Royal commentator Jennie Bond is in the running for the Telegraph’s most delusional royal expert. I’m fully expecting lots of commemoration-columns for QEII as we come up on the first death-anniversary, but I truly didn’t expect it to be framed as “Prince Harry’s one year of estrangement.” The man has been living in North America for nearly four years, but sure. Bond questions, “Harry is continuing to maintain a distance from his father and brother – but what are the effects of ripping up family roots?” Like… anyone who read Spare can tell you exactly why Harry left Britain and why he’s trying to break the cycle of generational trauma. Neglected and abused after his mother’s death, he found ways to heal himself and he’s on his journey to find peace and happiness with the love of his life and their two beautiful children. His story is one of resilience and courage to break those toxic familial bonds. But of course, Jennie Bond quoted an “expert” at length to basically argue that Harry should “come back” pronto. Some highlights:

A complete estrangement: Almost one year on from the funeral of his grandmother, the late Queen, his estrangement from his entire UK family seems complete. He will be in London next month for a charity awards ceremony on the eve of the anniversary of her death, but it is understood he has no plans to see his father, the King, or his brother Prince William. Instead he will head straight off to Düsseldorf for the opening of the Invictus Games for wounded servicemen and women, which he founded nine years ago.

Bitter Meghan? He has planted his own sapling 5,000 miles away in California. His children, Archie and Lilibet, are putting down American roots and will be the first branches of a new tree. But with their mother, Meghan, bitterly estranged from almost the whole of her own family (except for her mother and a niece) that tree looks decidedly sparse.

No thriving unless it’s in the UK, apparently: In an interview which kicked off the whole saga of Harry and Meghan’s unhappiness in the royal fold, the Duchess said, “It’s not enough to just survive. You’ve got to thrive.” But can you easily thrive in self-imposed exile from all you have known since birth? And how much harder must it be when you are part of one of the most exclusive and mysterious tribes on earth: a royal family, steeped in a thousand years of history?

An expert: An expert in the field of human development, Professor Karl Pillemer, from Cornell University in New York, believes the emotional impact must be enormous. “Whether you have originated the estrangement, or you’re on the receiving end of it, people often feel betrayed, rejected, hurt, angry and resentful,” Professor Pillemer says. “They feel the pain of broken attachment. We have strong biologically-based attachment responses – those don’t just go away..Family events are a flashpoint for estrangement. They are filled with expectations of a happy family together, and that is entirely violated with estrangement. And if you don’t attend, there is a profound sense of loss.”

King Charles evicted his grandchildren, but whatever: How sad that little Archie and Lilibet have no prospect at present of getting to know their tribe… on either side of the Atlantic. And what a dreadful loss for King Charles. Bizarrely, Harry and Meghan have chosen to give their children their “tribal identity” insisting they be known as Prince and Princess – and, of course, Lilibet is named after her great grandmother Queen Elizabeth. Professor Pillemer believes it is the children who may prompt a reconciliation. “Many estranged people begin to open up the relationship again, because they want their own children to have relationships with the rest of the family. And Harry and Megan’s children are going to be reaching an age where they’re going to begin asking, ‘Why don’t we see our relatives? I’m certain, they [Harry and Megan] must be considering the impact on their own children.”

They’re saying Harry is headed for a breakdown: Professor Pillemer believes that fragile mental health can be made worse by estrangement. “There will likely be an array of emotional effects for Prince Harry and his family that include the pain of rejection, a sense of betrayal, a profound sense of loss, and most likely, a greater likelihood towards depression and anxiety as a result of this kind of relationship trauma.”

[From The Telegraph]

It feels so childish to argue that, because Harry adored and loved his grandmother, he’s supposed to be cool with being neglected and abused by his father and brother. That’s the argument here – you say you love one member of the family, so isn’t it hypocritical to remain estranged from other members of the family? Like… what is wrong with these people? It’s so silly and pathetic to argue that every family has to stay rooted in one place, forever, and that every family member has to be in each other’s lives and no one is ever allowed to disagree or move or break a toxic family cycle. What f–king world do these people live in? (Also: they truly have no idea about Meghan’s family, they only know the toxic Markles – Meghan has Ragland relatives who have never sold her out.)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Back in the day, Angelina Jolie loved being in London, and she did a lot of work there. She was made a Dame by QEII for her work with refugees and survivors of sexual violence. She ended up having meetings with (now) Queen Camilla, the Archbishop of Canterbury and she had tea with Prince William and Kate. This post isn’t about Angelina, but I was reminded of that “tea” back in 2015, because it was so random. It sounded like William and Kate cold-called Angelina and Brad Pitt and invited them to Kensington Palace for no other reason than to stargaze. It made me wonder how many other celebrities William and Kate have desperately tried to meet, only to be turned down. It looks like Dolly Parton is one of those celebrities.

Dolly Parton has revealed the hilarious reason why she turned down an invitation for tea with the Princess of Wales. The country singer, 77, explained she received the coveted invitation from Kate Middleton, 41, whilst she was in London for work.

Whilst sharing her love of the capital, the Jolene singer admitted she almost brushed shoulders with the residents of Buckingham Palace, but unfortunately ‘couldn’t go’.

Dolly said during an appearance on BBC Radio 2: ‘This time, Lordy, I even got invited to have tea with Kate but I couldn’t even go. I thought it was very sweet and nice of her to invite me and one of these days I’m going to get to do that – that would be great.’

Then, in true Dolly Parton style, she cracked a joke as to what made her decline Kate’s invite. She said: ‘But she wasn’t going to promote my rock album so I had to say no.’

She explained her regret at not having explored more of the city while on tour, but concluded she didn’t ever have enough time to play tourist.

[From The Daily Mail]

“The coveted invitation” – like, we have no idea how frequently or infrequently William and Kate entertain, but as a long-time royal watcher, it definitely feels like they don’t have many friends and they aren’t socializing or throwing parties, nor are they known for being particularly nice or generous hosts. They practically turn the lights off and hide out when the pre-BAFTA dinner is held at Kensington Palace. How many times did they mooch dinner off of Harry and Meghan? I do wonder if Kate and William have invited many celebrities to Kensington Palace and they get turned down a lot. Anyway, Dolly Parton is an American treasure and her work ethic is unparalleled. She would be shocked by the lazy duo.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

We’ve been playing the “will Prince Andrew actually have to face some consequences” game for four solid years. Longer than that, really, because Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell was common knowledge for more than two decades. Sh-t hit the fan when Andrew sat down for that BBC interview in the fall of 2019 though, and ever since, it’s been a game of “he’s no longer a working royal” and “but he still lives in a mansion and tries to talk his mother into launching a comeback for her favorite son” and “but Charles hates him” and “but Charles is perfectly fine with having Andrew around for various holidays and vacations.” The latest WTF is that Andrew, Fergie and their daughters are vacationing at Balmoral right now, and Andrew was chauffeured to church by Prince William on Sunday. People are starting to wonder if Charles is grooming his human trafficker brother for a comeback. Buckingham Palace ran to the Mail to say of course not. Hm.

King Charles is ‘absolutely resolute’ that Prince Andrew will not return to public duties and there will be no ‘change in tack’ over his royal status, insiders have claimed.

The Duke of York, 63, was seen in a car with the Prince and Princess of Wales as the family travelled to church in Balmoral yesterday in what has been branded as a ‘public statement of togetherness’. But while Andrew appeared to be well and truly back in the royal fold, experts say Charles remains firms there is ‘no possibility’ of him returning to royal duties.

A source told The Telegraph: ‘He has always been clear that the Duke is a much-loved member of the family, but that does not mean there will be a change in tack when it comes to his royal status.’

However, royal insiders allege that while Andrew will not return to public life, the King has made it clear ‘privately’ that he will ‘support his brother and help him get his life back on track’ – as evidenced by the Balmoral outing.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline the photographs of Prince Andrew travelling to church with the Waleses were ‘clearly intended to send a message of family unity’. But he insisted it was not a sign Andrew could return to public duties in any form. ‘This is a sad time for the royal family on their customary break at Balmoral. They and the nation will shortly be commemorating a year since the death of the Queen. We know how close Andrew was to the late Queen, his appearance at the Duke of Edinburgh’s Memorial Service in March 2022, where he supported her physically whilst she was giving him emotional and financial support caused much controversy. It has been reported that his allowance has been cut.’

But Mr Fitzwilliams added: ‘It is important to stress that there is no possibility, as King Charles and Prince William have always realised, of him returning to public duties in any form. A glance at his non-existent popularity ratings in the polls make the public mood very clear on this issue. However what is being emphasised is harmony on a personal level and clearly he and his immediate family, who are also at Balmoral, will appreciate this a great deal, especially as the photographs we see today are such a very public statement of togetherness.’

[From The Daily Mail]

While I’m loath to give King Charles the benefit of the doubt on anything at any time, I simply don’t believe that Charles cares enough about Andrew to even plot out some strategy to bring Andrew “back” to whatever working-royal status or what have you. Charles’s goal here is much simpler – he wanted the temporary visuals of a “happy family” gathered at Balmoral for his first summer as king, because Charles is terrified that one of these days, people will start to pick up on the fact that he’s a dogsh-t father. Like, this is all about Charles’s self-preservation, and it’s also about all of the Windsors’ single-minded obsession with Prince Harry. Everything here with Andrew is designed with Harry in mind. Charles wants to look benevolent (towards Andrew), he wants to look family-oriented (except he evicted his son, DIL and grandbabies from their British home). He also wants to say: look, this is the path Harry could take, if only he would come groveling back to us and let us control him, abuse him and manipulate him.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Mark Zuckerberg (@zuck)

Now that all of the drama about his potential cage match with Space Karen has died down, Mark Zuckerberg is free to remind the world just why we all hated him in the first place. Yup, Lizard Boy is back to doing that other thing he loves best: being a shameless billionaire who is all about those shareholder profits, baby!

Back in June, Meta, like many companies, updated their remote work policy, and it was basically one big “just kidding!” Despite Zuckerberg once declaring that Meta would be largely a remote company, the new policy required employees to be back in person three days a week. Late last week, an internal memo went out with some pretty strict return-to-office policies. Remember all of those podcasts and think pieces declaring that thanks to the pandemic, employees held all of the power? Well, quelle surprise, but we are now in the “The Empire Strikes Back” phase of workers vs. big business.

Mark Zuckerberg, once a champion of fully remote work, has doubled down on Meta’s crackdown on working from home—with the company threatening to discipline anyone who doesn’t abide by the looming rule changes.

Late last week, the Facebook and Instagram parent company laid out the precise details of its return-to-office mandate in a staff memo, the details of which were published by Insider.

Describing the shift as an “In-Person Time Policy,” Meta’s head of HR Lori Goler reiterated that from Sept. 5, it would be mandatory for all employees—except those with management-approved exemptions—to be back in the office three days a week.

Meta first told its employees in June that it was updating its remote work policy, meaning they would be expected to work from their assigned offices at least three days a week from September—a move that came much later than many of its Big Tech peers like Google, Apple, and Twitter.

The social media titan said at the time that this “distributed work” framework would allow its staff to “make a meaningful impact both from the office and at home.”

It marked a significant U-turn from CEO Zuckerberg’s pandemic-era assertions that half of Meta’s tens of thousands of employees could be working remotely by the end of the decade, and that the tech giant would become “the most forfƒƒuvward-leaning company on remote work.”

[From Fortune]

I am no legal scholar, but I think that Meta probably has every right to update their remote-work policy. Once the other big companies started ordering employees back into the office, it was only a matter of time. It still sucks that Meta did such a 180 on its employees. Even with three months’ warning, I would be mad if I had completely rearranged my life and, say, moved someplace more affordable and out of the Silicon Valley area based on my own CEO’s words. I have firsthand stories from people who were hired by tech companies during the pandemic for a fully remote position, only to have them turn around and give those workers the ultimatum of going into the office (even if it meant moving halfway across the country) or find a new job. Is Meta trying to get employees to leave so they don’t have to pay to lay them off?

I’m curious to hear what people think about remote vs in-person work now and if their preference has changed since businesses started bringing people back into the office. I love working from home but am also a giant extrovert, and need to have some form of human interaction for my mental health. I think it’s different for everyone because we all have different work-styles, you know? I work better when I’m at home without distraction but have had coworkers tell me they are more productive when they’re in-person, so I guess personally, if I had to choose, I’d pick a hybrid situation with 1-2 days in the office.

There is an acknowledgment among prosecutors that Donald Trump’s most important trial is the one for his crimes in connection with January 6th. That’s the whole ballgame, that’s the crime of the century, that’s the crime which poses the most significance to democracy as we know it. Perhaps Trump will be convicted of all of the other charges, but we still need to go through the process of holding him accountable for organizing and inciting a coup against the government. Special Counsel Jack Smith had asked for a January 2024 trial, and Trump had asked for a 2026 trial. Well, the judge has decided that the insurrection trial will begin on March 4, 2024.

A federal judge on Monday set a trial date of March 4 in the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, rebuffing Mr. Trump’s proposal to push it off until 2026.

The decision by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to start the trial in March amounted to an early victory for prosecutors, who had asked for Jan. 2. But it potentially brought the proceeding into conflict with the three other trials that Mr. Trump is facing, underscoring the extraordinary complexities of his legal situation and the intersection of the prosecutions with his campaign to return to the White House.

The district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., has proposed taking Mr. Trump to trial on charges of tampering with the election in that state on March 4 as well. Another case, in Manhattan, in which Mr. Trump has been accused of more than 30 felonies connected to hush-money payments to a porn actress in the run-up to the 2016 election, has been scheduled to go to trial on March 25. And if the trial in Washington lasts more than 11 weeks, it could bump up against Mr. Trump’s other federal trial, on charges of illegally retaining classified documents after he left office and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them. That trial is scheduled to begin in Florida in late May.

Judge Chutkan said that while she understood Mr. Trump had both other trial dates scheduled next year and, at the same time, was running for the country’s highest office, she was not going to let the intersection of his legal troubles and his political campaign get in the way of setting a date.

“Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule,” Judge Chutkan said, adding that “there is a societal interest to a speedy trial.”

[From The NY Times]

Again, it’s not Jack Smith’s fault that the man he’s prosecuting is going on trial in other jurisdictions around the country. But there is an acknowledgement by prosecutors in other jurisdictions that this trial gets priority. The March 4 date is also interesting because that means the trial starts the day before Super Tuesday, where fifteen states have their primaries.

Trump thinks he can appeal the trial schedule. He cannot. I actually cracked a smile at “election interference” with regards to scheduling the prosecution of Trump for inciting a f–king coup.

This is also just in: He can’t appeal the judge’s scheduling order. https://t.co/ZLLMi2XzpR

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 28, 2023

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, mug shot courtesy of Fulton County.

With last week’s announcement about Prince Harry’s stop in the UK on September 7th, I thought the British papers would be full of all kinds of speculation and nastiness about the Sussexes over the weekend. While there was some of that, inevitably, there was also an undercurrent of “been there, done that” with the reporting. Like, there’s nothing new, even with Harry’s visit – nothing has changed and the storyline simply doesn’t have enough juice at the moment. So it’s interesting that there were suddenly some royal commentators making forays into “being critical about Lazy William and Lazy Kate.” Granted, there should have been wall-to-wall condemnation for William after he couldn’t be bothered to watch the Women’s World Cup final. But the invisible contract, etc. This is the kind of thing they can manage: noting that Kate and William only have a meager charitable portfolio of 50 patronages (combined) and that Will and Kate have only gone on 40 joint engagements this year, eight months into the year.

The Prince and Princess of Wales have been tipped to take on more responsibility due to their “unique position” in being able to boost the monarchy. Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams has said that he thinks the couple will likely take on a slightly increased workload, and hold a “unique cachet” for doing so. The couple, who are often deemed two of the most popular royals, are currently patrons for 50 charities, as well as running their own projects on the side.

According to the Gert’s Royals website, which is the Encyclopaedia Britannica crossed with the Doomsday Book of royal watching, the couple have taken on 40 joint engagements so far this year. This information, which was collected last month, shows that the couple’s number of engagements appear similar to that of 2019. This has sparked questions as to whether the couple will take on more than they previously have done, particularly now that their three children are growing older.

Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, Mr Fitzwilliams said that he believes they will increase their workload, adding: “I would think William and Catherine might well take on more, those they have taken on certainly have a unique cachet…After the Queen’s death and after the Sussexes and Andrew ceased to carry out royal engagements, the Palace announced a review of royal patronages. With fewer of them and only four working royals under 70 expect fewer royal engagements.”

Speaking of the engagement numbers, he added: “This is comparatively few numerically compared to the usual number senior royals such as Princess Anne have been involved with, but [Kate and William] are in a unique position to boost the profile of those they are attached to.”

[From The Daily Express]

They’re “in a unique position to boost the profile of those they are attached to” unless a patronage needs boosting during their two-month summer holiday or during their annual six-week holiday around Easter, or during their post-Christmas holiday when they aren’t seen for about five weeks. I mean, what did the Lionesses think? Their patron would actually show up to support them and do his job? Of course not. Anyway… only 40 joint engagements in eight months is pretty paltry! But way to put a bow on it, royal experts!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Simone Biles won her eighth all-around national title, which broke a 90-year-old gymnastics record. It will be crazy if she wins everything in Paris next year. [Just Jared]
The trailer for Foe – starring Saoirse Ronan & Paul Mescal – is intense. [LaineyGossip]
Are NDAs a big problem in reality television? [Pajiba]
This ‘90s girl has always loved Parker Posey. [Go Fug Yourself]
I still don’t get this Timothee Chalamet selfie. [Socialite Life]
Joe Biden is already campaigning on abortion. [Jezebel]
Jessica Biel wore Rosetta Getty in Soho. [RCFA]
Rest in peace Bob Barker. [Seriously OMG]
Ariana Grande is releasing some live tracks. [Egotastic]
What is Hugh Hefner’s son Marston up to? [Buzzfeed]
Sister Wives is still getting huge ratings. [Starcasm]
Review of Bottoms. [Towleroad]

I’m sort of quietly fine with Hailey Bieber. She’s not my fave or anything, but I believe she gets so much unnecessary hate and online drama from Selena Gomez’s fans. All Hailey did was marry Justin Bieber when he proposed. That’s it. You would think that Selena and her fans would feel like “thank god, he’s moved on.” They don’t. It’s also clear that Justin adores Hailey and that she’s a very stable person, which is what Justin needs. Anyway, Hailey has her skincare line, Rhode, and she models and she’s Justin’s wife. Hailey recently spoke to the Sunday Times about all of that and more. Some highlights:

Hailey & Justin love to throw gatherings: “The Biebers love to host. We had a Super Bowl party this year. I really love to cook.” Does she have a go-to dish? “I like to do some sort of pasta and a protein — whether it’s salmon or chicken. There’s something “really joyful about people consuming your food… I like to take care of people.”

On her skincare line, Rhode: “Skincare is a real-life commitment for me. To this day my nana is obsessed with great skin products. She would take me to the mall and get all the samples.” Although Bieber plans to continue modelling she describes Rhode as a “primary focus”. “It’s my favourite thing I’ve ever done. It has exceeded my wildest expectations.”

Her fresh-faced aesthetic. “As I’ve gotten older I’ve realised how much more comfortable I feel with just fresh skin and brushed-up brows,” she says. For months she buried herself in skincare books and also took an online dermatology course. “I’m fascinated by the medical field. When I started modelling I used to walk around with a medical terminology book in my bag.” She didn’t consider becoming a doctor? “I hated studying, so there was no way I was going to go to school for any of this. I didn’t graduate high school because I was home schooled and I dropped out [at age 18], which I don’t love.”

Wearing a “Nepo Baby” t-shirt. “That was me being, like, ‘I’m very aware of the situation … I’m going to wear it loud and proud because you are already labelling me as such and it’s true.’”

On all of the hate & nonsense she gets online: When I broach the subject today, Bieber’s publicist interjects, telling me to move on. Whatever the truth about her relationship with Gomez, the toxic analysis of it does both women a disservice. While Gomez remains unfairly defined by a relationship she left years ago, Bieber is arguably the victim of mass-scale online bullying that no amount of money or fame can insulate her from. When Bieber later states that she has “accepted” there’s “no winning ever” when it comes to the internet’s perception of her, I can’t help but feel for her.

The possibility of Baby Biebers: At some point baby Biebers will be on the cards. How does she feel about bringing children into her extremely privileged yet public life? “I literally cry about this all the time! I want kids so bad but I get scared. It’s enough that people say things about my husband or my friends. I can’t imagine having to confront people saying things about a child. We can only do the best we can to raise them. As long as they feel loved and safe.”

She is not a regular churchgoer: “I don’t remember the last time I went to church on a Sunday. [For me] it’s not about having to go to a service on a certain day of the week. It’s more about loving who’s in front of you. I could be sitting at home on Tuesday watching a live stream of a service and that’s church. Having friends over for dinner and just loving each other is church for me.”

[From The Times]

I remember reading Hailey and Justin’s dual interviews when they first got engaged and married, and it was actually pretty clear why Hailey wasn’t focused on having a baby right away – because Justin still needed to figure sh-t out in his life and Hailey wasn’t looking to take care of a baby and a husband. I wonder if she still feels like that? I don’t know. I respect the fact that she’s waiting though. I also respect that she’s not trying to say anything which will get her additional hate from Selena’s fans, who pore over every single thing Hailey says publicly and privately. The Times actually summarized the situation well.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Two seconds after QEII died, Mike Tindall signed up to compete on a tacky reality show called I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here. He was eliminated before the final, but not before he was photographed assaulting a female crew member on the production. Tindall did make six-figures from the whole tacky extravaganza though – not only was he paid for the show, his profile was boosted enough that he got some sponsors like Domino’s and Amazon. All in all, a nice payday for a few months of “work.” Tindall also has a podcast where he gossips about sports, celebrity and royalty, and it turns out that he’s organized some kind of podcast tour too. And now this: Tindall is taking part in yet another reality show.

Mike Tindall is set to appear on the small screen once more, following his successful appearance on I’m a Celebrity, Get me out of Here last year. The husband of King Charles’ niece Zara and former rugby international, 44, will appear on new ITV reality show Grand Slammers.

Alongside other players from the England Rugby team that won the 2003 World Cup, Mike will enter HMP The Mount prison and attempt to build and train a team of inmates strong enough to compete against a formidable rival, the Australians. The other players entering the facility – which is home to one of the only remaining rugby pitches inside an adult male English prison – include Captain Martin Johnson, Jonny Wilkinson, Lawrence Dallaglio, Phil Vickery, Jason Robinson, Will Greenwood, Ben Cohen, Mike Tindall and Matt Dawson.

According to the production company behind the programme, which will feature two 90-minute shows, the series will offer a ‘vivid insight into the power of sport to change lives as the England legends open up to inmates about how rugby had a profound impact on them during formative periods and gave them a purpose in life’.

Mike’s return to the small screen comes as he appeared to ramp up work in recent months, appearing on I’m A Celebrity and a number of advertising campaigns, including for Domino’s and Amazon. He also recently announced that his podcast The Good, The Bad and The Rugby would tour across the UK, with 17 dates set to take place. The 17 date tour will start at the end of October and continue throughout November and December.

[From The Daily Mail]

Honestly, this one doesn’t sound as tacky as the last one. The Mail quotes the producer of the show at length, explaining that the rugby training is a way to combat recidivism and I sort of get that. It’s tricky, though, when you consider that some/many of the imprisoned men have likely been convicted of violent crimes, and now a TV producer and the king’s nephew-in-law will be spending all of this time humanizing them and teaching them a violent sport. In any case, the Tindalls are really cashing in now that QEII has passed. The royal commentators sniff and say that Charles will be keeping his eye on this stuff, but that sounds like just another bluff. Like, “the palace is reviewing the Sussexes’ contracts” kind of bluff.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

As a young millennial I have strong feelings about jeans. We went through a lot of low-rise bootcut trauma in the early 2000s, and we will never forget. But the fashion world has continued to recycle denim trends from prior decades and in my corner of the internet it seemed like my gen Z friends have embraced the low rise denim. Honestly it feels hard to keep track of trends because TikTok and fast fashion have both contributed to microtrends. That’s even become the case with the big design houses. They’re making more collections now than ever before (what season is “pre-resort” supposed to be??). It’s hard to pinpoint trends across so many collections. This fall, Vogue France is predicting that baggy jeans will make a comeback. They’ve been seen on runways at Gucci and Victoria Beckham, and on celebs like Hailey Bieber, Jennifer Lopez, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Emily Ratajkowski. I’m not mad at this development.

After being overshadowed by skinny jeans in the 2010s, baggy jeans are now back in full force. Known for their low waistline and exaggerated lines, they first gained popularity in the US during the 1990s, influenced by the sagging trend. This somewhat controversial style involved wearing jeans below the waist, sometimes revealing underwear. It originated from American prisoners who, deprived of belts, had no choice but to let their pants sag. A decade later, rappers adopted this unique jean style, making it a significant part of their fashion identity. Thus, baggy jeans were born.

This season, designers are vying to reinvent this retro piece. At Gucci, baggy jeans held onto their relaxed aesthetic but took on a workwear dimension, while Victoria Beckham envisioned them in a chic, feminine variant.

The latest to embrace the trend is none other than Gigi Hadid. Off the runway, the supermodel often opts for comfortable, effortless outfits. In New York, she chose blue baggy jeans paired with an ecru knit sweater and a checkered crochet Prada tote bag. The ensemble was completed with layered necklaces, perfect for late summer or early fall looks.

Jennifer Lopez, on the other hand, went for a tried-and-true fashion combo: baggy Icon Denim jeans paired with a white Brunello Cucinelli crop top. This pairing harks back to the styles she and other R&B stars favored in the 1990s. She finished her look with a beige Jacquemus Chiquito bag, a pair of Jordans, and gold Jennifer Fisher hoops.

In the streets of New York, Emily Ratajkowski dared a head-to-toe Y2K-inspired look, dressed in a Réalisation Par blue top, charcoal gray baggy jeans and white Vans.

[From Vogue France]

I like the baggy jean look–just not on me. If you are petite (and I am pretty short), I think it can be a tricky look to pull off. But it’s comfy and can be styled so many ways. Of all the looks they feature in the article, I like Emily Ratajkowski’s the best–it’s so nonchalant but she still looks chic somehow. Oddly I think her little glasses make the look. I find Haily Bieber’s style to be enormously overhyped–she rarely looks bad, but at the same time, I think a lot of her looks are pretty basic. This trend would be easy to thrift since there are so many pairs of old jeans from the 90s floating around. For me, if I wear something oversized, I will automatically look sloppy even if I’ve dressed with great care. Something I think about often is how much of this “trend forecasting” is propaganda from the fashion world and how much of it actually reflects consumer demand. But it makes sense that after years of lounge wear and athleisure because of the pandemic, people would be receptive to denim that’s looser, comfier, and more forgiving.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: TatianaK, @CelebrityLivin_, Ave Phoenix and MediaPunch / Backgrid, x/Avalon, Getty