The British monarchy is still immersed in a worrying crisis of public confidence after the controversy over the edited photo of the Princess of Wales, two months after her mysterious “abdominal surgery” that has given rise to all kinds of conjectures by the media.
The princes of Wales, William and Catherine, two of the most beloved members of royalty in this country, have become in the last days a focus of questions after a difficult week for the institution.
The Financial Times (FT) recalls today that since the princess’ hospitalization in January and since she was removed from public life, speculation has varied, raising all kinds of theories “that go from being in a coma to having undergone a facial stretch or is divorcing,” among others.
This newspaper also raises another interesting debate of what he calls the “Kate Gate”, the one that surrounds the reconciliation on its public and private role: “Being exposed is what has kept the monarchy for centuries. If someone disappears for too long, the citizens take their revenge,” he says.
He also notes that Catalina’s paradox is that she “suffers in part because of her popularity” and she sums that the “obsession with her private life” could be due to the fact that the number of members who actively work for the institution has been reduced “accidentally” with the cancellation of commitments by William to take care of his children, after the departure of the Dukes of Sussex to California (United States) and with Prince Andrew at disgrace.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
Although the media tsunami has declined in the United Kingdom, the firstborn of Carlos III and his wife are still analyzed with a magnifying glass for their way of managing the dissemination on March 10 – Mother’s Day in this country – in their X account of an image of Catalina and her three children that she later confessed that she had retouched.
Several international graphic agencies took the unusual decision to remove the photo from their services when she realized that it had been manipulated, which forced the princess to publicly admit that she herself had edited it by “experimenting as an amateur photographer” and apologizing for it.
Given the opacity that surrounds Catalina’s state of health since her operation on January 16, the image, in which she was seen sitting with her children very smiling, aroused great public expectation.
In the photo, some slight inconsistencies could be noticed in the line of Princess Carlota’s cuff, the print of Luis’s sweater and other blurred contours.
“Like many amateur photographers, I occasionally experiment with (photo) editing,” he wrote in X Catalina, who expressed his apologies “for any confusion” that the incident had caused.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
Despite the fact that the family tried to downplay those tweaks – probably made with editing programs or with the mobile – emphasizing the informality of the image, for many experts the incident undermines the credibility of royalty and their messages.
The episode, which has been echoed by media from all over the world, also takes on particular relevance at a time when speculations do not cease about the nature of Catalina’s ailment, of which absolutely nothing is known, except that it is not cancer and that will keep her away from her commitments until after Easter.
King Charles III, who is undergoing cancer treatment, and Camila, whose press office is different from that of the princes of Wales, have remained out of this controversy.
The controversial British presenter Piers Morgan wondered this week on his YouTube channel if the royal family “is hiding something” and insinuated – although he did not confirm – that he had heard “alarming” rumors related to the princess.
“I have been told things that, even if only half of them were true, it is quite alarming what is happening. I don’t know what to believe, nor any of us. We’re not there,” he said.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
Since the publication of the photo, local media have been attentive to the movements of royals, and documented how Prince William and Catherine left together on Monday by car from their residence in Windsor (about 40 kilometers from London).
According to the palace, William was on his way to a religious service in London’s Westminster Abbey for Commonwealth Day (the Commonwealth of Ancient British Territories), while his wife, who was already known not to attend, was on her way to a private appointment.
Appeals Court blocks Trump’s White House ballroom project without congressional approval
A U.S. appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump must obtain approval from Congress before moving forward with his plan to build a large ballroom on the White House grounds, at the site where the East Wing of the presidential residence previously stood.
The decision was issued in a 2-1 ruling, with the judges determining that a project of such magnitude falls under Congress’ authority and cannot be carried out solely through executive action.
In its ruling, the court sided with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the organization that filed the lawsuit seeking to halt the construction. The judges found that the plaintiffs had convincingly demonstrated that Congress had never granted the executive branch the authority to “redesign or rebuild the White House, the People’s House, to satisfy the wishes of any particular president.”
Following the decision, Trump announced that he would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling the decision incorrect.
“We will immediately appeal it to the Supreme Court,” the president wrote in a message posted on his social media platforms.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
Trump also argued that the ruling could pose a security risk to the presidential complex, claiming that it threatens the safety of White House employees, future workers, visitors, heads of state, and other dignitaries.
The president has repeatedly said that the project would not require taxpayer funding and that its financing would come from private donations by business leaders close to his administration, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
However, a previous estimate published by The Washington Post placed the project’s cost at approximately $600 million and suggested that nearly half of the funding could come from public resources, contradicting Trump’s claims.
Rubio warns Cuba U.S. pressure campaign will continue through Trump’s term
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that the Cuban government will not find a way out of the pressure campaign imposed by Washington and warned that waiting for the end of President Donald Trump’s second term will not change the situation for the island.
In an interview with U.S. outlet Axios, Rubio said the American administration will continue blocking any mechanisms Cuba uses to ease the impact of sanctions and other measures implemented by Washington.
Rubio argued that Havana can no longer rely on the possibility that time will bring a change in U.S. policy.
“Without a doubt, this situation is not going to disappear in the next two and a half years,” Rubio said, referring to the remaining period of Trump’s current term.
The U.S. official also said Cuba is facing an increasingly difficult scenario following the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces in January. According to Rubio, the event led to new restrictions on oil supplies to the island, worsening Cuba’s economic and energy crisis.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
Rubio’s comments come amid continued tensions between Washington and Havana, with the U.S. government maintaining its policy of sanctions and diplomatic pressure on the Cuban authorities.
Afghan man sentenced to life in prison for deadly Munich vehicle attack
A German court on Thursday sentenced an Afghan man to life imprisonment for a 2025 attack in which he drove a vehicle into a trade union demonstration in Munich, killing two people and injuring around 40 others.
The Munich Higher Regional Court ruled that the 25-year-old man, identified only as Fahrad N. under German privacy laws, committed a particularly serious crime.
Presiding judge Michael Höhne said the court was convinced that the defendant deliberately drove his vehicle into the protesters from behind. He described the scene of the attack as a “real field of destruction.”
The verdict followed the request of federal prosecutors, while the defense had sought a 15-year prison sentence and admission to a psychiatric hospital.
Fahrad N. was convicted of two counts of murder and 23 counts of attempted murder, one more charge than prosecutors had requested. He was also found guilty of 19 counts of serious bodily harm and three counts of intentional injury.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
The attack occurred on February 13, 2025, as Munich prepared to welcome international leaders attending the Munich Security Conference, while Germany was entering the final stage of its parliamentary election campaign.
That morning, around 1,400 people were marching through the city center in a demonstration organized by the services union Verdi. According to investigators, the Afghan national drove a BMW Mini past police officers escorting the march before intentionally crashing into the crowd.
The vehicle traveled approximately 23 meters before coming to a stop.
Fahrad N., who was interested in bodybuilding, arrived in Germany at the age of 15 as an unaccompanied minor and had his residence permit renewed. Authorities had previously considered him “well integrated” into local society.
Investigators said he later became radicalized under the influence of Afghan clerics he followed on social media in the months before the attack.
Advertisement
20260804_vacaciones_728x90px
20260101_dengue_cubeta_728x90
20260101_dengue_barril_728x90
20260101_dengue_llanta_728x90
20260101_dengue_pileta_728x90
20260224_estafa_mh_728x90
20260212_constancia_pagos_mh_728x90
20250901_vacunacion_vsr-728x90
20250901_minsal_tetra_-728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
According to prosecutors, the defendant believed Western countries were responsible for the suffering of Muslim populations in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and concluded that he should “kill randomly selected people in Germany.”
