now on bbc news, it's panorama. king charles iii is preparing for the most significant day of his life — his coronation. my life will, of course, change, as i take up my new responsibilities. god save the king! he's facing big challenges. there are questions about the monarchy�*s wealth and privilege. there is so much wealth that they hold which is untouched and untaxed and is unaccounted for. the cost of the monarchy is tiny compared to what it produces for this country. storm clouds are gathering in some commonwealth countries over slavery. justice will require

a formal apology. and a new opinion poll suggests support for the monarchy is waning, especially among the young. this, i think, is a problem for charles. how can he, as it were, recruit the young to support of the monarchy? the uk's very different today from when the king's mother was crowned 70 years ago. can he, and will he, change the monarchy? charles and camilla are on a walkabout at york minster. it's exciting. the atmosphere�*s lovely. jack wants to see the king. big crowds have turned out to welcome them. i think they make a lovely couple and i think they're very dignified. amazed. really privileged to see that, yeah. god save the king!

there's a small but noisy protest here, too... chants: not my king! all: not my king! republicans who want to get rid of the hereditary monarchy and have an elected head of state instead. across the country, there are millions of people who want the monarchy abolished. they spend so much of our money on their lives and their homes and their travel but we're basically wanting to raise awareness of the growing movement against the monarchy and to object to the succession. after queen elizabeth's diamond jubilee, the monarchy�*s popularity soared. a year later, in 2013, a yougov poll suggested 75% of the population supported it. just 17% wanted an elected head of state. but since then, support has been drifting downwards so, ahead of the coronation, panorama has commissioned a new opinion poll.

it suggests 58% of the population still want a monarchy, while 26% want an elected head of state. young people are usually less likely to support the monarchy. but in 2013, the polls suggested 64% of 18— to 2a—year—olds did. in the latest polling, that's down to 32%. i heard a lack of enthusiasm in york. do you care about the monarchy? is it something you support? no. i wouldn't say i don't care but i'd say it's not necessarily something that i'm invested in. i'd say i wasn't invested in it. the only person i know who does support the monarchy is my gran, and she loves it. anna whitelock is a historian, exploring the place of the monarchy in modern britain. charles has a problem with gen z. the monarchy, for the young people, represents so many things that is unfair. it's the epitome of an unfair

society so, yeah, the future of the monarchy, for charles and for william, and the popular support — which they need — is really in the balance when it comes to the younger people. her majesty's government's priority is to grow and strengthen the economy and help ease the cost of living forfamilies. for some, the very concept of monarchy is out of date and so is inherited wealth, especially during a cost—of—living crisis. i don't know what they do for us, to be honest. i'm not sure. they have a lot of money, we don't. it is what it is. you know, if you want to live i in a democracy, kind of a true democracy, i think a monarchy is kind of outdated. _ just the copious i amounts of land. the monarchy�*s wealth is based on land, more than 200,000 acres of it, some dating back to 1066.

it's called the crown estate. nearly 300 years ago, its profits were surrendered to the government to generate money for public spending. now the royals get a share of the profits, called the sovereign grant. the percentage is decided by the royal trustees, including the prime minister and the chancellor. since 2017, it's been based only on profits from england, wales and northern ireland. as well as land, the crown estate owns much of the coastal seabed and some valuable properties. like here, regent street, one of london's best—known shopping destinations. many of the properties here are part of the crown estate's portfolio, worth £15 billion. in 2020, the crown estate made £345 million in profits. the sovereign grant is currently around £86 million a year.

norman baker was a minister in the coalition government and is a critic of the royals�* finances. 0ur royal family is extraordinarily expensive. so, when people have been struggling to put food on their table across the country, when they're struggling with energy bills, the royal family is raking it in at the moment, absolutely raking it in. buckingham palace says, over the last ten years, the crown estate paid £3 billion to the treasury for public spending and that the cost of the monarchy amounts to little more than a first—class stamp — around £1.29 — per person a year. i think that the royal family give, on the whole, very good value for money and the only people who receive money are those who undertake public duties. the sovereign grant pays for working royals to carry out around 3,000 official engagements a year. as well as travel, it covers staff costs,

hospitality and housekeeping. more than half is spent on the upkeep of its palaces and other properties. six years ago, the amount the royals received from the crown estate revenues increased from 15% to 25%, and that was to pay for the upkeep and refurbishment of this, buckingham palace, over ten years. there's been criticism of some aspects of the royals�* spending. in the last year of the queen's reign, they spent more than £2 million on helicopters and £800,000 on privatejets. the royal family loves helicopters, it loves private jets, and then goes around lecturing people about climate change. prince charles, as he then was, took a helicopter to cambridge to lecture people about this "poor old planet". there are security issues. they have to travel that way, often. they don't have to travel by helicopter.

they can travel by train. they have security people with them. oh, that's absolute rubbish. i mean, there are always people who are going to gainsay anything that the king does. lord soames is an old friend of the king. charles was best man at his wedding. when he uses helicopters or the train or whatever, it is for a very good purpose, of being on public duties, to the people, to the state, to the crown, to whatever. this is not done as a sort ofjaunt. buckingham palace says it takes into account... ..when travel decisions are made. so, do people now think the royal family is good or bad value for money? 0ur poll suggests 54% believe they're good value, 32% think they're bad value for money.

i think the cost of the monarchy is tiny compared to what it produces for this country and what it means to this country. he is an incredibly important asset because he is above and beyond politics, he is the king, and he is the greatest asset of soft power this country has. this year, the crown estate announced a huge financial windfall, around £1 billion, from leases for wind farms on its seabeds. that could have meant an extra £250 million a year being added to the sovereign grant over the next three years. at the beginning of the year, king charles announced he'd waive his percentage of the profits received from six wind farm licences to the treasury, for the wider public good, he said. critics say because the decision wasn't his to make, he shouldn't take

credit for it. what charles was doing was anticipating what's going to happen and making it look as though it was his decision. it would have come anyway. the royal trustees are now carrying out their regular five—year review of the sovereign grant. but that's only part of the financial picture. the royals don'tjust get funds from the crown estate. they have two private estates, dating back to medieval times. more than 175,000 acres of land, together worth £1.7 billion. the duchy of lancaster is the monarch�*s. the money it makes is used to fund the wider royal family. last year, the late queen received an income of £24 million. the other, the duchy of cornwall, funds the public, private and charitable activities of the prince of wales. last year, it generated

an income of £23 million. some believe these estates should belong to the nation. the duchy of cornwall and duchy of lancaster, in my view, are public assets and the money they raise, in terms of profits, should go to the taxpayer, to fund public services, but instead, they're diverted into royal coffers, and that cannot be right. this is dartmoor. a third of it belongs to the duchy of cornwall. there's huge inequality of land ownership in england and in britain. the monarchy is part of that inequality. i'm here with guy shrubsole, who's been investigating duchy land. he says it was hard to identify its full extent. this is a map i've made of land owned by the crown and its different institutions. the stuff in red is owned by the duchy of cornwall. mmm—hmm. it's very hard to get hold

of this information. did you ask them for maps? i did, but they're not subject to freedom of information requests, so they're under no obligation to give anything to me like that. i had to put this together, using all sorts of different information and it was a very painstaking process. i think that something that is so integral to the way in which the british state is run, as the crown, ought to be more transparent about how it uses land and what it's doing with it and whether it's serving the public interest. buckingham palace says: it says, as a private estate, the duchy is exempt from freedom of information rules, but it endeavours to answer: the monarchy has other exemptions, too. it's about the royals not playing by the rules, having their own arrangements. there is so much wealth that they hold, which is untouched and untaxed and is unaccounted for.

the monarch and the heir are exempt from paying income tax, though for 30 years, they've paid it voluntarily. and when queen elizabeth died, charles didn't have to pay inheritance tax. for everybody else, it's 40% inheritance tax on anything over £325,000 that you inherit. not for the monarchy. we don't know how much the queen was worth and how much she passed on to charles because they're exempt from publishing their wills. the monarch has exemptions from inheritance tax. the government says it would be inappropriate to tax assets held by the sovereign, and that the monarchy needs a degree of financial independence. but with all its wealth and privilege, there's a danger the monarchy could be seen as an institution that doesn't understand the lives

of ordinary people. in our poll, we asked if king charles is in touch or out of touch with the experiences of the british public. the poll suggests 36% think he is touch, but 45% think he isn't. among the young people polled, nearly 16% think he's in touch. nearly 60% think he's not. do you think he understands how ordinary people live, particularly in a time now when families are struggling, or is he not more in an ivory tower? no, he's absolutely not in an ivory tower. i mean, he is the king and obviously, he doesn't live in a council house. but he really does understand people and he has a tremendous social conscience. the king has a long track record of helping young disadvantaged people.

martina milburn worked closely with him for 18 years at the charity he founded, the prince's trust. over a million young people have been helped by the prince's trust. he has an amazing ability to reach teenagers, which a lot of people don't have. and i've literally been with him in prisons, in youth offending institutes, injob centres, and he can make that connection. it is quite extraordinary. but some young people may have been alienated by what's been happening within charles�*s own family. cheering. when prince harry married meghan markle five years ago, it seemed to herald a new era — a forward—looking royal family, more diverse and inclusive. she is absolutely beautiful! i'm so excited for them to be here today! mixed kids.

yeah, mixed kids in. the royal family now! it was a huge opportunity. there was excitement amongst the younger generations in this country. they're the future of the royal family. but very quickly, the potential, i think, that her arrival seemed to offer diminished and whittled away. and i think that's because of some baked—in issues — institutional racism — within the core of the monarchy and the monarchy more broadly. the royal family are said to be hurt and disappointed after prince harry and his wife meghan announced last night they are stepping back from royal duties. harry, over here! harry, what do you think about destroying the royal family? meghan and harry have since claimed the royal family failed to defend them from attacks in the press which they felt were racist.

tonight, for the first time, they tell their story. whoa! then, meghan dropped her bombshell during an interview with oprah winfrey about remarks she claims were made by one of the royals about her unborn child. concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born. what?! can you just let me know — is the royal family- a racist family, sir? no, we're very much not a racist family. friends of the king say the breakdown in relations with meghan and harry was a personal blow and any claims of racism are unjustified. i think what happened is extremely hurtful and very sad. there's not a racist drop of blood in the king. ijust don't think it's a problem. it's made into a problem by those who wish to make it a problem. within the wider royal household, there has been a problem. at a gathering hosted by the queen consort, lady hussey repeatedly

challenged this woman, ngozi fulani, a charity founder, to say where she and "her people" were really from. mandu reid was there when it happened. the interrogation really left myself, ngozi and the other woman who was with us in a state of shock and surprise. we had been made to feel that we weren't welcome. lady hussey had been a lady—in—waiting to queen elizabeth. unpaid, but an influential courtier in the innermost circle. lady susan hussey has been with the royal household for 60 years, so she's somebody who i think is actually quite a good barometer of what's going on, what the culture is within that institution. she's steeped in the culture of that institution. the palace moved swiftly to try to defuse the row with a public statement of apology. lady susan stepped back

from official duties and, at a reconciliation meeting, apologised to ngozi fulani. both sides acknowledged no malice was intended. buckingham palace says: it says it's reviewed: in our poll, we asked if the royal family has a problem with race and diversity. 46% say it doesn't, but 32% say it does. of those polled, people from an ethnic minority background are the most likely to think it has a problem — almost half do. i've worked with him on a lot of faith—based communities — for example, with the muslim community — and i have never seen any form of racism whatsoever. so, when people say that they

feel that the royal family is racist, where is that coming from? i suspect they're looking at british institutions generally — of which, obviously, the royal family is one. questions about race have created problems notjust in the uk, but also abroad. the commonwealth was a source of enormous pride to the late queen. it grew to 56 nations during her reign. today, they form a strong international association of 2.5 billion people. their representatives have come to westminster abbey to hear the new king. ours is an association not just of shared values but of common purpose and joint action.

but outside, there are signs all is not well. in 15 of the commonwealth countries, king charles is head of state. many are in the caribbean, where there's anger over slavery and its legacy. the royal family has historic links to the slave trade, dating back to queen elizabeth i's reign and later, the creation of the royal african company under charles ii. in those early years, the africans were branded �*dy' on the shoulder, a hot iron — duke of york. in barbados, historian sir hilary beckles chairs the caribbean commission, calling for britain to acknowledge its historic responsibility for slavery. it was charles i who deemed african people to be non—human, so between the first charles and the second charles,

they were the ones who became enriched out of slavery and slave trading. so, the question is what can we expect from charles iii? i cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many as i continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery's enduring impact. for many, expressions of sorrow are not enough. slavery was a crime against humanity, so statements of regret, in many ways, it presents an affront to the sensibility of people who are in search ofjustice. and not only is it inadequate, it is, in fact, offensive. this is the family name, here? yeah. one british family who profited from the slave trade has gone further. this is one of our estates. the family's estates

was in here. john dower is a member of the trevelyan family. his ancestors owned plantations in grenada, and slaves. the compensation for slavery, when it was abolished in 1833, went to the people who owned the slaves. my ancestors received payments of £29,000 for 1,004 slaves which, in today's money, was worth about £3 million. in february, john and others from the family went to grenada to offer a personal apology. one of them's pledged to give £100,000 to a local education trust. we write to apologise for the actions of our ancestors in holding your ancestors in slavery. john dower believes the king should follow their family's lead. i think absolutely, he should apologise because i think an apology is really the first step for people

who were enslaved and their descendants, to feel as though they're being recognised. the relationship of _ the monarchy to the caribbean is tense, but that. tension can easily be alleviated by the king pursuing a reparatoryjustice path that l begins with language of apology land then evolves into practicall everyday activity that - will help to promote caribbean economic development. it may not be charles�*s decision to make. the problem is one for the government, not for the king — he will act on advice and the government has to decide what to do — but, in general, the royal family do not make apologies and i don't think we can expect the royal family to make apologies, unless directed to do so by the government of the day. buckingham palace says king charles takes the issue

of slavery: it says: ..exploring the links between the british monarchy and the slave trade. the queen's standard is lowered. britain's historic links to slavery are part of the reason why barbados became a republic two years ago, though it stayed in the commonwealth. freedom, justice and self—determination have been your guides. more caribbean nations have said they may hold referendums about removing the monarch as head of state, so how would charles handle the likely shrinking of his realm? applause. well, i think he's said that if they want to become

republics, then that is a matter for them. and what does that show about his attitude as a person? i think it shows that he's very pragmatic and sensible. but if they no longer wish to have the king as head of state, that's their call. it's their country. times have changed since the last coronation 70 years ago. zadok the priest, by handel, plays. each monarch in this country has always left their own imprint. they do it in their own way. look how it changed under the last queen. and, of course, it'll change with the times. we don't yet know what charles will do but he's let it be known he's in favour of a slimmed—down monarchy. i imagine he feels that the monarchy should be a sort of slimmed—down version because he thinks that it's not appropriate for modern days to have a very large royal family.

there are already fewer working royals — scandal forced prince andrew to step back while harry and meghan chose to leave — but could charles do more? charles is really looking at the family and going, "0k, who is doing what? "i'm not offering a kind of housing association "for people who can just live rent—free in palace "accommodation," so i think he wants to have much more control about who he sees as working royals and what, actually, they get paid for by the taxpayer. while preparations for the coronation are gearing up, our poll asked whether people are interested in the royal family or not. 42% said they are but 58% said they aren't, and that's a challenge for king charles. i think he will be very much a king for his time. he's very aware of the difficulties this country faces. i think the future of the monarchy is very secure

in his hands and in the hands, after him, of the prince of wales. if the monarchy is going to be the thing that makes britain great, it's going to have to redefine what it is orjust be honest about what it is for the 21st century because it's living off the position it had over the past few centuries. the monarchy�*s been part of the fabric of british life for centuries. many love the majesty, the magic. but our poll suggests the shine may be wearing off for the next generation. as it's done throughout the ages, the crown will have to adapt to survive.

live from london. this is bbc news... fighting continues in sudan with fresh artillery and air strikes. thousands more people try and leave the country. russian officials say a massive blaze at an oil depot in russian—occupied crimea was caused by a drone attack. at least five people, including an eight—year—old child, have been killed after a mass shooting in texas. this neighbourhood, they're always shooting. they're always calling the cops and there's nothing done for that. yeah, just, i mean, especially on holidays — fridays, saturdays — there always shootings. and how the city of liverpool is preparing to welcome the lgbt+ community ahead of the eurovision song contest.