New Photo - The job market may be sinking. Beware of buyouts.

USA TODAY and Yahoo may earn commission from links in this article. Pricing and availability subject to change.The job market may be sinking. Beware of buyouts. Daniel de Visé, USA TODAY August 1, 2025 at 10:42 PM You've been offered a buyout. Your employer wants to pay you to quit.

- - USA TODAY and Yahoo may earn commission from links in this article. Pricing and availability subject to change.The job market may be sinking. Beware of buyouts.

Daniel de Visé, USA TODAY August 1, 2025 at 10:42 PM

You've been offered a buyout. Your employer wants to pay you to quit. It's a big chunk of change.

Should you accept?

Companies offer buyouts to thin the ranks, spending money in the short term to save money in the long run.

Employers often leverage buyouts to avoid layoffs. And that thought, alone, should give you pause.

The Trump administration offered buyouts to the entire federal workforce this year, aiming to reduce it by as much as 10%. Roughly 75,000 workers accepted.

In the private sector, Google, UnitedHealthcare and Nissan, among others, have offered buyouts to U.S. workers this year.

Buyouts can sound tempting. A five-figure severance package might be the most money a worker has ever seen in one paycheck. But it's also the last paycheck your employer will give you.

"It's like lottery winners. Some people think the money lasts longer than it does," said Donna Walton, wealth strategist at TD Wealth.

If you are mulling a buyout, some considerations are universal: How large is the severance package? Am I close to retirement? Did I want to leave that job anyway?

But the current economic climate presents its own challenges.

The job market seems to be weakening. U.S. employers added a disappointing 73,000 jobs in July, as payroll growth slowed amid President Donald Trump's sweeping import tariffs, intensifying immigration crackdown and the aforementioned layoffs.

Even more concerning: Job gains for May and June were revised down by a whopping 258,000, portraying a much weaker labor market than previously believed.

Nearly 2 million Americans have been out of work for six months or longer, the Labor Department reported in May. Companies are doing less hiring due to uncertainty about President Donald Trump's tariffs. Artificial intelligence is taking jobs from new graduates. Recession fears loom.

"It is a very soft job market," said Michele Evermore, a senior fellow at the National Academy of Social Insurance and a former Labor Department official in the Biden Administration, speaking to USA TODAY earlier this year. "It's such a period of economic uncertainty, I think people are hanging onto their jobs."

Here are five tips for employees who are thinking about taking buyouts in 2025:

Jessica Henry, a US federal worker at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who was placed on administration leave at the beginning of April, speaks with a recruiter at a job fair event in Silver Spring, Maryland, on April 16, 2025.Ask for a buyout

Let's start with a proactive step. Maybe your employer hasn't offered a buyout. But you're restless to make a change, and you've heard your company wants to cut costs.

Consider approaching your managers and asking for a buyout. In many cases, there's nothing to stop an employer from creating a voluntary severance package just for you.

"You do see these things happen, particularly if there's news that a company is planning on downsizing," said Michael Scarpati, CEO of RetireUS, a financial wellness platform. "It's kind of a win-win for both parties."

If you're the first to ask for a buyout, you may get a better severance package than the one your employer eventually offers everyone else.

But don't ask for a buyout if you aren't ready to take one.

"You have to be willing to leave if they do offer it to you," Walton said. "It's not something you want to bluff about."

Negotiate the buyout terms

A typical buyout might offer four weeks of pay, plus another week for every year you've worked at the company. You might get extra health insurance coverage, and even help in finding a new job.

Roughly half of workers accept buyout offers without negotiating, AARP reports. But it can't hurt to ask for better terms.

"Think of it as if you're going in for a job interview," Scarpati said.

You could ask for a full year of severance pay, rather than a few months. Perhaps your employer will cover the costs of health insurance while you look for a new job.

Some workers hire attorneys to negotiate buyouts, said David John, a senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute.

That might sound extreme, but remember: A buyout is a business proposition. The contracts can be complicated, sometimes including nondisclosure agreements or noncompete clauses.

Even if you don't bring a lawyer to a buyout negotiation, Walton said, "you should at least meet with one."

Test the job market

Unless you're planning to retire, experts say, you should gauge your chances of finding another job before you leave your current job.

If you work in a shrinking field or an economically afflicted region, you may already know it.

"It's a pretty different thing to take a buyout in D.C. if you work in a think tank, or to take a buyout if you work on an oil rig in South Dakota," Evermore said.

Look at Labor Department jobs reports, Evermore said, to find out how many people are applying for unemployment insurance in your area, and how many are lingering on the benefit rolls.

Better still: Apply for some jobs. See if you get bites. If not, that might be a good sign that a buyout isn't for you.

In the best-case scenario, you can line up a new job before you take the buyout.

A Federal worker (R) who lost her job gets help carrying some of her belongings from her office at the Mary E. Switzer Memorial Building that houses the US Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2025.Gauge the risk of layoffs

Many employers offer buyouts to avoid layoffs, or at least to delay them.

If you have a buyout offer, weigh the odds that the company will resort to layoffs once the buyouts are past.

"A responsible company will address those worries right off the bat, and say yes or no," said John of AARP.

If layoffs are likely, think about whether you might land on a layoff list. Ask your manager if you are vulnerable.

If your company has endured layoffs in the past, look at the severance packages those workers received.

In some cases, Walton said, a buyout package might be "the same thing your company offers you if it lays you off six months from now."

Take your time

Many federal workers who took buyouts from the Trump administration had only weeks to decide.

That's not nearly long enough, experts say.

"Asking someone to make a major life decision that may involve relocating your whole family, you should get at least a few months for that," Evermore said.

Ideally, Scarpati said, six weeks is a "minimum" timeframe for a buyout offer. Ninety days is more reasonable.

Use that time to "think about where you're at in your career," Evermore said. Talk to friends, colleagues and loved ones about your options. Test the job market. Ask yourself if you're ready to uproot your household and move across the country.

And run the numbers. If you are midcareer, do you have enough emergency savings to survive a period of joblessness? How would you cover health insurance? How generous are the unemployment benefits in your state?

If you are near retirement: When were you planning to take Social Security? How would you cover health insurance until Medicare kicks in? Do you have enough retirement savings?

Consider meeting with a financial planner.

"Ideally," Walton said, "have this financial plan done before any of this happens."

Contributing: Paul Davidson

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The job market is sinking. Beware of buyouts.

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL Money"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

The job market may be sinking. Beware of buyouts.

USA TODAY and Yahoo may earn commission from links in this article. Pricing and availability subject to change.The...
New Photo - Big Tech's AI investments set to spike to $364 billion in 2025 as bubble fears ease

Big Tech's AI investments set to spike to $364 billion in 2025 as bubble fears ease Laura BrattonAugust 1, 2025 at 11:32 PM Big Tech firms Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOGL, GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), and Meta (META) reported that they were set to spend as much as a cumulative $364 billion in their respe...

- - Big Tech's AI investments set to spike to $364 billion in 2025 as bubble fears ease

Laura BrattonAugust 1, 2025 at 11:32 PM

Big Tech firms Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOGL, GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), and Meta (META) reported that they were set to spend as much as a cumulative $364 billion in their respective 2025 fiscal years, up from their prior estimates of around $325 billion.

Investors appeared to shrug off the increase for the most part.

Shares of three of the four tech giants spiked following their latest quarterly earnings reports over the past two weeks, which showed the companies broadly outperforming Wall Street's expectations and lifting their capital expenditure forecasts. Meta and Microsoft shares surged roughly 11% and 4%, respectively, in Thursday's trading session, following their quarterly results the prior afternoon. Microsoft's surge briefly pushed the firm's value north of $4 trillion for the first time. Alphabet stock also jumped following its report last week.

Microsoft reported capital expenditures of $88.7 billion in its 2025 fiscal year, which ended June 30, higher than the $80 billion it projected earlier. The company said its spending will grow at a slower pace in its 2026 fiscal year. During the first quarter, it expects to spend $30 billion, a 50% increase from the prior year.

"We will continue to invest against the expansive opportunity ahead across both capital expenditures and operating expenses given our leadership position in commercial cloud, strong demand signals for our cloud and AI offerings, and significant contracted backlog," Microsoft CFO Amy Hood said in an earnings call with analysts.

Meta lifted the bottom of its range for projected capital expenditures, as the Facebook and Instagram parent company spends truckloads of money to build AI data centers and poach talent. The firm said Wednesday it expects spending to tally between $66 billion and $72 billion in its fiscal year 2025 versus its prior range of $64 billion to $72 billion given in May. The latter was already bigger than Meta's initial estimate in February that it would spend up to $65 billion in 2025.

Meta CFO Susan Li said on a call with analysts Wednesday, "[W]e currently expect another year of similarly significant CapEx dollar growth in 2026 as we continue aggressively pursuing opportunities to bring additional capacity online to meet the needs of our AI efforts and business operations."

Alphabet CFO Anat Ashkenazi said the tech giant would spend $85 billion in 2025 rather than its prior estimate of $75 billion, "given the strong demand for our cloud products and services."

Using the top end of Meta's range, $72 billion, the higher forecasts would put Big Tech's spending at $364 billion, up from prior estimates of $325 billion in February.

Wall Street analysts broadly lifted their price targets on the three stocks, saying the investments are justified as they see companies benefiting from the AI boom.

Wedbush analyst Scott Devitt wrote in a note to clients Thursday that Meta's "infusion of AI capabilities across the company's ad stack and content recommendation engines are driving tangible results," raising his outlook on shares to $920 from $750.

RBC Capital's Rishi Jaluria said in his own note that Microsoft's "AI footprint and cloud growth remain underappreciated," raising his price target on the stock to $640 from $525.

Needham analyst Laura Martin said Google is "leading GenAI innovation," lifting her price outlook on Alphabet shares to $220 from $210 last week.

Amazon was an exception to Wall Street's bullish reception of the capital expenditures changes. Shares fell 8% Friday after the company raised its capital expenditure forecast, but its guidance for operating income at its AWS cloud computing unit was lower than expected, raising questions about its AI plans. Amazon said its $31.4 billion in second quarter capital expenditures was "reasonably representative of our quarterly capital investment rate for the back half of this year," implying it would spend around $118.5 billion in the full fiscal year.

Amazon aside, the overall excitement over Big Tech's AI spending is a reversal from investors' wariness over companies' torrid spending at the beginning of the year, when Chinese startup DeepSeek showed its AI models could produce similar results to OpenAI's and were trained at a fraction of the cost. The development raised concerns that tech firms had overspent on AI infrastructure as they were still working on monetizing the technology.

Recently, top voices in the investment world, from legendary short seller Jim Chanos to Apollo senior economist Torsten Sløk, have sounded alarm bells that the stocks are in an AI bubble bigger than the dot-com era.

"The difference between the IT bubble in the 1990s and the AI bubble today is that the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 today are more overvalued than they were in the 1990s," Apollo chief economist Torsten Sløk said in a July 16 blog post. (Disclosure: Yahoo Finance is owned by Apollo Global Management.)

It's unclear exactly how much money companies are making on the technology since they don't break out their AI revenue. Google said AI helped drive the company's latest earnings beat, with AI Overviews achieving 2 billion monthly users, while Meta said AI helped drive its larger-than-expected ad revenue. Microsoft did not break out its Azure AI services revenue as it has in prior quarters, but said it "was generally in line with expectations."

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said, "Our AI business has a multibillion-dollar annual revenue run rate, continues to grow triple-digit year-over-year percentages and is still in its very early days."

"They're not tight for cash. They're seeing some signs that these investments will bear fruit," Cornell University professor Karan Girotra said in an interview with Yahoo Finance on Thursday.

DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria told Yahoo Finance, "The optimism has to do with returns that are coming 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 years out."

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg during the Meta Connect annual event at the company's headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., in September 2024. (Reuters/Manuel Orbegozo/File Photo) (Reuters / Reuters)

Join Groq CEO Jonathan Ross, along with other newsmakers and top investors, at Yahoo Finance Invest on November 12–13 in NYC as they discuss the agenda for success in 2026. Register to attend today.

Laura Bratton is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Bluesky @laurabratton.bsky.social. Email her at [email protected].

Click here for the latest technology news that will impact the stock market

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL Money"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

Big Tech's AI investments set to spike to $364 billion in 2025 as bubble fears ease

Big Tech's AI investments set to spike to $364 billion in 2025 as bubble fears ease Laura BrattonAugust 1, 202...
New Photo - Bessent calls Trump Accounts 'backdoor' for privatizing Social Security. Are you at risk?

Why you can trust us We may earn money from links on this page, but commission does not influence what we write or the products we recommend. AOL upholds a rigorous editorial process to ensure what we publish is fair, accurate and trustworthy.

Why you can trust us

We may earn money from links on this page, but commission does not influence what we write or the products we recommend. AOL upholds a rigorous editorial process to ensure what we publish is fair, accurate and trustworthy. 

Bessent calls Trump Accounts 'backdoor' for privatizing Social Security. Are you at risk?

Yahia BarakahAugust 1, 2025 at 10:37 PM

Mature couple feeling worried while trying to get their finances in order (LordHenriVoton via Getty Images)

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sparked controversy this week when he called the new "Trump accounts" for newborns "a backdoor for privatizing Social Security." He later clarified that the accounts would "supplement" Social Security rather than replace it, but his initial comment left many questions unanswered.

To be clear, no formal plan to privatize Social Security has been proposed. Still, with most retirees depending on Social Security to make ends meet, any major changes to this system could affect millions of people.

What could privatization of Social Security look like?

Social Security privatization has been proposed before. President George W. Bush made it his top domestic priority in 2005, suggesting workers under 55 could divert up to 4% of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. However, the plan stalled as public support declined and Congress remained divided.

Based on previous proposals, privatizing Social Security could replace the current guaranteed monthly benefit and "pay as you go" system with individual investment accounts, similar to 401(k)s or IRAs. Instead of your payroll taxes going into a big pool that pays current retirees, some portion of that money might go into a personal account that you'd invest yourself.

How Social Security current works -

Guaranteed monthly payments for life

Benefits increase with cost-of-living adjustments

Same benefit regardless of market performance

What could change under a privatized system -

Your retirement income might depend on investment performance

No guaranteed monthly amount or lifetime payments

You might get to choose how to invest

Learn more: Can you still retire this year? Here's what the experts think

How you might benefit from privatization

Those who support privatization point to advantages that include the potential for higher returns, more control of your money and independence from government decisions.

Currently, Social Security invests your payroll taxes in government bonds, which have historically returned around 3% to 5% annually. Private investment accounts would let you put that money into the stock market instead, where stocks have historically returned around 10% annually. Additionally, you might be able to pass along your accounts to heirs — something you can't do currently with Social Security benefits.

Private accounts might give you more control over your money. Right now, nearly every aspect of your benefits — from the formula that determines what you get each month to how much you pay in taxes — depends on politicians. With private accounts, you'd control where your money gets invested, with the ability to adjust as you age.

The tradeoffs of privatizing Social Security

Critics of privatization raise two key concerns that come down to market risk and transition costs — a gamble for something as important as your retirement.

You'd trade guaranteed income for uncertainty

Social Security's biggest advantage is that it provides income you can't outlive. Your benefits are protected from inflation and market crashes. Social Security has never missed a payment, delivered on schedule even during the 2008 financial crisis, when many people watched their 401(k) investments drop by 30% or more.

With private accounts, your retirement security would depend entirely on market performance. While you wouldn't need to become a market expert — just like with existing 401(k)s, you could invest in simple index funds or target-date funds — you'd still face the risk of managing your own investments versus having professional oversight. Retire during an economic crash, and you might lose a big portion of your savings.

A transition to private accounts could be expensive

The reality is that privatization costs a lot of money over several decades — money the government would borrow. And the government would still need to pay current retirees while younger workers began putting their money into private accounts, potentially requiring two systems over the transition.

How might the U.S. pay for such a transition? The government would borrow it. To put that borrowing into perspective, congressional estimates put President Bush's 2005 proposal at $4.5 trillion over two decades. This borrowing might push up interest rates for everyone, making everything from mortgages and home loans to car loans and credit cards more expensive.

Learn more: How healthy are your finances, really? 4 money questions to ask yourself today

What privatization could mean for you

Any Social Security privatization would likely be one of the biggest changes to the program since it began in 1935.

A recent survey from the Senior Citizens League shows that 39% of current seniors rely on Social Security for their entire income, while 73% depend on it for more than half their monthly income.

Many Americans are already forced to claim Social Security early due to financial pressure — 68% of current seniors claimed benefits before their full retirement age, with 32% saying they simply couldn't afford basic living expenses without their checks.

Privatization could affect each group in different ways. Women might face bigger challenges since 66% of senior women currently get by on less than $2,000 per month compared to 45% of men. Workers with interrupted careers or lower lifetime earnings could struggle to build adequate private account balances.

That said, your current Social Security benefits might remain unchanged, and any major reforms would likely take years to implement. But given that only 10% of current seniors are satisfied with their Social Security benefits, it's worth considering boosting your 401(k) contributions or building guaranteed income for your later years, regardless of what happens with Social Security.

Learn more: How much can you earn while on Social Security?

More stories about Social Security and retirement planning -

How to find a trusted retirement advisor

Worried about outliving your savings? 5 retirement withdrawal steps to make your money last longer

Is gold a good investment? Pros, cons and when it makes financial sense

What's the average Social Security payment in 2025? Plus: Changes for 2025 and 2026

The 4% rule for retirement: Is it time to rethink this popular withdrawal guideline?

📩 Have thoughts or comments about this story — or ideas on topics you'd like us to cover? Reach out to our team.

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL Money"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

Bessent calls Trump Accounts 'backdoor' for privatizing Social Security. Are you at risk?

Why you can trust us We may earn money from links on this page, but commission does not influence what we write or...
New Photo - EU chief's texts to a pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, the NYT reports

EU chief's texts to a pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, the NYT reports LORNE COOK August 1, 2025 at 8:39 PM 1 / 3Trump ScotlandEuropean Commission President Ursula von der Leyen listens as she meets President Donald Trump at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland Sunda...

- - EU chief's texts to a pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, the NYT reports

LORNE COOK August 1, 2025 at 8:39 PM

1 / 3Trump ScotlandEuropean Commission President Ursula von der Leyen listens as she meets President Donald Trump at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland Sunday, July 27, 2025. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

BRUSSELS (AP) — Text messages exchanged between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and a pharmaceutical boss during the COVID-19 pandemic were seen by her top adviser and have likely been destroyed, the New York Times reported Friday.

Von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla exchanged the messages as COVID-19 ravaged European communities from Portugal to Finland and the EU scrambled to buy millions of hard to find vaccines. She was under intense scrutiny to deliver.

The U.S. newspaper took the European Union's executive branch to court after it refused to share the messages under the bloc's transparency laws. In May, the court said the commission had failed to provide a credible explanation for declining access.

In a letter to the Times dated July 28, the commission said von der Leyen's head of cabinet, Bjoern Seibert, had last month examined the phone she uses and its Signal app and "did not find any messages corresponding to the description given" in the newspaper's request.

It said Seibert also checked her phone in 2021 and found the messages only helped to ensure that calls between von der Leyen and Bourla could be arranged as needed, so they were not kept as official documents.

The commission insists text messages and other "ephemeral" electronic communications do not necessarily constitute documents of interest that should be saved or made public.

Von der Leyen herself was responsible for deciding whether the texts constituted documents of value and worth keeping.

The commission also noted in its letter that her phone has been replaced "several times" since the messages were exchanged, the last time in mid-2024. Her cabinet said the old messages were not saved and the phones were "formatted and recycled."

Critics accuse von der Leyen and Seibert of centralizing power in the EU's powerful executive branch, tightly controlling who works in the cabinets of the various policy commissioners and vetting communications.

Von der Leyen survived a July 10 no-confidence vote in the European Parliament, the first against a commission president in over a decade, which was called in part over the text messaging scandal dubbed Pfizergate, the alledged misuse of EU funds and doubtful allegations about election interference.

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL General News"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

EU chief's texts to a pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, the NYT reports

EU chief's texts to a pharma boss during pandemic were likely erased, the NYT reports LORNE COOK August 1, 202...
New Photo - A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to

A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to The August 2, 2025 at 12:12 AM The map above shows countries that recognize or plan to recognize a Palestinian State.

- - A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to

The August 2, 2025 at 12:12 AM

The map above shows countries that recognize - or plan to recognize - a Palestinian State. (AP Graphic) ()

France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Malta announced plans this week to recognize a Palestinian state that does not yet exist.

Nearly 150 of the 193 members of the United Nations have already recognized Palestinian statehood, most of them decades ago. The United States and other Western powers have held off, saying Palestinian statehood should be part of a final agreement resolving the decades-old Middle East conflict.

This week's announcements were largely symbolic and rejected by Israel, whose current government is opposed to Palestinian statehood.

A two-state solution in which a state of Palestine would be created alongside Israel in most or all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem — territories Israel seized in the 1967 Mideast war — is still seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict.

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL General News"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to

A map showing countries that recognize a Palestinian state and those that plan to The August 2, 2025 at 12:12 AM T...
New Photo - King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert Stephanie Nolasco, Ashley PapaAugust 1, 2025 at 3:00 PM King Charles reportedly wept the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he was still in love with his ex, Camilla.

- - King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

Stephanie Nolasco, Ashley PapaAugust 1, 2025 at 3:00 PM

King Charles reportedly wept the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he was still in love with his ex, Camilla. But he wasn't the only one to shed tears.

"They both [cried]," royal expert Ian Pelham Turner told Fox News Digital, referring to doomed couple Charles and Diana.

"Diana was reluctant about marrying Charles but was told by her sister it was too late. The tea towels with their joint images were already being sold. Charles was given cufflinks with a Camilla insignia, which he wore on his wedding day so that she could be included, which allegedly made him emotional."

Kate Middleton Channels Princess Diana In Striking Blue Outfit At Trooping The Colour

Turner's claims came shortly after People magazine looked back at Charles and Diana's royal wedding July 29, 1981.

Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner claimed both King Charles and Princess Diana shed tears before they married for different reasons.

"According to the biography 'Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life,' Charles felt pressured into his marriage to Diana and was still torn about his love for the then-married Camilla," the outlet shared. "He even cried over it the night before his nuptials."

Read On The Fox News App

British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital the book's author, Sally Bedell Smith, told her that Charles did cry the night before marrying Diana.

The Prince and Princess of Wales on the balcony of Buckingham Palace on their wedding day July 29, 1981.

"In covering the king's coronation [in 2023], I was live on set with Sally Bedell Smith," she said. "I asked her about him crying the night before his wedding, which she confirmed."

British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital she confirmed the claim that Charles shed tears ahead of his wedding.

While the explosive marriage of Charles and Diana is well documented, Fordwich said the younger royals of today should be grateful that they won't have to ever endure similar heartache.

"The tumultuous love triangle of Charles, Diana and Camilla is an infamously sad study of the clash between traditional royal duty versus personal fulfillment and happiness at the heart of Britain's monarchy," Fordwich explained.

British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital Prince Philip urged his son to marry Princess Diana.

"Then-Prince Charles reportedly told his friends he felt compelled by his father, Prince Philip, to marry Diana not due to deep love, but rather to comply with royal convention.

Click Here To Sign Up For The Entertainment Newsletter

Lady Diana Spencer initially had no idea what she was up against.

"He had to marry a virginal, suitable bride who would meet public expectations of a future queen," she shared. "Camilla was regarded as completely 'unsuitable' due to her many previous relationships and marital status. Certainly, the Church of England wouldn't permit the heir to the throne to marry a divorcee.

"His godmother, Patricia Mountbatten, said he realized he was 'too committed' to back out of marrying Diana," Fordwich continued. "Still, she knew he was making a mistake given his love for Camilla, who remained his soulmate despite being married to another man."

Prince Charles and Princess Diana during their honeymoon at Balmoral in Scotland.

Charles met Camilla in 1970 through mutual friend Lucia Santa Cruz. According to reports, Charles was instantly smitten. Despite a blossoming romance, Charles joined the Navy in 1971.

Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in 1979.

While Charles was serving, Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles, an ex-boyfriend of the royal's younger sister, Princess Anne, in 1973. According to reports, a devastated Charles tried to stop Camilla from marrying Parker Bowles, but the pair remained friends. As the former lovers stayed close, Charles began courting Lady Diana Spencer in 1980.

"By the time Charles married Diana, supposedly, Camilla's physical relationship with him had ceased," said Fordwich. "However, their emotional bond continued, for which both were derided. The tabloids termed her 'the other woman.'"

Camilla kept a low profile as rumors intensified.

And it was easy for Diana to see that Camilla continued to play an important role in the life of the man she was going to marry.

Like What You're Reading? Click Here For More Entertainment News

Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer pose for photographers at Buckingham Palace after the announcement of their engagement.

"At first, Diana professed to be very much in love with Charles but expressed to many she felt foolish and jealous once she fully grasped his emotional attachment to Camilla," Fordwich explained.

"The press, both sides of the family and even her Spencer sisters made it clear to her that she simply couldn't back out of the wedding once her face was 'on the tea towels.' … The entire nation and the world were giddy with excitement regarding their imminent wedding.

According to British royals expert Hilary Fordwich, Princess Diana turned to her astrologer for guidance.

"On her wedding day … the public speculated her sleepless look was due to wedding nerves. No one was aware of her knowing of Camilla's place in Charles' heart, which rendered her distraught.

Lady Diana Spencer and Camilla Parker Bowles

"Diana later described feeling she was 'the luckiest girl in the world,' but she also knew Charles' true affections lay elsewhere," Fordwich continued. "Her emotional turmoil would damage not only the rest of their marriage but, to this day, it has ramifications in Prince Harry's behavior, given his deep-rooted resentment of Camilla as well as his mistrust of the media."

Camilla made the royal wedding's guest list, likely due to her husband's role as the Commanding Officer of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, People magazine reported.

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (left); Andrew Parker Bowles (third left); Princess Margaret; Countess of Snowdon (center); Lady Diana Spencer (second right); and The Queen Mother (right) stand in the parade ring at Sandown Park Racecourse March 13, 1981, in Sandown, United Kingdom.

While several reports claimed Camilla wore white during the ceremony, catching Diana's eye, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams clarified to Fox News Digital that she wore a "pale gray dress with a veiled pillbox hat."

WATCH: PRINCESS DIANA TOLD QUEEN ELIZABETH KING CHARLES WAS A NIGHTMARE: AUTHOR

Problems only worsened during Charles and Diana's honeymoon.

"From the start, the public preferred the princess, though privately she was angst-ridden and bulimic," said Fitzwilliams.

Prince Charles and Princess Diana separated in 1992.

"It does seem that fate almost inexorably decreed that, once it had been set in motion, it was impossible to call the wedding off. Diana's discovery of a bracelet Charles had bought for Camilla before the wedding worsened her suspicions that she had a dangerous rival."

Princess Diana wore her famous "revenge dress" on the day Prince Charles made an admission to adultery on television.

"The divide between Charles and Diana was exacerbated by the gulf between their respective ages, their completely different interests, as well as their worldviews," added Fordwich.

"Even on their honeymoon, they reportedly had some rather major personality clashes. Later, there was the lurid scandal of 1989 that exposed Charles and Camilla's ongoing affair. It shocked the public and irreparably damaged Charles' reputation."

Princess Diana died Aug. 31, 1997. She was 36.

"The British public hasn't forgotten," Fordwich added.

Charles and Diana separated in 1992. In 1995, Diana gave a bombshell interview to BBC's Panorama during which she declared, "Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded."

Their divorce was finalized in 1996.

Charles and Camilla married on April 9, 2005.

Charles and Camilla rekindled their romance after Diana died in 1997. They married in 2005. The couple were crowned king and queen in 2023.

Original article source: King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL Entertainment"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert

King Charles cried the night before marrying Princess Diana, knowing he loved Camilla: expert Stephanie Nolasco, A...
New Photo - Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home

Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home Mehera BonnerAugust 1, 2025 at 8:32 PM Prince William and Prince Harry are reportedly not set to inherit Princess Diana's childhood home—per The Post. Princess Diana grew up in Althorp House and spent much of her childhood there.

- - Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home

Mehera BonnerAugust 1, 2025 at 8:32 PM

Prince William and Prince Harry are reportedly not set to inherit Princess Diana's childhood home—per The Post.

Princess Diana grew up in Althorp House and spent much of her childhood there. The estate has actually belonged to the Spencer family since 1508, and is the official seat of Earl Spencer—which would be Diana's brother Charles, who currently owns the property.

David Goddard - Getty Images

Charles has four kids, and despite the fact that all three of his daughters (Lady Kitty, Lady Eliza, and Lady Amelia) are older, his son, Louis, Viscount Althorp, will inherit the estate due to primogeniture—a feudal rule the feudal rule that dictates that the rights to an estate pass to the eldest son. In other words, Prince William and Prince Harry aren't even in the line-up of possibilities—despite the home being their mother's final resting place.

Lady Eliza Spencer, Viscount Althorp, Victoria Lockwood, and Lady Kitty Spencer. Max Mumby/Indigo - Getty Images

Lady Kitty actually spoke out about being skipped over, saying she's "totally pro-gender equality," but is "quite happy" with Althorp being passed to her little brother.

"I just think it's the correct way," she explained to Tatler. "I like that the house stays within the same family, with the same surname. I wouldn't want it any other way for the Spencers. And I just know my brother is going to do an impeccable job."

Charles Spencer also spoke about the outdated tradition, telling the Daily Mail "It's just the way it is. I get the problems with it as a concept. I also get the strengths of it, having worked to date."

You Might Also Like

Here's What NOT to Wear to a Wedding

Meet the Laziest, Easiest Acne Routine You'll Ever Try

Original Article on Source

Source: "AOL Entertainment"

Read More


Source: Astro Blog

Read More >> Full Article on Source: Astro Blog

#LALifestyle #USCelebrities

Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home

Why William and Harry Won't Inherit Princess Diana's Childhood Home Mehera BonnerAugust 1, 2025 at 8:32 PM...

 

GEAR JRNL © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com