Well this is completely unexpected yet entirely delightful news: Sam Mendes has secured the rights to helm a Beatles biopic project. In a move as unique as the Fab Four themselves, Mendes will direct not one but four films, one for each band member. The press release says they’re still speaking with writers (and the projected release date isn’t until 2027 at the earliest), so no sense yet on how each film will reflect its particular Beatle. But already I’m getting Rashomon meets The Alexandria Quartet vibes. I feel like this whole endeavor is going to be either wonderfully imaginative, or a big disappointment. Oh how I hope they pull it off! The producers issued (gushing) statements when the news broke:

It’s a big coup to have gotten all parties on board: In a move that ought to make fans of The Beatles twist and shout, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Oscar-winning filmmaker Sam Mendes and his Neal Street Productions have set plans to make four separate theatrical films, one on each of the members of music’s most famous and enduring band. Mendes will direct all four of the films, and this marks the first time Apple Corp Ltd. and The Beatles — Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison — have granted full life story and music rights for a scripted film.

From Sam Mendes: “We went out to L.A. just before Christmas to pitch the project, and it’s fair to say we were met with universal enthusiasm,” Mendes told Deadline. “The reason Sony stood out from competing offers was down to Tom [Rothman] and Elizabeth [Gabler]’s passion for the idea, and commitment to propelling these films theatrically in an innovative and exciting way.” In addition to directing all four films, Mendes will produce alongside his Neal Street Productions partner Pippa Harris and Neal Street’s Julie Pastor. Jeff Jones will be executive producer for Apple Corps Ltd.

From Pippa Harris, Mendes’ producing partner: “This project springs from an idea of Sam’s which he had over a year ago, and it’s a testament to his creative brilliance and powers of persuasion that Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Sean Lennon and Olivia Harrison responded with such warmth and enthusiasm as soon as he spoke with them,” said Harris. … “We intend this to be a uniquely thrilling, and epic cinematic experience: four films, told from four different perspectives which tell a single story about the most celebrated band of all time,” said Harris in a statement. “To have The Beatles’ and Apple Corps’ blessing to do this is an immense privilege.” … Harris told Deadline: “What is truly exciting is for Sam to have the freedom to delve into the lives of each of the Beatles, with nothing off limits and no sense of the band wanting him to tell a particular ‘authorized’ version of their rise to success.”

From Sony Pictures Chairman/CEO Tom Rothman: “I know I speak for our CEO Tony Vinciquerra, who was instrumental in making this happen, and every Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group colleague around the world when I say: ‘yeah, yeah, yeah!’ Theatrical movie events today must be culturally seismic. Sam’s daring, large-scale idea is that and then some. Pairing his premiere filmmaking team, with the music and the stories of four young men who changed the world, will rock audiences all over the globe. We are deeply grateful to all parties and look forward ourselves to breaking some rules with Sam’s uniquely artistic vision.”

[From Yahoo! Entertainment]

Like I said, I’m really rooting for this concept to work. And I have a million questions already. Will it be the same writer(s) for all four films, or is the intention to have a different writer/voice for each one? Building off of that, will the creative teams be the same for all the films? If I were in Sam’s shoes (let me dream!) I would want each film to be as distinct from one another as possible. So I would lean into a different costume designer, production designer, director of photography, composer, etc for each film, to fully create four separate cinematic landscapes. This isn’t the place for your run-of-the-mill biopic. Any true nod to The Beatles would take a really big swing at risky, cheeky, silly, inventive, searing, spiritual, human choices. But what do I know? Half of what I say is meaningless…

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: JW / Bang Showbiz / Avalon and Getty

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by colson xx blonde don (@machinegunkelly)

I have no idea what’s going on with Machine Gun Kelly’s “blackout” body tattoo but it feels weirdly like controversy-bait? [Socialite Life]
I would be into Florence Pugh & Paul Mescal as a couple. [LaineyGossip]
Beyonce tops the Billboard country chart! [Seriously OMG]
Meatball Ron’s Regrets. [Pajiba]
Ice Spice went to the People’s Choice Awards. [Go Fug Yourself]
What a name for a new perfume! Mugler’s Alien Hypersense. [OMG Blog]
It doesn’t sound like Travis Kelce is rushing to see Taylor Swift.[Just Jared]
Zendaya & Timothee Chalamet looked adorkable in Seoul. [RCFA]
All about Beyonce’s new haircare line. [Hollywood Life]
What I don’t get about these TikToks is…just make a YouTube video? [Buzzfeed]

Last week, British royalist and writer Petronella Wyatt hit the crack pipe and threw down one of the most asinine and overwrought Telegraph pieces I’ve ever read. The point of it was simple – Petronella’s good friend Queen Camilla was mad that Prince Harry did not want Camilla in the room when he met with his father. Instead of reporting that sad tea straight from Camilla, Wyatt spun a cracked-out web of delusion, hatred and poor journalism. Well, guess what that crackhead is up to now? A column about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles and whether or not the Sussex titles should be removed. It’s been four years and these people cannot move on. Interestingly enough, Wyatt argues that the Sussex titles should not be removed.

Allowing Harry to come back and perform royal duties would be a bit like giving a terrorist a free run of the Houses of Parliament. He’s dynamite but not of the right kind. Besides, he and William would be the Brothers Grim. Nonetheless, those calling for Harry and Meghan to be stripped of their titles are missing the point and risk a head-on collision with Cape Counterproductive.

Deprived of the Dukedom of Sussex, the couple would become more elevated still, as they would revert to being Prince Harry and Princess Harry, titles that can never be removed, as they are part of the Prince’s inalienable birthright, and a prince always trumps a duke, due in part to the scarcity of such handles.

Their website, which now boasts the name sussex.com, a commercialisation that some say crosses the line, at least in spirit, of their agreement with the Palace, might then read princeandprincessharry.com, which, though a mouthful, would be even worse (as would windsor.com), implying that they are the world’s preeminent royalty, and that Meghan is a bona fide American princess. “Sussex” has the advantage of making them sound like a cricket club.

Still I admire and even sneakingly applaud Harry’s devotion to his wife and her ambitious machinations. There is something almost noble and brave about it, albeit foolhardy.

The allurement that women like Meghan, or indeed any woman, hold out to men is precisely the allurement that rocks hold out to sailors. They are enormously dangerous and hence enormously fascinating. To the average man, even royal ones, they offer the only grand adventure he will ever encounter. Take them away and his existence would be as flat and dull as that of a caterpillar. Even to the unusual man, the adventurous man, the imaginative and romantic man, which Harry is not, they offer the adventure of adventures, like something in H Rider Haggard, and Meghan is certainly “she who must be obeyed”.

[From The Telegraph]

I cut off the last six paragraphs or so, where it was clear that Wyatt hit the pipe halfway through writing the column. She went on to suggest that Meghan was some kind of magical temptress manipulating Harry. We’ve heard it all before, and it seems to be a quite common view among educated white Britons working in the British media: that a Black woman has magical voodoo powers and she can control hapless white men with a snap of her fingers. Even more specifically, they believe Harry is stupid and Meghan is exploiting him and everything around them. None of that is true. Anyway, Harry and Meghan wouldn’t have used their Sussex titles for their website unless they were certain that Charles wouldn’t remove them. Cry harder, crackheads.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace threw hissy fits this past weekend, all about a rumor they started: that Prince Harry had “offered” to come back temporarily to do some royal work while his father is being treated for cancer. Harry possibly made that offer to his father in their brief private meeting two weeks ago, but Harry was not the one who leaked that offer to the Times this weekend. Harry was also not behind any of the ridiculous columns and thinkpieces about how his 25-hour visit could be the start of a real “reconciliation.” The Windsors and their media handlers are flat-out desperate for the Sussexes to return, but only on Windsor/media terms. Which isn’t going to happen, and so Prince William spent three full days screaming, crying and throwing up about how he will never allow Harry to come back. Meanwhile, even the Times of London acknowledges that Charles and William need some reinforcements. From Jenni Russell’s “Fragile royal family requires reinforcements.”

How Russell used to think. A modern Britain didn’t need this extensive clan.Even before his disgrace, Prince Andrew looked like a man without sufficient purpose. There were already rumours of Prince Harry’s discontent. It would be far better to liberate all those outside the line of succession from royal expectations and allow them their own careers and independent lives. The future king and his advisers thought the same. Even before his accession it was understood that Charles intended to cut the number of working royals. Frankly, both the King and I were wrong. The royal family suddenly looks fragile and thinned out. With both the King and the Princess of Wales seriously unwell, it’s abruptly apparent how few working royals there are.

Too old: Most are in their seventies and eighties. Of the 11 currently working members, only four — the prince and princess of Wales and the duke and duchess of Edinburgh — are under 60; two will soon turn 90. Nobody from the next generation is being lined up for the working roster until ten-year-old Prince George comes of age.

William’s appearance at the investiture two weeks ago: A fortnight ago Prince William held an investiture, on duty for the first time since the family illnesses. On arrival he was bleak, distracted, swaying on his feet. He looked a man bearing too much alone. Even Prince Harry, who rejected his royal role, has spotted the gap and offered to fill in while his father is ill, although it is improbable his family would welcome such an unreliable member back.

Not enough royals to cover these events: Buckingham Palace is overwhelmed with requests for royal attention. Already it cannot meet demand. The death of the Queen has left hundreds of organisations without the royal patron they were proud of. Those patronages are not automatically transferred; a request can be made to a new sovereign, as the Royal Society of Portrait Painters has done, but because a patronage entails time and obligation it may well be refused. Rationalists and republicans are bewildered by this. Why, they wonder, should anyone feel uplifted by proximity to the members of a hereditary family, there by accidents of conquest, battle, infertility, religious disqualification and premature death? I once felt the same. I didn’t appreciate the triple appeal of recognition, history and mystique.

The slimmed-down monarchy was a mistake: It’s a mistake for Britain to prune the royal roster to its core when its members can perform this unique unifying function across its nations and classes, generating excitement, validation and pride simply by showing up. The dutiful King is cutting back because he wants to retain public support by being leaner and smaller. The opposite is true: Britons living in hard and divisive times are badly in need of a calm, apolitical, supportive presence. Harry may be beyond redemption but the King should enlist his nieces and nephews: the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, Lady Louise, Viscount Severn, if they will serve, to strengthen the family team.

[From The Times]

Again, Lady Louise is in college! Leave her alone! Viscount Severn (Sophie and Edward’s son) is only 16 years old! Leave him alone! Princess Eugenie already has one foot out the door and she lives part-time in Portugal, so please leave her alone too. Granted, Princess Beatrice genuinely wants to work for the Firm, and so does her husband. So it’s actually kind of bonkers that Beatrice hasn’t been given more to do, even on a temporary basis. In any case, none of this is new – people always knew that the slimmed-down monarchy was going to be very old and very lazy, and they have no one to blame but themselves. Charles, Camilla, William and Kate wanted all of the attention, all of the spotlight, all of the stolen treasure to themselves. They got it. Enjoy it, dumbasses.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

For years and years, royal biographers have detailed Prince William and Prince Harry’s early-years boozing. When Harry was a teenager and even into his 20s, he probably spent most weekends swimming in alcohol. Harry’s boozy adventures were often used as a cover for his older brother, who was and perhaps still is quite a drinker. Mike Tindall recently revealed that his nickname for William is “One Pint Willy.” William also looked under the influence during a mid-day investiture ceremony two weeks ago. I strongly suspect that William has been a heavy drinker for years. Well, now Piers Morgan is confirming that William was boozing it up when he was just 13 years old.

“HELLO, Sir,” I said to Prince William when we first met nearly 30 years ago. A tall, shy 13-year-old boy with braces on his teeth tentatively shook my hand at Kensington Palace. His mother, Princess Diana, had invited me to a private lunch – I was editor the Daily Mirror at the time – and at the last minute, asked if I minded her elder son joining us.

“That would be terribly inconvenient,” I replied, deadpan. Diana blushed slightly and started a stuttering “Yes, of course, I’m so sorry…” apology before I burst out laughing.

“Ma’am, I think I can stretch to allowing the future King to join me for lunch!”

What followed was the most extraordinary meal of my life in which Diana opened up about everything in her life from her failed marriage and numerous boyfriends to her cellulite and the future of the Monarchy, as William eyed me throughout like a suspicious young dolphin encountering a hungry shark. He was a polite, intelligent, mature-beyond-his years, quite intense young man who was clearly very close to, and protective of his mother. But there was one moment which has always stuck in my mind.

William asked for a glass of wine to match mine, and Diana, mindful of how such underage boozing would look to a scoop-ravenous tabloid news hound, instantly snapped “No, William, what are you thinking?”

He replied: “But Mummy, I drink it all the time.”

“Erm, you don’t actually, and you can’t have any!” she exclaimed, nervously.

“Yes, I do, and yes, I can!” he chuckled. And he then did. This, I thought, was a boy who knew his own mind, and had a slightly naughty, rebellious streak.

We met a few more times after that, and he was always charm personified, once prodding my stomach at a party and guffawing: “That’s not a six-pack, Piers, that’s a keg!”

[From The Sun]

The rest of Piers’ column is all about how Harry “betrayed” William by, you know, getting married and moving to America. Harry was supposed to stick around so William could hide behind him forever! Harry was supposed to be like Princess Margaret, trapped in the royal system, divorced and unlucky in love, and a tragic alcoholic. Instead, William is the one who is trapped, William is the one who seems unhappy in his marriage, William is the one who needs booze to get through daytime work events. Again, I know both William and Harry were huge drinkers and they abused alcohol when they were far too young. But it looks like only one of them outgrew it and got therapy and stopped self-medicating with alcohol. Anyway, it’s curious that Piers put this out there.

The Prince of Wales has returned to royal duties after his wife’s abdominal operation and following the announcement of the King’s cancer diagnosis.https://t.co/Ig4ZQJ3Vi4 pic.twitter.com/KUXAYfZZfp

— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 7, 2024

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Over the weekend, I watched Jennifer Lopez’s musical “film,” This Is Me… Now: A Love Story. She self-financed the hour-long movie for $20 million and she really did not need to do any of that. Like, it should have been just a series of music videos released on her YouTube page. She could have even turned it into a few “short films” like Taylor Swift did with “All Too Well.” The problem is that… the music wasn’t actually very good. You could argue that the “story” of the film was kind of camp and hilariously stupid, but the whole point of the film was that it was supposed to be a companion piece to this new album and the album is…not good. The music was so bad, you guys. Even then, I would consider J.Lo to be a great dancer who can “perform” her music well, but none of the choreography was working either. All of this is being reflected in the numbers:

Jennifer Lopez has made a big deal about investing her own money in her new project. JLo says she put $20 million into “This is Me…Now,” the title of her new album, and the video that goes with it on Amazon Prime.

The project unfurled on Thursday night. There are no numbers yet, but there’s some indication of a soft launch. The album went to number 1 upon release, but now it’s number 4 on iTunes. What goes down on pop charts doesn’t usually come back up.

The album has also not birthed any hot tracks. The lead single, “Can’t Get Enough,” is at number 76. There are no other tracks from the album on the top 100. A good indicator of an album’s strength is it immediately dispersing tracks throughout the top 100. It seems like the fans could indeed get enough.

As for the video, “The Greatest Love Story Never Told” doesn’t hit Amazon Prime until February 27th — next Sunday. By that time, the album and the single may not be in a position to help it.

[From Showbiz411]

I’m actually going to watch the documentary because I want to see how cringe it is and how much Ben Affleck appears in it. I’m also interested in seeing how thoroughly J.Lo documented the fact that everyone in her life told her to just skip the musical film. I kind of think she should have skipped the album too, but whatever. Again, I love Jennifer Lopez and I’m still really sad and outraged that she didn’t win an Oscar for Hustlers. She has every right to do whatever she wants, but oh my god, was this whole three-part album/film/documentary thing a huge miscalculation. Still, I think it was like an itch she had to scratch – she wasn’t going to let it go until she figured out a way to do it.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by People Magazine (@people)

The final event for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s three-day schedule in Canada was a reception in Vancouver to formally mark the “one year to go” until the Invictus Games in Vancouver and Whistler. Meghan and Harry attended the “celebratory gala” at the Vancouver Convention Centre and they shared photos on sussex.com. They also shared one exclusive photo with People Magazine (see above).

Once again, I’m asking them to create an Instagram account so that media outlets can embed their exclusive photos. Again, I don’t need Meghan to have a personal account (although I would love that), but something for their business, or an official Sussex.com Instagram. Sussex.com did reveal that Harry and Meghan were presented with woven blankets, given to them by Four Host First Nations. The Sussexes also shared an exclusive statement with People:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are opening up about their “meaningful” visit to Canada for the official countdown to the 2025 Invictus Games.

“We loved being back in Canada, a place so meaningful to both of us. It was an honor to be welcomed by the Four Host First Nations, as we marked One Year To Go, together with Invictus coaches, competitors and families,” the Duke and Duchess of Sussex exclusively tell PEOPLE following the three-day Invictus Games Vancouver Whistler 2025’s One Year to Go celebration.

“It filled our hearts to once again be surrounded by Canadian people, food and culture. We felt the Invictus spirit and excitement throughout Whistler and Vancouver, and are so grateful to all our hosts for organizing such a memorable visit. We’re counting down the days until we return!” they add.

Harry, 39, and Meghan, 42, also shared an exclusive new photo from the One Year to Go Dinner at the Vancouver Convention Centre on Friday. The snap shows the couple smiling in their seats at the evening gala, where Prince Harry sported a dark suit and Meghan wore an olive green gown by Canadian label Greta Constantine.

[From People]

They looked very happy the whole time they were in Canada. They loved their little mini-tour, and they loved being able to do those events without the saltiest people in the world breathing down their necks. Of course, those salt merchants were trying so hard to get the Sussexes’ attention last week. And now they all have to contend with Prince William’s sustained tantrum over the Sussexes’ successful trip.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, People’s Instagram.

One of the most commonly known life hacks is the old trick where you put your wet electronics into a bag or bowl of uncooked rice. The rice is supposed to help dry it out by absorbing the extra water. I think just about everyone I know has tried this method at least once. It seems to be tried-and-true. Hell, my mom once put her old Macbook into a giant tub of rice (I kid you not) and it turned on after a few days.

Well, I don’t know if saving wet iPhones is cutting into Apple’s billion dollar bottom line or not but the company just put out a warning against this method. According to Apple, doing so could “allow small particles of rice to damage your iPhone.” In fact, they recommend merely leaving the wet device on the counter to dry. That’s so old school of them. They actually advised several different things to try in the event of a wet iPhone. All are common sense techniques.

Instead of resorting to rice, Apple provides users with an alternative solution. If your iPhone or charging connector is wet—in the latter case, an alert will appear and disable charging—Apple recommends the following:

Unplug the cable from your iPhone and unplug the other end of the cable from the power adapter or accessory. Don’t plug the cable in again until your iPhone and the cable are completely dry.

Tap your iPhone gently against your hand with the connector facing down to remove excess liquid. Leave your iPhone in a dry area with some airflow.

After at least 30 minutes, try charging with a Lightning or USB-C cable or connecting an accessory.

If you see the alert again, there is still liquid in the connector or under the pins of your cable. Leave your iPhone in a dry area with some airflow for up to a day. You can try again to charge or connect an accessory throughout this period. It might take up to 24 hours to fully dry.

If your phone has dried out but still isn’t charging, unplug the cable from the adapter and unplug the adapter from the wall (if possible), and then connect them again.

In case Apple’s advice doesn’t work, it’s safe to say that you probably need help from professional repair experts and may even need to prepare yourself to buy a new iPhone. Whatever you do, resist the temptation of reaching for the rice.

[From Gizmodo]

Okay, so the cynical part of me that has anecdotal evidence that the rice trick works without causing damage thinks “In case Apple’s advice doesn’t work, … [you] may even need to prepare yourself to buy a new iPhone” kinda sounds like the statement that gives the game away, no? Apple also mentioned some fairly obvious no-gos such as using external heat to dry the phone (no blow dryers, people!) or sticking Q-tips into the connector (that’s a thing?). All that said, I’ve never really thought about it before, but I’m willing to concede that there could be better or equally effective ways at trying to salvage a wet iPhone.

Last summer, my son went into a pool at my SIL’s house and forgot to take his watch off. She gave us one of those silica gel packets to put it in. We put them both in a ziploc bag for 24 hours and it worked like a charm. Honestly, if you live in a dry environment, you can probably just leave it on the counter to air dry out. Idk, there’s just something (the cost and our reliance) about wet electronics that triggers our anxiety and having something extra to help the process along feels calming.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Billy (@billy245)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Joseph Onglatco (@mbenz_007)

Photos credit: Andrea Piacquadio and PhotoMix on Pexels and via Instagram

Huzzah — the drought is over! On Sunday Last Week Tonight with John Oliver returned from their quirky November to February hiatus, and they kicked off the new season with a bang. The main story focused on the decades of grifting Clarence Thomas has been up to, namely the undisclosed gifts he’s received from GOP donors, not to be outdone by the income he has been disclosing… from a defunct business. None of this is breaking news, true. But between Last Week being off air a lot of 2023 due to the writers strike and this week being the season premiere, I’m fine with having a Last Year Tonight – SCOTUS Edition episode. Plus they really upped the ante by making Thomas an offer he (hopefully) can’t refuse. Oliver closed the show by offering to pay Thomas $1 million a year in exchange for Thomas leaving the Supreme Court. Plus they’re throwing in a $2.4 million luxury tour bus, the justice’s favorite mode of transportation, to sweeten the deal. Thomas has 30 days to accept:

The British-born, progressive comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose — as required — that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.

As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.

He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters — whom he told to “fight like hell” — staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the Capitol attack, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him — which in turn fueled January 6.

Oliver alluded to all of those circumstances as he extended his lucrative offer to Thomas, saying: “Lot on your plate right now, from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6 cases … and you deserve a break, you know, away from the meanness of Washington. So you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you made demonstrably worse for decades.”

The host suggested that Thomas could upgrade his “favorite mode of travel” by signing a contract requiring him to step down from the supreme court in exchange for $1m annually from Oliver along with the tour bus, which is outfitted with a king-sized bed, a fireplace and four televisions.

Oliver joked that Thomas possibly feared that making such a trade might attract negative judgment from one of his top benefactors: the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who was reported to have maintained a private collection of Nazi memorabilia that included a pair of paintings by Adolf Hitler.

But Oliver said: “That’s the beauty of friendship, Clarence. If they’re real friends, they’ll love you no matter what your job is. So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.

“So that’s the offer — $1m a year, Clarence. And a brand new condo on wheels. And all you have to do … is sign the contract and get the f–k off the supreme court,” Oliver remarked. “The clock starts now — 30 days, Clarence. Let’s do this!”

[From The Guardian]

This is genius. Oliver is calling Thomas’s bluff — “you need money? I’ll be your new donor daddy!” — in the name of an actual good cause (unlike gutting affirmative action and women’s healthcare). The poor man has been trying to survive on only $298,500 a year from the court, he deserves the raise! **insert eyeroll here** It was a bold and brilliant move by Oliver, one that did not go unnoticed by his HBO bosses, it seems. The day after the show aired Oliver went to tweet out a YouTube video of it, something he always does on Mondays. But without telling Oliver, HBO says they have a new policy of not posting the video to YouTube until the end of the week. To boost Max viewership they say, but methinks this probably has to do with the HBO lawyers still being at loggerheads with Oliver. Which is a shame, because Oliver clearly said he was putting up his own money, not HBO’s. And there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Thomas will ever accept anyway! No, I fear Thomas and the rest of the horsemen of the apocalypse are just getting started with their reign of terror. **insert sobbing here**

Photos credit: Avalon.red, Cover Images

People tend to forget this, but in 2016-2017, there were some rumors about Cate Blanchett’s marriage to Andrew Upton. The tabloids got photos of Upton looking very cozy with a 27-year-old, and there were some quieter rumors that Cate and Andrew’s marriage was on the rocks, or that they lived separate lives. Cate never addressed the rumors directly and she and Andrew were seen together in the years since then, but people have just realized that it’s been a while since anyone heard about their marriage or saw them together.

Cate Blanchett has left fans puzzled after stepping out at the 2024 BAFTA Film Awards without her wedding ring on Sunday night. The Australian actress, 54, who has been married to playwright Andrew Upton, 58, since 1997, stunned at the British film industry event in a maroon Louis Vuitton gown and striking body chain combo. However, rather than wearing her white gold and diamond wedding sparkler, the Blue Jasmine star sported a large emerald cocktail ring. Her husband didn’t attend the event.

Curiously, Cate was also spotted ring-free earlier this month, when she attended an event in New York at the Museum of Modern Art on February 6th. Joined by Sophie’s Choice co-star Ethan Hawke, Cate oozed sophistication in a gradient-print grey pantsuit and lariat necklace. Cate made no attempt at hiding her bare wedding finger as she smiled for photos outside the exclusive event. In October 2023, Cate was once again seen without her wedding ring as she sat front row at the Stella McCartney runway show during Paris Fashion Week. Instead the thespian wore a set of elegant gold bands on her wedding finger.

Speaking to Woman’s Day magazine on Monday, a source close to the couple said Cate’s missing ring has sent off alarm bells about the status of her marriage.

‘Seeing Cate without her ring has sent shockwaves through their friends. For the first time they’re wondering if things aren’t so rosy,’ the insider claimed. A question mark has been hanging over Cate and Andrew’s marriage for some time now. The couple also haven’t been seen out on a date since August, when they were photographed enjoying a sun-drenched holiday in Ibiza.

They also raised eyebrows earlier this month after putting their sprawling mansion in Prahran, Melbourne, on the market. The three-bedroom family home, which the couple purchased in 2006, is set to be sold at auction with a price guide of $2.25million – $2.45million. Cate and Andrew have been living in the UK since 2015 and still own several other properties together. Their portfolio includes a glorious Victorian mansion in East Sussex, England, which they bought for £4.9 million (AU$9.4million) in 2015. The couple also own an investment property in Sydney’s CBD.

Cate and Andrew share three sons, Dashiell, 22, Roman, 19, and Ignatius, 16, and a daughter named Edith, eight.

[From The Daily Mail]

Every interview I’ve read with Cate in recent years – especially when she was promoting Tar – it sounded like she and Andrew had been Britain-based for a while. I guess that’s the “Victorian mansion in East Sussex,” where they have some kind of larger estate and Cate is always tooling around in the garden. Given her increasingly cozy relationship with the Windsors – sitting with Prince William at the BAFTAs and being a celeb ambassador for Earthshot – I would assume that she’s committed to spending more time in England in the future. I always assumed Andrew was okay with that, especially after they spent so much time in Oz, nurturing the Australian theater community. I don’t know. They’ve been together for 26 years, and I kind of hate Ring Watch. Who even knows.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Kensington Palace.