century

LeBron James didn’t have a speech prepared.

“I’m just speaking to y’all from the heart,” the NBA’s all-time leading scorer told the audience Thursday night at the Time 100 Sports gala in New York.

In James’ heart and on his mind at that moment was his oldest son Bronny James, who nearly three years ago suffered sudden cardiac arrest as an 18-year-old rising freshman while practicing with the USC basketball team. He later was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect but eventually was able to resume his basketball career.

James and his son ended up becoming Lakers teammates for two seasons before the 23-year veteran became a free agent this summer. Bronny James is entering his third season with the Lakers after contract became fully guaranteed earlier this month.

“Obviously, if it wasn’t for the coaching staff and the medical team and everybody at USC being there in a timely fashion, we’d possibly be sitting here without our oldest son,” said James “So thank you to everybody and all the efforts when it comes to cardiac arrest.”

In June, Time magazine released its inaugural issue highlighting the 100 most influential people in sports, with James on the cover as “athlete of the century.”

James was one of the featured speakers at the gala honoring those individuals, as were fellow Time 100 Sports list members New York Knicks star Jalen Brunson, Olympic gold medalist skater Alysa Liu, Invictus Games founder Prince Harry and women’s soccer legend Alex Morgan.

Savy King and Damar Hamlin speak onstage during the Time 100 Sports gala July 16 in New York.

(Jemal Countess / Getty Images for TIME)

Earlier in the evening, Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin and Angel City FC defender Savy King gave a presentation on their experiences as athletes who suffered cardiac arrest while playing in games for their respective teams.

Like Bronny James, they were both young athletes at the time of their incidents — Hamlin was 24; King was 20 — and both were fortunate to have trained medical staff members on hand to perform CPR and use defribulators to save their lives.

Their message hit home for James.

“Guys, take that serious,” he said. “If you got kids in elementary, you got kids in middle school, kids in high school, colleges. Make sure they have these devices available where you can get them, practice them. It’s very important, super, super important. Obviously, we know how important it is to our family, so we’re a big advocate of that.”

The history of all living things is examined through five key species chosen for the way they move, feed and reproduce and also for their size and intelligence

Chris Packham famously hates so-called “T-shirt” animals – preferring beetles and bugs to the more box-office elephants, lions and tigers.

But for his major new BBC series examining the history of every living creature’s existence, the presenter had to block that prejudice as he looked back over 4 billion years. In Evolution, viewers will see how every plant and animal evolved – differently – from a single celled organism called LUCA.

And in order to explain this effectively, the five episodes focus on the elephant (size), ostrich (reproduction), horse (movement), bat (feeding) and dolphin (intelligence) to show what changes have happened over the millennia until they started to look a bit like the creatures we recognise today.

“TV likes an iconic species, something to put on the T-shirt,” Chris laughs, acknowledging that he doesn’t normally go for these “celebrity” animals which tend to draw in viewers, but go against the grain for Chris. “On Springwatch we’re always keen to champion the underdog, we make films about slugs and snails and flies and all those sorts of things, so we’re trying to build up that idea in people’s minds that everything counts – not just the fluffy birds in the nest, or the cute pine-marten kits. Survival of the cutest has always been an issue.”

“But had we picked, I don’t know, some innocuous little bug, it wouldn’t have looked great,” he laughed. “I’m not a great fan of T-shirt animals, but I am a fan of using them constructively.”

He even admits that filming the series, in different locations around the globe, brought him one of the best moments of his life, when he found himself right in the middle of a pod of dolphins during a break in filming. “It was absolutely extraordinary,” he says. “There were times when the cameraman was doing something and I was still in the water and I could just actually just be there with them.

“I dived down about four metres and I looked down and I had a dolphin right underneath me, under my chest. And I had couple on one side, I mean they never touch you, but they’re close, and a couple on the other side – and then I looked up and they were above me. And I was like in the middle of a pod of dolphins. You can hear them the whole time, they’re constantly clicking. So you can here that that’s that communication going on.

“It was just five minutes or something, it wasn’t a lot of time, but long enough to actually just engage, and realise that this was one of the most remarkable moments in my entire life. To be in that environment with these astonishing animals. I thought ‘blimey, I’m Flipper’.”

The five-part science show, which must be Packham’s most ambitious programme to date, has clear similarities in scope to Sir David Attenborough’s 1979 series Life on Earth, which set out to look at the earliest life forms. “I’d say it was more modern in its narrative structure,” he says thoughtfully. “Also, we’re catering for an audience that we know we need to surprise. We want to feed them short snippets, which are basically entry information into a bigger story, if you like. Those twenty-second things that get people to prick up their ears. And we want people to down the pub and say, ‘do you know what? I just watched this programme and, you won’t believe it, we couldn’t have a head before we had an arse’.

“I don’t think Life on Earth is like that. That felt very 1970s, because that’s when it was made, this just feels like a really modern, cutting-edge version.”

To film the series the BBC team were very careful about where they went in order to limit the carbon footprint. “Ten or 15 years ago, we would have gone to multiple locations to make a series like this,” Chris says. “But I’m pleased to say that each of our programmes was essentially made in one location.”

The elephants in the series opener were filmed in Kenya and the ostriches in South Africa. The horses were in the UK, with three days in France which was reached by train. Then the dolphins were in the Bahamas and the bats were in Borneo.

Chris says his role as presenter on the show, from the team who previously brought us Earth, is to keep the audience enthralled, and showing his own excitement is a big part of that, just as he experienced while watching his hero Attenborough. He particularly remembers a programme made by the veteran broadcaster about birds of paradise, filmed in Papua New Guinea.

“They were my dream birds because they’re mental, they look like space aliens,” he explains. “And I was sat there waiting for it to come on, just thinking, ‘you b****rd, I want to go to Papua, I want to see that.’ But in fact my response to the programme, and a testament to his broadcasting, was that I absolutely loved it because I felt the connection to the birds through his joy.”

Chris found himself caught up in some beautiful moments that will also tug at the audience’s heartstrings, such as when a baby ostrich hatched out of its egg right into his hands. “You’re peering into it, it’s not even in the world yet, and it’s like you’ve had a sneak preview into a life which is going to unfold,” he marvels. “It’s just this little thing moving, and that was really very emotional, that formation of new life.”

Learning new stuff is “the greatest joy” of his job. “I get to work with people who know more about a subject than I do. And their job is to tell me and the team everything they know about it in 30 seconds,” he says. “So my joy is that I attend the University of Zoology every single day that I’m working, and this is updated information, so we’ve constantly gone to the latest science.”

While they don’t skirt away from the technical stuff, like explaining how DNA works, Chris feels it is carefully woven into the narrative. “There’s no dumbing down, but we are conscious constantly of building a narrative which will keep our audience engaged.”

– Evolution, BBC2, Monday 13 July, 9pm

Just 16 miles north of the California border, enchanting Ashland, Ore., has drawn theater fans for more than 90 years. The city owes its modern tourism economy in large part to William Shakespeare.

The Oregon Shakespeare Festival runs from spring to fall annually, attracting many of the 350,000 annual visitors to the city of 21,000 residents. Locals and travelers gather to watch live productions in venues like the Allen Elizabethan Theatre — modeled after a 1599 London playhouse, with a three-story Tudor facade — where for one magical evening, they’re transported to Shakespeare’s heyday.

While it’s hard to escape the Bard’s reach in the downtown core, Ashland and environs offer much more than theater. Its outdoor wonderland especially is well worth exploring. Or as Shakespeare once put it: “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.”

Within a short drive await wineries, hiking, cycling and white-water rafting on the magnificent Rogue River. Crater Lake National Park is about a two-hour drive, and the destruction of dams on the Klamath River reopened scenic rafting there last year for the first time in more than a century. As a designated Tree City USA community, Ashland is steeped in greenery. Parks abound. Lovely Ashland Creek meanders through the town.

Founded as a farm town in the 1850s, Ashland incorporated as a city in 1885 after rapid growth fueled by the railroad’s arrival. Many buildings in the downtown historic district date to the turn of the 20th century. Today, Ashland is home to a variety of shops — a couple of favorites include Bloomsbury Books with its ecology rack right out front and Mountain Provisions for high-quality outdoor gear. And with more than 100 restaurants, Ashland’s food and beverage scene runs the gamut from casual (try the porkstrami at Sammich) to inventive (check out the unique Alsatian menu at Nous).

These days, a cautious optimism prevails throughout Ashland, which had been hit hard by the pandemic and simultaneous wildfires. At downtown’s Village Baker, the scent of baking bread hints at the 1,400 loaves produced daily. They start at 4 a.m. and deliver for miles around. That broad reach, co-owner Gerardo Gutierrez says, has helped them weather challenging times.

“We’re coming back from the ashes,” he said.

“We don’t go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York–of being obliged to print both sides. We’re going to beat this son of a bitch Sinclair any way we can. . . . We’re going to kill him.”

The speaker: Kyle Palmer, Los Angeles Times political editor, to Turner Catledge of the New York Times.

The time: 1934, when socialist writer Upton Sinclair, who had just swept the Democratic primary for governor of California, threatened to beat handily the GOP candidate, Frank Merriam, in the November election.

Kyle Palmer, the pope of Southern California right-wing politics, was neither kidding nor exaggerating. Nor was he exceptional in his venom toward Upton Sinclair and his mass movement, End Poverty in California (EPIC). According to Greg Mitchell in his fascinating and valuable study, EPIC “was nothing less than a roundabout route to socialism.” On this point, “Political pundits, financial columnists, and White House aides, for once, agreed: Sinclair’s victory represented the high tide of radicalism in the United States.” This tide had to be pushed back, or California would suffocate under the weight of Sinclair’s “maggot-like horde” of supporters, as the Los Angeles Times called EPICers.

In 1934, a year racked by general strikes and epidemic unemployment, the maverick pamphleteer-novelist Sinclair–author of muckraking tracts like “The Jungle” and the most widely translated American writer abroad–was a menace not only to the so-called Vested Interests. Down deep, he embodied a revulsion felt by many Californians toward the capitalist system. EPIC’s program of production-for-use-not-profit, land colonies, barter exchanges and cooperation versus competition was a potentially deadly blow to the American Dream. It was subversive because it spoke to the misery of desperate, Depression-ruined Americans yearning for relief from the day-to-day savagery of a skewed, inefficient system that seemed to be failing everybody but the very rich. At its height, EPIC enrolled 100,000 members from San Diego to Sacramento, and its newspaper sold 2 million copies.

In “The Campaign of the Century,” Greg Mitchell has chosen to focus not on EPIC itself but “on the cataclysmic response to Sinclair’s emergence as the Democratic nominee.” Thus we learn relatively little about EPIC or about Sinclair, but a lot about the nuts and bolts of the “most astonishing . . . smear campaign ever directed against a major candidate.” Our present-day “media politics” with its emphasis on image over substance, was born in the ferocious, fraudulent anti-Sinclair campaign, says Mitchell.

A subtext of Mitchell’s book is how strongly adherents felt about Sinclair and EPIC. They “came from every strata, although nearly all were white. It was not . . . a poor people’s movement. Most of the activists were middle-class and middle-aged . . . Many were down-on-their-luck businessmen.” Any given EPIC club might include “Utopians, technocrats, Townsendites, progressive Republicans, New Deal Democrats, ex-Socialists and secret Communists, all united by a belief in a perfectible society.” No EPIC, aside from clerical staff, earned a cent from the movement. “Members paid a dollar, penny, or a collar button” to join; “Some EPICs hocked the gold fillings in their teeth to raise money.” Although broad-based and decentralized, “EPIC was far from democratic” and indifferent to unions. And Sinclair’s portrait occupied a holy place in many homes.

In any other state, EPIC might never have flown. But California’s populist tradition, open-mindedness (or wackiness), absence of party bosses or deep ethnic loyalties meant that a challenge to established authority was as relatively easy to mount as it was difficult to organize a counter-revolution. At first, the state’s wealthy were so rattled that their political representatives were caught completely off balance by Sinclair’s spectacular rise. Only loonies had expected him to win the primary, and nobody had been crazy enough to predict he would outpoll all six of his opponents together.

But like a great octopus, California’s Republicans and conservative Democrats, equally terrified of EPIC, slowly thrashed up from the murk of politics-as-usual to deal with the “enemy within.” “The prospect of a socialist governing the nation’s most volatile state,” says Mitchell, “sparked nothing less than a revolution in American politics.”

Spurred by “fear and desperation,” ad men like Albert Lasker and especially Clem Whittaker, hired conservative guns, broke the old rules and “virtually invented the modern media campaign.” Whittaker and his associate Leone Baxter introduced the radical idea that free-lance outsiders like themselves, not party chiefs, would “handle every aspect of a political campaign.” Whittaker’s “cozy relationship” with California’s 700 newspaper publishers meant that local editors were happy to run his press releases “as news stories–even as editorials.” The anti-Sinclair “lie factory” twisted and distorted; but worst of all, his enemies quoted from Upton Sinclair’s own works, in which he had attacked everything from wedded bliss (“marriage plus prostitution”) to religion (“a mighty fortress of graft”) and the Boy Scouts. After his defeat, Sinclair confessed wearily and with justice, “I talk too much. I write too much, too.”

By most accounts, Sinclair was a decent, generous, puritanical man of genuine sweetness. What his blurted half-jokes and honest indiscretions failed to supply, Hollywood and Madison Avenue concocted by way of movie propaganda and, probably even more effectively, radio shots–like an anti-Sinclair “One Man’s Family”-type series. Film studio bosses, alarmed by Sinclair’s not-very-serious threat to socialize movie production, colluded with what a Scripps-Howard reporter called a “reign of unreason bordering on hysteria.” Big-time screenwriters like Carey Wilson and directors like Felix Feist (later of “Peyton Place” fame) were enlisted or dragooned to produce Goebbelsesque films, often using faked footage, that drilled home the message: EPIC equals Armageddon. Studio workers were forced to contribute to Frank Merriam’s campaign. Very few Hollywood stars had the guts to refuse. (Holdouts included James Cagney and Jean Harlow.)

Law ‘n’ order also came to the rescue of the anti-Sinclair forces. Election officials, GOP activists and local district attorneys intimidated EPIC supporters away from the polls by challenging the credentials of at least 150,000 voters and threatening to arrest them. All across the state preachers thundered, “Go and Sinclair no more!” and Aimee Semple McPherson, hungry for respectability after her recent kidnaping hoax, turned against Sinclair, despite the pro-EPIC sympathies of her flock.

Finally, the Democrats themselves carved up EPIC. At first friendly to Sinclair, President Roosevelt, needing conservative support for his faltering New Deal, cut a deal with the Republicans. In return for Frank Merriam converting to a pallid form of New Dealism, the party dumped the divisive Sinclair. Frightened Democrats and “third party” anti-EPICers formed around a candidate named Haight, who may have drawn off enough votes to beat the insurgent–but not by all that much. Final results: Merriam 1,100,000; Sinclair 900,000; Haight 300,000. In defeat, Sinclair received twice as many votes as any previous Democratic candidate for governor.

EPIC soon disappeared in a backlash of internal Red-baiting. (The communists and socialists opposed EPIC, but the Communist Party also tried to take it over.) Sinclair stopped muckraking to write the “Lanny Budd” series of best-sellers. Waves of fright and self-interest quickly covered over EPIC’s writing in the sand. Today, who remembers it?

Later, Sinclair insisted that the EPIC campaign had “changed the whole reactionary tone of the state.” EPIC was “the acorn from which evolved the tree of whatever liberalism we have in California,” claimed state Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk, a Sinclair supporter in ’34. And as a direct result of EPIC and the studio bosses’ much-resented bullying, “politics in Hollywood moved steadily to the left over the next few years.”

Of course, the Right learned, too. “A number of men who would become legends in California politics, on both sides of the ideological fence, virtually cut their teeth on the ’34 campaign,” writes Mitchell. These included Earl Warren (Merriam’s campaign manager), Asa Call, Edmund G. (Pat) Brown (sending what encoded messages to his son today?), Murray Chotiner, Augustus Hawkins, Cuthbert Olson–a whole generation of pols whose experience taught them just how powerful the rich, who own the media, can be when aroused.

Lessons for liberals are harder to come by in this sizzling, rambunctiously useful book. If we take note of this nation’s recent rash of insurgencies–from Carol Moseley Braun to Ross Perot–maybe one lesson is that nothing good ever completely dies, it just goes to sleep for a while.

BOOK MARK: For an excerpt from “The Campaign of the Century,” see the Opinion section, Page 6.

The UK bond market is currently experiencing a period of intense volatility, with the yield on 30-year government bonds, known as gilts, climbing to its highest point since 1998.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On Tuesday, 30-year gilt yields rose as much as 0.14% to 5.79%, their highest level this century, before dipping slightly to around 5.6% at the time of writing.

The yield on the 10-year gilt also climbed as much as 0.15% to 5.11%, very close to the 18-year high of 5.12% hit earlier in the Iran war. It has since lowered somewhat to roughly 4.93% on Thursday.

Bond prices and yields have an inverse relationship. Bond yields rise when prices fall in order to increase investment attractiveness as demand for the debt weakens.

The surge in gilt yields indicates that investors currently perceive UK debt as a riskier prospect than other lending options, requiring a larger premium to commit their capital over the long term.

Presently, there are several reasons for this evident but abnormal lack of confidence.

The primary catalyst is the fear that the Bank of England may be forced to keep interest rates higher for longer to mitigate the chance that inflation will remain “sticky” and not return to the 2% target as quickly as previously hoped.

This estimation has been fuelled by surging energy prices due to the disruption caused by the Iran war. Gilts have continuously sold off during the conflict.

Speaking to Euronews, Richard Carter, head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, added that “the UK is expected to be the worst hit developed economy by events in the Middle East due to its reliance on energy imports, so the longer energy prices remain elevated, the deeper the pain the country is likely to experience.”

Beyond geopolitics and global energy markets, there are many domestic factors currently contributing to the exceptional distrust in UK debt.

Keir Starmer, fiscal policy and local elections

Political uncertainty and fiscal policy are also playing a central role in the recent and severe gilts sell-off.

In 2024, after Keir Starmer’s election, the Labour party pledged “fiscal discipline” and established a long-term framework in the Autumn Budget to distinguish the new government’s approach from the former.

The plan introduced the “Stability Rule” mandating that the current budget, which covers day-to-day costs such as public sector salaries and welfare, must be in surplus by the end of 2029/30. This effectively prohibits borrowing to fund the ongoing operations of the British state.

Additionally, the “Investment Rule” was also put forward to target the national balance sheet. This norm requires Public Sector Net Financial Liabilities (PSNFL) to be falling as a percentage of GDP within the same timeframe as the “Stability Rule”.

By using PSNFL rather than the traditional measure of net debt, the UK Treasury has more room to borrow for long-term capital projects like infrastructure and green energy, which are technically classified as “investments” rather than “spending”.

Finally, the Budget Responsibility Act 2024established a “fiscal lock”, legally preventing any significant tax or spending changes from being introduced without an independent assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

Despite all these rigid guardrails, bond markets are now sceptical because investors fear political necessity will eventually override fiscal prudence.

Recent scrutiny of Starmer has intensified as he faces a mounting challenge from the left of his party, where dissenting voices are calling for a shift away from “fiscal conservatism” to address funding crises in the NHS and local government.

On top of that, the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, and the revelations of his past friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, have severely damaged Starmer’s administration over the last few months.

The problems have culminated in the local elections taking place in 136 authorities for more than 5,000 council seats on Thursday. More than half of the seats up for grabs this week are being defended by Starmer’s party.

Analysts project that Labour will suffer a massive loss and potentially end up over 1,000 councillors down. Any major setback will certainly increase internal pressure to oust Keir Starmer as the leader in which case snap elections could be triggered.

The head of markets at AJ Bell, Dan Coatsworth, explained to Euronews that “investors will be watching bond markets like a hawk over the coming days as the results of the UK local elections are released. Any major setback to Labour will fuel calls for Keir Starmer to be replaced as prime minister and if that happens, bond markets will want to know who is taking over.”

“The obvious challengers, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham, are seen as candidates who might push for greater government borrowing and spending, which could take gilt yields even higher. Fundamentally, there is a real risk of gilt yields soaring if Labour experiences a wipeout in the local elections,” Coatsworth added.

Speaking to Euronews, the head of fixed interest research at Quilter Cheviot, Richard Carter, conveyed the same sentiment.

“The uncertain UK political backdrop has played a role ahead of the local elections with gilt investors concerned about a Labour Party lurch to the left should Keir Starmer either be replaced or have little choice but to appease his backbenchers in the wake of challenging results.”

Effectively, these local results are no longer just a measure of regional popularity, but a high-stakes verdict of political viability that could determine the long-term stability of British borrowing costs.

The cost to the UK Treasury, businesses and households

For the British government, the consequences of the ongoing bond market shift are measured in billions of pounds as the UK’s debt-interest bill is highly sensitive to fluctuations in gilt yields.

According to estimates from fiscal watchdogs, every 0.25% rise in government borrowing costs adds approximately £2.5 billion (€2.9bn) to the annual debt-servicing cost. A 0.5% increase, which has already been observed this spring, therefore requires the UK Treasury to find an extra £5 billion (€5.8bn) every year just to pay interest.

The rise in gilt yields also has a direct and immediate impact on the real economy as they serve as the benchmark for pricing a vast array of financial products, most notably fixed-rate mortgages.

As yields climb, lenders adjust their swap rates, which inevitably leads to higher monthly repayments for millions of homeowners looking to refinance.

Businesses also feel the squeeze. The cost of corporate loans and commercial credit is often tied to the yield curve. When the state has to pay more to borrow, the private sector follows suit, potentially stifling investment and slowing economic growth.

“A gilt yield shock might be called a stealth tax, but it is not an intentional one. It would be the knock-on effects of bond prices falling and yields going up, which can negatively affect asset prices and tighten financial conditions,” Coatsworth told Euronews.

“Consumers would experience higher mortgage costs and potentially spend less money, particularly if companies scale back hiring if their borrowing costs rise from higher gilt yields, as the two are intertwined. It could also lead to lower public spending and pave the way for tax rises,” Coatsworth added.

Every increase in the cost of debt limits the amount of capital available for private innovation and reduces the disposable income of households already struggling with the cost of living.

A HISTORIC railway station is set to open soon after being reconstructed brick by brick – nine miles from its original location.

The Victorian station was originally built in 1867, but fell into disuse over the last century.

Wansford Road station, near Peterborough, had been facing demolition to make room for the proposed A47 dual carriageway.

However, in 2022 an agreement was reached between Nene Valley Railway (NVR) and National Highways for the building to be dismantled and re-built.

National Highways also granted nearly £200,000 in funding towards the project.

Having been dismantled in April 2024, the limestone station has almost completed its re-location to Peterborough, now under the new name of ‘Woodstone Wharf Station’.

GROUNDED

Ryanair threatens to scrap all flights at another popular European airport

END OF AN ERA

Beloved English museum is forced to shut forever after being deemed ‘unsafe’

The historic building will serve as a gateway to both Railworld Wildlife Haven and the NVR, and features a booking office, waiting room and administration office.

Stan Bell, who led the project at The Wansford Road CIO, said: “It’s clear that the building will have a huge rejuvenating impact on this often-forgotten part of Peterborough.

“We’ve been incredibly lucky to have the support of National Highways.”

The original railway served passengers from Stamford to Wansford, although it closed by 1929.

The building was then converted into a private residence, before falling into disrepair.

The £100 million proposal to create a dual carriageway for the A47 was also scrapped in July last year, due to planning complications and rising costs.

BEYONCE and hubby Jay-Z are looking to move to France — after ditching plans for a UK home.

The music power couple, who abandoned househunting in the Cotswolds due to concerns about flooding, are said to be eyeing up a stunning chateau near Bordeaux.

Crazy In Love singer Beyoncé, 44, and Jay-Z, 56, are already huge fans of the famous wine region – with the 99 Problems rapper celebrating his birthday there in 2023.

Sources say the US pair are looking at a 16th century estate boasting 10 bedrooms and eight bathrooms, nestled in a commune.

Locals have told how the area is abuzz with talk of the A-listers joining their community – which is described as the French equivalent to the Cotswolds.

Businesses have reportedly been sworn to secrecy about the couple’s potential arrival.

BEIGEY BEY

Beyonce shows off curves in sexy beige bustier, shorts and fishnets

HOT WHEELS

Beyonce stuns in busty racing suit before Lewis takes her around Vegas GP track

One local said: “Everyone is talking about Beyonce and Jay-Z moving to the area.

“It’s all been shrouded in secrecy, with local businesses and tradespeople forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, but theirs are the names on everyone’s lips.”

Residents have reported a recent surge in private planes landing at the closest airport.

One source also told how a job description has gone on a local noticeboard for an experienced property manager working with VIP clients at an historic estate.

One of the requirements for the role is “absolute discretion”.

The superstar couple — worth a combined £1.5billion — were said to be buying a £7.5million 58-acre plot in the Cotswolds, following the footsteps of several celebrities.

Planning permission was secured for the seven-bedroom property.

But insiders said the pair, who have three children together, turned their backs on the area after learning it was prone to flooding.

A source told The Sun: “Beyonce and Jay-Z buying this plot of land was the talk of the Cotswolds, so many locals were excited about them moving in.

“But the plan appears to have fallen through.”

Despite their snub the Cotswolds have attracted a raft of celebrities including Ellie Goulding, James Blunt, Kate Moss, Amanda Holden, Tom Cruise, Liam Gallagher and Lily Allen.

TV host Ellen Degeneres and wife Portia de Rossi also moved to the area and renovated a farmhouse which they are selling for £22.5million.