We’re six weeks out from a too-close-for-comfort highly consequential presidential election. Is now really the best time to be messing with our coffee routines?!?! The good folks at Yahoo! (assisted by a medical review from Simone Harounian, MS) seem to think so! I shouldn’t be so hard on them, they just want to make sure we don’t get dehydrated. The theory is, since coffee has caffeine and caffeine is a diuretic, the beverage has the potential to be dehydrating. The good news is, “moderate” coffee consumption, about 3-4 cups a day, should not lead to dehydration, especially if you balance out the coffee intake with water or electrolyte drinks. Ok, I’m less jumpy now that they’re not telling me us to cut coffee entirely. Here’s more on the science percolating beneath the cup:

Caffeine is the culprit: Caffeine acts as a diuretic, increasing urine production and potentially leading to a more significant loss of fluids. The kidneys act like filters, cleaning waste and excess fluids from your blood through small tubes called glomeruli. Consuming caffeine can help these tiny tubes stay open and clean your blood more efficiently. However, this can also impact how much water the body holds onto or gets rid of. Increased filtration lets your kidneys release more water, causing you to pee more often. Caffeine can also stop the kidneys from reabsorbing sodium and interfere with the kidneys’ communication with the liver, further affecting urine output. If excessive coffee consumption isn’t balanced with adequate water intake, you might experience symptoms of dehydration.

Tolerance, moderation, balance: The caffeine found in coffee may increase urine production, but clinical evidence suggests its diuretic effects are relatively mild, especially for routine coffee drinkers. Coffee lovers who routinely enjoy a cup of coffee may build a tolerance to its diuretic effects. While coffee may initially increase urine output, it’s not likely to cause significant dehydration in people who drink it regularly. Most studies recommend consuming coffee in moderation and balancing your intake with other fluids. Some research defines moderate consumption as 3-4 cups of coffee daily.

5 cups or more could lead to dehydration: Moderate consumption is not likely to cause dehydration in most people. However, drinking too much coffee may lead to dehydration. High intakes of coffee, such as 5-6 cups or more daily, may have a more pronounced diuretic effect due to the influx of caffeine, increasing urine output and fluid loss. This increased fluid loss could surpass your overall fluid intake, causing dehydration. … Signs of dehydration may include thirst, dry mouth, reduced urine output, dark yellow urine, dry skin, headache, fatigue, and dizziness. However, more severe cases of dehydration can lead to symptoms like confusion, sunken eyes, and rapid heart rate.

Be mindful! When dehydrated, it’s essential to hydrate with fluids that help replenish lost body water and electrolytes. … If you notice signs of dehydration, such as dry mouth, lethargy, dark urine, or headache, you may need to decrease your coffee intake and prioritize hydrating drinks like plain water or sports drinks. Maintaining a mindful approach to coffee consumption ensures you can enjoy your morning cup of joe without compromising your hydration status.

[From Health]

Whoever had “mindful” down for the scientific advice on coffee drinking just won Bingo! Be very mindful and only imbibe very demure portions! But seriously, I can handle this news, and appreciate it not being another round of cautions to delay or reduce coffee consumption for certain stretches of time. I usually drink 2-3 cups a day, so I’m safely in the zone of moderation (for once). Plus I’ve got the balance-with-water end of things down. If you know me by now, you’ll recall that this year I’ve really upped my water intake as part of my big health initiative to support the robust, very much not-demure amount of potato chips I consume. Science is science. Of course doctors also warn that we don’t want to go down the road of overhydration, either. The ratio of coffee to water (to potato chips) must be maintained with Goldilocks precision. Operating a human body is so much fun.

Photos credit: IMAGO/Eibner-Pressefoto/Memmler / Avalon, Diamond/Backgrid, Aissaoui Nacer/Backgrid

Kathy Bates scared the sh-t out of us rang alarms bells a few weeks ago when she told The New York Times that she would be retiring after the newly rebooted Matlock. As I’ve said before, Kathy Bates has more than earned a retirement. She’s gifted us with decades of pathos, hilarity, and batsh-t crazy. My disappointment in her announcement comes down to pure selfishness and greed. I want more Bates! Luckily for us, Kathy heard our collective weeping and clarified that she would keep acting as long as Matlock is running. She also teased that there was a juicy twist in this reboot which was a big part of her wanting to come back to play Madeline “Matty” Matlock. Now that the great twist has been revealed with the first episode airing last Sunday (no spoilers here! I won’t get into any specifics), Kathy is talking about her excitement with the material, acting, and being ready to get some fan recognition again:

On how long she’ll keep acting in Matlock: “As long as I’m physically able to,” says the 76-year-old. “I look at Betty White and I think, ‘Well, maybe. Maybe I could make it that far.’ I certainly love working on this show, and I love the complexity of the character. I love working with this cast, especially Jennie [Snyder Urman] because she’s such a brilliant writer, she hasn’t let us down once. So, yes, if all those systems are a go, if I am in good shape and the scripts are wonderful and all of that, which I anticipate they will be.”

Tourists on the Paramount lot didn’t recognize her: “I thought they’d recognize me immediately when I was on my golf cart sailing by to go someplace,” she says. “I couldn’t even get their attention, you know? I’d be waving and they’d look right at me, and nobody would see who I was, and it got so frustrating. And I thought, ‘Well, maybe when this damn thing comes out they’ll know who I am again.’”

Matty brings a human touch to dealing with clients: “But in a deeper way, she doesn’t have an iPhone between her and the person that she’s talking to, you know? She’s one on one with people, in person, where she can see them in their environment and she picks up on their characteristics as a way for her to be able to talk to them and charm them, and I think a lot of that certainly is lost.”

The ‘addiction’ of acting: “I hate to call it an addiction but even when I got this part, at first I thought, ‘Oh, I don’t know.’ And then I hung up the phone and I was waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the script and I thought, ‘You know, it’s never going to change for me, I’m always going to be excited to pick up the next script, to see what’s the challenge? Is this something I can do?’ This is one of the most challenging roles I’ve ever played, and I fret over it, I fuss over it, it’s a tremendous amount of work, and I wonder every day if I’ve risen to the challenge, if I’ve done everything I can. Anyway, I guess I’ve said it all.”

[From Parade]

“You know, it’s never going to change for me, I’m always going to be excited to pick up the next script, to see what’s the challenge?” Yeah, between that quote and being inspired by Betty White’s longevity, Kathy is so not done with acting. Yay for us! Now onto a debriefing for Matlock 2.0, episode one. I thought Kathy really captured the folksy, unassuming character that Andy Griffith’s Matlock had — the person clients and witnesses open up to because they don’t see the cunning attorney behind the southern charm. It was also fun watching Kathy’s character pick up info and then use it to manipulate the people around her. But in a delightful way! That said, they’re asking us to suspend a whole lotta disbelief that she would be hired at a Manhattan law firm after not practicing for 30 years. Even with the ageism argument she lobbies at them, it’s still a stretch imo. And then there’s the twist of it all. I did not see it coming! Is it another element that’s a bit hard to believe? For sure, but I’m still intrigued and most importantly, I want to see Kathy having fun. If you missed it, you can stream the first episode now on Paramount+. And you have plenty of time to catch up, because the show will be on recess until October 17. Court (of public opinion) now dismissed.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Matlock (@matlockcbs)

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Nicky Nelson/Wenn/Avalon, Ryan Hartford/INSTARimages.com, Getty and via Instagram/MatlockCBS

Saoirse Ronan has a pair of awards-bait films out this year. [LaineyGossip]
Taylor Swift skipped the Chiefs game on Sunday! [Just Jared]
I love a leopard print, but Ciara’s ensemble is too much of a good thing (I would wear the hell out of the coat though). [RCFA]
Kim Kardashian visited the Menendez brothers in prison. [Socialite Life]
I enjoyed Challengers & it’s definitely worth watching on Prime! [Pajiba]
Joshua Jackson is a fine wine. [Go Fug Yourself]
Would you wear “hairy toe charms” on your Crocs? [OMG Blog]
Henry Winkler is so lovely. [Seriously OMG]
Do you think Kim Porter’s family will ever get justice? [Hollywood Life]
It’s really cool to me that Sylvie (and not Emily) is the best-dressed character on Emily in Paris. Sylvie is so great, I love her. [Buzzfeed]

Martha Stewart and Ina Garten have known each other for decades. Not surprising, considering they’ve built their respective NY-based brands in similar fields, though Ina has kept her focus on cooking whereas Martha sought dominance over home arts at large. As fate would have it, both of them have biographical projects coming out next month: Ina’s memoir Be Ready When the Luck Happens on October 1, and the Netflix documentary Martha on October 30 (whether the real Martha likes it or not). So these women are knee-deep in promotional duties, to the point where they’re even overlapping. The New Yorker recently ran an article on Ina, and they called on Martha for some comments. This is standard practice for profiles, and it’s generally understood that the people contacted offer positive anecdotes on the main profile. But not our Martha! Instead Martha told the magazine that Ina snubbed her when she went to prison, and that it was terribly “unfriendly” of the contessa.

“When I was sent off to Alderson Prison, she stopped talking to me,” Stewart said. “I found that extremely distressing and extremely unfriendly.” (Although she maintained her innocence, Stewart was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction and two counts of lying to investigators related to her involvement in an insider trading scandal in 2004. She was sentenced to five months in prison, five months of home confinement and two years of supervised probation.)

While Garten “firmly” denied Stewart’s recollection of the end of their friendship, Stewart’s longtime publicist, Susan Magrino, maintained that Stewart was “not bitter at all” about the fallout.

“There’s no feud,” Magrino, 62, told The New Yorker.

Stewart and Garten first crossed paths in the early ‘90s after Stewart was shopping at the latter’s now-closed Barefoot Contessa store in East Hampton, New York.

“We were in a gigantic black Suburban,” Chip Gibson, who was head of Crown Publishing at the time, told The New Yorker. “And suddenly she veered almost crashingly to the curb and said, ‘I’ve got to get lemon squares.’”

“My desk was right in front of the cheese case and we just ended up in a conversation,” Garten told TIME of their meeting in 2017. “We ended up actually doing benefits together where it was at her house and I was the caterer, and we became friends after that.”

Stewart later connected Garten with an editor, who would go on to work with the future Food Network star on her first cookbook, The Barefoot Contessa. Nearly one decade after meeting, Stewart introduced viewers to Garten during a 1999 episode of her Martha Stewart Living.

Stewart also penned the foreword of Garten’s cookbook, in which she wrote, “It took a while, but I finally understood what motivated Ina, realizing that here was a true kindred spirit with really similar but unique talents.”

Additionally, Stewart’s production company tried to help launch Garten’s television career on the Food Network with a show whose working title was Someone’s in the Kitchen With Ina. However, after a director called her out for taking a bite of food on camera and speaking with her mouth full, Garten said she decided TV wasn’t for her and the show was shelved.

She would later go on to star on the network’s hit cooking show Barefoot Contessa, which ran from 2002 to 2021.

Though rumors of bad blood between the pair have plagued them for years, Garten hasn’t shied away from praising Stewart.

“I think she did something really important, which is that she took something that wasn’t valued, which is home arts, and raised it to a level that people were proud to do it and that completely changed the landscape,” she previously told TIME. “I then took it in my own direction, which is that I’m not a trained professional chef, cooking is really hard for me — here I am 40 years in the food business, it’s still hard for me.”

[From Us Weekly]

You know who I feel for? Martha’s publicist! “There’s no feud! Martha’s not bitter! Nothing to see here!” I don’t think this story will damage either Ina or Martha’s reputations; if anything I think each woman comes out maintaining her publicly-perceived image. But I must ask, what was Ina expecting?! I mean, we’re talking about the same Martha Stewart who criticized Ina for being pro cosmo-drinking as we were all muddling through the pandemic (a comment Martha made while launching a chardonnay line, btw). The same Martha Stewart who’s ready for her friends to die so she can date their husbands. I think it’s fair to say that if you’re turning to Martha for a character reference, that gamble is entirely on you. The real scoop of The New Yorker article, in my opinion, is the account of Martha nearly crashing into the Barefoot Contessa yelling, “I must have lemon squares!!!” I need a dramatization of this event put on screen STAT.

PS — I simply adore the title Someone’s in the Kitchen With Ina.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Martha Stewart (@marthastewart48)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by TODAY (@todayshow)

photos via Instagram and credit: Jennifer Graylock-Graylock.com / Avalon

Prince William was in Aberdeen late last week to check in on his big Homewards program. Homewards is basically the Royal Foundation handing out money to various homeless shelters, only instead of just highlighting the work of those shelters, William wants credit for being the savior of homeless people and he spent months centering himself in the issue. Homewards was launched in June 2023, and William’s visit last week was supposed to be a “one year later” check-in (only it was 15 months later). While he was in town, William hosted a Homewards event at a controversial venue. How controversial? Well, the headlines have “Prince William” and “cocaine” together.

Prince William has been slammed after hosting an event at a Scottish venue with close ties to a well-known convicted drug dealer. The heir to the throne held talks at the Union Kirk in Aberdeen city centre as part of a promotional push for his anti-homelessness project Homewards – despite the venue’s links with cocaine dealer Paul Clarkson.

Clarkson is the son of Portugal-based publican Stuart Clarkson, who owns a number of boozers in the granite city, including the Union Kirk. Paul Clarkson was in April this year ordered to pay back the £65,000 he was accused of making in profit from pushing the Class A drug, of which the courts said he had paid back £40,000.

In December 2021, he was sentenced to eight months in prison after being caught with more than £1600 worth of cocaine – which he claimed to have been selling to fund his own habit – at a lockdown-busting party at one of his dad’s venues, the Draft Project. Documents show Aberdeen City Council received scores of complaints about the venue, with the Clarkson family blamed for encouraging lockdown breaches when Covid was still rife.

One furious Aberdeen local told the Sunday National he thought it was “absolutely disgusting” William had visited the Union Kirk last week, owing to its ownership by the Clarkson family.

He said: “Even the local bobbies were disgusted. Terrible message to send to people.”

Graham Smith (below), head of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, said the visit called into question Prince William’s judgement. He said: “Prince William’s homeless project has been all show and little substance from the start. So it doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t bothered to do some due diligence on who he’s working with. This obviously raises questions as to what money was paid for the use of the facilities and what kind of operation William is backing when the people involved have less than stellar reputations. There must be lots of other venues and charities that could have hosted the event. Why did he choose that one?”

Another Aberdeen resident quipped: “With Charlie being his dad, it makes perfect sense for Prince William to visit.”

[From The National]

I found this slightly confusing – from what I gather, Stuart Clarkson (the father) is the one who owns the pubs and venues, and Stuart Clarkson’s son Paul Clarkson is the one who went to prison for dealing coke. Stuart Clarkson is also being accused of allowing his pubs and venues to be used during the pandemic to flout social-distancing and lockdown rules, and Paul was caught in one of his father’s pubs with all of that cocaine. It sounds like the dad owns the pubs and lets his son deal out of them. Wonder how these establishments got on William’s radar, huh? I mean, I could very easily come up with explanations for why William shouldn’t catch a lot of heat for this, but think about what the British media would do if Harry and Meghan hosted an event at a venue owned and operated by a coke dealer and his dad.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

I will always want to give Janet Jackson the benefit of the doubt. Her musical impact is major and majorly underrated. I still believe Rhythm Nation is one of the best albums of all time. Her career was undermined and almost destroyed by very powerful people. My point is that there’s every reason to give Janet the benefit of the doubt. But we can also call bullsh-t on her, because she just said some really f–ked up sh-t to the Guardian. The bulk of the Guardian’s interview/profile is about her life as a divorced mom living in London and her career. She apparently has to live in London because her son’s father Wissam Al Mana is London-based, and I would assume that those were the terms of her divorce from Wissam. Janet “crinkled her nose” when asked if she enjoys living in London. That’s backstory for what everyone’s talking about, which is that Janet is extremely misinformed on the American election. I have no idea what media she’s consuming in England, but it’s bad. Here’s the relevant portion, with everything in context:

We move on to talk about the state of the nation. Jackson brought politics directly to the pop consciousness with Rhythm Nation, which addressed racism, poverty and inequality – all issues just as urgent today as they were 35 years ago. She is a prolific social media user, and has used her profile to support Black Lives Matter, to bring awareness to police brutality. Does she feel despondent about how slow change is in coming or is she hopeful about the future?

“Well, there’s all this child trafficking crap that’s going on and sex trafficking crap, you know what I mean, that wasn’t so prevalent then?” It’s a strange about-turn, not least because of the many allegations of child sexual abuse made against Michael. But it is also the most forceful she has been since we sat down. “At least, we didn’t know about it back then. I don’t think we did, did we? Not really. I think it’s really now out in the open, because it’s like a billion-dollar business and all that crap.”

I wonder what internet rabbit holes she’s been going down, but, before I can ask, she’s moved on. “On [the Rhythm Nation album], for us, it was about making a difference in a kid’s life, a teenager’s life, from them taking this path with drugs and going down the wrong street to trying to make something of themself.”

On that record she sang about “joining voices in protest to social injustice” and “pushing toward a world rid of colour lines”. I wonder where she stands on the forthcoming election. After all, I say, America could be on the verge of voting in its first black female president, Kamala Harris.

“Well, you know what they supposedly said?” she asks me. “She’s not black. That’s what I heard. That she’s Indian.”

She looks at me expectantly, perhaps assuming that I have Indian heritage. “Well, she’s both,” I offer.

“Her father’s white. That’s what I was told. I mean, I haven’t watched the news in a few days,” she coughs. “I was told that they discovered her father was white.”

I’m floored at this point. It’s well known that Harris’s father is a Jamaican economist, a Stanford professor who split from her Indian mother when she was five. “My mother understood very well that she was raising two black daughters,” Harris wrote in her book The Truths We Hold.

The people who are most vocal in questioning the facts of Harris’s identity tend to be hardcore QAnon-adjacent, Trump-loving conspiracy theorists. I don’t think Jackson falls into that camp, but I do wonder what the algorithms are serving her. I start again. Harris has dual heritage, I say, and, given this moment, does Jackson think America is ready for her – if we agree she’s black? Or, OK, a woman of colour?

“I don’t know,” Jackson stage whispers. “Honestly, I don’t want to answer that because I really, truthfully, don’t know. I think either way it goes is going to be mayhem.”

She doesn’t think there will be a peaceful transition of power?

“I think there might be mayhem,” she falters. “Either way it goes, but we’ll have to see.”

[From The Guardian]

I chuckled at the Guardian writer basically writing “what in the QAnon bullsh-t am I hearing now??” And that’s what it is, this has all of the hallmarks of Janet falling down a particularly batsh-t QAnon rabbit hole – the trafficking comments, the eagerness to spin/amplify conspiracies around a Black woman’s race, the ambivalence when suggesting that there will be a bloody insurrection again. And since people are dumb (including Janet, apparently), let’s say it again for the record: Kamala Harris is Black and Indian. She’s both. Her father is a Black man from Jamaica. Her mother was an Indian immigrant. Janet needs to stop falling down QAnon rabbit holes.

Throughout Sunday, this story got even more bonkers when a man claiming to be Janet’s manager apologized for Janet’s comments, saying in part: “Janet Jackson would like to clarify her recent comments. She recognizes that her statements regarding Vice President Kamala Harris’ racial identity were based on misinformation. Janet respects Harris’ dual heritage as both Black and Indian and apologizes for any confusion caused.” Then a few hours later, Janet’s actual manager (her brother Randy) said this guy does not represent Janet and that the apology is not real or authorized. So… even days/weeks after the interview went down, Janet apparently feels no need to backtrack or clarify. Very strange.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Prince Harry is in New York this week, doing high-level and high-profile events and meetings with a multitude of charities and NGOs. He is a busy man who works with a variety of important causes, from landmines to conservation to mental health and children’s health. Obviously, Harry doesn’t have to go to CNN and the Daily Mail and beg them to refer to him as a global statesman. Harry IS a global statesman and an internationally recognized philanthropist and advocate. Meanwhile, Harry’s brother and sister-in-law are still trying to relaunch themselves (in a very sad way) yet again to an American audience.

The Prince and Princess of Wales have set their sights on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s home turf as they relaunch plans for their charitable foundation in the US. The royal couple were so keen to win the necessary approval for registering the foundation’s brand from the American trademark authorities that they broke into their summer holiday to complete vital paperwork, The Mail on ­Sunday can reveal. Their foundation’s focus is now on mental health.

Insiders say that the ambitious move is further evidence that the Princess, 42, is ‘on the road to recovery’ from cancer as she prepares for a return to ‘light duties’ after completing chemotherapy.

It raises the prospect of a trip to the US, where Prince Harry and Meghan live in California, although it is stressed there are no immediate plans to travel overseas. The couple last crossed the Atlantic in 2022 for William’s environmental project The Earthshot Prize.

Now the MoS can reveal a US lawyer acting for Kensington Palace has reignited the [foundation’s] proposals. American projects previously focused on the illegal wildlife trade. But an application to the US Patent and Trademark Office last year instead emphasised ‘campaigning’ and ‘fundraising’ linked to ‘mental health initiatives’. It also included an unusual request for ‘printed race numbers, clothing, footwear, headgear’, prompting speculation the couple, both keen runners, were planning to host a charity fun run in the US.

In March, their trademark was refused over technicalities. It was the same month the Princess revealed she had been diagnosed with cancer, and the application has lain dormant for five months. But after good news about her progress, a lawyer restarted the process . Palace sources say the trademark is ‘internal housekeeping’ and the Royal Foundation has no immediate plans to launch a US mental health initiative.

But Royal commentator Richard Palmer said: ‘Given speculation that the Princess might never return to full-time work, this is a positive sign that she and William have hopes of expanding the Royal Foundation in the US. Perhaps [it]wants to raise its profile to tap into American philanthropists?’

Joe Little, of Majesty Magazine, added: ‘It’s another sign that the Princess is on the road to recovery. Clearly a lot of thought and planning has gone into this application, and we can only interpret this as a positive step.’

[From The Mail]

Remember when William and Kate’s Boston trip was supposed to be their big, splashy, thunder-stealing trip which would knock the Sussexes back on their heels? LMAO. Remember William’s trip to New York last year, where he lied about going for a run and the mayor canceled on him? Yeah. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that William wants to try to relaunch himself in America and make more visits to North America. Kate does not, she doesn’t want to travel anymore and that’s something no one can admit outloud. But sure, trademark applications are tricky, I’m glad the Mail is figuring that out! And it’s funny that Will and Kate want credit for stepping away from their summer holiday to “complete vital paperwork.” The bar is in hell, as always.

It’s also still amazing to me that: William is skipping the Earthshot busywork in New York this year (because Harry’s there) and that he skipped the Tusk Trust fundraiser in the Hamptons in August. While Huevo is desperate to have what Harry has in America (respect & attention), William is also just fundamentally too lazy to actually follow through.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

The Hollywood Reporter recently published a bizarre “hit piece” on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. While THR has been extremely snide about the Sussexes several times now, the Rambling Reporter’s “Why Hollywood Keeps Quitting on Harry and Meghan” came across as six-year-old stale tea from British reporting, with “sources” claiming that Meghan marches around the office, barking orders and making grown men weep. One of the big tells was that THR repeated the “Duchess Difficult” moniker which was started in 2018 by the racists working for Prince William and Kate. It really did feel like THR’s whole piece was sourced out of Kensington Palace… circa 2018-19. Meanwhile, the Sussexes have lived and worked in Montecito for more than four years. Well, there’s some pushback. And now I have a hard time believing that the Sussexes’ team would decide to push back on THR’s story… by talking off the record to GB News? Really? Not Variety? Not Deadline? Anyway, this is seemingly rare pushback from Team Sussex, so enjoy:

Allegations about Meghan Markle’s attitude to her staff have been labelled “fabrications” by Archewell insiders, GB News can exclusively reveal. A damning report published by The Hollywood Reporter had labelled Meghan “Duchess Difficult” and alleged “everyone’s terrified” of her as scathing claims about working conditions under the Sussexes came to light.

The outlet had included source quotes saying the duchess “marches around like a dictator in high heels, fuming and barking orders” – while in the past, Meghan herself has called comments on her so-called “bullying behaviour” a “calculated smear campaign”.

But now, GBNews.com has unearthed fresh details which look to have put the claims to bed in a new twist in the staffing saga. GB News has been handed an absolute denial of the allegations – as well as Meghan’s message to her employees – and has confirmed with several current staffers that the “Duchess Difficult” moniker has never been used.

One Archewell source, who asked not to be named, said: “These quotes were fabricated by someone lacking knowledge of our company. The duke and duchess work from Montecito, and we’re based in Hollywood. They likely think we’re all in the same office and that this quote would fly, but the circumstances don’t even allow for it. If she’s ‘marching around’ and ‘barking orders’, no Archewell employee could factually claim that… It’s total nonsense.”

The Duchess of Sussex had also been targeted by claims that she had filed “angry” 5am emails to employees. In response, another source said: “Who hasn’t sent an email when they can’t sleep or are awake early? I’ve never once ever gotten an email from either of them at that hour – and even if I did, the duchess specifically notes in her email signature that everyone has a different working day, and to not feel obligated to respond outside of normal business hours. These source quotes don’t make any sense!”

In another condemnation of the claims, GB News understands that Meghan’s email signature contains the phrase: “My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obliged to reply to this email outside your normal working hours.”

[From GB News]

This is a solid rebuttal and I genuinely hope it’s from someone connected to Archewell. I just wish it was in Variety or Deadline, you know? Why are Sussex sources going to GB News of all places? This whole storyline has been bizarre, another asinine piece of the larger narrative the British media has been trying to force for years: that the Sussexes have not been welcomed in “Hollywood,” that they could be “kicked out” and “sent back to Britain.” It is not happening. As for Meghan’s alleged sign-off… I believe that too, and she probably started using it when she moved back to California. Those British people acted like they had never received an off-hours text or email from their boss or coworker ever. They’re still crying about it.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Sometimes, it really does feel like we all collectively entered some wormhole in 2016 and time makes no sense anymore. For the better part of a DECADE, we’ve been dealing with Donald Trump and his MAGA cult. Think about that. Nine years of dealing with the violent cult of personality around Trump, a cult of ignorance and hate, a cult of racism and misogyny, a cult of fraud and lies. We talk a lot about what a “second Trump presidency” would look like as a very real scare tactic, but what will it look like if Trump loses in November? What happens to his cult after their orange god loses the popular vote for the third time and the presidency for the second time? The con man turned 78 years old this summer. He will be 82 years old in 2028. Would he run again, or pass the torch to some deranged heir? Well, Trump is telling people that he will not run again if he loses.

Republican Donald Trump said that he will not make a fourth consecutive run for the U.S. presidency if he loses the Nov. 5 election, saying “that will be it” in an interview released on Sunday.

Asked if he saw himself running again in four years if he is not successful in his third consecutive bid for the White House, the 78-year-old former president told Sharyl Attkisson’s “Full Measure” program: “No I don’t. I think that will be — that will be it. I don’t see that at all. Hopefully, we will be successful.”

Trump faces a tight race against Democratic U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, with polls showing the two neck-and-neck in key battleground states that are likely to be decisive in determining the winner, even as Harris has begun to edge up in nationwide polls.

Trump launched his first reelection bid for the 2020 election the same day he was inaugurated in 2017 and announced his latest White House bid two years ago in November 2022.

Asked whether the four year break helped him regroup and figure out who he could trust as allies, Trump said: “It would have been easier if I did it … contiguous.”

“But the benefit is more than anything else, it shows how bad they were,” he added.

[From Reuters]

Do you believe him? The thing is, if he loses this year, that’s pretty much game over for him – chickens will come home to roost, finally. He’s got indictments and court cases up the wazoo. He’s hemorrhaging money on legal bills and civil and federal penalties. Some say that Trump isn’t just running this year to make his court cases go away, that it’s also a money-making venture for him, that he’s using campaign money to pay his legal expenses and debts. Hopefully, by 2028, he’ll be in prison.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red, mug shot.

Prince Harry is already in New York! He was in California on Friday evening, attending and speaking at Kevin Costner’s fundraiser-concert in Carpinteria. Then on Saturday, Harry arrived in New York. We do not have access to any of the photos, but on Saturday evening, he attended the WHO dinner in New York, ahead of the start of the UN General Assembly High-Level Week He met with Queen Mathilde of Belgium and other dignitaries and advocates for ending violence against children. You can read more about the event and the cause here. Additionally, the Telegraph had a preview of two of Harry’s events in NYC this week. He plans to highlight his work with The Diana Award and the HALO Trust.

When he was 18, the Duke of Sussex vowed to finish the work started by his mother, Princess Diana. More than two decades on, he remains true to his word. On Monday, he will take to the stage before a global audience to champion two causes intrinsically linked to her legacy: landmines and young people.

Prince Harry, 40, will be the star guest at five high-profile events held over two days in New York during UN General Assembly High-Level Week and Climate Week, which will also see him focus on conservation, sustainable travel and the many crises facing the tiny African country of Lesotho. But it will be his first two appearances that honour that birthday pledge; when he steps out on behalf of the Diana Award, which works to create positive change for young people, and the Halo Trust, the charity for which the late Princess famously issued a clarion call for action by walking through an Angolan minefield in 1997.

Tessy Ojo, the chief executive of the Diana Award, hailed the Duke’s continuing support as “truly priceless”, while the Halo Trust said that in a time of “unprecedented conflict” the Duke’s voice was needed “more than ever”.

The appearances will come amid a flurry of activity for the Duke, marking something of a shift in his public profile as he takes centre stage, solo, to further his own charitable causes. Travelling without the Duchess of Sussex, he will undertake a busy schedule somewhat evocative of his days as a working royal, with back-to-back charity engagements in place of glitzy award ceremonies and television interviews.

When he steps out at the Sheraton Hotel in Times Square on Monday morning, he may well cast his mind back to that pledge [to make his mother proud]. The Duke’s first engagement of the week will be on behalf of the Diana Award, a charity set up to reflect the late Princess’s belief that young people can change the world – and the only one to bear her name. He will take part in a panel discussion with Christina Williams and Chiara Riyanti Hutapea Zhang, two young recipients of the Diana Award, and Dr Ojo on the current mental health crisis engulfing young people.

The event coincides with the award’s 25th anniversary celebrations, and Dr Ojo said that the continuing support of both the Duke and the Prince of Wales was critical.

“It’s incredibly helpful to have people in positions of power, especially a non-political position, and especially in a system when young people are feeling more and more unheard and unseen, speak up for us,” she said. “To have people who have that platform, who have that power, not only to listen to young people but help amplify their voices, is truly priceless and we are deeply honoured and grateful to have both of them involved in our work, lending their voices to the challenges that young people face.”

[From The Telegraph]

There were equally supportive quotes from The HALO Trust people, basically that Harry is the real deal and he’s absolutely continuing his mother’s important work on landmines. This week is a very big deal for Harry – going solo to all of these significant events, highlighting his causes and speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative too. I hope we get a lot of photos!

Prince Harry at the WHO Dinner at the start of UN Week. pic.twitter.com/TIg3dL7JBT

— Dr. Zanye Omobolanle (@bookedbusy) September 23, 2024

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.