Exactly four weeks ago yesterday on June 18, the OceanGate Titan submersible went down to view the wreckage of the Titanic with five passengers on board. Before two full hours passed the submersible had lost contact with their main ship, and by June 22 the Coast Guard confirmed that debris was found from a “catastrophic implosion” and that all passengers had perished. James Cameron–film director, deep-sea explorer, environmental advocate–waited until it was announced that the debris had been found before making any public comments. Aside from directing the 1997 film Titanic, he has legit credentials as a deep-sea expert, having visited the Titanic site 33 times, gone to the Mariana Trench and been an active participant in the development and engineering of submersibles. So when he finally spoke to say unequivocally that OceanGate should never have been allowed to operate, people listened. Some, it seems, listened and took away the wrong message, as Cameron had to take to his socials this weekend to deny that he is (or ever will be) working on an OceanGate film:

James Cameron is denying rumors that he’s going to be part of an OceanGate-film.

The Academy Award winner shared on his Instagram Story on Saturday that, despite rumors, he will not be working on a movie about the company behind the Titan submersible that imploded during a journey to the Titanic wreckage last month.

“I don’t respond to offensive rumors in the media usually, but I need to now,” the filmmaker wrote to his Instagram fans. “I’m NOT in talks about an OceanGate film, nor will I ever be.”

The Titanic director shared the sentiment on Twitter, too. His statement follows reports from the Daily Mail and The Sun about Cameron allegedly being approached for a series about the Titan submersible disaster.

On June 22, a search for the missing submersible that was traveling to the site of the Titanic wreckage ended when debris was found on the ocean floor that likely was caused by a “catastrophic implosion,” assumed to be that of Titan.

Five people were aboard the Titan when it disappeared and imploded on Father’s Day: OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, 61, British Pakistani billionaire Shahzada Dawood, 48, and his son Suleman Dawood, 19, British billionaire Hamish Harding, 58, and Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet, 77.

Days later, the U.S. Coast Guard revealed that “presumed human remains” were recovered while searching through the wreckage. What was believed to be remains “were carefully recovered” within the wreckage, and the Marine Board of Investigation (MBI) transported them for further analysis and testing.

[From People]

As “research” for this article I re-watched Titanic yesterday, and it really is so good. I remember going to see it in a packed cinema when it first came out, and I remember later having a two-tape VHS copy at home. What I didn’t clue into as a kid, that was so apparent to me watching the film now, is what a perfect commentary it is on class structure. There are the immigrant, poorer classes in steerage and in the belly of the ship keeping her fueled, literally making the ship run. But the gilded class enjoy all the finery (and eventually all the lifeboats). When he spoke last month Cameron noted the striking parallels between Titanic and OceanGate, citing hubris as a key example. I think there’s also a link between the disasters when it comes to class. I mean, those five passengers paid up to $250,000 each to take that trip.

So, do I think at some point there will be a movie made about this disaster? For sure. And it doesn’t come out of nowhere to connect James Cameron to such a project, his name in the conversation is logical, even if he never will partake (after all he is busy with the next Avatar: The Way of the Box Office and that $33 million ranch to sell). What is offensive, to borrow Cameron’s word choice, is to start this conversation when it’s been a mere month since the OceanGate disaster occurred. But, since the rumor was started by The Sun and Daily Mail, I assume the next story they’ll run is that the Sussexes are producing this (non-existent) film.

I don’t respond to offensive rumors in the media usually, but I need to now. I’m NOT in talks about an OceanGate film, nor will I ever be.

— James Cameron (@JimCameron) July 15, 2023

Photos credit: Cover Images, JPI Studios / Avalon

Something I still think about from time to time is that when Prince Philip passed away in 2021, he reportedly left behind a fortune somewhere in the vicinity of £30 million. We still don’t know how his estate was allocated because the British courts hushed it up really quickly, and his will won’t be made public for another 97 years. I bring that up because in addition to somehow accumulating £30 million while he was a working royal, Philip also got “special funding” from the British government to operate, to have a small staff and to travel. He received an annual lump sum of £369,000 throughout his marriage to QEII. And now… Queen Camilla will not receive that same amount.

The Queen will not receive Prince Philip-style personal funding from Parliament to fund her official duties, a report has confirmed. The late Duke of Edinburgh received an annual lump sum of £369,000 until his death, despite a change in the way the Royal family’s activities were funded by the taxpayer. However, a National Audit Office (NAO) report into the Royal household’s finances revealed that the cost of the Queen’s activities is met via the Sovereign Grant, with no additional financial input from the taxpayer.

The UK’s independent public spending watchdog on Friday published its spending and accountability report, examining the funding structures of the Royal family as part of its work to improve transparency. It noted that as the King’s “future programme of activities” had yet to be determined, his reign could “alter future funding needs in substantial ways” given that Elizabeth II had cut back on events and travel in recent years.

“Parliament provided Prince Phillip with a separate annuity worth £359,000 per annum,” it said. “Queen Camilla will not receive a separate annuity and the Queen’s activities will be funded from the grant.”

The old-style Civil List, the mechanism used to pay the late Queen and working members of the Royal family via Government grants to cover official expenses, was replaced in 2012 by the Sovereign Grant, which is based on a percentage of the Crown Estate’s profits. But the new legislation kept a provision for the Duke, who retired in 2017 and died in 2021, to carry on receiving his annuity for his lifetime. He was mentioned by name in the retained section of the previous Civil List Act 1952 and therefore the annuity is not transferable to Camilla, who would require new legislation to receive such funds.

The Sovereign Grant is reviewed every five years but currently stands at 25 per cent of the Crown Estate’s net surplus two years prior, which equated to £86.3 million for 2022-23. Ten per cent of that is used to fund the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

[From The Telegraph]

It’s very curious. Why was this arrangement made for Philip in the first place? Why wasn’t he always funded through the then-Civil List, and then the Sovereign Grant? It makes sense that Camilla wouldn’t get her own special funding, but it makes less sense that they kept Philip’s separate operational cost for decades. The only thing that makes any sense to me is the generational argument about husbands and wives, where it would have “looked bad” (at the time) for QEII to have authority over her husband’s finances. Now the worry is that King Charles is going to cut off all of his relatives and give everything to Camilla.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Even though I knew, intellectually, that the Windsors would go through some things when QEII passed away, I’ve been shocked by just how quickly the British royal family has seemingly lost all relevance and reverence. The lead-up to the London coronation was somewhat exciting,just because there was so much chaos with Buckingham Palace openly briefing the British media about Prince Harry’s possible attendance. As in, the palace was happy to make the whole bloody Chubbly all about the Sussexes. Sad. What was worse was watching, in real time, the short half-life of the small coronation “buzz.” The coronation happened on a Saturday morning. By the following Tuesday, most people had forgotten about it and the only follow-up stories were (again) about the Sussexes and how Meghan dared to step outside in Montecito.

Well, it was even worse this month when King Charles threw himself a “mini-coronation” in Scotland during Holyrood Week. At first, I was convinced that it was basically just a church service. Then the palace started hyping it as a super-important royal event, a Scottish coronation with Scottish royal jewels and all of that. The British papers once again used Prince Harry’s non-attendance as their framing device: look, there’s this big new royal event and HARRY ISN’T COMING. The papers couldn’t even keep up the pretense, and the mini-coronation was, at best, just some boring and tedious event. Speaking of, the viewership numbers for the mini-coronation were “staggeringly low.” LMAO.

The TV coverage of the Scottish “mini-coronation” for King Charles reached a “staggeringly low” audience of over two million viewers across the UK – only around a quarter of the number who tuned in for Elton John’s Glastonbury appearance.

The BBC screened a live programme, which was more than two hours long, to show the service of thanksgiving from St Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh on Wednesday July 5. The event to celebrate the King’s coronation included processions down the Royal Mile, a 21-gun salute, a flypast by the Red Arrows and a service in which the monarch was presented with the Honours of Scotland. However it also saw protests by anti-monarchy groups, and shouts of “not my King” could be clearly heard with the cathedral during key moments of the service.

Asked to provide the viewing figures, the broadcaster told The National that the coverage had “reached” over two million people across the UK, with the “strongest performance” in Scotland. In comparison, Elton John’s headline slot at Glastonbury Festival the week before was watched by 7.6 million viewers across the BBC, according to figures published by the Radio Times.

In May, the King’s coronation in London drew a peak audience of 20m in the UK – but the numbers were significantly lower than the 29m who watched Queen Elizabeth’s funeral.

Tristan Gray, convener of Our Republic, which was one of the groups protesting at the Edinburgh event, said: “I think it is really indicative of what we have been saying for a while now which is the vast majority of people, not just in Scotland but across the UK, have a pretty ambivalent view on the monarchy. They have no emotional or personal attachment to them and I think that undermines the legitimacy of the monarchy as an institution built to rule the UK. Their claim to rule has always been based on the fact they represent what Britain is and when you get such staggeringly low interest in Charles taking up his position it really shows that entire claim is built on quicksand.

Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Green party, which supports the abolition of the monarchy, said: “For all the time, energy and money spent on this spectacle, the King’s coronation could only manage half the viewership of Coronation Street. With people’s wages continuing to fall in real terms while their energy, food and housing bills are skyrocketing, it’s no surprise that a lavish tax-payer funded party for a billionaire didn’t hold much appeal. Increasing numbers of people in Scotland want to put this circus behind us, and build a modern, democratic republic where our head of state is chosen by and accountable to voters.”

[From The National]

The thing is, I’m not sure most people knew what the f–k the event was even supposed to be. I follow and cover royal news, and for weeks, I thought it was just going to be a simple church service, not a “mini-coronation.” It’s like the palace couldn’t decide how to promote the event or hype the story of Charles getting a second crown. It was also confusing because I think most people assumed that the London coronation WAS the Scottish coronation. As in, Charles had his formal ceremony being the crowned head of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It brought up questions like… is he going to throw himself a Welsh coronation? A Belfast coronation? Why did he need a Scottish coronation? But I also agree with the republican critics too – Chuck hasn’t even been king for a full year and people just stopped caring completely. His Trooping the Colour parade was giving “Trump inauguration” and this Scottish coronation was giving “backlit White Walker.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Back in February 2019, a “scandal” rocked the Kardashian world. Khloe Kardashian was still “dating” Tristan Thompson, and Tristan went to a party without Khloe… and he kissed Jordyn Woods, who was Kylie Jenner’s BFF at the time. Like, Kylie and Jordyn adored each other and Jordyn even lived somewhere on Kylie’s property (I think she was staying in a guest house). Khloe and the Kardashians weaponized the tabloid media against Jordyn and basically bullied Kylie into dropping Jordyn as a friend. Khloe was especially psychotic about Jordyn, even though Khloe and Tristan were constantly breaking up even back then, and I strongly suspected they were broken up when he kissed Jordyn anyway. In any case, it was a huge mess and I’m happy that Jordyn recovered from the drama and continued to thrive. Reportedly, Kylie and Jordyn did keep in touch, although they were not as close as they were before. Well, now Kylie and Jordyn are back to hanging out:

Kylie Jenner is giving Jordyn Woods a second chance four years after the infamous Tristan Thompson cheating scandal ruined their friendship and saw the model cast out of the Kardashians’ inner circle, DailyMail.com can exclusively reveal. In new photographs set to shock fans, the billionaire lipkit mogul, 25, and the social media model, 25, were pictured having dinner together on Saturday night in Los Angeles.

The former best friends appeared in great spirits during their catch up, with Jordyn flashing a huge smile while heading to the sushi restaurant with Kylie. The girls night out is certainly an unexpected twist in their rollercoaster friendship that saw the once inseparable friends ripped apart by a bombshell cheating scandal that played out on reality TV and social media.

In 2019, Jordyn and Khloe Kardashian’s then baby daddy Tristan sent shockwaves after it emerged they had hooked up at a party. Woods later admitted to sharing a kiss with Tristan during a sensational interview with Jada Pinkett Smith on the Red Table Talk, and she fell out of the good graces of the Kardashians as a result of the infidelity. The kiss also led to Khloe splitting up from Tristan for another time. Infamously, after Jordyn’s Red Table Talk interview aired, Khloe insisted over Twitter, ‘You ARE the reason my family broke up!’

The mother of two and the model first crossed paths back in 2012 after meeting through a mutual friend, Jaden Smith, and soon developed a very close bond. The pair were nearly inseparable, and not only lived together, but also worked together on various projects.

[From The Daily Mail]

I’ll admit it – at the time, I felt sorry for Kylie, because Jordyn really was her BFF. Kylie and Jordyn were a lot closer than Kylie and Kendall, you know? Sometimes friend-breakups are harder than romantic breakups. I also felt sorry for Kylie because her sisters really did gang up on her and force her to drop Jordyn as a friend. It would not surprise me at all if Kylie and Jordyn actually stayed friends this whole time, but kept it sort of quiet until now. Anyway, it’s just a reminder: Khloe has always been completely ridiculous about Tristan Thompson; Tristan was never discreet about his cheating; Khloe was and is an a–hole for blaming the women and never Tristan; and the Kardashians really tried to destroy Jordyn Woods for no good reason.

Kylie Jenner and Jordyn Woods reunite four years after Tristan Thompson cheating scandal. pic.twitter.com/iBZIZMJ8ob

— Pop Base (@PopBase) July 16, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instagram, Backgrid.

Here are even more photos of the Wales family last Friday, where Prince William and Kate brought all three kids out to the Royal International Air Tattoo. It’s basically just an air show, where kids can look at planes and there’s some kind of plane demonstration. William loves planes and I guess his kids do too? The air show benefits the Royal Air Force Charitable Trust, so this is what Will and Kate did instead of donating to a charity! They just went to an air show. It’s all very middle-class, which is what William likes, remember. In case you needed this point driven home yet again, here’s one last excerpt from People Magazine’s current cover story, in which “sources” erased Diana from the royal-parenting narrative, made Kate sound like a single mother, suggested that Kate is a great mom because she’s not an aristocrat and lied about QEII giving them “express permission” to be lazy bums.

When Prince William married his college sweetheart Kate Middleton, she brought her down-to-earth tone as she stepped into royal life — and now as parents of three, the Princess of Wales’ non-royal background has a big impact on how the couple is raising Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

“Those children look pretty happy with life,” a palace insider tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story. “A lot of it is the stabilizing normality Kate brings — and that’s how she grew up. William absolutely loves it.”

Despite their royal roles — especially George, who is second in the line of succession to the throne behind his father and will someday become king — Kate ensures that her kids’ childhoods are as normal as possible.

“Coming from a different background, she appreciates the importance of having family time,” says a source close to the royal household. “She wasn’t brought up in that aristocratic setting where you see the children for a short time each day.”

[From People]

Yes, compared to the Victorian aristocrat model, Kate really is a modern parent! See how easy it was to make Kate sound like a great mom? Just compare her to the characters on Downton Abbey! As for William “absolutely loving” Kate’s completely normal middle-class stability… yeah, sure, that’s absolutely the talking point. In all honesty, William has never insulted Kate’s parenting. His people actually make a point of saying that Kate raises the children while William is out saving the world, one jazz-hand photo-op at a time. William no longer “loves” that about Kate or the Middletons though.

Meanwhile, there’s always so much attention on Prince Louis during these outings. Everyone in the British and American media seems committed to boxing him in as the family clown, when really, Louis seems like he’s genuinely upset by certain things. Just like on the palace balcony, Louis has issues with really loud noises. I know it’s probably against some kind of imaginary protocol, but they really need to let this kid wear noise-canceling headphones when they know he’ll be around loud noises. It would probably occur to Will and Kate to do just that if only they actually paid attention to their children instead of using them as PR props, but what do I know!

William and Kate got the school holidays off to a flying start by taking their children on a family day out to the world’s largest military air show – but Prince Louis didn’t seem impressed.

Watch more: https://t.co/8xyWy2d9Fw pic.twitter.com/dn36BtMjuT

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 14, 2023

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.

In 1988, Tracy Chapman released “Fast Car” as the lead single from her eponymous debut album. The song was very successful at the time, becoming a top-ten single and winning big awards, including a Grammy. Critics praised the song, the album and Chapman herself. Chapman and her music were considered, at the time, folk-rock. Over the years, “Fast Car” has had incredible longevity – it still feels fresh, it still feels modern and it’s still incredibly moving. Here’s Chapman’s album version & music video:

Over the years, different artists of all genres have covered “Fast Car,” and it’s especially popular for artists to cover live, in concert. Well, months ago, country star Luke Combs covered “Fast Car” and included it in his latest album, Gettin’ Old. Here’s Luke Combs’ cover:

Combs has also included the song in his concerts for a while, so his fans weren’t surprised when he finally put it on an album. Well, Combs has put out entirely different singles from the album, but country radio decided to just play the hell out of his “Fast Car” cover. It has become a runaway hit on country music radio, even climbing to #1 on the Billboard country charts. That makes Tracy Chapman the first Black woman to have written the #1 song on the country charts. Last week, Tracy Chapman even made a rare public comment, congratulating Luke: “I never expected to find myself on the country charts, but I’m honored to be there. I’m happy for Luke and his success and grateful that new fans have found and embraced ‘Fast Car.’”

Well, some people aren’t so pleased. Some people are quite irritated that a white male country artist covered a song written by a Black woman. The Washington Post did a lengthy article about this, here’s an excerpt from that piece:

To quite a few people, [the success of Combs’ cover] is cause for yet another celebration in Combs’s whirlwind journey as the genre’s reigning megastar with 16 consecutive No. 1 hits. But it has also prompted a wave of complicated feelings among some listeners and in the Nashville music community. Although many are thrilled to see “Fast Car” back in the spotlight and a new generation discovering Chapman’s work, it’s clouded by the fact that, as a Black queer woman, Chapman, 59, would have almost zero chance of that achievement herself in country music.

The numbers are bleak: A recent study by data journalist Jan Diehm and musicologist Jada Watson reported that fewer than 0.5 percent of songs played on country radio in 2022 were by women of color and LGBTQ+ artists. Watson’s previous work shows that songs by women of color and LGBTQ+ artists were largely excluded from radio playlists for most of the two decades prior.

“On one hand, Luke Combs is an amazing artist, and it’s great to see that someone in country music is influenced by a Black queer woman — that’s really exciting,” said Holly G, founder of the Black Opry, an organization for Black country music singers and fans. “But at the same time, it’s hard to really lean into that excitement knowing that Tracy Chapman would not be celebrated in the industry without that kind of middleman being a White man.”

There has been a concerted effort from some in Nashville to promote inclusivity, particularly since the industry-wide reckoning after the killing of George Floyd in 2020. But despite some individual success stories, the systemic lack of diversity has persisted. Now that Chapman’s classic is on pace to become one of the biggest songs of Combs’s career, there are uneasy and complex emotional responses.

[From WaPo]

While I acknowledge that everything being said here is worthy of discussion, for what it’s worth: Tracy Chapman never considered herself a country artist and she never sought validation from the country music establishment. She was doing her own thing in the rock/folk world and, as brilliant artists are wont to do, she created a masterpiece which defies genre, a song which still sounds fresh and relevant when sung by a white country bro 35 years after it was originally written. What’s more, “Fast Car” was absolutely acknowledged in its own time? It was literally a hit song, it won a Grammy, Chapman performed her music in front of huge, sold-out concerts. Country music absolutely has a huge race and racism problem, but I’m just not sure this is the right case study. Also: Tracy Chapman is the sole songwriter for “Fast Car,” so she probably appreciates the royalties from Luke’s cover.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

The Windsors’ “Royal Collection” is a catch-all for all of the artwork, jewels, jewelry, historical documents and antiquities they’ve stolen, looted or been “given” for centuries. The Windsors are very squirrelly about the Royal Collection, and there has never been – to my knowledge – a full audit of just how many priceless pieces of art, antiquities and jewels they actually “own,” nevermind a full accounting of where those pieces come from and whether those pieces should be given back. Well, over time, the Royal Collection Trust – the gatekeepers of the Royal Collection – have tried to document just how many pieces there are, which is how a catalogue was published documenting the names of various pieces back in 2008. As it turns out, the n-word was all over that catalogue and now the Independent claims that the Windsors are being “dragged” into a “race row.”

The royal family has been dragged into the n-word race row after dozens of references to the offensive term were found in official documents, The Independent can reveal. A catalogue published by the Royal Collection Trust (RCT), showcasing a selection of gems and jewels owned by the Royal Collection, contained more than 40 mentions of offensive racial terms.

The document, titled Ancient and Modern Gems and Jewels, was published by Royal Collection Enterprises Limited in 2008. It has remained on its website since then and was only removed on Thursday after it was flagged by The Independent.

The latest discovery comes after we revealed last week that an offensive racial slur was included in government documents. The term was included in a report by the Met Office, as well as in Department for Work and Pensions guidance used by doctors to assess benefit claims. The slur had also been visible in the comment section of a page on the government’s own website since 2015. The revelations prompted Rishi Sunak’s official spokesperson to denounce the word as “inappropriate and offensive”.

In the latest instance, the offensive terms are mostly used to describe people of African ancestry who appear on the jewels. The words are also included in a number of names of items in the collection. One brooch is described in the following terms: “Head of a n**** in three-quarter profile to the right, with drop-pearl earring. This type of a n****’s head is found on several sixteenth-century cameos.” Another item depicting a white person is accompanied by this description and slur: “Athough it uses the dark layers of the stone for the profile, the features are not n*****d’.

An RCT spokesperson said the trust’s documents were continually “under review”. The RCT is one of the five departments of the royal household and is responsible for the care of the Royal Collection, the largest private art collection in the world, held in trust by the King on behalf of the nation. It sells tickets for tours of the King’s official residences: Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh.

[From The Independent]

Again… this was 2008, not 1898. Everyone knew in 2008 that it was wrong to use these words so freely in a CATALOGUE for the Royal Collection Trust. It’s also kind of bonkers that these documents were just sitting there, waiting to be “found” in 2023. They were not hidden away until the Independent pointed it out. So no, the Windsors were not “dragged” into a “race row.” The Windsors are perfectly fine with this kind of language and they don’t care who knows it. The Windsors are perfectly fine with racism and using people of color as diversity props. They’re perfectly fine with wearing stolen and looted jewels and they’re perfectly fine with their collection of jewels described in such “colorful” language.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by What Meghan Wore (@whatmeghanwore)

If I’m being honest, I don’t always love every single thing the Duchess of Sussex wears. She has some great pieces and I like most of her stuff, but she has a few misses too. Breaking my silence! Anyway, my original point was that the one thing Meghan does really well all the time is accessorize. She’s great at knowing which earrings, bracelets, purses and shoes go with which outfit. That’s what I was reminded of when I glanced through Meghan’s latest outing:

meanwhile, in santa barbara, my sister meghan thee duchess has finally left the house. seen at a local farmer’s market with a ludicrously capacious amante bag and a bouquet of flowers to lay on the grave of her haters’ careers. pic.twitter.com/QNV6jCoREg

— maybe: diane (@dianelyssa) July 15, 2023

Prince Harry’s hostage went outside! She went to the Montecito farmer’s market. And I’m obsessed with her accessories. That bag is amazing and I adore her sandals. Her outfit is great too – it looks like a breezy summer dress with a white blouse as a cardi. In any case, the Mail – the outlet which bought these mega-exclusive photos – is of course clutching their pearls over Meghan being seen without Harry (!!) and in the presence of the legendary Guy Markle (her beagle). The Mail’s headline is: “Meghan Markle picks up fresh flowers and samples some honey at the Montecito Farmer’s Market without Harry and brings along beloved pet beagle instead – despite ‘no dog’ policy.” Oh, she had her well-behaved dog on a leash in public??? Burn the witch!!!

Meghan Markle broke cover on Friday to check out her local farmer’s market, days after her explosive Netflix docuseries with Prince Harry failed to score any Emmy nominations. The Duchess of Sussex was spotted stopping by the Montecito Farmer’s Market near the couple’s $14.7million mansion, but went without her husband, exclusive DailyMail.com photos show. The 41-year-old was instead accompanied by her security detail and one of her beloved pet beagles, despite the market’s rule prohibiting dogs.

Wearing a white, unbuttoned collared shirt over a camel-colored maxi dress, black flip flops, and sunglasses, the former actress went virtually undetected by locals as she went from tent to tent browsing various collections of goods. She picked up a bunch of fresh flowers which she then stashed in a large woven straw tote for her convenience as she continued shopping. At one point she also stopped to sample some honey from a vendor.

While Meghan largely managed to fly under the radar during her trip to the market, she was friendly and smiled politely at the handful of locals who did recognize her – as her security kept a watchful eye. The large bodyguard kept a safe distance from the duchess and minded her pooch while she looked around the market.

[From The Daily Mail]

While I was looking for a tweet to embed in this post, I found a lot of bonkers tweets in which Meghan was accused of “setting up” these photos (she did not) and timing it specifically to steal Kate’s thunder at Wimbledon (lol) and there were a lot of salty tears about the size of the bag too. Like… have these people never been to a farmer’s market? Plenty of people stop by their local farmer’s market while they’re walking their dogs. Plenty of people bring big bags because few vendors keep plastic bags on hand. The funniest part, to me, is that the Mail bought the exclusive photos (I’m sure they cost a pretty penny) and then dropped them just before Kate arrived at Wimbledon.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

When King Charles was Prince of Wales, he bought real estate and folded those properties into the Duchy of Cornwall, the vast real estate empire controlled by the heir to the throne. One property was Highgrove, the Gloucestershire “country estate” Charles has called home for more than forty years. Charles retains his “lease” on Highgrove and pays the Duchy (meaning, his son) a fee for staying there. In 2007, Charles also purchased a Welsh “cottage,” which is more like a farmhouse on an enormous piece of land. The estate is called Llwynywermod, and as Prince of Wales, Charles made a point of visiting the estate once a year or so. Well, in June, Charles decided that he simply has too many houses, palaces and castles, so he would give up his lease on Llwynywermod. The palace made a big f–king deal about it too, like they were trying to convince people that Charles was downsizing by giving up his 13th property or something. Well, it also looks like William has no interest in taking on Llwynywermod for himself, so he’s going to rent it out. Which means he expects his father to move out of the property right now. Charles is reportedly “miffed” to be evicted by his son. Weird!

Prince William has told his father he will have to pay to stay as a guest at his beloved Welsh holiday home – and must move all of his belongings out of the property, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. The King is said to be ‘miffed’ after William, the new Prince of Wales, told his father that he plans to rent out the picturesque cottage which Charles bought for £1.2 million in 2007 and had lovingly restored.

The property, Llwynywermod, on the outskirts of the Brecon Beacons National Park, was bought through the Duchy of Cornwall, which William took over following the late Queen’s death last year. Charles spent a week or two at Llwynywermod each summer, but William has not renewed his father’s lease. After September, it will be available for hire as a holiday home – much to the King’s ‘disappointment’, according to an insider. It means Charles must move his belongings and personal effects out.

Llwynywermod will be marketed to holidaymakers after September. Three nearby properties owned by the Duchy are already let out. The three-bedroom North Range cottage is priced at £2,400 a week. Charles had restored Llwynywermod with the help of architect Craig Hamilton. Such is his affinity for the place, the King agreed to continue to pay for the upkeep of the property, including the cost of hiring the two topiary experts to maintain the manicured trees and shrubs in the grounds.

Last night, a Royal source said: ‘The King was quite miffed but that was the deal. It means he can continue to stay there but he will pay rent to the Duchy and the rest of the time it will be rented out. The King has agreed to pay for the topiary upkeep as he doesn’t want to see all the good work in the grounds go to waste.’

The Mail on Sunday revealed last month that William wants to spend more time in Wales staying in B&Bs and holiday rentals rather than any permanent Royal residence. Palace sources said the Prince and Princess want to support the tourist economy by renting cottages and rooms.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Palace sources said the Prince and Princess want to support the tourist economy by renting cottages and rooms” – more like William and Kate want to only travel to Wales once in a blue moon and they don’t want to set the expectation of having a Welsh home which they never visit. I always wonder about these royal properties being rented and what kind of people actually rent them. Like, does a normal middle-class family really think “oh, I’d like to rent the king’s old Welsh property for a family vacation?” I guess some people are like that? But it does sound like Llwynywermod is in the middle of Welsh Bumf–k, and it doesn’t even have a pool or anything fun to do? As for Charles being “miffed” – my gut says that this is all kind of performative on Charles’s part, like “oh, look at me, I’m so mad at William telling me to get my sh-t out of the cottage I already said I no longer want!” Sometimes, I kind of think these stories are lowkey spon-con, like they’re using royal reporting to promote royal rentals.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Last year, New York Magazine declared that 2022 was “the year of Nepo-Baby.” Nepo-babies are people who are beneficiaries of nepotism, and New York’s cover story was specifically about the entertainment industry’s nepo-baby problem. Meaning, there’s a glut of nepo-babies in Hollywood these days, to the point where it’s notable when someone from a non-entertainment family gets a breakthrough role. Ben Platt was one of the actors featured on New York’s cover, and he is, without a doubt, a huge beneficiary of nepotism. His father is Marc Platt, a hugely successful theater, film and TV producer who basically ensured that his son was cast in tons of stuff from a very young age.

Well, Ben Platt really doesn’t want to talk about any of that. I guess his team hasn’t told him that he could simply acknowledge that yes, he has benefited from nepotism and it’s not great, but he’s here to promote something. That never occurred to Platt or his team. Platt is currently promoting Theater Camp, which is why he sat down with Rolling Stone (this was pre-strike). Platt spoke to Rolling Stone at length about Judaism, Jewish camp, theater camp, his friendships and more. And then he and his team totally shut down when RS asked him about being a nepo baby.

Adding insult to injury, the release of Dear Evan Hansen coincided with the advent of the nepo baby conversation, with many on social media pointing out that the film had been produced by Marc Platt, Ben’s father and the producer of films like Legally Blonde. The discourse reached its apex with a 2022 New York Magazine cover, “The Year of the Nepo Baby,” in which a photo of Platt was photoshopped onto a baby’s body.

At the time, Platt appeared wounded by the criticism of the film, telling Rolling Stone, “People having opinions about me that don’t know me makes me so anxious. You can say, ‘That’s not what matters, the in-person things are what matters.’ Of course that’s true, but it’s hard to not take in stuff.” In recent months, he’s re-emerged with a starring role in the revival of Jason Robert Brown’s Parade as Leo Frank, a Jewish man falsely accused of raping and murdering a 12-year-old factory employee, as well as a sharp turn in the indie Theater Camp (which he co-wrote) as Amos Klobuchar, a frustrated kiddie theater director at a performing arts camp called Adirond-Acts in a codependent relationship with best friend Rebecca-Diane (Molly Gordon, who co-directed the film).

You were on the cover of New York Magazine‘s Nepo Baby issue. I’m curious, what was your response to that? And what do you make of that whole discourse?
We’re going to skip right over that if we can.

No comment?
[Publicist intervenes: “If we could just focus on Theater Camp, that would be great. Thank you.”]

[From Rolling Stone]

This is being reported as “Ben Platt shuts down interview after nepo baby question,” but if you go to the Rolling Stone piece, it’s written in a way which would suggest that RS simply moved on and continued asking Platt other questions after he refused to talk about being a nepo baby. Still, he and his team need to come up with a better way to deal with these questions, because… um, they’re not going away?? Speaking of, an Esquire journalist tweeted this out – apparently, Platt’s publicist is really bad at their job.

This publicist once demanded I interview Ben in the same room as his entire team. I refused.

Then he called me the day before the profile went live to question me about the tone. Called me again the morning it was published to tell me I was a terrible person for what I wrote. https://t.co/dFD5ibz8Kt

— Justin Kirkland (@justinkirkland4) July 14, 2023

My terrible Ben Platt profile, for reference: https://t.co/Rtd02lHvuJ

— Justin Kirkland (@justinkirkland4) July 14, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.