Bill Murray is just one of those celebrities. He’s one of those (white) guys who gets away with it. He gets away with treating costars like garbage and people still hire him. He gets away with harassing Geena Davis and verbally abusing Lucy Liu and people just selectively ignore their stories. He gets away with getting fired for putting his hands on unconsenting women and he still gets asked to do another Ghostbusters movie. So, Bill Murray is in London, filming a new Ghostbusters movie. While in London, he went to a music festival, which is where he ran into Kelis. They were photographed together backstage at her show, and now the Sun claims that they’re dating.

Hollywood superstar Bill Murray has struck up an unlikely romance with Milkshake singer Kelis — who is almost 30 years his junior. The Ghostbusters actor, 72, watched the mum of three, 43, perform from the side of the stage in London last weekend – having also been spotted at her other recent shows.

Sources say the pair were also together at the same hotel, and have been “getting close for a while” after first meeting in their native US. They have reportedly bonded since Kelis’s second husband died in March last year, while Bill’s estranged wife passed away in 2021.

Father-of-six Bill was pictured during Kelis’s set at the Mighty Hoopla festival in Brockwell Park, South London. The pair also posed for a cosy snap backstage.

A friend said: “They’ve met up in the States before which got people in the industry talking, and now are meeting up in London while they’re both here. They’ve clearly hit it off. They were both seen at the same hotel, and he’s been to watch her perform several times before he went to Mighty Hoopla. But they’ve also both shared relatively recent bereavements and have that common bond between them. Whatever it is that has brought them together, and however unlikely it seems, they are both single and are having fun despite the fairly big age gap.”

Bill is currently filming a sequel to the classic Ghostbusters franchise in London, which sees him reprise his role as Peter Venkman alongside many of the original cast from the 1984 blockbuster. Off screen, his second wife Jennifer Butler accused him of domestic ­abuse and sex, marijuana and ­alcohol addictions — as well as ­infidelity — during their marriage. The costume designer filed for divorce in 2008, but the pair are understood to have remained in touch before her death in 2021.

[From The Sun]

Yeah, I doubt this is real. I think they met and they were probably nice to each other and had a conversation, but this feels more like the Sun’s editorial staff just making up a story to go along with the photos. In any case, I HOPE Kelis isn’t dating Bill Murray. She’s had so much drama and tragedy in her life and she’s had bad luck with men. She doesn’t need Bill Murray’s crap.

Milkshake singer Kelis, 43, and Bill Murray, 72, are dating https://t.co/uKkOLnGymC

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) June 8, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Following Prince Harry’s “brief” appearance at his father’s coronation last month, the Telegraph reported that Harry stopped by Buckingham Palace for a few minutes before heading off to Heathrow. There was speculation about why he would have bothered, and one of my favorite theories was that he was dropping off the keys to Frogmore Cottage and picking up a seven-figure check, a check reimbursing the Sussexes for the money they spent renovating that dilapidated shack. Harry’s 28-hour coronation stop-over was supposedly his “last time” at Frogmore Cottage, because his father evicted the Sussexes out of spite following the publication of Spare. Weirdly, the Telegraph now claims that Harry stayed at Frogmore this week while he was in England to testify against the Mirror Group Newspapers. Hm.

The Duke of Sussex was due to arrive back home in California on Thursday night after staying at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, The Telegraph understands. The Duke, 38, spent three nights in the UK as he returned to give evidence in his High Court phone-hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). But he followed what has become standard practice by swiftly dashing back to the US, opting not to extend his stay any longer than necessary.

The Duke is not believed to have seen his father, the King, or his brother, the Prince of Wales, during his brief visit. Accompanied only by his security team, he stayed at his Windsor home for what is likely to be the last time.

The King evicted the Duke and Duchess from the property at the beginning of the year, just days after the publication of Harry’s memoir, Spare. The couple were given until early summer to vacate but are not thought to be planning to return to the UK in the coming weeks.

The Duke left the court shortly after 5pm on Wednesday, waving to onlookers as he was driven away in a black Range Rover. He is understood to have boarded a flight back home on Thursday afternoon, keen to get back to his family “as quickly as possible”. The Duke made a similar dash back home after the Coronation last month, when he headed straight to the airport from Westminster Abbey, via a quick vehicle change, having spent just 28 hours in the country. On that occasion, he was determined to kiss his son, Prince Archie, goodnight on his fourth birthday, which happened to fall on the same day.

[From The Telegraph]

I saw some tweets from royalists about how “sad” it was that Harry was staying alone in Frogmore Cottage while, just a short distance away, William was with his family at Adelaide Cottage. First of all, if you honestly believe William has been staying at Adelaide Cottage this whole time, I have a bridge to sell you. But I do find it interesting that Harry possibly stayed at Frogmore… it’s curious. I wonder if the British press has no idea where he was staying so they’re just assuming it was Frogmore? And why the f–k would Harry stick around Windsor endlessly when his garbage family has made it perfectly clear that they have a violent, twisted hatred for him? Also: “which happened to fall on the same day” – they still make it sound like the Sussexes *chose* to schedule Archie’s birthday on that day, when Charles decided to beef with a literal child about who was more important.

Meanwhile, the Sussexes also got a name-check in the Telegraph’s story about the upcoming Trooping the Colour, which is happening on June 17th. The Sussexes will not be in attendance. They haven’t been invited. But it will be twisted into “how dare they not come back for Trooping, where they would have been snubbed and thrown off the balcony!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Netflix.

The final part of the much-hyped Vanderpump Rules season 10 reunion just happened. There weren’t a ton of content surprises if you live online, but watching these people actually say and confirm some of these things… wow. Just wow. Tom Sandoval’s rude comment about his sex life with Ariana Madix was leaked on Deux Moi a few weeks ago, but in context it was even worse, if that’s possible. Ariana commented that they were still sleeping together while Tom was sleeping with Raquel and he couldn’t stop himself from clapping back on the betrayed ex-girlfriend he says he loves by saying “she kept her T-shirt on, it was really hot.” Awful!

Tom Sandoval was not making friends during the final episode of the Vanderpump Rules reunion special.

Wednesday’s special had a lot of drama, swearing, snide comments and bitter vitriol throughout — but there was one moment that seemingly unified everyone against one person: Sandoval.

As has been the case throughout the three-part special, much of the screen time has been devoted to “Scandoval” — the drama surrounding Sandoval and Ariana Madix, who split up earlier this year when Madix discovered that her boyfriend of nearly a decade had been cheating on her with fellow castmate Raquel Leviss.

At one point during Wednesday’s special, host Andy Cohen asked if Sandoval had slept with any other women since sparking his affair with Leviss, to which Sandoval said he had not — and denied rumors that he hooked up with another woman in Chicago last year.

This is when Madix brought up an important point, stating, “Well, you know who he did sleep with after he and Raquel started sleeping together? Me.”

“She kept her T-shirt on, it was really hot,” Sandoval shot back sarcastically.

In an hour of television filled with screaming and fighting and loud retorts, the speechless silence left in the wake of Tom’s comment was deafening.

“You’re such a f**king d**k,” Lala Kent declared, as James Kennedy asked simply, “What the f**k dude? You’re f**king disgusting.”

Even Sandoval’s longtime best friend, Tom Schwartz, was left with nothing to do but hang his head and quietly mutter, “Don’t say that, dude. Don’t say that.”

“This is your future Raquel,” Kent said, almost sympathetically. “He’s gonna talk to you like this too.”

Sandoval’s defensive “OK, I’m sorry” response was, unsurprisingly, not quite enough to win back any support.

[From ET Online]

So disrespectful and unnecessary. And he apologized to Schwartz, not Ariana! Tom keeps crying and pretending to be contrite, but then habitually lets the mask slip with sh-t like this. He apologizes because that’s what he’s supposed to do, but then he can’t help himself from taking shots at Ariana and defending himself and Raquel when he should just stay silent and take it. Same goes for his little side chat with Raquel after she left the stage. The pair pretended to be sobered and affected by the gravity of what they’ve done and everyone’s new opinions of them for five whole seconds before they started laughing and joking. Ugh. They also admitted, under Andy’s questioning, that they are in love, but I don’t think anyone aside from Raquel believes that Tom loves her. I am not sure Tom actually would have gone through with the breakup and I think that now being confronted with what he thought he wanted he is making the best of the situation he created for himself by sticking with Raquel.

And Raquel couldn’t even stick to his narrative. In a sort of addendum to the episode, Raquel did her final interview after the reunion in which she admitted several things we already suspected. They kept insisting their affair was a one-time thing until January, but she admitted it was ongoing, including when they were all in Mexico for Scheana’s wedding. And finally, she debunked the stupid lie that dipped out — no went to Tom’s room — no slept in the guest room — after the beach day / Jacuzzi night while Ariana away for her grandmother’s funeral. Tom really wanted to lie on that point because it’s a bad look to have sex with your affair partner in your home while your girlfriend is away for a funeral, but apparently Raquel couldn’t lie about that anymore. As if she’s not still lying about other stuff, like St. Louis. As if we thought there ever was a world in which cheaters have a boozy Jacuzzi sleepover and don’t have sex (though I guess they do drink a lot, but there’s always the next morning). Her crying over that confession to a producer was the most emotion we’ve seen from her throughout the whole entire scandal.

NO HE FUCKIN DIDNT WE ARE ALL SCHEANA RN ARE YOU SERIOUS ONDISBEISNEDIEBWBSB #PumpRules pic.twitter.com/9fKkzJXPGe

— rinna supremacy (@spicysucculents) June 8, 2023

photos are screenshots from YouTube

Vanessa Friedman is the chief fashion critic for the New York Times, and she decided to set her gaze on Prince Harry and his court fashion. Thank god! I’m still not tired of dissecting Harry’s California glow-up. The old version of Harry bought discounted shirts at TK Maxx and wore the same suede shoes with every outfit. California Harry wears Dior suits and beautifully crafted designer shoes, with a high polish. The Duchess of Sussex is a former actress and model, plus I think Meghan just has a good eye, a good baseline aesthetic, and her style has rubbed off on Harry. He puts care into how he presents himself, how he dresses for the occasion. It was nice of Vanessa Friedman to notice:

Now, thanks to his two days of testimony in London’s High Court in the phone hacking trial against the Mirror Newspaper Group, there is one more Harry: the serious private citizen, girded to fight for the right of all against the untoward intrusions of the British tabloid press.

It is the first time a royal has testified in court since 1891, and his appearance can reframe not just what that looks like for history, but also what Harry represents. After all, there are no cameras in the courtroom, so the entrance imagery is what the world sees even before they read reports about what is said (if they read reports about what is said). It is the basis on which new public opinion is formed.

This Harry wears neatly tailored single-breasted dark suits — deep navy on Tuesday, dark gray on Wednesday, shaded to convey the somber nature of the situation (also not Dior, according to the brand — at least not “to our knowledge,” a Dior spokeswoman said). Skinny ties in single shades just hint at his royal status: a purple so dark it was almost black, a light silver. Pure white shirts with slightly shrunken collars and black shoes shined to a high gloss.

His silhouette, like his ties, is narrow with just a whiff of California, rather than Savile Row, in the line. There is very little to distract from his words, save for the occasional flash of a rope bracelet when he waves at the watching public.

“The entire ensemble is ‘spare’ of detail,” said Joseph Rosenfeld, an image consultant for executives in New York and Silicon Valley, nodding to Harry’s former identity as the spare. The effect is traditional enough to be respectful without seeming hidebound, Mr. Rosenfeld said. “The man knows, whether he likes it or not, that many eyes are upon him.”

The effect is of someone somber and entirely unruffled, though also, thanks to his scruffy beard — the one Harry once described as a “shield” from anxiety — himself…He more closely resembles a successful businessman (one who works somewhere other than the family “firm”) than a royal, which also makes him more relatable.

It’s hard to imagine that he just randomly pulled the look from his wardrobe, given the strategic way his wife, for one, has clearly considered the couple’s image-making and its effects since their relationship began. Rather, for this purpose, Harry is clad in the supersuit of courtroom attire. Up, up and away with the phone hacking, the abuse of power, the irresponsibility. He’s an avenger of a different kind, and this is his endgame.

[From The New York Times]

I appreciate this, and it’s interesting that she got Dior to go on record about how these don’t look like their suits. I would imagine that the suits are probably from an American designer – she’s right that these don’t look like the Savile Row suits Harry’s father prefers. What’s also great is that Harry wears the f–k out of clothes. Even when he wore cheap sh-t, he still looked good, maybe like a rumpled bad boy with fluffy hair. Look at him now that he has the money and time to put together a modern civilian uniform.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Camilla Tominey at the Telegraph recently had piece which is shockingly not focused on lying about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Well, the Sussexes do get a mention, because of course Tominey has to scratch that itch, and the reason for the name-check is because Harry and Meghan were supposed to be around for King Charles’s reign, they were supposed to be part of Charles’s slimmed-down monarchy. But H&M are gone, which leaves the monarchy with a bunch of seniors and a couple of lazy 40-somethings. So this is Tominey giving advice to the king: Charles must “deploy the wives of Windsor” to be “a truly modern monarch.” I thought this was going to be about how Camilla, Kate and Sophie need to do more and be seen more, but no, it’s about one very specific thing: how the “married-in” royals need to be allowed to conduct investitures. As is, allowing Kate, Sophie and Camilla to hand out honors like knighthoods and CBEs and OBEs. As it stands now, only “blood royals” can pass out honors.

Despite Princess Anne’s unparalleled work ethic, there is arguably more the royals could do – if only they were allowed. Take Investitures – once described by the late Queen as among the most important of all her royal duties. These are the ceremonies at which those lucky enough to have made it onto the two honours’ lists every year are presented with their various awards. The most well-known honours are knighthoods, damehoods, MBEs, OBEs and CBEs, but there are a whole range of others that are handed out, such as the different classes of the Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George, and the rankless Order of Merit and the Companions of Honour.

Currently, Investitures are hosted by the King, the Princess Royal and the Prince of Wales in line with a long-standing convention that awards and honours should only be presented by a “blood” royal. But with Camilla now Queen, and Kate, the new Princess of Wales, might the King be minded to soup up his slimmed-down monarchy with a bit of girl power? As well as his wife and daughter-in-law, he could also call upon the Duchess of Edinburgh to host the ceremonies, when the member of the Royal family places the decoration on the recipient and congratulates them on their honour.

According to constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, there is no formal rule on who should preside over Investitures. “It’s up to the King – there’s nothing formally written down. It is one of the problems of slimming down the monarchy, that there may not be enough people to do these important jobs. But if the King did want more royals to carry out Investitures, then he could make it happen. It’s all down to his discretion and many would see it as an act of modernisation.”

Prof Bogdanor adds that any changes would have to be supported by public opinion. Christopher Joll, British military historian and author, agrees: “There might be a feeling that if an Investiture was conducted by someone who had married into the family, it wouldn’t be quite the same thing. But actually I think people would be happy to receive honours and awards from any royal with enough seniority. It’s perhaps worth remembering that the King can delegate anybody to act on his behalf which is why you get lord-lieutenants carrying out one-off Investitures – or generals in the field. As the fount of honour, the monarch can decide who can act on his behalf.”

Curiously, although the convention dictates that the Queen and Princess of Wales don’t currently host Investitures, as blood royals, Andrew’s daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie could, even though they are “non-working” royals. “This is perhaps one of the problems with the King introducing this relatively new concept of ‘working’ and ‘non-working’ royals,” says Joll. “On one hand, the Yorks could, in theory, carry out an Investiture as blood princesses, but because they are ‘non-working’ royals, they currently don’t.”

[From The Telegraph]

I truly can’t believe she managed to get something like 1000 words out of a one-sentence argument: let the married-in royals host investitures. And, I mean, it’s something that actually should happen. Queen Camilla should stagger around, half in the bag, and try to balance a sword on someone’s shoulder. The photos would be priceless. This is actually something Kate might be good at too, the quickest way to get Kate involved is to allow the York princesses to host an investiture. That’s the real problem – William and Kate don’t want to do it but they don’t want anyone else to do it either. Meanwhile, no one wants to get their MBE from Sophie.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

There are seemingly many layers to Edward Enninful’s ousting at British Vogue. Enninful handed in his resignation last Friday, saying that he was stepping into a global advisory role for international Vogue editions. Within hours, the rumors began that Enninful had gone up against Anna Wintour and she destroyed him. While I don’t doubt that some version of that actually happened, I also think there was probably a lot more nuance to this entire situation, including the fact that Enninful can and will make a lot more money outside of Conde Nast. The Telegraph had a surprisingly nuanced piece about how a behind-the-scenes ideological battle was part of this Enninful-vs-Wintour issue too. Unfortunately, the piece is called “Why Anna Wintour won Vogue’s war on woke.” The actual analysis is actually spot-on though. Some highlights:

Enninful clashed with Roger Lynch, the CEO of Condé Nast: According to some reports, Enninful’s decision was made at least in part because of a clash of ideas, with Lynch concerned about his progressive politics. At heart, Vogue is just another business, and as recent incidents at Nike, Bud Light, Disney and countless others have shown, the corporate world is an increasingly fraught place where you must strike a balance between selling your product and being seen to hold the “right” views.

Enninful’s progressive politics: As well as immaculate fashion chops (he started out as a stylist), Enninful had a contacts book bulging with famous friends. In the years since, he has cemented a reputation for diversity and activism. He featured the first trans contributor, Paris Lees, and cover star, Laverne Cox. Recent covers have featured disabled subjects. Last September he even featured a man, Timothee Chalamet, alone on the cover.

Advertisers loved Enninful: Advertisers were reportedly keen on Enninful’s new direction, which gave them the chance to be adjacent to a diverse, inclusive range of talent with right-on, social-media friendly messaging. It attracted hundreds of millions of pounds in advertising from companies like BMW. There were positive noises about circulation, too. Condé Nast can be opaque about its numbers, but Enninful’s Forces for Change issue in September 2019, which was guest-edited by the Duchess of Sussex and had Greta Thunberg on the cover, sold out in days.

But British Vogue became joyless: For others, however, Enninful’s activism came at the price of an entertaining magazine. “Everything that made [Enninful] not a classical editor (that is to say, a trained journalist with a ‘words’ background) was why he flew so high early on,” wrote Farrah Storr, former editor of Elle, in a Substack post. “Vogue morphed from a playful, albeit slightly horsey, fashion magazine into a deeply political manifesto.” Along the way, she writes, people stopped buying it: instead it was given away or sold at a discount. “It was joyless, too political and seemed to have forgotten its role as a high-end shopping magazine.”

A larger issue for businesses: “It’s pivotal for businesses to have diversity, not only for the moral sense but the business sense, too” says Octavius Black, the chief executive of consultancy MindGym. Black co-founded his management consultancy with a psychologist, so knows a thing or two about behavioural science. “We know that companies that are inclusive outperform those that are not. But some of these issues can become polarising, as it looks like certain protected categories compete with each other. Women’s rights and trans rights can come into conflict, as we’ve seen in Scotland. The risk is you’re appealing to a niche group and end up reducing your appeal to others. You want to be selling why your products are brilliant, and how you as a company are behaving responsibly and ethically in pursuit of that, but not taking a position on divisive social justice issues. You’d be unwise in America coming out for – or against – abortion, for example, which is not to say that it doesn’t matter, but it’s not the role of a company to take a position on those things.”

Vogue’s readership: Progressive views on gender might help win over celebrities, publicists and advertisers keen to bask in a bit of reflected diversity on social media, but they do not necessarily play as well with the core readership. Vogue readers skew older and female, while readers in the new territories into which Condé Nast is keen to expand: such as the Middle East, India and China, may have more traditional views on social matters. The Enninful approach seems to have been deemed too great a risk.

[From The Telegraph]

“You’d be unwise in America coming out for – or against – abortion, for example” – Wintour is a pro-choice Democrat and Vogue has, historically, editorially supported reproductive choice, abortion and birth control. But I get the larger point, which is: Enninful’s tenure at British Vogue was notable for how progressive and inclusive he made the magazine, but it came at the cost of alienating the core readership. Which I agree with, actually – you can argue that Enninful brought new readers, younger readers to the magazine, but if your core readership of middle-aged (white) women are canceling their subscriptions, what is the real cost-benefit analysis? Can you “make up” those lost readers in new readers, readers from a younger generation which doesn’t believe in buying fashion magazines at a newsstand, a younger gen which has already seen the new collections on social media? Is the purpose of British Vogue to give readers what they want or what they need? It’s not a woke-vs-non-woke thing, it’s about the changing landscape of print media.

All that being said, for all of the crying about “wokeism,” Enninful was overwhelmingly a political traditionalist who sucked up to the white establishment in the UK.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jana Kramer (@kramergirl)

I’ve seen coverage of Jana Kramer on Celebitchy for years and read the stories, even though I had no idea who Jana was. She is a country singer but has essentially made a second career off of her relationship drama. Basically every detail about Jana’s relationships is like a bright, flashing, neon sign that says “I have deep attachment wounds!” (I do, too, to be clear. Game recognizes game.) She had a podcast with her ex where they talked about all his rampant infidelity. He was a serial cheater and she continuously made excuses for him and took him back. It was a codependent mess. They finally broke up and she’s had a couple of relationships since then, including one with a guy who said she guilt tripped him for wanting to leave the house. Now she’s engaged to a guy after six months of dating and they already have a baby on the way. Flashing neon sign!!

This Allan guy sounds very nice: The country singer and Whine Down podcast host, 39, is pregnant and expecting her first child with fiancé Allan Russell, she confirms exclusively to PEOPLE.

“I didn’t think it would ever happen again, if I’m being honest. I’ve been through a lot, so this has just been a really beautiful thing,” says Kramer, whose new book The Next Chapter is out Oct. 24. “I’m letting it all sink in. It’s everything I’ve wanted and more. Allan was so sweet. He wrote me this little sticky note saying, ‘You deserve the happy ending.’”

She got pregnant pretty fast after deciding to try: “I’ve had miscarriages, so I didn’t even know if it was possible. I’m like, yes, it’d be beautiful for us to create something because I love this man. It would be the silver lining with everything that happened, but I’d always get kind of down about it because I didn’t know if I was capable of carrying a pregnancy again,” she says. “I was like, well, I’m going to be 40 in December, so I was like, we have one month to try. Literally one month.”

Then, during a trip to L.A. in March to attend the iHeartRadio Music Awards together, “I had this metallic taste in my mouth,” recalls Kramer. “That’s what I felt with both my other kids’ [pregnancies]. So I went to the store and got my Clearblue test. It said pregnant, and we just started crying.”

Her fiance splits his time between Nashville and the UK: Russell — who’s from the U.K. — has been flying back and forth from England to Nashville, and the couple try not to spend more than two weeks apart. “He’s splitting his time because he has a 15-year-old son in England. We make it work,” she says. “He is such a fun [dad], just out there on the trampoline with the kids. He always playing with [Jolie and Jace] and it’s really beautiful to see.”

[From People]

I’m happy for Jana, and I hope the rest of her pregnancy goes well. In the article she mentioned having some bleeding which was really scary but everything’s okay. That happened to someone close to me–she had a full period one month after the positive test and thought she had miscarried, but it was fine. I sometimes think pregnancy still isn’t that well understood. There are so many mysterious things that go on.

But to get back to my armchair psychology, I couldn’t help but notice that her fiance Allan splits his time between the US and the UK because his son is based over there. This isn’t a knock on him or anything, it just shows to me that Jana is subconsciously still going after someone who isn’t fully available, at least not right now. In fairness, being long distance is a much more benign version of “not fully available” than Mike Caussin’s compulsive philandering. I still see a lot of myself in this stuff, though. It’s all textbook, garden-variety anxious attachment behavior. I’m always drawn to men who are unavailable emotionally or who live far away or who are otherwise unsuitable (think, like, “smoke jumper who lives off-grid in the middle of the woods in an old school bus” type of unsuitable. Yes, I am in therapy). I’ve come to realize that the feeling I associate with “attraction” is just the sick thrill of knowing they’ll let me down eventually, like the high you get from gambling. It would not surprise me if Jana experienced the same kind of emotions when she meets someone who activates her attachment issues. Maybe she’s been in therapy and is working through some of this stuff. But how’s she going to feel when the baby comes and Allan still has to leave for weeks at a time to be a present dad for his son? I think that situation would be hard on anyone, by the way, not just Jana. To have a new baby in the house, and your partner traveling a lot, plus two small kids already? I hope Jana has people nearby to support her.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jana Kramer (@kramergirl)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jana Kramer (@kramergirl)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jana Kramer (@kramergirl)

Katie Nicholl returned to Vanity Fair this week to give an exclusive on Prince Harry’s appearances in a London court, in his case against Mirror Group Newspapers. Nicholl has few, if any, sources in the Sussexes’ camp, but she’s proven time and time again that she has excellent sources in Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace. Which makes the VF exclusive kind of interesting – the quotes she has about Harry’s ballsy campaign to change the way the British press operates are all basically repurposed from what Harry has said himself. The added flavor comes from the fact that King Charles and Prince William are clearly monitoring the progression of Harry’s many lawsuits and they’re scared sh-tless. Some highlights:

What Harry hopes to achieve: According to a source close to Harry, the prince feels his lawsuit is “not about seeking payouts or public apologies but about changing the way the tabloid press operates….Harry will stop at nothing. He believes he was hacked and that he has every reason to believe this was the case, given that the Mirror has admitted to historic phone hacking [in other cases]. In his eyes everything leads back to phone hacking.”

How Charles & William feel: Given the high-profile nature of the case and the personal nature of questioning, King Charles and Prince William were both said to be wary about Harry giving evidence. It is understood that Harry’s father had previously advised him not to take on the tabloids but Harry was intent on having his day in court.

Ominous: The fact that he has pursued the case is said to be another factor dividing Prince Harry from his family. “The family believes this is not going to end well,” one source said.

Harry didn’t see his father or brother: Harry’s relationship with his father and brother remains strained and he has not seen them during his fleeting trip to the UK. Harry is expected to leave for California Wednesday evening.

Embarrassing his trash family: The case risks embarrassing the royal family as private information has been revealed about other family members in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN). Court documents in April revealed that his brother, Prince William, had accepted “a very large sum of money”—thought to be about 1 million British pounds—from Rupert Murdoch’s NGN after he was a victim of phone hacking.

Worth it: At times he appeared exasperated and even overwhelmed as he endured hours of questioning, but sources close to Harry say it is worth it to the prince, who has said it is his life’s mission to change the media landscape. On Wednesday, he admitted that he was taking legal action “as a way to stop the abuse, intrusion, and hate that was coming towards me and my wife.” A day earlier, he singled out TV presenter and journalist Piers Morgan, who Harry claims has subjected him and his wife, Meghan Markle, to a barrage of abuse and harassment. “Harry is a man on a mission, and he wants to see change,” says a second source who knows him well.

[From Vanity Fair]

At this point, I just read everything as a threat. Honestly, it feels like the British media and the Windsors are on the same page about that too: they want actual harm to come to Prince Harry, they WANT things to “not end well” for him. Of course, they also just want Harry’s many lawsuits to end badly, as in: they want Harry to lose all of his lawsuits. William and Charles want to continue on with the arrangements they already have with the press. They like the status quo. The status quo has gotten them here, to this moment, where the Windsors and the British press can all live in a contented bubble of delusion of their own importance and significance. They all believe that if they simply repeat a thing enough times – “Harry is wrong, Harry is miserable, Harry would love to come back” – then it will become a fact.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

CNN’s CEO Chris Licht is out after a damning exposé in the Atlantic about his big scheme to make CNN more palatable to Nazis & insurrectionists. [CNN]
The trailer for Bottoms is here. [OMG Blog]
Gisele Bundchen is in Brazil & fronting a Louis Vuitton campaign. [LaineyGossip]
Elle Fanning lost a role when she was 16 and it was for a disgusting reason. [Dlisted]
Guess who this teenager grew up to be (I didn’t get it). [Seriously OMG]
What the Ted Lasso finale got right. [Pajiba]
Jodie Comer left the Broadway stage because of the bad air in NYC. [Jezebel]
Khloe Kardashian talks about whether she would get back with Tristan Thompson (something tells me they’re already back together). [JustJared]
Justin Hartley & his wife shop at Candle Delirium. [GFY]
These bridezilla stories are really something. [Buzzfeed]
I’ll admit, there were some amazing parts of the original SATC. [Towleroad]
Ophelia Lovibond looks amazing. [RCFA]

I’ve been waiting for the British press to turn on Carole Middleton for months, or maybe years. Throughout the months of speculation about the state of Party Pieces, most British outlets have simply done straight reporting, no commentary about how in the world a supposedly successful business worth millions suddenly became insolvent. The Middletons finally sold Party Pieces for £180K, which is roughly the amount of money Kate spends on fugly coatdresses and 1980s sparkle-gowns annually. There was some reporting on the fact that the Middletons took out a £220K pandemic loan, one which they have yet to repay. Then this week, the Mail revealed that Carole and Mike actually owe creditors £2.6 million in unsecured loans and more. The past six months have been all about Carole and Mike covering up the fact that they’re totally bankrupt and will likely never pay their many creditors. Well, now the Mail has a piece in which they spoke to some of the people who are owed money by Carole and Mike. This is so bad!!!

Creditors have been left furious as a party paraphernalia business started by the parents of the Princess of Wales has run into £2.6million of debt. Party Pieces Holdings, run by Michael and Carole Middleton helped send their three children to £42,930-a-year Marlborough College and enabled them to snap up a manor house for £4.7m. But at least one businessman is now accusing the Princess of Wales’s mother of ‘betrayal’, amid cries of disbelief about the amount of debt the company has racked up.

The debts are now estimated at £2.6 million, according to details in a report from administrators trying to recover money for the firm’s creditors. This includes £218,749 to RBS bank for a Coronavirus Business Interruption loan, £456,008 to other creditors and £1.4 million in unsecured loans. It comes as the report makes it brutally clear that it’s ‘highly unlikely’ that any creditors will get anything.

Among those hit is Party Pieces landlord, Lord Iliffe, on whose Berkshire estate the company has been based for many years. Owed £57,480, the estate now faces what its agent, James Hole, describes as ‘severe financial consequences’.

‘They have been long-term tenants,’ he says. ‘We were astonished about the amount of money owed to others.’

Another creditor, speaking anonymously, said his company engaged in protracted discussions with Party Pieces, but realised it was hopeless. He added: ‘The amount they owe HMRC dwarfs anything else they owe. That’s why we walked away — [because] of what’s owed to the public purse.’ This, he adds, is not just the £219,000 coronavirus business interruption loan which Party Pieces took out as it was hammered by lockdowns. ‘There is VAT and other things as well,’ alleges the firm’s former trading partner.

The administrators’ report points out that HMRC is owed a total of £613,000 – a claim which must be settled before any of the firm’s small creditors are paid.

Sultani Gas, a company based outside Tonbridge, Kent, which supplied Party Pieces with helium for balloons, is understood to be appalled. A spokesman said: ‘What hurt me the most was that I trusted her as the mother-in-law of the future king — and she just betrayed me. It is absolutely unacceptable.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“What hurt me the most was that I trusted her as the mother-in-law of the future king — and she just betrayed me.” Well, well. While I don’t think King Charles is the reason why the Middletons are broke-ass and up to their eyeballs in debt, make no mistake, Charles and Camilla are the reason why the Mail feels emboldened to come after the Middletons. This is all part of the larger revenge scheme led by two septuagenarians to marginalize Kate and her family. It’s been a long time coming, honestly. I sincerely cannot wait to see if there will be more reporting on what went wrong with Party Pieces and just how badly Carole Middleton played this. It’s also fascinating to see that none of Carole’s in-laws stepped in to cover her or her business. Where is Terribly Moderately Wealthy James Matthews? Where is all of Prince William’s Duchy of Cornwall largesse?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.