Latest news with #RoyalHolloway
1News
01-07-2025
- Business
- 1News
King Charles decommissions royal train after 156 years of service
The Royal Train will soon leave the station for the last time. King Charles III has accepted it's time to decommission the train, whose history dates back to Queen Victoria, because it costs too much to operate and would have needed a significant upgrade for more advanced rail systems, Buckingham Palace said on Tuesday. "In moving forwards we must not be bound by the past," said James Chalmers, the palace official in charge of the king's financial affairs. "Just as so many parts of the royal household's work have modernised and adapted to reflect the world of today, so too the time has come to bid the fondest of farewells, as we seek to be disciplined and forward-looking in our allocation of funding." The train, actually a suite of nine railcars that could be hitched to commercial locomotives, would be decommissioned sometime before the current maintenance contract expired in 2027. That would bring to an end a tradition that dates back to 1869, when Queen Victoria commissioned a pair of special coaches to accommodate her travels. The decision was announced during the palace's annual briefing for reporters on the royal finances. ADVERTISEMENT The royal family would for the fourth consecutive year receive public funding of £86.3 million (NZ$194.4 million), including £34.5 million (NZ$77.7 million) to fund the remodelling of Buckingham Palace, in the 12 months through March 2026. This money came from a mechanism known as the Sovereign Grant, which set aside 12% of the net income from the Crown Estate to fund the official duties of the king and other members of the royal family. The Crown Estate was a portfolio of properties owned by the monarch during his reign. The properties were professionally managed and the king could not dispose of the assets. The Crown Estate ias one of the many relics of Britain's feudal past. King George III, who ruled during the American Revolution, surrendered management of the crown lands to Parliament in 1760 in return for a fixed payment from the Treasury. The royal finances remained a topic of public debate, with Charles pledging to slim down the monarchy and cut costs as he sought to ensure the institution's survival. Buckingham Palace was quick to point out that while the Sovereign Grant has been unchanged for the past four years, inflation has eroded its value. If the grant had increased in line with inflation, it would have been about 106 million pounds this year, the palace said. The basic grant was supplemented with £21.5 million (NZ$48.4 million) of income generated by properties outside the Crown Estate. This income increased by £1.7 million (NZ$3.8 million), driven by a record year for visitors to Buckingham Palace and special tours of the newly renovated East Wing. ADVERTISEMENT Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Royal Holloway, University of London who focused on the political role of the monarchy, said funding for the royals was relatively small when compared to the overall cost of the British state and it provides tangible benefits for the country. "It's something that puts Britain on the world stage in a way that few other things do," he said, noting that Queen Elizabeth II's funeral was the largest gathering of world leaders in history and the coronation was broadcast around the world. "It's one of those things that people think about when they think about Britain." Over the past year, Charles travelled to Australia and attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa — his first as the organisation's head. The royals also took centre stage at the 80th anniversaries of D-Day and V-E Day, which marked the end of World War II in Europe, and welcomed the leaders of Japan and Qatar as they made state visits to the UK. Overall, the royals made 1900 public appearances in the UK and overseas. Some 93,000 guests attended 828 events at the royal palaces.
Hindustan Times
30-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Royal train to end 156 years of service as King Charles III seeks to economize
LONDON — EMBARGOED UNTIL 2100 GMT JUNE 30, 2025. Royal train to end 156 years of service as King Charles III seeks to economize The Royal Train will soon leave the station for the last time. King Charles III has accepted it's time to decommission the train, whose history dates back to Queen Victoria, because it costs too much to operate and would have needed a significant upgrade for more advanced rail systems, Buckingham Palace said Monday. 'In moving forwards we must not be bound by the past,'' said James Chalmers, the palace official in charge of the king's financial affairs. 'Just as so many parts of the royal household's work have modernized and adapted to reflect the world of today, so too the time has come to bid the fondest of farewells, as we seek to be disciplined and forward-looking in our allocation of funding.'' The train, actually a suite of nine railcars that can be hitched to commercial locomotives, will be decommissioned sometime before the current maintenance contract expires in 2027. That will bring to an end a tradition that dates back to 1869, when Queen Victoria commissioned a pair of special coaches to accommodate her travels. The decision was announced during the palace's annual briefing for reporters on the royal finances. The royal family will for the fourth consecutive year receive public funding of 86.3 million pounds , including 34.5 million pounds to fund the remodeling of Buckingham Palace, in the 12 months through March 2026. This money comes from a mechanism known as the Sovereign Grant, which sets aside 12% of the net income from the Crown Estate to fund the official duties of the king and other members of the royal family. The Crown Estate is a portfolio of properties that are owned by the monarch during his reign. The properties are professionally managed and the king cannot dispose of the assets. The Crown Estate is one of the many relics of Britain's feudal past. King George III, who ruled during the American Revolution, surrendered management of the crown lands to Parliament in 1760 in return for a fixed payment from the Treasury. The royal finances remain a topic of public debate, with Charles pledging to slim down the monarchy and cut costs as he seeks to ensure the institution's survival. Buckingham Palace was quick to point out that while the Sovereign Grant has been unchanged for the past four years, inflation has eroded its value. If the grant had increased in line with inflation, it would have been about 106 million pounds this year, the palace said. The basic grant was supplemented with 21.5 million pounds of income generated by properties outside the Crown Estate. This income increased by 1.7 million pounds, driven by a record year for visitors to Buckingham Palace and special tours of the newly renovated East Wing. Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Royal Holloway, University of London who focuses on the political role of the monarchy, said funding for the royals is relatively small when compared to the overall cost of the British state and it provides tangible benefits for the country. 'It's something that puts Britain on the world stage in a way that few other things do,'' he said, noting that Queen Elizabeth II's funeral was the largest gathering of world leaders in history and the coronation was broadcast around the world. 'It's one of those things that people think about when they think about Britain.'' Over the past year, Charles traveled to Australia and attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa — his first as the organization's head. The royals also took center stage at the 80th anniversaries of D-Day and V-E Day, which marked the end of World War II in Europe, and welcomed the leaders of Japan and Qatar as they made state visits to the U.K. Overall, the royals made 1,900 public appearances in the U.K. and overseas. Some 93,000 guests attended 828 events at the royal palaces. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Vox
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Trump wants to take out Iran's nuclear program. His attacks may backfire.
is a professor of international relations and the director of the Centre for International Security at Royal Holloway, University of London. She is an expert on US foreign policy and weapons of mass destruction. People march in Times Square during a rally calling for the Trump administration not to go to war with Iran on June 18, 2025 in New York the weekend, the United States bombed three nuclear facilities in Iran. Iran has been considered a political risk to America since the 1979 revolution, and President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The strikes mark yet another attempt in a long-running US strategy to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions. But whether Trump's strikes will achieve his stated aim of destroying Iran's nuclear program is unclear. It doesn't help that his plan around the attacks has felt haphazard. Trump said Iran had a two-week deadline before he would authorize a strike — then attacked only two days later. Even just before the bombs were dropped Trump was telling the press that targeting nuclear facilities may not even be an option, saying 'I may or I may not do it.' Trump stated in his 2024 election victory speech that he was 'not going to start a war,' yet he has now hinted on social media that regime change could be next. Trump could be accused of simply being chaotic here. But this is a deliberate strategy. Trump has a history of being intentionally unpredictable when it comes to foreign policy, known as the unpredictability doctrine. Drawing from his experiences in his previous career in business, Trump says being predictable is bad. When the other side doesn't know what you are going to do, you are in control. His plan is also about creating uncertainty. You make your opponent unsure of what they are facing and unable to make decisions in response, leaving you to take the advantage. But foreign policy is not business, and a strategy that works with corporations may backfire on the world stage. While nobody knows exactly what will happen next, what can we work out about the implications of Trump's actions now given what has worked (or hasn't) before in terms of nuclear arms control? Strikes now, problems later Countries may consider military strikes on nuclear facilities when they feel that the other side won't cooperate in negotiations. For example, Israel, believing that Iraq would never be serious about a diplomatic solution, bombed an Iraqi enrichment facility at Osirak in 1981 to stymie the nuclear program. The preventive attack did serious damage to the facility, and Israel claimed they had disrupted Iraq's ability to produce a nuclear weapon by destroying the facility before it became functional. A similar aim was likely a factor in Trump's thinking on targeting Iran. Yet military strikes are rarely as clear-cut as they look on paper. They may seem like a simple solution to a dangerous problem by stopping a nuclear program in its tracks. They also deliver results faster than diplomatic options, which can take a lot of time and do not come with any guarantee of a solution. But while Trump may like to think that a few strikes will do the job, using bombs now could create problems for any future US strategy toward Iran — whatever that strategy turns out to be. The first problem is that we do not yet know whether the strikes were entirely successful in taking out the targets. To work properly, a military attack should completely destroy the target facilities to ensure they cannot work. If a facility is even partially functioning after a strike, that state can still run a nuclear program, albeit a reduced one. While Iraq did not go on to develop nuclear weapons after Osirak, it still had sufficient resources to maintain a plan. In fact, some experts argue that the attack only encouraged Iraq to pursue this. While there is evidence of physical damage after Trump's strikes, whether this is enough damage to undermine Iran's nuclear capability remains uncertain. Trump is saying that the three targeted facilities in Iran were 'obliterated.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also reported that the attacks have 'devastated the Iranian nuclear program.' Iran, however, has downplayed the extent of the destruction. The fact that Trump's former aide, Steve Bannon, can't even pronounce the name of one of the facilities, Fordow, properly doesn't exactly build confidence in the administration's assessment. It's also unclear how many nuclear facilities are left outside of the three that were bombed. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently cautioned that there could be clandestine facilities that we just do not know about. Trump himself has claimed there are 'many targets left,' which indicates that Iran still has at least part of an operational program. And now, any future efforts by Iran would also likely be even more secretive and underground, making it more difficult to detect and target in potential future strikes. Even if the US has destabilized the nuclear plan, Iran can still rebuild. In 2010, America tried to disrupt the Iranian program in a cyberattack using a computer worm called Stuxnet against the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. The virus caused the reactors there to slow down and crash. The attack did a lot of damage but — as the current situation shows — Iran was able to continue the program. So it's possible that the recent bombings could slow down Iran's progress, but it won't eliminate the overall and long-term risks. It also will not affect Iran's ability to retaliate with conventional weapons. The incentive for Iran to retaliate is even greater this time. The US has not just taken out a key leadership figure but directly threatened the state itself and its nuclear program at a time of intense conflict with Israel — and the US, where Trump is seen as having entered the war as a result of the weekend strikes. There is now an even higher chance that Iran will fight back this time because it is already fighting, and it could use that war as an opportunity to target the US. Upping the game by using bombs will also encourage escalation by the US. This may be exactly what Trump wants. Yet it is also the case that the situation makes it difficult for him to do anything else. If Iran doesn't show signs of giving in and continues its nuclear ambitions, Trump may be forced to take further action. If he doesn't, it would look like Iran has won, even with three facilities destroyed. Diplomatic options still on the table? So what's next? While suggesting that regime change could be in the cards, Trump has also talked about a diplomatic solution, and this is what many other states would prefer. Using diplomatic negotiations instead of bombs has proven effective — at least partially — in the past, as seen by international agreements to control the global proliferation of nuclear weapons, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Negotiations have also convinced countries, such as Ukraine, to give up their nuclear arsenals. Trump has even relied on diplomacy with states that he has tense relationships with, like North Korea, although some analysts question how effective this has been, not least given that North Korea still has nuclear weapons. If Trump is serious about diplomacy, then the bombing will make this difficult at best, impossible at worst. Trump was clearly hoping that the attacks might soften Iran up for negotiations if he decided to go down that road. He said the attacks should be taken as a sign for Iran to 'make peace' or face 'far greater' attacks in the future. This strategy isn't working so far. When Trump initially threatened strikes, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that such a move would 'undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage' to US-Iran relations. Iran has now repeated this line, saying the impact of the strikes will have 'everlasting consequences.' There's no evidence that Iran would allow itself to be forced into negotiating through threats alone. The solution in Ukraine worked because it was based on a peaceful and collaborative process, not because it was done under duress. It is also worth remembering — as Iran certainly will — that Trump is the one responsible for the failure of a previous diplomatic solution. He was the one who walked away from a nuclear deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This agreement — between Iran and the US, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and Germany — aimed to restrict Iran's nuclear ambitions through demands, such as getting rid of its medium-enriched uranium and not build heavy-water reactors. In return, these countries would reduce their economic sanctions on Iran. Trump said this was a 'one-sided deal' that 'didn't bring peace, and it never will' and pulled out in 2018. Whatever misgivings he had about the deal, it means the US will find it hard to introduce new diplomatic measures now. Trump's perceived lack of commitment reduces the chance that Iran would be willing to talk cooperatively with the US and its allies. While Iran was clearly willing to work diplomatically before, why would it now sit down with someone it feels can't be trusted to stick to an agreed solution? This is especially the case when that someone has just bombed them and is now talking about regime change. Whatever Trump has planned next, his decision to carry out strikes has radically limited both his options and the chances of de-escalation. Based on what we've seen in previous attempts at arms control and conflict resolution, Trump may have unnecessarily inflamed the conflict, left the US open to Iranian retaliation, ruined the option of future diplomacy, and provoked Iran into developing a nuclear weapon. This is a strategy that has a high chance of exploding at some point — if not now in terms of an Iranian escalation, then in the future in the form of a revitalized nuclear program. Related Why the US is attacking Iran now
News18
29-05-2025
- Science
- News18
Moon Drifting Away: Will Earth Have 25 Hour Days?
1/9 Our planet currently runs on a 24-hour day, which shapes our daily routines of work, rest, and recreation. But what if we had 25 hours in a day? While that may sound exciting, it's a change that only future generations, far into the future, might experience. Let's explore why. According to a report by The Times of India, researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison have found that the Moon is drifting away from the Earth at a rate of approximately 3.8 centimetres per year. Though this fact has been known for some time, the long-term effects are now attracting more attention. According to experts, as the moon drifts further away, it will slow the Earth's rotation, eventually resulting in a 25-hour day. 3/9 Professor David Waltham, from Royal Holloway, University of London, explains that this is due to tidal forces gradually slowing the Earth's rotation. The Moon's gravitational pull creates tidal bulges on Earth, which act like a brake, slowly reducing the planet's spin. In turn, some of the energy lost by Earth is transferred to the Moon, causing it to slowly recede from us. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and referenced in a Times of India report, also offers insights into Earth's distant past. Around 1.4 billion years ago, when the Moon was significantly closer, a day on Earth lasted just over 18 hours. Since then, as the Moon has moved further away, the length of a day has gradually increased to the 24-hour cycle we know today. The moon plays a vital role in regulating our planet, especially in influencing ocean tides. When the moon is closer, it creates more powerful tidal waves, potentially even daily tsunamis. As it moves away, these tidal effects lessen. The gravitational interplay between the Earth and the moon keeps this balance in check. However, other planets, such as Mars and Jupiter, also exert gravitational pull on the moon, contributing to its continued drift. This change in distance directly affects how fast the Earth spins. The moon's gravitational force drives tidal waves, which help regulate the planet's rotation. As the moon retreats, its influence diminishes, leading to what scientists call "tidal acceleration" a gradual slowing of Earth's rotation, and a reduction in the height and frequency of tides. 7/9 During the Apollo missions, scientists installed reflectors on the lunar surface and used laser beams to measure the moon's distance precisely. These readings confirm the moon's steady movement away from Earth. At present, the Moon is on average about 384,400 kilometres from Earth and takes roughly 27.3 days to complete one orbit. Current estimates suggest that in around 200 million years, Earth could experience 25-hour days. While this shift doesn't currently impact our daily lives, researchers warn of potential future effects on climate, tides, and ecosystems. A longer day could alter our circadian rhythms, affect agriculture, and even disrupt natural behaviours in wildlife.
RTÉ News
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- RTÉ News
Super Garden designer stuns with WB Yeats-inspired garden
The 16th series of beloved gardening competition Super Garden has returned to our screens on RTÉ One, with this week's episode introducing viewers to the final designer of this series, Rosie Alabaster. Watch back on RTÉ Player now Originally from Stamford in Lincolnshire, Rosie is now based in Kildare and has a keen interest in theatre. As well as working as a theatre designer for over 20 years, and teaching at Royal Holloway college, the 47-year-old wrote children's books as well as illustration and animation. Transitioning her love of design from the stage to the garden, Rosie is pursuing her MA in landscape architecture online with the University of Arts, Bournemouth. The course combines her two loves: plants and outdoor spaces. Rosie moved to Ireland three years ago as her husband's job relocated them. Her husband, Pascal, is originally from Leitrim, and together they have two children, Jack (13) and Meabh (11). Rosie is currently designing a small garden for a charity in the north inner city of Dublin, which provides education for teenage mums, asylum seekers and anyone in the surrounding community. On Super Garden, Rosie has been tasked with designing a garden for young couple Adrian and Gabriella, and their dog Leo. Merging her love for literature and the outdoors, Rosie came up with a strong concept that she hopes will take her to Bord Bia Bloom, a garden inspired by the poem by WB Yeats, Lake Isle of Innisfree. "I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree, And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made; Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee, And live alone in the bee-loud glade." She planned to bring the lake from the poem to her garden with a large wildlife pond, which will be the most dominant feature of the design and something that is a first for Super Garden. Her concept included a reading nook, patio, dining area, and stone path. As impressive as these plans were, though, they didn't necessarily address the homeowners' request for making the space dog-friendly. And while Judge Monica Alvarez was impressed by Super Garden 's first pond, she was concerned that the rest of the garden took a little bit of a backseat. Judge Carol Marks noted that some of the trees were wilting in the summer heat, but Judge Brian Burke surmised that the design was a "bold" and "daring". In the end, with just three weeks and a €15,000 budget, Rosie delivered a unique garden that the homeowners were thrilled with.
