Getty
The update at first appeared innocuous enough: palace sources confirmed that beleaguered Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would not attend the Royal Family’s traditional Easter Sunday church service at Windsor Castle.
It was hardly a surprise, given that the daughters of disgraced Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and his ex Sarah Ferguson have been well and truly in the spotlight of late – and not in a good way – as speculation mounts over the state of their marriages amid the family’s Epstein files-related crisis. (Of course it should be noted here that mention in the files does not suggest wrongdoing.)
Even so, royal sources made clear the sisters had made “alternative arrangements” for Easter, with King Charles’ agreement – and The Times suggested that there were fears their presence at such a high profile occasion would “overshadow proceedings”.
Except, one royal expert has gone public with his extraordinary take on events, claiming that “whatever the official line, the absence is a clear sign of three things”.
Author and journalist Tom Sykes – the man behind The Royalist substack – boldly declares that “the sisters are out”; “Prince William is in charge now” and “nobody in the British media can risk saying that. Yet.”
Certainly, there is a whiff of William about the latest status quo.
An insider told royal expert Rob Shuter – as reported on his Naughty But Nice substack – that “William is tightening the circle, and this is what that looks like.”
“He’s thinking about the future, not feelings,” the source continued, of William. “It’s about protecting the brand.”
While palace aides are outwardly insisting that Beatrice and Eugenie will return to the royal fold in time, behind closed doors things are far from certain.
“Charles may still be King,” the insider told Shuter, “but William is making the decisions that matter.”
It’s a stance that fellow royal expert Sykes agrees with – and he has a chilling prediction of why William holds so much sway.
“What is really going on here, of course, is the thing the UK newspapers and the outlets around the world that recycle their copy can’t tell you: power is bleeding from King Charles to Prince William because Charles is dying,” he claims.
“This always happens when a monarch is terminally ill: the heir’s instincts start to shape outcomes long before the formal transfer of authority arrives.”
It should be noted that details about Charles’ health woes have been scarce since he went public in February 2024 to say he had been diagnosed with a form of cancer, discovered during treatment for an enlarged prostate.
In December 2025, he shared the “good news” that “thanks to early diagnosis, effective intervention and adherence to ‘doctor’s orders’” his own schedule of cancer treatment could be “reduced” in the new year.
While the type of cancer Charles has has not been revealed, it has been confirmed that he does not have prostate cancer.
Even so, Charles’ statement was carefully worded to suggest good news, but it stopped short of saying treatment was no longer necessary.
In February, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams gave an interview to Fox News Digital, in which he spoke of family concerns over Charles’ health.
“There is no doubt that the pressures on King Charles, who is suffering from cancer, are intense. William and Catherine are reportedly extremely concerned about the way the crisis over Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is developing and the effect this is having on the King’s health,” the expert said.
Adding to intrigue over the King’s current state of health is the recent revelation that his father – Prince Philip – suffered from inoperable pancreatic cancer for eight years before his death, aged 99, in 2021.
Royal biographer, Hugo Vickers, makes the claim in his forthcoming book Queen Elizabeth II.
