Not even one full week after the one-two punch of the Princess of Wales’s mysterious “abdominal surgery” and King Charles’s announced prostate procedure, and wouldn’t you know, all of the focus is on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. None of these people can simply come and say with their whole chest “wow, we were wrong, we actually should have treated Harry and Meghan better and we wish they would come back.” That would be too direct, too humble, too psychologically healthy. Instead, they twist themselves in knots to create a tangled web of rage, envy and regret, with lots of attempts to shame Harry and Meghan for not hanging around for just this kind of emergency. From the Telegraph’s latest: “The hole left by the Sussexes has just been mercilessly exposed.” Some highlights:

The Sussexes are happy! The gulf between the two families has never seemed wider. On one side of the Atlantic, a Royal family which could have done with a bit of luck after a rough few years, but has instead seen three of its key members put out of action. On the other, the freedom-seeking Sussexes seemingly living their best lives. The comparison is stark and, to royal-watchers, irresistible. How different it could all have been.

The Sussexes are never coming back: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have gone with no wish to come back. They have expressed no regret about their decision to pursue financial freedom in California. The idea of playing an eternal supporting role in the Royal family was one of their frustrations.

No support: Now, with the King preparing for an imminent operation and Prince William at his wife’s bedside as she heals from surgery to her abdomen, the lack of practical Royal support around them is palpable. The King’s siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, are already working with packed diaries. The generation above, the late Queen’s cousins, can no longer be expected to pick up the slack. The York sisters are not working royals; the Tindalls have no desire to be. The departure of the Sussexes has left a hole which has now been mercilessly exposed.

Ingrid Seward has some thoughts: For Ingrid Seward, whose new book about the late Queen and King Charles, My Mother and I, is out next month, this week has highlighted the “vulnerability of those in the top job”. “This is not a constitutional crisis, far from it,” said Seward, who is editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine. “But it does leave the underbelly of the Royal family somewhat exposed. Before the Duke and Duchess of Sussex relinquished their royal duties, they could have stepped up providing the youth and glamour the Prince and Princess of Wales have lent to royal engagements. In a world obsessed with youth and beauty, the Royal family have relied on William and Catherine to lend a bit of royal stardust to events. Without the Sussexes — regardless of their unpopularity — it exposes the vulnerability of those in the top job.”

Phil Dampier thinks the Sussexes could have eased the pressure off Will & Kate: “The late Queen was very much hoping Harry and Meghan would be her biggest ambassador in the Commonwealth, that they would be able to take up a lot of the overseas visits,” he said. “They would have gone down a storm everywhere from Canada to New Zealand and the Caribbean countries. They would have done a fantastic job and it would have taken a lot of pressure off William and Kate, who wouldn’t have to do all the heavy lifting, and Charles and Camilla who are still having to take these long haul flights at the ages of 75 and 76. Harry and Meghan could have taken up a lot of that slack, and now that’s gone.”

I cannot believe Dampier said this with a straight face: The past week, he said, has “highlighted how thin on the ground” the Royal family now are. “I don’t understand why the Sussexes would have felt they were second best [to the Waleses],” he added. “There was plenty of opportunity for all of the ‘Fab Four’ to have starring roles, they didn’t need to be competing.”

[From The Telegraph]

I’m just going to be a broken record about this, so here goes: if Harry was, as it now seems, the linchpin of the whole operation and vital to the success of the royal family, then he should have been treated as such this whole time. In fact, Harry even went out of his way to repeatedly offer the institution a perfectly workable “half in” solution, in which he and Meghan could have temporarily returned to the UK in exactly this kind of situation. Instead, he was mocked, abused, trashed, denigrated and smeared for simply wanting the attacks on his wife to end, and for prioritizing his own mental health. They could not believe that he would DARE suggest that a half-in solution would benefit the Windsors in the long-term. “There was plenty of opportunity for all of the ‘Fab Four’ to have starring roles, they didn’t need to be competing.” Literally as soon as the Sussexes showed the family how successful they could be on tour, representing the crown overseas, that was when William, Kate and the courtiers all unleashed hell on the Sussexes. Nothing was ever the same once the Sussexes returned from their wildly successful South Pacific Tour.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Are people interested in the Mean Girls musical movie? I genuinely can’t tell if people are like “hell yeah, this will be kitsch fun” or whether it’s just seen as a money-grab. It’s sort of an updated remake with music from the Broadway musical adaptation, with Tina Fey constantly updating the jokes, characters, script and what have you. Tina recently chatted with the New York Times about the new film and how she’s updated a lot of the jokes. I’m still trying to figure out if people are into it?

On the tagline “This isn’t your mother’s ‘Mean Girls’”: “That came from the Paramount marketing department. I want to comfort millennials by telling them that’s just an expression in the English language. And also, when the movie came out, some people who were older than you also went to it. Some people as old as 26 or 27 may have been in the theater with you.

The edits Fey made to many of the less acceptable jokes: “I was writing in the early 2000s very much based on my experience as a teen in the late ’80s. It’s come to no one’s surprise that jokes have changed. You don’t poke in the way that you used to poke. Even if your intention was always the same, it’s just not how you do it anymore, which is fine. I very much believe that you can find new ways to do jokes with less accidental shrapnel sideways.

Name-calling in the modern age: “If we really had people speak to each other the way they spoke to each other in 1990, everyone would go to the hospital. People were really rough. People are still horrible, they’re just more likely to anonymously type it. I would like to take but not teach a graduate school class on the ways in which people are just as divisive and horrible as they ever were, but now they couch it in virtue.

Regina isn’t homophobic: “I know that even Regina would know what wouldn’t fly. She’s going to find a way to inflict pain on people, but she’s not going to get herself in trouble. For example, there’s a joke in the original movie when Janis gets up on the table and Regina says, “Oh my God, it’s her dream come true: diving into a huge pile of girls.” It was mine and Sam Jayne’s feeling that Regina wouldn’t try that now because she knows the kids around her would be like, “That’s homophobic.” She would know not to be homophobic, and hopefully, truly would not be homophobic.

When Regina gains weight in the movie musical, the other students’ initial reaction is positive — but then she’s still shamed. “Look at the famous people that influence Gen Z, and we’re still always talking about their bodies. We’re either attacking other people for talking about it, or commending people for being a size, or we’re questioning how they got to a different size. It felt like a line to figure out. We still want to be talking about how weird and messy everything is for girls, while acknowledging that these standards aren’t mandatory — but a lot of people are still signing up for them.

Cultural shifts since the 2018 Broadway show: “If anything, these behaviors have jumped way beyond just young women. It’s in our politics. It’s in everything. People now like to candy-coat and be very virtuous pointing out why you’re a problem, but it’s the same behavior. It’s still, “Don’t look at me. Look at them. I’m doing great. I might not have nice hair, but she’s fat.”

The idea of bringing back the original cast & making a straight sequel: “I have a feeling Paramount would love that. I have not really thought much about that. To me, part of why the stakes are so high in the story is because everyone’s so young and feelings are huge, love is huge and friendship is huge in a way [that it isn’t with] middle-age moms. I love writing about middle-aged people, but I don’t know.

She did approach the original cast members to make cameos but it didn’t work out: “We’ll never know. They’re busy people, so it didn’t come together, but we tried, and we all love each other.

[From The NY Times]

I find all of the conversations about the changing landscape of comedy writing really interesting, and I like what Fey says about understanding that you can’t have teenagers saying certain things these days, but there’s just a baseline of “these are universal experiences” too. “We still want to be talking about how weird and messy everything is for girls, while acknowledging that these standards aren’t mandatory — but a lot of people are still signing up for them.” That’s exactly what is happening, going hand in hand with people are still horrible, but now they’re couching it in virtue-signaling and they’re doing it online. Girls are still mean to each other, people still call each other names, people still feel uncomfortable and awkward in their bodies, but every generation sucks in different ways.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

The past week has been hellish with mass layoffs in the field of sports and music journalism. Sports Illustrated is not folding, but their corporate owners are firing a huge chunk of sports journalists, writers and editors, and no one knows what the future holds for one of the most important national sports-reporting brands. This week, we also learned that Pitchfork would not continue to exist as a somewhat independent site – Conde Nast is slashing Pitchfork’s staff and the music site is being folded into GQ. Anna Wintour controls a lot of what happens within Conde Nast – her official title is Global Chief Content Officer, which means she oversees content over a vast array of domestic and international media outlets, mostly print outlets. Wintour was in the meetings with Pitchfork staffers as they learned their site is being folded into GQ. Apparently, she never removed her sunglasses.

Anna Wintour, Condé Nast’s longtime fashion doyenne, is famous for a singular style trademark — her sunglasses. Indeed, Wintour didn’t take off her sunglasses the entire time she met with employees of Pitchfork this week to tell them they were losing their jobs after Condé Nast had decided to subsume the music criticism site into GQ, according to one now-former employee in attendance.

“One absolutely bizarro detail from this week is that Anna Wintour — seated indoors at a conference table — did not remove her sunglasses while she was telling us that we were about to get canned,” Allison Hussey, a former Pitchfork staff writer, wrote on X. “The indecency we’ve seen from upper management this week is appalling.”

It’s unclear whether Wintour’s reported decision to not remove her eyewear during the meeting was a deliberate fashion choice or, rather, a way to avoid having to look Pitchfork’s employees in the eye. Reps for Condé Nast did not respond to a request for comment.

Condé Nast on Wednesday told staffers that Pitchfork, the music news and criticism site the company bought in 2015, will merge with men’s magazine GQ. First launched in 1996, Pitchfork has become known for effusively praising favored artists while harshly dinging those that provoke its disapproval. The decision “was made after a careful evaluation of Pitchfork’s performance and what we believe is the best path forward for the brand so that our coverage of music can continue to thrive within the company,” Wintour, Condé Nast’s chief content officer and global editorial director of Vogue, wrote in a memo to staff.

Pitchfork staff members being let go include editor-in-chief Puja Patel and features editor Jill Mapes, who commented on X, “after nearly 8 yrs, mass layoffs got me. glad we could spend that time trying to make it a less dude-ish place just for GQ to end up at the helm.”

[From Variety]

The sunglasses detail is appalling, but am I the only one surprised that Wintour would even sit in those meetings? While I know her position gives her power over a lot within Conde Nast, it feels like Wintour would think that it was beneath her, to deal with Pitchfork music critics and such. Maybe that’s why she kept her sunglasses on – she didn’t want those peasants to see her eyes. I don’t know.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

As someone who reads a lot of British media for my job, I feel like I’m qualified to say that the vibe has been decidedly weird ever since Kensington Palace’s announcement about the Princess of Wales’s abdominal surgery. The announcement came on Wednesday, the day after her surgery (or so KP claims), and from the looks of things, William made his first visit to Kate’s hospital bedside on Thursday. The palace didn’t include any information about “Kate is expected to make a full recovery,” nor did they feel the need to do any kind of meaningful disclosure about what ails the wife of the heir to the throne, the future queen consort and mother of a future king. There’s an unsettled vibe among the royal reporters, and as I wrote on Thursday, it would not surprise me at all if this was another open secret within the rota, much like “Kate was one of the royal racists named by Meghan.” I bring this up because Rebecca English at the Mail wrote an overwrought piece about Kate, but more about William. Some highlights:

The king’s prostate: Who would have thought seeing the King smiling broadly as he drove himself and his wife to church on Sunday that he was concerned enough about his health to seek imminent medical advice. Or that on the very day he was told to scale back royal duties and prepare for surgery for an enlarged prostate next week, His Majesty would break with protocol and allow his diagnoses to be made known in the hope that it might encourage other men to get themselves checked out. I’m told he is ‘genuinely’ in a good place, taking a pragmatic approach to his diagnosis and keeping up with his paperwork before his surgery next week.

William’s one event this year: Last week I was with her husband, Prince William, as he surprised motor neurone disease campaigners and former rugby league professionals Rob Burrow and Kevin Sinfield with their CBEs. He travelled up to Leeds to hand them their honours personally as Rob who – along with his friend, Kevin – has courageously used his diagnosis with the incurable, life-shortening condition, to raise millions of pounds to support fellow sufferers and fund research…At the end of the engagement, I stepped tearfully out of the room to allow William some private time with the families. When he exited a few minutes later he had obviously noticed my distress and, I think, was aware why. He looked at me, smiled kindly and nodded his head. ‘You OK, Rebecca?’ There was no hint that anything untoward was going on behind the scenes in his own life.

The disgraceful online chatter: Which makes the reaction by some to his decision to clear his diary to be at his wife’s bedside and support their three young children disgraceful in the extreme. Social media has been awash with trolls – even those with the letters Dr before their name – decrying his actions. One (I shall not name the individual, as I fear they will only enjoy the publicity) highlighted an article on MailOnline and wrote: ‘Should we clap for him? The PR spin to desperately make Prince William look like a dedicated husband and father juggling childcare and caring when he has an army of people supporting him and zero financial concerns about cancelling work to stay at home is so tone deaf.’ Beyond spiteful.

Quoting Republic’s social media too: Republic, the anti-monarchist pressure group that has spent the past year trying to convince the public it is a credible political force, has also seized on the issue with glee, posting: ‘They could all be off sick with the measles for six months and still fit in more engagements than last year’, and ‘Man visits wife in hospital. Huge if true’.

No pity parties for Peg: William would be the last to encourage a pity party, but it’s worth pointing out that wealth doesn’t mean that your wife or children need you less. The heir to the throne has long made it clear that his three young children are his No 1 priority in life. Of course he is lucky to be able to afford to take time off work, but it would take a particularly bitter individual to begrudge him that.

Daddy’s love: Fortunately he has a close support network around him, particularly Catherine’s parents, Michael and Carole Middleton, who are extremely hands-on grandparents, as well as their nanny Maria. But nothing makes up for a daddy’s love and while he never likes to disappoint the many charities and organisations he supports, he wants to be there for George, Charlotte and Louis, as well as his wife.

English remembers William’s incandescent rage at a French tabloid publishing Kate’s nude photos: What upset him most, he said, was that when he proposed to Catherine he promised her parents he would take care of her. He, more than anyone, knew the personal sacrifices she was making to be with the man she loved. And in allowing this all to happen, he felt he had let them down. It’s why I know he will bend heaven and earth to be at her side now and do the best for their little family. However long it takes.

[From The Daily Mail]

English is not the only royal reporter amplifying the “social media trolls,” nor is she the only one using “random negative tweets about the Waleses” as some kind of evidence that everyone is being hyper-critical of poor, poor William. I think that’s what’s really weird about it – the overemphasis on how hard this is on William, how poor William will have to do the school runs and go to the hospital. All of which draws attention to the fact that William seemingly only visited Kate on Thursday, two days after her surgery? And just last week, KP was making all of these plans for trips to Italy and trips to visit the military and all of that. We’re once again left with more questions than answers, but I will say this: it’s unsettling how William is at the center of the narrative, and the conversation is about how hard this is on him, and there’s actually very little being said about just what the hell is going on with Kate. Why is William being centered here and why does it feel like certain wheels have been set in motion?

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

The “Lilibet story” aside, it really doesn’t seem like Robert Hardman’s new biography of King Charles has any steaming hot tea. A lot of this stuff is just repackaged older stories with a handful of new quotes. One thing I have seen is that it definitely feels like Hardman has “sourcing” from within Prince William’s camp too, so it’s not simply Charles and Camilla’s narratives. Speaking of, the Mail published a new excerpt about William and how he thinks his biggest job is preparing George to be king. George is 10 years old and he goes to school? Is this just William trying to explain why he’s so lazy?

William isn’t intellectually curious or academic: ‘William will say: ‘Don’t get me a meeting with an academic.’ He might want to meet a brilliant scientist who is doing something amazing but he doesn’t seek intellectual company,’ says one of those who has worked closely with him. ‘He is a very serious, pragmatic bloke and he doesn’t want to make lots of speeches. The King liked amateur dramatics in his youth. His son does not have that same love of showmanship.’

William doesn’t wade into social or political issues: Now in his 40s, Prince William has steered a more conventional and cautious path. Within the Palace, some see traces of an earnest, dutiful George VI. As one of his senior advisers puts it: ‘He is one of the least ideological people I have met.’ In many ways, therefore, the royal ‘change-maker’ is actually father, not son. Prince William gets most of his news from online sources such as the BBC website and briefings from staff. He prefers cogent, bullet-point memos to the big bundles of documents the King likes to wade through.

William won’t collect homes: ‘No more properties!’ replies one adviser, only half-jokingly, when asked if Prince William might be thinking of any fresh acquisitions of his own.

No Welsh for Willy: When it comes to Wales, the new Prince of Wales made three early decisions that represent a break with his father’s approach. First, he would not spend months at university learning Welsh. Second, he would not be buying a home in Wales. Third, he had no wish for a grand formal investiture like the 1969 ceremony arranged for Prince Charles. ‘I certainly remember the aftermath of the investiture at Caernarfon,’ says Princess Anne. ‘We were sent off to Malta for [Charles] to recover. He really did need to recover.’

William doesn’t read: When it comes to leisure, the King has inherited his late father’s love of reading. Prince William, by contrast, will dip into books for information, less so for pleasure. Asked to name the Prince’s favourite author, one official replies diplomatically: ‘He’s a box-set guy.’ Superhero movies are, apparently, a particular favourite, especially Deadpool and all things Batman-related. ‘He just likes action flicks,’ says one friend. One hit series which the Prince and Princess of Wales will not be watching is the Netflix royal drama, The Crown. ‘The Prince … rolls his eyes when people say that ‘it’s just drama’,’ says a source close to him. ‘Yet, he will not give it any greater publicity by complaining. He doesn’t like the idea of being seen as a complainer all the time.’

William’s nerves about being king: According to a close adviser, he is ‘very nervous’ of being seen to presume he is the future head of the Commonwealth. ‘It’s something he thinks about a lot.’ However, one idea which he certainly does not favour, says a source, is the idea of being a ‘co-head’ (with a politician).

William’s coronation: His own Coronation, when it takes place, is likely to be quite different from his father’s. According to one who has heard Prince William’s private thoughts about it, he thought King Charles’s Coronation ‘was brilliant, but he is less instinctively spiritual than his father so he would want something a bit more discreet’. He would also like his ceremony to be shorter — ‘ideally an hour and ten minutes’ — and may dispense with some of the regalia.

William’s most important job: Quite apart from all his duties as Prince of Wales, Prince William has what he regards as one paramount duty. It is one which some of his predecessors virtually ignored: training the heir. ‘In his view, it’s not far off the most important job he has — raising the next King but one,’ says a family friend. Equally, Prince George will not be expected to undertake any royal duties until he is well into his 20s.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Prince George will not be expected to undertake any royal duties until he is well into his 20s.” All three kids are already undertaking royal duties – they’re being trotted out constantly as little shields for their lazy parents. And it would be hilarious if George doesn’t do one single thing for the monarchy until he turns 25. Like… lmao. Anyway, William sounds dull, stupid, incurious, unimaginative, boorish and anti-intellectual. Congrats on your future Tory puppet king.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Prince Harry is due at the Beverly Hills “Living Legends of Aviation” event this evening, and most of us hope that his wife will join him. Harry was also photographed out and about in California earlier this week – go here to see the pics. He wore the California-bro uniform: shorts, sneakers, a t-shirt and a semi-puffy jacket. He looked cute, honestly. Those photos came out as the palaces announced that the Princess of Wales had undergone abdominal surgery and King Charles would soon undergo prostate surgery. It was easy to predict what would come next: British media outlets screaming about how Harry should come home, except they don’t want him back, they just want him to BEG them to come back! Robert Jobson got the ball rolling with this ridiculous piece in the Mail: “Harry must be contemplating how it could have been so different. His family needs him, but he has gone AWOL. And it raises some important ‘what ifs’…”

Harry, Hal, H or Harold – the royal formerly known as Prince – must be sitting in his Montecito mansion contemplating how it could have been so different. Should have been, perhaps.

Rather than gazing at his navel or collecting pointless awards – such as being lauded as a ‘legend’ of aviation – the former Army chopper pilot could have been doing something useful for Crown and country. Once the darling of the British public for his service and a refreshingly fun character, there was a time when Harry played his role as a working royal to perfection. Likeable and engaging, he threw himself into official duties with gusto, home and abroad, and won favour with his grandmother, the late Queen.

Then, after he wed actress Meghan, he flounced off across the pond to start his new life. What exactly is this once hard-working man doing now? That’s not entirely clear, except to say that now, just when his father the King needs him, he has gone AWOL. Worse, he has burnt most of his bridges by attacking his family in books and films.

His brother William could really do with some backup, too, as he has to care for his young family as wife Kate recuperates from major abdominal surgery.

Harry’s self-imposed royal exile and Andrew’s enforced ‘exile’ following the Epstein scandal has exposed flaws in our constitutional system. We obviously wish His Majesty the King and the Princess of Wales well. I am confident they are both in the safe hands of the best medical professionals. Both are expected, in time, to make full recoveries. And the King was praised for revealing his condition – a benign enlarged prostate – to encourage men experiencing symptoms to be checked out. William is right, too, to postpone several of his engagements while his wife recuperates to care for their young family.

But these latest palace announcements expose some important ‘what ifs’. Who would step up should anything happen to the King or William? Prince George, the next in line, is still a minor. It would have been Harry. But that’s now in the past. Thankfully, one matter has now been sorted. That’s the issue of the Counsellors of State – senior members of the Royal Family who can step in for the monarch to help with public business in the case of illness. Until recently, we were relying on help from Harry in Montecito and disgraced uncle Andrew! But as of December, Princess Anne and Prince Edward can now stand in for Charles after the King sent a Message to Parliament.

[From The Daily Mail]

Jobson goes on to say that Princess Anne should be the one to step in, should something happen to Charles and (bizarrely) William at the same time. Keep in mind, no one has said that William is ill or going under anesthesia. William is choosing not to work, not to step up, not to be a temporary (de facto) regent while his father has prostate surgery. William is choosing to cancel his schedule to go on school runs and visit his wife in the hospital for one hour every other day, and so be it. That’s the choice William made and that’s the choice Charles made too. Charles saw a fork in the road in 2020 and he chose the path of “exiling Harry and hoping William would step up.” It hasn’t worked out for any of them, so don’t give me any of this hand-wringing revisionist history about “Harry going AWOL.” Charles chose this. William chose it too.

As I’ve always said, post-Sussexit, the Windsors and the royal media have always treated Harry as the now-absent linchpin of the whole operation, that he was supposed to be around forever to pick up the work slack and act as backup for these kinds of medical emergencies. If Harry was so fundamental to the whole operation, why did they treat him with such disdain and malice? Don’t answer, I know already – they thought the child they neglected and abused would never leave. Four years later, they still can’t figure out a way to exist without him.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

It’s been four years of this exhausting, obvious and childish melodrama from the UK and it’s crazy that they don’t understand how juvenile and warped they sound all the time. The Windsors, the British media and seemingly a good chunk of the British populace have all agreed that the best way to talk about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is through a patronizing combination of hatred and projection. This week, in the wake of the Princess of Wales’s hospitalization and King Charles’s announcement about a prostate procedure, this group of people can’t simply say: we wish Prince Harry was around, we sort of miss that ginger, we treated him unfairly. Instead, it’s this convoluted and pathetic argument of “Harry should want to be back in the UK, but thank God he’s not around because we hate him, even if we really do need him!” Behold, an excerpt from Richard Kay’s latest Daily Mail column, “Charles’s slimmed down monarchy is coming apart at the seams – just as Anne predicted.”

Ordinarily at such a moment, King Charles’s son would be able to take up some of the royal slack. But Prince William has, understandably, put the welfare of his wife and children first and postponed his official engagements. That the three most important members of the Royal Family – Charles in his position as sovereign, William as heir to the throne and Kate as the monarchy’s most relatable figure — should all be absent from the public stage at the same time is alarming enough.

But what is far more striking — and should also be a cause for concern — is just what these medical emergencies mean for the ability of the House of Windsor to fully function when it is beset by unforeseen setbacks. For, if nothing else, these health alarms have exposed the consequences of a slimmed-down monarchy. Shorn of such dependable figures, even for a short time, they reveal just how empty the royal cupboard is.

More telling perhaps is how quickly a problem can turn into a crisis. For decades the royals glided serenely through many a difficulty because there were enough of them to deploy. If one family member was indisposed another would seamlessly step in. But the turbulence of recent years, from Megxit to Prince Andrew’s Epstein crisis and the death of Queen Elizabeth, has put resources under the heaviest of strains.

In private moments, Charles must surely wish he still had the box office draw of Prince Harry to call on. The ‘old’ Harry that is, the fun-loving prince who threw himself into royal duty with a verve and a popularity unmatched by any other family members. But that was before marriage, self-imposed exile to California and bitter estrangement from his own brother. Together with the forced exclusion of Prince Andrew as a working royal over the Jeffrey Epstein affair, the absence of Harry and Meghan has done more to slim down the monarchy than any kind of tinkering that Charles himself might once have envisioned.

When the late Queen marked her golden jubilee in 2002, the balcony heaved with royal hangers-on. Fast-forward ten years to her diamond jubilee in 2012 and that same balcony looked somewhat sparse. The handful that stood to acknowledge the cheers of the crowds were exactly as Charles had been advocating, a nucleus of royals representing the direct line of succession.
That same tableau was repeated in the summer of 2022 at Queen Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee, but while the numbers alongside her increased because of the presence of William and Kate’s children, the absence of Harry was notable. Even Charles could never have dreamt that this slimmed-down vision would not include his younger son, daughter-in-law and their children Archie and Lilibet. Which is why today the sudden — if temporary — removal of three key figures exposes the limitations of this new look Royal Family.

How prophetic Princess Anne’s words now seem when she was asked ten months ago about the new King’s plans to reduce the royal workforce. ‘I think “slimmed down” was said in a day when there were a few more people around,’ she observed. ‘It doesn’t sound like a good idea.’ Charles’s rationale was not just based on the physical presence of a bloated family, but also on confronting the public perception that it is kept afloat by the taxpayer. He is keen for the monarchy to be seen as value for money. Achieving all of this can only be done by reducing what the institution actually does.

This week’s events are testing the strategy in a way courtiers had perhaps not anticipated. It is fortunate therefore that these medical bombshells have come at a time when royal duties are traditionally lighter. Imagine if the alarm had occurred midway though a state visit when both the King and William and Kate would have been playing central roles. Despite these dramas, the public are entitled to ask how well Charles’s small-scale monarchy will cope. They may also question whether or not the royals’ extraordinary portfolio of houses may need to be slimmed as well.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Charles’s rationale was not just based on the physical presence of a bloated family, but also on confronting the public perception that it is kept afloat by the taxpayer. He is keen for the monarchy to be seen as value for money.” Instead, there’s a smaller number of people with more Sovereign Grant money, spread out across more than a dozen castles, palaces, forts, cottages and mansions, and the newly slimmed-monarchy is now saying they need to do less, be seen less and you can’t count on them in a crisis either. “Charles must surely wish he still had the box office draw of Prince Harry to call on.” If Harry was still around, he would be used in much the same way he’s being used now – as a deflection from the larger issue of an extravagantly financed family out of touch with the issues Britain faces. And guess what? Harry is never coming back, and he’s said that repeatedly with his whole chest. Instead of acknowledging that and giving royal commentary in good faith, Kay and the others are lamenting “why did jolly old Harry have to leave us, he should be back here to ease some of the workload off Charles and William!”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

It took less than 48 hours for the British media to drag Prince Harry into his father and sister-in-law’s medical issues. Now that the shock has worn off, I’m really not concerned about King Charles or his giant prostate. All of the medical professionals have said that Charles’s prostate issue is very common, very manageable and that he’ll be back to work in two to three weeks. Meaning, it’s not a “constitutional issue,” and Charles was actually wise to do a full public disclosure about it. There is no reason why Charles or the palace would have to consult or inform the king’s California-dwelling son. And yet, that’s the big headline in the Telegraph: how did Prince Harry learn of his father’s enlarged prostate?? Will Harry devote a chapter in Spare Volume 2 to his dad’s prostate? Why won’t Archewell confirm or deny their knowledge of a king’s prostate??

The Duke of Sussex may not have found out about the King’s prostate diagnosis before the news was made public, the Telegraph understands. Buckingham Palace did make efforts to inform all senior members of the Royal family and that included relaying a message to Prince Harry.

However, the public announcement was made at 3.25pm UK time, which is 7.25am in California, and it is thought the Duke may have seen the news alerts before any private message. Both the palace and a spokesman for the Sussexes declined to comment.

Each side is keen not to stir up further tensions, aware that any kind of declaration could plunge relations to a new low.

But the development was reminiscent of the breakdown in communications when Elizabeth II died in September 2022. As first revealed by the Telegraph, the Duke found out via a news alert, as he was mid-air en route to Scotland when the public announcement was made.

[From The Telegraph]

LOL, no one died in this situation and again, a relatively routine prostate procedure – which hasn’t even happened yet! – is not a constitutional issue. It sounds like Buckingham Palace briefed the Telegraph and included a sly little reference to how they tried to get in touch with Harry. Perhaps they sent him an email (which would actually be fine). But that’s not all! One royal expert is begging Harry to get in contact with his father:

Soon after the announcement of Kate’s hospitalisation, Buckingham Palace revealed King Charles, 75, will undergo a corrective procedure for an enlarged prostate next week. Now royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams has told The Sun that the wayward Duke, 39, should “approach” Charles and Kate under the circumstances.

He said: “There is a very deep rift in the royal family. As far as anyone is aware, Harry and William aren’t speaking. It’s very unfortunate this has happened. Not only the King with an enlarged prostate but Catherine has also had an operation of some magnitude. Given the sensitivities involved, it is hoped some approach would be made by Harry but the best thing, and the only thing, would be a quiet or private approach. So basically we don’t hear.”

Fitzwilliams added: “I would have thought Harry will approach his father, brother and also Catherine.”

[From The Sun]

In Spare, Harry wrote about texting his brother when their grandmother died and William blanking him and refusing to allow Harry to catch a ride on the royal plane. So.. if Harry texted his brother again, I kind of doubt William would respond anyway. Now, maybe Harry has contacted his father. We’ll only hear about it when Charles leaks it.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Here are some photos of French actor Vincent Cassel and his girlfriend Narah Baptista in Paris on Thursday. They attended the Alexandre Mattiussi Menswear show during Paris Fashion Week – I think Cassel is a personal friend of the designer, and Cassel had previously walked the runway for Mattiussi’s collection last year.

I did a double-take when I saw these photos – while Narah is not a carbon copy of Vincent’s most recent ex-wife, Narah certainly bears a passing resemblance to Tina Kunakey. As we discussed previously, Vincent and Tina had a dramatic falling out a little less than a year ago. She deleted all of her IG photos of him and he did the same. Then he basically refused to stop banging women in Brazil. They apparently divorced pretty quietly last year, and for months, Vincent has been loved up with Narah in Brazil. I always thought his marriage to Tina fell apart when she gave birth to their daughter, and now he’s with someone who looks like she could be Tina’s childfree sister? Tina and Narah are close in age too – both are 26/27. Vincent is 57. A dirty old man, truly.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Mandy Moore has two young boys with husband Taylor Goldsmith. Their names are Gus, age two, and Ozzie, one. While celebrities have different levels of exposure for their kids being in the public eye, Mandy has always been pretty open with her children’s lives when it’s in the context of her motherhood journey. She’s outspoken, but not to the level of overshare. Mandy’s talked about not feeling good enough as a mother, having two under two-year-olds being overwhelming, shared her potty training journey, and more. Honestly, most of what Mandy shares is pretty relatable.

I didn’t realize this but at some point, doctors told Mandy that she may not be able to get pregnant. They suspected that Mandy possibly had endometriosis and was planning on getting surgery to “fix” it so that she could get pregnant. But as the Universe would have it, Mandy ended up getting pregnant before her surgery happened.

Mandy Moore thought she’d have a difficult time getting pregnant before conceiving her two boys. On Tuesday, the actress reflected on her uncertain road to motherhood and being told she had a “slim chance” of conception in a candid Instagram post.

“I’ve always wanted to be a mom. Before bringing my two boys into the world with my love, @taylordawesgoldsmith, I was a mom to many many cats and at times, just as many dogs,” she began alongside a throwback video of her much younger self sitting on a couch with a cat under each arm.

“But there was a time when I thought I might not be able to have kids,” she continued. “I remember when the doctor told me there was a slim chance of getting pregnant… and then lo and behold to our surprise, I became pregnant with Gus.”

The “A Walk to Remember” star, 39, went on to call motherhood a “beautiful, messy, sleepless gift.”

It turns out that Moore, who shares her boys, August “Gus,” 2, and Oscar “Ozzie,” 1, with her husband, Taylor Goldsmith, prepared for her real-life role as a mother through her “This Is Us” character of Rebecca Pearson.

“Playing Rebecca on #ThisIsUs actually prepared me for it a bit — like changing a diaper for the first time and running around set with ‘triplets,’” she wrote in the vulnerable post.

“Being a mom on This Is Us to triplets at various stages of life and now being a mom to Gus and Ozzie, well, I’ve learned that as hard as you try and as good intentioned as you may be, it is impossible to ‘get it right’ all of the time.”

She wrapped up her candid note with a touching quote from the Pearson family matriarch.

“‘It’s my job to keep standing there with my arms wide open, waiting for you to maybe someday fall inside if you needed it,’” she wrote. “And if you do, I’ll love you. And if you don’t I’ll love you too — because that’s what it means to be a parent. You’ll see one day.’”

Moore enthusiastically concluded, “And to that I say, Rebecca, I see it!”

Moore previously opened up about the shock she felt when she learned she was pregnant in a 2021 interview with Romper. She revealed at the time that she had planned to get surgery to “fix” her “uterus issues” and potential endometriosis before learning of her pregnancy.

“Because of this issue with my uterus, I was very hesitant to believe it and put any stock in it,” she recalled. “I sort of was holding my breath until 12 weeks.”

[From Page Six]

After hearing her reproductive backstory, I’m so happy for Mandy. I know so many women who have had issues getting pregnant, but managed to do so despite the odds. Both of my SILs needed Clomid and my best friend went through several rounds of IVF, one of which resulted in an 11-week loss that almost broke her. She delivered to term two rounds later. If you’ve experienced difficulty getting pregnant and/or a loss, I’m so sorry. Please know that you aren’t alone.

I did love it when Mandy said, “I’ve learned that as hard as you try and as good intentioned as you may be, it is impossible to ‘get it right’ all of the time.” Say it louder for the people in the back, Mandy! I try to be open with my children when I make a mistake, which is not something I saw older generations in my family do. I want them to understand that I’m human too and that I’m making the best decisions I can regarding the situation and the information I have. Some scenarios may repeat but as they get older, there will be new ones that we’re all figuring out together. I think that’s the one thing to take away from life in general, that we’re all in this together.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mandy Moore (@mandymooremm)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mandy Moore (@mandymooremm)

Photos credit: IMAGO/RW / Avalon, Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon and via Instagram