On Friday, the Telegraph dropped their exclusive report about the letters exchanged by then-Prince Charles and the Duchess of Sussex. These letters were exchanged following the Oprah interview in 2021, so I would say Charles probably wrote to Meghan in May or June of that year, and she likely wrote back promptly. No one heard anything about these letters until “someone” leaked their existence and some partial content to the Telegraph last week. Meghan didn’t mention the letters in any of her interviews or the Netflix series or anywhere else. So it was hilariously stupid when all of the royal reporters began parroting the same line late Friday, that Meghan had “leaked” the letters to the Telegraph. That talking point was quickly refuted by Meghan, via her spokesperson.

The whole “who leaked the existence of the letters” kerfuffle overshadowed the real story, which is that Meghan and Charles both named the “royal racist,” the senior royal figure who told Harry he shouldn’t marry Meghan because their baby’s skin would be too dark. After the Windsors hung their hats on “recollections may vary” for years, it turns out that everyone’s recollections were exactly the same, and people within the family know exactly who said what to whom. The distraction has a purpose – the palace leaked the letters’ existence as a way to clear Charles of the “royal racism” charge ahead of his coronation. The intention was never to examine or identify the culprit(s). Which is why there has been precious little follow-up reporting – everyone in Windsor World knows who said racist sh-t, and I suspect the royal reporters know as well. But they expect Meghan and Harry to do their dirty work and they’re mad as hell that the Sussexes are taking a longer view. Speaking of, the Daily Beast’s Royalist had one of the few follow-ups on the Telegraph’s original report. After giving a (biased) accounting of what has happened thus far in the racism saga, Tom Sykes reported this:

The issue has, of course, continued to simmer away in the background, although most would argue the royals have successfully moved on. As a friend of the king’s told The Daily Beast: “The queen tried to just keep calm and carry on, and Charles is taking the same approach.”

The Sussex camp has denied suggestions that they leaked the information [to the Telegraph], and Buckingham Palace has declined to comment on the matter. What seems likely, however, is that an increasingly large number of people now know exactly who it was that Meghan and Harry allege had “conversations” with them about the likely color of her unborn child’s skin. This in turn increases the likelihood that, eventually, the person who made the remark will be identified.

Intriguingly, the Telegraph went so far as to identify them as a “senior” member of the family, an assertion which remains in the published piece. Shortly after the allegation was first made a Buckingham Palace insider furiously upbraided this reporter in an off-the-record conversation for suggesting the person who made the comment was a “senior” member of the family, as had been suggested to us by several sources.

Buckingham Palace declined to respond to a request for comment by The Daily Beast, but the notion that it was a “senior” figure who made the comment seems to be becoming an accepted part of the narrative. So who could it be? Well, at some point over the past few years, every leading member of the family has been named to this reporter, in private conversations, and journalistic gossip, as the royal family’s skin tone inquisitor.

Prince Charles, as he then was, was one of the very first to be publicly named, by the writer Christopher Andersen, who said that Charles made a comment musing on their children’s likely skin color while he was having breakfast with his wife, Camilla, in front of footmen and other domestic servants. Of course this doesn’t quite mesh with Meghan’s claim that “there were several conversations about it” but then Meghan’s version of events—which says that the conversations were had with Harry who then relayed them to her—conflict with Harry’s account of who spoke to him and when.

Camilla has frequently been bandied about as a possible suspect, although friends of the queen have told The Daily Beast that they think she would be highly unlikely to have made such a comment. “It’s unthinkable,” one friend told The Daily Beast.

Princess Anne, who is widely rumored to have been no great fan of the marriage in the first place, has also been mentioned as a suspect. In large part, however, this seems to be based on her reputation for blunt speaking, and her perceived overall coolness towards Meghan, rather than any specific knowledge of something she may or may not have said.

William, of course has, has also come under suspicion in this messy game of Clue. In recent months speculation has intensified because of the extreme way in which he was attacked in Harry’s book, Spare, which did not repeat or clarify the allegation made to Oprah. We do know that he advised Harry to pause and reflect before marrying Meghan, warning him against rushing into marrying somebody that the family didn’t know.

Of course, William is the only member of the family to have specifically reacted to the allegations, telling a crowd of reporters shortly after the interview aired, “We are very much not a racist family.” And that pretty much sums up the attitude from friends of William who say he would never have made such a remark. It is all a refinement, if you like, of “recollections may vary.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Here’s the thing – the letters’ existence and the fact that Charles was the only one in the family to write to Meghan show that Charles was not the one saying sh-t about how dark the baby’s skin would be. Charles wouldn’t write to Meghan and bitch her out for revealing something that he said. I mean, maybe he would, but it seems far more likely that Charles would only write the letter if he wasn’t the main culprit AND he knew the identity of the culprit. Anyway, how do I say this? Most of us pegged out the identity of the royal racist long ago.

Note by Celebitchy: Sign up for our mailing list and get the Top 8 stories about the Royal Racist! I only send one email a day on weekdays around lunchtime.

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.

Last year, Matthew Perry published his memoir, Friends, Lovers and the Big Terrible Thing. He detailed his addiction issues, his fight to get clean and sober and he also spilled some tea about Friends. Unfortunately, Perry also decided to make a few disgusting broadsides at Keanu Reeves, a man he barely knows. Keanu and Perry are sort of the same generation (Perry is 53, Keanu is 58) and it felt like Perry was trying to attack Keanu for… still being alive when River Phoenix is dead? Perry included asides like: “Why is it that the original thinkers like River Phoenix and Heath Ledger die, but Keanu Reeves still walks among us?” Perry apologized when there was a backlash about it last year. Now Perry says that he’s pulled those lines from future editions of his book.

Matthew Perry not only regrets insulting Keanu Reeves in his new book — he’s pulling Reeves’ name out of future editions of “Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing,” Perry’s memoir of his long struggle with substance abuse and addiction.

Perry shared news of the revision at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, addressing a capacity crowd at USC’s Bovard Auditorium on Saturday afternoon during a panel moderated by Matt Brennan, The Times’ deputy editor for arts and entertainment.

“I said a stupid thing. It was a mean thing to do,” Perry said, referring to his lament in the book that former co-stars River Phoenix and Chris Farley had died while Reeves “walks among us.”

“I pulled his name because I live on the same street,” Perry said. “I’ve apologized publicly to him. Any future versions of the book will not have his name in it.” He said he hadn’t apologized in person to Reeves, but added: “If I run into the guy, I’ll apologize. It was just stupid.”

Although Perry is proud that a new generation of fans has come to appreciate “Friends” almost 20 years after the series ended, he accepts criticism that it lacked diversity.

“It was a different time,” he said. “Nobody talked about diversity.” At the same time, he added, “we were all stupid.” Now, he said, “Diversity is a huge issue. It’s the right thing to do.”

[From The Los Angeles Times]

Okay, so I still have a question – it was clear from reading just excerpts that Perry was trying to “joke” and the joke was going to fall flat, so why didn’t his editor convince him to take it out before it made it to print in the first place? My guess is that his editor was like “are you sure you want to keep this Keanu stuff in the book?” and Perry was like “yes, it needs to go in, I hate that guy and people will think I’m so funny!” Anyway, the fact that Matthew Perry was wishing death on one of the most well-liked men in Hollywood was always going to do more damage to Perry. It’s good that they’re taking out those lines.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by HELLO! Magazine (@hellomag)

Well well well. For weeks now, the British media has been crowing about how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are “at odds” because Harry is going solo to the coronation, and how Meghan is “in hiding” because something something rebranding herself. You mean all of that was a lie? You know Harry and Meghan are totally fine and loved up? The Sussexes went to last night’s Lakers game (the Lakers beat the Memphis Grizzlies). The Brits will say that the Sussexes hate the royals. I say that the Sussexes prefer to show up for the one true king, LeBron James.

I was shocked by how quickly the Daily Mail got the ID on Meghan’s outfit. According to them, Meghan wore a pink linen suit by Staud – £360 for the blazer and £235 for the shorts. She also wore Aquazzura pumps. She loves dress shorts! If I had her legs, I would too. It’s so funny that the Mail is still obsessively compiling the cost of Meghan’s clothes as well – as we know now, she was always paying for her clothes and people need to get out of her business.

Anyway, the videos of the Sussexes from last night’s game are amazing. Enjoy!

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in LA!#NBACelebRow pic.twitter.com/F8pPin9CG8

— NBA (@NBA) April 25, 2023

Harry and Meghan are in the building for Lakers – Grizzlies game four pic.twitter.com/asqqX39kJm

— Ava Brand (@avabssports) April 25, 2023

Prince Harry & Meghan getting a shoutout on the #NBAonTNT TV broadcast as they take in the #MemphisVsLakers game from the suites. #LakeShow pic.twitter.com/AR4MJnMJ2t

— R.S. Locke / Royal Suitor (@royal_suitor) April 25, 2023

Harry and Meghan at the Lakers game pic.twitter.com/uVP40OYh3k

— Ben Golliver (@BenGolliver) April 25, 2023

Pics courtesy of Instagram.

Remember in 2017, when chino-clad Nazis marched in Charlottesville, Virginia with their tiki torches? The Nazis were overwhelmingly clean-cut white men in their 20s and 30s, and most of them traveled from out of state to do their sad Nazi stunt. Whenever I think of those Nazis, I think of Tucker Carlson and his whole deal. It’s Nazism wearing the mask of a Docker-clad dweeb, the chinless man-child who wears loafers and speaks in an educated voice about the need to “cleanse” society of immigrants, Muslims, feminists and (as always) Black folks. Carlson has been on Fox News prime time since 2016. Before that, he had a right-wing blog and he wrote books about how much he hates his mother, and he was on CNN for a while too. His tenure on Fox News has seen Carlson lean into every racist, misogynistic, white-supremacist dog whistle there is. Whenever I see a clip of his show, I always find it appalling to see just how thoroughly he’s radicalized himself. Well, no more. Fox News fired his ass one week after they settled with Dominion Voting Systems.

Fox News said Monday that it was parting ways with Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime time host who was also the source of repeated controversies and headaches for the network because of his statements on everything from race relations to L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

The network made the announcement less than a week after it agreed to pay $787.5 million in a defamation lawsuit in which Mr. Carlson’s show, one of the highest rated on Fox, figured prominently for its role in spreading misinformation after the 2020 election. In making its announcement, Fox offered a terse statement of gratitude. “Fox News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways. We thank him for his service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor,” it said.

His last program was on Friday, Fox said.

Mr. Carlson is also facing a lawsuit from a former Fox News producer, Abby Grossberg, who claims that he presided over a misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture. Ms. Grossberg said in the lawsuit, which was filed in March, that on her first day working for Mr. Carlson, she discovered the work space was decorated with large pictures of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a swimsuit. Fox has disputed Ms. Grossberg’s claims. A spokeswoman said in a recent statement: “We will continue to vigorously defend Fox against Ms. Grossberg’s unmeritorious legal claims, which are riddled with false allegations against Fox and our employees.”

[From The NY Times]

While this was the official statement, that Carlson and Fox News “agreed to part ways,” Fox News sources immediately began calling up their media colleagues and spilling the tea. A source told Mediaite that Carlson was absolutely fired and it happened very suddenly: “He was totally surprised. He had no idea. It was a firing. He was informed” on Monday. Semafor reports that Carlson’s executive producer Justin Wells was also sh-tcanned at the same time. The whole thing is, according to Semafor’s sources, “just classic Murdoch assassination — you’re their closest friend, their favorite child and now you’re dead.”

My guess is that this is about the Dominion Voting lawsuit and settlement more than the discriminatory workplace lawsuit, although that Grossberg lawsuit probably made it much easier for Fox News to pull the plug. If Carlson and his bros were only being sexist douchebags to the handful of women on staff, Fox News would have shrugged and said “and?” But the fact that Carlson was overzealously selling election conspiracies, conspiracies which cost the Murdochs over $700 million to settle? Yeah. That being said, the Murdochs were fine with Tucker Carlson doing all of that in the wake of the 2020 election. It was practically a company-wide policy to disseminate election fraud conspiracies.

I can’t wait to hear the Murdoch family leak about who pulled the plug on Carlson. That recent Vanity Fair cover story made it sound like Rupert Murdoch lost the plot in 2020, and no one in his orbit understands why he was signing off on the election conspiracies.

Here was the end of what turned out to be Tucker Carlson’s final Fox News show last Friday. Certainly no indication that he didn’t expect to be on the air tonight. In fact Tucker’s final words are, “we’ll be back on Monday.” pic.twitter.com/F9R5MpWHDK

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Of all the major news-anchor dramas in recent years, the Don Lemon stuff was so uninteresting to me. Lemon was a longtime CNN anchor and their morning show co-host. He should have been fired years ago for his on-and-off-camera behavior, including so many ageist and sexist comments on-air and a culture of harassment, sexism and just “bad behavior” off-camera, mostly with his staff. I have no idea why CNN didn’t pull the plug on Lemon before now, but here we are. Just a few months ago, Lemon stepped in sh-t yet again when he said, on air, that Nikki Haley isn’t a viable candidate because, as a 51 year old woman, she’s not “in her prime.” It would be weird if that was the breaking point, but it looks like it was. Lemon got sh-tcanned from CNN on Monday, seemingly within minutes of Fox News firing Tucker Carlson.

CNN has parted ways with longtime host Don Lemon. The announcement Monday came without explanation and astonished the media industry.

“Don will forever be a part of the CNN family, and we thank him for his contributions over the past 17 years,” said CNN CEO Chris Licht in a memo to staff. “We wish him well and will be cheering him on in his future endeavors.”

Lemon anchored “CNN This Morning” with Poppy Harlow and Kaitlan Collins. The show has been on the air for nearly six months.

“We are committed to its success,” Licht said of the morning show.

In a statement of his own, Lemon said his agent told him Monday morning that CNN had terminated him.

“I am stunned,” Lemon said, arguing that management did not have “the decency” to inform him of his firing directly. “At no time was I ever given any indication that I would not be able to continue to do the work I have loved at the network,” Lemon added

CNN rebutted Lemon, calling his version of events “inaccurate.”

“He was offered an opportunity to meet with management but instead released a statement on Twitter,” the network said in a statement.

[From CNN]

Ah, the post-firing back-and-forth about who informed whom and when and how. Lemon’s tenure at CNN was messy as f–k, so of course his firing is too. And of course he has the audacity to be “stunned” about it too. Weirdly, Lemon posted a message on Twitter and people can’t understand where it comes from. Word? Notes? Someone suggested that he took a screenshot of an email? Why is the font so big? Why is it blue-lavender?

pic.twitter.com/8PyLqvS0d7

— Don Lemon (@donlemon) April 24, 2023

MORE on Don Lemon exit, which Lemon is calling a termination:

Some guests were reluctant to appear on-air with Lemon, per CNN bookers. Network research found that audience sentiment on Lemon had dipped following his Nikki Haley controversy. https://t.co/vDVCn2zZ4Y

— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) April 24, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Melanie Lynskey was a guest on Josh Horowitz’s Happy Sad Confused podcast promoting season two of Yellowjackets. The season is being well received by critics but people watching it are split. I have all but given up on it. It feels like Melanie is the only one promoting it, which is rough for me because her character is the main reason I am over this season. Not her, she’s doing a great job with what she has, but I hate what Shauna is doing, both past and present. Anyway, the show is all about friendships – for better or worse – and while Melanie was chatting with Josh, she told him she never got over the loss of her friendship with Kate Winslet, with whom she filmed Heavenly Creatures. Not that they aren’t friends, but after Kate rocketed to fame, there was less time for each other, which Melanie found heartbreaking. So heartbreaking, she’s hardened her heart when it comes to other actors as friends in general.

Melanie Lynskey is opening up about drifting apart from her once-close friend and Heavenly Creatures co-star Kate Winslet.

While speaking with Josh Horowitz on the Happy Sad Confused podcast Thursday about the nature of the industry and how people “move on” following projects, the Yellowjackets actress explained that “When I lost touch with Kate, it was more heartbreaking than some breakups that I’ve had.

“It was so painful because it wasn’t like anything happened, it’s just she became a gigantic international movie star and she didn’t have a lot of time,” she added. “I wouldn’t hear from her, you know, and it just sort of like gradually happened, and it happens in relationships. People kind of drift apart, but it was so painful for me.”
¬
They both have gone on to amass successful careers since their 1994 film, but the Intervention actress explained that her and Winslet’s friendship wasn’t the only one that hit her hard. Lynskey said that it actually “happened a couple of times.”

“I remember one time I did a movie with this actor and when we were finished I said, ‘Oh, my gosh, I’m just so happy that I met you and we have this friendship,’ and she was like, ‘Yeah, I’m not friends with actors. I don’t stay friends with actors.’”

While she used to be “so sensitive” about losing relationships in the industry, over time, she learned that was just how it worked. She added, “I was always so injured by losing these, like, great loves I was having and it got easier.”

[The Hollywood Reporter]

It’s interesting to hear Melanie say this out loud. I always think the public is more invested in Hollywood friendships than those in them. There are certain people we need to be best buddies and they play those friendships up during promotions. But it would be a very difficult industry to keep a relationship, as Melanie describes. The job takes actors all over the world for months at a time. And when they aren’t working, they need to make time for family or promotion. I understand why Kate would have been such a painful loss for Melanie, though. Not only has Melanie discussed how much she looked up to Kate, but Heavenly Creatures was Melanie’s first film. It was such a pivotal point in her life, and they became fast friends when they were still so green in the industry. I remember reading they became close with each other’s families as well so I’ll bet losing touch stung.

Of course, Kate’s career took off after Creatures and Melanie was sent home from the film’s promotional junket by Harvey Weinstein. And they lived on separate continents, so odds were stacked against them staying in touch. People like Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer were roommates before they made it big and lived in the same area, they worked at staying friends. I think they are the exception, though, Like Gayle King and Oprah. People who really carve out time together. I think many actors are excited to see each other when they can but in reality, most friendships, like Melanie said, are only going to be sustainable for the length of the film.

Photo credit: Cover Images, Avalon.red and Getty

Brad Pitt will race Lewis Hamilton at the British Grand Prix (as part of that stupid F1 movie Brad is making). [Just Jared]
This vet’s technique for getting a cat to throw up is so funny. [Dlisted]
Yara Shahidi in a gold gown. [Go Fug Yourself]
Review of AppleTV’s Ghosted. [LaineyGossip]
Did Roy & Keeley really need that storyline on Ted Lasso? [Pajiba]
A compilation of cats sitting on glass table tops. [OMG Blog]
Mike Pence doesn’t want women to have access to abortion medication. [Jezebel]
Kendall Jenner & Hailey Bieber spent time in a kitchen. [Egotastic]
True crime cases with unexpected twists. [Buzzfeed]
Bel Powley wore Philosophy di Lorenzo. [RCFA]
Eric Braeden has cancer. [Seriously OMG]
Kim Kardashian went to an Usher concert. [Towleroad]

Prince Louis of Wales turned five years old on Sunday, April 23rd. For some reason, I always forget that he has an April birthday – it feels like he has a May birthday, alongside his sister Charlotte. Charlotte and Louis have the same sign, are Tauruses. Prince George is a Cancer (just on the cusp of Leo), and Prince William is a Gemini, just on the cusp of Cancer. Sorry for that zodiac conversation, I only just realized that both Charlotte and Louis fell under the sign of Taurus. There’s a lot going on in that family astrologically. Kate is a Capricorn. I’d love a deeper dive into how their signs play out within the family.

Anyway, to celebrate Louis’s birthday, Kensington Palace released new birthday portraits. Traditionally, the Princess of Wales takes her kids’ birthday photos herself and the pics are usually okay – Kate’s not a great photographer, but I don’t judge her for wanting to do her kids’ photos herself. This year, however, Kate hired photographer Millie Pilkington to do Louis’s photos. I looked at Pilkington’s Instagram – she mainly does portraits of kids and domestic settings. I’m surprised that Kate branched out like this – usually, if she hires a photographer, it’s one of the Rota photographers with some connection to her office. I wonder if she simply heard about Pilkington or looked through the woman’s Instagram.

I also find it strange that Kate is in one of Louis’s birthday photos. I wonder what that’s about? Why do we need to see her wiglet again?? I can f–king see it too. In any case, Louis looks cute. I’ve always thought that all three kids take after the Middleton side of the family more than the Windsor side, but Louis is the one who got Kate’s whole face.

Photos courtesy of Millie Pilkington for Kensington Palace.

The thing about Andrew Parker Bowles and Camilla’s marriage was that it always suited them just fine, and their arrangement was perfectly acceptable within the aristocracy AND the royal family. Andrew cheated on Camilla, Camilla cheated on Andrew, and they were both fine with it and relatively discreet about it. It was Charles and Diana’s marriage troubles which put the spotlight on the Parker-Bowles situation. Anyway, Andrew and now Queen Consort Camilla are still quite close. He even steps in for her and makes appearances on her behalf. He was invited to Charles and Camilla’s wedding and he was reportedly quite jolly about his ex-wife’s situation. And now Andrew Parker Bowles is going to the coronation.

“Being divorced, I don’t think you can have it both ways.” So said the Duchess of York last week, explaining why she is not invited to the coronation on May 6. One man, however, can and will have it both ways. Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla’s former husband, will be front and centre of the congregation at Westminster Abbey watching his first wife crowned alongside King Charles, while his grandchildren take centre stage with official roles in the ceremony.

Camilla, 75, and Parker Bowles, 83, divorced in 1995 after 22 years of marriage but remain the closest of friends, seeing each other regularly. They have two children — Tom Parker Bowles, 48, a food writer, restaurant critic and the King’s godson; and Laura Lopes, 45, a gallerist — and five grandchildren. Tom’s son, Freddy, 13, and Laura’s twin sons, Gus and Louis, also 13, will be Camilla’s pages of honour at the coronation, carrying the train of her robes.

A friend of Parker Bowles’s said of his enduring relationship with the Queen: “They are joined at the hip. He arranges so much for her. They have lunch together the whole time. He’s right in there. He was always, and still is, Camilla’s co-conspirator.”

Friends politely describe Parker Bowles, who was unfaithful to Camilla during their courtship and marriage, as “a bit of a rogue” and “very naughty with women”. It has often been suggested that he was one of the inspirations for Rupert Campbell-Black, the central character in several of Jilly Cooper’s bonkbuster books.

Known as “the Brigadier” among friends and in royal circles, Parker Bowles, a retired army officer who served with the Blues and Royals, part of the Household Cavalry, has moved in royal circles for decades. Before his marriage to Camilla in 1973, he had a romance with Princess Anne. They remain close friends and are often spotted together at Royal Ascot.

[From The Times]

It’s true about Andrew and Anne – they’re also quite close, still, to this day. There are tons of photos of Andrew and Anne together at horse events, chatting away and flirting with each other (and her husband is suspiciously never around those events). The point, I suppose, is that Andrew isn’t simply close to his ex-wife – he’s close to many within the extended Windsor clan. He’s always been part of that circle. He never sold out Camilla, even though Cam’s PR has been working overtime to emphasize the fact that Andrew cheated on her constantly. Like she wasn’t banging a whole-ass heir to the throne throughout her first marriage. Still, Andrew has a good life and he’s not going to mess it up by giving some tell-all interview. So his reward is seeing his ex-wife crowned in person. Now, do I also think it’s tacky that the coronation is all about Camilla’s “victory lap” and it’s entirely a Parker-Bowles affair? Sure, that too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Prince William’s “friends” love to gossip with the Daily Beast’s Royalist column. Over the past year especially, Royalist has run a number of exclusives sourced from “a close friend of William,” and all of those exclusives have been about how much William hates the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and how the brothers never speak. There’s always a curious subtext too, which is that William is paying obsessive attention to what the Sussexes are doing and William always, unfailingly, has opinions on what they’re doing. William claims to despise his brother – perhaps, for William’s own mental health, he should simply ignore Harry’s comings and goings instead of stalking him? But what do I know. Anyhoodle, William thinks Harry’s brief coronation visit is a “massive diss” to their father.

The brevity of Prince Harry’s forthcoming trip to the U.K. to attend his father’s coronation is a “massive diss” to his family, a close friend of Prince William’s has told The Daily Beast. And with rumors now circulating that Harry could fly in and out of the country in such short order that he spends less than 24 hours in the land of his birth, opinion is divided as to whether the effect of his appearance will be to bolster a sense of unity or reinforce the narrative of division that has beset the royals in recent years.

“If he comes for less than 24 hours, it’s a massive diss really,” said the longtime close friend of William’s. “You know, ‘Tell us how you really feel, Harry.’”

The friend said that relations between the two brothers were “so bad they are nonexistent” but that William would likely be happy for his father that Harry was attending the coronation.

“William’s official position is that he supports his father because he is the king and it’s his coronation,” the friend said.

While Charles is said to be relieved by the issue finally being settled, there seems to be an increasingly clear divide between William’s ongoing hostility to his brother and Charles’ apparent willingness to continue to try to build bridges. A friend of the king, for example, gave The Daily Beast a very different perspective on Harry’s non-attendance to that given by William’s friend, saying: “Of course Charles is delighted Harry will be there. He has always made it very clear he loves both his sons and wanted Harry to be there. He completely understands it is going to be a quick trip.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Again, William needs to get a f–king grip and so do his friends. Harry’s appearance at the coronation was clearly negotiated between father and son, and really, it’s just an issue between the two of them. Harry is coming for his father on Charles’s big hat day, the end. What William and his friends don’t want to admit is that Charles managed to get the exact situation he wanted: Harry putting in an appearance at the coronation and no Meghan and no Archie or Lili. That was the whole reason for the palace leaks for months and months, to get this exact result. So no, it’s not a diss. But it’s not a capitulation either – Harry and Charles spoke and that’s something (for Harry, who still dearly loves his father). All this tells me is that William is mad as a hornet that Charles and Harry still care about each other enough to negotiate this together.

Note by Celebitchy: Get the top 8 stories about Prince Harry going to the coronation when you sign up for our mailing list! I only send one email a day on weekdays which I personally write.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.