Prince Harry is involved in so many lawsuits against the British tabloids, even I get confused. This update is about Harry’s lawsuit against the Sun, which is part of News Group Newspapers, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in the UK. Harry is alleging the same thing across the board, which is that all of these media outlets hacked his phones, spied on him, gathered information about him illegally, stalked and harassed his girlfriends and friends, blagged, and on and on. Harry’s case against the Sun was of particular interest because Harry revealed that the Sun had secretly paid Prince William a seven-figure settlement in 2020, and that QEII had some kind of arrangement with the tabloids to not pursue legal action circa 2010-12. Well, here’s the update:

The Duke of Sussex’s claim over allegations of unlawful information gathering against the publisher of the Sun will go ahead to a trial, after a high court ruling. Harry, 38, alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World, and has launched a claim for damages.

At a hearing in April, NGN asked Mr Justice Fancourt to throw out the duke’s case, arguing it was brought too late because he should have known sooner he had a potential claim. In a ruling on Thursday, the judge concluded that Harry could not bring his claim relating to phone hacking, but that his claim over other allegations – including use of private investigators – should go ahead to a trial, which is due to take place in January next year.

The judge also refused to allow the duke to rely on an alleged “secret agreement” between the royal family and senior executives working for media mogul Rupert Murdoch as part of his claim.

In his written ruling, the judge concluded: “I am satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the duke proving at trial that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered facts that would show that he had a worthwhile claim for voicemail interception in relation to each of the News Of The World and the Sun. He already knew that in relation to the News Of The World, and he could easily have found out by making basic inquiries that he was likely to have a similar claim in relation to articles published by the Sun.”

Harry’s lawyers previously argued that NGN’s challenge to his claim was an attempt to go behind the alleged “secret agreement”, between the royal family as an institution and the publisher, which the duke was told of in 2012. Fancourt said in his ruling that the duke had not “provided any evidence from those in the palace who would have been aware of a secret agreement if there was one”.

At a hearing in London earlier this month, lawyers for the duke said there was evidence to support the existence of the agreement, including emails between senior executives at the Rupert Murdoch-owned parent companies of NGN and palace staff in 2017 and 2018. David Sherborne, for Harry, also said in written arguments the fact the Prince of Wales settled a claim against NGN “for a very large sum of money” in 2020 also “supports the contention that there was a secret agreement in place”.

[From The Guardian]

While I’m glad Harry’s case will go to trial – and this one is a solo venture, he’s not part of a case with multiple plaintiffs on this one – it does feel like the judge is kneecapping Harry’s lawsuit significantly. Harry’s argument was always: back then, in 2010-12, I didn’t ask questions, I did as I was told, and I was told that the palace had an agreement with NGN to avoid litigation and quietly settle. The judge is saying that Harry can’t make that argument because he doesn’t have evidence of a secret palace agreement. Like… the fact that William took a secret settlement in 2020 is the evidence. The fact that no royal before Harry openly sued the Sun for phone-hacking and criminal activities is the evidence of the secret agreement.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

While I find most of Blake Lively’s red carpet looks goofy, she usually does a good job at the Met Gala. To me, the Met Gala isn’t a costume ball, to borrow from red carpet bloggers Tom and Lorenzo. The “theme” should influence how people look but it shouldn’t always be super literal (except the one year when the theme was camp). You know, when Jared Leto showed up this year wearing a whole ass cat mascot costume, dressed as a six foot tall Choupette, I rolled my eyes so hard I almost gave myself an ocular migraine. I like that Blake’s looks reference the themes and are still dramatic without being completely costume-y. Her preferred aesthetic is also a bit “trophy wife” but if I looked like that I too would show off my hotness. Her 2022 look, which referenced the Statue of Liberty, featured a dramatic reveal on the stairs where the skirt got changed around. Now that gown is in an exhibit at Kensington Palace called Crown to Couture. It’s supposedly about how contemporary red carpet looks reference the 18th century Georgian period, an era between 1714 – roughly 1830. I don’t know that much about Georgian fashion so I’ll have to take their word for it, but it features dresses worn by everybody from Audrey Hepburn to Beyonce to Lizzo, so it’s probably worth seeing if you’re in London. When Blake visited the exhibit, she apparently thought the curators had made a mistake with how they displayed the dress. So she jumped over the rope and adjusted it herself!

On Tuesday, the Gossip Girl alum posted an Instagram story of her jumping over the ropes at the Crown to Couture exhibit in London’s Kensington Palace to quickly alter the display of her famous gown.

“When you’re the clown who hops over the rope at the museum to fix the exhibit,” Lively, 35, captioned over her video. “Happy almost Virgo season folx.”

“So that you see what the transformation was,” the actress added, while crouched down, before turning the inside of the dress to face outwards on its center part with some assistance from jewelry designer Lorraine Schwartz.

Lively’s dress appears alongside 200 other pieces at the exhibit inside Princess Diana’s former home, including Lizzo’s 2022 Met Gala Thom Browne look and Lady Gaga’s 2020 MTV Awards dress by Christopher John Rogers.

The exhibition also features a number of historic gowns as it tells the story of how rock and red carpet fashion has been influenced by the royals of the Georgian era in the 18th century.

The mom-of-four also took time to admire the crown Schwartz created for her to wear with the dress at the 2022 Met Gala.

“This was absolutely surreal. Seeing this crown that we made in Kensington Palace,” Lively captioned a follow-up post of her smiling beside a display cabinet. “I still feel like a kid playing dress up every time I get to wear a gown and borrowed jewels out. To see it memorialized like this… just. Wow. Something I’ll never forget.”

[From People]

There isn’t context in the clip from Instagram and it’s not on her stories anymore so I’m guessing she asked the exhibit staff for permission before she did this? The dress was custom-made for Blake and it’s not like she messed with one of the gowns from the 18th century. But still, it comes off a little bit rude to me. I’m sure whoever dressed that mannequin did it with great care. People who work as museum curators or conservationists typically have the most incredible attention to detail. They probably looked at dozens of reference photos and arranged the dress in a certain way on purpose. Plus, the exhibit space is different from the Met Museum steps, so it won’t look exactly like it did in that moment when the skirt changed around. I guess it is a Virgo-like thing to do. One of my friends is a Virgo and I lovingly refer to her as an Australian shepherd because she is always herding people and attempting to organize things according to her extremely high standards. But calling it “almost Virgo season” when it’s Leo season until the 23rd of August is…well, kind of something I’d expect from a fire sign like myself. We can’t stand not being in the spotlight.

As an aside, because this story involves Kensington Palace: I lived across the street from Kensington Palace when I studied abroad. We had a few sightings of the princes and Kate. One day my American classmate came home from the high street overjoyed because she’d just seen Prince Harry with his protection officer in TK Maxx buying underwear and socks. That was over ten years ago, so when he talked about shopping at TK Maxx in his book, I knew he was telling the truth, however implausible it seemed! (He preferred boxers, in case anyone wondered.)

photos credit: Backgrid and Instar

When SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher announced in mid July that the union was going on strike against AMPTP, she gave a barn-burner of a speech in a press conference. She laid it out clearly that this fight was about protecting labor against greedy corporations. Since that turning point actors have been organized and showing up on the picket lines and at rallies. On Tuesday Bryan Cranston joined a rally in New York’s Times Square, where he gave a passionate speech of his own, in which he name-checked Disney CEO Bob Iger and decried the use of AI to replace actors (all the more timely given Netflix’s latest job listing for an AI manager, annual salary $300 – $900K). Yahoo! Entertainment covered highlights of his speech:

Bryan Cranston delivered a fiery speech at a SAG-AFTRA strike rally in Times Square on Tuesday, which included a message directed at Disney head Bob Iger.

“We’ve got a message for Mr. Iger,” Cranston said from the stage of the “Rock the City for a Fair Contract” rally. “I know, sir, that you look [at] things through a different lens. We don’t expect you to understand who we are. But we ask you to hear us, and beyond that to listen to us when we tell you we will not be having our jobs taken away and given to robots. We will not have you take away our right to work and earn a decent living. And lastly, and most importantly, we will not allow you to take away our dignity! We are union through and through, all the way to the end!”

Cranston began his remarks by saying that there is one thing that all the guilds and the AMPTP fundamentally agree on: “Our industry has changed exponentially.”

“We are not in the same business model we were even 10 years ago,” he said. “And yet, even though they admit that is the truth in today’s economy, they are fighting us tooth and nail to stick to the same economic system that is outmoded, outdated! They want us to step back in time. We cannot and we will not do that.”

[From Yahoo! Entertainment]

I highly recommend watching the video of his speech below. There isn’t much more than what’s quoted above, but he delivers it so, so well. There are a few reasons why I think he’s an effective speaker for the striking actors. For one, he’s finally shaved. Go ahead and laugh at me, but before you do, imagine that Lorax mustache he was sporting at Cannes and tell me he would have had the same gravitas saying “we will not allow you to take away our dignity!” I rest my case.

Second, Cranston straddles a fine line that needs to be heeded from a pr standpoint. On the one hand it’s the successful minority of actors who attract visibility to the cause, but on the other hand, they have to guard against people thinking “oh it’s just rich celebrities wanting more money.” No, the celebrities are there in solidarity with the majority of their guild who are jobbing actors. Cranston is an excellent ambassador here, because while he’s undoubtedly “made it” now, it wasn’t until he was in his 40s that he landed the recurring role on Seinfeld. Which led to more bit parts in TV and film, which a few years later led to his break in Malcolm in the Middle. He knows what it is to be a jobbing actor, and he knows that career path is untenable now with the way streaming has upended the industry.

One final reason I find Cranston an intriguing advocate here: he’s also a director, with a nice resume of TV episodes under his belt. The DGA is the only one of the three guilds to have signed a new contract with AMPTP, a decision that is very rapidly living in infamy. As a union the directors have been conspicuously quiet since the actors joined the writers in striking. Et tu, DGA?

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Snoop Dogg canceled his Hollywood Bowl shows in solidarity with the WGA and SAG strikes. He also thinks the music industry needs to do something. [Just Jared]
Tom Cruise is winning the battle of striking stars. [LaineyGossip]
Doja Cat has lost 250K followers since she bitched out her fans. [Socialite Life]
Cheyenne Jackson is “swole” in a new thirst-trap. [OMG Blog]
Jeopardy might go on hiatus because of the strikes too. [Pajiba]
Robin Roberts outfit looks like it was done on a greenscreen. [Go Fug Yourself]
Would you eat mustard-flavored Skittles? Hork. [Seriously OMG]
I’m left with the impression that Alessandra Ambrosio just posts bikini photos on her social media, all day, every day. [Egotastic]
Funny tweets from women this summer. [Buzzfeed]
Again, everything about that SCOTUS case legalizing LGBTQ discrimination was a lie. It was some bigoted fever dream cooked up by the Federalist Society. [Towleroad]
What was your favorite Halle Bailey promotional look? [RCFA]

The current Princess of Wales has terrible style overall, but particularly when it comes to accessories and jewelry. She has a gift for putting the wrong earrings and necklaces with the wrong necklines, colors and styles. The rare times she is allowed to wear big pieces from the royal collection, she either f–ks up the styling completely or she just brings nothing modern to the table and wanders around, looking like an Edwardian ghost. Something else that I’ve noticed throughout Kate’s entire time as a royal woman: she has no idea how to wear big pieces and no one has ever bothered to teach her. All of which might be why Kate doesn’t get to wear the bigger Royal Collection pieces, even now that Queen Camilla is the keeper of the royal jewels. Well, one of Camilla’s fashion-industry allies, Suzy Menkes, also had some harsh words for Kate’s jewelry-style. This is so funny:

The Princess of Wales has been labelled a ‘disappointment’ in her approach to jewellery by a former Vogue editor. Suzy Menkes, 79, from Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, made the scathing comment on the latest episode of her podcast Creative Conversations. The prominent critic – who was awarded an OBE by the late Queen for her contribution to fashion journalism in 2014 – invited British Vogue’s jewellery editor Carol Woolton onto the show, where they discussed the Princess of Wales’ recent outfits.

The former Vogue International editor accused Kate, 41, of appearing indifferent to the collection of rare and precious jewels she is privileged to wear and said she doesn’t seem as passionate about jewels as her mother-in-law Camilla, 75.

She said: ‘The Princess of Wales is a bit of a disappointment about jewellery. She gives the impression that she only puts it on when she absolutely has to. I imagine her looking beautiful in one of those gowns behind the scenes and then pulling a face as if to say, “Do I have to wear this?” She doesn’t give any sense of adoring jewellery and being pleased to put it on.’

Furthermore, the fashion critic highlighted how Queen Camilla – who visited the Monica Vinader headquarters yesterday – seems much more interested in gems. Suzy added: ‘She doesn’t seem to have Camilla’s joy at wearing jewellery.’

However, the critic remains on the fence about whether Kate’s attitude towards jewellery will change as she edges closer to the throne. She continued: ‘We now have a new Queen, so presumably she has a first opportunity to look at the jewels. We can imagine that the next in line to the throne’s wife would be something that was very special, so will we see Catherine wearing jewellery that is more dramatic, that is more personal to her? I don’t know. I can’t help feeling with things of beauty, you either love it or you don’t.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I wouldn’t even say that Camilla finds joy in jewelry – I think Camilla’s joy is the victory itself, the fact that she won, that she’s queen (consort) and to the victor go the spoils. Now, Camilla has always worn big statement pieces, mostly because Charles gave her all of his grandmother’s jewelry, and now that she’s queen, she’s mixing and matching stuff from the Queen Mum’s collection and the Royal Collection. Meanwhile, Camilla is the one limiting Kate’s access to jewelry too – Kate didn’t even get to borrow any Royal Collection jewels for the coronation, for goodness sake. Anyway… I halfway agree that Kate’s jewelry-wearing is rather joyless. Her only real sartorial joy for years now has been copykeening Meghan.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar and Backgrid.

When President Biden and Dr. Biden first moved into the White House in 2021, their two German Shepherds stayed in Delaware for a time before moving in. Champ was the elderly dog and Major was the younger dog, the one the Bidens fostered and adopted from a Delaware shelter. Soon after the two dogs moved to the White House, Major had some “aggression issues,” or at least that’s what the Secret Service claimed. Major was possibly nipping at various people, if not biting them outright. In any case, Champ and Major both got sent back to Delaware. Champ ended up passing away, but Major is still living with friends or extended Biden family. Then President Biden’s brother gave him a German Shepherd puppy as a gift. The Bidens named the puppy Commander Biden. Commander was given all kinds of training… and it didn’t take. Or maybe the Secret Service people just suck and all the Biden dogs are like “f–k the police.” In any case, Commander is now in big trouble.

President Biden’s dog Commander has found himself in the doghouse after a series of incidents where he bit Secret Service officers on duty at the White House. The German shepherd bit several Secret Service agents a total of 10 times during the four-month period between October 2022 and January 2023, records show. One incident resulted in an agent getting sent to the hospital for treatment.

Tipped to the incidents, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit to get access to 194 pages of emails and texts where Secret Service agents and officials described aggressive encounters with Commander. For example, on Oct. 26, Commander charged at an agent while on a walk with first lady Jill Biden.

“The First Lady couldn’t regain control of Commander and he continued to circle me. I believe it’s only a matter of time before an agent/officer is attacked or bit,” an email about a Secret Service official said. The names of most agents and officials were redacted.

Days later, on Nov. 3, Commander bit an officer twice, once on the arm and then when the officer stood up, on the leg. The officer said they had to use a steel cart as a shield from another attack, and they were in pain after the incident.

The next month, the president himself was walking Commander in the Kennedy Garden, where he let the dog off leash. Commander ran to an agent and bit them twice, once on the left forearm and once on the thumb. The emails said Biden “seemed concerned” about the special agent, who continued to work the rest of their shift.

[From NPR]

If I remember correctly, Major was getting aggressive with different people, not just Secret Service agents. Like, Major might have nipped some household staff. It doesn’t sound like Commander is doing that – Commander is singularly focused on Secret Service agents. Which reminds me of a story I’ve always found so haunting: when Biden/Harris won in 2020, then President-Elect Biden asked the Secret Service to only put certain people on his detail and VP Harris’s detail – as in, he didn’t want any agents who were loyal to Trump in any way. Y’all know some of those MAGA people slipped through, though. They infiltrated every part of the federal government, Secret Service included. You may say that Commander is “too aggressive.” I say that he’s just looking out for his mom and dad. Dogs know when the vibe is off.

Welcome to the White House, Commander. pic.twitter.com/SUudQnPv29

— President Biden (@POTUS) December 20, 2021

Photos courtesy of the White House & Backgrid.

As we’ve discussed endlessly, the British commentary class lives in their own bubble where their lies and palace-issued talking points are their alternate reality. They want to believe that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are splitting up, that Harry and Meghan are almost broke and that the Sussexes are desperate to come crawling back to them. Instead of facing the reality – the Sussexes are fine, rich and happy in America – the commentators continue to push their multiverse version in the British media. That’s the only explanation for this mess from the Daily Mail’s Ephraim Hardcastle, one of the Mail’s columnists: “Will William shirk at welcoming Harry back to the royal fold?”

William, as Prince of Wales in receipt of £24million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall, enjoys a surplus which will diminish as he eventually bankrolls the households of his children.

But it would quickly disappear should Harry and Meghan return to the gilded cage. Willliam would have to fund their duties, housing costs and schooling of Archie and Lilibet.

According to Harry, that prospect was all too much for King Charles. He claimed in Spare that his dad baulked at the prospect of him marrying Meghan and warned he didn’t have ‘enough money’ to support them both.

Might William equally shirk at welcoming Harry back into the royal fold?

[From The Daily Mail]

Not only is this a deeply disturbing fantasy of what these people would like to happen – the Sussexes begging Peg for money and Peg turning them down – it’s also completely false when it comes to how royals are financed. If Harry returned to the UK – he’s not, but stay with me for this hypothetical – then Harry and his family would be funded by the monarch, not the Prince of Wales. When Charles was PoW, he wasn’t “funding” his siblings – the money for Anne, Andrew and Edward’s offices and upkeep came from the Sovereign Grant and the Duchy of Lancaster, both purviews of the monarch. It would be the same now that Charles is king – he would be responsible for funding his younger son’s office and lifestyle. Either way, I’m glad Harry and Meghan saw the writing on the wall and got the f–k out of there.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

It is still so funny to me that Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard make this big deal about “protecting their children from being photographed,” yet they are constantly telling their kids’ business to everyone. While I have no idea what Delta and Lincoln Shepard look like, I already know way too much about them, including how infrequently they bathe, and how they don’t shower until they “stink.” Well, for years, Kristen has been telling everyone that her kids drink non-alcoholic beers. She told the story again this week while appearing on The Kelly Clarkson Show, and Kristen added a new twist. Her daughters (aged 8 and 9 years old) actually order non-alcoholic beer in restaurants now.

Kristen Bell’s kids have very mature taste. While appearing on an episode of The Kelly Clarkson Show, the Good Place actress, 43, chatted with host Kelly Clarkson, 41, about letting her two daughters — Delta, 8, and Lincoln, 9 — drink non-alcoholic beers.

Although she admitted that it “sounds insane,” Bell said that “context is important,” since her 48-year-old husband Dax Shepard is a recovering addict.

“He’s a recovering addict,” Bell said of Shepard, “but he likes non-alcoholic beer, so he’d pop one open, he’d have [our oldest daughter] on his chest, and we’d walk and look at the sunset,” she told Clarkson. “As a baby, she was pawing at it, and sometimes she’d suck the rim of it. So I think it feels to her like something special, something daddy, something family.”

Bell went on to say that the drinks contain zero percent alcohol and that since establishing this routine, her kids have asked for non-alcoholic beer at restaurants.

“We’ve been at restaurants where she’s said, ‘Do you have any non-alcoholic beer?’ And I’m like, maybe we just keep that for home time,” said the actress.

“But then I’m sort of like, you can judge me if you want, I’m not doing anything wrong,” added Bell. “That’s your problem.”

[From People]

Kids that age just want to feel like grownups and they copy their parents’ behavior too. I loved ordering Shirley Temples when I was a kid because it felt like I was ordering a cocktail, like I was a grownup. I’ve seen teenagers order virgin pina coladas too, because it feels like a thrill, like they’re doing something naughty. Technically, Kristen is right – it’s not like she’s doing anything wrong. I mean, except for telling her daughters’ business to everyone. She and Dax should introduce their kids to Shirley Temples.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by kristen bell (@kristenanniebell)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Tori Kelly has been hospitalized with blood clots. [JustJared]
Selena Gomez is hitting her stride professionally across the board. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer. [Pajiba]
Jamie Dornan went back to his model roots for Loewe. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Honey Boo Boo is going to college? [Starcasm]
Ohio Republican doesn’t think his violent assault on his wife & brother-in-law is criminal, merely an unfortunate private matter. [Jezebel]
A look at some of the Women’s World Cup kits. [GFY]
Damson Idris wore Prada to a British Vogue party. [RCFA]
A boyfriend wants to put his girlfriend on a “payment plan” so she can pay him back for all of the money he’s spent on her. Girl, RUN. [Buzzfeed]
American Evangelicals are fueling the homophobic agenda in Europe. [Towleroad]

Even though the Princess of Wales has been part of the Firm for over twelve years, there really aren’t that many portraits of her. Sure, there were those photos she arranged for her 40th birthday. There was also a painting of Kate and William completely last year, I think? But beyond that, the only major solo portrait done of Kate was in 2013, and it was so bad that even pro-Waity people hated it. The painting was done by Paul Emsley and Emsley took one look at that wiglet and decided to paint Kate as a Victorian ghost, haunting all of Britain. Well, it took ten years, but Kate finally got that portrait shuffled away and out of sight. Per Eden Confidential:

When the first official royal portrait of the Princess of Wales was unveiled to the public a decade ago, Catherine was typically polite, describing Paul Emsley’s efforts as ‘brilliant, absolutely amazing’. The critics were less kind, however, condemning it as ‘ghastly…rotten… an out-and-out disaster’ in one case. Another remarked, acidly: ‘It’s only saving grace is that it’s not by Rolf Harris.’

Now, I can disclose that the work has been consigned to a store room at the National Portrait Gallery, even though it’s the London institution’s only solo painting of our future queen. It can be viewed ‘by prior appointment in our archive’.

Catherine is Royal Patron of the gallery in Trafalgar Square and rumours swirl that she may be secretly pleased the work is no longer on public view.

‘It’s unthinkable that the painting of Her Royal Highness would be removed from public view without consulting her,’ a source tells me. ‘That would be very discourteous. She is our greatly valued patron.’

The oil painting was given a prominent spot from its unveiling in 2013 until 2018. It was then lent for a touring exhibition around the world until the gallery closed for £35million of refurbishment work in 2020.

When the gallery was reopened last month by the Princess amid great fanfare, only two works featuring her image were left on display: a painting, by Jamie Coreth, of her side by side with her husband, Prince William, and a photograph by Paolo Roversi, an Italian fashion snapper, taken to mark her 40th birthday in 2022.

Emsley’s ‘dead-eyed’ painting, which sparked global controversy for making the Princess look older than her years, was not the only prominent royal portrait to disappear when the gallery reopened. Nicky Philipps’s 2010 painting of Princes William and Harry in their Household Cavalry mess uniform was removed from public display.

[From The Daily Mail]

I honestly haven’t looked at the painting in years, but I do remember the controversy at the time. The painting was never popular – people who had neutral or negative feelings about Kate found the painting creepy, and people who loved Kate thought the painting made her look old and pre-cosmetic surgery. I find it more interesting to think that perhaps Kate didn’t even have anything to do with the portrait being shuffled away. What if this is a larger message that, um, Kate is about to shuffled off somewhere too? There’s something in the air. I still say it’s notable that there are so few official portraits of Kate as well, especially now that she’s Princess of Wales.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.