The royalist media has some understanding that the Princess of Wales’s Mother’s Day frankenphoto fiasco cannot be buried or ignored. They tried that and it came back and bit them on the ass. So they’ve been trying other methods of deflection and minimization – first it was “everyone edits photos,” then it was “Kate just wanted her kids to look cute.” Then it was “but Prince Harry and Meghan manipulate their photos too,” only that was such an egregious lie, every outlet has now backtracked on their claims. Throughout it all, I haven’t even gotten the sense that William and Kate understand how badly they f–ked up and how their haphazard propaganda means that the monarchy’s credibility has taken a huge hit. Speaking of, Camilla Tominey wrote another piece about the fiasco after her first effort landed with a dull thump. “Picture agencies, paparazzi and the Palace: The battle to control the truth” is partly a history lesson of how “the Windsors have always taken their own photos,” but there are several interesting quotes critical of poor, “demonized” Kate and William. And because it’s Tominey, there’s a lot of whataboutism with the Sussexes too. Some highlights:

The Mother’s Day photo: Yet the decision by picture agencies to issue a “kill notice” withdrawing the Mothering Sunday photograph, which was taken by Prince William but edited by his wife, lays bare a tension that has been building in recent years over the extent to which the royals have exercised that control. It’s not just a problem that members of the Royal family are sidelining professional photographers, and consequently the picture agencies that distribute their work, such as Getty Images, Reuters and Agence France-Press. It is also the amateur nature of the editing – and its implications for a media trying to be as accountable as possible to the public.

Photo agencies can’t trust the Windsors: As Martin Keene, a former group picture editor at the Press Association, points out: “All picture agencies have truth and accuracy [in] their DNA – it’s something that really matters to them. The only thing that they have is their trust and their credibility and they need to know that, for their clients and the people who look at their pictures – the readers, the viewers – that their picture really was what the photographer saw when the picture was taken, and that it hasn’t been manipulated since that time.”

Control freak royals: One former royal photographer explained: “A lot of this has stemmed from William and Harry being control freaks when it comes to pictures of their own children. They grew up hating the paparazzi for chasing Princess Diana around and have had a tendency to tar all royal photographers with the same brush. So, with the odd exception, we no longer see royal photographers – the ones who cover the day-to-day official engagements and all the overseas tours – being invited in to take more candid family photographs. Instead, the royals either photograph their children themselves or choose their own pet photographer to take more intimate shots. And that can sometimes lead to problems.”

An agency insider criticized Kate: While photographic agencies do allow photographers to make minor adjustments to images (such as cropping), photographs which have been digitally manipulated must carry an editor’s note before being sent out. According to one agency insider: “It’s nice that the Princess has been shooting her own stuff but she appears to have no understanding of the gravity of what she’s done by changing the image before putting it out for circulation.”

Archie’s christening photo: The picture agencies are now investigating two other photographs, including Prince Archie’s official christening picture, taken by fashion photographer Chris Allerton in 2019. Getty said the portrait – showing the two-month-old with Meghan, Prince Harry, King Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland and Princess Diana’s sisters – had been “digitally enhanced”, a claim Allerton has described as “a load of cobblers”. It came after an editor’s note was placed on an image of the late Queen with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren which was snapped by Catherine in August 2022 at Balmoral. As the controversy around Allerton’s photograph shows, however, even using professional photographers can present a challenge for the royals – especially if they are perceived to be “in the pay” of the principals. Royals have traditionally always had their “favourites”. For Diana, it was Tim Graham. For Camilla, it is Hugo Burnand, who took the official Coronation photographs.

Using a favored professional photographer: As one picture editor explained: “The trouble with this approach is the images produced are designed to cast the subject in as favourable light as possible. Therefore the images aren’t a true representation. It’s not the same as having a photojournalist take the pictures from a position of complete impartiality.” Invariably such photographs end up being “edited” by a spin doctor, rather than a professional picture editor, which can again lead to problems. “These people aren’t trained to spot inconsistencies and potential manipulations,” added the picture editor.

Michael Middleton just got tossed under the bus too: “The truth is that the royals have got form when it comes to manipulating their own pictures. I remember being quite suspicious of some images taken by Kate’s father, Michael Middleton. There was obvious blurring and movement and darkening. Elements of it have been going on for years.”

[From The Telegraph]

Again, the controversy over Archie’s christening photos was a complete lie and Allerton spoke out in his own defense and Getty backtracked and removed the note. Tominey is just tossing Allerton and the Sussexes in the conversation as yet another deflection from how badly the Waleses f–ked up. That being said, Tominey at least acknowledges the f–kup. The thing is, the conversation about “it’s bad to have a favored professional photographer” is kind of weird given the fact that we’ve gotten some very prominent examples of photographers coming out to defend their integrity within this same newscycle. They tried to say Misan Harriman manipulated his portrait of the Sussexes, and Misan clapped back HARD. Same with Allerton. If anything, this shows why the palace should always use professional photographers who are willing to defend themselves and their work. Also: that mention of Michael Middleton is a warning shot, huh?

Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace & Sussex Royal IG.

As you probably know, when it comes to medical research, women are under-represented. The most famous example was the lack of female crash test dummies, but studies on issues like heart disease and cancer have also mainly focused on male participants. Enter Lululemon. The popular yet pricey athleisure line funded a study to research breathing patterns in “elite” female runners. The tests were conducted on treadmills, with the participants doing different treadmill workouts while wearing custom sports bras that were adjusted to different levels of tightness around their rib cages. Surprise! The study found that wearing a sports bra that’s too tight around your rib cage may “compromise” a woman’s ability to breathe properly while exercising, which can also affect their running performance. Lululemon really dropped all that money to tell us something every single woman who’s ever worn a sports bra while exercising could have told them for free.

Be cautious: It turns out that wearing a tight sports bra while exercising may not be good for your health, according to a new study. The study, which was published in the National Library of Medicine, was funded by Lululemon Athletica and conducted by the University of British Columbia. During their research, they examined the breathing patterns of nine elite runners.

While on a treadmill, runners wore custom sports bras that could be adjusted to different tightness levels. The bras were designed for individuals with rib cage sizes ranging from 30 to 34 and cup sizes of B or C. Throughout the study, the runners engaged in various treadmill workouts, during which they adjusted the tightness of their sports bras differently for each session.

The study — which focused on the tightness only around the rib cage — revealed that women who wore a sports bra that was too tight took fewer breaths and exhibited a higher breaths-per-minute rate, noting that “respiratory function may become compromised by the pressure exerted by the underband.”

However, those who wore a less constrictive sports bra “resulted in a decreased work of breathing,” and improved one’s running economy by decreasing submaximal oxygen uptake.

“People ask, ‘What sports bra should I wear?’ I say, ‘Wear one that is correctly fitted,’” Shalaya Kipp, the lead author of the study who is now a postdoctoral fellow at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, told the Washington Post. “That’s probably the biggest thing that would help.”

Specifically, the study showed how wearing a looser bra had a 1.3% improvement rate for a person’s running economy. Kipp told the outlet that a 2% increase in running economy would help a three-hour marathon runner improve their time by three minutes.

“It was quite invasive,” Kipp, who also competed in the 2012 Olympics and participated in the study, said. “It’s the hardest experimental protocol I’ve ever had someone do.”

“A decline in lung function makes breathing harder, which is especially critical during exercise or daily physical activity,” she added, per the outlet.

[From People]

I think most of these results are common sense. Of course wearing a too-tight sports bra is going to make it more difficult to breathe while running. Wearing anything too tight from your hips through your shoulders is going to make it difficult to breathe! I think the problem most women run into when buying a sports bra is wanting to feel that extra support to avoid bouncy boobs. Running when you’re flopping around is equally as painful and annoying. So, just like with everything else made for women, the struggle is real. Also, I wonder if Lululemon sponsored this “study” as a way to promote whatever wildly overpriced custom sports bras they want to sell to women with cup sizes C or less. Be the heroes, Lululemon! Give us a supportive yet comfortable sports bra for under $50!

On a more serious note, I do want to take a minute to do a quick PSA on the topic of too-tight sports bras. Obviously, this will not be the case for most women, but if your sports bra suddenly feels too tight without reason, please consider getting checked out by your doctor. My friend is a marathon runner. She had a routine mammogram last winter and it was clear. This past fall, while training, she noticed her sports bra felt too tight and that she was having trouble breathing. It kept happening, so her doctor sent her for another mammogram and she ended up being diagnosed with Stage IV triple negative breast cancer. I don’t want to be a downer or scare anyone! But, it’s been weighing on me, so I thought it was important to mention it just in case it could help any of you out there.

Photos credit: Andrea Piacquadio, Andres Ayrton, The Lazy Artist Gallery and Monstera Production on Pexels

No sooner did we finish covering Michael Keaton praising Jenna Ortega for fitting right in with the Beetlejuice vibe, than Warner Bros. released two new production photos for us to pore over! And no sooner did I finish writing about those photos than the studio dropped the first trailer! Marketing, Marketing, Marketing! The new glimpses are only snippets, but so far they’re hitting all the right notes. From the Deetz ladies + Justin Theroux standing graveside, to the boys’ choir-sounding cover of “Day-O” playing in the background, to the demon himself getting the last (and only) line in the trailer. Here’s a handbook for the recently released:

The juice is loose: The trailer is set to a special rendition of Harry Belafonte’s “Day-O” as the cast is seen at a graveyard. Jenna Ortega is seen uncovering the model of Winter River, before the black-and-white-striped-suit wearing villain makes his appearance. “The juice is loose,” he says, as Winona Ryder’s Lydia is seen with a shocked look on her face.

Resurrection: The original 1988 movie revolved around dead couple Adam and Barbara Maitland (played by Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, respectively) who enlist the help of the title character in order to help rid their home of the family that moves into their house, with disastrous results.

Cast of characters: Keaton will be joined by Ryder, who played Lydia Deetz in the original “Beetlejuice,” and “Wednesday” star Ortega will play her daughter. Justin Theroux will also appear in the movie, while Catherine O’Hara, who also starred in the original film, will reprise her role. … Willem Dafoe has also previously confirmed he will be in the movie. “I play a police officer in the afterlife, so I’m a dead person. And in life I was a B-movie action star, but I had an accident and that’s what sent me to the other side,” he told Variety in 2023.

What’s the story? Plot points have been kept under wraps, although director Tim Burton did peel back the curtain a little bit, saying the new movie gets underway with a death in the family. “That’s all I will say,” he told Entertainment Weekly. “There’s something that happens that sets things in motion.” When asked if the person who dies is Lydia’s father, Charles Deetz (played in the original movie by Jeffrey Jones), Burton didn’t tip his hand. “We’ll see,” he said.

An emotional hook: Burton said Keaton reprising his role is “a weird out-of-body experience. It was kind of scary for somebody who was maybe not that overly interested in doing it. It was such a beautiful thing for me to see all the cast, but he, sort of like demon possession, just went right back into it,” he added. Burton also said he and Keaton had tossed around the idea of a sequel for years. “Unless it felt right, he had no burning desire to do it,” he said. “I think we all felt the same way. It only made sense if it had an emotional hook.”

[From Today]

Willem Dafoe?! As a deceased B-movie action star cum afterlife cop?!?! YES. Like I said, everything we’re seeing and hearing thus far is pitch perfect. Except, maybe, for Tim Burton acting as spokesperson. I guffawed so hard at Tim’s plot tease: “There’s something that happens that sets things in motion.” Thanks, Tim. You’ve just described every story since the development of dramatic structure. Actually, I kind of hope that’s what he pitched the studio with. And speaking of, Warner Bros. is the studio producing this so recite an incantation or two that David Zaslav doesn’t can it before release. Of course if he does, we know just which demon and police officer to summon.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Entertainment Weekly (@entertainmentweekly)

Photos are screenshots from YouTube and via Instagram

Kate Winslet is currently promoting The Regime and Lee, a film which should come out later this year. The Regime is the HBO dark-comedy/satire of an oppressive European dictator, where Kate plays the dictator. It looks like yet another brilliant turn for Kate on the small screen, following her massively successful HBO miniseries Mildred Pierce and Mare of Easttown. For her promotion, Kate recently spoke to the New York Times Magazine about life, love and Ozempic. She’s not on Ozempic, and before she was asked about it in this interview, she had no idea what it was. Some highlights:

She had an eating disorder in the 1990s. “I never told anyone about it. Because guess what — people in the world around you go: ‘Hey, you look great! You lost weight!’” For that last bit, Winslet slipped into a pitch-perfect American accent — Los Angeles, maybe a film executive. “So even the compliment about looking good is connected to weight. And that is one thing I will not let people talk about. If they do, I pull them up straight away.”

On what she thinks of Ozempic: “I actually don’t know what Ozempic is. All I know is that it’s some pill that people are taking or something like that.” I told her that Ozempic — which apparently has not yet saturated English culture as it has in the United States — was a very in-demand diabetes drug now commonly taken off-label for weight loss. “But what is it?” Winslet said, her mouth full of pastry. I went on: It was a shot people took that dampened their interest in food. Winslet looked appalled… “Oh, my God. This sounds terrible. Let’s eat some more things!” She made a show of eating more of her pastry, crumbs tumbling onto the blankets.

On intimacy coordinators: “I would have benefited from an intimacy coordinator every single time I had to do a love scene or be partially naked or even a kissing scene. It would have been nice to have had someone in my corner, because I always had to stand up for myself.” And often, she didn’t — she felt that whatever was being asked of her was simply part of the job. She has a litany of unspoken objections she wished she had felt empowered to make: “I don’t like that camera angle. I don’t want to stand here full-frontal nude. I don’t want this many people in the room. I want my dressing gown to be closer. Just little things like that. When you’re young, you’re so afraid of pissing people off or coming across as rude or pathetic because you might need those things. So learning to have a voice for oneself in those environments was very, very hard.”

She never wanted to be known as a complainer: “I was already experiencing huge amounts of judgment, persecution, all this bullying. People can call me fat. They can call me what they want. But they certainly cannot say that I complained and I behaved badly. Over my dead body. I would not have known how to do that without people in power turning around and saying, ‘Oh, Jesus Christ, you know, her again, that complainer.’ I would rather suffer in silence than ever let that happen to me, even still today.”

Accessing her emotions on screen: “In the beginning, I would rummage around my emotional toolbox and pull out something that had actually happened to me. But that stopped working for me at a certain point. I don’t know why. As you get older, you live more life; you have more real experiences that you add to the emotional toolbox without realizing that you’re doing it. And so sometimes, as you get older, quite honestly, emotions are easier to access because they just simmer below the surface all the time — because there’s just so damn many of them.”

[From The NY Times]

I’m not judging Kate’s reaction to the Ozempic stuff because I doubt she understands that Ozempic is supposed to be used for obesity and diabetes, not garden variety weight loss. Plus, it’s kind of clear that Kate still has a somewhat skewed relationship with how she talks about her body, food and weight. I don’t blame her for that either – the way she was treated when she was younger was traumatizing for her, and the things people said about her weight were cruel and toxic. All of it left a mark and, besides that, she’s damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. Also, to all of the younger women out there: don’t be afraid to complain, to take up space, to point out when things are not right. There’s also a huge difference between “standing up for yourself and your needs” and “complaining.” “Suffering in silence” is not something to aspire to.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.

Sharon Stone is going full steam ahead with her painting career because she’s not getting the acting roles she deserves. As she just told The Guardian about Hollywood, “I want to work with the masters because I have earned my place there.” Goals. So while the film industry slowly catches on to what they’re missing (if at all, let’s be honest), Sharon is exhibiting her vibrant artwork across the globe. She has a show right now in Berlin, and another one coming up in San Francisco. To promote her work, Sharon just chatted with Dana Carvey and David Spade on their Fly on the Wall podcast, and they discussed the time in April 1992 when Sharon hosted SNL and… a lot happened:

“I came out to do the monologue live, which is super scary, and a bunch of people started storming the stage saying they were going to kill me during the opening monologue,” Stone recalled. “The security that was in there froze because they never had seen anything like that happen.”

“Lorne started screaming at [security], ‘What are you doing? Watching the f–king show?’ And Lorne started beating them up and pulling them back from the stage,” she said. “The stage manager looked at me and said, ‘Hold for five.’ So all these people were getting beat up and handcuffed in front of me as we went live.”

“If you think the monologue is scary to begin with, try doing it as people are getting handcuffed in front of you,” Stone added.

She said the protesters were mad at her “because it was the beginning of my work as an AIDS activist. No one understood at the time what was happening and they didn’t know if amfAR could be trusted or if we were against gay people. Instead of waiting for an intelligent, informative conversation they thought, ‘Oh let’s just kill her.’”

“I was so not prepared,” Stone continued. “As you remember, the audience wasn’t up like it is now. Every time we were making a change you’re really physically changing your clothes while you’re running through the audience. I was just terrified. I honestly blacked out for half of the show.”

When the conversation pivoted to some of the sketches, Carvey noted that Stone “was such a good sport” and “the comedy we did with Sharon Stone, we’d literally be arrested now. That was 1992.”

One of the more controversial segments was “Airport Security Sketch,” in which Stone played a woman who gets stopped by airport security and asked to remove one item of clothing at a time. Stone isn’t carrying anything dangerous, the security guards just want to see her take her clothes off. Carvey appeared as an Indian security guard.

“I want to apologize publicly for the security check sketch where I played an Indian man and we’re convincing Sharon, her character, or whatever — to take her clothes off to go through the security thing,” Carvey said, with Spade chiming in that it was “so offensive.”

“It’s so 1992, you know, it’s from another era,” Carvey continued.

Stone said she actually didn’t mind the sketch at all, adding: “I know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. And I think that we were all committing misdemeanors [back then] because we didn’t think there was something wrong then. We didn’t have this sense. That was funny to me, I didn’t care. I was fine being the butt of the joke.”

[From NBC News]

Was Sharon’s character really the butt of the joke? From my 2024 vantage point I think it’s the guys in the sketch who are the jokes; they come off as giggling school boys who can’t think of anything better to do with a woman than ask her to take her clothes off. I can’t help but think of Sharon Stone doing the sketch now, and imagine her stripping, proud and secure in her presence, knowing full well the men are completely in over their heads. It was only right for Dana and David to apologize for the sketch as a whole, and especially for Dana to acknowledge how inappropriate it was for him to play an Indian character. I was intrigued with Sharon’s misdemeanor vs felony analogy, but at the same time I wonder, what is the statute of limitations on the “it was another era” defense?

Also, Lorne Michaels snapping at the too-stunned-to-act security guards had me laughing out loud. “What are you doing? Watching the f–king show?” Nailed it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GLAAD (@glaad)

photos credit: Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon and via Instagram and screenshots from YouTube

Grace Jabbari sued Jonathan Majors for defamation & assault. [Jezebel]
Hollywood wants to monetize Travis Kelce & Taylor Swift’s relationship. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Late Night with the Devil. [Pajiba]
PR professionals unpack the Kate Middleton situation. [Buzzfeed]
These candid shots of a head-scarf-wearing Jennifer Lawrence look so Old Hollywood, except for the wireless earbud. [JustJared]
This male model is very furry (positive). [Socialite Life]
What to know about Beyonce’s country album. [Hollywood Life]
Beyonce’s latest Cowboy Carter promotional image. [Seriously OMG]
Sandra Huller’s awards season fashion was heavy on LV. [RCFA]
John Waters talks about being a “filth elder.” [OMG Blog]

Richard Eden at the Daily Mail had a hot tip about an American woman hiring a photographer, you guys. Did you know that the Duchess of Sussex hired a photographer to take some family photos? The audacity! Why would Meghan do that when she could just cobble together her own frankenphotos and release them publicly as proof of life?!?! Eden seems particularly incensed that someone would care about her privacy and yet bring in a photographer to privately photograph her children and refuse to release the photos?? These people are so utterly desperate to change the subject back to the Sussexes.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were so protective of their children’s ‘privacy’ that they refused even to name the godparents of their son, Prince Archie. So it’s fascinating to discover that Archie and his sister, Princess Lilibet, have been the subject of a very glamorous shoot by one of Meghan’s favourite photographers.

I hear that New York-based Jake Rosenberg flew to California earlier this month where he took a series of pictures of Meghan on her own, cooking, and her with the children. The photo-shoot, at Prince Harry and Meghan’s mansion in Montecito, coincided with the launch of Meghan’s lifestyle and cookery brand, American Riviera Orchard.

The venture was unveiled last week, in a glitzy Instagram video, in which Meghan could be seen busying herself in a rustic-looking kitchen. The video was posted a day after I contacted Meghan’s office for comment on her plans. American Riviera Orchard will focus on home, garden, food and lifestyle wares.

Rosenberg, who is originally from Toronto in Canada, where Meghan spent six years while filming the television legal drama Suits, has photographed the Duchess many times. On his website, he says ‘his lens has captured the radiance of talent such as Meghan Markle, Oprah Winfrey, Priyanka Chopra, Cindy Crawford, David Beckham, and Michael B. Jordan, unveiling their authentic personas through his vibrant imagery’.

There have been very few photographs of Archie, who turns five in May, and Lily, two, issued by their parents. They did. however, feature in Netflix’s tawdry documentary series about the couple. A friend of Meghan confirms that the photo-shoot took place but insists they were ‘portraits for the family’. The pal tells me: ‘I would not connect those to the business.’

Rosenberg could not be reached for comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Netflix’s tawdry documentary series” – it was actually amazing to see how many cute family photos were used in the series, and it just goes to show you that the Sussexes wanted to show off their photogenic children for a while but they simply wanted to do it on their terms, in a careful and thoughtful way. I get what Eden is trying to do though – he’s trying to say HOW DARE Meghan have her children photographed, presumably to aid in the launch of American Riviera Orchard. Like, these people have no chill – all we’ve gotten is a grainy little IG clip. Be patient.

Photos courtesy of Misan Harriman for Archewell and Netflix.

This feels like Kensington Palace trying to push back on their own clownish behavior. Prince William covers the May issue of Tatler, and while he didn’t give an interview to the magazine, make no mistake, he and his team absolutely approved of the cover story. It’s a lengthy, overwrought piece in which they try to convince their readers that William is doing great, thanks for asking, and he’s stepping up and stepping into his “next act.” Tatler’s Wesley Kerr recites William’s royal titles like Huevo achieved these things through merit. Kerr also tries to pretend that William and his staffers haven’t been engaged in months of clownery, clownery which has significantly destabilized the monarchy. You can read the full piece here, I’m not going to excerpt many highlights because this is one of the most contemptible pieces of royal propaganda I’ve ever seen. Just unbridled sycophancy, with absolutely zero new information.

Grand but different: William is grand but different, royal but real. At 6ft 3in, he has the bearing and looks great in uniform after a distinguished, gallant military career. He will be one of the tallest of Britain’s kings since Edward Longshanks in the 14th century and should one day be crowned sitting above the Stone of Scone that Edward ‘borrowed’. William, by contrast, has a deep affinity with Scotland and Wales, having lived in both nations and gained solace from the Scottish landscape after his mother died. He’s popular in America and understands that the Crown’s relationship to the Commonwealth must evolve.

Time to step up: The Prince of Wales’s time has come to step up; and so he has deftly done. In recent months, we have seen a fully-fledged deputy head of state putting into practice his long-held ideas, speaking out on the most contentious issue of the day and taking direct action on homelessness.

William’s BAFTA appearance: More stardust followed when William showed that, even without his wife by his side, he could outclass any movie star at the Baftas. There’s also his immense aim of helping to ‘repair the planet’ itself with his Earthshot Prize: five annual awards of £1 million for transformative environmental projects with worldwide application. This project has a laser focus on biodiversity, better air quality, cleaner seas, reducing waste and combating climate change. Similar aims to his father; different means to achieve the goal.

Charles’s approach was to work constantly: As Prince of Wales, [Charles] was involved in the minutiae of dozens of issues at any one time, working into the night to follow up on emails, crafting his speeches, writing or dictating notes. Add to that much nationwide touring over 40 years (after he left active military service in 1976), fitting in multiple engagements, often being greeted formally by lord lieutenants. This is not William’s style. He has commended his father’s model, but he does things his own way. Although patronages are under review, William has up till now far fewer than either his father or his grandparents.

Valentine Low is a big Huevo fan: ‘He defuses the formality with jocularity,’ says Valentine Low, citing two public events in 2023 that he witnessed. In October, Low reported, William ‘unleashed his inner flirt as he hugged his way through a visit with Caribbean elders [in Cardiff] to mark Black History Month. As he gave one woman a hug – for longer than she expected – he joked: “I draw the line at kissing.” And while posing for a group photograph, he prompted gales of laughter when he quipped: “Who is pinching my bottom?”’ Low believes that when William eventually becomes king, he will be more ‘radical’ than his father but wonders if people will respond to ‘call me William’ when ‘the whole point of the Royal Family is mystique and being different’. However, William has thought deeply about his current role and is prepared for whatever his future holds.

The kids’ schooling: For now, there is a decision to be made on Prince George’s secondary schooling. It’s said that five public schools are being considered, all fee-paying. Eton is single-sex and boarding but close to home. Marlborough (Kate’s alma mater) is co-ed and full boarding. And Oundle, St Edward’s Oxford and Bradfield College (close to Kate’s parents) are co-ed with a mix of boarding and day.

[From Tatler]

Having read/skimmed the whole piece, this is not an underhanded, shady takedown like Tatler’s infamous “Kate the Great” debacle in 2020. It’s just straight propaganda, as they’re trying to rewrite very recent history before our eyes. They can’t say that William showed up under the influence at an investiture or that he was a crude buffoon at the BAFTAs, but do they have to lie about it completely? It’s also notable just how few mentions there are of Kate. While she’s not completely ignored, it’s clear that this is about William alone and how HE is stepping up and it’s HIS next act.

Photos courtesy of Instar, cover courtesy of Tatler.

On Tuesday, Tina Brown was in London and making media appearances. The royal expert/author appeared on Andrew Marr’s show and she gave Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace a thorough beatdown over all of the shenanigans which have taken place in recent weeks/months. There was one good clip on Twitter, but the YouTube video has even more. This is the second big interview Brown has given in recent weeks – last week, she was on CBS’s morning show, ripping into the “flailing” Kensington Palace and saying that the wheels have truly come off.

She says that the whole missing-Princess of Wales issue is “febrile, and it’s out of control…it’s conspiracy theories galore. Actually, a great sort of final, I think, transition of the royals, from royalty being a kind of respected institution into being simply a kind of wild, you know, Kardashian episode. I definitely think there is sort of a loss of stature that’s accrued to all of this, because it all feels silly and scandalous. And there’s a real feeling that the palace is no longer a kind of institution of great renown.” While this is true, please put some respect on Kris Jenner’s name – she would never oversee an operation this clownish.

On the comms disaster of the past month: “[It’s been] an absolute comms disaster. I do think that it’s more cock up than it is a conspiracy. I think a perfect storm of disasters hit the royals all at once.”

She also shrugs off the issue of Prince Harry’s visa and Donald Trump, basically pointing out that Trump is a moron who just says dumb sh-t all the time. It was so obvious that Marr was trying to bait her into trashing Harry as a deflection from the palace sh-tshow, but they immediately get back to that topic.

Hilariously, Brown says that the Windsors “should be concerned” about the lack of public affection and trust and they need to have a “massive reboot.” Speaking of, Buckingham Palace just put a new job listing online – they need one new communications assistant, with an annual salary of £25,000. Oof – that’s a really low salary. I get that it’s not for the head of communications, but still. You’re not attracting the best-and-brightest talent with that kind of salary. Plus, it’s a sh-t job and you have to coordinate with a wiglet-wearing gopher.

‘This is a final transition of the royals being a respected institution to being a wild Kardashian episode.’

Royal expert @TinaBrownLM tells @AndrewMarr9 that the ‘comms disaster’ surrounding Princess Kate’s whereabouts is ‘more cock up than it is conspiracy’. pic.twitter.com/5vh9YxU6W7

— LBC (@LBC) March 19, 2024

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

There’s a lot being done this week by people with one particular agenda. That agenda? That the Princess of Wales is absolutely the woman who carried a heavy bag and walked briskly out of the Windsor Farm Store last Saturday. A lot of people have a lot of doubts about it, including at least one BBC reporter and one TMZ executive. Someone who doesn’t have any doubts? People Magazine’s royal editor Simon Perry, who insisted: “No, it wasn’t fabricated or featuring a body double (the photo would surely have been better if that were the case!). And yes, it was indeed Kate. Did their handlers mind that they’d been spotted looking happy as they ran their errands? I suspect not.” The Sun also ran an interview with Nelson Silva, the man who took the video, who insists that it’s Kate and that people questioning it are “delusional.”

So, sure. For argument’s sake, let’s say that Kate really is up and about and feeling well enough to walk briskly at a Windsor farmer’s market and carry heavy grocery bags. Let’s say that her abdominal issues have healed and she magically came out of the procedure looking fifteen years younger, with a radically different face. It begs the question: why then has Kensington Palace insisted that Kate take such a lengthy recovery time, and why wasn’t she capable of simply recording a video of thanks for all the support, and why did “she” hack together a frankenphoto for Mother’s Day? Not only that, if she’s feeling well enough for these kinds of outings, surely she can do some work? Like, a Zoom meeting or a work briefing at Windsor Castle? Apparently, Kensington Palace staff just figured out that their silence-is-confirmation on the TMZ video means that people are curious why Kate is still not working. Like magic, this story appeared:

The Princess of Wales has been working from home on her early years project to improve the lives of babies, as she eases back into normal life after her abdominal surgery. Kensington Palace confirmed that she had been kept up to date with her campaign and the “overwhelmingly positive” results of a study she inspired.

The Princess’s Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood has funded a trial of a baby observation tool, which is to be used by health visitors to improve how they spot signs of social and emotional development in young children, with the results being published on Thursday. Having personally suggested that the tool could be used in Britain after seeing a similar system during a royal visit to Denmark, the Princess has been particularly invested in the four-month trial.

A spokesman for Kensington Palace said: “The Princess has been kept updated throughout the process.” The comment from Kensington Palace is the first official update on the Princess’s early years work since her recovery from surgery in January, during which she has been taken off public duties.

Ordinarily, she would have been expected to undertake engagements relating to the study’s publication. Instead, she has been at home recovering and is just starting to get back on her feet for small outings, including to a Windsor Farm Shop at the weekend.

The Princess of Wales’s Centre for Early Childhood will on Thursday report the results of a study conducted in two NHS trusts by the Institute of Health Visiting and the University of Oxford. It asked health visitors to use a version of a tool known as the Alarm Distress Baby Scale (ADBB), which focuses on a baby’s social behaviours such as eye contact, facial expression, vocalisation and activity levels, to help experts and families better understand the ways babies express their feelings.

[From The Telegraph]

I forgot that Kate took credit for “funding a study” after all of last year’s nonsense about her latest rebranded Early Years crap. Last year, it was Shaping Us, with a creepy claymation video and an “awareness raising” campaign. As in, Kate raised awareness that the early years are important. That’s it. Now she’s funding a landmark study into whether you can tell a baby is upset when they cry. Anyway, Keen is back to work! Back to busy-work.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.