With the royal family making headlines once again, our royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills answered the questions you sent in earlier.
Thursday 30 June 2022 16:03, UK
Our royal correspondent answered your questions on the future of the monarchy, family rifts and whether the UK is getting value for money.
Thanks to the hundreds of you who submitted questions - we'll be back with another Q&A soon.
The Charity Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, says it is aware of the reports about donations accepted by Prince Charles and is looking into the matter.
On Monday, it said: "We will review the information to determine whether there is any role for the Commission in this matter."
Charities are allowed to accept donations in cash. Clarence House insists all 颅correct processes were followed over the donations from Qatar's former prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim.
It was reported by the Sunday Times that the cash was subsequently given to Coutts bank, which would not comment on specific transactions but told Sky News that they have robust controls in place to assess the source, nature and purpose of large and unusual transactions.
The money was deposited with the Prince of Wales's charitable fund who say it was looked at and assessed by auditors.
There are no suggestions anything illegal took place, but it has led some to question the prince's judgement and those advising him. A senior palace source said yesterday that it wouldn't happen now.
How much revenue in tourism etc do the royals generate for the country?
The figures are always up for debate. I saw one set of numbers from Forbes magazine saying they're worth 拢19bn to Britain鈥檚 economy every year.
That's obviously thanks to people visiting all of the royal palaces, and tourists generally flocking to London to stand outside the likes of Buckingham Palace. Also having a royal warrant on various goods and products is often seen as an excellent selling point.
But what I've always found most interesting is talking to diplomats and ambassadors about how influential the Royal Family can be when it comes to promoting brand Britain, with many agreeing that there isn't anything more powerful than a royal visit or an invitation to spend time with the Queen for maintaining our relationships with countries around the world.
But it won't stop the debate about whether the Windsors are value for money.
Why wouldn't the Royal Family be more transparent on some of these issues? Whilst I understand the desire to keep some matters internal, these particular issues will only fuel the opportunity for speculation and inaccuracies.
As I've said before when it comes to the bullying investigation I think a lot of it is down to that clash between wanting to show they are a modern, open, forward thinking institution but at the heart of it there is a family who we know have had their differences. That's why I suspect they felt they couldn't go further with releasing the findings, but it doesn't look great and speaking to HR experts they suggested to me they could have given more details without compromising confidentiality.
One thing they have done for only the second time this year is release the staff diversity figures for all the different households, along with commitments to work harder on issues around inclusivity, so we are seeing that they do appreciate the importance of transparency.
With so many working royals being elderly, do you anticipate that a King William might ask Zara and Mike, who are a very popular couple and much-loved family members to fill the void, especially due to the Sussexes being abroad and the unpopularity of the York cousins?
Interesting thought. A few years ago I was told that when Prince William would one day become king there was always a sense that Prince Harry would be his "wingman", able to carry out the engagements that William would no longer be able to fulfil as king. That of course is no longer an option.
I'm not sure I can see him asking Zara and Mike Tindall to step in and I'm not sure they'd want to because of their own careers.
I also think that like Prince Charles, William is conscious of any perception that there are too many "hangers on" potentially costing the taxpayer money.
And don't forget in years to come what he will have is three children to back him up, which is why it was so interesting to see Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis getting a taste of official royal life over the Platinum Jubilee weekend.
When will the royals bring up poverty in Britain?
At a time when all we keep hearing about is the cost of living crisis and our bills rising, the thought of the monarchy costing us over a 拢100m last year is eye-watering.
They would justify the spend on things like refurbishing Buckingham Palace and expensive flights, saying it's all to do with the important official work they carry out on behalf of the country.
To be fair to them, a lot of their engagements recently have had a focus on those who are struggling financially. Kate made a visit to a baby bank where they hand out donations to parents, Prince Charles looked at employment opportunities for young people, and William talked to men about the mental toll that financial struggles are having. But they will inevitably always face the criticism of "how can they understand" when their family is one of the most privileged in the country.
After the Queen's reign, will the monarchy find itself fighting to remain popular when Prince Charles takes the throne, given the Qatari news?
It's been really interesting talking to people around the Platinum Jubilee about how they feel about the Queen and how they feel about the rest of the Royal Family.
One landlord in Hemel Hempstead said to me "she's magic but the world isn't magic", adding that there's loads of respect for the 96-year-old monarch but all the recent troubles with her family, including Prince Andrew and the Sussexes leaving, have made people think differently about the others.
It's something I think the palace are aware of and that's why everything we saw around the Jubilee weekend was so significant. With the Queen on the balcony just with Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and the children, the Queen was showing us she has faith and trust in those who will follow her and we should too.
She's again doing her best to future proof the monarchy, but stories like Prince Charles accepting bags of cash for his charity certainly don't help, even though there's no suggestion anything illegal happened and a senior palace source stressed it wouldn't happen now.
Is Prince Andrew likely to be prosecuted by the US and, if so, would the UK government allow him to be extradited?
Ghislaine Maxwell being sentenced in America has again brought up the discussions about whether prosecutors in the states could now have their eyes on Prince Andrew.
As a friend of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, authorities in the states have said for some time they want to speak to Prince Andrew as a witness and not as a suspect.
Prince Andrew has always said he didn't see anything to cause any suspicion or alarm, and has denied sex abuse allegations made specifically against him. So something would need to dramatically change for him to be prosecuted.
In 2020, the US Justice Department sent a mutual legal assistance request to the UK home office asking for help to talk to the duke. So far there haven't been any updates on what happened to that request.
What can we expect when Prince Charles becomes king? Any major changes?
After decades as heir to the throne, the Prince of Wales has gained a reputation for being a campaigning prince on all kinds of issues like the environment, supporting young people, refugees.
It's not something everyone has been happy about, with some saying he should be more politically neutral. Around his 70th birthday he was asked if when he's king he'll be a "meddling monarch".
He replied: "No, it won't. I'm not that stupid, I do realise that it is a separate exercise being sovereign...
"The idea somehow that I'm going to go on in exactly the same way if I have to succeed is complete nonsense, because the two, the two situations are completely different."
But I think he is aware of the perception that the monarchy costs us too much money, which is why I suspect we'll see what's been described as a slimmed down monarchy, with much more emphasis on the top tier of the family.
If Meghan was indeed guilty of bullying, would the royal family have suppressed the findings of the independent investigation?
Why was the Meghan review looking at how staff handled the complaints, rather than the allegations themselves - and why won't they be made public?
Why is there an investigation into bullying by Meghan when there was no investigation into the treatment she received, which could also amount to bullying? Isn't this a double standard?
This was seen by many of us as the big news to come out of the annual finances.
Last year when we first found out that a law firm had privately been instructed to look into it, we all got the impression from the palace that there would be some process of publicly reporting back on the findings. Of course, due to confidentiality, we didn't expect to hear everything but there was a sense of frustration that we weren't given clearer guidance on what specific policies have now changed after the serious concerns that were reported.
In the palace's mind it was always going to look at how it was handled rather than what was said or done. Why? I suspect in the end because it was easier on family relations.
Meghan and her lawyers have always strongly denied the allegations. I asked her team at Archewell if she had been involved in the review or told of the findings. They didn't comment but stressed how the report was into the handling of the claims and not the claims themselves.
I also understand from former staff that only a very limited number of people were involved in the investigation. I also get the sense that many just want to move on from what was a difficult time for some.
But no, I don't think it looks good for the royal family and again shows how a lack of openness - especially around matters involving family - seriously clashes with their preferred image of being a forward thinking institution.
TD:
TD: