King Charles will be crowned on May 6th, the fourth birthday of his grandson Prince Archie. April, May and June are full of royal birthdays – Prince Louis’s birthday is coming up on Sunday, Princess Lilibet’s birthday is in June, and Princess Charlotte’s eighth birthday is on May 2nd, just days before the coronation. Apparently, Prince William and Kate are already making plans to skip part of the pre-Chubbly festivities to properly celebrate Charlotte’s birthday. Of course, their choices are being promoted as wholesome and family-oriented by the same British media which has spent the past week in a full meltdown that the Duchess of Sussex is choosing to stay in California to celebrate Archie’s birthday.

King Charles III’s coronation is fast approaching and it’s all stations go over at Buckingham Palace. From the guest-list being drawn up to the dress code being sent out and the royal roles being divvied up, there’s so much to prep ahead of the big day. But, it turns out that said big day has clashed with another important event in Prince William and Kate Middleton’s diary: Princess Charlotte’s birthday on 2 May.

Although the coronation itself falls on 6 May 2023, rehearsals for the event are taking place between 2 May and 5 May in the ballroom at Buckingham Palace, with the Prince and Princess of Wales expected to attend, given their important roles. But one insider has told OK! that the couple plan to ‘cut short’ their rehearsals so that they can spend time with their daughter on her birthday.

“William and Kate are very aware that it’s Princess Charlotte’s birthday on 2 May and don’t want it to get buried in coronation hype,” the source claimed. “They have ensured that Charlotte’s birthday will be celebrated properly during [the] coronation week.”

The insider went on: “Charlotte will be at school at Lambrook on that Tuesday so the plan is to collect her at the usual time and drive back to Windsor for a small party with her friends at Adelaide Cottage. It might even be a surprise party because staff have been told to keep it quiet.”

And Charlotte isn’t the only royal whose birthday falls around the coronation celebrations, with the insider making it known that Charles’ other grandchildren will not miss out. “Prince Louis has his birthday on 23 April, but it doesn’t conflict with any coronation events so will be celebrated as usual. He’ll be turning 5 this year,” the source said.

[From Yahoo UK]

“They have ensured that Charlotte’s birthday will be celebrated properly during [the] coronation week.” Qwhite. This just angers me all over again, and I’ve grown convinced that Charles and his staff purposefully chose Archie’s birthday for the coronation. Charles is literally beefing with a child over who gets more attention, and Charles is simultaneously acting spiteful towards the entire Sussex family, acting as if it’s some egregious act that Meghan and Harry would have qualms about missing their only son’s birthday. Anyway, I hope we get endless columns about how rude and pathetic Kate and William are for skipping out on Chubbly rehearsals to celebrate Charlotte’s b-day.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.

Robert Jobson’s latest royal book, Our King, has been widely and gleefully excerpted in the UK and America. In addition to being one of the most vile royal commentators, Jobson is pretty much devoted to spreading gossip straight from King Charles, Queen Camilla and their people. I had my doubts about that years ago, but I was wrong – everything coming out of Jobson’s mouth is explicitly or implicitly from C&C. Meaning, Charles and Camilla definitely want to push the Princess of Wales back, and the knives are out. It feels like C&C want to blame the larger Sussexit fallout on Kate in particular. Which is fascinating. But we shouldn’t sleep on the fact that Jobson also got some briefings about how Prince William is a short-tempered, impatient nutcase.

Prince William is not always the easiest person to work with, according to a new royal book.

“He can be difficult,” a senior royal household figure told author Robert Jobson for his recently released biography, “Our King: Charles III: The Man and the Monarch Revealed.“

“He is a driven person and that can make him impatient,” the source continued about the newly anointed Prince of Wales, 40.

The insider compared him to King Charles, 74, who apparently possesses more patience.

“That can make William short-tempered when dealing with Charles,” they added. “The Boss (Charles) has a temper, too, but it does not go on and on. He can get frustrated and flare up and then, in an instant, it is forgotten about. With William, it is rarely forgotten.”

[From Page Six]

Something interesting about Robert Jobson is that he churned out a biography of William last year, and he used much stronger language to describe William. In that book (William at 40), Jobson detailed how William can be “offhand and volatile” and that William has always lacked deference to his father, and that William was constantly losing his mind and throwing screaming tantrums in front of Charles and AT Charles. Jobson also reported in that book that everyone around William knows that he has a “notably short fuse” and he regularly screams at staff. But, you know, the Black duchess sent a jet-lagged email. Anyway… the Prince of Wales is “difficult.” A very Difficult Diva, always engorged with incandescent rage, always flying off the handle, always screaming and shrieking at everyone and everything. Oh, and he’s violent too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Every few weeks, we’ve been getting these stories and they’re one of my favorite things of the year: British aristocrats are super-salty about not being invited to King Charles’s coronation. The Earl of Fancybreeches and the Duke of Trousersnape have truly been sending strongly-worded parchments to the palace, demanding their Chubbly invite posthaste. They’re throwing tantrums about it in the media, they’re inundating the Duke of Norfolk with rage-emails and irate phone calls. It’s glorious, but it does beg the question: why didn’t Charles prioritize the aristocracy for invites? There’s a lot of talk about fewer seats, but that hasn’t stopped Charles from inviting foreign heads of state and Camilla’s entire f–king extended family? Surely Lord Toadscrotum is *as* important?? Well, interestingly enough, it looks like the king massively snubbed all of the “grandest aristocrats” – most of the 24 non-royal dukes.

The Coronation, now just three weeks away, will be seen by many as a display of splendid pageantry and tradition – and by critics as a blast of flummery and fanfare. But, to King Charles, it evidently represents a unique chance to begin a new era – one quite distinct from that of his late mother, Queen Elizabeth. Nowhere, I can reveal, will this be more starkly apparent than in the exclusion from the service in Westminster Abbey of most of the grandest aristocrats in the land, along with almost all their fellow hereditary peers. Even most of the 24 non-royal dukes – the most senior rank in the peerage – are not exempt from the cull, despite the fact that one of their number, the Duke of Norfolk, is orchestrating every detail of the Coronation in his role as Earl Marshal.

The Duke of Rutland, who lives in one wing of his 365-room family seat, Belvoir Castle in Leicestershire, while his wife, Emma, lives in another, is one of the many dismayed and bewildered by their exclusion. ‘I have not been asked,’ he tells me, saying that he does ‘not really understand’ why. ‘It has been families like mine that have supported the Royal Family over 1,000 years or thereabouts,’ adds the Duke, who has two sons and three lively daughters, Lady Violet, Lady Alice and Lady Eliza Manners.

But not only did peers attend coronations, they were required to ‘give the kiss of homage and touch the Crown’ – a vestige of feudal allegiance to the monarch, for whom, it was implied, they would fight and, if necessary, die on the field of battle. At Queen Elizabeth’s coronation, a royal duke, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, took off his coronet, ascended the steps of the throne, knelt before the Queen, placed his hands between hers and ‘pronounced his words of homage’. He was followed by two more royal dukes, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

Then it was the turn of the senior peer of each ‘degree’ – the duke, marquess, earl, viscount and baron with the oldest titles. As they ‘paid homage in like manner’, their fellow peers of the respective ‘degree’, knelt in their places in the Abbey, removed their coronets, and also said their words of homage. A Buckingham Palace spokesman declines to comment, but a royal source insists that ‘a good representation of non-royal dukes will be in attendance’.

The Duke of Rutland will presumably console himself at Belvoir, where a collection of his family’s coronation robes is on display. Perhaps the disappointment will be even more acute for the Duke of Somerset. ‘He was sprucing up the family state coach,’ a chum tells me, adding that the Duke had entertained the idea of arriving in the Abbey in it. ‘He thought he might be invited, even if not all the dukes were, because his is the second oldest dukedom after Norfolk’s.’ Alas, it appears that the Duke of Somerset, whose title was created in 1547, is among those who have been discarded. After explaining to me a few weeks ago that he didn’t want to comment at ‘this stage’, he now declines to say anything at all.

Perhaps he should perk himself up by having a word with Robin Devereux, 19th Viscount Hereford, who, as premier viscount, might have expected to ‘pay homage’ on behalf of his fellow viscounts. He, too, declines to comment, but has, apparently, taken his exclusion in good heart. ‘He says he’s still waiting for his invitation,’ I’m told. ‘But he’s not upset about it. He knows that this is a new era.’

[From The Daily Mail]

On one side, I actually feel bad for these victims of a very shallow gene pool – they’ve lived their entire lives believing that they are important because of their fancy titles, that they are necessary to the functioning of the British social order, that they must pledge themselves to the king. Only for the king to tell them “don’t come, you’re not important.” Don’t you understand how poignant it is that the Duke of Somerset was sprucing up his state coach?!? On the other side, these people are absurd and this way of life cannot continue, holy smokes. I am stuck on the fact that Charles really does seem to not be afraid of aristo backlash early in his reign. I wonder if that’s a mistake?

PS… It also feels notable that Charles is snubbing all of these “important” non-royal dukes, all while he cozies up the Marquess of Cholmondeley, David Rocksavage. A “marquess” isn’t as important as a duke, and yet Charles has made a point of including David and Rose’s son as a page and appointing David as his Lord-in-Waiting. Curious.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar and Cover Images.

Back in 2009-2010, there was a particularly disturbing story in the tabloids about Morgan Freeman. By “story,” I mean “tabloid reporting, including interviews, for several years.” The story was that Morgan Freeman was having some kind of affair with his step-granddaughter, and the affair destroyed his marriage and for a while, many believed that he would end up marrying the young woman. That story completely disappeared after several years. Then, during the height of Me Too, CNN reported on Freeman’s years of inappropriate behavior around female costars and colleagues. All of which to say, there’s a reason why we haven’t written about him in years. Well, Freeman has a role in Zach Braff’s new film, A Good Person. To promote the film, Freeman gave an interview and he talked about how much he hates “Black History Month” and the term “African-American.”

On Black History Month and the term “African American.” “Two things I can say publicly that I do not like. Black History Month is an insult. You’re going to relegate my history to a month? Also, ‘African American’ is an insult. I don’t subscribe to that title. Black people have had different titles all the way back to the n-word and I do not know how these things get such a grip, but everyone uses ‘African American’. What does it really mean? Most Black people in this part of the world are mongrels. And you say Africa as if it’s a country when it’s a continent, like Europe.”

On Denzel Washington’s quote “I’m very proud to be Black, but Black is not all I am.”: Freeman added: “Yes, exactly. I’m in total agreement. You can’t define me that way.”

He can’t be a chameleon anymore: “When my career started in film I wanted to be a chameleon. I remember De Niro early on doing very different parts. Almost unrecognizable as the same actor. I had opportunities like that. But as you mature in this business, eventually you become a star. Then you’re pretty screwed in terms of referring to yourself as a character actor. You play a lot of the same type of role — people hire you and say, ‘It’s you that I want.’ And you live with it. I don’t think I’ve done much in the last 10 years that was much different. ‘Driving Miss Daisy’ and ‘Glory’ were different. Now? It’s just…me. The character will adapt itself to you rather than the other way round, so I do what piques my interest. Sometimes it’s just the money alone.”

[From Variety]

Regardless of all of the scandalous sh-t which has largely been buried, I think it’s fine that an 85-year-old actor is simply like “yeah, I play the same character constantly, what do you want, the money is good.” It’s the voice, really – his voice is so iconic, he got to the point where he couldn’t play those smaller character roles. As for “African-American” – it’s part of a larger conversation about how Black folks want to identify or not identify. It’s none of my business!

I also think every month should be Black History Month, or rather, Black history should be ingrained in all history education. But that’s what got Republican-led legislatures and Republican governors banning Toni Morrison for being “too woke.” Republicans are literally running for office on a platform of “don’t teach children Black history.” And they’re winning.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

This Armani gown is lovely but kind of boring on Rachel Weisz. [RCFA]
People already have some really strong feelings about Ari Aster’s Beau Is Afraid. Some people think it’s amazing, other people hate it deeply. [Pajiba]
Madonna sent love to Sam Smith. [Dlisted]
Background on the Shawn Mendes-Camila Cabello Coachella hookup. [LaineyGossip]
I loved the big reveal on this week’s Succession (spoilers). [Jezebel]
Justin Theroux & Woody Harrelson went to the premiere of their new show. [JustJared]
Are you interested in Chevalier? [GFY]
This history of Barbie’s friend Midge. [Buzzfeed]
Sounds like SpaceX isn’t doing too good. [Towleroad]
The latest trailer for The Idol – can we ignore this mess? [Egotastic]

Embed from Getty Images

Last August/September, it honestly felt like Bradley Cooper and Irina Shayk were sort of getting back together. Ever since their split several years ago, they stayed on good terms and co-parented their daughter Lea in New York. Before Lea’s school year started last summer, they took a family vacation and it seemed to be a new era. There was talk of a possible reconciliation, and Irina definitely let it be known that she wanted a second child. Then… nothing. Those stories faded in a few months. I kept expecting a low-key pregnancy announcement from Irina, but nada. Then, this weekend, Irina went to Coachella… and she partied with Leonardo DiCaprio. Oh, nooooo.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Irina Shayk are out in the desert. Over the weekend, DiCaprio, 48, and Shayk, 37, were spotted mingling at Levi and Don Julio’s Neon Carnival event after Saturday’s Coachella performances wrapped for the evening at the Empire Polo Club in Indio, California.

Shayk and a friend were seen dancing with DiCaprio, who wore a plain black baseball cap, matching T-shirt, a necklace and mask pulled underneath his chin when the photo was taken. The model, who shares daughter Lea with ex Bradley Cooper, had posted photos on Instagram from the annual music festival earlier in the weekend.

DiCaprio and Shayk, who are longtime friends, were part of a larger group at the event that included model Stella Maxwell and the actor’s close bud Tobey Maguire. Representatives for DiCaprio and Shayk did not immediately respond to PEOPLE’s request for comment Monday.

[From People]

I mean… she’s 37 years old. Leo wouldn’t even *pretend* to date someone that “old.” He had to swallow his pride just to fake-date 27-year-old Gigi Hadid. That being said, Irina might view Leo as something of a “white whale,” and who knows, she might even convince him to give it a try. I just don’t think they’re each other’s types though – it’s far more likely that they’re all friends and they can hang out together like that because Leo’s not going to try anything with a 37-year-old. I bet Leo’s team is happy that he was photographed with a 37-year-old though. They’re really working their asses off to convince everyone that Leo isn’t a sad cliche (he is though).

Embed from Getty Images

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by irina shayk (@irinashayk)

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instagram, Getty.

I remember some criticism of the Duchess of Sussex’s “look” on her wedding day. People had complaints about her Givenchy gown. People had complaints about her hair. People had complaints about how she was a Black American woman marrying the charismatic ginger prince. There were a lot of forces working against Meghan on that day, in the months before her wedding day and, obviously, in the years following her wedding day. Now, does it follow that Meghan is currently holding grudges against every single person who sniped at her wedding look? I hope not. According to complete randos, Meghan is holding one particular grudge: she hates Katy Perry, because Katy complained about the fit of Meghan’s wedding gown.

Meghan Markle is reportedly holding a grudge against pop star Katy Perry after she made negative comments about her wedding dress. The 41-year-old Duchess of Sussex, who moved to Montecito, California with Prince Harry in 2020 after they decided to step down as senior members of the Royal Family.

Meghan married Prince Harry, 37, in 2018 and wore a simple white gown designed by Givenchy for the lavish ceremony and since moving to the United States, Harry has apparently struck up a friendship with actor Orlando Bloom, who is Katy Perry’s fiance. While Harry and Orlando might be getting on like a house on fire, Meghan is reportedly still upset about comments Katy made in 2018.

During a promotional tour in the US for American Idol, Katy said regarding Meghan’s wedding dress that she “would’ve done one more fitting.”

A source told The Daily Star: “Orlando is very sympathetic towards Harry and Meghan and does reach out if he ever sees anything suspicious in the neighbourhood. However, Meghan is keenly aware of a comment that Katy Perry made in 2018 about her wedding dress and is notorious for holding a grudge.”

The source continued: “While the comment wasn’t meant to be hurtful, Meghan felt under siege at that time and was overwhelmed by arguments with staff, the Duchess of Cambridge, and Thomas Markle.” They added: “I would not expect to see Meghan and Katy carpooling to PTA meetings anytime in the future!”

[From The Daily Mirror]

The way I felt about Meghan’s dress on the day of her wedding is not the way I feel about it now. On the day, I kind of thought it was a tad too loose as well, but five years later, I kind of like the fit. I like the clean simplicity of the design and I like that she didn’t go body-con or corseted.

This is actually kind of an old story, but I didn’t cover it at the time because I thought it was so random, and who cares what Katy Perry thinks about anything, really? But given the news about Katy headlining the coronation concert next month… well… it actually looks like this might be some kind of pattern for Katy Perry? Does Katy Perry have an anti-Sussex bias??

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Joshua Jackson is currently promoting Paramount+’s Fatal Attraction limited series, where he plays the lead character, Dan, the one who cheats on his wife with Alex (played by Lizzy Caplan). There were rumors about infidelity when it came to Joshua’s longest relationship, with Diane Kruger. Kruger’s supporters always swore up and down that Joshua cheated on her, and yet Kruger was the one flaunting her affair with Norman Reedus before she and Josh broke up. I bring that up because Joshua is asked about his own thoughts about infidelity, and his answer is interesting. Almost as if he’s been on different sides of it. Some highlights from his Times interview:

On Dawson’s Creek: “I think the secret to the show was that it didn’t talk to young people like they’re stupid. Those characters and what they were going through felt real. We were trying to tell stories about those moments in your life and we were close enough to it in our own ages that we deeply remembered what that angst was.”

Dawson’s changed his life. “I wasn’t poor but I also wasn’t economically stable, so being on that show for that long gave me the chance to put my sister through school and helped my mum buy a home. It changed my life.”

He loves his career these days: He says he is now in the “golden era of my career. This is when the roles as an actor are the most interesting.”

Stepping into an iconic Michael Douglas role: “The film is beloved and iconic and so burnt into our collective psyche. I was intimidated by that. Ultimately I’m curious and interested in portraying characters who are examining the frailties of being a grown-up, and particularly a grown man.”

What are his own views on cheating? “I think an affair can be forgiven. We’re all grown-ups. No one wants to be cheated on and there is massive repair to be done. Affairs aren’t about the partner, they’re about the person who has transgressed. It’s not purely about the sex. There’s a deeper violation.”

Why he felt ready to get married & become a father in his early 40s: “Partially it’s age. I’m old enough to be able to do this. Partially it’s about finding somebody in the right moment of life. If we had met five years earlier we probably would have had a torrid affair, but all the rest of this stuff, I was just not ready. I didn’t think I ever wanted to get married.”

Falling for Jodie Turner Smith: “In the beginning we did this dance with each other like, ‘Oh, this is casual.’ Except that we’d spend every moment together and find reasons to be in other cities together at the same time.” She proposed to him during a New Year’s Eve holiday in Nicaragua. “I don’t know if she planned it or if it was a spur-of-the-moment thing, but out popped a proposal I was not expecting and the organic and instinctive answer was yes. Six months later she was pregnant and we were on our way. And now we have this beautiful baby who is literally the manifestation of that love. It is impossible for me to look into the face of my child without feeling love for my wife.” Indeed, Jackson is besotted with fatherhood. “It has changed me in every single possible way,” he says.

He’s embracing middle age. “Being in my forties is far and away the best decade. I wouldn’t want to go back to my twenties again, that amount of angst. I would make more money doing four episodes of Dawson’s Creek than most of my friends’ parents made in a year. That was the centre of my impostor syndrome: ‘You’re trying to set me up to be a role model to kids, and I definitely am not, and you’re paying me all this money that I don’t deserve.’ ”

[From The Times]

Maybe he’s a real prick in real life, but I came away from this piece just liking him so much and admiring the man he’s become. He’s always been one of my favorites though – I like his answers about finally feeling ready and meeting the right person, how fatherhood has changed him and how much he adores Jodie. As for what he says about affairs…”I think an affair can be forgiven. We’re all grown-ups. No one wants to be cheated on and there is massive repair to be done.” Yeah, I kind of agree? For some people, it will be a dealbreaker, for others, they’ll try to repair their relationship. It sounds like he’s cheated and been cheated on.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

In 2018, Clarence House released two photos for then-Prince Charles’s 70th birthday. The photos were from a family photoshoot, where Charles and Camilla posed with Prince Harry and Prince William and their wives, plus Charles’s grandchildren at the time. That was the last portrait session with these particular people, and now King Charles has included one of the photos in his coronation program. The Daily Mail and other outlets are acting like this is the most scandalous thing ever, the fact that Charles would actually include a photo of (gasp) Harry and Meghan. It feels more notable that it’s likely that Buckingham Palace has no new photos of Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet with their grandfather. Add to that, grandpa made a point of not inviting them to his hat party.

Meanwhile, Charles and Camilla are reportedly taking a pre-Chubbly holiday in Scotland. They must have traveled up to Balmoral soon after Charles appeared at the Sandhurst graduation last week. People Magazine points out that his mother did the same before her coronation – she spent a week relaxing in Scotland with Philip and her corgis. These people and their vacations, my goodness.

And finally, this story is getting so much attention, probably because it sounds so gross. Buckingham Palace released a video of one of their chefs making a “coronation quiche,” and they’re providing the recipe for people to make it at home to celebrate Charles and Camilla’s crowning. Like, I’m not on Team British Food Is Terrible – I think a lot of your Sunday roasts look amazing, and I would definitely try some pub food. But this quiche looks so unappetizing to me – it’s just spinach and cheese, two of my least favorite foods. The palace really should have done something like Coronation Chicken or a Coronation Roast. Even a Coronation Salad would have been better than this. (I also think anything involving a blind bake is probably way too complicated for most British home cooks, but what do I know.)

Introducing… Coronation Quiche!

Chosen personally by Their Majesties, The King and The Queen Consort have shared a recipe in celebration of the upcoming #CoronationBigLunch taking place up and down the country. pic.twitter.com/aVcw9tNarP

— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) April 17, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

I didn’t cover this last week, because it was too vile to even excerpt, but Dan Wootton was predictably apoplectic about the Duchess of Sussex avoiding the coronation. He called her egotistical, “gutless,” openly expressed his desire for Harry and Meghan to divorce, and said the only reason why she wasn’t coming was because she feared being booed. He also wrote that the Princess of Wales “in particular is delighted she won’t have to face her treacherous sister-in-law at the King’s Coronation next month. But it would be no surprise if her husband staged another necklace-ripping duel over the dog bowl at Kensington Palace such is the visceral anger that remains at the highest levels of the Royal Family.” This is what William and Kate want their toady to write: that Kate is delighted that she won’t have to be around a Black woman, and that William will likely “stage” another violent assault on Harry.

Well, just to drive home the point that Dan Wootton is far from sane, he’s written another Mail column: “William is right to snub Harry during the Coronation. The Duke of Woke already made the late Queen’s funeral all about his and Meghan’s psychodrama – this time the focus must be on the King.” William has absolutely been briefing every friendly rota reporter about his plans to snub and ignore Harry. It’s giving Tiny Flaccid Energy, especially since I feel pretty strongly that Harry was the one asking to be seated nowhere near William. But please, allow Wootton to tell you all about how William is enraged, angry, irate, furious. It’s giving non compos mentis.

Peg’s silent treatment: What I do respect one hundred per cent, however, is the steely determination of our heir to the throne Prince William to give short shrift to the Duke of Delusion. On his upcoming solo visit for the Coronation, Harry will be subjected to his older brother’s brutal silent treatment. There will be no reconciliation talks; certainly not the public or private apology Harry and Meghan were laughably demanding up until just a few weeks ago.

Irate William: Understandably, he remains irate about Harry’s behaviour the past three years, but especially since the death of the late Queen seven months ago, as the Sussexes used their anti-Commonwealth Netflix series and publication of spiteful autobiography Spare to cause maximum damage to the British monarchy during some of its darkest hours. That’s before you get to his palpable fury that Meghan also used two major TV platforms to cast aspersions on his beloved wife Kate, knowing that, as a future Queen, it was impossible for her to conduct any form of fight back to reveal the truth.

The future of the monarchy: He knows full well that, for the future of the monarchy, next month’s Coronation simply cannot be upstaged by the constant distractions set up by Harry and Meghan. Unfathomably to William, his selfish brother already managed to make the funerals of the late Queen and Prince Phillip – not to mention the otherwise magnificent Platinum Jubilee – a great deal about his and Meghan’s unending psychodrama, causing untold stress to their older relatives.

William’s previous attempts to make peace: On each of these occasions, William rightly feels the goodwill has been thrown back in his face, all while creating more headlines about the desperately intense feud. This time he is determined not to fall into the same trap; the stakes are simply too high.

They’re terrified of Meghan: The decision for Meghan to stay at home, which I believe is because of her innate fear of being booed by a furious British public, has at least made the scenario easier to navigate. William and his team were initially fearful that the presence of the former Hollywood actress alongside her husband at her Coronation would provide a big distraction, with genuine concerns the couple’s time in London together would upstage the king with public appearance to illustrate the woke brand they want to enforce on the Royal Family.

[From The Daily Mail]

The rest of it is just Wootton slobbering all over William for being so wise, keen and full of spite towards his brother and sister-in-law. That is also what William wants – he wants a total capitulation from the press, from his brother, from his sister-in-law and from his father. What’s interesting is for all of William’s rage-briefing about his juvenile plans to “give Harry the silent treatment” (like he’s f–king 5 years old), I’ve gotten the sense from Buckingham Palace’s briefings that… William wasn’t part of any of these negotiations. It was just Harry dealing with his father and his father’s courtiers. William was merely *told* what was negotiated after the fact, which probably made him shriek with rage even louder. Surely that’s a much bigger problem? William and Kate are desperate to be included in any narrative about Harry, so much so that they’re crying to Wootton about how they’ll ignore Harry and maybe William will assault Harry again.

Meanwhile, the palace announced that Kate and William will do a day of events in Birmingham on Thursday. In the past month, they’ve basically only done one “event” – the church walk on Easter.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.