Again, the whole royal system was apparently predicated on “Prince Harry coming back to the UK to be the royal doormat/scapegoat.” That’s the sum total of four years of royal gossip, royal commentary and royal historical record: the fact that Prince Harry was vital to the institution but they refused to treat him as such, and their schemes to force Harry to come back, broke and divorced, fell flat. So here they are, with a cancer-stricken king and Princess of Wales, and a threadbare monarchy. The British papers keep publicly pleading with King Charles and Prince William to somehow bring in younger relatives, like poor Lady Louise or the 16-year-old Earl of Wessex. Now the Mail is running a weirdly mean piece about how the York princesses “must” step up to royal work, lest they continue to be “mocked as vacuous, work-shy and frivolous in Channel 4 show The Windsors.” Beatrice and Eugenie have apparently made it clear behind-the-scenes that they’re surprised no one has asked them to do more, so…?

Charles III should ask Beatrice and Eugenie to help with royal duties because there is ‘no chance’ of Prince Andrew or Prince Harry coming back from exile while the King and the Princess of Wales fight cancer, experts said today. Royal biographer Phil Dampier has said that the Duke and Duchess of York’s daughters, much lampooned as wannabe influencers in Channel 4 satire The Windsors, should not be held back because of their father.

‘I know that Bea and Eugenie are willing to do more and would happily help out. They just need to be given the green light. Yes they are daughters of Andrew but his misdemeanours are not their fault and they are high up in the line of succession’, he said. ‘Many organisations and charities are crying out for a royal patron and would welcome them. They already have thirty or so between them so why not a few more? They are both pleasant intelligent women who are now wives and mothers with experience of life… Beatrice and Eugenie are grandchildren of the late Queen and as such would get a lot of respect from the public. I can also see a role for the children of Edward and Sophie, Louise and James’.

While historian Harry Mount said roping in Beatrice and Eugenie will see the Royal Family bolstered in time for the return of Charles and the Princess of Wales – hopefully by the summer. The Queen and Prince Philip had around 1,500 patronages and many of these organisations are ‘crying out’ for new royal figureheads. And while the King’s walkabout on Easter Sunday has raised hopes of a swift recovery, Prince Andrew’s ‘well mannered’ daughters Beatrice and Eugenie are waiting in the wings to take on more responsibilities, experts have claimed.

Mr Dampier said: ‘With the King and Princess of Wales battling cancer and with Harry and Meghan and Prince Andrew off the scene, the slimmed down monarchy is looking a bit thin. The late Queen and Prince Philip had over 1500 patronages between them and most of them have not now got a royal patron. I don’t see any reason why Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie couldn’t step up and take on some of those charities and organisations. We can’t ask the older royals like Princess Anne and the Gloucesters to do more at their age so young blood is needed’.

[From The Daily Mail]

The Windsors really are the Royal House of Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face. QEII spent decades housing her royal cousins and distant relatives, giving them a modest allocation from the Sovereign Grant and, in exchange, they took on part-time royal work and assumed honorary positions at various patronages and charities. It’s not like Charles would have to reinvent the wheel, he could literally just do what QEII did. But he refuses. And it’s just… amazing. There’s absolutely no reason why Beatrice couldn’t step into two dozen royal patronages and happily work for the Firm – no reason except for the fact that Charles and Camilla refuse to share.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.

Embed from Getty Images

I haven’t seen photos of Sarah Jessica Parker’s daughters in years, so I almost wept when I realized that Tabitha and Marion Broderick are already 14 years old, soon to be 15. James Wilkie Broderick is 21 years old, and as you can see, he inherited his mother’s whole face, all while the girls look more like Matthew. Anyway, it’s time for another interesting interview with SJP. Last year, SJP caused a minor kerfuffle (in our comment section, at least) when she got a bit sanctimonious about how her family never, ever orders takeout and they cook and eat dinner together every night. Yeah, I still don’t really buy that. But SJP made some new comments about how she didn’t want to repeat disordered-eating patterns with her children when it came to sugary snacks.

When it comes to food, Sarah Jessica Parker doesn’t want her daughters to follow in her footsteps. The actress has been intentional about encouraging twins Tabitha and Marion to have a “better relationship” with eating than she did growing up, she told “Ruthie’s Table 4” podcast listeners Monday.

“When I had girls, I didn’t want them to have a relationship with food that was antagonistic and to see it as an enemy,” the “Sex and the City” alum, 59, explained, noting that her own childhood home did not allow “sugar … or chocolate or cookies.” Because of that restriction, Parker and her siblings purchased “a load of cakes and cookies” upon moving out.

“I didn’t want that for them,” the “And Just Like That” star said of her 14-year-olds. “In our house, we have cookies, we have cake, we have everything. And as a result, you have a better relationship. My daughters will have the figures they have, and hopefully they’ll be healthy,” she continued. “They’re athletes and they enjoy food and have different palates. I hope that they can maintain their affection for the experience and their delight in taste.”

The Golden Globe winner, who is also the mother of son James, 21, with husband Matthew Broderick, went on to share rare insight into their home life elsewhere in the episode. “Matthew cooks. We both cook every single day,” Parker said. “We eat dinner as a family every night. And always have dinner every Sunday night. It’s just what we do.”

[From Page Six]

I actually like this approach with having cookies and cakes and desserts in the house. You can actually do the work of role-modeling a healthy relationship with food while also showing your kids that it’s not the end of the world to enjoy a candy bar or some cookies. Too many parents pass on their disordered eating habits to their children, and I appreciate that SJP has tried to break that cycle. It also sounds like her daughters are little athletes – teenage girls playing sports, I bet they eat everything that isn’t nailed down and it’s fine because “teenage metabolism.”

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Getty.

While Graydon Carter’s Air Mail has a decidedly anti-Sussex agenda, the outlet ran a pretty great analysis of what’s been happening in Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace in 2024. As in, BP looks competent, modern and straight-forward, while KP has staggered from one self-made catastrophe to another, mostly because Prince William and his staff are all incompetent. John Arlidge wrote this analysis piece of the past three months from a communications standpoint: “A Tale of Two Royal Households; When King Charles had bad news, his communications chief put on a master class in damage control. If only Kate had done the same.” Arlidge gives big props to Charles and Camilla’s big communications hire: Tobyn Andreae, who was an editor for the Mail for years. Some highlights:

Crisis management: It is also clear that the P.R. game has changed. Buckingham Palace, where the King and Queen’s press team works, and Kensington Palace, where William and Catherine’s spin doctors labor, are far less involved in the day-to-day business of engagements and royal tours, and increasingly embroiled in crisis management…Are the palaces’ finest up to the job? You might think that the younger, more digitally native royals and their advisers would be more adept at handling the modern media environment, while fuddy-duddy Charles and Camilla would not. But one of the most surprising subplots of the medical drama that has played out in London over the past few months is how well Charles and Camilla have played their hand compared with William and Catherine.

When Charles & Camilla hired Tobyn Andreae: It is even more remarkable when you consider that when he was appointed as communications director a year and a half ago, many wondered whether Tobyn Andreae was the right man for the job. It was not just that he was former co–deputy editor of the Daily Mail, a title whose reverence for the institution of the monarchy does not stop it putting the boot in. Prince Harry is suing the paper’s owner, Associated Newspapers Limited, for invasion of privacy, and it was the Daily Mail that coined the term “Waity Katie” to describe the then Kate Middleton’s long courtship of Prince William, a nickname she apparently despised, not to mention scoffing at her “social-climbing” family. Andreae was also said not to have the proper touch for a communications head. He was “too posh to gauge the mood of the man or woman in the street,” one member of the royal press pack observed.

Charles looked steady: Yet Charles, guided by Andreae, exhibited a clear understanding of what the public required in his hour of need and a moment of peril for the monarchy. In a statement issued to coincide with prime-time broadcast news bulletins, he told the world that following his recent treatment for an enlarged prostate, tests revealed that he had cancer. He would be stepping back from royal duties to receive treatment, supported by his wife and family. To calm fears over the seriousness of his condition, footage was released of him working from home. Doctors and cancer charities praised the King for doing what most men don’t: responding quickly to symptoms of illness and speaking frankly.

KP’s team bungled everything: The Waleses, guided by Lee Thompson, who cut his teeth at Freud Communications, a P.R. agency, before moving to CNBC and NBCUniversal, where he was praised for his digital and social-media skills, were less sure-footed…Kate’s amateurish Photoshopping of her family photograph, released on Mother’s Day in the U.K., revved up the global online guessing game about her health. Her apology for the “confusion” the image had caused, but not her decision to doctor it, opened up her and her family to derision. By now distrust of Kensington Palace was such that when the Waleses allowed newspapers to publish a grainy image of them during a visit to a farm shop in Windsor, many wondered if it wasn’t them at all, but rather doppelgängers.

Other forces at play: Thompson and the Waleses appear no match for Andreae and the King and Queen, but those close to both Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace say other forces are at play. Paddy Harverson, a media strategist who has worked with most of the senior royals, points out that Catherine and William needed time to come to terms with her diagnosis and explain it to their three young children. True and reasonable. But with 20/20 hindsight, waiting weeks and weeks to reveal the truth was far too long. Those close to the Waleses also criticize newspapers for reporting on the social-media speculation, “which they knew to be batsh-t crazy but ran with it anyway because it produced headlines and clicks, which generate revenue.”

Charles & Camilla are more experienced at crisis-management: Some observers draw a distinction between the Waleses’ and the King and Queen’s attitudes to the press. One seasoned royal correspondent points out that Charles and Camilla are “much more experienced in crisis management than any other members of the royal family. They have seen it all and have the scars to prove it and, as a result, are much more relaxed these days about how much information they share.”

William & Kate are inexperienced: By contrast, “William and Kate are more private and can be very stubborn,” he says. “When they get an idea in their head—for instance, ‘we won’t share any medical details’ or ‘here is the one picture we want to release to the media’—it can be hard to shift them.” He adds that “thanks to Harry’s endless court cases in London, people assume that he is the brother who loathes the press, but, if anything, William hates the media more. He naturally wants to protect his family, but that does not always mean he and Catherine make the right decision.” Some observers, for instance, say it was a misstep not to follow Charles’s lead and release some private pictures of Catherine at home reading “Get Well Soon” cards.

[From Air Mail]

One thing which goes unmentioned by Arlidge is that Kensington Palace’s courtiers clearly believed that they didn’t need to clarify or provide proof of life because William and Kate are not the king and queen. Like, that was repeated endlessly for months – Charles has to be seen and do these things because he’s the head of state, while Will and Kate are merely the understudies and therefore no one needs to know what they’re up to. That was an argument which fell flat, with me at least – William and Kate are the next in line, they are the Prince and Princess of Wales, and the 75-year-old king has cancer. They should have gotten more sh-t about their secrecy and shenanigans just because of the constitutional and state issues at play. William and Kate projected arrogance, a sense of “how dare the peasants want to know what’s going on with Kate’s health, why can’t they just believe all of the faked photos we’re handing out??” But yeah, I agree – Charles and his team have handled the comms side of everything so well this year.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Kensington Palace.

Embed from Getty Images
I have not been shy here about my love of the OG era of The X-Files. I watched my first episode with my dad on my 14th birthday (it was the haunted doll episode “Chinga”), and I was hooked. I became obsessed. While I 100% had a crush on Fox Mulder, I also had a super girl crush on Dana Scully. Scully was the sh-t! She was a badass FBI agent who also struggled with her Catholic faith. She’s inspired so many procedural female characters since the series aired, too. Over the years, my love of Scully turned into a love of Gillian Anderson. I love her vibe and think she’s a fantastic actress with an empowered attitude.

Well, there may be another Universe in which Gillian doesn’t play Scully. X-Files creator Chris Carter has taken the George W. Bush route and pivoted to art. Random, I know. He has an exhibition in Los Angeles called the Chris Carter Collection, where he shows off his pottery, prints, and photo collages, as well as a small amount of memorabilia from the series to appeal to fans. During an interview with Inverse, Carter shared that he had to fight for Anderson to be cast as his female lead because Fox execs thought she “wasn’t their idea of sexy.”

There aren’t many reminders of The X-Files in his exhibition, but there were a few small tokens for fans of the series. In one corner of the studio, almost as a consolation prize, rests a case full of coveted memorabilia: an alien prop mask, a director’s slate from the revival, and the original casting sheet from the ‘90s.

The latter comes complete with Carter’s handwritten notes from auditions. Alongside David Duchovny’s name, who auditioned against hundreds for the role of Mulder: a simple “Yes.” Carter had similar feelings for Gillian Anderson, who went on to play Scully, but casting the actor wouldn’t be so easy.

“For Gillian I wrote ‘Test,’ which means I wanted to take her before the studio and the network,” Carter says. Fox famously wanted a bombshell type for Scully, ideally someone like Pamela Anderson. “Where’s the sex appeal?” Carter recalls executives saying. “Even though Gillian’s beautiful, she wasn’t their idea of sexy. First, because they didn’t understand what I was trying to do with the show. And she was an unknown, so that never helps.”

Duchovny, too, was a relative unknown, which made both castings more of a gamble than most realize now. But as the story goes, Carter fought hard for the actors, Fox conceded, and the rest is history.

“Ancient history,” Carter says wryly.

[From Inverse]

Imagine being the person who didn’t think Gillian freaking Anderson was sexy enough. I am certain that whoever was of that opinion has moved on and is too busy flying on their private jets to even remember thinking it, but still, boo on you, sir. She is the walking embodiment of sex appeal and coolness. I’m glad that Chris fought for her because I honestly cannot imagine a better actress to play Scully. It just goes to show you once again how out-of-touch the people on top are when it comes to executing a creative vision or really thinking outside of the box in general. ALSO, I know it was the 90s and a different era of casting, but I do hope that filmmakers and execs nowadays are more open to casting women who don’t fall under one specific category or standard of beauty. It would be rad if most movies or television shows were more representative of all of us.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

This week, the Times of London reported exclusively on Carole and Michael Middleton’s Party Pieces. PP was sold for £180,000 last May, after the business fell deep into debt, reportedly more than £2.5 million, all told. James Sinclair purchased Party Pieces without having to assume any of its debt, so now the Middletons have left dozens of angry and shellshocked small vendors in their wake, not to mention all of those banks whose loans will never be repaid. The sale of Party Pieces was arranged by Interpath Advisory. The news this week is that Carole and Michael Middleton are too broke to cover Interpath’s fees, reportedly £260,000. Here’s the Mirror’s coverage, which is the same as the Times’ coverage.

Carole and Michael Middleton are unable to pay the £260,000 fees owed to the insolvency firm following the collapse of their business, it has been reported. Princess of Wales’ parents had operated Party Pieces but this fell into administration last year, owing creditors £2.6million. Interpath Advisory (IA), a city firm drafted in to handle the insolvency, is reportedly unable to cover all recoupment costs.

The insolvency process involved longer hours than expected to meet statutory requirements and queries from creditors, it is believed. While the firm has received fees of £51,437 and is expected to recoup more over time, it has determined that it will not be able to cover the total amount of the incurred expenses, it is claimed.

The Mirror has contacted IA regarding the claims, originally reported in The Times. It also says Party Pieces was founded by Carole and Michael Middleton in 1987, seven years after they married. Since then, it ran into financial difficulties during the pandemic and it ultimately fell into administration. The business was last year sold to entrepreneur James Sinclair for £180,000 through a pre-pack administration, according to the Times, leaving Interpath Advisory with limited funds to meet obligations to creditors.

[From The Daily Mirror]

As of this writing, the Mirror, Tatler, the Express and the Daily Record have all piggybacked on the Times’ report. The Daily Mail has not. Neither has the Sun. I find that notable. I wanted to talk about this again because some people online were arguing about my statement that Carole is too broke-ass to pay Interpath. The argument being, Carole and Michael have money squirreled away, that their personal finances are not the same as Party Pieces’ bankruptcy. I mean, I get that concept, that Party Pieces’ bankruptcy doesn’t mean that Carole and Michael are broke. But here’s my thing: if they had/have the money to change this narrative or mitigate the damage, wouldn’t they have done just that? It’s months and months of reporting about how Carole personally screwed over vendors and how she personally requested credit and how she brought in Interpath to restructure and advise. She left a trail of financial destruction in her wake and ruined years of lies and social climbing. She couldn’t even show her face at Wimbledon last year and she’s been mostly invisible since the coronation. You really think she would have done all that if she secretly had several million tucked away in some overseas account? I don’t. What’s more believable: that she secretly has a lot of money squirreled away, or that the Middletons’ success was always a huge lie?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

As we discussed a few days ago, Getty Images added a disclaimer on the photo/screencap from the Princess of Wales’s cancer-announcement video. We don’t know when the editor’s note was added, but it was likely over the weekend and the story has been percolating this week. Kensington Palace is no longer a trusted or credible source for photo agencies or news agencies, not after the Mother’s Day frankenphoto fiasco. Several outlets are even doing reviews of previous KP-issued photos, double-checking them to see if they were edited or manipulated. Now Getty Images seems to be indicating that there’s something questionable about Kate’s video, which was released on March 22, but reportedly filmed in Windsor on the 20th (or at least that’s what KP claimed). There’s nothing new to the story – yet – but Vanity Fair did get Getty’s spokesperson on the record:

A picture is worth a thousand words, but if that picture was released by Kensington Palace, Getty Images may have a few more words to add. The news photo agency appended an editor’s note to last month’s video of Kate Middleton sharing her shock cancer diagnosis, warning audiences that it “may not adhere” to the group’s standards for work produced by their own photographers and videographers.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy,” reads the disclaimer alongside the caption info, without elaborating specifically where the pre-recorded clip might deviate from Getty’s policies.

A spokesperson for Getty Images declined to elaborate further when contacted by Vanity Fair via email. “Getty Images includes a standard editors note to handout content provided by third party organizations,” the spokesperson said.

This doesn’t appear to be the case with all handout content, however. For example, a 2023 handout from Buckingham Palace from the coronation of King Charles III, a posed family portrait taken by royal photographer Hugo Bernand, does not bear the note, nor does the 2023 holiday portrait of the Wales family, a handout from Kensington Palace taken by Josh Shinner. Notably, when the Christmas photo was released, viewers speculated that it may have been manipulated, pointing especially to Princess Kate and Prince William’s youngest child, Prince Louis, appearing to be missing his middle finger on one hand.

Following the [Mother’s Day] incident, more images were identified as having been edited, including one shared by Buckingham Palace on what would have been the late Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday in 2023. The image, which is credited again to Kate, depicts the queen with several of her grandchildren at Balmoral. Getty Images added a note: “EDITORS NOTE: Image has been digitally enhanced at source.”

A spokesperson told VF then that the agency was “undertaking a review of handout images and in accordance with its editorial policy is placing an editor’s note on images where the source has suggested they could be digitally enhanced.” They declined to share the scope of the review.

In the case of the new messaging with Kate’s announcement video, Getty declined to specify when or why they had appended the note, nor why other handout materials from the royal family did not bear it.

“We are not commenting further than the statement,” the spokesperson said. “As the statement says, it is standard note that is now added to handouts provided by third party organisations.”

[From Vanity Fair]

As VF points out, there’s nothing “standard” about the editor’s note – I searched for the exact wording (“This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy”) and basically, the note was only added to NASA handouts. My theory is that CNN, Getty and probably other outlets are still investigating the Kensington Palace handouts and they’ll release their findings months from now, when the cancer news isn’t so fresh. Meanwhile, Getty wanted to tip their hand that A) KP lacks credibility and B) that something in the milk ain’t clean.

Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace/BBC Studios, screencap courtesy of Getty Images.

One of the wildest things about King Charles’s reign is that he insists on all of this simultaneously: a slimmed-down and very old monarchy; significantly fewer patronages, charities and royal events; and most importantly, the same amount of money, if not more money, from the Sovereign Grant. QEII used to support a large coterie of working royals and extended family from the Sovereign Grant. Nowadays, it’s just Princess Anne, the Edinburghs and the Kents. When Charles became king, people begged him to start passing out QEII and Prince Philip’s hundreds of royal patronages to the remaining slimmed-down royals. He refused for the most part, taking nine months to even make a handful of changes to the military patronages. That being said, I didn’t know it was this bad:

Eighteen months after the death of the Queen, most of her 600-plus charities are still without a patron. They include the Royal Academy, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Physicians, London Zoo, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the RSPCA, RSPB, MCC, RADA, the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal Philharmonic Society.

Smaller outfits like the Jersey Cattle Society and the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund aren’t losing any sleep but the failure to renew royal patronages has irked the big beasts.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, I’m sure Charles would say: this is what I meant by slimmed-down monarchy. Fewer royals doing fewer events with fewer patronages, but we still get the same taxpayer funding! And don’t forget all of the castles, palaces, mansions and forts! Anyway, even before Charles was diagnosed with cancer, it was bonkers that Buckingham Palace was content to do nothing or slow-walk the transfer of some of these major patronages. What’s even funnier is that in the “sliding doors” version where Prince Harry & Meghan were still in the UK, the story would be “the Sussexes are not important enough to take on these patronages, we want them for ourselves!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stanley 1913 (@stanley_brand)

I love how in the midst of the Stanley Quencher Cup mania we’re hearing more and more doctors pipe up with warnings about overhydration. It tickles my little impish heart. I get that our understanding of science is always evolving and improving, and that’s a good thing! But yeah the timing cracks me up. Back in January we covered signs of overhydration, and I was thrilled to learn that I have a new scapegoat to blame my irritability on. That update also noted that your first wee of the day should be on the lighter lemonade-colored side. Now UK-based NHS Dr. Sermed Mezher is adding that “clear pee” should not be the goal, at any time of the day:

One of the most popular health trends over the last few years has been staying as hydrated as possible, evidenced by the massive popularity of 40-oz Stanley Quencher cups. The theory among those who obsess over hydration is that, when you pee clear, you’ve removed all the waste in your body and are enjoying the incredible benefits of being 100% hydrated. Congratulations.

However, according to Dr. Sermed Mezher, an NHS doctor in the UK, peeing clear isn’t always a sign of being healthy.

“If you’re peeing clear, that means you’re having more than 2.5 liters (85 ounces) of fluid per day, which means your kidneys are working overdrive to keep that water off your brain,” Dr. Mezher said. He goes on to add that when kidneys can’t keep up with their water intake, it can cause water intoxication, which can lead to dangerous, even lethal, brain swelling.

According to Dr. Mezher, it’s all about finding balance when it comes to hydration and the goal shouldn’t be to pee clear all the time. “Of course, like most things in life, too much is not great, and too little isn’t either,” he continued. Two liters (68 ounces) [of water] is good for a healthy adult, and babies under six months shouldn’t be given any water at all.”

The news came as a bit of a shock to some folks in the comments. “One minute it’s not enough water, the next it’s too much… I’m tired,” Tiyana wrote. “I always thought the goal was clear,” Mountain Witch added.

[From Upworthy]

So the countdown is on for when Goop declares that clear pee is the only way it should be, no? I’ll say this, I did not have “we’ll be routinely discussing ideal pee color” on my bingo card for 2024. Now I’m disappointed that Pantone didn’t make their Color of the Year something on the wee spectrum! (And before you say, “Ew, Kismet!” May I remind you of the sad-sack, raw chicken breast-reminiscent color they gave us this year: Peach Fuzz.) As much fun as regularly keeping tabs on the tint of my pee sounds, for now I’m just going to focus on the suggestion of 68 ounces of water a day. That’s doable. I have two non-Stanley cups (why go Stanley when you can go Bubba!) that are 24 and 32 ounces respectively, so I could easily gauge my intake… If I made the effort to track. Which I’m totally motivated to do! After all, I still have that lofty goal of trying to drink enough water to balance out my potato chip intake. You gotta have a dream.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stanley 1913 (@stanley_brand)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by bubba brands (@bubbabrands)

There’s so much talk of Wallis Simpson these days. Surprisingly, the Telegraph’s latest history lesson isn’t a desperate attempt to force a comparison between Wallis and the Duchess of Sussex. A short primer: Wallis Simpson was the American divorcee who had several torrid affairs in the 1930s, and one of her lovers was with the then-Prince of Wales and then King Edward VIII. Historian Christopher Wilson has done a new deep dive into all of the government papers from 1936, the Year of Three Kings. The year King George V died, King Edward VIII ascended the throne and then abdicated, leaving his younger brother to be king (King George VI, Elizabeth II’s father). The big headline from Wilson’s research: Wallis Simpson’s lawyer suggested that the government buy her off to end her relationship with the king.

As the Abdication crisis reached boiling-point in the dying days of 1936, was Wallis Simpson ready and willing to be bought out of her forthcoming marriage to King Edward VIII? Newly viewed Cabinet documents indicate that, at the height of the crisis, the question of a cash settlement to get rid of the twice-divorced American was actually proposed by her lawyer.

Had the deal been struck it could have had far-reaching consequences lasting down to the present day, 88 years later, resulting in a different monarch occupying the throne – not King Charles. The proposal mercifully came to nothing. But for a fleeting moment it looked as if, in return for a large sum of money, “The woman I love” would abandon the hapless king to his fate and disappear over the horizon.

The evidence comes in the contemporary account of Sir Horace Wilson, the senior Whitehall mandarin entrusted by prime minister Stanley Baldwin to collate the avalanche of information coming in as the crisis grew. Though it came to the outside world as a seismic shock, the hurried exit of an errant king and installation of a reliable substitute appeared a seamless process administered with professionalism and dignity. But according to Wilson’s papers, nothing could be further from the truth – the whole thing was a shambles, one which could have ended with the present Duke of Kent, 88, being crowned king.

What I uncovered was a picture of panic and despair as the clock ticked down to December 11, the day King Edward signed the Instrument of Abdication – among people who should have been better prepared. In all, it took just 25 short days from the moment Edward loftily told the prime minister he was going to marry Mrs Simpson until his ignominious flight to obscurity.

Despite being told that a marriage between the head of the Church of England and a divorcee would precipitate a constitutional crisis, the king was confident he could have his cake and eat it – “you’ll be Queen, Empress of India, the whole bag of tricks” he promised Wallis. And meantime, over in Whitehall, there was a shockingly misplaced confidence that Edward could easily be deflected by financial sanction from taking what seemed an impossible step.

Those in the know were aware from the moment Edward inherited the throne in January 1936 that there was a problem over his relationship with Mrs Simpson. That he had caved in to her superior will was well-known. So too was King George V’s prediction that his son and heir would not last the course as sovereign. Yet no formal preparations were made – no Plan B formulated. And so in Wilson’s papers we see the first signs of the wheels falling off…

Horace Wilson receives a visit from Theodore Goddard, Wallis’s solicitor. Wilson notes, incredulously: “After some further talk, I discovered that what Mr Goddard was really saying, in effect, was what price could be paid to Mrs Simpson for clearing out.”

The civil servant, veteran of many cabinet crises, finds himself speechless at the thought of providing a massive pay-off to get rid of the problem. Goddard drops the idea like a hot potato when he realises he’s overstepped the mark.

[From The Telegraph]

It’s funny that the prime minister balked at the idea of paying Wallis to leave the king? Like… that might have actually been the solution to all of their problems, if they had more imagination. But it’s also clear that Edward VIII freaked out all of the British power players, he was too weak-willed and too compromised across the board. What’s also funny about these newly-discovered papers is that the government had next to no faith in King George VI, then the Duke of York. They saw him as a scared mama’s boy who wasn’t up to the job.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Embed from Getty Images
One of the rites of passages for a parent is for their kids to find them slightly embarrassing for one reason or other. I suppose if you have a famous parent, that really just opens up the chances for embarrassment exponentially. Sheryl Crow has two boys, Wyatt, 16, and Levi, 13, who are firmly in that teenage phase. During an appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers last week, Sheryl, who is promoting her new album, Evolution, told Seth that Wyatt and Levi find most of what she does publicly to be “cringey.” Celebrities, they’re just like us!

When Meyers, 50, asked his guest — who just released her new album Evolution — if her kids are fans of her music, she replied: “They are.”

“I actually played ‘Alarm Clock’ for them because that’s the first song that came out on the record,” she said. “It’s about how much I hate my alarm clock, and it literally was inspired by 13-year-old Levi, because we are not morning people. Across the board. Wyatt jumps out of bed. He’s like, ‘Days on, let’s go.’ ”

“I also wrote a song called ‘Broken Record,’ and I played it for them and they were like, ‘Mom, you can not put that on your record. No.’ Same with TikTok, ‘Mom, you can not be on TikTok. That is so cringey,’ ” Crow recounted to Meyers.

As she told the show’s host — who is a father of three children himself — he needs to “just wait” before he gets similar comments from his little ones.

“It’s around the corner for you,” she joked to Meyers.

Crow is already watching her kids grow up before her eyes. During her latest television chat, she revealed that they’re now driving together to school, something that gives her an “odd sense of accomplishment.”

“They were happy, I got them fed. The homework is done, they’re on their way to school,” she said, adding that she gets herself a coffee and puts her feet up after they leave the house.

“The first couple days when they drove off I was like, ‘What are they talking about,’ ” Crow said, before Meyers asked if they talk about her.

“They would not be talking about me, unless it was something stupid that I had done. My kids, literally, they should have subtitles under them that are like, whenever they talk, you see, ‘Mom, you’re an idiot. Mom, you do not know anything. Just shut up.’ “

[From People]

I mean, if your kids don’t find you cringey, are you even parenting, brah? I kid, I kid! I kinda love hearing stories like these from famous people who are hands on parents. Anyone have any good stories about embarrassing their kids or being embarrassed by your own parents? I’ve been pretty lucky so far, with the exception being that my younger son (he’s six) asked me to stop calling him by his nickname in public. Once in a while, I’ll slip up and he’ll turn to me with a clenched jaw to remind me that he’s asked me to not call him it in front of other people because it embarrasses him. I do try to honor his request! It’s only a matter of time before both of them will find me cringe for something.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit Getty, IMAGO/Faye Sadou / Avalon, Felipe Ramales, PacificCoastNews.com / Avalon