Karen Carney wins Strictly Come Dancing 2025 as Queen Camilla letter features in emotional finale

Karen Carney has won Strictly Come Dancing 2025, in a finale that doubled as a farewell for long-time hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman and featured a tribute letter from Queen Camilla read during the show. The live finale saw each finalist perform three dances—a judges’ choice, their show dance and their favourite routine—before the winner was announced.

Carney, 38, celebrated with her pro partner Carlos Gu after the results, sharing a moment of emotion that echoed the series’ long run. She told viewers she could not believe the win and thanked fans and Carlos for their partnership, calling the experience the biggest privilege and honour she has known. The evening also included a poignant tribute sequence for Daly and Winkleman, followed by a reading of a letter from The Queen, delivered by Craig Revel Horwood, commending the hosts for what he described as one of the greatest Strictly partnerships in the show’s history. Daly and Winkleman, who announced their departure in October, were visibly moved as the finale unfolded.

Before the result, Karen and Carlos opened with a judges’ choice that was singled out for high praise, chosen by Motsi Mabuse, and their overall night featured a mix of performances that showcased the pair’s growth across the series. The finale continued with performances from the other finalists, Amber Davies and George Clarke, but it was Karen and Carlos who ultimately claimed the crown after delivering a showpiece moment—a finale jive that received a perfect score from the judges. The night also highlighted Daly’s and Winkleman’s legacy in the ballroom and underscored Strictly’s continuing appeal to audiences and sponsors alike.

The arrangement of the show’s closing moments reflected the broader media moment: a high-profile entertainment property delivering strong viewing figures and branding opportunities at year-end while signaling leadership changes that will ripple through the production and broadcast ecosystem. Daly, who has fronted Strictly for more than two decades, earned a Guinness World Record for the longest-serving host of the same dance competition this week, underscoring the strategic importance of continuity in live entertainment programming even as departures are announced.

Separately, a separate but increasingly relevant business story is shaping household finances: millions of workers may be saving far less into their pensions than they think, due to auto-enrolment rules that cap contributions through qualifying earnings bands. The issue has implications for the pension-saving sector, financial-planning firms, and employer-sponsored schemes as savers navigate how much they actually contribute to retirement pots over time.

Millions of workers are automatically enrolled in a workplace pension and are supposed to contribute at least eight per cent of salary—the employee contributing five per cent and the employer contributing three per cent. Yet the qualifying earnings bands mean contributions are calculated only on income between £6,240 and £50,270 for many workers. As a result, someone earning £100,000 may not be saving more into their pension than someone earning £50,270, potentially leaving thousands of pounds on the table over a career and significantly affecting retirement outcomes.

Ed Wood, a senior financial planner at Rathbones, described the structure as creating a retirement shortfall for higher earners, explaining that contributions are tied to a slice of pay rather than full earnings. AJ Bell’s analysis, cited by Laura Suter, shows the practical impact: workers earning higher salaries could see substantial differences in retirement pots depending on whether contributions apply to full pay or only to qualifying earnings.

For example, a 50-year-old with £100,000 in pension savings who earns £50,270 and contributes eight per cent of qualifying earnings could expect a pot of about £349,890 by age 65, while the same saver earning £60,000 and contributing eight per cent of full salary could reach about £412,721 by 65—an incremental gain of roughly £62,831. A worker earning £80,000 could reach around £465,616 by retirement if contributions were applied to full salary—about £115,726 more than the qualifying-earnings scenario. A £100,000 earner at age 50 could amass roughly £518,511 by 65, which would be about £168,621 more than if contributions were limited to the bands.

Laura Suter of AJ Bell notes that auto-enrolment is a starting point, not a complete retirement strategy, and urges workers earning above £50,000 to verify how their scheme is set up and how contributions are calculated. Andrew King of Evelyn Partners cautions that the bands have not kept pace with inflation, meaning their real value has eroded over time and could have long-term consequences for savers.

Experts say that saving eight per cent of salary may not be enough, and many recommend aiming for around 12 per cent of earnings. Nest’s 2022 analysis estimated that only about four in ten employees work for a company that calculates pension contributions based on full salary; many employers still use qualifying earnings bands. Workers should ask their employer whether the scheme uses qualifying earnings and, if so, consider increasing their own contributions or using salary sacrifice to maximize their retirement pot. For those starting out, the potential gains from contributing based on full salary are sizeable: a 25-year-old earning £30,000 could reach about £639,643 by 65 with full-salary contributions, versus about £486,122 with the minimum 8 per cent of qualifying earnings—an estimated difference of £153,521.

To mitigate the impact of these bands, experts recommend gradual increases in contributions and reviewing consolidated pension pots to understand total retirement savings. Suter adds that savers should assess their overall retirement picture and consider consolidating lost pots to understand the true scale of their retirement savings.

As both stories illustrate, business and markets news now routinely intersects with culture and personal finance, from the economics of major television franchises to the longue duree of pension policy and household planning. The Strictly finale and the pension-education debate alike feed into broader conversations about how institutions—whether a dance show or a pension scheme—connect with audiences and savers in an era of rising financial complexity.