Jill Biden covers the latest issue of Women’s Health Magazine. As FLOTUS, Dr. Biden hasn’t been on eleventy billion magazine covers, which is a shame because she’s very cool. One of my favorite interviews in recent years was Dr. Biden’s Harper’s Bazaar interview where she talked about her awful first marriage and how every woman needs to have a job and skill set to fall back on. She was basically like: don’t marry scrubs and always have a separate checking account. It’s something a lot of women still need to hear. Dr. Biden has the same kind of message in Women’s Health, plus she talks about how much she loves vegetables fresh out of the White House garden and how much she loves working out. Dr. Biden is 72 years old and she still trains like she’s always preparing for a marathon. Some highlights from her interview:

She’s the oldest of five sisters: “Our mother was such a good listener. She was my role model.” When Bonny passed away in 2008, Biden was devastated, but even so, she immediately stepped up to assume the role of mother hen. “I feel like I got my inner strength from my mother.”

Why she fell for Joe: “I was drawn to his strength… I was drawn to…to what kind of strength was in this man that allowed him to find joy again.”

Joe had to propose five times before she accepted & the real reason she didn’t say yes right away: “I had to be sure we were going to make it.” Sure that she would be Joe’s wife forever and ever. Sure that Beau and Hunter would not lose another mother, this time to divorce.

She carries a lunchbag after years of teaching: “I like fresh food more than fried cafeteria food, so that’s what I pack.”

She’s an expert meal prepper. “I had to be organized. I would [make] my shopping lists to make sure there were balanced meals with proteins and vegetables…I went through phases, like when I got a pasta machine. The kids just loved it when I made flavored pastas for them.”

She was shocked when Beau Biden passed away: “I didn’t think he was going to die. I just kept praying he was going to live. And then when he did [die], I found I could no longer pray.” After about two years of taking one proverbial step at a time, in spite of her disorienting grief, Biden found that she could pray again.

She loves fitness classes, especially SoulCycle: “I need to be with myself and find inner strength so I can be strong for everyone else.” Wherever she goes, it’s not a question of if she’ll get a workout in, but where, when, and how to manage the logistics. At the White House, she’s up at 5:45 a.m. to feed the family cat and dog, then is outside as quickly as possible to walk Commander, the Bidens’ German shepherd, while catching the sunrise. (Joe is more of a night person and does the final dog walk before bed.) She loves jogging in the White House driveway. Well, she loves jogging. She makes it work in the driveway because it’s too difficult to arrange for the security that would be required for her to run the sidewalks of D.C.

Why she’s an effective public speaker: “I practice, I rehearse, I want it to be really good. Because I care! And when you care, you want it to resonate with people, you want it to matter.”

Biden wants women to know that it is crucial to be independent…financially, emotionally, mentally. That’s why she believes education is so critical: It gives women the skills to secure a job, to make a living, to stand on their own two feet. “You never know where this life is going to take you,” Biden says, and it strikes me as a little dark, but it’s also honest. She saw Beau’s wife, her daughter-in-law, go from married to single mom with two teenagers in an instant.

[From Women’s Health]

I find Dr. Biden so inspiring. She talked about her job as a professor at a Northern Virginia community college as well, and you can just tell that she finds it so fulfilling and so important. Important not just to her students, but for herself. She’s a Peak Teacher too, she reminds me so much of my mom (who was also a teacher). Also: I love every story Joe and Jill tell about their courtship and how many times he proposed. I find it charming, but the reason why Joe didn’t walk away was because he knew Jill was the real deal. Plus, she was a hot blonde from Philly.

Covers courtesy of Women’s Health.

Mr. K explained Angelina Jolie’s new finger ink and apologized to Jolie for accidentially starting all of those rumors. [Just Jared]
Jennifer Lawrence & I will bring back palazzo pants. [Go Fug Yourself]
Women describe how the Red Pillification of men has affected them. [Buzzfeed]
President Bartlett turned up at a SAG-AFTRA strike! [LaineyGossip]
Crown Princess Victoria wore H&M Conscious. [RCFA]
The live-action Little Mermaid gets the Honest Trailer treatment. [OMG Blog]
Swifties are mad at a Taylor Swift look-alike. [Pajiba]
Drew Barrymore’s stalker was arrested outside her home. [Socialite Life]
Kim Cattrall’s cameo showed the fans what And Just Like That should have been, but wasn’t because of Sarah Jessica Parker’s ego. [Jezebel]
Ed Sheeran should have called his album Pumpkin Spice. [Seriously OMG]
Trendspotting: a lot of Canadian tuxedo energy these days. [Egotastic]
Dear Abby got a question about bisexuality. [Towleroad]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by MR.K (@mr.k_tattoo)

This week, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made some announcements which were simply confirmations of plans which had long been rumored. The only real “news” was that Prince Harry would stop by London to attend the WellChild Awards on September 7th and then he would be on to Dusseldorf to attend the Invictus Games, where he will be joined by Meghan a few days into the games. Harry has made it clear that his brief stop in England is purely about his patronage and not any family reunion or commemoration of his late grandmother. In turn, the Windsors have made it abundantly clear for months that they are not hosting any kind of memorial event on QEII’s death-anniversary, and even if they were, Harry and Meghan would not be invited. Instead of acknowledging those facts – that Harry doesn’t want to see the Windsors, and the Windsors don’t want to see him – the usual British media suspects are screaming, crying and throwing up over the fact that Meghan refuses to join her husband on that leg of his trip. From Jan Moir’s column in the Daily Mail:

Royal-watchers spotted a cloud of black smoke rising over assorted palaces and castles this week, part of a sad new ritual called the Bonfire of the Olive Branches. For when it comes to relations between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, we’re looking at a burnt-out bombsite where a family used to be.

Relations are at rock bottom, clemency is in the deep freeze. The outstretched hand has been withdrawn and the peace pipe has been doused with a thousand duchessy tears. It is over.

In September, Prince Harry will visit the UK to attend an awards ceremony for the WellChild charity on the day before the anniversary of the Queen’s death. But there are no plans to meet his father or his brother. Apparently, he is not even going to the private family dinner at Windsor to remember Elizabeth II. He then goes on to Germany for the Invictus Games, where his wife will fly out to join him.

The message from Meghan couldn’t be clearer. She is never going to set foot in the grey, cake-filled, miserable UK again if she can possibly help it.

Perhaps being forbidden to attend the Queen’s deathbed at Balmoral — to shed light, to empower, to recommend a turmeric cleanse and some yoga stretches to the woman she never knew as Gan-Gan — was the last straw. And if there is a role for her as wifely appeaser to help heal the rift between her husband and his family, she has chosen to avoid that, too. As is her right.

But there is a puzzling disconnect about all this bitter friction. The Duke and Duchess keep embracing big themes such as reconciliation and family. They talk earnestly of healing, humanity and hope but, somehow, never apply these messages to themselves and their relationships with their families, which are as toxic as a giant hogweed swamp.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, Harry set his boundary: the Windsors need to apologize to Meghan before anything can be reconciled. That’s it. And they can’t do that. They can’t admit that they were wrong, that they miscalculated, that they were abominable to Meghan, that their goal was to drive her to divorce or suicide. Meanwhile, King Charles’s first act as king was to ban Meghan from Balmoral, telling Harry that the king’s daughter-in-law and mother of his grandchildren is not “family.” Then Charles briefed the Mail so that everyone would know that he was punishing his Black daughter-in-law for the crime of wanting to hold her husband’s hand as he mourned his beloved grandmother.

Moir is arguing that Harry and Meghan need to make the first steps for some reason. What’s especially bonkers is that… Harry actually did make the first step. He attended his father’s coronation (which Charles scheduled for Archie’s birthday), even though his father is an abusive ass. Instead of building on that, Charles proceeded to flee the city whenever Harry was in town and Charles still refuses to speak to his younger son. Anyway, I hope Meghan stays away forever! If she ever does visit that salty island, they’ll do whatever they can to hold her hostage again.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

One thing I’ve learned from Prince Harry’s many lawsuits is that there’s a committee of political and royal flunkies deciding who gets royal protection and who doesn’t. The committee is called Ravec, and it’s made up of senior courtiers and a few government people. As Harry’s lawsuits have revealed, Ravec seemingly makes their decisions based off of anything but “legitimate security threat.” Royal protection has become an extension of royal preference and standing within the family. The removal of protection is seen as a legitimate punitive measure within the family, as opposed to a willfully dangerous tactic leaving public figures open to bodily harm. None of the people in Ravec believe that security should follow the threat. They believe security should follow the rank, and that security is just another way to show how important and royal you are. Speaking of, Prince Andrew wants his taxpayer-funded security back, and he’s roped in the Home Secretary.

Disgraced Prince Andrew has launched a bid to win back his £3million-a-year taxpayer-funded armed security detail. The Duke of York, 63, was stripped of of police protection after paying millions to settle a civil sex assault case brought by Virginia Giuffre. But The Sun can today reveal the royal outcast is fighting back, despite being banished from frontline duties — and has won the backing of former Home Secretary Priti Patel.

She has emailed King Charles’s top aide suggesting a review of the duke’s protection “could be something to consider”. Ms Patel also referred to the ditching of Prince Harry’s security detail. But Charles’s private secretary Sir Clive Alderton has no power over royal security arrangements — and Ms Patel was forced to apologise to the King when her approach was leaked yesterday.

Royal expert Ingrid Seward said last night: “The King will be deeply embarrassed by this — the issue is so controversial he won’t go anywhere near it. Ms Patel should have known he has no power over these decisions. Her meddling was deeply unwise and deeply unfair on The King — and will damage Andrew’s cause, not help it. And the bottom line remains, why should the public pay £3million a year to protect a man who rarely leaves his home?”

Ms Patel’s intervention came after she discussed Andrew’s security woes with his PR guru pal Mark Gallagher. She refused to say who she emailed — but apologised to the King when we revealed Sir Clive’s name had been leaked. Ms Patel, 51, said: “It is disappointing that this correspondence has been leaked into the public domain and I apologise to His Majesty for the embarrassment and difficulties the publishing of this correspondence has caused.”

[From The Sun]

“Ms Patel should have known he has no power over these decisions” – I’m sorry, what? King Charles’s senior courtiers sit on Ravec, as do Home Office officials. If Charles wanted Andrew to have his RPOs back, he would. What’s even weirder is that Charles reportedly IS paying for Andrew’s security, but that money is coming from the Duchy of Lancaster, as opposed to the British taxpayer. That’s what Buckingham Palace leaked last December – that Charles was dealing with the issue privately and paying the £3 million annual cost out of Lancaster funds. Are they now saying that was a lie? Besides that, the £3 million story revealed that Charles could have easily found a work-around for the Sussexes’ security, especially when they were visiting the UK. Except Harry is suing Ravec just to be able to pay back police security.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Earlier this week, there was some German and French tabloid reporting about a Grimaldi marriage. Prince Albert and Princess Charlene have been married for twelve chaotic years, none of which seemed particularly happy. The thing is, every time there was a report of Charlene’s escape attempts or her deep unhappiness in the marriage, the Prince’s Palace shut down those reports swiftly. This week, the European tabloids reported that Charlene is living in Switzerland, that she only returns to Monaco for ceremonial events, that she only sees her husband “by appointment,” and that Charlene and Albert share custody of their children. We have not heard one peep from The Prince’s Palace. No one has rushed out to debunk these rumors, Albert hasn’t given a huffy interview to People Mag, nothing. And now this: Charlene has deleted her Instagram account.

Princess Charlene of Monaco is logging offline. On Thursday, the princess’ personal Instagram account disappeared from the platform, apparently having been deactivated or deleted. Princess Charlene, 45, previously ran the handle @hshprincesscharlene, which Hello! reports had 462,000 followers. The royal posted a mix of personal and professional news on the page, from recaps of royal work to sweet updates about her 8-year-old twins Crown Prince Jacques and Princess Gabriella, whom she shares with husband Prince Albert.

While Charlene’s personal profile has gone dark, her Fondation Princesse Charlène de Monaco account is still accessible. Princess Charlene’s charity is dedicated to ending drowning by raising public awareness about the dangers of water, teaching children to swim and instilling the values of sport in the next generation. It’s a natural fit for the former Olympic swimmer, who competed for South Africa (where she grew up) at the 2000 Sydney Summer Games — the same year she met Prince Albert.

Though Princess Charlene used her handle less and less in recent months, the official Prince’s Palace of Monaco Instagram page has been increasingly active. Courtiers keep followers looped with the latest happenings from the Monegasque royal family, including the activities of Albert’s sisters Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie.

[From People]

For those of us long-time Charlene followers, we know this is not the first time there’s been some bullsh-t around her Instagram. When she was in South Africa throughout much of 2021, recovering from her ENT infection, Charlene communicated through her IG, and it was clear that she had control over her personal account and she wasn’t running things through her husband’s office. That changed towards the end of her stay in South Africa – they must have changed her password or something, and by the time she went into a treatment facility in Switzerland in late 2021, it felt like Charlene had completely lost control of her account. I’m just saying, I wonder if this is less “Charlene deleted her account” and more “the palace deleted Charlene’s account to silence her about the separation.” I don’t know though, it’s just a theory.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

This year’s Us Open marks the 20th anniversary of Andy Roddick’s only major/Slam title. In 2003, Roddick won the US Open as a 21-year-old. He was the last American man to win a major title, although obviously, plenty of American women have picked up Slam titles since then (Serena, Venus, Sloane Stephens, Sonya Kenin, hell, even Lindsay Davenport returned and made some Slam finals post-maternity leave). But it’s a blight on American tennis that Roddick is the last American man to lift a big trophy in 20 years. It speaks volumes about the ostrich syndrome of the USTA and how the American tennis intelligentsia is far behind their European counterparts when it comes to training boys/men for the modern sport.

Still, Roddick is a mensch and he’s enjoyed his life after his 2012 retirement. He and his wife Brooklyn Decker have two children, multiple animals, multiple homes and multiple lucrative businesses. A-Rod appears on Tennis Channel and does recaps and commentary, and he’s insightful and funny and he still follows the men’s and women’s game closely. GQ decided to give Roddick a lengthy profile about his life and career and this was an excellent read, although it’s very long-winded. Some highlights:

He downplays the significance of his US Open title: He’s citing how many American women have won majors over the last two decades. “No one’s benefited more from one win,” he says. “Ever. Had an American man won the next year, you wouldn’t be here.”

His coach Brad Gilbert advised him to ditch his visor: He takes off his baseball hat to show his bald head. “If I would’ve known it would’ve ended like this,” he says, “I would’ve worn the visor a lot longer. I texted Brad and was like, ‘F–k you, man. You took away my best hair years.’”

His life changed after he won the US Open: “You’re 21 and you’re like, ‘This is awesome. I’m super famous.’ There’s a certain amount of like, ‘Oh, I hate being famous…’ But then you go to the restaurant where everyone is. Like, Shut up. You don’t actually hate it….[Lacoste] was the big pay day. I barely did anything that wasn’t required contractually ever again.”

His idols: “These guys—Connors, McEnroe, Chang, Courier, Andre, Pete. They were everything to me. And so it’s like, ‘It’s on you. Don’t f–k up what they built.’ If I couldn’t replace their tennis, I could somehow keep people in the building.”

He never wavered from the work: “The work was non-negotiable. I never viewed myself on the same level ability-wise as a Roger, so I always had this insecurity where if it got away from me…”

On Roger Federer: “I love Roger. I do. I love him as a human being.” But after so many losses to Federer—21 in 24 matches—Roddick admits that he developed an insecurity. “I didn’t show up at the track every morning like, ‘F-ck Roger! To me it was like the sky. You’re not always looking at it, but you know it’s there.” For a diehard competitor like Roddick, what bigger challenge was there than trying to beat Federer and Nadal and Djokovic? Though as Roddick admits, “Maybe it went from a challenge to obsession at some point.”

How he hooked Brooklyn Decker: He had his attorney call her agent, which she thought was shady. “The only thing I will say in my defense,” Roddick says, “is I didn’t do it all the time. The shooting of the shot was a one-time thing.”

The heartbreaking loss to Federer in the 2009 Wimbledon final, 16-14 in the fifth, after which he made a charming speech on Centre Court: “It’s not about me in that moment. Pete doesn’t go anywhere. He doesn’t leave his living room. And he made the trip. You gotta have a little respect for history.” Still, he was distraught. “I was sad for me,. But I was sad for them [my team]. I was the only chance that Stephen Little had of winning Wimbledon. And I know he hurt, and the people there hurt, as much as I did in that moment. I remember this part f–ked me up during my Hall of Fame speech. I didn’t have kids while I was playing. And then I did by the time the Hall of Fame comes around. And I’m like, these grown-ass men gave up how many parts of their lives and children’s lives to try and win a tennis tournament? I knew the sacrifice that was being made, but you can know something and you can also not understand it fully until later.”

People started coming up to him after the 2009 Wimbledon: “Every person in the store was like, ‘Andy, man, tough one.’ As if we knew each other. And it was awesome. I’m like, Oh my god, this has been the water cooler conversation for like three days.”

Whether he would have traded his “everyman tennis player” vibe for the Wimbly title: “Probably. Because I would like to think that I could get over myself enough to build that bridge with the fans anyway. Had I won Wimbledon, I don’t think I would have one single regret. I’m not disappointed I didn’t win ten slams. I’m disappointed I didn’t win Wimbledon. You can have seven of ’em. I just wanted one.”

He likes the young crop of American men: “There is a healthy jealousy between the players. They’re not all just slapping each other on the back. They want to be better than the other guy. They actually talk about winning slams.” And who would he pick as the one to do it—the one to break American men’s 20-year curse? “I don’t know. This isn’t a cop out. I would probably lie to you if I had a strong feeling, ’cause I wouldn’t want one guy to get the spotlight and have to deal with that. But I honestly don’t know that one is head and shoulders above.”

If he could change anything about his career, he wouldn’t have worked so hard. “I always operated out of, ‘If I’m not as talented as these guys, there’s no chance they can win the day as far as training or effort.’ If I could go back and change one thing in my career it would be to do less of that sh-t. I remember my last year on tour. I see this guy floating around and he’s like #25 in the world. He’s the happiest guy I’ve ever seen. And I’m just like…I just want one more look at the basket. I’ll do anything. And then there’s relief when you win, not out and out joy.”

The moniker “One Slam Wonder.” “I’m like, ‘F–ck, I won 32 times.’ I won two out of my last four or five tournaments. What would be a defining moment in someone’s career, it doesn’t matter if I win ten more of ’em. If it’s not a major, it would affect people’s perception zero.”

[From GQ]

There’s also some heartbreaking stuff about the death of his agent Ken Meyerson and his father. Basically, Roddick burned himself out with his intensity and grief, but his marriage, charity work and fatherhood brought him back to the land of the living. As for what he says about the new crop of young American guys – he’s not being diplomatic about it, he really doesn’t know. A lot of hopes are pinned to Taylor Fritz (a white guy, handsome, with an influencer girlfriend) meanwhile Frances Tiafoe and Tommy Paul both made Slam semifinals in the past year, and Paul seems to have #1 Carlos Alcaraz’s number. I hope Andy doesn’t dwell on the losses, but yeah… you can tell that the Wimbledon losses still hurt, especially 2009.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GQ Sports (@gqsports)

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, GQ.

For weeks, we’ve heard from unofficial sources that the Duchess of Sussex would not join Prince Harry for the Invictus Games Opening Ceremony, but she would arrive in Dusseldorf a few days into the games. Well, now it’s official. Harry and Meghan’s spokesperson confirmed the news to Omid Scobie and a few select journalists: Harry will be in Dusseldorf for the entire Invictus Games and Meghan will join him probably on the 11th or 12th. The Sussexes released the photo, above, although it doesn’t look super-recent? I don’t know! Hilariously, I checked the Daily Mail to see what spin they were using for this (old) news and this is seriously the headline: “Meghan WILL join Harry at Invictus Games in Europe… after claims she won’t join her husband at UK charity event on anniversary of Queen’s death.” The Daily Fail Brain Trust can’t comprehend how planes work, and that a husband and wife would travel separately. Ask Will and Kate, I’m sure they’ll explain it.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will both be attending the Closing Ceremony at this year’s Invictus Games for injured service people in Germany, it was confirmed on Thursday, amid claims she will not be in the UK with Harry on the eve of the anniversary of the Queen’s death.

Close friend and confidant of the Sussexes Omid Scobie posted the news on social media, adding that while Harry will attend the entire games, Meghan will ‘join him later on’ and stay for the Closing Ceremony, before returning to the US. Mr Scobie said: ‘A spokesperson confirms that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are ‘delighted to be attending’ the Invictus Games 2023 in Düsseldorf next month. Harry will be there from the start and Meghan will join him later on in the competition. They’ll both be at the closing ceremony.’

It comes as it emerged this week that Prince Harry will be returning to the UK on the eve of the anniversary of the late Queen Elizabeth II’s death. Meghan is expected to miss the opening ceremony of the sporting event for wounded military personnel and veterans being staged in Dusseldorf from September 9 over eight days. But she will fly to Europe and join husband Harry shortly after the event – which will see participants from across the globe taking part – begins.

[From The Daily Mail]

They’re all humming with excitement that Harry will be solo, however briefly, when he makes a breezy visit to the UK ahead of the games. I don’t think it’s even occurred to anyone over there that Harry probably has some interviews lined up to promote Heart of Invictus AND the games themselves. Perhaps something with Gayle King, or maybe Hoda Kotb or Savannah Guthrie? I’m sure at least one of the American morning shows will send an anchor to Dusseldorf, right?

A spokesperson confirms that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are “delighted to be attending” the @InvictusGamesDE 2023 in Düsseldorf next month.

Harry will be there from the start and Meghan will join him later on in the competition. They’ll both be at the closing ceremony. pic.twitter.com/Qq96zdGXRg

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) August 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Instar, Backgrid, Archewell.

Last week Kaiser covered The OG Supermodels being Vogue’s September cover girls, and y’all had definite thoughts about the photos. The general consensus seems to be that something is a little off with the cover shot, whether it’s photoshopping… or some other factors. While weighing in on the topic in a blog post for Cup of Jo, former Editor-In-Chief of Lucky magazine Kim France admitted to her role in an infamous photoshop fail: Jessica Simpson’s appearance on Lucky in 2010. France recounted some of her “reasoning” to Yahoo Life:

Photoshop on a body-positive story, because of course: Jessica Simpson spoke about “finally loving her body” for the Sept. 2010 issue of Lucky, according to the cover that the singer and former reality TV star appeared on. However, her image next to those words didn’t depict Simpson in her true form at all. It’s a revelation that the magazine’s former editor-in-chief Kim France made in a blog post on Aug. 15 when reflecting on the prevalence of photoshopping on covers (after suspecting that there had been retouching on the latest issue of Vogue).

Jessica was size 14 then, quelle horreur: “When the cover film came in, we could see that [Simpson] was about a size 14 — which is considered normal by many rational standards, but not by glossy magazine standards, not in 2010, and not by a long shot,” France wrote for Cup of Jo. “I’d like to be able to tell you that I fearlessly insisted we put her on the cover anyway, looking the way she actually looked. I did not. … We made her skinnier — much skinnier than she actually was.” France tells Yahoo Life that “it was an estimation” to label Simpson a size 14 at the time. Nevertheless, she says, “You simply didn’t see larger or even average-shaped women on covers back then, unless they were Oprah.”

Lip service: “Jessica Simpson has undergone a noteworthy personal style evolution, inspired, she says, by coming to terms with some serious body issues over the course of the last year,” reads an excerpt from the magazine. “She stopped fighting her hourglass silhouette, for instance, after realizing that ‘we all obsess over looking like the perfect Barbie type, and that’s not always what’s beautiful. It’s about making peace with yourself.’” It was a minimal and contradictory effort when paired with the admission of retouching. “That cover line is probably the most embarrassing aspect of the whole cover, and I obviously really regret it,” France says. “I think the idea of body positivity at the time was more a question of lip service, as opposed to now, when it seems to come from a more sincere place.”

They simply had no choice: To this day, France maintains that she had no choice but to alter Simpson’s appearance. “Once we had shot a size-14 woman for the cover, that cover wouldn’t have made it out the door and past the bosses unless she was slimmed down,” she wrote. “And so I did that, to an insulting degree.” She went on to write, “Jessica Simpson herself was said to have hated the cover, and who could possibly have blamed her?”

[From Yahoo! Life]

Ok here’s where I’m struggling: this editor is hemming and hawing about how no one would approve a (gasp) size 14 woman on the cover in 2010, so they just had to photoshop Jessica… but, um, who booked her for the cover?! Doesn’t it seem like the so-to-speak problem was entirely of their own creation? “When the cover film came in, we could see that [Simpson] was about a size 14,” but they’d seen her before the photo shoot! How were they possibly caught off guard here? Booking Jessica in the first place was the moment where they were taking a stand, only it seems they missed their own memo.

In the blog post where Kim France shared this story, she revealed she was fired a few weeks after that issue hit the stands. Then she went on to reflect on what she’d have done differently in hindsight, and her conclusion was “to not book somebody that size in the first place.” Yikes. Now see, when I look back with hindsight, my thought is that there was so much worse to come in the decade, that seeing a size 14 woman on the cover of a magazine in 2010 would not have been the unfathomable upheaval she makes it out to be.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim France (@kimfrancenyc)

photos via Instagram, Lucky Magazine and credit WENN

Patricia Clarkson is so good at playing Northern WASPs, I always forget that she’s actually a Southerner. She’s from Louisiana, but she’s lived in New York for years. She apparently lives alone – she’s famously unmarried and childfree. She recently spoke to the Table for Two podcast about her personal choices to focus on her career and her fabulous single, childfree life. At the age of 63, she has no regrets. Goals.

She never wanted to be saddled with a husband or kids: She called herself a “single, straight Southern woman who never married and never had children” while explaining why she decided becoming a mom wasn’t right for her. “I have so many sisters who have beautiful children, and they now have beautiful children. I love being an aunt, I love it more than— probably more than acting, which is odd. They’re on par. But I’m telling you, these are gorgeous children, but that doesn’t have to define every woman. I made a big choice, but I knew it when I was young.”

She did have a chance: Clarkson noted that she considered the possibility of having kids and getting married “with this one artist I dated when I was like 38…I had a window to have a child, but [at] the end of the day I loved working, and I grew up with great parents who sacrificed everything for me. And you have to really be committed to having children. You have to be a great parent, and I was afraid I couldn’t be.”

Fear of failure: She did not “want to fail at being a parent… I’m fine failing as an actor. I didn’t want to fail at being a parent.”

Her fab life: “My mother said, ‘Patty, I just don’t want you to wake up at 50 and be unhappy.’ I woke up at 50 in stilettos and a thong. I’ve had a great sexy-ass life. And it’s not that my whole life is that. I love being an aunt, I love being a sister, I love being a daughter, I love being a great best friend. I’m a very good friend, I think. It’s not what I wanted to define me because I didn’t want to fail.”

[From People]

She said, a decade ago, that she believed she was missing that gene which makes people want to settle down and procreate, and I feel that. I think there are a lot of women missing that gene, and they just go along with the marriage-and-baby life because they were told that’s what “every woman” wants or should want. I relate to all of this, just like I relate to Mary J. Blige’s statement of “I like my freedom. I like being able to get up and go and move and do what I wanna do. I don’t want to have to tend to someone all the time.” Protect your peace, childfree peeps!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaley Cuoco (@kaleycuoco)

Who needs a little shot of love heading into the weekend? I do, so I give you baby, dogs, and star signs courtesy of Tom Pelphrey. Tom and his wife Kaley Cuoco welcomed Matilda on March 30, and both parents seem absolutely besotted. As they should be! W Magazine did a little profile on him to promote his role in HBO’s Love & Death. The interview was conducted before the actors’ strike, and Love & Death aired in the spring, so I’m not sure why W Mag has the story out now. (If it was meant to be an Emmys push, the series only received one nomination–for Jesse Plemmons.) But no matter, because Tom is adorable talking about all of the above, and also not knowing his wife’s most famous role:

Did you ever watch The Big Bang Theory?
Never. Matter of fact, when I first brought Kaley to New Jersey to meet my family and friends, my mom’s partner—who apparently was a Big Bang Theory fan—was there, and he kept calling her Penny. I had no clue what was going on. So I pulled Kaley aside, like, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what’s happening. Why does he keep calling you Penny?” She’s like, “That’s my character in The Big Bang Theory.” I was completely unaware. I’ve watched a few episodes with her since, and, obviously, she’s fantastic.

So you hadn’t seen her in anything?
I hadn’t seen Kaley in anything. Look, I live in a cave. Before I met Kaley, I was living in upstate New York, on a dirt road, in the middle of the woods, without much Wi-Fi. She’s brought me into modern times.

Well, you still kind of live a wild life, since you have so many animals? How many now?
We’re up to six dogs, all rescues. And now we have a beautiful little girl. A human to add to the mix.

Do the dogs accept the human?
The dogs all accept the human. Five of the dogs are over 10 years old. And then, about four weeks before Matilda was going to be born, Kaley said, “I saw another dog that needs to be rescued. Is it crazy to rescue another dog right now?” I said, “It’s absolutely crazy, but let’s do it.”

What is your zodiac sign?
My birthday is July 28. I’m a Leo. I am a Libra rising and a Scorpio moon. My daughter shares two of my three signs. She’s not a Leo. She’s an Aries sun, but she is Leo moon and Libra rising, just like me.

Do you see yourself in her?
I see myself a little bit in her. She’s got one dimple on her left cheek, like I do. Other than that, though, I see Kaley. Kaley says she sees me, but when Matilda’s kind of confused or frustrated about something, she makes these faces and I’m like, “Oh my god, there’s your mom.”

[From W Magazine]

To be fair to Tom, Kaley has said she’d never seen him on Ozark, either. Anyway, it’s all super cute and I’m rooting for them. Generally I am skeptical about relationships that move so quickly, or when the gush level gets out of control (case in point: Tom Cruise circa 2005). But so was my mama, and then she said she had a full on thunderbolt moment the first time she saw my father — does it get any sexier? My mama also happens to be an Aries, one of many dynamic Aries women my life has been blessed with. Matilda is in good company.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tom Pelphrey (@tommypelphrey)