Princess Charlotte left a lasting impression on all the people who tuned into to watch the surprise duet with her mother Kate Middleton.

The Together at Christmas Carol service was broadcasted on the eve of Christmas and it featured the mother and daughter performing Holm Sound, a piece of music that was originally composed by Erland Cooper and inspired by his love of Orkney, in the Shetland Islands.

The performance was pre-recorded at Windsor Castle and it earned praises from royal fans and including the Emmy nominated, Scottish composer, producer, Erland, himself.

The musician was personally invited by the Princess of Wales for some “encouragement” and clearly taken by the “lovely” performance. The piece is classified as “moderately” difficult for those in Grade 4-6.

“I mean, imagine anybody performing a piece of music in front of a film crew, and then the person who wrote it,” he said. “Princess Charlotte played beautifully, she really has a wonderful way of playing the lighter notes just beautifully.”

He added that it was “certainly one of my favourite winter solstice moments” and it was “very special, sort of quiet moment”.

Erland also described the special significance the piece held for him, some thing that the young princess was not aware of when she played the music.

“There’s a wonderful bit of serendipity as the piece was composed and dedicated to my mum, also called Charlotte,” he shared. “They didn’t know about, that it’s about motherhood, and how family plays such an important role and such a key part to all of this.”

The holiday season is best known for Christmas music ,a soundtrack that returns each December to dominate playlists and charts globally.

This year, however, the competition has taken a dramatic turn—one that left music fans and critics buzzing.

For a long time, Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You’ dominated the Christmas music scene, its opening lyrics instantly evoking the festive season.

But, this December, Wham!’s cherished classic “Last Christmas” managed to dethrone Carey’s all-time favorite from the Billboard Global 200, marking a milestone shift in the holiday dynasty.

As the festive season approaches, so does an annual takeover of playlists globally.

Because—Christmas music isn’t just nostalgic—it’s one of the most reliable minting machines in the music industry.

Streaming platforms have transformed these songs into annual revenue cycles, with plays skyrocketing every November and December.

Here are the standout performers who’ve turned Christmas season into a perennial payday, minting millions year after year.

Michael Bublé rules the Christmas charts

Michael Bublé dominates the holiday streaming charts, consolidating his status as a modern-day Christmas music legend.

His festive collection—spearheaded by the perennial favorite ‘It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas,‘ is estimated to bring in around $16 million in recent festive periods, backed by huge streaming figures and a strong presence on global playlists.

Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’

Since its release in 1994, Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ has become an annual revenue engine.

The iconic hit generates a reported $1.8 to $2.2 for Carey each Christmas season.

With lifetime royalties having surged past £44 million and continuing to grow.

Wham!’s billion-stream bonanza

With over 1.66 billion Spotify streams, Wham!’s ‘Last Christmas’ has earned approximately $6.6 million from the platform, making it as one of the highest-grossing festive songs in music history.

Ariana Grande’s ‘Santa Tell Me’

Ariana Grande has broken into the Christmas music elite with ‘Santa Tell Me,’ a modern holiday anthem that now earns more than £1.7 million each year, standing tall among all other Christmas hits ruled by classic artists.

Paul McCartney’s ‘Wonderful Christmastime’

Paul McCartney’s Wonderful Christmastime generates has amassed nearly £12 million over its lifetime, proving that how even low-key Christmas tracks can become enduring revenue assets.

How did Christmas songs become such consistent revenue giants?

The answer is pretty straightforward, holiday classics don’t disappear—they simply hibernate.

Thanks to streaming platforms, these tracks now live in a yearly cycle: plays soar each November and December, then drop until the next season arrives.

Gone are the days of relying only on radio or CDs. Today. Billions of streams keep the royalties flowing year after year, ensuring artists and their estates earn effortlessly, season after season.

When ruling elites are no longer willing to commit to constitutional values, we can no longer guarantee the constitutionally promised dignified life that Jinnah’s Pakistan promised.

The impact of the 26th and 27th amendments has led to the resignation of two Supreme Court judges and one Lahore High Court judge, who protested the erosion of fundamental rights protections for citizens, which has effectively disfigured the social contract between citizens and the state. The resignation letters are more instructive when read as part of a wider critique of government policy and the Judiciary itself. Public debate is required to reverse a course that has left state and society institutionally and normatively adrift. But what has brought us to this sorry situation?

Although we continue to revere Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the founder and great leader of Pakistan, we have conveniently ditched a critical feature of his thinking: his concept of Pakistan as a moral or dignified state with defining features of the rule of law, fairness, liberty of conscience and representative democracy. 

Jinnah’s speeches and letters set out the founding narrative and include ideals that address various aspects of state design, governance and foreign policy. Instead of a “living” source of inspiration, the Quaid has been consigned to history with the salutary portrait hanging in our hallowed corridors of power and drawing rooms.

What defines a dignified or moral state are the generally accepted moral standards and aspirations that both society and state commit to, which are usually contained in the constitution. On this, Jinnah held, “Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice, and fair play”.

The judiciary has had a vital role in institutionalising the separation between Pakistan as a mere fact and the state as a moral entity. In KB Ali v State (1975), the Supreme Court rejected “standards of reason or morality” as defining valid law. Although foundational for ensuring social cohesion, providing good governance and guaranteeing a dignified life for all, it held that valid law is whatever is commanded by “a competent lawgiver”. After granting near-unbridled powers to the legislature and executive, it has been very difficult for the judiciary to rein in governance within constitutional constraints.

Such judicial reasoning has reduced Jinnah to a historical figure whose task was completed by the administrative-legal recognition of a formal state — a historical fact. By doing this, we have effectively removed Jinnah’s moral ideals from the state’s practices, policy and legal thinking.

Although the judiciary is constitutionally mandated to protect and interpret constitutional norms and values, it has now diverted the course of the state towards secular power-based statecraft. 

Not only has this jurisprudence eroded the moral basis of policy, legislation and interpretation, but it has also predisposed Pakistan towards authoritarianism. An “empowered” legislature and executive have variously encroached on the judiciary’s independence. The result: a grotesque performance of elite interests and power politics that exposes the state for what it has become: an oligarchy.

Against the backdrop of a fractured judiciary (by virtue of the 26th Amendment) and weak democratic norms, the recent amendments were passed without rigorous public scrutiny and without consensus on their expected moral and strategic advantages. According to the ICJ, “It is alarming [that] a constitutional amendment of great significance and public interest was passed in such a secretive manner and in less than 24 hours”.

The amendments were also passed while sidelining the founding narrative and two substantive tests that protect the moral content of the Constitution. One that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are to be void (Article 8) and second that no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam (Article 227).

Our rule of law is thus a fine mix of secular and Islamic protections, which has not been elaborated jurisprudentially, nor enforced by the judiciary to test and inform the design and quality of the constitutional order and governance.

Islamic scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani criticised the 27th Amendment, insisting that absolute or lifetime immunity from prosecution for any person is in violation of Islam and the Constitution (Article 25). The International Commission of Jurists have criticised both the 26th Amendment as a “blow to judicial independence” and the 27th Amendment as a “flagrant attack on the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law”.

Wider implications for the salient features of the constitution and system of governance also need to be examined through the basic structure (of the constitution) doctrine. In the 2015 Supreme Court case, District Bar Association Rawalpindi v Federation of Pakistan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed held, “[A]s long as the amendment has the effect of correcting or improving the constitution and not of repealing or abrogating the constitution or any of its salient feature or substantively altering the same, it cannot be called into question”. 

Arguably, with the reconfiguration of judicial appointments, reduced powers of judicial review, transfers and postings, the establishment of a new superior court and related measures, salient features have been altered significantly and warrant rigorous examination.

While Jinnah insisted on justice and complete impartiality as a “guiding principle”, Pakistan ranked a low 129 (out of 142) on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2024, reflecting further erosion of an impartial rule of law that ensures equality for all (Article 25).

Commenting on the 26th Amendment, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) noted the “extraordinary political influence” and observed that “they [the amendments] erode the judiciary’s capacity to independently and effectively function as a check against excesses by other branches of the state and protect human rights”. 

Referring to the 27th Amendment, the ICJ observed, “They will significantly impair the judiciary’s ability to hold the executive accountable and protect the fundamental human rights of the people of Pakistan”. The change in the balance of power needs to be constitutionally justified.

This whole unfortunate constitutional amendment saga betrays the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of our institutions of governance — civil and military bureaucracies and the judiciary. Despite Jinnah insisting that looking after the poor is our “sacred duty”, public welfare is a low-ranking consideration: constitutional social and economic rights, set out in the Principles of Policy, are not even enforceable by the courts. 

Instead of a constitutional amendment to make such rights directly enforceable like the fundamental rights, the 26th and 27th amendments arguably erode what little we had of constitutional governance. What is lost in this Faustian bargain is public welfare and dignity — Jinnah’s Pakistan.

A superficial appreciation of the constitution has hollowed out state institutions and society normatively.

Our institutions, intellectuals and constitutionalists have failed to elaborate and hold to Jinnah’s founding narrative and “[t]he great ideals of human progress, of social justice, of equality and of fraternity” to inform policy and legislation, guide future generations and ensure that we stay focused on the original mission.

Not only is this a gross disservice to the ordinary Pakistani who holds Jinnah’s promise dear, but it is also a disservice to Jinnah by not appreciating him in an appropriate intellectual-moral context.

Consequently, and arguably, we are witnessing the resurgence of an executive state that Jinnah battled ferociously for much of his life. We need a new, clear jurisprudence to provide for a morally dignified state. Without rediscovering Jinnah intellectually and morally, we will never realise Jinnah’s Pakistan. Who can the citizens of Pakistan now trust?

The writer is a former secretary of the Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer’s own and don’t necessarily reflect Geo.tv’s editorial policy.

Originally published in The News