Ever since the Princess of Wales’s big cancer-announcement video on March 22, there’s been a weird energy around the Windsors and the royalist press. My theory is that King Charles and Buckingham Palace have taken charge of everything and ordered an abrupt end to months of clownery from Kensington Palace. There has been a weird radio-silence across official royal channels for more than a week as every senior royal enjoys their Easter holiday. Even the regular royal commentators seem pretty shy all of a sudden. Which might explain why the Sun literally dusted some ancient “former royal correspondent” to pontificate about where it all went wrong. Hint: it’s all the Duchess of Sussex’s fault. Remarkable, isn’t it?

Charles Rae, a legendary former royal correspondent, told The Sun’s Royal Exclusive show how the estranged brothers’ fractured relationship would break Diana’s heart. Speaking to The Sun’s Royal Editor Matt Wilkinson, Rae spoke of the Prince Harry and Prince William’s former unbreakable bond.

“They were really, really close. And this is what makes it so sad that they’re now so far apart,” he said. “When William becomes King, I always believed Harry would be one of his top advisers. I think that’s out of the window.”

Wilkinson added how Harry should be William’s “wingman”. Rae continued: “Yeah and that’s what Diana always wanted, the boys to remain as close as possible, they had each other, and it was them against the rest of the world but of course now it’s not happening.”

Charles Rae also believes that Prince Harry’s wife was “lauded” when she joined The Firm. Rae spoke on The Sun’s Royal Exclusive show about Megxit, recalling how public attitude towards her was fantastic in 2017 and 2018.

“When you saw Meghan with Harry when they were out and about, the crowds were 10 to 12 people deep,” he said. “It was back to the good old days of royal walkabouts – it was fantastic. It only started to go wrong when we started to hear there were a few strops being thrown by Meghan. Did she make Catherine cry, did she make Charlotte cry? You’ve got to accept that any bride is going to be right up there, the nerves are going to be sharp – so, you’ve got to take that into account. But I think it all went wrong when they decided they were gonna up sticks and go.”

When asked if there was ever a possibility for the Sussexes to return as working royals with a connection to the British public “like William and Kate”, Charles remarked that the “ship has sailed”. “I think they were lauded at one time, I think there was great hopes for the pair of them coming into the Royal Family. And given the problems she had with her own father, the King – then Prince of Wales – walked her halfway down the aisle. That was touching and I don’t believe it could have happened for Princess Diana or Sarah Ferguson.”

“I think that she was given every help and everything she could have possibly had to help her root into the Royal Family as clean and as clear as possible,” Rae continued. “I think she just threw it in their faces in the end.”

Rae believes that Meghan wanted to leave Britain and the Royal Family when she realised she couldn’t be the star of the show. “Meghan was the one who decided she didn’t want to be on this road. I don’t believe that she understood the pecking order of the Royal Family. You’ve got the monarch, you’ve got the Prince of Wales, and then you’ve got everyone else under that. She wanted to be the star and I think it was that simple.”

[From The Sun]

The “Harry could have been one of William’s top advisors” issue is fascinating, because as we’ve seen with both King Charles and QEII, they don’t actually need their siblings to play some huge role in their monarchical administrations, let’s say. QEII enjoyed a close relationship with Margaret, but let’s be clear – Margaret was never an “advisor” or allowed to be anything other than an alcoholic f–kup. Charles is particularly close to Anne, but Anne isn’t some political advisor or anything like that. They really expected Harry to spend his entire life not only providing cover for the work-shy, dipsh-t heir, but they expected Harry to be the brains behind “King William.”

As for all of this sh-t about Meghan… Rae and every other royalist wants to conveniently ignore the fact that the public’s embrace of the Sussexes is exactly why the Windsors threw them to the wolves. The charismatic and popular Sussexes were eclipsing the whole operation.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Zendaya had so much fun on the Dune 2 promotional tour in February and March, and the tour sort of overshadowed a lot of awards season stuff too. Now, weeks later, she’s on yet another tour, this one for Challengers. You know she’s tired. I bet her stylist Law Roach is tired too. Which might explain why there’s sort of a low-energy, going-through-the-motions vibe to this. I’m not saying Zendaya looks bad or over it, but there’s just a vein of exhaustion running through this tour. Keep in mind, before the SAG-AFTRA strike, both Challengers and Dune 2 were supposed to be released last fall/winter.

Anyway, these are photos from Saturday in Paris. They did two photocalls (one indoor, one outdoor) and a premiere. The Parisian color palette was chartreuse, celadon and white, and Zendaya wore Louis Vuitton for all of her appearances. She’s the latest house ambassador for LV, although her contract doesn’t seem to be exclusive (she wore many different designers during the Dune 2 promo).

So, thoughts on all of the LV looks, plus Zendaya’s newly lightened hair? She’s been going lighter in recent weeks, but she’s pretty much blonde now. The combination of the blonde hair, the somewhat “prim” Louis Vuitton looks and the fact that she’s promoting a tennis movie… I think they’re trying to make her look like a cute heiress who spends half the time at the tennis club. I think my favorite look is the “pajama suit” in chartreuse – those are some of the best LV pants I’ve ever seen. My least favorite look is the premiere gown…the weird “belt” and the princessy styling, it’s a big “eh” to me.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

In recent years, Angelina Jolie has been working with lawyers who understand that they can’t allow Brad Pitt’s “crisis management” and public bullying sit out there, unaddressed. In the past year alone, Jolie’s legal team has been much more active about publicly pushing back on Pitt’s lies and bullsh-t and calling it out for what it is. It’s been nice to see Jolie and her people be more proactive, because it wasn’t always this way. It feels like the shift in strategy came after Pitt sued Jolie over her sale of her stake in Chateau Miraval. Angelina stopped playing nice – she’s so clearly outraged that Brad is still trying to control her and abuse her, so she’s laying all of this at his door. None of this would have come out if Pitt wasn’t so hellbent on punishing her for leaving him. But now the floodgates are open, and so here we go.

Last week, as part of the back-and-forth lawsuits over Miraval, Angelina once again pointed to the non-disclosure agreement Pitt wanted her to sign as part of her attempt to sell Nouvel to him. Jolie says, in new filings, that the NDA was specifically about Pitt trying to silence her about how he was physically and emotionally abusing her before the 2016 plane terror. Those of us who have been following this years-long situation were not surprised by this information. But now People Magazine platformed Pitt’s lawyers and their reaction to Jolie’s new filing:

A Brad Pitt source calls Angelina Jolie’s new claims of past abuse a “misdirection and distraction” as the exes continue their battle over their French winery Château Miraval. Lawyers for Pitt, 60, filed a motion in court April 5 demanding that Jolie, 48, produce nondisclosure agreements she has made others sign. The motion is in response to Jolie’s own filing from a day prior. Jolie’s legal team filed a motion seeking to release communications they say would prove Pitt would not let Jolie sell her share of the winery to him unless she agreed to a “more onerous” and “expansive” NDA.

Lawyers for Pitt seek to prove that the NDA Pitt asked her to sign was no more restrictive than ones she asks others to sign on a regular basis and allege that less than six months after Jolie sold her shares of Miraval, her lawyer proposed an even broader, mutual non-disparagement clause to Pitt in connection to their divorce proceedings.

“For example, if Jolie conditioned her continued employment of an individual on that individual’s agreement to an NDA covering what they witnessed in her home — including her treatment of her children and Pitt — that would be highly probative of whether she truly believed the provision requested by Pitt was an ‘unconscionable gag order,’ ” Pitt’s lawyers wrote in court documents obtained by PEOPLE.

In their April 4 motion, Jolie’s lawyers suggested the actor feared that sealed documents included in their separate, years-long custody battle could be made public without the NDA. As part of that filing, her lawyers referenced the incident that occurred the day before Jolie filed for divorce in 2016, stating, “While Pitt’s history of physical abuse of Jolie started well before the family’s September 2016 plane trip from France to Los Angeles, this flight marked the first time he turned his physical abuse on the children as well. Jolie then immediately left him.”

But the Pitt source says, “This case isn’t about what took place on a plane in 2016. It’s about whether they had an agreement not to sell their interests in the winery and family home without the other’s consent. That’s what Brad and his team are focused on.”

“They keep using the same tired playbook year after year,” adds a friend of Pitt.

Paul Murphy, an attorney for Jolie claimed in a statement obtained by PEOPLE that the NDAs are indeed different. “For Pitt to equate common NDAs covering confidential information employees learn at work, with him attempting to cover up his history of abuse is, frankly, shameful. All she wanted was separation and health. She deserves peace after all these years,” he said.

[From People]

Yeah, it is shameful to compare a standard-issue employment NDA to trying to get your ex-wife to shut up about your years of physical, emotional and financial abuse. This is what I mean about Jolie’s new legal strategy too – I love that Paul Murphy chimed in immediately and called out this latest Pitt mess.

While I understand that the fight over the NDA is important – because it gives Jolie space to speak about why Pitt was trying to silence her and what lengths he’ll go through to silence her – I’d just like to point out that the NDA discussion actually proves that Pitt was lying about everything else. He claimed that he was absolutely shocked and appalled to learn that Jolie sold Nouvel to a Stoli subsidiary, and that she never told him anything about it. What the NDA argument shows us is that there’s a lengthy paperwork trail of Angelina trying to sell Nouvel to Pitt, Pitt throwing a tantrum and demanding Jolie’s silence, Jolie refusing and Pitt then pulling out of the purchase… after which Jolie informed Pitt that she was looking to sell to someone else. Like, the whole crux of Pitt’s dumbf–k lawsuit is that he was blindsided by all of this, when he was fully informed of everything and actively tanking Jolie’s attempt to sell Nouvel to him.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Last December, there was a weeks-long controversy involving billionaire Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, and the Windsor clan. Hugh is engaged and his wedding is scheduled for June 7th. It’s set to be the British society wedding of the year, with a guest-list full of titled nobility, royalty and a who’s who of British society. The Grosvenor family is very rich, very powerful and they stay far away from the British tabloids. The Grosvenors aren’t playing a short-term game of one-upmanship with the royals. So it was definitely weird when Prince William seemingly dragged Hugh’s wedding into his (Will’s) beef with Prince Harry.

Last December, there was suddenly a treasury of well-sourced articles in the Times, Telegraph and Mail about how Hugh Grosvenor had purposefully snubbed the Sussexes and refused to invite them to his wedding because of his loyalty to Huevo and the Windsors. These stories were clearly part of a briefing spree from Kensington Palace, and the whole thing looked tacky and classless on William’s part, to use Hugh’s name and Hugh’s wedding to “snub” Harry. Hilariously, Page Six got an interesting tip that Hugh actually did send the Sussexes an invitation and Harry had already called Hugh and personally apologized for not being able to make it. Which I believe. Now, months later, royal experts are trying to revive the controversy (started by Huevo) and make it sound like the whole thing is… Meghan’s fault.

Prince Harry will not attend the Duke of Westminster’s wedding later this summer because it will be ‘too awkward’ with Prince William, an expert has claimed.

The event, which will take place on 7 June 2024 at Chester Cathedral, will see the marriage between Hugh Grosvenor and Olivia Henson take place. It’s likely to be the event of the summer, with royals such as King Charles, Queen Camilla, the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales all invited. However there have long been rumours about whether the Duke of Sussex would be in attendance at the event.

A source previously Page Six that the Duke of Sussex turned down a ‘save the date’ to the Duke of Westminster’s wedding to avoid an ‘awkward’ encounter with the other members of the royal family. Prince Harry was said to have called the Duke himself to apologise for any inconvenience at him having to refuse. At the time, it was said that the Duchess of Sussex was also invited to the wedding but, like her husband, would not attend. In recent weeks, speculation ramped up that Prince Harry could attend the event – with some suggesting the nuptials would see the brothers reunited face-to-face for the first time since Kate Middleton’s cancer diagnosis. According to Ephraim Hardcastle’s column, published mid-March, a ‘society guessing game’ was taking place over whether Prince Harry will show up at the event.

Now an expert appears to have laid rest to the rumours, saying Prince Harry did, in fact, decline to attend the event. Speaking to The Mirror, royal author Tom Quinn said Harry declined on the grounds that it would just be ‘too awkward’. He said, ‘But there are other reasons – Harry knows he can’t attend without Meghan and Meghan has absolutely insisted she won’t be there.’

He also claimed that Prince William will be in attendance, in large part due to the fact that Hugh is one of Prince George’s godparents.

[From Tatler]

I was actually thinking about Hugh’s wedding in recent weeks because I wondered if anyone would write about the Princess of Wales and whether she would be well enough to attend the June wedding. Considering they’re iffy on Kate’s attendance at Trooping the Colour on June 15, it will be interesting to see if Kate goes. That should be the bigger conversation, not a repeat of William’s unhinged tantrum about a billionaire’s society wedding. As I said, I totally believe Hugh did invite the Sussexes and that Harry politely turned him down. It has nothing to do with Meghan, these people are just grasping for an excuse why Harry isn’t desperate to beg for their approval and socialize with the crème de la crème of Britain’s horse people.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar.

For years now, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has toyed with the idea that he might one day run for office. He’s mentioned it and talked around it in interviews and, during the Trump administration, Johnson started to get more politically active and vocal. In 2020, he endorsed the Biden/Harris ticket and he ended up gaining fans and social media followers. Four years later, The Rock has regrets. You see, he never meant to take sides against a rapist and fascist like Donald Trump – he had no idea that he would lose fans because of his Biden endorsement. So he’s walking it back and saying he won’t endorse anyone this year.

You’d think he’d want to walk back Jungle Cruise or Black Adam. Instead, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is expressing some regret about his 2020 endorsement for Joe Biden for president and says he won’t endorse any candidate this year.

“The endorsement that I made years ago with Biden was one I thought was the best decision for me at that time,” he told Will Cain on Fox News in an interview posted online Friday. “I thought, ‘I’m in this position where I have some influence and I felt it was my job then to exercise my influence [and] share: This is who I’m going to endorse.’ I’m not going to do that. I was then, the most followed man in the world, and am today, and I appreciate that … but what that caused was something that tears me up in my guts — which is division. That got me. I didn’t realize that then, I just felt like there was a lot of unrest and I’d like things to calm down.”

He continued, “The takeaway after that was it caused an incredible amount of division. I realize now going into this election, I will not do that. My goal is to bring this country together. I believe in that. There will be no endorsement. At this level of influence, I will keep my politics to myself. It is between me and the ballot box. But I will tell you this: Like a lot of us out there, not trusting of all politicians, I do trust the American people and whoever they vote for that is my president and who I will support 100 percent.”

Asked if he was happy with the state of America right now, Johnson replied, “No.”

“Today’s cancel culture, woke culture, division, etcetera — that really bugs me,” he added. “In the spirit of that, you either succumb to that and be what other people want you to be, or you be yourself and be real … and that might make people upset and piss people off, and that’s OK.” Johnson was also asked once again if he ever plans to run for president and the actor answered, “No, that’s not my intention. I’m not a politician.”

[From THR]

“What that caused was something that tears me up in my guts — which is division. That got me. I didn’t realize that then, I just felt like there was a lot of unrest and I’d like things to calm down.” Since The Rock endorsed Biden in October 2020, Donald Trump threatened and harassed public officers in an attempt to get them to throw the election. Trump also incited a violent insurrection against the republic, one which could have easily led to the execution/assassination of public office holders. When Trump finally left the White House, he stole reams of highly classified documents and he’s likely been selling off that intelligence to enemies of the state. Trump also left a ticking time bomb in the form of a right-wing-stacked Supreme Court which is now gutting reproductive rights, civil rights, LGBTQ rights and more. “Division” is not the enemy here – we are divided as a nation about whether or not Trump should die in prison, and that’s a good argument to have, it’s a good fight for our country.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Today’s the big day! For the first time since August 2017, parts of North America are getting a total solar eclipse. Depending on where you are on the continent, you’ll get to see the sun, moon, and Earth line up to varying degrees, with the luckiest people seeing it at its totality along a path that runs from Dallas, TX to Little Rock, AR to Cleveland, OH, Buffalo, NY, and Caribou, ME. The total path stretches about 115 miles across the continent. Here are the major cities and the local time for total eclipse:

Dallas, Texas: 1:40-1:44 p.m. CDT
Idabel, Oklahoma: 1:45-1:49 p.m. CDT
Little Rock, Arkansas: 1:51-1:54 p.m. CDT
Poplar Bluff, Missouri: 1:56-2:00 p.m. CDT
Paducah, Kentucky: 2-2:02 p.m. CDT
Carbondale, Illinois: 1:59-2:03 p.m. CDT
Evansville, Indiana: 2:02-2:05 p.m. CDT
Cleveland, Ohio: 3:13-3:17 p.m. EDT
Erie, Pennsylvania: 3:16-3:20 p.m. EDT
Buffalo, New York: 3:18-3:22 p.m. EDT
Burlington, Vermont: 3:26-3:29 p.m. EDT
Lancaster, New Hampshire: 3:27-3:30 p.m. EDT
Caribou, Maine: 3:32-3:34 p.m. EDT

I am so jealous if you are in or close to the line of totality! Regardless of whether or not you’re in that direct line, you may be planning on checking the eclipse out anyway. I know I am! If you are planning to watch any part of it, you probably bought the specialized glasses for safe viewing. And that’s great! One of my most vivid memories of the 2017 eclipse was the former President of the United States looking up at it without glasses. Don’t be like that guy. Here’s some ways to safely view the eclipse, courtesy of USA Today:

Unlike partial solar eclipses, a total eclipse offers spectators a unique opportunity to gaze upon it with the naked eye, but only when the moon completely blocks out the sun and darkness falls – referred to as totality.

While you’re unlikely to go blind, gazing directly at the sun’s rays can do some serious damage to your retinas. So until the moment that totality occurs, proper safety eyewear is still a must, according to NASA.

While some welding goggles may work, the best option for eclipse viewing remains certified eyewear, which is held to an international safety standard and is 100,000 times darker than most sunglasses to block nearly all visible, infrared and ultraviolet light.

Solar eclipse glasses are readily available from plenty of vendors across the internet, but if you want to save some cash, there’s a good chance your local library or another public institution is giving them away for free. Just watch out for cheap imitations. To make it easy while you’re shopping online, the American Astronomical Society maintains a curated list of approved vendors. Another simple method is to create your own pinhole projector to project the sun onto a nearby surface. The American Astronomical Society offers helpful instructions to set them up as well.

[From USA Today]

Also, one more thing to note is to not drive during the eclipse. People may get behind the wheel thinking that they don’t care or they’re only going to glance at it, but that feels like one of those cases of the best laid plans and all that. While my area is not in the path of totality, we are expected to get within 70-86%, so I bought the special eclipse glasses for me and my family to use to watch them. Just to be on the safe side, People has a great guide to test whether or not you have real solar eclipse glasses. If you’re planning on watching the eclipse today, make sure you’re doing it safely!

My area also didn’t get the eclipse at 100% back in 2017, but it still went pretty dark. I actually do remember the eerie, yet very full silence of the moment. It was really powerful. There won’t be another total solar eclipse until August 2044, and that one will start in Greenland and go through Canada before finishing up in just three US States: Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Things like this feel pretty humbling, like they’re forcing us to sit up, take in, and recognize the bigger picture of the world around us.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: Yorick Jansens/Anthony Dehez/Belga Press/Avalon, Egmont Strigl/ImageBroker/Avalon, and Getty

On March 22nd, Kensington Palace released the Princess of Wales’s video, where she announced that doctors had found cancer after her abdominal surgery and she was undergoing chemotherapy. The video was carried everywhere, on television and online. Several American channels carried the video live as it was released, and obviously it was major news across the board in the UK. Apparently, people took issue with the BBC coverage of Kate’s announcement and the BBC’s seemingly wall-to-wall coverage thereafter. Similar to the deaths of QEII and Prince Philip, the BBC went way overboard and there were complaints. The Daily Mail says that the Beeb received “more than 100 complaints,” which honestly sounds like a pretty low number? In any case, the BBC issued a statement:

The BBC has received more than 100 complaints over its ‘excessive and insensitive’ coverage of Kate’s cancer diagnosis, it has emerged. The Princess of Wales announced she was undergoing treatment for cancer in an emotional video on March 22. The BBC aired the full video and has hit back at criticism saying it was ‘mindful’ of its reporting approach, and did not speculate on details that had not been made public.

In a statement responding to the complaints, the corporation said: ‘We broadcast in full the highly personal video message from the Princess of Wales, in which she spoke directly to the public about her cancer diagnosis. Our coverage reflected the significance of this story and the outpouring of support for the princess from around the globe. We explained to our audience what was known about Catherine’s condition, but did not speculate on details that had not been made public.’

The corporation detailed its reporting approach and said it always gives ‘careful consideration’ to the editorial decisions made.

The statement continued: ‘Our reporting made clear that this is a difficult time for the princess and the rest of the Royal Family; we have been mindful at all times to approach our coverage with sensitivity.’

‘As part of our analysis, we examined the intense speculation there had been in the preceding weeks about the princess’s health. We also reported on Catherine’s request for privacy and detailed the statement from Kensington Palace regarding the princess having the right to privacy in relation to her medical issues. We always give careful consideration to the editorial decisions we make. While we have a responsibility to report on stories that are of interest to our audience, we appreciate that not everyone would have approved of the approach we took.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“As part of our analysis, we examined the intense speculation there had been in the preceding weeks about the princess’s health.” Ah, I guess that was the reason for the complaints. Honestly, though, I’m on the BBC’s side in this limited issue – they were contextualizing the reason why Kate’s video was so significant and why it was such a global headline. It’s because Kate had been missing for months and Kensington Palace had been caught lying and manipulating photos as proof-of-life for a missing princess. The “where is Kate” controversy was WHY Kensington Palace had to release the cancer-announcement video. Of course, that doesn’t explain why KP had been lying for weeks beforehand, even promising that Kate would be resurrected for Easter Sunday. If anything, the BBC needs to investigate more and call out the lies even further. They won’t though. Especially since they’re still being so squirrelly about how the cancer-announcement video was made.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Kensington Palace.

Embed from Getty Images
About a year or so ago, my girlfriends and I had a random debate about the use of the phrase “sexy time” as a substitute for saying you’re getting it on. I’m not even sure how it came up, but one of my friends mentioned that she absolutely hated it because she felt it was infantilizing. I believe the exact words in her conclusion were, “sexy time is not sexy” lol. I disagreed and said that it’s simple, self-descriptive, and way better than saying “bumping uglies” or any other outdated reference.

I think Zoe Saldana would be on my side of the debate. In fact, she uses the phrase herself! Zoe and her husband Marco Perego-Saldana recently appeared on The Drew Barrymore Show. Drew asked them about their feelings on nude bowling (actual bowling while naked). Marco responded by saying that they prefer to “play Legos naked” instead. “Playing Legos naked,” is of course, their go-time code phrase for getting busy whenever their three boys, twins Cy and Bowie, nine, and Zen, seven, are around.

Zoe Saldaña thinks she found a marvelous way to talk about sex around her kids.

In fact, the Guardians of the Galaxy star and her husband Marco Perego-Saldaña developed a code word to use whenever their kids—twin boys Cy Aridio and Bowie Ezio, 9, and son Zen Anton Hilario, 7—are within earshot to let each other know that they’re in the mood.

“We ‘play Legos naked,’” Marco revealed during the couple’s joint appearance on The Drew Barrymore Show April 3, prompting Zoe to clarify that the term means “sexy time.”

However, as the Avatar actress noted, their older boys have seemed to caught onto the lingo.

“They were like, ‘Are you guys kissing? Are you guys gonna go play naked with your Legos?’” Zoe recounted. “And we’re like, ‘No, we’re not going to do that.’”

[From E News]

All this talk about playing naked Legos inspired me to look up other euphemisms. The worst two I found were “slamming the clam” and “taking the hot dog bus to taco town,” while “tickle the pickle” made me snort-laugh. Mr. Rosie, some friends, and I used to jokingly call it “cleaning the gutters,” which was inspired by Justin Therox’s character in The Leftovers saying that he was cleaning the gutters when everyone disappeared while flashbacks revealed that he was actually busy playing Legos naked. Oh, and I will never not associate “afternoon delight” with Arrested Development.

But yeah, LMAO, it’s definitely time for Zoe and Marco to come up with a new code word or phrase, probably one that doesn’t involve the word naked. Or Legos. If you really want to go undetected, it’s always best to pick something mundane. Anyone have any fun code word suggestions? They could also use the ole tried-and-true method in my house which is to ask if it’s “TV time” for the kids and then take advantage of them zoning out and not paying a bit of attention to where mommy and daddy disappeared to. Kids will never question being allowed to watch TV.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Zoe Saldaña (@zoesaldana)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Zoe Saldaña (@zoesaldana)

photos credit: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon, Getty and via Instagram

I’m here for celebrity women being open and honest about menopause symptoms. I’m 51 and it does hit you fast and hard and make you question reality. So many celebrity women have been open and honest about what they’re going through in menopause and I’m grateful for that. Most recently Halle Berry described a common and less-talked-about symptom that affects our sex lives. Props to her for that.

Niecy Nash, 54, is representing a company called Versalie, which offers menopause-related supplements and nutrients. In a new interview with People Magazine, she said that she only recently learned that irritability, dry skin and thinning hair can be attributed to menopause.

“I got hot and then I kept getting hot and I was like, ‘Sound the alarm. This is it’,” says Nash, 54, of experiencing hot flashes for the first time, which led her to realize she’d entered menopause. “It’s that heat you can’t control, no matter how cold it is in the room.”
Indeed, one night “I fell asleep with a wig on,” she says. “I guess I got hot in the middle of the night and took it off. I woke up the next morning and screamed to the top of my throat because I thought it was a dead body in the bed…

“When you don’t know what you don’t know, then you don’t know what it’s related to,” she says. “I thought, ‘Oh, I’m having menopausal hot flashes’ and that was the extent of it. I did not relate the fatigue, because every woman I know is tired. Your scalp being dry, hair thinning, you don’t relate it to menopause. Those were some of the things I just didn’t catch.”

Another tricky symptom she’s dealt with: mood swings. “I always have something to say, but when it happens I get very quiet and want to go off by myself because everything that you say or do irritates me,” she says of trying to cope during those moments. “It’s like, I’m going to go over here and sit down and shut the door and please don’t knock.”

[From People]

I’m definitely more tired and achy than I was a couple of years ago. So far anxiety is the most troubling thing I’ve noticed. I was getting so much anxiety with my regular three cup a day morning coffee habit that I had to cut down to one. That has helped somewhat. I also wake up warm in the middle of the night sometimes. It’s not flow blown night sweats yet, although that might be coming.

I looked through Versalie’s vitamins and supplements and one of the first results is for ashwagandha. My more holistic-based doctor recommended that to me for menopause, and she also mentioned Estroven. (I can’t take Estroven as I am allergic to some of the ingredients.) Ashwagandha made me feel so weird and zombie-like, which I’ve since learned is a common side effect. I’ve been taking low THC/CBD gummies lately and that does seem to help, although maybe I’m just getting a little high. The prescription Estradiol can help with vaginal dryness and I’ve been recommended that as well. There’s no pill or treatment that works for everyone, but at least we’re talking about it and at least there are options.

Photos credit: IMAGO/Dave Starbuck/Faye Sadou/Avalon, Getty Images for Netflix. This is not a sponsored post although there are affiliate links above. If you make any purchases through these links we get a small percentage and appreciate it.

Have you guys watched Scoop yet? It’s the Netflix movie based on Sam McAlister’s book of the same name, all about how BBC’s Newsnight scored their big Prince Andrew interview in 2019. Rufus Sewell plays Prince Andrew, Gillian Anderson plays Emily Maitlis and Billie Piper plays Sam McAlister. It also featured some fine supporting performances by Keeley Hawes and Romola Garai (I didn’t expect to see them and they are both so underrated). I thought Sewell was good as Andrew, especially in the interview scenes. You could tell that Sewell had really studied the interview and he really did mimic Andrew’s mannerisms and behaviors, although Sewell probably could have done a bit more to get Andrew’s voice. Gillian didn’t really bother to mimic Emily Maitlis’s voice either – it’s like Gillian was still doing Margaret Thatcher at various points in the movie.

So, obviously, Scoop has brought up the fact that the real Prince Andrew is still lingering around the royal family. Scoop tried to convince everyone in the postscript that Andrew had “given up his titles,” but that’s not true. He’s still His Royal Highness Prince Andrew, Duke of York, etc. Nothing has been removed or put into abeyance, he just doesn’t “use” the HRH anymore. But for all intents and purposes, Andrew is still very much an accepted part of the family. He’s been to more family events in the past year than Prince William, from Easter Sunday to King Constantine’s memorial service to the coronation to Christmas at Sandringham. Now the royal expert fusspots are crying because King Charles won’t simply put Andrew on an ice floe and set him out to sea:

Royal author Richard Fitzwilliams said the Netflix show was yet another very embarrassing situation for the Palace, while biographer and investigative journalist Tom Bower thinks it shows it is high time for Charles to act and remove the Duke from ‘public view’.

Mr Bower said: ‘To save the Royal Family from more horrendous damage, King Charles will finally need to order Prince Andrew to permanently stay out of public view. Senior officials also need to tell Andrew the truth. He is a serious liability and cannot be trusted or rescued. Unless King Charles firmly grasps this nettle it can only get worse’.

Mr Fitzwilliam said: ‘The film conveys the extraordinary sense of entitlement that Andrew had. He is told by his aide Amanda Thirsk to ‘just be himself’ and he is – that’s the most damning thing. It is very embarrassing for the Palace and simply another indication that Andrew is completely unfit for the Royal Family he was born into. The public’s view of him is already ghastly and couldn’t be worse so this will confirm people’s opinions. The film also adds a new dimension by portraying his childlike side – such as the scene featuring his teddy bears.’

‘The person we see in the film doesn’t seem to have any idea of reality. It shows how people in a privileged position can become completely out of touch.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I was a bit astonished that they actually put Andrew’s teddy bears in there. There’s so much cognitive dissonance within the film too – you have these serious BBC reporters treating the Windsors as practically untouchable and ungovernable, and then there’s Andrew, fussing over his stupid teddy bears and making idiotic decisions constantly. It also highlighted the incompetence around the Windsors too, from Amanda Thirsk (who fell on her sword after the interview aired, and she was cut a big severance check) to the nameless representative of QEII, who actually recorded the interview on his phone… and still cleared the BBC to air the whole thing. So, I agree that Andrew should be put on an ice floe and set out to sea, but here’s the thing: Charles keeps inviting Andrew to events. Charles has repeatedly telegraphed that he’s totally fine with Andrew.

Meanwhile, the Times also had a story about how Andrew is “feeling bullish” despite Scoop. He was seen recently out at Harry’s Bar in Mayfair, having lunch with Johan Eliasch, a Swede who is chairman of Head (a sporting goods manufacturer). They’ve been friends since the 1990s and there’s some speculation that they might be doing some business together. The rest of this Times piece is basically like “here are all the reasons why Andrew could never come back.” They’re missing the point – Andrew never left.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.