Embed from Getty Images
One of the (many) shows I binged over the course of the pandemic was Modern Family. I had watched it when it was first on, but dropped out around season five. The first few seasons I think are truly exceptional, but it was still really enjoyable to go through the whole series. By all accounts, the cast has remained tight since the show ended in 2020. Jesse Tyler Ferguson officiated Sarah Hyland’s 2022 wedding, and just last fall Sofia Vergara hosted Jesse and Julie Bowen in her home (a night that included Insta snaps from her closet which I think is the same size as my apartment living room). Jesse also had Sarah Hyland on his Dinner’s on Me podcast last summer, and now he’s welcomed another Modern Family vet to the pod. Ed O’Neill appears on a new episode, where he describes that age-old life question he faced as a youth: whether to go into acting or the mob.

During a conversation with his former Modern Family costar Jesse Tyler Ferguson on the latest episode of Ferguson’s Dinner’s on Me podcast, the veteran actor, 77, recalled how he considered a life of organized crime in the late ‘60s before heading to New York to pursue a career in acting.

As the Married … with Children alum explained, he was tempted because he’d just been cut from the Pittsburgh Steelers, and he was desperately looking for a job in his hometown in Ohio.

“I had friends whose fathers were in organized crime,” said O’Neill. He then proceeded to tell the story of how a “dear friend” from his childhood, Jim, took him for a drive and made him an offer he almost couldn’t refuse.

“We’re driving and he said, ‘How you doing? You got cut, you got no money,’” O’Neill told Ferguson, 48. “I said, ‘No, I’m broke. I don’t know what I’m gonna do, Jim.’”

After the two stopped at a “fancy” bar where Jim had a suspicious conversation with the bartender about whether the latter had seen an “old friend” of Jim’s, “We left and [Jim] said, ‘You can do this kind of stuff for me … I’ll protect you,’” O’Neill recounted. “‘I’ll give you easy stuff. Just you collect here. You do that. You run, you drop something off here and there. You may have to lean on a guy, but you’re good at that. You can make some good money.’”

O’Neill’s initial response? “‘Let me think about it, Jim. ‘Cause I might be leaving town to pursue this acting thing,’ which he knew about,” the actor said.

And while O’Neill did initially go home and consider Jim’s offer (“I thought, ‘What else am I gonna do?’” he told Ferguson), it was his dad who persuaded him to head in another direction when they had a conversation about it the following day.

“He said, ‘I saw you take a ride with Jimmy … I just wanna ask you a question: Can you do time?’ I said, ‘No,’” the Little Giants actor recalled. “He said, ‘You couldn’t do time. You’d have a hard time being in jail, right?’ I said, ‘No, I don’t think I could do time.’ He said, ‘Okay.’”

O’Neill continued, “I called Jimmy, and I thanked him and I said, ‘I’m going to New York. I’m gonna try this other thing.’”

While he wouldn’t land his first onscreen roles until a decade later, O’Neill went on to have a flourishing acting career in both film and television, notably on the latter with Married … with Children and Modern Family. He has earned numerous accolades, including four Screen Actors Guild Awards and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

The ensemble cast of Modern Family, including Ferguson, have even remained close since its conclusion in 2020, after 11 seasons on the air.

[From People]

I like Ed’s dad in this story. He doesn’t yell or become histrionic. He simply asks his son, in a matter-of-fact manner, to self-assess his own potential for withstanding prison and lets the boy come to the conclusion himself. Take note, parents! Ed could totally develop this into a project. Yes we have Barry, and going further back Bullets Over Broadway, but there’s room for more! Acting vs the mob is a fun dichotomy to play with. At first, superficial glance it looks like tough guys vs softies. But Ed stuck with acting even after 10 years of no screen work, and in 1970s New York no less. That takes some serious mettle! Incidentally, I’ve gone to some classes at the Lee Strasberg Institute, and when exercises ever felt overwhelming we’d steel ourselves and invoke Lee’s Godfather Part II role of Hyman Roth: “this is the business we’ve chosen.”

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Getty, ROGER WONG/INSTARimages.com, Joe Sutter, PacificCoastNews / Avalon

I didn’t know or I forgot that Brad Pitt and Jason Priestley were roommates when they were first starting out in LA. These were their lean years, just before Priestley booked Beverly Hills 90210 and before Pitt booked Thelma & Louise. I’m actually just realizing that those two gigs happened within a year of each other – 90210 came out in 1990, and Thelma & Louise came out in 1991. In any case, they were friends and roommates in the late ‘80s and Jason has mentioned stuff about Pitt occasionally in interviews before. Jason was on a talk show this week and he was asked about Pitt again, and he spilled a smelly secret.

Jason Priestley and former roommate Brad Pitt used to challenge each other to see who could hold out on showering the longest.

“We used to play this game to see who could go the longest without showering,” the “Beverly Hills, 90210” alum revealed on Tuesday’s episode of “Live! With Kelly and Mark.”

“I think about it now and I’m like, ‘Dude how disgusting, what were you thinking?’”

When asked by Kelly Ripa who “went the longest” without bathing, the “Wild Cards” star quickly replied, “Brad. Always Brad.”

“I don’t think he does that anymore, but back then he could go a long time without showering,” he added.

Giving some insight into how he and the A-lister used to live, Priestley recalled he, Pitt and a third individual “living in a two-bedroom apartment in a really crappy part of [Los Angeles].”

When asked by Ripa’s husband and co-host Mark Consuelos what the group kept in the fridge, Priestley simply said “beer.”

[From Page Six]

This is just a reminder that many men are gross, and if they’re left to their own devices, many of them would willingly take part in a competition to see who could go the longest without showering. Honestly, though, Brad has always gone through phases where he doesn’t look like he bathes very often. I bet he smells bad a lot of the time. I googled it and it turns out there are rumors about that too.

Incidentally, last week Pitt and Ines de Ramon were photographed out on a date in Beverly Hills.

Note by CB: Get the Top 8 stories about celebrity bathing habits when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays around lunchtime.

Brad Pitt and Ines de Ramon spotted on rare date night in Beverly Hills: See the pics https://t.co/RXKsVhyjQE pic.twitter.com/w4GOPmewCk

— Page Six (@PageSix) January 14, 2024

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Lorne Michaels thinks Tina Fey could “easily” take over Saturday Night Live. I actually think that would make a lot of sense? Seth Meyers would make sense too. [Just Jared]
Zawe Ashton & Tom Hiddleston’s Emmy looks. [Go Fug Yourself]
Kieran Culkin and his excellent Emmy speech. [LaineyGossip]
Recap of True Detective: Night Country Ep. 1. I still haven’t watched it! [Pajiba]
Charles Melton stopped by the Criterion Closet. [OMG Blog]
Kansas Republicans are still trying to ban abortion. [Jezebel]
All the ladies in Armani at the Emmys. [RCFA]
I can’t believe Tyler James Williams is only 31! [Seriously OMG]
Teen Mom Rachel Beaver gave birth to son River. [Starcasm]
Photos from the Emmys afterparties. [Hollywood Life]
DNA test horror stories – yikes to many of these stories. [Buzzfeed]

Most years, we don’t see Princess Kate after Christmas for weeks, sometimes even a month or longer. While I found it notable that Kate hasn’t been seen anywhere since Christmas Day, I wasn’t surprised and I figured she was fine, hanging out at Anmer Hall or her parents’ home. Turns out, not so much – Kate had abdominal surgery yesterday and the palace is being very squirrelly about what’s going on.

The Princess of Wales is in hospital after undergoing successful abdominal surgery, Kensington Palace announced today. A spokesman said this afternoon: ‘Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales was admitted to The London Clinic yesterday for planned abdominal surgery.

‘The surgery was successful and it is expected that she will remain in hospital for ten to fourteen days, before returning home to continue her recovery. Based on the current medical advice, she is unlikely to return to public duties until after Easter.’

‘The Princess of Wales appreciates the interest this statement will generate. She hopes that the public will understand her desire to maintain as much normality for her children as possible; and her wish that her personal medical information remains private.

‘Kensington Palace will, therefore, only provide updates on Her Royal Highness’ progress when there is significant new information to share.

‘The Princess of Wales wishes to apologise to all those concerned for the fact that she has to postpone her upcoming engagements. She looks forward to reinstating as many as possible, as soon as possible.’

It is understood not to be cancerous.

[From The Daily Mail]

Holy sh-t, right? Easter is months away, so they’re already blocking out months of recovery? “Sources” are insisting it’s nothing cancerous… so…maybe an ulcer? Don’t say gastric bypass, that’s not it. Anyway, I actually feel like… poor Kate? Y’all know that William is not any kind of caretaker – Carole is the one who will have to nurse Kate back to health. Also: this is why her birthday was so quiet too, usually the palace makes a lot more noise about it. I will update if we find out more!

KP’s statement:

A statement from Kensington Palace pic.twitter.com/6h3BCrqj5L

— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) January 17, 2024

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

It looks like King Charles is dealing with a medical situation too, and the announcement came on the same day we learned that the Princess of Wales underwent abdominal surgery yesterday and she’ll be decommissioned for several months. Now it looks like King Charles will probably be down for a while too – he’s going to have surgery on an enlarged prostate.

The King will attend hospital next week to be treated for an enlarged prostate, Buckingham Palace said today.

A Palace spokesman said: ‘In common with thousands of men each year, The King has sought treatment for an enlarged prostate.

‘His Majesty’s condition is benign and he will attend hospital next week for a corrective procedure. The King’s public engagements will be postponed for a short period of recuperation.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This is a very insidery question, but do you think Kensington Palace kept Buckingham Palace in the dark about Kate’s surgery and recovery? Because I cannot imagine BP wanted to announce Charles’s procedure just a couple of hours after KP’s big announcement. It makes it seem like the royal family is being struck down one by one, that they’re all frail and sickly. Anyway, Charles’s procedure will probably require less downtime and recovery than whatever Kate is doing. Basically, don’t expect to see anyone in the royal family until April though. Anyway, I hope Charles and Kate are both okay. It does feel like Charles’ thing is less significant!

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Royal historian Robert Hardman’s new book, Charles III: New King, New Court, has been feeding headlines in the royal media for days, ever since the first book excerpts came out in the Mail last Friday. The biggest story, according to the entire royal media establishment, is that Queen Elizabeth II was “infuriated” and “very angry” that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex named their daughter Lilibet, because that was QEII’s family nickname. Nevermind that after the initial flurry of screaming and crying (from the courtiers), QEII let it be known that she was fine with the name and fine with the Sussexes. None of Hardman’s stories make QEII look good or like a reasonable person, which is probably why the royal press is already trying to walk back some of it, in a way. To be clear, they absolutely want to throw a tantrum about the Sussexes, but they’re not sure if people are really buying the idea that QEII was genuinely that upset. Well, the Mirror ran an exclusive this week about the name controversy (eyeroll) and how Buckingham Palace feels about this story coming out.

Palace courtiers claimed this evening that a new book had revealed “the truth” about a bitter row at the heart of the Royal Family.

Royal sources said ­Buckingham Palace was “relieved” and aides were “celebrating”. In his biography of the King, royal author Robert Hardman alleges the late Queen was furious over Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to call their daughter Lilibet in 2021, and their claim they asked for her permission.

A royal aide claimed the monarch was “as angry as I’d ever seen her” after the Duke and Duchess said they had Elizabeth’s blessing to use her old nickname. The Queen reportedly told aides: “I don’t own the palaces, I don’t own the paintings, the only thing I own is my name. And now they’ve taken that.”

A royal source said: “There’s no denying it is pleasing that the truth has emerged. [Harry and Meghan] attempted to railroad their version of events through, which weren’t accepted then and they are not now. You’ll find the silence [from the Palace] speaks volumes, but everyone is quietly celebrating this particular wrong being righted.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

“You’ll find the silence [from the Palace] speaks volumes, but everyone is quietly celebrating this particular wrong being righted.” Over a child’s name. You’d think we were talking about the most crass breach of etiquette – we’re talking about the queen’s grandson using his beloved grandmother’s nickname for his child. Something which happened nearly three years ago, and the current king and his courtiers are still furious about it? To the point where “the palace’s silence speaks volumes” and yet those same palace aides are crowing to the Mirror that “the truth has emerged”? Again – even the Mail’s Rebecca English admits that Harry did call his grandmother and that he sought permission. Harry wasn’t “railroading his version of events,” he was telling the truth and the courtiers were lying, as they are still lying and smearing a dead queen. It’s absolutely bizarre because the aides who briefed Hardman about this stupid name issue are the same ones briefing the Mirror about their “celebration.”

Note by CB: Harry and Meghan say they got Queen Elizabeth’s blessing to name their daughter after her nickname, but the courtiers and royal rota disagree! Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 10 stories about the drama over Lilibet’s name. We only send one email a day on weekdays.

Update by Kaiser: Hardman was on a talk show in Britain this morning and now he says that the whole controversy wasn’t about the name at all, it was about Harry’s statement about asking QEII?

‘The one thing you don’t do with the Queen is put words in her mouth.’

Robert Hardman’s brand new book ‘Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story’ has got everyone talking.

One revelation was the Queen’s apparent fury at Harry & Meghan’s claim they had her blessing to… pic.twitter.com/ElSGVi8VHR

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) January 17, 2024

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

Piers Morgan’s wife is Celia Walden. She’s just as big of a nutcase as Piers. Celia occasionally writes columns for the Telegraph and other publications, and she’s been seeped in British media and royalist culture for decades. Like her husband, she is fervently anti-Sussex. Well, her latest Telegraph column is a doozy. It’s all about the big royal story/lie this week, the idea that Queen Elizabeth II was “infuriated” and “angry” about the Sussexes naming their daughter Lilibet. Celia’s piece is called: “Meghan hadn’t earned the right to call her daughter Lilibet.” Celia Walden hasn’t earned the right to have Meghan and Harry’s names in her f–king mouth.

There is a type of woman who calls you by a nickname too soon. You are not there yet. You may even barely know each other. She might be a friend of a friend or a neighbour you’ve crossed in the street once or twice, and then boom, out it comes: “So Ceels, how was your Christmas?” Because if the over-familiarity is not enough to set your teeth on edge, it’s often a nickname nobody has ever used before. One that will, hopefully, never be used again.

The intention is obvious: to speed up your “blossoming” relationship into something fully fledged; to con you into believing that you two are already intimate. If anyone else is present, they’re to be conned into believing the same.

I was reminded of this when I read reports, yesterday, that Queen Elizabeth had been infuriated by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s claims she had given them their blessing when they decided to name their daughter Lilibet – a childhood sobriquet of the Queen’s, also used as an affectionate nickname by Prince Philip throughout their relationship.

We’ll never know the truth, but the intention behind the use of that name seems as clear as day: so close were Meghan and the Queen, so informal was the relationship between these two “gal pals” that they knew and used well-worn terms of endearments in one another’s company. Why does that implication suggest Megan’s involvement more than it does Harry? Because, in my experience, mothers tend to have far more sway than fathers when it comes to choosing baby names. Certainly, when it came to naming my own daughter, my husband’s input largely extended to rejecting various early suggestions – a girl at school was called X and she had cankles; he’d once worked with an X and she was a nightmare – before eventually agreeing to my final choice.

This is backed up by statistics, with one 2010 survey confirming that four out of 10 British dads are forced to back down in the name game and let their other halves make the final say. Either way, I think we can all agree that “Lilibet” had Meghan stamped all over it.

As with so many areas of her detailed life plan, the Duchess of Sussex will likely have been thinking ahead to her future in the US and the narrative she would run with there. To the books, the Netflix narcissist-umentaries and the talk-show circuit we have to look forward to. One that will, doubtless, last a lifetime.

So important was it seemingly to carve out the narrative put forward so stridently to Oprah and ensure it was set in stone – Meghan and the Queen would share blankets in cars; Meghan was literally just on the phone to her – that the couple even ordered their lawyers, Schillings, to write to publishers and news broadcasters such as the BBC claiming the Queen was not asked for permission, and insist those claims were defamatory.

Again, we will never know the full truth. But next time you’re backed into a corner by someone aggressively calling you by a nickname they haven’t earnt the right to use, remember the agenda – and call them out on it.

[From The Telegraph]

Meghan had no idea who the queen was before Harry introduced them. She thought she was just going to meet his grandmother. She had no idea she would even have to curtsy or refer to her as “your majesty” and “ma’am.” In the months that followed, Meghan wasn’t trying to force a connection – she simply treated Harry’s grandmother with respect and followed Harry’s lead, and that was the connection. If I’m being honest, though, I doubt the name was Meghan’s call. It’s always felt like Harry got “his way” on their daughter’s name, named after the two women who shaped him. Imagine blaming Meghan because HARRY wanted to name his daughter after his grandmother. It really is one of the most asinine storylines they’ve cooked up, and Celia Walden needs her f–king head examined. They all do.

Note by CB: Harry and Meghan say they got Queen Elizabeth’s blessing to name their daughter after her nickname, but the courtiers and royal rota disagree! Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 10 stories about the drama over Lilibet’s name. We only send one email a day on weekdays.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Royal biographer Robert Hardman has a new book out this month called The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy. If you’ve seen the rash of older royal stories being retold with some twists, that’s why – Hardman’s book is being excerpted and hyped by the Mail, People Magazine, the Telegraph and other outlets. What I’ve seen from it is a whole lotta of old news, especially the stuff about Queen Elizabeth II’s death and everything that happened in those hours and days in September 2022. Still, I guess people want to talk about *why* Kate didn’t go to Balmoral on QEII’s final day, or how Prince Harry and his father argued on the phone because Charles called Harry specifically to tell him that Balmoral was for whites only.

On the day QEII passed away, Kate had decided herself to remain at Adelaide Cottage in Windsor with her three children, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. They were starting their new school, Lambrook, on September 8 and the Duchess of Cambridge she felt they needed one parent with them. Her husband, Prince William, was understandably racing up to Scotland to see his grandmother with the then Earl and Countess of Wessex and Duke of York.

‘It was by luck rather than judgement, but it made it a lot easier to tell Harry that he was coming alone,’ a royal aide says. The book also notes that, ‘like the late Duke of Edinburgh, she [Queen Elizabeth] did not like a queue of family well-wishers flocking to her bedside when ill’.

Prince Harry was in the UK with his wife Meghan when his father personally called him to break the news her health on was failing on September 8. In his memoir, Spare, he claims he then texted his elder brother to ask about travel arrangements but William didn’t reply.

‘Clearly, Prince William did not regard this as the appropriate moment for the intensely difficult conversation he needed to have with his brother,’ Daily Mail royal expert Robert Hardman writes dryly. There was wariness, he says, about Harry’s forthcoming biography and many in the family were still sore over the Sussexes’ ‘reckless betrayal’ as regards their Oprah Winfrey interview.

‘Some of the family were probably ready to give him a piece of their mind,’ Hardman quotes a source saying. In normal circumstances senior royals wouldn’t even discuss such logistics themselves. That would be left to their staff. Kensington Palace say Harry’s team – ‘the Sussex camp’ – ‘had all the numbers’ but no such call came.

Charles called Harry again. It is in this call, the prince later claimed, he was told to come without Meghan.

‘We can easily image the dread with which the [then] Prince of Wales approached that call. The Sussexes’ capacity for taking offence was well known and as everyone was conscious that any conversation could end up in the public domain – as, indeed, this one did three months later,’ Hardman says dryly. Harry raged at his father over Meghan, he later admitted, describing him in Spare as ‘nonsensical and disrespectful’.

‘I wasn’t having it. Don’t ever speak about my wife that way,’ he wrote. But Charles explained that he didn’t want lots of people in the house and, besides, Harry’s sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge wasn’t coming either. ‘Then that’s all you needed to say,’ the prince wrote, apparently mollified by this.

But what he didn’t know, Hardman reveals, is that the king hadn’t asked Kate to stay away at all. ‘She had certainly not been asked to stay away,’ he writes. ‘Rather, it was the start of a new term at a new school for George, Charlotte and Louis, and she had decided that one parent should be with them on such an important day.’

Harry also claimed in Spare that no-one that told him his grandmother had died and that he had to learn the news from a BBC breaking news alert on his phone as he touched down in Scotland that evening on a commercial flight. ‘Not exactly,’ write Hardman. ‘A member of Palace staff says that the King had been urgently trying to make contact with his younger son. ‘There were repeated attempts to get through to him but no calls were going through because Harry was airborne,’ says the official.

[From The Daily Mail]

Actually, in the hours after QEII passed, Kensington Palace openly briefed the Mail that Kate had decided to not fly to Balmoral because she “instinctively knew this was an occasion for the Queen’s blood family.” It was explicitly a dig at Meghan, that Meghan “invited herself” to Balmoral, and that everyone in the royal family was apparently incandescent with rage at the very idea that Harry would want his wife with him on a difficult and sad day. I always said that Kate’s excuse should have been simple – it was the first day of school, of course she wanted to be with her children. But that wasn’t what the royal aides said at the time, as they made everything about how openly they were punishing and snubbing the Sussexes and how Kate was better than Meghan. The rest of it… Hardman is blocked because Harry (correctly) told his side of things in Spare, so Hardman can’t blatantly lie about what was said and done to Harry. Instead, Hardman is just putting a royalist spin on things, like of course William and Charles couldn’t be expected to put aside their differences with Harry for a couple of hours on the day QEII died.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Prince Harry will receive the Living Legend of Aviation Award on Friday, the 19th. No one has confirmed whether he’ll show up in person to the ceremony, but I suspect he will. When the news came out last week, I honestly thought “well, that’s nice, but it’s probably not the most serious award ever.” I looked up the site and how it’s organized and I came away somewhat impressed, but I still say that this isn’t, like, the Nobel Prize of Aviation or anything like that. It’s basically like “hey, you’re a pilot or you have something to do with aviation AND you’re really cool, so here’s an award.”

It has been shocking to watch the meltdown though – the British media and the royalist derangers are treating this award like it’s everything all at once: a sham award; an important award for which Harry is unworthy; something anyone could get if they paid for it; something they should give to every pilot; something which Prince William should have gotten. I still say that this award basically blew up the British media’s January talking point of “the Sussexes are desperate, broke and unpopular” and that’s why everyone seems to be freaking out. Speaking of:

Prince Harry’s Living Legends of Aviation Award comes across as ‘needy’, Richard Eden has told Palace Confidential. Speaking on the Mail+’s weekly talk show, the Daily Mail’s Diary Editor said it’s unclear why the Duke of Sussex, 39, is being honoured at this year’s 21st Annual Living Legends of Aviation Awards in Beverley Hills.

‘Frankly, I think it’s a bit needy. Perhaps the organisers of these award ceremonies know that they will turn up if they give them an award, but there’s something slightly pathetic,’ Mr Eden said.

In conversation with the Daily Mail’s Royal Editor at Large Richard Kay and show host Jo Elvin, Mr Eden added that he did a ‘double take’ when he heard the news of Harry’s award.

While Harry ‘knows how to fly a helicopter’, for Mr Eden, it’s ‘not clear why he’s being given this award’ at this time.

Prince Harry undertook two tours of duty in Afghanistan as a forward air controller and an Apache helicopter pilot. His work as a British Army veteran and pilot is set to be honoured at this year’s 21st Annual Living Legends of Aviation Awards. The decorated event – which will be hosted by John Travolta in Beverly Hills, California next Friday – will see the royal inducted alongside other aerospace icons including Fred George and Steve Hinton.

It is understood that his work with setting up the Invictus Games Foundation will also be celebrated, according to the awards’ website. It is not clear whether Harry, or his wife Meghan Markle, 42, will attend the ceremony.

For Richard, the award is just the latest in a long list for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. He joked: ‘The one great thing about Harry and Meghan moving to California is that they seem to be garlanded with awards, and every now and then, there’s another one.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“Frankly, I think it’s a bit needy. Perhaps the organisers of these award ceremonies know that they will turn up if they give them an award, but there’s something slightly pathetic.” Is it more or less needy and pathetic than a prince who sets up his own awards scheme, refuses to invite the nominees and instead blows through millions of dollars to hang out with celebrities and inflate his own ego? Honestly, Harry should get more awards for what he did with Invictus. The fact that Harry’s CV includes stuff like “founder of Sentebale, Invictus and Travalyst,” board of directors of African Parks, chief impact officer of BetterUp AND bestselling author… give him more awards.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Over the weekend, the “story” broke: in royal historian Robert Hardman’s new biography of King Charles, royal sources insist that Queen Elizabeth II was incandescent with rage over Prince Harry naming his daughter “Lilibet.” We went through all of this in 2021 – Harry made it clear that he spoke to his grandmother and told her of his plans to give his daughter the Queen’s family nickname. At the time, royal sources screamed to everyone that QEII was not informed, oh wait she was informed but she hated it, oh wait she didn’t tell anyone about the conversation actually but still! Less than a year later, QEII and the Sussexes had a quiet meeting at Windsor Castle with zero leaks, and she personally invited them to her Jubbly. That June, Meghan and Harry brought their children to England for a days-long visit and QEII met her namesake.

Taking the larger view, it certainly feels like poor form for Charles’s supposed biographer to write stories smearing QEII as somehow enraged or inconsolable about her grandson naming his daughter “Lilibet.” At best, the story is true and it makes QEII seem petty, racist and ridiculous, especially given that her favorite son Andrew has been mired in controversy for years for rape and his associations with pedophiles. At worst, King Charles’s court is weaponizing his dead mother to badger and smear the son he exiled. Well, trust that Becky English at the Mail is on the case! English wrote a first-person account of all of this ridiculous bullsh-t, because I guess none of the royal rota want to write about Prince Andrew.

The Lilibet name: In fact, I understand the Queen was so upset by the Sussexes’ decision that she told aides: ‘I don’t own the palaces, I don’t own the paintings, the only thing I own is my name. And now they’ve taken that.’

The Sussexes were too Californian to understand how evil their actions were: Harry and Meghan would not have intended to cause her grief – over this, at any rate. Barricaded in their Californian cocoon, blanketed by the cosy schmaltz of their new showbiz life, it simply wouldn’t have occurred to the couple that such a gesture would cause offence. But it seems that it did – as well-placed sources made clear to myself and others at the time.

The BBC report: The national broadcaster’s royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond, reported being told by a ‘Palace source’ that the Queen was ‘never asked’ by Harry and Meghan about the use of her childhood nickname. Dymond said his source ‘disputed’ reports in the wake of the announcement of the name that Harry and Meghan had spoken to the Queen to garner her blessing. It’s what a lot of us were saying, one way or another, back in 2021.

Becky said the Queen wasn’t angry: In all honesty, I was not told at the time that the Queen was ‘angry’. That was not a word that was ever used to me, personally. But what at least two sources made clear – reluctantly, I might add, since in the wake of their score-settling Oprah interview, everyone at Buckingham Palace was treading on eggshells for fear of further hostilities with the Sussexes – was that the suggestion they had sought the Queen’s approval was a rather one-sided interpretation of what had actually occurred.

The Queen was merely taken aback: As it was described to me, the then 95-year-old monarch was taken aback when she was told by her grandson of his intention to give his daughter the name Lilibet in her honour but didn’t feel, given the circumstances, she could say no. You might describe it as being pushed into an impossible corner. And that certainly makes sense when you now consider her remark about ‘palaces and paintings’ which, as well as most of her jewels, cars and even furniture, were never hers to own. She was, in most respects, simply the conservator of them for future generations on behalf of the nation. However her pet name, Lilibet, which sweetly stuck after she could never pronounce her own name correctly as a toddler, was hers – and hers alone.

This makes zero sense: As someone who had enjoyed a faultless career as an international stateswoman, the elderly Queen, it seems, was still willing to bite her lip (publicly that is) – until she saw her name being weaponised by lawyers in a fight against the British public service broadcaster. And according to Robert Hardman, despite posting their good wishes on social media Buckingham Palace flatly refused to be ‘co-opted’ into ‘propping up’ Harry and Meghan’s version of events. They firmly ‘rebuffed’ their requests to do so, which ultimately, it seems, led the Sussexes’ threats of legal action to quietly dissipate.

It’s all the Sussexes’ fault! In truth, it is really rather sad that the name of a child continues to cause rancour. Little Lilibet deserves none of this. But the fact that loyal staff speak about it even now shows that many consider the Sussexes’ behaviour towards the late Queen to have been at best misguided and at worst unforgivable in the twilight of her reign.

[From The Daily Mail]

This is so utterly asinine, I barely have words. “Buckingham Palace flatly refused to be ‘co-opted’ into ‘propping up’ Harry and Meghan’s version of events…” The BBC lied, or rather, a palace source lied to the BBC and the BBC printed the lie that QEII was never asked. As English herself admits, Harry did ask. QEII “was taken aback when she was told by her grandson of his intention to give his daughter the name Lilibet in her honour but didn’t feel, given the circumstances, she could say no.” She’s admitting that Harry DID ASK. So the BBC lied, the palace lied, and Harry was telling the truth the whole time, huh? So English is admitting in her rancid way that the palace authorized and engineered a years-long public tantrum over an American baby’s name, and the palace is still blaming all of it for the Sussexes’ “unforgivable” crime of reusing a family nickname.

Incidentally, the whole “the name Lilibet is the only thing of her own” stupidity was said back in 2021, although they didn’t dare put those asinine words in QEII’s mouth. While the monarch is the “guardian” of all of those castles, paintings and jewels, let’s not forget QEII’s enormous personal wealth, private art, private jewelry and private homes. “The name Lilibet is all she had of her own, minus the billion-dollar personal fortune, millions of dollars of inherited jewelry, a huge Scottish estate and a huge Norfolk estate. POOR LILIBET!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.