Behold, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Christmas card. It’s more likely that this is the official card for Archewell, meaning this is the card being sent out to the Sussexes’ professional acquaintances and not family friends. It’s a photo taken at this year’s Invictus Games in Dusseldorf, at the closing ceremony. Meghan wore that gorgeous Cult Gaia cutout dress and Harry wore all-black. The photos were great, and it’s not surprising that they would choose something from Invictus for their card. There are a lot of weird comments about “where are their children?” and again, this is their professional Archewell card. Plus, they are under zero obligation to trot out their children.

The card was released just hours after the verdict was announced in Harry’s lawsuit against the Mirror. Harry won a significant legal victory, one which has a lot of media figures sh-tting their pants. One of those media figures is Piers Morgan, who stormed out of his house, threw a shrieky press conference and accused Harry of trying to “bring down the monarchy.” A weird accusation, given that Harry sued the Mirror, not Buckingham Palace. It’s almost as if Piers is saying that the British media is part of the royal family (which it is). In any case, Harry’s friend Bryony Gordon wrote a sympathetic piece in the Telegraph about Harry and all of the sh-t he’s put up with over the course of his life. Here’s part of her piece:

Imagine what it would be like for this son, nephew or grandchild to realise that what little privacy he had was somehow being penetrated by the country’s media, leaving him suspicious and cynical of everyone around him, even his closest friends. Imagine him learning that strangers had been listening to his most personal correspondence. Imagine him experiencing all of this and then, when he has the guts to rise up and speak out about it, imagine seeing him vilified and mocked and treated like a pariah.

You can’t, can you? It’s like something out of a science fiction novel, or an episode of Black Mirror. Even contemplating it is enough to make your skin crawl, your hands clammy. It is just so unthinkable. I remember mentioning this to Prince Harry, one of the first times I met him, back in 2017. “I can’t imagine what you went through,” I said. “You can’t even begin to imagine,” he replied, perfectly calmly.

But now we have an idea. Most of us would be left at the very least with lasting trust issues; a fair few of us might have sustained some serious psychological damage. And yet critics of the Sussexes – usually from the very section of the media Prince Harry has just won damages from – often accuse the couple of wallowing in victimhood. It is like turning around to someone who has had their home repeatedly targeted by burglars and criticising them for being hysterical.

The truth behind Prince Harry’s actions is far less exciting than some people would want us to believe. It comes not from wanting to bring down the monarchy, but from wanting to help protect future generations from what he went through. The notion voiced by Piers Morgan this afternoon that Harry is sitting in Montecito plotting is as ridiculous as it is fanciful – the reality is he’s hanging out with his wife and two young kids, looking forward to spending Christmas with them.

One would hope that this ruling might actually deliver some peace this festive season, or at the very least elicit some sort of apology. That it has instead caused more petty mud-slinging tells you all you need to know about why the Duke of Sussex felt he had to go down this route in the first place.

[From The Telegraph]

She’s right but, at this point, I hope Harry simply doesn’t care if he “brings down the monarchy.” If the monarchy is going to willingly tie itself to the likes of Piers Morgan and the cartel of mercenary vendetta-journalists, then maybe the monarchy should be brought down. No, Harry isn’t plotting, but hopefully he feels nothing but ambivalence at this point. If the monarchy ends because of its immoral and unethical dealings with the press, so be it. To paraphrase Ivan Drago, if it dies, it dies.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Archewell.

Prince Harry’s lawyers only needed to prove one instance of phone hacking or unlawful newsgathering to “win” his case against the Mirror. At the end of the day, the judge said that Harry proved 15 out of 33 articles of criminal hacking or illegal newsgathering. It’s a really big deal, but you wouldn’t know it from the coverage in the British media. Nor would you understand how massive the judgment was if you were just listening to Piers Morgan. Piers was editor of the Mirror for part of the time period in which all of this criminal sh-t was going down. There’s evidence (including Omid Scobie’s credible testimony) that Piers absolutely knew about the hacking and that he encouraged it. The judge said flatly that Piers knew about the hacking as well. All of which led to Piers giving a huffy press conference outside of his house on Friday:

From the Telegraph’s coverage:

Piers Morgan accused the Duke of Sussex of wanting to bring down the monarchy on Friday and said he “wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped him around his California-tanned face”.

The former editor of the Daily Mirror made the comments after Prince Harry called on the Metropolitan Police to investigate Mirror Group Newspapers following the ruling of a High Court judge that he had been a victim of phone hacking. On Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt said that the practice was “widespread and habitual” at the publisher’s three titles from 1998 and remained “extensive” from 2006 until 2011, “even to some extent during the Leveson Inquiry”.

In retaliation, Mr Morgan said the Duke had ”repeatedly trashed his family in public for hundreds of millions of dollars”.

He added: “Prince Harry’s outrage at media intrusion into the private lives of the Royal family is only matched by his own ruthless, greedy, and hypocritical enthusiasm for doing it himself. He demands accountability for the press but refuses to accept any for himself for smearing the Royal family, his own family, as a bunch of callous racists without producing a shred of proof to support those disgraceful claims. He also says he’s on a mission to reform the media, when it’s become clear his real mission, along with his wife, is to destroy the British monarchy.”

Scotland Yard has not ruled out a criminal inquiry. In a statement released on Friday night, it said: “We will carefully consider the civil judgment handed down today at the High Court. There is no ongoing investigation.”

[From The Telegraph]

Yeah… people are saying that Piers’ statement was not vetted by legal, and the streets are saying the Mirror might tie this around Piers’ neck and make him take the fall for everything. Piers will not go quietly into that good night though. His ad hominem attack on Harry is honestly a bonkers reaction to… Harry winning his case, and a new legal precedent being made so that more hacking victims can seek justice. Again, the judge found “compelling evidence” that Mirror’s editors knew about the hacking and were happy to benefit from it. That includes Piers.

pic.twitter.com/ZX07psVldh

— Rebecca Barry (@BeccaBarry) December 15, 2023

“Utterly implausible.”

Former Mirror journalist Dan Evans says it is “fantastical” Piers Morgan had no knowledge of phone hacking.

Listen on @GlobalPlayerhttps://t.co/SdyBDl7qyY@lewis_goodall pic.twitter.com/cv4iuVqk6z

— The News Agents (@TheNewsAgents) December 16, 2023

“You look very emotional, Mr Morgan. Would you welcome a Police investigation?” pic.twitter.com/fIckGDKQRF

— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) December 15, 2023

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Back in 2020, following the presidential election, Donald Trump “hired” Rudy Giuliani to travel around the country, fart his way through state hearings and make up some of the most odious lies ever. Rudy seriously criss-crossed the country, spreading variations of “the big lie” and trying to convince states to throw out thousands of ballots based on little more than MAGA vibes. As part of Rudy’s fart-soaked post-election blitz, he said a lot of sh-t about the Georgia election. Rudy, Kanye West and the Trump campaign targeted two particular women, election workers, for weeks if not months. The women sued. On Friday, the women won, and now Rudy will have to pay them $148 million.

A jury on Friday ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani to pay $148 million to two former Georgia election workers who said he had destroyed their reputations with lies that they tried to steal the 2020 election from Donald J. Trump.

Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington had already ruled that Mr. Giuliani had defamed the two workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. The jury had been asked to decide only on the amount of the damages.

The jury awarded Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss a combined $75 million in punitive damages. It also ordered Mr. Giuliani to pay compensatory damages of $16.2 million to Ms. Freeman and $16.9 million to Ms. Moss, as well as $20 million to each of them for emotional suffering.

“Today’s a good day,” Ms. Freeman told reporters after the jury delivered its determination. But she added that no amount of money would give her and her daughter back what they lost in the abuse they suffered after Mr. Giuliani falsely accused them of manipulating the vote count.

Mr. Giuliani, who helped lead Mr. Trump’s effort to remain in office after his defeat in the 2020 election but has endured a string of legal and financial setbacks since then, was defiant after the proceeding.

“I don’t regret a damn thing,” he said outside the courthouse, suggesting that he would appeal and that he stood by his assertions about the two women. He said that the torrent of attacks and threats the women received from Trump supporters were “abominable” and “deplorable,” but that he was not responsible for them. Outside the courthouse on Friday, Mr. Giuliani called the amount “absurd.”

Mr. Giuliani’s net worth is unknown because he refused to comply with the court’s requirement to provide that information. A lawyer familiar with his legal situation said after the verdict that Mr. Giuliani was likely to file for bankruptcy protection. But because the damages he owes Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss are considered an “intentional tort,” bankruptcy would not erase his liability, lawyers said.

[From The NY Times]

You have to understand, Rudy is SOOOOO broke right now. Trump didn’t even pay him for that humiliating display in 2020. Trump threw Rudy under the bus several months after the press conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping. Not to mention, Rudy is also being sued for harassing and assaulting his former publicist, and she’s indicated that he’s broke too. Rudy used to be flush with cash, then he tied his wagon to the MAGA struggle-bus and now he’s going to be living in a repossessed cardboard box. I hope Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss get every last penny they can get from Rudy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Timothee Chalamet loved that video of his lookalike vogue dancer. [OMG Blog]
Kristen Stewart is friends with Penelope Cruz & Salma Hayek? [Just Jared]
Review of the final episodes of The Crown. [LaineyGossip]
Sydney Sweeney got bitten by a Huntsman spider, yikes! [Pajiba]
Padma Lakshmi looks great in a simple silver dress. [Go Fug Yourself]
Carey Mulligan wore Ferragamo. [RCFA]
A new Khloe Kardashian face just dropped. [Seriously OMG]
Jenna Ortega wore Adeam at the Finest Kind premiere. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Andre Braugher’s cause of death has been revealed. [Hollywood Life]
Elizabeth Debicki is extremely tall. [Buzzfeed]
Glen Powell almost died filming a nude scene. [Socialite Life]

Auteurs want to have everything on their terms these days. They want their films to have movie-theater-only releases before showing up on streamers, but they’re also making the running times of these films increasingly longer. Then when movie theaters add intermissions at the request of their patrons (like many attempted for the 3.5 hour long Killers of the Flower Moon), film directors and distributors balk. “That wasn’t the vision!!” Something’s gotta give. The Hollywood Reporter spoke with various movie theaters who say that they and their movie-going customers are in favor of bringing back intermissions. Are you listening, Scorsese?

Paramount threatened fines over Killers of the Flower Moon: The art house cinema [The Lyric in Fort Collins, Colorado] … inserted an eight-minute break. It wasn’t long before a customer’s photo of an ad highlighting the intermission went viral and The Lyric received a call from Paramount, which is distributing the film, saying it had violated the booking contract and fines could be levied. “We didn’t know we had done anything wrong,” says Lyric manager Aaron Varnell, who recently added “chaos cultivator” to his title in a nod to challenging times.

Make it an event: In Long Beach, California, the Art Theatre — a single-screen theater built in 1925 — likewise hoped an intermission would lure more customers to see Killers of the Flower Moon on the big screen… “Our thinking was, we can really make this an event,” says Kerstin Kansteiner, who heads the board of the nonprofit theater. “It gives folks the opportunity to use the restroom, and it could also make for extra concession sales, which is literally how we pay our bills these days.” The idea was abandoned when Art’s film booker reached out to Paramount before the film opened and was told an intermission wasn’t allowed. “It was disappointing,” says Kansteiner. “We understand that directors have a vision and don’t want to take the viewer out of the film, but it’s problematic if you make a film that’s three hours and 26 minutes long.”

Movie theaters are struggling: Cinemas that survived the pandemic are still trying to find their footing during the streaming boom; as much as 15 percent of the moviegoing population hasn’t yet returned to theaters, according to data collected by Hollywood studios. This applies especially to older adults, the target audience for Killers of the Flower Moon and Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, which runs three hours. These longer films mean fewer showtimes, too, which compounds concerns for cinemas when it comes to ticket sales.

Moviegoers want intermissions: [Vue Cinemas head Tim] Richards engineered a test in which Vue offered its U.K. customers the choice to see Killers of the Flower Moon in one uninterrupted viewing or with a 15-minute intermission (in Europe they’re known as “intervals” or “comfort breaks”). “It is the first time we’ve had an interval in decades,” Richards says. “Right off the bat, 30 percent of our customers chose to watch the movie with an interval even if it meant staying longer. And 85 percent said they would absolutely come back and watch a movie with an interval.” Vue was also asked to cease the breaks, but no fines were issued.

James Cameron said no to intermissions for Avatar: Late last year, some theaters had reached out about including an intermission with 20th Century’s Avatar: The Way of Water (three hours and 12 minutes) and said they were told no per the wishes of James Cameron, according to exhibition sources. “Imagine being immersed in the world of Avatar and having a sudden break. It would be hard to get back into the movie,” says one Hollywood studio executive not affiliated with the film.

‘I really needed to pee’: There’s evidence to back up the theory that intermissions could boost grosses for all involved. The Lyric saw a bigger turnout than usual on the second weekend of Killers of the Flower Moon — before word got out there were no more breaks during the film. Adds Varnell, “People said after, ‘I just kept waiting for the intermission. I really needed to pee.’”

[From Yahoo! Entertainment]

Oh reader, that Avatar comment did me in. “You can’t break the immersive experience!” What, are they worried that moviegoers running to the bathroom will be shocked to see non-blue people again? Please. Inevitably I think the purse (not to mention the bladder) will win out. If more people say they’ll go to movies with guaranteed intermissions, directors will magically find a way to adapt. Scorsese being such a film historian, I would think the transition wouldn’t be that difficult. Intermissions harken back to classic Hollywood. It’s retro!

Growing up in San Francisco I regularly went to the Castro Theatre to see vintage cinema. Not only did I survive, I thrived with each and every intermission. Even today I go to see rereleases of old films. During the intermission I relieve myself in the little girls room and return to the concession stand to purchase another tub of popcorn. The intermission system works! Embrace the wave, filmmakers. Or, you know, listen to Alexander Payne and learn to tighten your stories.

Photos credit: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon, Brock Wegner on Unspash and Eugene Lisyuk on Pexels

The Spanish royal family has released their 2023 Christmas card – a lovely shot taken behind-the-scenes on Princess Leonor’s 18th birthday, where she had to make an oath to Spain’s constitution. It’s a warm, lovely family image. Speaking of, the Spanish royals have not complained or explained much of anything in recent weeks, following the “bombshell” allegations about Queen Letizia. Letizia’s former brother in law, Jaime del Burgo, has claimed that he was sexually and romantically involved with Letizia before and after she married King Felipe (then Prince Felipe). Since Del Burgo’s claims went public, I’ve read a few pieces about why Felipe kept his relationship with Letizia so quiet, and how much Felipe’s father always hated Letizia. Well, speaking of, apparently the former king Juan Carlos might have been the one spreading rumors about Letizia and Jaime del Burgo.

The former King of Spain has been accused of playing a part in ‘stirring up’ rumours about an alleged affair between Queen Letizia and her former brother-in-law. The Spanish Royal Family have been rocked by shocking claims from businessman Jaime Del Burgo, who sensationally alleged that he had a relationship with Letizia, 51, before and after her marriage to King Felipe.
Del Burgo went on to marry Letizia’s sister, Telma Ortiz, who he is now separated from. The Spanish court has repeatedly refused to comment on the allegations.

In a new twist, a veteran Spanish journalist has accused supporters of the former king, who has been all-but frozen out of the royal family, of whipping up a ‘campaign’ against his son Felipe. Referring to the claims, popular radio host Federico Jiménez Losantos said: ‘It’s the “nth” campaign orchestrated against Felipe VI,’ before adding: ‘It is Juan Carlos’s circles who are stirring it up.’

Juan Carlos reigned as King of Spain from 1975 to 2014 when he abdicated in favour of his son. The official reason was given as his age but a string of controversies ensued and there have been suggestions that he was pressured to give up the throne to protect the institution. The corruption scandals he has been caught up in since he handed over to King Felipe VI, whose wife Letizia is a former journalist, have left his reputation in tatters.

He now lives in Abu Dhabi and Spanish outlets have quoted sources close to the former monarch saying he is upset at being cast out by his family. Now the latest rumours have plunged the Spanish monarchy into yet another scandal.

Del Burgo, 53, currently based in the UK, recently contributed to a tell-all book about the 51-year-old Spanish royal, Letizia y Yo (Letizia and I). In it, he claims he and Letizia were dating when she met Felipe and were still romantically involved after her 2004 wedding to the Spanish King.

[From The Daily Mail]

Eh – while I knew Felipe’s mother dislikes Letizia, the gossip about Juan Carlos hating her as well is relatively new to me, but I believe it. It would not surprise me if Juan Carlos was consistently disparaging Letizia, nor would it surprise me if Juan Carlos is simply a bitter old fart who dislikes the fact that his handsome son is much less scandalous and much more respected. All that being said, it also seems clear that Jaime del Burgo has a pretty specific ax to grind and it’s probably not about Juan Carlos at all.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Emma Stone has been a Louis Vuitton brand ambassador for years and the collaboration sucks. I say that with love – in the past few years, we’ve seen LV make custom looks for other brand ambassadors, and certain people (Ana de Armas, Zendaya) find a way to make it work. Some people don’t find a way to make it work and Emma is one of them. It’s like Margot Robbie and Chanel – it was always the wrong fit of actress and brand. Now, I understand why Emma initially signed on to LV – she probably thought she would get offbeat, cool clothes. Instead, it’s like they give her the fuggest stuff from every collection.

Anyway, here are some photos from the Poor Things premiere in London last night. Look what Louis Vuitton gave Emma – a slip dress with chest netting and what appears to be one of the worst-cut skirts ever. They topped it off with what appears to be a taffeta (?) robe. This is what passes for “high end.” As much as I hate this ensemble, the worst part of the look is Emma’s makeup – her makeup artist gave her Angry Baby Brows.

Bonus photos of Emma’s Poor Things costars Mark Ruffalo (with his wife) and Willem Dafoe.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

It’s fun and interesting to read through the coverage of Prince Harry’s incredible legal victory. There was a rush to call it a “partial victory,” but from where I’m sitting, the victory is substantial. A judge ruled in Harry’s favor, confirming that Harry was illegally hacked by the Mirror when he was young. While Harry only needed to “prove” one incident of hacking to win, Judge Fancourt found 15 instances (out of 33) where hacking was used in reporting about Harry. Judge Fancourt went even further than that, saying that the Mirror carried out “very extensive and habitual unlawful information gathering,” including widespread hacking which was used “very substantially.” The Mirror’s criminal behavior was “an integral part of the system.” Not only that, but Judge Fancourt name-checked Piers Morgan AND said that Omid Scobie was a credible witness.

In a significant part of the judgment, Mr Justice Fancourt lists times when Piers Morgan was said to have been aware of phone hacking.

Referring to evidence given by royal author Omid Scobie, he said that he found the evidence of Morgan’s involvement to be credible and it had not been countered by the Mirror Group.

Scobie, who has been at the centre of recent controversy around the naming of the ‘racist’ royals, had recalled an incident when he was a student intern at the newspaper group, working on its “3am Girls” entertainment desk.

In 2002, he told the court he had witnessed Morgan, the then-editor of the Mirror, discuss an article about Kylie Minogue and that he had asked how confident the journalist was about the story. He had been informed by the journalist that the source had been a voicemail, Scobie claimed.

Mr Justice Fancourt said that recollection was supported by evidence of an invoice from a private investigator related to obtaining Minogue’s mobile phone number and that of her then partner, James Gooding.

[From The Independent]

Let’s underline this point – Harry’s lawyers argued that Piers Morgan, then the editor of the Mirror, knew about the extensive use of phone hacking. Omid Scobie testified that Piers openly discussed hacking Kylie Minogue’s voicemails. And Judge Fancourt said that Harry proved that part of the case, that Piers knew and that Scobie’s testimony was credible. Meanwhile, Piers refused to testify, preferring to lie his ass off in print, claiming that he had no idea any of this was happening and Harry is the liar. Harry has every right to call on the Met Police to investigate this criminal behavior and I hope they do.

It’s going to be bad for Piers Morgan in the coming months. Here he is lying about having no knowledge of phone hackings.

A judge just found that he knew of these illegal phone hackings at the time of making this statement. pic.twitter.com/uYEXmF0o5U

— D (@dilemmv) December 15, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Piers’ social media.

What do King Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry all have in common? They all have bald genes and they all have their own stand-alone foundations. King Charles’s foundation is mired in controversy and financial shenanigans, and Charles has a long history of taking bags of cash and checks from Bin Ladens to keep his foundation afloat. William and Kate’s foundation is shady as hell too – millions out the door, mismanaged or spent lavishly to embiggen Will and Kate personally and finance their idiotic busywork. Meanwhile, the Sussexes’ Archewell Foundation is relatively modest, and they’re mostly handing out smaller grants to charities and NGOs. Guess which one of these foundations is being highlighted by Richard Eden to make the point that royal foundations are bad, bad, bad?

Egotistical royals should stick to helping existing charities instead of seeking to create their own, according to the Daily Mail’s Richard Eden. Establishing personal foundations leave the royals open to criticism, he suggests, and vulnerable to ‘generous donors with dubious motives’. Instead, members of the Royal Family should ‘follow the wise example of Queen Elizabeth and Princess Anne and serve as patrons of existing charities’.

Writing in the latest edition of his Palace Confidential newsletter, Eden takes aim at Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation, which is under scrutiny after an £8.8million ‘plunge’ in donations last year – yet still paid a vast salary plus bonus to Executive Director James Holt.

‘Charity begins at home when it comes to their most loyal lieutenants,’ notes Eden. ‘James Holt, who previously worked for Prince William and Catherine as well as Harry and Meghan, was rewarded for sticking with the Sussexes with a pay packet of $207,405 (£165,800), plus bonus of $20,000. Holt, a friend of Omid Scobie who is executive director of Archewell, certainly worked hard for Harry and Meghan, appearing extensively on their tawdry Netflix ‘reality’ series in which Harry revealed intimate conversations with other members of the Royal Family and Meghan appeared to mock Queen Elizabeth with her exaggerated curtsy.’

The Sussexes are not the only royals to have founded their own charities, of course. Established by King Charles, The Prince’s Trust and Prince’s Foundation (now The King’s Foundation) have become two of the best-known in Britain. The Prince and Princess of Wales have established their own Royal Foundation, which includes the Princess’s Centre for Early Childhood. Prince William also runs the Earthshot Prize for environmental initiatives.

In the newsletter, Eden writes that ‘in one of those “coincidences” to which we have become accustomed, just a day after Kensington Palace broadcast a charming video of the Prince and Princess of Wales’s children helping their mother volunteer at a “baby bank” in Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a similarly slick video of their own.

‘Prince Harry and Meghan’s video was to highlight the work they have done during the past year for their Archewell Foundation, which published its 28-page annual report. ‘What they were less keen to report, however, was the fact that their foundation suffered an $11million (£8.8million) plunge in donations last year.’

Tax filings in the United States, where they live, show that Archewell received $2million last year, compared with $13million in 2021. The Sussexes maintain that this sort of drop-off would be normal after a successful first year, that there is no suggestion Archewell is insolvent and that the charity account has plenty of reserves.

Eden concludes: ‘For me, the disclosures highlight the dangers of members of the Royal Family having their own charitable foundations, which can leave them open to criticism and at the mercy of generous donors with dubious motives. It may not be so good for boosting royal egos but it can achieve more with far less potential for controversy.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The thing is… um, I halfway agree with Richard Eden? Maureen might have some points, if only she would apply her half-witted opinions to every royal. The Royal Foundation is an exercise in ego, and Charles’s foundation is practically a criminal enterprise. Archewell is actually the exception to the rule – they’re not reinventing the wheel, Archewell is basically just a cash reserve which they parcel out to charities. Oh, and James Holt’s salary really upset all of Eden’s palace sources, didn’t it? There’s also no evidence that Holt is especially friendly with Omid Scobie either, that was just an unhinged jab.

This reminded me of the British media’s reaction to Meghan’s 40th birthday mentorship idea, where she invited people to give 40 minutes of mentorship to someone. Suddenly, royal experts were coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that “mentorship is bad, actually.” Now we’re at “charitable foundations are bad, actually,” just because the Sussexes are doing it.

Photos/screencaps courtesy of Archewell, WellChild and Cover Images.

As we discussed recently, the fix is in regarding Prince Harry’s lawsuits over royal protection when he’s in the UK. Harry is suing the government over his right to have and pay for police protection, and he’s also suing the Mail over their really grotesque coverage of the protection issue. Harry is going to lose his battle against the Home Office – even if he scores some small victory (which is unlikely), they still won’t give him protection, nor would they ever let him pay for it. Meanwhile, Harry is also the plaintiff in what feels like a dozen other lawsuits against British media outlets. Today, a judge handed down a ruling on Harry’s lawsuit against the Mirror. So, obviously, Harry’s father had to make a big, splashy visit to the High Court on Thursday, just to make it clear that the fix is absolutely in.

As royal visits go, the High Court has become more used to the sight of the Duke of Sussex than his father, the King. But on Thursday, less than 24 hours before Mr Justice Fancourt was due to hand down his ruling on Prince Harry’s claim against Mirror Group Newspapers, it was His Majesty’s turn to pay a first visit to the Royal Courts of Justice.

Rather than suing newspapers, though, the King was at the court to celebrate the relationship between the judiciary and the Crown, observing that the British justice system was the envy of the world. He also hailed the work of voluntary magistrates, asking: “What would we do without you?”

As he unveiled a plaque marking his visit, he said: “Thank you all enormously for the amount of effort you put into maintaining the system of justice that so many others seem to be envious of, I’ve discovered going around the world. So I cannot thank you enough, particularly the magistrates, the extraordinary work they do, somehow putting in these onerous duties on top of everything else – it is truly remarkable, and a wonderful system. I hope you get a moment or two before you have to rush back and administer justice. And finally, can I just wish you a very happy and I hope relatively peaceful Christmas and I hope you get a moment or two before you have to rush back and administer justice on our behalf.”

[From The Telegraph]

Real question: IS the British legal system the envy of the world? I understand that the American legal system used British law as a template, and many other nations have done so as well. I get the historical significance of that, and maybe a more accurate statement would be: “British law has influenced countless countries, democracies and republics.” But in the year of our lord Beyonce 2023, does anyone really believe that Britain’s system of justice is “the envy of the world”? As I’ve tried to make sense of Britain’s libel and defamation laws, I’m left bewildered by how the powerful press barons have rigged the system to their favor, largely to avoid accountability. This visit was also Exhibit Q of “should the king be cozying up to judges when his son is suing everybody?” It’s not about criminality, it’s about the appearance of criminality. The law should be above reproach, certainly. Except when judges want to hang out with the king and do him special favors.

Watch:
King Charles arrives at the High Court in London. No, he’s not in trouble but there to celebrate the ‘exceptional work” of court staff. The visit coincidentally comes 24hrs before the same court will rule on Harry’s legal case against Mirror Group Newspapers.. pic.twitter.com/FM6CsMie7Q

— Matt Wilkinson (@MattSunRoyal) December 14, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.