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

Jennifer Lopez & Ben Affleck were out in NYC, having brunch with Matt Damon and possibly looking at real estate. Hm! [LaineyGossip]
Beyonce wore Versace at the iHeartRadio Awards. [JustJared]
Completely obsessed with 60 Minutes’ “disguise” for an FBI agent. [Buzzfeed]
Wake up babe, a new Khloe Kardashian face just dropped. [Seriously OMG]
A review of Beyonce’s updated “Jolene.” [Jezebel]
Bowen Yang & Matt Rogers talk about Las Culturistas. [Pajiba]
Lizzo is “quitting” the music industry. [Socialite Life]
Rebel Wilson “briefly” tried Ozempic. [Hollywood Life]
Timothee Chalamet is such a fun fashion guy. [RCFA]
Kristen Stewart gave Seth Meyers a makeover. [OMG Blog]

The Windsors’ Easter guest list was slimmed down this year, slimmed down like the number of working royals in the family. King Charles only allowed one of his nephews to come to church, and that was James, the 16-year-old Earl of Wessex. James’s older sister Lady Louise did not go to church, and I thought perhaps that Charles had banned Louise and all of his other nieces and nephews. But the Mail claims that Louise was probably still in Scotland, where she attends St. Andrew’s. Hm. I doubt that, but sure. While King Charles clearly doesn’t want his nieces and nephews to do any work on behalf of the crown – please, they might steal the king’s thunder! – the British media continues to try to convince Prince William that he needs to bring all of his cousins into the “working royal” fold. Especially Lady Louise.

As the British monarchy has faced health crises in past months – with both King Charles and the Princess of Wales undergoing cancer treatment – key players have stepped up. Among the royal family the Princess Royal, her brother the Duke of Edinburgh, and his wife Sophie, appear to have ramped up their public appearances and engagements. And amid them, one young member could be set for key role in the Firm’s future – Lady Louise Windsor.

Writing in his Palace Confidential newsletter, the Daily Mail’s Diary Editor Richard Eden expressed that contribution from the Duke of Edinburgh and his family ‘has never been more important’.

‘Although way down the line of succession, in 14th place, the Duke of Edinburgh is busier, and more prominent, than ever as he carries out duties while his eldest brother, King Charles, is undergoing treatment for cancer,’ he said last month. ‘Edward and his wife, Sophie, are often overlooked because they don’t seem to court attention from the media and appear happy to undertake their numerous royal engagements and foreign visits quietly and without fuss.’

He continued: ‘In my opinion, another great service the couple could do for the country would be to encourage their children, Lady Louise and James, the Earl of Wessex, to become working royals when the time is right. Louise, 20, is in her second year at St Andrews University, while James, 16, will sit his GCSE exams this year. When Prince William becomes King, I hope that he will follow the example of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, and ask his cousins, including Lady Louise and James, to share royal duties with him.’

‘Hopefully, William will realise that a “slimmed-down” monarchy wouldn’t safeguard the institution, as some claim, but would lead to its irrelevance and eventual death. What better way to build on its strengths than with an injection of energy from young people who have had values of public service and duty instilled in them from birth?’

[From The Daily Mail]

LMAO “Hopefully, William will realise that a “slimmed-down” monarchy wouldn’t safeguard the institution, as some claim, but would lead to its irrelevance and eventual death.” It’s so wild that they’re saying all of the quiet parts outloud. “If we don’t get some young blood in here, everything will fall apart!” Yep. I mean, in this very narrow case, Eden is actually correct. Which is why Charles and William will refuse! Huevo is just like his father – terribly afraid that someone will steal his thunder or get more attention in any way. Besides, as I’ve said about Louise this whole time – it’s not clear she wants any part of royal life. She’s not like her mother. Speaking of, “Edward and his wife, Sophie, are often overlooked because they don’t seem to court attention from the media…” LMAO again! Please, Sophie wants all of the attention!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Royalist commentator Petronella Wyatt has been writing some particularly unhinged columns over the past six months. Then, three weeks ago, Wyatt wrote about being checked into a mental health unit because her depression meds weren’t working. I have sympathy for anyone going through all of that. But it continues to be strange that in her darkest hour, she’s still so focused on… shrieking about the Duchess of Sussex, especially in comparison to the Princess of Wales. Meghan also felt suicidal because of the torment and abuse she suffered from the British media and people like Wyatt. But Wyatt has no sympathy for Meg. Not when Meghan can be used to prop up Kate. From Wyatt’s latest Telegraph column:

I am not concerned about the state of the Crown. It is only numbskulls who claim it is in crisis. Unlike democracy, the British monarchy, because it values tradition, avoids becoming a self-limiting disease. But as the Princess of Wales recovers from being forced into disclosing her cancer diagnosis, the nation should ponder the incalculable debt this woman is owed and pause in wonder.

Looking back at the troubles that have beset the Royal family – the death of the late Queen, the King’s own illness, the ugly web in which Prince Andrew has entangled himself, and the one-trick ponies in Montecito – we can comfort ourselves with one solid bond in the bank of our collective future. The woman who was once called plain Kate Middleton has proved to be the jewel in the crown. There have been doubters and naysayers, notably in the verdant hills of California, with its 50 shades of envy.

This is a tale of two women, and for the Duchess of Sussex the popularity of Catherine is a bitter pill. Did Harry and Meghan not say that the words duty and fulfilment are an oxymoron? If so, constraint has never suited anyone so well. Royal wives are not usually presentable. Caroline of Brunswick was so lumpen that her husband, George IV, had her banned from her own coronation. Princess Diana was an exception, but I would argue that Catherine surpasses her, only growing in poise by virtue of no inner lack.

There are only two kinds of royals in this world: the sanguine and the chronically unhappy. The latter, including Meghan, kick and squall against their fate, seeing the golden chalice as one filled with poison, and hoping, like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, that it will pass from their lips. They exist in a state of Byronic unhappiness, thinking their wisdom has seen through all their supposed advantages, and in doing so has become aware there is nothing left to live for aside from selling tomato leaf soap and candles scented with woe to Feminae neanderthalensis.

Then there are those like Catherine. This sort of royal sees not what they can’t do but what they can, perceiving that public service is not a prison but a means of liberation from futility. In the 13 years since her marriage, the Princess has reached a state of equanimity possessed by the late Queen, of whom she is increasingly reminiscent.

We would do well to consider the difference Catherine has made to her husband, the future king. Two boys walked behind the coffin of their mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. At the time, and in the years after, we often made the mistake of thinking it would be William who developed an eeyorish attitude to life. On occasion he seemed palpably uneasy in the presence of the media, or performing royal engagements. For a while, Harry seemed the happy prince, with all his mother’s charm and people-pleasing ways.

But while the country blinked, something changed. Shored and ballasted by meeting a girl called Kate Middleton, William looked duty squarely in the eye and decided not to flinch. As Harry began to drown, his older brother, with Catherine’s assistance, reached the shores of home. Of all the moments in the history of our monarchy, this may prove to be one of the most significant. For in saving William, Kate might be said to have saved the Crown. It is also advantageous that she is the Swan of all time.

As we have seen recently, she is human, and friends say she lives with a mischievous child inside her which will stand her health in good stead. “Catherine is William’s strength and stay because she is so normal,” a royal insider told me. “Despite vile rumours, some emanating from America, their marriage could not be stronger.”

[From The Telegraph]

We saw it happen in real time, as Meghan’s entrance into the royal fold changed the narrative around Kate – racists and royalists who had previously been ambivalent about Kate suddenly rushed to prop her up, claiming that she was the perfect white duchess (compared to Meghan) and that her marriage and happiness was so much better and more profound (compared to Meghan) and that Kate never put a foot wrong (unlike Meghan). Meghan escaped the prison they built for her more than four years ago and people like Wyatt still don’t know how to process it. Anyway, Kate didn’t save the crown nor did she save William. When all is said and done, the Middletonification of the monarchy will be a huge factor in its undoing.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

In June 2022, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex brought their two children to the UK for QEII’s Platinum Jubbly. QEII invited them personally, and there’s enough evidence to suggest that she also worked out their security issues for the visit, and the Sussexes were likely using royal protection officers from QEII’s guard unit. The Sussexes ended up attending Trooping the Colour – they watched from a short distance, with some of Harry’s cousins and the children. The Sussexes also went to St. Paul’s Cathedral for a special Jubbly service, and once again, QEII seemingly ordered the staging so that Meghan and Harry could get their own special procession through church.

Those were the only public moments for the Sussexes, although they were in the UK for like four or five days. In the months that followed, we learned that Harry introduced QEII to her namesake great-granddaughter, and Archie was also there to see QEII for the first time since he was a baby. We also learned weeks after the visit that Charles had spent a little time with his two Sussex grandchildren – this was also the one and only time he’s met Lili. The Sussexes threw a small party at Frogmore Cottage for Lili’s birthday. We still don’t know if anyone from the family showed up. At no point did Prince William and Kate try to meet Lili for the first time, nor did they want to see Archie. William was (and is) so incandescent with rage, he refused to see his niece and nephew. Think about how f–ked up that is. Well, I was reminded of the 2022 visit because apparently William and Kate “urged” the Sussexes to bring their children to the UK this year.

Prince William and Princess Kate are trying their best to end their feud with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, according to one royal expert. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have a strained relationship with the Royal Family and they are currently estranged from the Prince and Princess of Wales. However, royal author Tom Quinn has said William and Kate have tried to fix this. Speaking exclusively to The Mirror, he said the couple have reached out to Meghan and Harry and urged them to bring their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, to the UK to visit. However, it’s believed Meghan has put her foot down and refused.

Tom told us: “There is no way Meghan would bring the children to the UK. William and Kate have suggested that Meghan and Harry bring the children and that the two couples and their families try to make up, but the suggestion is not leading anywhere so far.”

Meghan and Harry are not close with William and Kate and the Sussexes hit out at their family members in their Netflix docuseries, as well as their bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey. Harry also made a number of accusations about his brother and sister-in-law in his debut memoir Spare.

[From The Daily Mirror]

Granted, this is just rejiggering the soap opera storyline because everyone is bored with “William refuses to speak to Harry, whom he hates with a fiery and violent passion.” Now they’re trying out “Will and Kate would love to see Archie and Lili, the Sussexes are so mean to deny their children a visit to England!” Which version is closer to the truth? The version of the past five years, in which William reacts with rage and violent temper tantrums about all things Sussex, or the version in which the Waleses are like “omg, please come back, we would love to see your kids!” I guess they have to keep the focus on the Wales/Sussex conflict rather than the Wales/Wales conflict.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Avalon Red, Netflix, Misan Harriman for the Sussexes, SussexRoyal IG.

Back in May of last year, Carole and Michael Middleton sold Party Pieces lock stock and barrel for £180K. They sold their business through an intermediary insolvency firm, which is basically the posh version of a total bankruptcy. The whole picture soon became clear – Party Pieces was mismanaged and overextended, and at the time of its sale, they owed millions to banks, creditors, small vendors and more, and all of the Middletons’ creditors just had to eat those losses. The small businesses who extended credit to the Middletons were left astonished by the scope of the Middletons’ now-collapsed house of cards, especially since many of them were given personal assurances from Carole Middleton. The guy who purchased PP, James Sinclair, later revealed that the Middletons have nowhere near the kind of money they always pretended to have. Well, here’s yet another tragic postscript: the intermediary firm which handled Party Pieces’ bankruptcy and sale isn’t going to get paid either. This is a new level of broke-ass.

The City firm handling the insolvency of the business run by the Princess of Wales’s parents will be unable to collect the total fees due for the project after incurring costs of more than £260,000. Interpath Advisory was appointed to manage the collapse of Carole and Michael Middleton’s Party Pieces business last year after it fell into administration owing creditors £2.6 million.

The firm found that the realisation of Party Pieces’ assets was insufficient to cover the advisers’ time costs of £268,928. Interpath’s team was unable, therefore, to recoup the total fees for the work by its restructuring professionals, who have charged an average hourly rate of £566.

The firm discovered that Party Piece’s insolvency involved longer hours than expected to meet statutory requirements and queries from creditors. Interpath has received fees of £51,437 and, while it is expected to recoup more over time, it has determined that it will not be able to recoup the total bill.

Carole and Michael Middleton launched Party Pieces in 1987 as a business organising children’s parties. Later it branched out into selling decorations and gifts. The company suffered a drop in sales during the pandemic and while the Middletons had been willing to provide a dowry to secure a solvent sale of the business, ultimately it fell into administration.

Party Pieces was sold through a pre-pack administration to James Sinclair, 38, an entrepreneur, for £180,000. Interpath thus had limited funds to draw upon to satisfy creditors, including trade suppliers and HM Revenue & Customs.

Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, a management consulting company, said: “It’s been one of the toughest few years on record for consumer-facing businesses. Many of those that survived the pandemic have taken support loans or depleted their reserves, only to be catapulted into a perfect storm of high cost inflation and supply chain volatility, combined with dwindling consumer discretionary spending as higher interest rates and the cost of living crisis hit hard. Even the best-known brands are not immune to the current malaise and, with many now needing to repay support loans, we expect to see further high-profile casualties succumbing to these pressures, unless the economic environment improves significantly and quickly.”

[From The Times]

In previous reporting, this was always fudged: “Interpath Advisory was appointed to manage the collapse…” As in, the sale of Party Pieces was court-ordered (or whatever the British equivalent is) because Party Pieces was so far in debt, the only thing that could be done is appoint Interpath to clean up the Middletons’ mess and arrange for the fire sale of PP’s stock and name. And now the Middletons are too broke to cover Interpath’s incurred costs. Like, I keep going back to that – just how broke are the Middletons and did they really think they could keep up the charade forever?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

This Friday, Netflix will release Scoop. Scoop is the behind-the-scenes story of how BBC’s Newsnight scored their big 2019 exclusive with Prince Andrew. Gillian Anderson plays Emily Maitlis, the steely BBC journalist who held her own against a floundering, smarmy, lying prince of the realm. Andrew is played by Rufus Sewell, and they really uglied up Sewell for this role. The British media can’t get enough of how scandalous this is going to be, meanwhile I haven’t seen much about Scoop in the American media. Andrew’s interview made global headlines at the time though, and I’m sure this film will draw international interest when it drops. The Telegraph did a lengthy piece on the film, with lots of quotes from Gillian Anderson and Sewell about how they approached their characters and what they thought of the real people (hint: Gillian is in awe of the real Maitlis while Sewell was trying hard to not make his version of Andrew as smarmy as the real one).

Sewell was reminded of Ricky Gervais in The Office while studying the interview: “Watching Andrew was like watching a comic masterpiece. He actually reminded me a lot of David Brent, but with a little less natural warmth. It was the way he was speaking past the interviewer, directly to the viewer; very aware of the effects he desired – little epiphanies he’d whipped up on his own, as fresh meat for the camera.”

Sewell on Andrew’s “guilt”: “I have strong feelings about whether he is guilty or not that I want to keep to myself, but it’s a very important part of the job to remind people that it’s human beings who do these things. I grew up in an era where Andrew was supposedly ‘the cool Royal’. I watched a lot of footage from when he was younger, talking to people in factories and offices and he was really – inarguably – charming.”

They really had to work hard to ugly up Rufus Sewell: Once filming began, the make-up team would spend up to four hours a day getting Sewell ready for the cameras. “They put on a bald cap, wispy hair over that and then attached bits to the nostrils, round the chin, the forehead and cheeks,” he says. “As my face receded, his came through.” At one point the resemblance became so strong that even friends of the actor failed to recognise him in photographs, and the producers decided to tone down the prosthetics since, as Sewell puts it, “if you go too far, you start to be watchable in the wrong way.”

Gillian Anderson on the unanswered questions: “It’s very much a thriller. It’s propulsive, despite the fact we know what the end result is.” Besides, Anderson points out, plenty of unanswered questions remain: not least, exactly why the late Queen’s middle son (and reputedly her favourite) ignored his mother’s edict – “never complain, never explain” – with consequences that one commentator would subsequently liken to “a plane crashing into an oil tanker, causing a tsunami, triggering a nuclear explosion.”

Gillian on Andrew’s narcissism: “We don’t know to what degree Andrew had rehearsed, or whether his answers were his own or fed to him. But somebody thought they were a good idea. He had the chance for the interview to go very, very differently. Even afterwards, he thought it was a success – to the point where Emily was given a tour around Buckingham Palace.” But, she adds, it’s worth bearing in mind that the Royal family “play a role that is very valuable to a lot of people in this country and part of that role includes being sequestered and not necessarily living in the real world. So why would we expect them to be able to respond in a real-world way?”

Sewell agrees that royal life is a sh-tshow: “Andrew is a product of his environment. To be what he believes himself to be demands the acquiescence of the subject. It’s clear he’s never sat opposite anyone who’s said, ‘Oh, that’s b——s’ or ‘F–k off!’ to him.” Returning to footage of the original interview, he says, “when you watch him, you see a strange mixture of guilt and innocence and victimhood. This is someone, in my opinion, who does not think of himself as a bad person and has an enormous amount of compassion and sympathy… for himself. He’s constructed a narrative in which he is in some way a victim of his own honour. The people who were sent out to defend him say the same thing: ‘He was set up.’ That is quite likely, given Epstein’s modus operandi. However, one can argue: if you’re setting up a honey trap, how do you know who likes honey and who doesn’t?

Gillian was scared of playing Maitlis: “It was even more daunting than playing Mrs Thatcher. I worried, ‘Will I be asking for trouble – not just embodying somebody who’s alive, but who’s such a formidable presence, with real fans and whom people have real opinions about?’”

Sewell thinks Andrew underestimated Maitlis because she is a woman: In the end, Sewell concludes, what brought Andrew down was a polite but steely woman refusing to defer to him. “He was congratulated and adored as a child for being a scamp, the lovable palace rascal, all those things boys are celebrated for – even more back then. He’s been led to believe it’s his natural charm that makes people like him, not his prince status. In this situation, sitting opposite Emily, he’s attempting to reignite that but he can’t get the oxygen to do it. It’s not a lack of manners, or rudeness or aggression on Emily’s part. She’s just not playing that half of the contract he expects – and he’s left gulping for air.”

[From The Telegraph]

I found Sewell’s quotes fascinating – he’s really studied the interview, not just for mannerisms but for motive, to really try to understand the layers of Andrew’s performance within the interview. As for the big mystery as to why Andrew did the interview… Epstein died in jail just four months before the interview, and there was so much renewed energy on Andrew’s association with Epstein. Like, I understand from a “crisis management” perspective why someone in the palace thought it would be a good idea for Andrew to go on the record to formally deny all of this stuff. What they didn’t count on was that Andrew’s answers didn’t make any sense, his denials came across as lies and the man has zero charisma on camera.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Netflix. Screencaps courtesy of the BBC.

So, this is where we are: the Daily Mail is paying for push polls to be conducted in America, asking Americans if they believe that Prince Harry should be deported. I would say that the Mail has jumped the shark, but that probably happened years ago. The whole issue of deportation has been a special-interest project for the dumbf–ks at the Heritage Foundation, an American thinktank populated with British fascists and racists. The Venn diagram from Heritage to the ultra-right-wing Tories to the British anti-Sussex agenda is just one circle. For what it’s worth, the British dumbf–kery has not translated at all in America. Even this extremely questionable poll revealed that Americans don’t want Prince Harry to be deported:

Americans overall do not think Prince Harry should be deported if he is found to have lied about drug-taking on his visa application, according to an exclusive Dailymail.com poll. Upon entering America, visa applicants have to fill out a form saying whether they have taken drugs. Sources close to Harry have indicated he answered ‘truthfully’ when he moved to the U.S. with wife Meghan Markle in 2020.

But a Washington, D.C.-based think tank is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for access to his records. Donald Trump has hinted he could deport the royal if he is found to have not given the right information.

An exclusive Dailymail.com poll found 44 percent of Americans thought the Harry should be allowed to stay in the U.S. even if it is later discovered he did not fill out the visa form correctly. The poll showed 33 percent said he should be deported under those circumstances, and 24 percent said they didn’t know. Republicans said Harry should be deported if he lied on the form, with 42 per cent saying he should be ejected and 35 percent not. Both Democrats, by 56 percent to 24 percent, and Independents, by 40 percent to 32 percent, said he should be allowed to stay.

James Johnson, cofounder of pollsters JL Partners, said: ‘Some might be furious about Harry’s conduct, but the American public are reacting with a shrug. They broadly do not want to see him deported, even if he lied on his immigration forms. Their attitude seems to be live and let live, even if you are a British prince from across the pond.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Throughout the whole Sussexit ordeal and the Where-Is-Kate-Gate ordeal, I’ve come to realize that there are some bigger royal stories which actually break through to the wider culture. Kate’s disappearance brought conversations about what those people did to both Meghan and Diana, and that’s what propelled the disappearance story even further, because there were so many legitimate questions about how that institution crushes and destroys certain women. Everything Harry and Meghan have said and done since moving to California have reinforced the (true) narrative that they were wronged, that hostile forces were working against them, that they have the right to live and thrive away from Harry’s terrible family. Like, I don’t believe the majority of Americans have an opinion about Harry’s visa or deportation or what have you, but it’s seeped into American consciousness that the Sussexes are safer here, that they escaped a bad situation, that they were wronged.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Cover Images, Netflix.