Prince Philip has had a "successful procedure" for a pre-existing heart condition.
Buckingham Palace said: "The Duke of Edinburgh yesterday underwent a successful procedure for a pre-existing heart condition at St Bartholomew's Hospital.
"His Royal Highness will remain in hospital for treatment, rest and recuperation for a number of days."
The Duke of Edinburgh, who turns 100 in June, is being treated at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London.
Philip, the nation's longest-serving consort, has spent 16 nights in hospital - his longest ever stay.
He was initially admitted to the private King Edward VII's Hospital on 16 February as a precautionary measure after feeling unwell. The exact reason for his initial admission was not disclosed, but it was not related to coronavirus.
More from Prince Philip
Image:The Prince of Wales made a 200-mile round trip to visit his father in hospital
The duke has spent most of lockdown residing at Windsor Castle with the Queen for their safety, alongside a reduced household of staff dubbed HMS Bubble.
During a visit to a vaccination centre in London on Wednesday, the Duchess of Cornwall said Philip had "slightly improved".
The government has come under fire from campaigners for doing too little in the Budget to address inequality.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Resolution Foundation criticised the chancellor's decision to cut universal credit in six months' time.
They said it would bring the incomes of benefit recipients down to levels not seen since the early 1990s.
It would also pull half a million people into poverty, just as unemployment was expected to peak.
Rishi Sunak's decision to spend even larger sums to support the economic recovery now and put off raising taxes until later is broadly welcomed in the Resolution Foundation's overnight analysis of Wednesday's Budget.
But it noted that while GDP is set to grow this year by 4%, that might not feed through to better living standards, with wages by the middle of the decade set to remain £1,200 a year - or 4.3% - below where they would have been without the coronavirus pandemic.
Austerity would drag on for some, it added, with day-to-day spending on government departments such as transport and local government set to fall in real terms next year and remain almost a quarter lower than a decade ago.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an anti-poverty charity, criticised a decision to extend a £20-a-week uplift to universal credit by only six months.
That meant single recipients of it would see their incomes cut by £20 a week, just as the furlough scheme is ended and unemployment was expected to rise to its peak, the foundation said.
It predicts that will pull half a million people into poverty, including 200,000 children, adding that the Budget was silent on helping 700,000 households who have fallen behind on rent because of the pandemic and are now at risk of eviction.
Responding to the Resolution Foundation's analysis, Mr Sunak told the BBC that it had hailed his decision to freeze income tax thresholds as a "progressive measure" and "a fair way to do what we need to do".
On universal credit, the chancellor rejected suggestions that he should have tapered the ending of the £20-a-week increase in order to minimise its effect on families.
"We have extended it generously and in full, but it's important to remember that it's one of many things that we're doing to support people," he said.
These included increases in the National Living Wage and offering help with council tax payments, he added.
If you are reading this page and can't see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission.
The Duchess of Sussex has said she could not be expected to "just be silent" if the Royal Family is playing an "active role" in "perpetuating falsehoods" about her.
Meghanmade the remarks in a second teaser clip for her heavily anticipated TV interview with Oprah Winfrey - which will be aired on Sunday 7 March in the US before being shown in the UK the next day.
Harry and Meghan are expected to lift the lid on their short period as working royals together before stepping back from their duties to pursue a new life in America.
The duchess says she is not afraid of the consequences of speaking out during the 30-second clip, before adding that "a lot... has been lost already".
Winfrey asks Meghan: "How do you feel about the Palace hearing you speak your truth today?"
Advertisement
She replies: "I don't know how they could expect that, after all of this time, we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.
"And, if that comes with risk of losing things, I mean, I ... there is a lot that has been lost already."
CBS has shared the clip after Buckingham Palace said it had launched an investigation into claims the duchess bullied former royal staff.
Meghan and Harry will not be part of the process and it is understood the palace hopes to start the investigation soon.
Image:Buckingham Palace is investigating bullying claims against Meghan
Past and present employees are to be invited to speak in confidence about their experiences of working for Meghan, after it was alleged she drove out two personal assistants and staff were "humiliated" on several occasions.
The Times newspaper has reported the duchess "destroyed" one member of staff and another was left in tears before she departed.
There has long been speculation about the atmosphere in the Sussex household after a number of staff left.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have said they are the victims of a calculated smear campaign following the allegations.
They also said Harry and Meghan believed staff were comfortable and happy.
Image:Oprah Winfrey at Harry and Meghan's wedding in May 2018
However, Jason Knauf, the Sussexes' former communications secretary, made a bullying complaint in October 2018 in an apparent attempt to force Buckingham Palace to protect staff.
A source suggested the attitude to the allegations was more about making them "go away" rather than "addressing" them, with the paper claiming Mr Knauf's complaint was never progressed.
The Times newspaper has chronicled what it describes as "turmoil" within palace walls.
They claim a number of sources said Meghan wanted to be a "victim" so her "unbearable experience" would convince Harry they had to leave to the UK - something her lawyers have denied.
The monarchy's "men in grey suits" have been accused of being aware of the alleged actions of the duchess and of doing "absolutely nothing to protect people".
Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "We are clearly very concerned about allegations in The Times following claims made by former staff of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
"Accordingly our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.
"The royal household has had a dignity at work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace."
Meghan's spokesman said: "The duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma.
"She is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good."
The Times newspaper has reported allegations that during her time as a working royal, Meghan drove out two personal assistants and staff were “humiliated” on several occasions.
Underlying Meghan’s actions, the paper claims, was the view of a number of sources that she wanted to be a “victim” so her “unbearable experience” would convince Harry they had to leave the UK – something her lawyers have denied.
The monarchy’s “men in grey suits” have been accused of being aware of the alleged actions of the duchess and of doing “absolutely nothing to protect people”.
Times journalist Valentine Low, who first reported the story, gave his thoughts to ITV News earlier on Wednesday
Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “We are clearly very concerned about allegations in The Times following claims made by former staff of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
“Accordingly our HR team will look into the circumstances outlined in the article. Members of staff involved at the time, including those who have left the Household, will be invited to participate to see if lessons can be learned.
“The Royal Household has had a Dignity at Work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace.”
After the allegations emerged in The Times, a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan said: "The Duchess is saddened by this latest attack on her character particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced this pain and trauma".
The UK has defended its unilateral action over the Northern Ireland protocol, calling the move "temporary and technical steps" which "largely" continue measures already in place.
It comes after the European Union said it will take legal action over Britain's decision to continue Irish Sea border grace periods until October.
European Commission vice-president Maros Sefcovic said the UK's move amounted to a violation of its post-Brexit obligations.
The first of the light-touch regulation schemes on goods from the rest of the UK transiting to Northern Ireland had been due to expire at the end of March.
Supermarkets would have had to produce export health certificates for all shipments of animal products since Northern Ireland is part of the EU's single market.
Advertisement
Cabinet member Lord David Frost said the UK's intervention should allow time for positive discussions with counterparts in Brussels.
In an effort to ensure there is no hard border on the island of Ireland, the protocol - part of the UK's Withdrawal Agreement - allows Northern Ireland to remain under some EU rules.
More from Brexit
But this means there has to be customs declarations on goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain, including checks on some products.
Businesses in Northern Ireland have been calling for an extension to the grace periods to avoid having to contend with extra bureaucracy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trade tensions increasing in Northern Ireland
Now London has said grace periods such as those for supermarket agri-food movements from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland "will continue" until October.
Lord Frost, who is the Cabinet Office minister responsible for EU-UK relations, spoke to Mr Sefcovic on Wednesday evening amid the tensions.
He said progress was needed to "address the direct and often disproportionate impact that aspects of the protocol are having on the citizens of Northern Ireland, contrary to its intended purpose", according to a UK government spokesperson.
And the minister explained the new measures were "temporary technical steps, which largely continued measures already in place, to provide more time for businesses such as supermarkets and parcel operators to adapt to and implement the new requirements in the protocol".
He underlined they were "the minimum necessary steps to allow time for constructive discussions in the Joint Committee to continue without the prospect of disruption to the everyday life of people in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks".
Earlier in the day, a European Commission statement said: "Following the UK government's statement today, vice-president Sefcovic has expressed the EU's strong concerns over the UK's unilateral action, as this amounts to a violation of the relevant substantive provisions of the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and the good faith obligation under the Withdrawal Agreement.
"This is the second time that the UK government is set to breach international law.
"This also constitutes a clear departure from the constructive approach that has prevailed up until now, thereby undermining both the work of the Joint Committee [UK-EU committee tasked with implementing the Brexit deal] and the mutual trust necessary for solution-oriented co-operation."
Image:Maros Sefcovic has said Britain's action is a violation of the Withdrawal Agreement
Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Coveney said the UK's move undermines the UK commitment to the protocol.
He said: "A unilateral announcement is deeply unhelpful to building the relationship of trust and partnership that is central to the implementation of the protocol."
DUP Westminster leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said: "Whilst supermarkets and those bringing in goods via our ports from Great Britain will be relieved to see extensions to the grace periods, we will be continuing to press the government for a permanent solution.
"Grace periods do not provide the long-term certainty that businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland require.
"The protocol has been demonstrated to be unworkable."
Sinn Fein president Mary-Lou McDonald said: "At last week's meeting of the Joint Committee, Michael Gove and Maros Sefcovic reaffirmed support for the Irish Protocol and the need to work together to deal with issues that have arisen.
"It is incredible that one week later the British government has gone on a solo run and taken unilateral action.
"This was completely unnecessary, totally undermines the work of the Joint Committee and puts it on an immediate collision course with the European Union."
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has spoken of the "moment she will never forget" when Alex Salmond showed her a letter detailing sexual harassment claims against him.
She told a Scottish parliament committee: "What he described constituted, in my view, deeply inappropriate behaviour on his part - perhaps another reason why that moment is embedded so strongly in my mind."
Recalling when Mr Salmond handed her the letter at her Glasgow home on 2 April 2018, Ms Sturgeon said: "My head was spinning, I was experiencing a maelstrom of emotions, I had been told something pretty shocking by Alex Salmond and there were a number of things in my head."
Ms Sturgeon is facing calls from the Scottish Conservatives to resign following claims she misled parliament about the meeting with her predecessor.
She said she did not "immediately record the 2 April meeting" as she did not want it to become public and risk "breaching the confidentiality of the process".
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
'Deeply inappropriate' Salmond behaviour
She added she had no intention of intervening in the investigation process and did not intervene, saying to do so would have been an abuse of her role.
The first minister had originally claimed she first became aware of the Scottish government investigation into Mr Salmond on 2 April 2018, before later admitting to a meeting on 29 March 2018 - four days earlier - with Mr Salmond's former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein.
More from Alex Salmond
Mr Aberdein claims he discussed the complaints with her in that meeting in her office.
• She said 2 April was when "any suspicions I had or general awareness there was a problem became actual and detailed knowledge"
• She said that at the 29 March meeting, Mr Aberdein "did indicate a harassment-type issue had arisen, but my recollection is he did so in general terms"
• She wishes her memory of the March meeting was "more vivid", but "it was the detail of the complaints under the procedure that I was given on 2 April that was significant and indeed shocking"
• She denied having any reason to "get" Mr Salmond
• She denied misleading parliament and insisted the government has to nothing to hide
• She said it was "absurd" to suggest anyone acted with malice or plotted against Mr Salmond
• She apologised to two women who made complaints against Mr Salmond
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sturgeon 'sorry' to women and taxpayers
On the botched Scottish government investigation into the claims against Mr Salmond, she said the two women who had complained about him had been let down by a "very serious mistake".
And she repeated her apology to them and the taxpayer for the hundreds of thousands spent on the judicial review into Mr Salmond's probe by her government.
His legal costs of £512,000 were paid for by the Scottish government in August 2019 after the review ruled that the government investigation into complaints was "tainted by apparent bias".
He was acquitted of 13 charges in March 2020 following a criminal trial.
Ms Sturgeon denied that she had any reason to "get" Mr Salmond and labelled as "absurd" his claims of a plot against him.
The first minister rejected the "suggestion that anyone acted with malice or as part of a plot against Alex Salmond", saying the "claim is not based in any fact".
She added: "There is nothing here that the government has to hide."
She said she acted "properly and appropriately" in the handling of harassment claims against her predecessor.
The first minister addressed a central allegation that she breached the ministerial code by misleading parliament about when she learned of complaints against Alex Salmond.
She told parliament she was told by Mr Salmond when he handed her a letter detailing the complaints in her home on 2 April 2018.
That has been contradicted by an account from Geoff Aberdein, who has said he discussed the complaints with her in her office four days earlier, on 29 March 2018.
Ms Sturgeon told the committee there hadn't been mention of any specifics during the March meeting.
She said: "Geoff did indicate that a harassment-type issue had arisen, but my recollection is that he did so in general terms.
"Since an approach from Sky News in November 2017 (regarding complaints by female staff at Edinburgh Airport of perceived 'inappropriate' behaviour, which he denies) I had harboured a lingering suspicion that such issues in relation to Mr Salmond might rear their head - so hearing of a potential issue would not have been, in itself, a massive shock.
"What I recall most strongly about the conversation is how worried Geoff seemed to be about Alex's welfare and state of mind - which, as a friend, concerned me.
"He also said he thought Alex might be considering resigning his party membership.
"It was these factors that led me to meet him, and it was these factors that placed the meeting on 2 April firmly in the personal and party space."
Image:The hearing took place in Edinburgh
Mr Salmond has said that the first minister offered to intervene after he told her of complaints against him and that position is corroborated.
Duncan Hamilton QC, Mr Salmond's legal adviser, has told the inquiry in a written submission that he attended the 2 April meeting and recalls Ms Sturgeon saying: "If it comes to it, I will intervene."
The first minister insisted that she did not intervene and made no offer to do so.
There has been controversy around the fact that she didn't record the 2 April 2018 meeting as government business out of a "desire to protect the independence and the confidentiality of the process".
Mr Salmond had said that no-one present at the 2 April 2018 meeting was in any doubt what the meeting had been arranged for.
Nicola Sturgeon countered that suggestion, saying: "When he [Mr Salmond] arrived at my house he was insistent that he speak to me entirely privately - away from his (others in the house).
"That would hardly have been necessary had there already been a shared understanding on the part of all of us."
The Scottish government released its legal advice on the eve of Ms Sturgeon's witness appearance.
It had indicated concerns among government legal counsel about losing a challenge against a judicial review launched by Mr Salmond.
Image:Alex Salmond appeared before the committee last week
He has claimed that it constituted a breach of the ministerial code by the first minister because she allowed her government to continue with an expensive legal action that was doomed to failure.
Ms Sturgeon rejected any breach, saying: "In any legal challenge a government faces, there is a balance of risk. That risk cannot be eliminated, but the task of ministers is to consider carefully all the advice we receive and consider the broader public interest.
"And the test in the ministerial code is not the view of external lawyers but of the law officers."
On Mr Salmond's allegation that he was the victim of a plot by senior figures in the SNP and Scottish government to damage him and remove him from public life, Ms Sturgeon called that "absurd".
She said: "That claim is not based in any fact. What happened is this and it is simple.
"A number of women made serious complaints about Alex Salmond's behaviour.
"The government - despite the mistake it undoubtedly made - tried to do the right thing.
"As first minister, I refused to follow the age old pattern of allowing a powerful man to use his status and connections to get what he wants."
Analysis: Nicola and Alex, best friends and worst enemies
By James Matthews, Scotland correspondent
Nicola Sturgeon's term of endearment was a glancing reminder of just how close they were. So, too, a voice that didn't break with emotion but occasionally strained.
Nicola and Alex, best friends and worst enemies - the political force that couldn't have fallen out any further.
Their combined 14 hours of witness evidence was a slugfest of he said, she said. It was the same before they sat in the hot seat and will remain so long after it's gone.
The Scottish government was quick to issue a press release that she had "dismantled all of the claims against her".
The view isn't necessarily shared across the harassment committee which will, after all, be judge and jury.
One opposition member declared their work "no further forward" as they are still waiting for key documents from the Scottish government.
Another pointed out that corroborated evidence still exists to contradict the first minister's testimony.
It's clear much of this story remains to be written, the cliffhanger being which of the 'besties' comes off worst.
