Okay, so before just now, I honestly thought the “Scottish coronation” today was just the British media overhyping what amounted to a church service. I did not realize that King Charles, Queen Camilla and the Duke of Rothesay (Prince William) would be dressed up in the Order of the Thistle robes. I also didn’t know that there are specific “Scottish Crown Jewels” and those jewels are in play today! Wow, so this really is a big deal. Chuck is going to be crowned with the special Scottish crown, which is not the same crown as the Imperial State Crown, which he wore to his coronation in London. Which begs the question… if the May coronation was only for England, does that mean that Charles wasn’t really the king of Scotland until now? I know that’s not how it works, but still.

Kate – who is known as the Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland now – decided to repeat a bright blue Catherine Walker coat for the occasion. She paired it with a loaner from the Royal Collection – that same diamond-and-pearl choker necklace she wore to QEII’s funeral and Prince Philip’s funeral. I guess that’s the only necklace Camilla will let Kate borrow these days. And no Scottish jewels for Kate!

Just going by the photos, there was a huge police presence on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, and there was a huge republican presence too – there were a lot of people holding up Republic’s bright yellow anti-monarchy “Not My King” signs. Surely, Charles expects those people to be dazzled by the Scottish Crown Jewels!

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Getty.

So much of the insanity coming out of the Windsor clan and the British media (working in concert) about the Sussexes is simply about control. Prince Harry and Meghan cannot be controlled by the UK media or the royal family. H&M make their own money, they don’t give a sh-t about titles, and (most importantly) they can afford private security. The Windsors lost their ability to control and contain the Sussexes using their conventional methods, methods which “worked” on other royals… like Prince Edward and Sophie, the current Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. Edward and Sophie both used to have “real jobs”… until they didn’t. Until their wings were clipped. This compare-and-contrast is part of a new documentary, and none of these royal experts are talking about what they think they’re talking about.

A new documentary has explored the similarities between the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Prince Edward: Will He Change the Royals?, looks at Queen Elizabeth II’s youngest son’s journey to becoming one of the most senior members of the British Royal Family. The couple have become hard-working, valued senior royals, but it wasn’t always this way; they had series of scrapes after they married that saw Sophie boasting to the News of the World’s ‘Fake Sheik’ about her PR firm’s royal connections.

Edward’s film company, Ardent, then made attempts to get around a ban on filming his nephew, Prince William, at university in St Andrews. There was also his disastrous appearance on It’s a Knockout at Alton Towers in June 1987. Both were lambasted for trying to cash in on royal links. But unlike Prince Harry and Meghan , Sophie and Edward wound down their businesses and dug in to royals duties, rebuilding their reputations within the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh reportedly received a one-off payment of £250,000 to end their controversial business careers in 2002. It was said to be passed off as ‘ compensation’ for loss of earnings.

Speaking on tonight’s documentary, journalist Emily Andrews said: ‘The Queen effectively asked Edward and Sophie to give up their careers and become full time working royals. As an effective sweetener, she gave them £250,000 in compensation, if you like. There are parallels between Sophie and Edward and Harry and Meghan. I mean Sophie and Edward were the forerunners of trying to balance their royal career with actual money-making careers.’

Royal commentator Katie Nicholl echoed this suggestion, adding: ‘I think you can draw parallels, absolutely, with the Sussexes. Harry also wanted to strike out, do things a little differently, and just as Edward found, these parameters are quite rigid, they don’t really budge and kick against them too hard and you get badly wounded in the process.’

In March, after Prince Edward was handed his late father’s title, the Duke of Edinburgh, royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline: ‘This rewards hard work and dedication to royal duty. Since they have decided that their children should have the option of titles, Harry and Meghan might take note that, in the face of initial adversity when they too had problems and bad press, Edward and Sophie have done remarkable service to the Royal Family. They deserve this reward.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This carrot-and-stick approach to Edward and Sophie “worked” because they had few other options – Sophie and Edward’s businesses were not successful, they were embarrassing the Firm, all while they lived in Buckingham Palace and had royal security. Meanwhile, Harry and Meghan simply had other options, they could leave and make their own path. More than that, the Sussexes HAD to make their own path because the Firm chose the “all stick, no carrot” approach. The Windsors were on the war path and they’re all still trying to devise punishments for the Sussexes – strip them of their security, no, they can’t even pay for their own security, not like that! They need to pay for their own lifestyle, no, not that way, we’re going to smear their business deals! Where is the “offer” to buy the Sussexes out of their private businesses? Oh, right, it never happened. It’s all about control, and Sophie and Edward getting a relative pittance of $250K as a payoff is hilarious. That’s all it costs to get a lifetime of service from Sophie and Edward? There are rumors that they can’t even afford the upkeep on their giant, 120-room mansion, Bagshot Park.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar.

Gabrielle Union is definitely a celeb that shares a lot. She has two memoirs and she’s frequently talking about tougher or less discussed topics in interviews. Sometimes it’s a lot, but mostly it’s refreshing to see a celeb that’s not putting a shiny gloss on things at all times. Most recently, Gabrielle spoke about struggling with her self-worth, seeking validation from others, how her childhood contributed to those feelings, and how she moved past that.

At 50 years old, it seems like Gabrielle Union has got it all figured out (see: her adorable family, her enviable fashion sense, and her thriving career). But in a super-relatable plot twist, Union spent years feeling like she wasn’t enough. During an episode of Netflix’s Skip Intro podcast, Union opened up about a time when she struggled with her self-worth, especially at the beginning of her career.

“I just wanted it so badly,” she said of making it in the industry. “And it’s beyond being chosen for a role, it’s feeling like I was chosen because I was attractive … I didn’t care if you thought I was a good actor, I just wanted to know that someone outside of my parents thinks I am cute, attractive, lovely, whatever.”

According to Self, the star got her start through modeling, small roles, and beauty contests. At one point, Union was rejected from a role because of her appearance. “It just robbed me of my confidence, my joy,” she recalled. “I just felt like I was exposed as hideous, and what do you do with that?”

Even after being cast in Bring It On, Union said she still felt the need to be viewed as “amazing, beautiful.” Someone recommended therapy to the actress to work through her need for validation and “daddy issues.” She eventually confronted the childhood trauma by speaking with her father.

“I was like, ‘Why did you never tell me I was pretty?’” she explained. “And he was like, ‘Pretty doesn’t pay the bills. You’re Black. I’m Black. Your mom’s Black. Your grandparents are Black. We didn’t come from shit. I came from the projects. Being pretty never helped any one of us. So I thought I was encouraging you to be a great athlete, to be a great student, to be a great person …’ And I was like, ‘Damn.’”

After years of therapy and self-discovery, Union had the epiphany that other people’s opinions of her shouldn’t matter. “I can’t be invested in your opinion of me, or anyone’s opinion of me. My truth just is. And it’s none of my business how anyone else responds or reacts.”

This realization eventually “freed” her “from the constant need to be validated by a man, a job, an opportunity, a cover, whatever.”

“I’m good, in every hood, being exactly who the hell I am,” she added. “And at some point, that’s enough. I’m finally, at 50, like, ‘Oh, yeah.’”

[From InStyle]

Despite her industry, in many ways Gabrielle’s experiences are universal for women, particularly for Black women. Wanting validation and to just be told you’re pretty in a world that so frequently tells you that you are not is completely understandable. Gabrielle spoke in her memoirs of growing up in a predominantly white area where her peers used the N-word freely, so it’s likely any acknowledgment of her good looks included the “for a Black girl” caveat. When you’re a young woman and you want to be seen that’s sh-tty, so it makes sense that those early experiences sent her to seek validation through her work or at least at home from her family. But, it’s good that Gabrielle eventually learned to separate her opinion of herself from other people’s opinions about her. As she says, you can’t control anyone else’s response or reaction to you. All you can do is be yourself.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Gabrielle Union-Wade (@gabunion)

photos credit: Getty Images for Netflix

King Charles and Queen Camilla are in Scotland this week for Holyrood Week, or “Royal Week” in Scotland. They arrived in Edinburgh on Monday, and they’ve done various events already, like accepting the keys to the city, some event with a sword, a party for NHS’s anniversary, a rain-soaked garden party and more. Today, Charles will attend his “Scottish coronation,” which (from what I understand) is basically just a church service in Edinburgh. I’ll post the photos from the event when they come in, but for now, just enjoy how Holyrood Week was going – small crowds, little enthusiasm, and anti-monarchy protesters are already gathering on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh.

Meanwhile, in 2021, then-Prince Charles must have been preparing for the throne by trying to get all of his shady information out there before QEII passed away. Every week, there was some new, well-sourced story about what Charles and Michael Fawcett had been getting up to, like exchanging honours to random wealthy foreigners in exchange for huge donations to Charles’s charity. There were many ethical and even criminal issues, and while the foundation was being investigated by the police, everything seemed to come to a stop once Charles became king. Now, the Mail reports that the police are “considering” criminal charges.

Police were last night considering bringing criminal charges over The Prince’s Foundation ‘cash-for-honours’ scandal, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now analysed evidence into claims first published in this newspaper that foreign tycoons were being offered help to obtain honours in exchange for donations to King Charles’s charity.

The Met Police said: ‘A file was passed to the CPS on October 31, 2022 for early advice. On Thursday, we received the advice and it is now being considered.’

The case focuses on a letter first published in the Mail on Sunday in which Michael Fawcett, a long-time aide of the King and a former chief executive of the charity, offered to help a wealthy Saudi donor obtain a Knighthood and British citizenship in exchange for his ongoing generosity.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah… nothing will happen. At first I thought they would tie everything around Michael Fawcett’s neck and call it a day, but I don’t think they’ll even have to do that. Charles set up Fawcett as a patsy, likely with Fawcett agreeing to fall on his sword for his boss, and after all that, Fawcett will get away with a slap on the wrist at most. And then in a year – if that – Fawcett will be back in the royal fold, I guarantee.

Note by CB: Get the top 10 stories about King Charles’s Cash for Access scandal when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Many industries do mid-year assessments, and at the end of June, the publishing world did the same. As it turns out, Prince Harry’s Spare is still the biggest nonfiction book of the year, and likely the biggest books of the year. Per Forbes: “Prince Harry And Self-Help Books Dominate The 2023 Non-Fiction Bestseller List.” What I like about Forbes’ piece is they list the number of print copies sold for all books, so you can see how Spare is way ahead of the nonfiction pack. And again, this is just for print copies, hardbacks sold in the US. Spare was and is a huge bestseller abroad, it’s been translated into like fifty languages AND people bought a lot of copies of the audiobook.

Prince Harry owns the No. 1 bestselling nonfiction title so far this year, with more than 1 million print copies of his 400-page memoir Spare sold in the U.S.

THE TOP FIVE BOOKS:

1: Spare by Prince Harry the Duke of Sussex (1,174,137 print copies sold). Published in 2023.

2: Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones by James Clear (587,718 copies sold in 2023). Published in 2018.

3: The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma by Bessel Van Der Kolk (289,701 copies sold). Published in 2015.

4: The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene (277,966 copies sold). Published in 2000.

5: The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom by Don Miguel Ruiz (247,211 copies sold). Published in 1997.

Adult nonfiction sales got off to a slow start this year, lagging behind the growing adult and young adult fiction sectors, Bookscan reported. But “Spare” changed all that when it became one of the fastest-selling nonfiction books for adults since 2004, and one of the top three bestsellers in week-one sales. Only Barack Obama’s “A Promised Land” (2020) and Michelle Obama’s “Becoming” (2018) outsold “Spare” in week one. Prince Harry’s read is the only new release at the top of the bestselling nonfiction book list so far this year, which is padded out by self-help books. The self-help industry exploded between 2013 and 2019, rising from 30,897 published titles to 85,253. Motivational and inspirational books have been the most popular subject in the self-help category, Bookscan reported, followed by books that focus on creativity.

[From Forbes]

Spare sold almost twice the number of copies as the next best-selling nonfiction book. That’s insane. Part of me wonders if Spare’s enormous success is part of the reason why the media douchebags are being so extra about how and why they criticize the Sussexes these days.

Speaking of, every royal reporter and culture/media reporter is still singlemindedly focused on the end of the Sussexes’ Spotify deal. It definitely feels like there were a lot of people sharpening their knives for the past three years, just waiting for the moment when there was one “bad” piece of news about the Sussexes’ business. The wall-to-wall obsession from American and British media is starting to remind me of the UK coverage of South Park’s mockery – like, you would have thought that was the first time South Park ever mocked a celebrity from the way it was being covered. So too with this Spotify thing – you would think the Sussexes were the first people to ever end a deal with a podcast company. The Daily Beast did a piece this week about just how many celebrities’ podcasts “failed” – Nick Offerman and Megan Mullally, Bruce Springsteen & Barack Obama, Alicia Silverstone, Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer, etc. All are failed podcasters. I’d just like to point out that despite the gleefully mean-spirited commentary on the Sussexes… like, Archetypes WAS successful. And I’m interested in a second season, which will hopefully be housed somewhere else.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Almost every marriage exhibited on a Real Housewife franchise ends in divorce, but there were always a handful of couples who managed to break the curse. People thought Kyle Richards and Mauricio Umansky were one of those couples. Kyle has been on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills since 2010. She had one of the more stable marriages. But it’s over… after 27 years together. The exclusive came out during the Independence Day holiday here in America, so there was an attempt to bury the news.

Kyle Richards and Mauricio Umansky have separated after 27 years of marriage, PEOPLE confirms. A source close to the pair tells PEOPLE: “Kyle and Mauricio have been separated for a while now but are still living under the same roof. They remain amicable as they figure out what’s next for them and their family.”

Richards, 54, first met Umansky, 53, at a nightclub in 1994. At the time, Richards was divorced from her first husband Guraish Aldjufrie, with whom she had daughter Farrah Brittany (née Aldjufrie), 34.

After getting engaged later that year, the couple tied the knot in January 1996 and went on to welcome three daughters: Alexia, 27, Sophia, 23 and Portia, 15.

In 2010, their family was officially introduced to the public when The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills premiered on Bravo. As Richards became a mainstay on the reality show for the last 12 seasons, the pair frequently insisted to fans that they were seeing their real relationship play out on the show.

“We’re the same, with or without cameras. We’re just super real and we know each other and we’re real,” Umansky told PEOPLE in March 2013. “We don’t have any secrets to hide. That’s one thing we talked about, the skeletons in the closet, and we can handle our worst skeletons.”

[From People]

Notably, Mauricio made a point of posting social media photos on the Fourth of July showing that they were spending the holiday together with their children. This seems less like a “reality show curse” and more like two people who grew apart over time, especially with most of their kids out of the house. Portia is their only minor child now. Anyway, the RHOBH fans were really shaken up by this news.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mauricio (Mau) (@mumansky18)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, IG.

Here are some photos of Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez and Violet Affleck on the Fourth of July. There’s always at least one major “industry party” on Independence Day, and this year Michael Rubin hosted it. The dress code was “all white,” which… eh. It feels very early-aughts, doing an all-white dress code for a summer party. I remember those Hamptons parties with all-white dress codes. Still, Bennifer was game and so was Violet.

Violet is fully her mother’s daughter – I always do a double-take whenever I see photos of her, because it inevitably looks like Jennifer Garner and J.Lo are hanging out. I wonder if J.Lo does the same double-take. Violet not only paired her white dress with pigtails, she also wore a mask at the party. She’s 17 years old and she’s still like “actually, I don’t want to catch anything.” The only other Hollywood type I’ve seen wearing masks still, to this day, is Leo DiCaprio (and I mostly think that’s about the paparazzi).

Speaking of Leo, Ben and J.Lo are both Leos, with Jennifer’s birthday coming up on July 24th and Ben’s birthday coming up on August 15. Will they do another birthday trip in Europe? Will they get a yacht? I hope so. There are also persistent rumors that Ben and Jen will do a vow renewal this summer for their one-year anniversary. I hope not – I hope they just go on a big birthday/anniversary trip.

Here’s one of Michael Rubin’s IGs about his party, and you can see a great photo of the Affleck-Lopez fam. Beyonce was there!! So were Kim Kardashian, Tom Brady, Kim Kardashian and dozens of A-listers.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Michael Rubin (@michaelrubin)

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

The Princess of Wales made a surprise appearance at Wimbledon on Tuesday, Independence Day here in America. While she skipped last year’s Wimbledon Centenary event last year – in which Roger Federer participated – she didn’t skip this year’s Wimbledon salute to Federer, who only retired from tennis about nine months ago. Kate and Roger are “friends” and of course Kate wanted to hang out with a handsome athlete, even if Roger’s wife Mirka was there too. Sidenote: in case you’re wondering, Wimbledon originally planned to do a salute to Federer and Serena Williams, two of their biggest champions, but Serena’s pregnancy is so far along, she couldn’t travel to the All-England Club. The Federer salute ended up being a brief video and a standing ovation as he entered the Royal Box and that’s about it. What was especially nice was that Federer hung around and watched the matches on Centre Court. I have expected him to send some coaching signals to Andy Murray from the Royal Box.

Before Kate turned up on Centre Court, she went out to one of the smaller outdoor courts to watch British player Katie Boulter. Boulter’s match – and all of the matches on the uncovered courts – were suspended because of all the rain in England this week. Still, it’s nice that Kate has made a point of going to matches on some of the smaller courts at Wimbledon. This isn’t the first time.

As for Kate’s outfit, it was so bad, omg. She did an “homage” to one of Princess Diana’s ‘80s suits – a £1,950 mint-green Balmain blazer with large white buttons and white lapels, paired with a white pleated skirt and white heels. Her purse was Mulberry (in white). The Wimbledon Wiglet was slapped on too. I count 16 buttons on that tragic blazer. It’s so sad – while Kate’s Wimbledon style was never my jam, she used to wear relatively simple summer dresses. Now she feels the need to wear button-slathered ‘80s homages to Diana. Sigh.

A lot of people were trying to make “Roger and Kate were flirting with each other” into a thing. Even the Daily Mail was like “Kate was THRILLED to catch up with Roger, but his wife doesn’t look quite as happy.” It’s like… Kate always has to be in conflict with whichever woman is around. From what I saw during the cutaways, Kate was talking (mumbling) a lot to Roger and Mirka. Roger was mostly focused on the tennis. Roger also adores his wife Mirka.

Buttons https://t.co/vK6LBHWsBb

— Kaiser@Celebitchy (@KaiseratCB) July 4, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by SAG-AFTRA (@sagaftra)

Last Friday June 30 was a big deadline in Hollywood–it was when the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) contract would expire. The million dollar question was whether the actors would join the Writers Guild of America (WGA) on strike. The WGA has been on strike since early May seeking better wages, protections against AI and a serious revision on the distribution of streaming residuals. As deals stand now, the big networks, studios and streamers–represented in negotiations by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP)–make a grossly unfair cut of the residuals. So the WGA took the first bold move to strike against AMPTP knowing that negotiations between AMPTP and the directors (DGA) and actors guilds were to follow, both with June 30 deadlines and with largely the same issues to be redressed. The DGA reached a deal with AMPTP in early June that they ratified a couple weeks ago. It all came down to the actors. With stakes high, it was a bit of a let down–purely in terms of dramatic tension–when we learned last Friday that an extension period was agreed to, meaning no deal reached but also no strike… yet:

Hollywood actors will stay on the job–for now.

After a month of tense negotiations between Hollywood actors’ union and the major studios, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) will continue talking, the guild announced late Friday, averting a strike, at least for 12 more days.

The contract, which was set to expire at 11:59 p.m. PDT Friday, will now expire on July 12 at the same time, the actors union and the studios and networks group said in a joint statement. “The parties will continue to negotiate under a mutually agreed upon media blackout.” The new deadline falls just hours after TV’s Emmy Awards announce nominations for this year’s ceremony.

There is a lot at stake in the “seminal” negotiations, so-called by SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher. The rise of streaming services, the advent of artificial intelligence technology and the greater economic headwinds have changed how actors are paid. Actors want increased base compensation, which they say has been undercut by inflation and the streaming ecosystem, regulated use of artificial intelligence, better benefit plans and money for “self-taped auditions”–the cost of which used to be the responsibility of casting and production.

Drescher and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland sent a hopeful message to the membership over the weekend about the talks. It was quickly followed Wednesday by an open letter from over 1,000 SAG members to the leadership. The letter, signed by names as big as Meryl Streep and Jennifer Lawrence, expressed the membership’s sincere willingness to strike if they were not able to achieve all their demands in a new contract.

The entertainment industry is already mostly shut down after the Writers Guild of America went on strike May 2. Actors shared many of the same concerns and demands as the writers, including regulating AI and establishing an updated pay scale for work on streaming content. It is possible a deal with SAG could move the needle in negotiations between the AMPTP and the WGA. The AMPTP also reached a deal with the Directors Guild of America that was ratified by its membership June 24.

Members of the WGA and SAG-AFTRA were last on strike at the same time in 1988, when commercial actors and writers were both on the picket line. Hollywood actors and writers were also both on strike in 1960. Although many Hollywood film and TV sets are already shut down without writers, losing actors will bring worldwide production to a standstill, delaying series including HBO’s “House of the Dragon” and films such as “Mission: Impossible–Dead Reckoning Part Two.” A strike could also delay or cancel the Emmy Awards, currently scheduled for September, and depress the lineup at San Diego Comic-Con in July, usually an event full of A-list Hollywood actors, writers and directors.

[From USA Today]

OK I have to get this out of the way first: somehow in the weeks of tracking this story I missed the fact that SAG’s chief negotiator was named Duncan Crabtree-Ireland. That’s not a law firm, that is one man’s name! How can they lose with that name behind them?!

Moving on, my read on this is that SAG was ready to strike so AMPTP moved to avert by agreeing to an extension (just not to better terms, of course). The actors are undeniably the most visible group, and we already knew that the studios have been worried about summer movies being disrupted by actors joining the strike. But what comes after summer? Fall, when studios launch award season campaigns at film festivals and release their prestige projects. Whether it’s now or in a couple months, the studios face losing a lot of money if they don’t settle with SAG and WGA (and don’t forget that virtually no new work is in production due to the writers strike). My point is that moving to stall now is just delaying the inevitable, which is an overdue reckoning on revenue in the age of streaming, as well putting in protections now against AI taking away jobs from artists. Mark your calendars for July 12.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by John Lyne-Pirkis (@diary.of.an.actor)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by SAG-AFTRA (@sagaftra)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by SAG-AFTRA (@sagaftra)

The second Dune 2 trailer is so good. [OMG Blog]
Alicia Vikander wore Louis Vuitton to a film festival. [RCFA]
Jennifer Lawrence went on Chicken Shop Date. [Egotastic]
Michael K’s last Dlisted post. Sob. [Dlisted]
The summer of Timothy Olyphant. [LaineyGossip]
Recap of Secret Invasion Ep. 2. [Pajiba]
I love Stephanie Hsu but her style… oh no. [Go Fug Yourself]
Mark Harmon is cowriting a book about the real NCIS. [Just Jared]
Not Rihanna wearing a “use a condom” t-shirt. [Seriously OMG]
Meet the woman trying to keep people out of jail in a post-Roe country. [Jezebel]
Starbucks is offering some new seasonal beverages. [Buzzfeed]
Dolly Parton’s AI concerns. [Towleroad]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by DUNE (@dunemovie)