Today is the Duchess of Sussex’s birthday. She turns 43 years old today. She is a Leo, obviously. Prince Harry is a Virgo. I sometimes wonder if they have little annoyances involved with their astrological signs – I’m a Virgo too, and sometimes Leos are too much for me to handle. It goes the other way too – some Leos don’t want to be around Virgos. You might think this is silly, but I actually believe that there was something fated with Harry and Meghan, and while they might not make perfect sense astrologically, in real life, they seem to suit each other so well. Anyway, People Mag had a really vague story about what Meghan will do for her birthday:

Meghan Markle is marking another trip around the sun. The Duchess of Sussex turns 43 on Aug. 4 and is expected to spend it privately with family, as she has in the past, PEOPLE understands.

This year, Meghan’s birthday falls on the same day that her rare joint interview with Prince Harry, 39, will air on CBS Sunday Morning. In a preview clip released by the network on Aug. 1, the Duchess of Sussex spoke about her desire to protect her children from harmful online content.

[From People]

I’ll cover the CBS interview tomorrow, btw. I imagine Meghan will spend her birthday in Montecito, with Harry and the kids. Maybe go out to dinner? I hope they’re planning on being visible in the late summer and autumn. They’ll go to Colombia at some point, and Meghan will surely launch American Riviera Orchard at some point, please? One thing they’re absolutely not doing is visiting a drafty old castle in Scotland:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were snubbed of another invite to Balmoral Castle in Scotland. For years, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not been invited to the royal family’s summer gathering in the Scottish Highlands, sources tell PEOPLE in this week’s exclusive cover story. King Charles is continuing Queen Elizabeth’s tradition of heading to the Balmoral estate during the late summer, but the monarch hasn’t included Harry and his family this year.

While Prince Harry grew up going to Balmoral, it’s believed that Meghan has never visited the royal family’s Scottish castle.

The 50,000-acre estate, where Queen Elizabeth died in September 2022, serves as a yearly retreat for the royal family out of the public eye, where days are filled with outdoor activities like hunting, fishing and horseback riding.

[From People]

I thought Meghan did go to Balmoral once, maybe in 2019? There was some confusion about that, maybe I’m wrong. I guess they didn’t go in 2018 after their wedding? Hm. I’ve always sort of wondered if Harry disliked going to Balmoral because it reminded him of his mother’s death. Anyway, yes, as twenty million royal experts have said repeatedly, King Charles totally snubbed the Sussexes and refused to invite them! What goes unsaid is that the Sussexes wouldn’t have gone even if they were invited. Remember how Charles tried to trap Harry at Balmoral last year before Harry went to Germany for Invictus? Remember how Charles told Harry that Meghan wasn’t welcome in Scotland just hours after QEII died? The Windsors are very weird about Balmoral.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

In 2023, Jennifer Lopez launched her latest brand extension/side-hustle: an alcohol/cocktail line called Delola. There were two big problems from the start. One, J.Lo has always been a non-drinker, since her earliest days, throughout her entire career, people have always known that she doesn’t even touch alcohol. She’s a non-drinker for health reasons and because she’s so clean-living, so it came across as a particularly obvious money-grab. The second problem is that Jennifer launched Delola less than a year after she married a man who is in recovery, a man who has had very well-documented alcohol issues over the years. Granted, Ben Affleck has also had well-documented gambling issues over the years and he’s also paid to promote a sports-betting app. Still, it was a bad look for Jennifer, that she’s hustling liquor she doesn’t drink while married to an alcoholic in recovery. Well, interesting story, I guess. The Mail says Delola is actually at the heart of why J.Lo and Ben are on the outs and headed for divorce.

The promotional videos couldn’t look glossier. A perfect Italian summer’s day, the rugged Amalfi coast in the backdrop, beautiful people smiling and clinking glasses — and, at the centre of the group, an exquisitely made-up Jennifer Lopez. She smiles knowingly to the camera, as she prepares to sip her drink. This, then, was the launch of J-Lo’s own cocktail range, Delola. In common with other Hollywood celebrities such as Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney, J-Lo had sought to develop her own alcohol offering in an effort to further monetise her empire.

One wonders if the brand of spirits and fruit juice mixes were really worth it. For, as a friend close to her husband Ben Affleck told Dailymail.com, her alcohol venture was ‘one of the things that broke the camel’s back’.

However, it’s understood that the drinks company was started prior to them getting back together and Ben was aware and supportive of the business. Indeed, they go so far as to say it contributed to Ben, not Jen, being the one to pull the plug on their union amid speculation that their marriage is finally at an end.

Why was Ben, 51, so infuriated by this high-profile commercial enterprise? Friends say that, as a recovering alcoholic, he felt his wife selling vodka and tequila tipples was insulting to him. He had, after all, spent many years battling his addiction. When the label was first launched last year, he was said to be devastated. His hurt was only heightened by his belief that her motivation for launching her drinks’ brand was purely financial — for cold, hard cash.

First seeking help for his alcoholism in 2001, Ben has since been in rehab multiple times. His drinking led to the breakdown of his marriage to Jennifer Garner. To make matters worse, J-Lo then went on a very public promo campaign where she told the Press how much she loves to drink to ‘relax and let loose’. Even this week, she released an image of herself lounging on a sunbed in a swimming costume to advertise the latest addition to the range.

One friend of the actor told the Mail: ‘Ben had to fight to get his life back after overcoming alcohol. Knowing how he lost everything including the love of his family, knowing that he could possibly relapse, Jen decided to start her own spritzer line for more money, as if she did not have enough. This was one of the things that broke the camel’s back. But Ben saved his sobriety.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Wait, the Mail is saying that Ben knew about Delola before the launch and he was supportive of J.Lo’s side hustle, and then suddenly he was Not Okay and actually very upset? I mean, that actually sounds like Ben. Super-supportive until he isn’t, until he changes his mind. I know people in recovery, people working a program, are told to be ruthless about their sobriety. They’re encouraged to stay away from triggers and bad influences. I could also see how the idea of J.Lo having a liquor label was different than the reality of it, you know? And yes, we all knew it was a bad idea last year. Overall, I bet “the Delola issue” contributed to their bad situation but it was far from the only reason.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images and Delola’s Instagram.

Whenever I have a dark moment or a depressed moment, I think about how my goal should be to outlive Donald Trump. At the very least, my immediate goal is to live to see him humiliated yet again, to see him lose yet another election. For everyone to laugh at the big orange loser and his tiny little hands. Hatred can fuel people to keep going just as much as love. President Jimmy Carter has a beautiful soul, and he is full of love for his family, his country and Democrats in general. I am not saying that Jimmy Carter is fueled with hate. But he is trying to live long enough to vote for Kamala Harris and watch Donald Trump’s tears streak down his ugly orange face.

Jimmy Carter is less than two months out from his 100th birthday on Oct. 1, but loved ones say his sights are set on reaching a different milestone: voting Kamala Harris for president.

Jimmy has been in hospice care for a year and a half, and though his condition has not dramatically changed since February 2023, his grandson Jason Carter told Southern Living in June that the family’s 99-year-old patriarch was “no longer awake every day.” Two months later, however, Jason is sharing a more optimistic health update about the 39th U.S. president.

While promoting an upcoming tribute concert for his grandfather’s birthday, Jason told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Jimmy has been “more alert and interested in politics and the war in Gaza” in recent days.

Jason previously said that his grandfather has good days and bad days, and that it is often hard to predict what state he will be in when family stops in for visits.

When Jimmy’s son Chip Carter asked him this week whether he wants to live to see his 100th birthday, the former president responded, “I’m only trying to make it to vote for Kamala Harris,” according to Jason.

Though the 2024 presidential election is still three months away, the former president wouldn’t have to wait until Nov. 5 to cast his ballot. Early voting in Georgia begins on Oct. 15, and absentee ballots are sent out up to 29 days before the election. Georgia does not have any laws barring a ballot from being counted if someone dies between the early voting period and Election Day.

[From People]

That’s sort of nasty work from People Magazine, to suggest that Carter would only have to make it to early or mid-October. Granted, I was curious about Georgia laws too, but there you go. Whenever Carter’s name trends on social media, I brace myself for bad news. But it’s always like “Jimmy Carter can’t wait to vote for Kamala Harris” or “Jimmy Carter is doing great!” Such a blessed soul. I pray he makes it long enough to vote for Kamala Harris too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Justin Timberlake was arrested for a DWI in June, and everything has been a clownshow ever since. Justin doesn’t think he has a problem, so no rehab. He thinks this is all an issue with his image, so he hired a crisis manager and they proceeded to screw up so badly, everyone sided with Justin’s arresting officer. Justin’s lawyer also hasn’t been doing JT any favors. The guy is leaking all of this crazy sh-t to TMZ about how one of Justin’s friends was even more drunk than Justin, therefore Justin must be acquitted. Meanwhile, on Friday, Justin appeared virtually at a court hearing about his DWI case. The judge suspended Timberlake’s driver’s license, and the judge also hilariously admonished Timberlake’s idiot lawyer.

Justin Timberlake appeared virtually at a Friday hearing for his driving while intoxicated case, where the judge announced the pop star’s driver’s license would be suspended and admonished his lawyer over “irresponsible” comments. Timberlake, 43, wore a black collared shirt for his appearance via video conference from Antwerp, Belgium.

Sag Harbor Justice Carl Irace reprimanded the musician’s attorney, Edward Burke Jr., for “irresponsible” comments he made at the last court hearing, adding that it “comes off as an attempt to poison the case before it even begins.”

The judge even threatened to issue a gag order if the attorney continued to make such comments. It’s not clear which comments the judge was referring to.

After considering a motion to dismiss the case against Timberlake, the judge suspended the singer’s license in New York state because he refused to take a breathalyzer test on June 18 when he was pulled over. The license will be suspended for the pendency of the case, according to Burke Jr.

The hearing lasted roughly half an hour, ending with Irace again admonishing Burke, urging him to “raise the bar, not lower it.”

[From NBC News]

People Magazine notes that Burke withdrew his motion to dismiss the case, and part of the judge’s admonishment was that if Burke continued to run his mouth in the press, the judge would order Timberlake to appear in court. Which would totally “ruin the tour.” The next hearing is scheduled for the 9th, with a possible trial date of September 13th. It’s so funny to me that Justin really went out and grabbed the first local ambulance-chaser he could find and the guy is trying to make a name for himself with this one DWI case. Justin is getting what he deserves.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Oh, Reese Witherspoon is dating after her divorce from Jim Toth. Apparently, she’s taking it slow with an “old friend” named Oliver Haarman. [Hollywood Life]
Of course Blake Lively has a Judith Leiber mushroom bag. [RCFA]
This situation with Olympian Imane Khelif is so sad, and I feel so sorry for her. I’m disgusted by the misogynists and transphobes attacking her. JK Rowling is an ugly, hateful person. I hope that Italian cop gets kicked out of the sport. [Pajiba]
More pics of Nicole Kidman & her fam at the Olympics. [Socialite Life]
What’s up with People Magazine’s editorial decision to refer to Angelina Jolie’s kids by their father’s surname alone? Sucking up to Brad Pitt, I guess. [LaineyGossip]
These vintage ‘90s pics are so good though. [Go Fug Yourself]
The B52’s Kate Pierson is still making music! [OMG Blog]
Josh Hartnett promotes Trap in Madrid. [Just Jared]
Mario Lopez’s daughter is 13 years old?? [Seriously OMG]
Teen Mom’s Ashley Jones filed for divorce. [Starcasm]
They’ve done it!! They created a Minion Generator. [Buzzfeed]

The British media is mad at the Duchess of Sussex. They’re always going to be mad. They’re always going to make up reasons why they’re mad at her, usually twisting themselves in knots and telling some really bizarre lies about her. Currently, they’re mad that Meghan was invited to a women’s summit in the Hamptons and she regularly socializes with wealthy, powerful people who want to help her in all of her endeavors. But instead of crying about “why does Meghan have such cool friends,” they’re pretending they’re mad about her pants. Literally, the Mail devoted an article to a stylist talking about Meghan’s pant-length and what wide-leg trousers say about Meghan and then there’s a bizarre turn about whether Meghan gets designer freebies.

Meghan Markle wears clothing from smaller brands that is ‘not possible to alter’ and is ‘too controversial’ for bigger fashion houses, experts have claimed. The Duchess of Sussex, 42, has often opted for floor-length garments over the past six years – most recently wearing a pair of £360 trousers to a business summit in the Hamptons over the weekend. For the occasion, the mother-of-two – who is preparing to launch her lifestyle brand American Riviera Orchard – paired the beige linen trousers with a matching single-breasted waistcoat, which is also by the Australian brand St Agni.

Speaking to FEMAIL, celebrity stylist Rochelle White claimed Meghan’s trousers were potentially a sample pair from St Agni and therefore not possible to alter to her 5ft 6in frame – either because they have to be returned or because they’ve been given to the stylist rather than directly to Meghan herself to keep.

The expert said: ‘I know that wide leg long trousers are in fashion and trend piece right now. They have been dominating instagram and runways, so I think she likes the style. They are great at cinching the waist but adding leg and depth to an outfit. They can also be flattering and comfortable and not so restrictive. But the Duchess could also be working with either a designer, fashion house, or stylist where it might not be possible to have alterations done so that they are more fitting to her leg length. So, as a result they are longer.’

What’s more, fashion expert Giorgina Ramazzotti has also claimed that while Meghan has worn Dior and Givenchy in the past, she could be seen as too ‘controversial’ a figure to get free samples from some major fashion houses. Giorgina said: ‘As a celebrity and actress before joining the royals, Meghan would have been very used to a world in which everything is given on loan for photoshoots, an appearance or borrowed from wardrobe as part of her character in Suits.’

‘Celebrities rarely have to part with cold hard cash in exchange for fashion items. Often items are given as gifts, given on loan for special events, or the star is given a heavy discount to shop the brand, and whilst Meghan wasn’t a well-known actress before meeting Prince Harry, she would still have been given freebies – albeit from smaller brands. When she joined the royals, she quickly found out that loans and gifts from designers were forbidden, and the star was no doubt given an allowance to dress – something I’m sure she was glad to throw out of the window when she left the royal fold. It can be noted that Meghan rarely wears big designer brands such as the French fashion houses Louis Vuitton, Chanel, Saint Laurent etc. These brands are very careful with their image and getting loans from them for lesser or controversial stars (as Meghan, in some circles, now is) is like getting blood from a stone.’

What’s more, the stylist argued that the Duchess favours floor-length trousers and skirts as she is trying to channel an ‘old money’ aesthetic. Giorgina explained: ‘Meghan tends to favour minimalist, understated luxury; simple separates, neutral colours, and classic tailoring – think Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy meets 21st century style – and her latest look from St. Agni encompasses all this to a tee.’

[From The Daily Mail]

So, fresh off of complaining about the cost of Meghan’s clothes, jewelry and purses, the Mail is now saying that Meghan never wears major designers because those designers won’t get her freebies. Not only that, but small brands give her samples which she can’t alter? All because Meghan wore too-long trousers at an exclusive Hamptons summit… and she constantly wears too-long trousers, as one of her style signatures. She loves a long trouser length, just like she loves gold jewelry, lots of bracelets and a cute purse. I would imagine – I have for some time – that Meghan gets TONS of freebies and designers send her stuff constantly. She makes a point of highlighting a lot of lesser-known brands and female-owned brands. She makes a point of boosting smaller labels on purpose.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Instagram.

The Sussexes have not issued or released any new photos of their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, in a couple of years. There many never-before-seen photos of the kids in the Harry & Meghan Netflix series, but they were mostly baby pics and few pics of their full faces. While there have been some paparazzi photos of the kids in Montecito, there are laws in the UK and in Europe about publishing pap photos of kids (the kids’ faces have to be blurred out). Basically, I haven’t seen Archie or Lili’s faces in more than two years. I’m fine with it, honestly. I wish Harry and Meghan could show off their beautiful family all the time, but I understand why they don’t. In case anyone needs it underlined, this was included in People Magazine’s cover story this week:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are keeping Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet out of the limelight over concern for their children’s safety. As Harry fights for increased security for their family of four, the echoes of the 1997 death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a high-speed car chase weighs heavily, particularly now that he is a parent.

“Harry has been reluctant to show his children publicly, not out of a desire to hide them but to protect their privacy and safety from potential threats,” a friend tells PEOPLE in this week’s exclusive cover story. “He wants them to lead as normal a life as possible without the fear of kidnapping or harm.”

The friend adds, “As a dad and husband, Harry is determined to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.”

Multiple well-placed insiders in Prince Harry’s circle tell PEOPLE that the Duke of Sussex believes his father, King Charles, has the power to reinstate his security Buckingham Palace will not comment on security provisions, but a palace source tells PEOPLE the notion that Harry’s security is in the King’s hands is “wholly incorrect” The issue has shifted their conversation from frustration to “complete silence” from the King, says the friend.

[From People]

What’s a little bit funny to me is that Harry has put himself in a position to keep his kids out of public view for however long he wants, all while his brother is stuck in a dying institution and being forced to use his children as human deflection shields. William and Kate have trotted out their kids constantly in the past three years, to the point where even the Mail called out the “overexposure” of those kids. The Wales kids are treated (by the press) like they’re property of the state. Harry looks at the situation with the Wales kids and you know he’s doing deep sighs of relief that he can protect his kids from all of that. He’s probably thankful every day that he’s not trying to raise his children in the UK, where they would constantly be compared to the Wales kids.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Netflix, Sussex Royal IG and Misan Harriman/The Sussexes.

In 2020, Cardi B filed for divorce from Offset. They reconciled soon after, because her heart was not into it and she admitted that she mostly filed for divorce to “teach him a lesson.” The lesson being that she would always go back to him, no matter what he did or how many times he fooled around. Four years later (almost to the day), Cardi filed for divorce again. To be fair, Cardi and Offset have seemingly been on-and-off for more than a year. She was squirrelly about the state of their marriage in her Rolling Stone interview back in May, but in that piece, she mostly seemed beyond stressed-out over her personal and professional life.

TMZ says that Cardi and Offset have been “growing apart for a long time” and “they’re just disconnected from each other.” Sources maintain that the divorce has nothing to do with cheating (lol), and that they’ve been trying to work on their marriage earlier this year, but Cardi decided to pull the ripcord although it was “not an overnight decision.” She’s already hired a divorce attorney and she’s asking for primary custody of Kulture and Wave.

Speaking of children, on the same day that Cardi announced her divorce, she announced her pregnancy. She’s expecting a third child. If you’ve been following her paparazzi shots, you know that she’s been wearing a lot of baggy clothes recently and the pregnancy was widely rumored. That’s also why the divorce news came as a surprise – people thought Offset baby-trapped her yet again. She escaped the man but not the baby. Oh well – I predict that Cardi and Offset will be back together by Election Day (if not a lot sooner).

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Cardi B (@iamcardib)

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Last week, ITV’s Tabloids on Trial documentary aired, and it included an exclusive interview with Prince Harry. He spoke of how his tabloid lawsuits are connected to his fight for security in the UK, which is all connected to his relationship to his father and the institution of the monarchy. As in, the Windsors hate Harry’s crusade against the tabloids, because the Windsors feel that they need the tabloids on their side and the Windsors and the tabloids see each other as partners most of the time. Meaning, Harry’s lawsuits disturb the “delicate balance” of shenanigans and cooperation between the monarchy and media, and that is one of the biggest reasons why the Windsors AND the British media have spent years targeting the Sussexes. It goes even further than that – Byline’s reporting on this situation was very accurate, especially in regards to Christian Jones, the leaks to Dan Wootton and the nervousness within Charles’s camp.

What’s been interesting to watch this week is that the Sussex camp is really pushing back on the palace’s attempted “woe is me, Harry won’t bring his kids to the UK” narrative. Camp Sussex is driving this point home: Charles is a dogsh-t father and a liar. They’ve even got Tom Sykes at the Daily Beast writing exclusives with lots of Sussex-Camp-sourcing. Some highlights:

Harry’s holding pattern with RAVEC: Currently, to obtain security, Harry is required, like any other high-profile visitor seeking police protection, to give 28 days notice to the British security forces of his intention to visit the U.K., list locations he intends to visit, and present a detailed itinerary of his plans. He can use private security but private guards cannot be armed. He has offered to pay for the cost of police protection, but the offer was rebuffed by the British government, which said the police are not available for private hire. He took the matter to court and has repeatedly lost his cases, costing him in excess of a million dollars, but he has been granted one final appeal which will be heard later this year.

Charles is gaslighting the public: A royal source this week told The Daily Beast the current set-up suited the royals “down to the ground” as it prevented Harry from making regular visits—and setting up a rival royal court in the U.K. Harry’s camp accuse Charles’ team of gaslighting the public by saying on one hand that the king loves his son and wants to see more of him and his children, while at the same time denying him the police protection that would make such visits possible on a regular basis.

The Frogmore eviction: The source said: “The evidence is there, clearly, for everyone to see. He has been kicked out of the home that would have made it possible for him to come back on a regular basis.”

But America’s gun violence!! However, a source in Charles’ camp, apparently referring to the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, questioned “how the U.K. presents more of a threat to the duke’s security than the U.S., where even the best-protected individual in the land can still find themselves subject to attack from individuals using weapons that can be acquired over the counter.” But Harry’s ally told The Daily Beast: “The threat is very real. He needs protection. The idea that the security forces wouldn’t allow anything to happen is a very glib dismissal of the reality of the threat the family faces.”

Charles’s “woe is me” campaign: The source dismissed allegations made by friends of the king to The Daily Beast this week that Harry was using his kids to “emotionally blackmail” the king into intervening with RAVEC. The source said, “Why would he bring his wife and children back to the U.K. if they are not going to be protected? The duke needs protection, they need protection. The threat level hasn’t changed since he stepped back from the royal family, if anything it has got worse because of the tabloid campaign against him and his wife.” Asked why they thought Harry was being denied protection, which has the effect of restricting his ability to visit the UK, the source said: “It’s about control.”

Whether Charles could conceivably intervene: The Sussex source said: “The fact that there is even any debate around (Harry’s) security is unbelievable when you look at the situation. The late queen made it really clear [at the Sandringham summit] that she wanted him and his family protected. She intervened to allow Andrew to keep his protection. Why is it impossible for his dad not to do the same for Harry? If the king wanted, he could do this for his son.”

[From The Daily Beast]

Not only did QEII intervene with RAVEC to ensure that Andrew kept his security, she picked up the costs herself. Guess what happened when QEII died? Charles assumed the same arrangement with Andrew, and since 2022, Andrew has received royal protection, the costs of which are assumed by the Duchy of Lancaster (the monarch’s “private funds”). And the Sussex source is 100% correct – this is about control. This is Charles and Camilla doing all they can to stop Harry from coming and going from the UK whenever he wants. This is about controlling Harry’s movements in and out of the country, but also controlling his movements within the country, and always having the option of leaking his location and itinerary to put Harry in mortal danger.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

On August 1, Colombia’s Vice President Francia Márquez announced that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had accepted her invitation to visit/tour the South American country. They will travel to Bogata, Cartagena and Cali. VP Marquez said that she was “pleased” that the tour could be arranged, and she’s clearly planning to use Harry and Meghan to highlight the positive stories within Colombia and bring international attention to the country. That’s exactly what Nigeria did too – the Nigerian tour was coordinated through the government and military, with a focus on Invictus, veterans, education, women’s rights and a celebration of Nigerian culture.

Well, much like the Nigerian tour, the British media is currently melting down because “why would Harry go to such a dangerous country and he won’t come to the UK??” The sad British people get twisted up in their own (racist) arguments so easily too – Harry and Meghan only travel to countries where they’re treated as high-value VIPs and given government security at that level. Nigeria’s cost-benefit analysis was pretty easy: a huge amount of positive domestic and international media attention came with the Sussexes’ visit, and the government got to highlight their own (amazing) veterans programs as well. Thus, it was “worth” it to ensure the Sussexes’ safety and give them the kind of security Nigeria would have given a visiting dignitary or VIP. I assume it will be exactly the same in Colombia.

Meanwhile, the UK seems to believe that the Sussexes should not receive any security… unless authorized by Charles and Camilla, and even then, there’s a good chance that “the palace” will leak the Sussexes’ whereabouts and go out of their way to put them in danger. Here’s the hissy fit from the Mail:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will visit Colombia for a tour later this year despite both the UK and US governments issuing travel alerts for the crime-ridden country. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will head to South America on an undisclosed date after accepting an invitation from the country’s vice president Francia Márquez.

But the UK and US governments have both issued security alerts over travelling to Colombia amid fears over crime, terrorism, civil unrest and kidnapping – and Harry’s decision to visit comes amid his ongoing battle for his security when in Britain.

The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office ‘advises against all but essential travel to parts of Colombia’. And the US Department of State issued a travel advisory for Colombia stating: ‘Reconsider travel due to crime and terrorism. Exercise increased caution due to civil unrest and kidnapping. Some areas have increased risk.’

One British former royal protection officer, who served Harry’s family for several years, told MailOnline: ‘They have chosen to visit one, if not the most, dangerous countries in the world. But nothing amazes me [with Harry and Meghan] these days. It’s just him digging his heels in with the UK authorities. But it does add weight to why he’s not getting protection – he keeps going to dangerous places’.

[From The Daily Mail]

These people are so stupid, it’s a wonder they can function in society without constantly falling into sewers. “But it does add weight to why he’s not getting protection – he keeps going to dangerous places.” You mean the British protection unit would deny someone security because… they traveled to Colombia before traveling to England?? And the “crime-ridden country” reference, they did that a lot with the Nigerian tour, they made it sound like Nigeria was a den of thieves and murderers. If anything, the Sussexes’ Nigeria trip probably boosted tourism to the country, because Nigeria seemed amazing and welcoming. Anyway, these meltdown – and there are many more – all boil down to “how dare other countries not take our word for it when we say that Harry doesn’t deserve protection!” It also boils down to: “If Harry needs such high-level security, why are other countries giving him that security when the British government isn’t???” They’re almost there. GB News even confirmed that the Sussexes “will be given a full security detail for the entirety of their visit alongside Colombia’s Vice President Márquez.” Could that be the reason why the Sussexes are not visiting the UK perchance?

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Save the Children Nigeria and Getty.