing a waiting game, prepared to sit on the sidelines until her husband took the initiative and asked for a divorce. She felt that as he had asked her to marry him, he should be the one to initiate proceedings.”

Then, the BBC Panorama interview happened in 1995.

“When it was broadcast her television confessional was both shocking and, as far as the royal family was concerned, unforgivable,” Morton writes. “When the Queen finally watched a recording of the show, she was despairing, her husband [Prince Philip] apoplectic. Something had to be done, for the sake of not just the monarchy but also their grandchildren.”

On December 18, 1995, Diana received a handwritten note from the Queen—“it was, Diana noted ruefully, the first letter she had ever received from her mother-in-law,” Morton writes. In the letter, the Queen explains that she found the best course of action was for Charles and Diana to divorce.

Yet, even through this tumult, Her late Majesty invited Diana to Sandringham for the royal family’s traditional Christmas celebrations, just the next week. “Diana declined, telling friends that she would ‘[go] up in my BMW car and come out in a coffin.’” Instead, she spent the holiday on her own at Kensington Palace before jetting off to the Caribbean.

“The princess’s decision to decline the sovereign’s invitation, normally viewed as a command, marked the nadir of her relationship with the Queen,” Morton writes. “It was an affront too many. From now on, the Queen was not always available to take her phone calls or ready to invite her to afternoon tea. Their dealings were necessarily more business-like than before, as the Queen was one of the interested parties in divorce negotiations.”

Diana’s future title became a matter of dispute. Diana said she had decided to be known as Diana, Princess of Wales, and told friends she had agreed to drop “Her Royal Highness.” “The Queen intervened, making clear that Diana’s ‘decisions’ were still requests and that she had not been pressured to give up the HRH,” Morton writes. As for her title, Morton writes, eldest son William told her “Don’t worry, mummy. I will give it back to you one day when I am king.”

Charles and Diana's divorce was finalized on August 28, 1996; Diana died almost exactly a year later, on August 31, 1997.

It has long been expected that Prince Edward—the fourth and youngest of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip’s children—would one day inherit his father’s Duke of Edinburgh title when Philip ultimately passed away. Philip died in April 2021, and the title reverted back to the Crown, with the expectation still that Edward would one day inherit it. According to multiple outlets, King Charles’ plans for a slimmed down monarchy may discard his parents’ pledge to give Edward the title entirely, a huge shakeup in the royal family.

Edward is styled as the Earl of Wessex, the only of the Queen’s sons to not be a duke. (Charles, while commonly known as the Prince of Wales, was also the Duke of Cornwall; Prince Andrew was given the title Duke of York.) When Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones—now Sophie, Countess of Wessex—in 1999, the Queen and Philip said that Edward would inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title “in due course,” but it seems Charles might not follow through with that plan after all. (The statement from Buckingham Palace 23 years ago reads “The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the Prince of Wales have also agreed that the Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.”)

“The King wants to slim down the monarchy, as is well known,” a Palace source tells The Daily Mail, per The Mirror. “That means it wouldn’t make sense to make the Earl the Duke of Edinburgh. It’s a hereditary title which would then be passed on to the Earl and Countess of Wessex’s son, James, Viscount Severn. Essentially, this was accepted by the Earl when he agreed that his children would not be a prince or princess.” (Indeed, Edward and Sophie’s daughter Louise goes by Lady Louise, and James is Viscount Severn.)

“It was fine in theory, ages ago when it was sort of a pipe dream of my father’s,” Edward previously told the BBC. “Of course, it will depend on whether or not the Prince of Wales, when he becomes king, whether he’ll do that, so we’ll wait and see. So yes, it will be quite a challenge taking that on.”

The Sun reports that Charles intends to keep the Duke of Edinburgh title to himself—now the Crown—but will not use it.

And, while this could be perceived as a snub to his youngest brother, Charles isn’t edging Edward out entirely. He is currently seeking to add both Edward and his sister Princess Anne to his roster of Counsellors of State, which allows them to stand in for the king when he is either overseas or unwell.

Today is Remembrance Sunday in the U.K.—long held as one of the most important dates in the royal diary by Her late Majesty and the entire family. The Queen Consort and the Princess of Wales stood on the balcony of the Foreign Office, which overlooked the Cenotaph, where wreaths were laid by members of the royal family to honor those from the U.K. and Commonwealth nations who died in war. The two women, The Mirror reports, left a poignant empty space on the balcony where the late Queen used to stand in recent years when she couldn’t lay the wreath herself, instead asking her son, the then Prince Charles, to do so in her place. Both Camilla and Kate held back tears as the ceremony unfolded. (Her late Majesty passed away on September 8 at 96 years old, so this is an especially meaningful Remembrance Sunday for the royal family.)

Both women wore black coats and hats, and both women had three poppies pinned to their outfits, as well as diamond brooches. (The poppies are worn as a show of support for the Armed Forces community and are a forefront symbol of Remembrance in the U.K.) Kate—ever symbolic through her choice of jewelry—wore diamond and pearl drop earrings that once belonged to her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana, according to The Daily Mail. This is the third time Kate has worn these earrings—the first to the BAFTAs in 2019, and earlier this year at Royal Ascot.

Last night, at the Festival of Remembrance at London’s Royal Albert Hall, Kate again chose symbolic jewelry, opting to wear the same Bahrain pearl drop earrings and four-strand pearl choker necklace with a diamond piece in the center that she wore to the Queen’s funeral in September, People reports. (She also wore the earrings and the choker for Prince Philip’s funeral in 2021.)

“Pearls are one of the very few jewelry items you can wear in mourning and are inextricably linked with Queen Elizabeth and her personal jewelry legacy,” Bethan Holt, author of The Queen: 70 Years of Majestic Style, tells People. “It’s a symbol of mourning a monarch but also a grandmother or great-grandmother.”

Remembrance was deeply important to Her late Majesty and remains so for those family members who survive her. “The royal family is showing gratitude for the loss of life basically occurring in their name—certainly in the name of the sovereign as the head of state,” A Century of Remembrance author Laura Clouting tells the outlet. “Remembrance is very, very personal for them.”

Especially so this year, no doubt.

Prince Harry’s forthcoming memoir, Spare—due out on January 10, 2023—is set to open with one of the most heartbreaking scenes any royal follower can remember: Prince William, 15, and Harry, only 12, walking solemnly behind their beloved mother’s coffin as it processed through London to Westminster Abbey, where Princess Diana’s funeral was held on September 6, 1997.

Beside the princes was their father, the then Prince Charles, grandfather Prince Philip, and uncle Earl Charles Spencer, the younger brother of Diana, who died in a Parisian car crash one week prior on August 31, 1997. Though the procession was only a mile in length, the wounds from that moment have lasted for both brothers up to the present day.

Christopher Andersen, author of the book The King: The Life of King Charles III, out November 8, says the king has deep regrets over forcing his sons to walk behind his first wife’s coffin, saying “I think it haunts him, as it haunts them.”

Andersen, speaking on the “Royally Us” podcast, says “[William and Harry have] spoken about it. I’ve written that, I believe, it’s a form of PTSD. Harry uses terms like the triggering of even flying into London, and it reminds him of that day when he had to walk behind the coffin. They were, more or less, bullied into doing it by the Palace, by the men in grey who really run the Palace, [who] Diana used to complain about.”

According to Andersen, the new king “understands that, to some extent, he is responsible for [William and Harry] having to suffer through.”

In the podcast interview, per The Daily Express, Andersen also noted Earl Spencer’s regret of trying to convince William and Harry to walk behind the coffin, a moment that will take center stage in the opening pages of Spare, where publisher Penguin Random House says readers will immediately be taken “back to one of the most searing images of the twentieth century: two young boys, two princes, walking behind their mother’s coffin as the world watched in sorrow—and horror. As Diana, Princess of Wales, was laid to rest, billions wondered what the princes must be thinking and feeling—and how their lives would play out from that point on. For Harry, this is his story, at last.” 

When Prince Charles married Camilla Parker-Bowles in 2005, it was understood that, when Charles took the throne, her title would be Princess Consort. Then, in February of this year—exactly 70 years since taking the throne herself—Queen Elizabeth announced in an unprecedented statement that it was her “sincere wish” that Camilla be known as Queen Consort, the ultimate seal of approval for Camilla, who was once widely condemned for her extramarital affair with the Prince of Wales.

But, according to a new book by veteran royal biographer Christopher Andersen, there was more to that statement than meets the eye—and, according to Us Weekly, the deal brokered involved Prince Andrew.

“You may recall that Prince Andrew was enmeshed in the Jeffrey Epstein [case],” Andersen tells the outlet, while promoting his new book The King: The Life of King Charles III, out November 8. “Charles was instrumental in making sure that, with [Prince] William’s backing, that Andrew was more or less drummed out of the family.”

(Just in case you don’t remember—though how could you forget?—Andrew was accused of sexual assault and was ultimately stripped of his royal patronages and military titles in January 2022, months after accuser Virginia Giuffre filed a lawsuit against him. The next month, Andrew settled the lawsuit, allegedly with financial help from his mother, Us Weekly reports.)

Her late Majesty “was going to dip into her personal pocket” to help pay the settlement fee, Andersen says, noting that Andrew was the late Queen’s favorite.

“Now that meant, really—because Charles just was going to be the heir—that this was also money that would’ve come to him eventually,” Andersen says. While “Charles could have objected,” the royal expert says, he instead used the moment to broker a deal in favor of the love of his life: let it slide, if the Queen would publicly endorse Camilla as a future Queen Consort.

“And so, in a kind of an unspoken, implicit deal, this was the tradeoff,” Andersen says. “And that announcement was made…It was very abrupt, you may recall. It was something [that took] everybody by surprise…She was so against Camilla ever becoming Queen for decades and decades that it, it was a complete about face, [and] that I think [it] shocked a lot of people.”

*Mind blown* 

I find it deeply upsetting that Prince William and Prince Harry don't seem to be seeing eye to eye these days, and it looks like I'm not the only one.

Former royal butler Grant Harrold, who worked for Prince Charles but got to know the young princes well during his tenure, says that they used to be super close, and that it saddens him that they've grown so far apart. He remembers being shocked when he found out that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex really were leaving their royal lives, and both they and the Royal Family made it official via a pair of statements.

"I was speaking to journalists, saying, 'this isn’t true, this is nonsense it will all be a fabrication,'" Harrold tells OnlineCasino.ca.

"But it was only when the statements came out I remember sitting there thinking, 'what the hell is going on?' because these were two guys that were close. They were best pals, so I find it sad that two guys who were literally best friends suddenly went through this fallout.

"With families, I don’t know how you come back from something like that happening. It’s possible, but with fallouts it can be really difficult to patch it."

Still, Harrold believes that Charles hasn't given up on his youngest son and his wife.

"I thought it was good that King Charles gave that statement after his mother’s death when he offered the olive branch to Meghan and Harry by talking about them," he says.

"So in his eyes, they are very much part of his family, I believe that.

"They may not be working members of the Royal Family, but I have no doubt he sees them as part of the family, that’s a fact."

Now let's just hope William and Harry can find their way back to each other.

Life brings with it seasons of consistency and seasons of change, and, for the new Princess of Wales, the past two months have brought about an enormous season of change, one that has left her stressed and anxious, a royal expert says.

Fresh off of a presumably relaxing holiday at Balmoral at the end of the summer, Kate Middleton moved her family from Kensington Palace in London to Adelaide Cottage in Windsor just days before the devastating loss of Queen Elizabeth, who died September 8 at Balmoral at the age of 96. Coincidentally, Her late Majesty’s death happened the same day that Kate’s three children Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis all started at their new school, Lambrook. The next day, Kate was named the new Princess of Wales alongside her husband, Prince William, who inherited the Prince of Wales title from his father. Kate is the first to be referred to publicly as the Princess of Wales since the death of her mother-in-law, Princess Diana, in 1997; though technically through her marriage to the then Prince Charles Camilla was the Princess of Wales, because of the title’s close association with Diana, she never went by that title publicly, instead opting to use the Duchess of Cornwall title for her public duties.

And, while the rest of the world has, for the most part, resumed life as normal post-mourning period for Her late Majesty, there’s no doubt that grief still permeates inside Adelaide Cottage, where William mourns a beloved grandmother, her three children grieve a cherished great-grandmother, and Kate herself misses a woman who was a bedrock in her own life for two decades. All that’s happening at home, plus increased pressure in her royal role, has Kate enduring a “very difficult time” with a “fair bit of stress and anxiety,” Katie Nicholl says—who can blame her?

The move to Windsor has not been what William and Kate hoped for, Nicholl says, speaking on TalkTV’s Royal Tea show, per The Mirror.

“They’ve said that themselves…that this hasn’t been the settling period that they had hoped for,” Nicholl says. “Of course, they made that big move just after the summer holidays to move to Windsor. A significant and pretty bold move leaving Kensington Palace, enrolling the children in new schools, setting up a new life for themselves in Windsor, I think really so that they could be below the radar and have this normal family life which they are pretty successful in having. Of course, no one could have expected that the Queen would have died just at the start of all that. Very, very difficult times. I think behind the scenes there is a fair bit of stress and anxiety for all of the family.”

After being very out front for the month following Her late Majesty’s death as both have embraced their new job titles, William and Kate have been largely under the radar the past week, neither undertaking any public engagements as they mark their children’s fall break from school. George, Charlotte, and Louis will return to Lambrook tomorrow, October 31, to finish the semester.

Last year, the fivesome marked their kids’ fall break from school by traveling to Jordan, where they took photos that were ultimately used in the family Christmas card later in the year. Here’s hoping that this fall break provided some much-needed rest and relaxation for Kate—and the rest of the family, too.

A newly released royal book claims that the then Prince Charles wasn’t a “present” father with his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, when the pair were teenagers—with both boys often not being able to get in touch with their dad, author Katie Nicholl claims. Charles became a single parent after the tragic death of the boys’ mother, Princess Diana, in 1997, when William was 15 and Harry just 12.

Because Charles didn’t pay them enough attention, the boys acted out and became rebellious, according to Nicholl’s latest book, The New Royals: Queen Elizabeth’s Legacy and the Future of the Crown, which was released earlier this month. According to the book, the princes were often left to their own devices following Diana’s death, as Charles was “busy” with work and his longtime love, the then Camilla Parker-Bowles.

“With a busy work schedule and Camilla now very much a priority in his private diary, Charles placed too much trust in William and Harry to look after themselves,” Nicholl writes, per Insider.

As teenagers, William and Harry attended the elite boarding school Eton College, but also spent time at their father’s home, Highgrove House—and Charles was rarely there, one of the now king’s former aides tells Nicholl.

“The boys wanted their independence, and they probably had too much of it,” the unnamed aide says. “Often when they wanted to speak to their father, he wasn’t around, and because he didn’t carry a cell phone with him, they would get frustrated that they couldn’t get a hold of him. If they needed him, they’d end up calling his protection officers so they could talk to him, which wasn’t ideal. They wanted to speak to their dad, but Charles doesn’t do calls on the hoof or texting; he likes to make time for considered conversations.”

Nicholl also writes that Charles relied on close family friends to help raise his sons, and that William and Harry spent ample time at the homes of their former nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke, and their friends, the Van Cutsems. When they weren’t supervised by these surrogate families, the princes got into trouble, according to Her late Majesty’s cousin, Lady Elizabeth Anson, who spoke to Nicholl before her death in November 2020.

“At Highgrove on weekends, the boys could be at a loose end because Charles wasn’t always around,” she told Nicholl.

The parties were so frequent that Highgrove began to be known as “Club H,” and by 2001—when Harry was just 17—he was drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes at an inn near the home, according to Nicholl.

“Those who knew turned a blind eye, but when an aide recognized the unmistakable smell of marijuana emanating from Club H, the young prince was busted,” Nicholl writes.

The fallout from that incident led to William and Harry’s first rift, as only Harry got in trouble, though William was there at the time, too, Nicholl writes.

Plans for King Charles’ coronation on May 6, 2023, at Westminster Abbey in London are well underway, with the ceremony slated to be shorter, smaller, and sooner than his mother’s before him.

Viewers of The Crown—or students of history—remember Prince Philip’s integral role in the coronation planning for his wife, Queen Elizabeth, in 1952 and 1953. Seventy years later, Charles’ eldest son Prince William, the new Prince of Wales, is assisting in a similar capacity, especially keen that the ceremony avoids any “archaic, feudal, or imperial” elements and represents a modern Britain, The Mirror reports.

“The planning process will mark the first time an heir has played an active role in a coronation in three generations,” the outlet reports. (Charles, the Queen’s heir, was present at the coronation, but certainly not involved in planning it—he was, after all, only four years old. When her father, King George VI, was crowned, the then Princess Elizabeth was herself only 11.)

In addition to actively planning his father’s ceremony, William is also expected to take part in the coronation itself. According to The Telegraph, talks are underway as to how the ceremony can be modernized and shortened, “while also ensuring it captures the significance of the occasion,” The Mirror writes.

While Buckingham Palace has yet to confirm who is on the coronation committee, royal sources have previously said that they wanted Charles’ coronation to reflect the “climate at the time in which it happens.” Charles has long been a fan of a slimmed-down monarchy, and his coronation will likely reflect that; as opposed to his mother’s—which hosted 8,000 at the Abbey—Charles’ is expected to host 2,000, still a large number, but only 25 percent of the precedent set before him. As opposed to being three hours in length, Charles’ is expected to last about an hour, and is taking place just eight months after his reign began, as opposed to the Queen’s ceremony, which took 16 months—double the time—to plan.

The dress code will also be less formal, The Mirror reports, and “peers may possibly be allowed to wear lounge suits rather than ceremonial robes. Ancient and time-consuming rituals—including presenting the monarch with gold ingots—are also set to be axed to save time.”

The date itself is unique—likely chosen because it occurs right before the State Opening of Parliament, it also is Charles’ grandson Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor’s fourth birthday. Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams says the date itself was chosen after consultation with “the Government, the Church of England, and the Royal Household.”

“The Coronation will reflect the monarch’s role today and look towards the future, while being rooted in longstanding traditions and pageantry,” Buckingham Palace said last month in a statement.

Camilla, Queen Consort will be crowned alongside her husband, unlike Prince Philip, the consort before her. Like the Queen’s ceremony, Charles’ too will be televised. And, according to The Mirror, “Palace insiders have assured while the event will be smaller than the Queen’s coronation, it will not be devoid of pageantry.” 

Hoooo, boy.

The Crown continues to anger people as Netflix prepares to release season five of the hit show.

Just recently, the streaming giant appeared to cede to pressure from former U.K. Prime Minister John Major, and reportedly postponed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's upcoming docuseries to appease tensions. Major had categorically denied scenes depicted on The Crown, which shows then-Prince Charles lobbying him to encourage Queen Elizabeth to resign.

Now, it's another ~major~ British public figure who's adding her voice to the chorus of people who are not pleased about some of the drama series' creative decisions: none other than legendary actress Dame Judi Dench.

The royals—as well as commentators—have raised several issues with The Crown, related notably to the portrayal of Princess Diana's Panorama interview, the breakdown of hers and Prince Charles' marriage, and Prince Philip's alleged affair with his friend Penny Knatchbull.

In a letter to The Times, Dench wrote the following:

"Sir John Major is not alone in his concerns that the latest series of The Crown will present an inaccurate and hurtful account of history. Indeed, the closer the drama comes to our present times, the more freely it seems willing to blur the lines between historical accuracy and crude sensationalism.

"While many will recognise The Crown for the brilliant but fictionalised account of events that it is, I fear that a significant number of viewers, particularly overseas, may take its version of history as being wholly true. Given some of the wounding suggestions apparently contained in the new series — that King Charles plotted for his mother to abdicate, for example, or once suggested his mother’s parenting was so deficient that she might have deserved a jail sentence — this is both cruelly unjust to the individuals and damaging to the institution they represent.

"No one is a greater believer in artistic freedom than I, but this cannot go unchallenged. Despite this week stating publicly that The Crown has always been a “fictionalised drama” the programme makers have resisted all calls for them to carry a disclaimer at the start of each episode.

"The time has come for Netflix to reconsider — for the sake of a family and a nation so recently bereaved, as a mark of respect to a sovereign who served her people so dutifully for 70 years, and to preserve its reputation in the eyes of its British subscribers."

Will Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Netflix docuseries ever see the light of day? Your guess is just as good as mine.

While there has seemingly been a lot of worry over what could be revealed about the royals in said documentary, it's another situation altogether which has reportedly led to another postponement.

According to the Daily Mail, the first episode of The Crown's upcoming season depicts a 65-year-old Prince Charles lobbying then-Prime Minister John Major to help him encourage Queen Elizabeth to abdicate the throne in favor of Charles, a conversation which Major categorically denies ever happened.

A spokesperson for Major told the Mail, "As you will know, discussions between the Monarch and Prime Minister are entirely private and—for Sir John—will always remain so. But not one of the scenes you depict are accurate in any way whatsoever. They are fiction, pure and simple.

"There was never any discussion between Sir John and the then Prince of Wales about any possible abdication of the late Queen Elizabeth II—nor was such an improbable and improper subject ever raised by the then Prince of Wales (or Sir John)."

The spokesperson concluded, "Thus, if the scenes you describe are broadcast, they should be seen as nothing other than damaging and malicious fiction. A barrel load of nonsense peddled for no other reason than to provide maximum—and entirely false—dramatic impact."

In response, a spokesperson for The Crown defended the show's creative decisions. "The Crown has always been presented as a drama based on historical events," they said (via the BBC).

"Series five is a fictional dramatisation, imagining what could have happened behind closed doors during a significant decade for the Royal Family—one that has already been scrutinized and well-documented by journalists, biographers and historians."

But even though Netflix stands by The Crown, they seem to feel they needn't anger even more royal insiders by also releasing the Duke and Duchess of Sussex' docuseries, which has already proven controversial. The original plan was reportedly to release it in December (The Crown comes out in November), but we're apparently now looking at a 2023 release date. (I won't be holding my breath, personally.)

"They’re rattled at Netflix, and they blinked first and decided to postpone the documentary," a source told Deadline.

The docuseries was never officially confirmed—at least not by the Sussexes' Archewell Productions—but has been reportedly in the works for months now.

"There’s never been any documentary from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed," a spokesperson for Netflix told Deadline. Uhhh, k?

King Charles’ coronation date has officially been set: May 6, 2023 at Westminster Abbey. We know Charles’ older son, Prince William, and wife Kate Middleton will be there—after all, as the new Prince of Wales, it is one of William’s job duties to help plan the affair. But what about Prince Harry, Charles’ younger son, and his wife Meghan Markle?

Well, the short answer? We don’t yet know if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be in attendance. What we do know is that exact date is their son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor’s fourth birthday—royal experts insist it is not a snub to the Sussexes that the coronation was set for this date, and rather chosen to precede the State Opening of Parliament. But the Sussexes have celebrated one of their children’s birthdays during a special royal occasion before: their daughter, Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, turned one right smack dab in the middle of the Platinum Jubilee this summer, and the Sussexes still traveled back to the U.K. for the festivities.

According to OK, if Queen Consort Camilla has her way, Harry and Meghan will be at the coronation in hopes of healing the continually fractured family dynamics between the Sussexes and the rest of the family. But it gets more complicated than even May 6 also being Archie’s birthday: Marie Claire has reported in the past that Harry won’t attend the coronation if it is at Westminster Abbey (which it will be) because that is where the funeral of his mother, Princess Diana, was held. Add to the mix that it will no doubt be difficult to watch Camilla be crowned side-by-side at the coronation alongside his father, inside the structure that holds one of the more difficult memories of his life. If that’s not enough, by May, Harry’s book and the Sussexes’ Netflix series should both be out—and both projects could further deepen the divide between Harry, Meghan, and the rest of the family.

Whew. It’s a bit exhausting just thinking about all of the factors at play.

According to royal expert Katie Nicholl, Camilla thinks Harry and Meghan’s attendance could put an end to the ongoing rift and is “very keen” to have them there: “There is still that issue of the familial rift, that rupture at the heart of the House of Windsor, and, of course, a lot of people are wondering if Harry and Meghan and their family will come over for the coronation and whether that will finally signal some thawing of the rift that people had hoped might have taken place over the Queen’s funeral,” she says.

Though Nicholl says she hasn’t received “any official details on the guest list, but I’m hearing they are likely to be invited along with other senior and extended family members,” ultimately, it’ll come down to a decision from Harry and Meghan.

“It’s going to be a decision for Harry and Meghan to make,” she says. “In my book, The New Royals, I do talk about how behind the scenes, Camilla has done really everything she can to try and bring this family back together and press the importance of trying to move on from this rift, and I think she would be very pleased, as would the king, for Harry and Meghan to be at the coronation.”

For her part, Nicholl calls the coronation falling on Archie’s birthday a “happy coincidence,” adding “having the coronation on Archie’s birthday is definitely not a snub. Obviously, a huge amount of planning has to go into an important moment in history such as a coronation, and the royal calendar is full of anniversaries and birthdays, so I think this is absolutely one of those occasions where it’s a coincidence, and hopefully a happy coincidence.”

Kate Middleton is the new Princess of Wales, a future queen, and a current matriarch to a royal family in the midst of a sea change. With the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth last month, Kate is stepping into the role of the family’s matriarch, “not in the sense of an older woman in a twin set and pearls, but she guides the family and advises [Prince William] when he wants it,” Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton, William’s former private secretary, tells People.

The past month has seen Kate move her family from Kensington Palace in London to Adelaide Cottage in Windsor, oversee her three children’s first week of school at Lambrook, and grieve the loss of the backbone of the family, the late Queen, who the family mourned from her death on September 8 until the end of the royal mourning period on September 26. (Obviously, the royal mourning period may have ended, but the grief over the tremendous loss likely never will.) She has also started a new job, essentially, as Princess of Wales, in the midst of everything else going on. She is also, as ever, steadfastly supporting her husband in his new role as Prince of Wales, which includes managing the $1.3 billion Duchy of Cornwall and helping plan his father’s coronation, set for May 6, 2023 at Westminster Abbey.

A source close to the family tells People that it has been a stressful time, especially for Kate, who is the first Princess of Wales since William’s mother, Princess Diana, held the title. (Technically, Camilla, Queen Consort was Princess of Wales from her marriage to King Charles III in 2005 onward but did not publicly go by the title because of its close association with Diana. She instead was referred to as Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.)

“King Charles III bestowed the titles of Prince and Princess of Wales to Prince William and his wife the day after the Queen’s death, and Kate’s popularity has only soared,” the outlet writes. “However, the newly minted princess now faces inevitable comparisons with Diana, the best-loved royal in modern history. Like the woman whose iconic sapphire engagement ring she wears every day, the new Princess of Wales has undertaken ambitious projects throughout the United Kingdom on child development, mental health, and family well-being.”

As for her late mother-in-law’s legacy, palace sources say Kate “appreciates the history associated with this role but will understandably want to look to the future as she creates her own path.”

“She will do so with humility and by acknowledging the past, but in her own way,” Lowther-Pinkerton adds.

Eventually, the five-member Wales family—William, Kate, and their children Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis—will move from the four-bedroom Adelaide Cottage into Windsor Castle. But “for now, cottage life is much like it is at their country retreat Anmer Hall in Norfolk, where the kids and their friends are in and out of the swimming pool. George will flop onto the sofa beside his father, while Charlotte makes a beeline for familiar guests,” People reports.

As one close family friend puts it, theirs is a life of a “modern royal family doing normal things,” even in the midst of a rather abnormal reality.