The Oscar producers wanted to do a mini-reunion for Four Weddings and a Funeral, so they invited Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell to present together. It’s kind of shocking that Hugh actually said yes – yes to flying to LA, yes to the Oscars, yes to walking the red carpet. Thankfully, he’s still Hugh Grant, and once he arrived on the carpet, he was ushered to Ashley Graham, who was one of ABC’s red carpet hosts. Hugh wasn’t happy. He let Ashley know he wasn’t happy by refusing to engage in the typical red-carpet banter of “who are you wearing” and “what’s your favorite part of the Oscars” and “here’s thirty seconds to promote whatever you have going on.”

As this unfolded live, you could see Hugh and Ashley figure out that they despised each other in real time. At first, I didn’t get Hugh’s “Vanity Fair” reference either – I also thought he was referencing the famous Vanity Fair Oscar party, but no, it was a literary reference to “a fair that goes on perpetually in the town of Vanity and symbolizes worldly ostentation and frivolity.” Trust Hugh Grant to reference Pilgrim’s Progress on the Oscar red carpet. Anyway, Hugh might be the worst red carpet interviewee of all time.

When he presented with Andie, he seemingly went off script a bit, trying to be charming about how Andie looks amazing: “We’re actually here to do two things. The first is to raise awareness about the vital importance of using a good moisturizer. Andie’s been wearing one every day for the last 29 years. I’ve never used one in my life…. I’m basically a scrotum.” I mean, it’s true? Hugh Grant has some dry-ass skin. Remember that miniseries he did with Nicole Kidman? He was maybe the ashiest man I’d ever seen in my life. I can’t believe he just wanders around so bitter and unmoisturized every day.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

I feel bad for Florence Pugh because I think she’s going to be on the top of a lot of worst-dressed lists today. Flo thought she served and she… didn’t. This is Valentino – a pair of black bike shorts with a shiny duvet wrap, not the chicest. The worst part, to me, wasn’t the awful dress but her styling. I feel like we’re going to get a strongly-worded Instagram about how much we hate those stupid baby bangs. Meanwhile, Miss Flo went to a pre-Oscar party this weekend and Olivia Wilde was there. They apparently took pains to avoid each other completely. Good!

Stephanie Hsu in Valentino. This Oscar nominee got her big princess moment and I thought this was the best Valentino of the night. It was an extra bonus that, when Jamie Lee Curtis won Best Supporting, basically everyone on the internet was like “if Angela Bassett had to lose, it should have been to Stephanie.” And truly, Stephanie’s role was so much more important in EEAAO. Anyway, I love this beautiful color on her. She looked beautiful and you could tell she felt beautiful too.

Emily Blunt in Valentino. First off, a lot of people were getting a vibe about Emily, right? Was the vibe just because her husband John Krasinski wasn’t her Oscar date? My vibe is not “there’s trouble in paradise.” I think John was probably just busy or he didn’t want to go to the Oscars. As for the dress… first I was meh, then I hated it, but now I’m back to meh. There was so much white on the beige carpet, and this look wasn’t the best or the worst. I wish she had been blinged out – she should have been dripping in diamonds in this simple dress.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

There were many Oscar highlights, but let’s be honest, there were many Oscar lowlights, including the nature and delivery of the telecast itself. Some people believe that what happened last year – Will Smith slapping Chris Rock live on stage – was the end of the Oscars as we know it, and the Oscars needed to go super-traditional and staid this year as a way to “get back to normal.” The people who believe that hired Jimmy Kimmel as host and gave him free reign to make “jokes” at Will Smith’s expense. Here’s his opening monologue:

“We want you to feel safe, and most importantly, we want me to feel safe, so if we have strict policies in place. If anyone in this theater commits an act of violence, at any point during the show, you will be awarded the Oscar for Best Actor and permitted to give a nineteen-minute long speech. No, but seriously, the Academy has a crisis team in place. If anything unpredictable or violent happens during the ceremony, just do what you did last year: nothing. Sit there and do absolutely nothing. Maybe even give the assailant a hug. And if any of you get mad at a joke and want to come here and get jiggy with it, it’s not gonna be easy…”

Like, he lost me completely. Criticizing last year’s audience for… not freaking out when the slap happened? When several people in the room – including the titans of Black hollywood Tyler Perry, Denzel Washington and Bradley Cooper – all took it upon themselves to manage the crisis and speak to Will to calm him down? What was supposed to happen, in Kimmel’s mind? Was supposed to tackle Will when he accepted his Oscar? Kimmel is just salty because he was one of the comics who saw Rock get slapped and thought “what if that happened to ME?” Anyway, I found it the wrong tone… especially given that no Black actors won last night and two Black actresses were notably snubbed for nominations AND Angela Bassett lost. It felt like the Academy’s lesson was “snub the f–k out of Black entertainers, make them the butt of the joke.”

Kimmel’s “bits” just kept falling flat, usually because he decided to kill time and do uncomfortable patter right after some artist of color was cut off from the mic as they tearfully tried to thank their moms. This bit with Malala Yousafzai was bad, all of this stuff in the audience was terrible.

He also brought out the donkey, Jenny, from Banshees. Do we need to have live animals at the Oscars?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Here is our official 2023 Oscars Open Post, hosted by Brian Tyree Henry. Brian is nominated tonight in the Best Supporting Actor category for his role in Causeway. He hasn’t gotten much attention because Supporting Actor is basically the only category with a sure-thing winner: Ke Huy Quan in Everything Everywhere All At Once. Still, Brian has been enjoying his awards season and his first Oscar nomination. He recently spoke to the Hollywood Reporter about dressing for the awards season and how much he loves wearing “vibrant” colors. He also tries to support Black designers and Black-owned businesses, plus he doesn’t like wearing baggy clothes – he wants to emphasize his “curves” too. He seems like such a special guy.

The Oscars start at 8 pm EST on ABC. Here in America, we’re in the first day of Daylight Savings “spring forward,” so bear with us if we’re a bit out of sorts. This isn’t just the Open Post, it’s our live blog and we’ll update this post with winners and highlights. We’ll also be tweeting about the Oscars – you can follow me at @KaiseratCB, you can follow CB at @Celebitchy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Entertainment Weekly ALSO did an “anonymous Oscar ballot” thing and I have to say, keep them coming. The more we expose what goes into how Academy voters vote, the more we, as a society, can say that Academy voters are terrible people. Like, there is no mystery about it – these are mostly old men being terrible and voting for people and films based on the flimsiest rationales ever. This EW piece is something else though – there is an anonymous voter included in this piece who sucks so hard, I’m making him a blind item. I need to know this bigot’s identity. We need to name and shame him. EW describes the man as an actor and “his performances in critically heralded prestige dramas, biting mainstream thrillers, and on Emmy-winning TV shows have earned this actor consistent acclaim throughout his career.” If it is Alec Baldwin, I swear to God. Please read some of the absolute horsesh-t he was saying as he filled out his ballot:

He stopped watching the Oscars before he became an Academy member: “I’d sort of stopped watching them. I was so disgusted by the whole thing, and then I got into the Academy, and now I’m forced to — so, be careful what you wish for. The whole Hollywood back-slapping, ‘get a big stinkin’ load of me,’ it’s not a newsflash, it just seems to get worse and worse. I think the Academy is making an effort to please everybody, and it’s reflective of the state of the world, but I feel like they’re being held hostage — somewhat unfairly — by the wokeness.”

He thinks it’s fine that the Academy didn’t nominate Viola Davis or Danielle Deadwyler: “When they get in trouble for not giving Viola Davis an award, it’s like, no, sweetheart, you didn’t deserve it. We voted, and we voted for the five we thought were best. It’s not fair for you to start suddenly beating a frying pan and say [they’re] ignoring Black people. They’re really not, they’re making an effort. Maybe there was a time 10 years ago when they were, but they have, of all the high-profile things, been in the forefront of wanting to be inclusive. Viola Davis and the lady director need to sit down, shut up, and relax. You didn’t get a nomination — a lot of movies don’t get nominations. Viola, you have one or two Oscars, you’re doing fine.”

He was too stupid to understand Tar: “They have their favorites, they have their pets, and if Cate Blanchett opens a door, she gets an Academy Award nomination. I feel like they bought [TÁR] hook, line, and sinker. It seemed way too long, it seemed really ham-fisted, I got very confused about, like, when she went to her assistant’s house and it was this run-down slum, like, what? What are we doing? Where are we? What’s happening? I didn’t think it was good storytelling, and with a central performance that’s inauthentic, it felt so much longer. I really struggled to get through that thing.

He hated ‘The Whale’: “[The Whale] is so pandering for an Oscar. I think he’s a very talented guy, but I didn’t buy a second of that movie. I’d seen the play, so I knew what I was in for, and somehow turning it into a movie just made the artifice look so magnified…. cheeseball from the get-go, and I didn’t even think the makeup was that good.

Again with the wokeness: “I don’t believe that thing of you have to be a murderer to play a murderer — I know it’s all the rage. You can’t play a gay guy unless you’re a gay guy — it’s so out of control with the wokeness. I’m a fervent liberal, but wokeness, I think we all agree, has taken over. I thought he was fine casting, I just wish the movie had been better.

He has a real hate-on for Cate Blanchett: “I said a little prayer during TÁR that I would never have to watch Cate Blanchett act again. I thought, this has got to be the end of this, this can’t go on. I think she’s a talented woman, but she’s so technical, she’s ice cold, and I always see her acting. The person I wanted to be in there was Judy Davis in Nitram. Astonishing. You’ve got Cate Blanchett and Judy Davis, both from Australia, and they couldn’t be more different. Cate is working it like crazy, like, get a big stinking load of me, and Judy Davis is just doing the work and knocking it out of the park every single time. I feel like Cate just wants us all to fall in love with her and be a movie star, and I’m not on board.

Jesus H.: “I thought [Ana de Armas] was really good, and there were moments in that movie where I believed she was Marilyn Monroe. She captured it so fantastically, I just hated that movie so much that I couldn’t revisit it. She was tortured and raped and victimized in every single scene. She couldn’t walk through a door without somebody raping her. [Laughs]

On Andrea Riseborough’s nomination & shutting out Davis & Deadwyler: “I feel like anything goes, all’s fair in love and war. I thought [Riseborough] gave a great performance. It was very much “for your consideration” — like, what’s going to win me an Oscar? It had all the check-boxes through it, and it seemed to be pandering a bit, so that bugged me. The ending was terrible. Good for them, they went about it and got her a nomination. I’m sure other people were doing equally political maneuverings behind the scenes, they just didn’t get caught. If it hadn’t been for Viola Davis being mad she wasn’t nominated, I don’t think anybody would’ve questioned it…. it’s ridiculous, it’s sour grapes. The Academy has bent over backwards to be inclusive. Last year, there were more Black people presenting. It’s like, come on.

HE DIDN’T EVEN WATCH THE WOMAN KING: I think Viola Davis is talented, I didn’t see Woman King, but I’m a little tired of Viola Davis and her snotty crying. I’m over all of that. I’m willing to believe that Andrea Riseborough gave a better performance. [Danielle Deadwyler] was so pandering [in Till] for an Academy Award nomination. She was good. I mean, who wouldn’t be good in a part like that? The strong, wronged mother. But you look at the real Mamie Till, she’s not wearing all of these incredible gowns and beautifully made-up. I thought it was a confusing message. If they’d really [made a movie about] that woman, who was not used to being in the public eye and wore house dresses, she [wouldn’t have] had one incredible outfit after another. The ego behind this pushing her to be a movie star was too blatant for me.

[From EW]

Do you see what I mean? Please, someone do some digging and find the identity of this utter douchebag. He is contemptible. I’ve already seen some suggestions that this could be Brian Cox? No, I doubt it? Brian Cox can be rude and “politically incorrect,” but I don’t see Cox saying all of this racist sh-t about Viola Davis and The Woman King, nor do I see him laughing when talking about the rape scenes in Blonde. “The Academy has bent over backwards to be inclusive. Last year, there were more Black people presenting. It’s like, come on.” For the love of God. And dismissively referring to Viola as “sweetheart” and calling Gina Prince-Bythewood “the lady director” – utter POS.

are you normal or have you spent the entire morning trying to figure out who the piece of shit anonymous actor is in this ew oscar ballot with your coworkers?? https://t.co/kZlfmjqfa0

— saloni gajjar (@saloni_g) March 10, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, promotional images courtesy of ‘The Woman King’ and ‘To Leslie’.

On March 3, Princess Lilibet Diana was finally christened at home in Montecito. When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced the news, they made a point of using Lili’s royal title, and they later made a point of saying that there were conversations between Montecito and Buckingham Palace over the kids’ titles. Keep in mind, King Charles had been openly briefing the British media for months about how he felt like Lili and Archie’s titles needed to be “earned,” which is why the line of succession hadn’t been updated with their royal titles. Keep in mind that Archie and Lili have been prince and princess since the day QEII passed away too. It’s not about the Sussexes “wanting” this or that – it’s about “is.” Lili IS a princess, per the Letters Patent. In any case, the palace went on briefing spree once again with some nonsensical cover story of “Charles gave in to what the Sussexes wanted because he’s also evicting them from Frogmore.” It didn’t make any sense because the palace was clearly caught with their pants down, looking like they were too f–king racist to recognize the king’s mixed-race grandkids. Well, the Telegraph has a new story and at least this version makes a bit more sense?

Buckingham Palace offered to update the Sussex children’s titles online to make up for embarrassment over their eviction from Frogmore Cottage, friends have claimed. Prince Harry and Meghan made the decision to use Archie and Lilibet’s prince and princess titles last year and shared their decision with Buckingham Palace.

However, they were frustrated that the Royal family failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet’s elevated status on its website following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, not least as the Prince and Princess of Wales’s titles, and those of their children, were swiftly changed.

There was no movement on the issue until a tabloid newspaper broke the news that the Sussexes had been asked to vacate their Windsor home. They had been asked to give up Frogmore Cottage in January but the news did not become public knowledge on March 1. The Sussexes only learnt then that the keys had been offered to the Duke of York. On the same day, the palace offered to update its website with Archie and Lilibet’s new titles, it is understood.

One friend of the couple raised an eyebrow about the timing of such communication, which was interpreted as an attempt to curry favour or to smooth relations amid the public humiliation. But palace aides are unlikely to have known that a week later on March 8, the couple planned to make a public statement about the christening or that they would use the opportunity to confirm the use of Lilibet’s new title.

In the event, the website was not updated until last Wednesday when the Duke and Duchess made a public announcement, initially via People magazine, that their daughter, “Princess Lilibet” had been christened in California. A royal source insisted that they had always planned to wait until the Sussexes chose to reveal the news themselves rather than make the announcement on their behalf. Buckingham Palace declined to comment.

[From The Telegraph]

I sort of believe that people were incorrectly conflating or connecting the Frogmore eviction with the title announcement – all signs point to Harry and Meghan just doing whatever they want on their own schedule at this point. I believe that they told the palace that their children would use their royal titles last year and the palace failed to update the line of succession list for months. Then Charles ordered the Frogmore Cottage eviction in January and the Sussexes didn’t release the news, the palace released the news to deflect from Charles’s political moves with the EU. Basically, this was always Buckingham Palace’s mess, and I absolutely believe that the palace waited until this month to “offer” the Sussexes an update on the titles. Now, all that being said, I believe that the Sussexes “invited” Charles to the christening too, so he had to know that the Sussexes would make an announcement about Princess Lili at some point.

Photos courtesy of Misan Harriman/The Sussexes, Netflix and Backgrid.

On Friday, for Prince Edward’s 59th birthday, his brother King Charles gave him the Duke of Edinburgh title which had been promised to him back when he married Sophie. QEII and Prince Philip both made their feelings known, that when Philip passed away, Edward should receive the Edinburgh ducal title. Charles had other ideas, and for a while there, I honestly believed that Charles was never going to give the title to Edward. Sophie campaigned for it hard – she would have everyone believe that she alone was QEII’s favorite and that Edward was Philip’s favorite. So now the Wessexes have become the Edinburghs, although they still get to keep the Wessex title. And this title is only for the rest of Edward and Sophie’s lifetimes – their son James will not inherit the title. Shortly after the title upgrade was announced, Ed and Sophie made an appearance in Edinburgh:

Prince Edward and Sophie are in the city of their new titles. A few hours after Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles had given his younger brother a 59th birthday present by conferring the title of Duke of Edinburgh on him, Prince Edward and Sophie appeared at an official event in the city.

Prince Edward’s wife, Sophie, is now the Duchess of Edinburgh — a title last held by her mother-in-law, the late Queen Elizabeth. The couple’s 15-year-old son, James, now holds Edward’s previous title of Earl of Wessex.

They met with members of the Ukrainian community at Edinburgh’s City Chambers to mark one year since the city’s formal response to the invasion of Ukraine. During the reception, Prince Edward and Sophie met members of the Ukrainian and Eastern European diaspora in Edinburgh, including families who have made the city their home since the beginning of the conflict last year.

In a speech, Prince Edward said, “Thank you very much indeed for welcoming us to Edinburgh today on, indeed, a very special and slightly overwhelming day.” He then referred to Sophie as “my wife and Duchess,” prompting laughs from the crowd. “But I also want to express my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to make our Ukraine friends feel so very welcome,” he added.

[From People]

It was smart to immediately show up in Edinburgh right after the announcement, and it was smart to tie the appearance to Ukraine and refugees. I imagine that’s why Sophie wore this blue dress too – while it’s terrible, it’s “Ukrainian blue,” so she’s basically flag-dressing (Scotland’s flag is also blue & white). But all of that didn’t stop the criticism, which should show you that post-QEII, people are a lot more comfortable criticizing the monarchy openly and on the record. Of course, it helps that many Scottish people are sick to death of the Windsors using Scotland like “tartan Disneyland.” From the Scotsman:

SNP MP Tommy Sheppard said the appointment was emblematic of the monarchy’s “obsession with feudal patronage”.

“The fact that these titles and positions are determined by accident of birth and forever the preserve of just one family is completely at odds with modern democratic values,” he said. “In Scandinavian countries, monarchies have gone out of their way to slim down by stripping lesser royals of their hereditary titles. Not here. In the UK, there seems no end to their obsession with feudal patronage.”

Tristan Gray, the convener of Our Republic – a campaign group calling for an end to the monarchy in Scotland – told The National that the appointment of Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh was “an insult” to the residents of the capital city. He said: “I think it’s an insult to the people who call Edinburgh home that their city can be passed around as a trinket to be given to people as a birthday present, just so Edward can put it up on his wall in his Surrey mansion, as if he has any connection to the city whatsoever.

“The people of Edinburgh have legitimate democratic representation. They vote for it in their council elections, we had a by-election this week. They’ve got parliamentary representation, both in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster. Those people are elected by and accountable to the people of Edinburgh. They are the legitimate representatives of the people who call the city home. And to have them undermined by the granting of this title – and the gifting of it as a birthday present – to distant aristocrats is an insult both to the people of Edinburgh themselves and to the very concept of the legitimate representation of those people.”

[From The National]

Then at the end of the story, The Scotsman mentions that Edward dropped out of the Marines and yet still gets to wear a big fancy uniform. That’s what this title upgrade is seen as – playing dress up in a uniform he didn’t earn and a title for a city for which he has no connection. These dudes are right, it is feudal and out-of-touch.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Prince Andrew’s life has been in freefall (by his standards) for four years. Everything hit the proverbial fan in 2019, when Jeffrey Epstein was arrested, again, for sex trafficking. Epstein’s arrest brought up a lot of terrible history for Andrew, and after Epstein’s mysterious in-custody death that summer, Andrew decided to set the record straight in a BBC interview. The Newsnight interview aired in November 2019. It was an unmitigated disaster. What followed was years of back-and-forth about Andrew “stepping away” from public life and public duties, only to keep coming back even though no one wanted him. His mother tried to protect him and help him repeatedly, only to eventually give him millions of dollars to settle out of court with one of his rape victims. The Newsnight interview was “the start” of all of that. One would think Andrew would be desperate to avoid a repeat. But nope – apparently, he’s considering another sit-down interview.

Prince Andrew is considering giving a new tell-all interview as he seeks to find a way back into the royal fold. The disgraced Duke of York has told friends he believes he has a chance of redemption after being embroiled in a sex abuse scandal, which he vehemently denies. Sources say Andrew has warmed to the idea of “telling his side” of events over the last two years, since his disastrous appearance on BBC Newsnight in which he said he had an inability to sweat.

A source close to the Duke said: “Nothing is off the table. Andrew has been made to give up his job and now potentially his home. He feels there is little else to lose when he has already paid an awfully high price.”

Sources say the Duke favours a US broadcaster after taking note of Prince Harry’s exposure during a recent promotional tour for his explosive memoir, Spare.

Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, who he still lives with in his 30 room Windsor mansion Royal Lodge despite the King ordering them to leave, has been slowly lifting the lid on the Duke’s plight. Fergie, who last week described the Duke as “poor Prince Andrew”, has also met with US journalist Daphne Barak.

We can reveal the Duke has been approached by at least two major US broadcasters with offers of an interview taking place in the UK. Andrew has not been to the US since the FBI announced they wanted to speak to him as a witness as part of the investigation into the associates of the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The King and other senior royals such as the Prince of Wales are likely to be infuriated at the thought of Andrew returning to the spotlight. The monarch believes his brother should “fade into the background”, according to royal sources.

Andrew has been offered Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s five bedroom Frogmore Cottage after the eviction of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Andrew is also furious that the King may ban him from wearing ceremonial robes to his May 6 coronation. A royal source said: “To say relations between the two brothers is a little fraught at present would be a huge understatement.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

While I have no doubt that Prince Andrew is stupid, vile, pompous and egotistical enough to believe that he could explain away his problems in another interview, I think it’s far more likely that this story has an audience of one. This is Andrew’s message to King Charles: back off, give me what I want or I will embarrass the hell out of you and the entire family. Before the Frogmore Cottage and Royal Lodge eviction stories came out, it was widely believed that Charles was taking pains to “take care” of Andrew simply so Andrew wouldn’t do anything like this, like sitting down for a TV interview and expressing more sympathy for a pedophile than for rape victims. Charles’s attempt to evict Andrew from Royal Lodge has changed the math – if Andrew can be evicted willy-nilly, then what’s stopping him (or any other family member) from doing paid interviews and spilling royal tea? In any case, I kind of hope Andrew gets caught in some kind of FBI dragnet scheme – “we’ll pay you $3 million for an exclusive interview, just fly into New York” and then the FBI is waiting at the airport.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

Hot Guy Friday: Idris Elba at the Luther premiere. [Go Fug Yourself]
This week, ex-lovers Florence Pugh & Zach Braff reunited for the premiere of their film (he directed, she stars). [Dlisted]
I literally just learned this week that Ron DeSantis worked at Gitmo. [Jezebel]
2023 Oscar predictions. [LaineyGossip]
Fourteen good puppies did a conga line. [OMG Blog]
How Diane Warren became a 14-time Oscar loser. [Pajiba]
Rachel Zegler wore Dior to the Shazam premiere. [RCFA]
Y’all let’s get through the Oscars before we focus on the Met Gala. [Just Jared]
I don’t understand Noah Cyrus or her outfit. [Egotastic]
Former strippers reveal their secrets. [Buzzfeed]
Chanel looks so different now, post-Karl Lagerfeld. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Dakota Fred Hurt diagnosed with brain cancer. [Starcasm]
Cher is making albums with AE. [Towleroad]

Embed from Getty Images

For nearly two months, all we’ve been hearing from Buckingham Palace and the British media is that the Sussexes are invited to the coronation and they better show up, because King Charles has a whole list of punishments and snubs he will enact. That’s what it’s all about: please come to my miserable Chubbly so that we can performatively snub you and put you in your place. Is it any wonder why the Sussexes have not confirmed or declined their attendance? Now that we know that Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are using their titles and their dogsh-t grandfather won’t do anything about it, I do kind of wonder if THAT was the quid pro quo and not any of the Frogmore Cottage eviction sh-t. Like, Charles basically said: the grandbabies will have their titles so long as you come to my Chubbly. I know it doesn’t work like that but I could see how that manipulation would work on Harry. Speaking of, Becky English at the Mail had another “exclusive” about the Sussexes’ possible Chubbly attendance.

Buckingham Palace is making plans for Harry and Meghan to attend the King’s Coronation, The Daily Mail can reveal. Staff organising logistics for the historic occasion have been instructed to include the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in their programme for May 6, sources have said.

Insiders caution that there has been no word yet that the couple have formally accepted King Charles’s invitation, which their spokesman revealed was recently sent to them in California ‘by email’. It is likely that negotiations around what events the couple would attend, where they would sit, what they would wear and, of course, their security, will go right to the wire.

But the fact that officials within the Master of the Household’s Department and Lord Chamberlain’s Office are anticipating their attendance is the strongest suggestion yet that the Sussexes could make an appearance, despite spending much of the last three years throwing brickbats at the monarchy as an institution as well as the rest of the Royal Family.

One source told the Mail last night: ‘Harry and Meghan are being factored into all of the planning…. the cars, the seating plans, dining arrangements, everything. No one knows for certain whether this means they have definitely accepted – it could, of course, be just in case they do – but it’s clearly not a “no”. The staff are certainly working on the expectation they are coming. These kind of arrangements have to be made well in advance.’

A second source with knowledge of Harry and Meghan’s thoughts on the issue backed the suggestion they could fly over, saying: ‘The indication is that they are, although there is a lot that needs to be worked through first.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Keep in mind, the Sussexes still have not received a written invitation – they only received an e-vite from the palace, which they dutifully announced earlier this week. And while this exclusive is dated March 9, those “palace sources” have been saying the same thing since January, which is that the king “expects” Harry to show up and the palace is “making plans” for the Sussexes’ attendance. I have no idea if the Sussexes have indicated anything to the palace – your guess is as good as mine. But I just hope Harry and Meghan know (by now) that if they do go, it will be a total sh-tshow with Charles and William arranging for various snubs and denigrations to be played out over the course of their visit. Also, congrats to King Charles once again – I’m sure he loves that his coronation is solely about his younger son’s attendance.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.