Embed from Getty Images
I have not been shy here about my love of the OG era of The X-Files. I watched my first episode with my dad on my 14th birthday (it was the haunted doll episode “Chinga”), and I was hooked. I became obsessed. While I 100% had a crush on Fox Mulder, I also had a super girl crush on Dana Scully. Scully was the sh-t! She was a badass FBI agent who also struggled with her Catholic faith. She’s inspired so many procedural female characters since the series aired, too. Over the years, my love of Scully turned into a love of Gillian Anderson. I love her vibe and think she’s a fantastic actress with an empowered attitude.

Well, there may be another Universe in which Gillian doesn’t play Scully. X-Files creator Chris Carter has taken the George W. Bush route and pivoted to art. Random, I know. He has an exhibition in Los Angeles called the Chris Carter Collection, where he shows off his pottery, prints, and photo collages, as well as a small amount of memorabilia from the series to appeal to fans. During an interview with Inverse, Carter shared that he had to fight for Anderson to be cast as his female lead because Fox execs thought she “wasn’t their idea of sexy.”

There aren’t many reminders of The X-Files in his exhibition, but there were a few small tokens for fans of the series. In one corner of the studio, almost as a consolation prize, rests a case full of coveted memorabilia: an alien prop mask, a director’s slate from the revival, and the original casting sheet from the ‘90s.

The latter comes complete with Carter’s handwritten notes from auditions. Alongside David Duchovny’s name, who auditioned against hundreds for the role of Mulder: a simple “Yes.” Carter had similar feelings for Gillian Anderson, who went on to play Scully, but casting the actor wouldn’t be so easy.

“For Gillian I wrote ‘Test,’ which means I wanted to take her before the studio and the network,” Carter says. Fox famously wanted a bombshell type for Scully, ideally someone like Pamela Anderson. “Where’s the sex appeal?” Carter recalls executives saying. “Even though Gillian’s beautiful, she wasn’t their idea of sexy. First, because they didn’t understand what I was trying to do with the show. And she was an unknown, so that never helps.”

Duchovny, too, was a relative unknown, which made both castings more of a gamble than most realize now. But as the story goes, Carter fought hard for the actors, Fox conceded, and the rest is history.

“Ancient history,” Carter says wryly.

[From Inverse]

Imagine being the person who didn’t think Gillian freaking Anderson was sexy enough. I am certain that whoever was of that opinion has moved on and is too busy flying on their private jets to even remember thinking it, but still, boo on you, sir. She is the walking embodiment of sex appeal and coolness. I’m glad that Chris fought for her because I honestly cannot imagine a better actress to play Scully. It just goes to show you once again how out-of-touch the people on top are when it comes to executing a creative vision or really thinking outside of the box in general. ALSO, I know it was the 90s and a different era of casting, but I do hope that filmmakers and execs nowadays are more open to casting women who don’t fall under one specific category or standard of beauty. It would be rad if most movies or television shows were more representative of all of us.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

This week, the Times of London reported exclusively on Carole and Michael Middleton’s Party Pieces. PP was sold for £180,000 last May, after the business fell deep into debt, reportedly more than £2.5 million, all told. James Sinclair purchased Party Pieces without having to assume any of its debt, so now the Middletons have left dozens of angry and shellshocked small vendors in their wake, not to mention all of those banks whose loans will never be repaid. The sale of Party Pieces was arranged by Interpath Advisory. The news this week is that Carole and Michael Middleton are too broke to cover Interpath’s fees, reportedly £260,000. Here’s the Mirror’s coverage, which is the same as the Times’ coverage.

Carole and Michael Middleton are unable to pay the £260,000 fees owed to the insolvency firm following the collapse of their business, it has been reported. Princess of Wales’ parents had operated Party Pieces but this fell into administration last year, owing creditors £2.6million. Interpath Advisory (IA), a city firm drafted in to handle the insolvency, is reportedly unable to cover all recoupment costs.

The insolvency process involved longer hours than expected to meet statutory requirements and queries from creditors, it is believed. While the firm has received fees of £51,437 and is expected to recoup more over time, it has determined that it will not be able to cover the total amount of the incurred expenses, it is claimed.

The Mirror has contacted IA regarding the claims, originally reported in The Times. It also says Party Pieces was founded by Carole and Michael Middleton in 1987, seven years after they married. Since then, it ran into financial difficulties during the pandemic and it ultimately fell into administration. The business was last year sold to entrepreneur James Sinclair for £180,000 through a pre-pack administration, according to the Times, leaving Interpath Advisory with limited funds to meet obligations to creditors.

[From The Daily Mirror]

As of this writing, the Mirror, Tatler, the Express and the Daily Record have all piggybacked on the Times’ report. The Daily Mail has not. Neither has the Sun. I find that notable. I wanted to talk about this again because some people online were arguing about my statement that Carole is too broke-ass to pay Interpath. The argument being, Carole and Michael have money squirreled away, that their personal finances are not the same as Party Pieces’ bankruptcy. I mean, I get that concept, that Party Pieces’ bankruptcy doesn’t mean that Carole and Michael are broke. But here’s my thing: if they had/have the money to change this narrative or mitigate the damage, wouldn’t they have done just that? It’s months and months of reporting about how Carole personally screwed over vendors and how she personally requested credit and how she brought in Interpath to restructure and advise. She left a trail of financial destruction in her wake and ruined years of lies and social climbing. She couldn’t even show her face at Wimbledon last year and she’s been mostly invisible since the coronation. You really think she would have done all that if she secretly had several million tucked away in some overseas account? I don’t. What’s more believable: that she secretly has a lot of money squirreled away, or that the Middletons’ success was always a huge lie?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

As we discussed a few days ago, Getty Images added a disclaimer on the photo/screencap from the Princess of Wales’s cancer-announcement video. We don’t know when the editor’s note was added, but it was likely over the weekend and the story has been percolating this week. Kensington Palace is no longer a trusted or credible source for photo agencies or news agencies, not after the Mother’s Day frankenphoto fiasco. Several outlets are even doing reviews of previous KP-issued photos, double-checking them to see if they were edited or manipulated. Now Getty Images seems to be indicating that there’s something questionable about Kate’s video, which was released on March 22, but reportedly filmed in Windsor on the 20th (or at least that’s what KP claimed). There’s nothing new to the story – yet – but Vanity Fair did get Getty’s spokesperson on the record:

A picture is worth a thousand words, but if that picture was released by Kensington Palace, Getty Images may have a few more words to add. The news photo agency appended an editor’s note to last month’s video of Kate Middleton sharing her shock cancer diagnosis, warning audiences that it “may not adhere” to the group’s standards for work produced by their own photographers and videographers.

“EDITOR’S NOTE: This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy,” reads the disclaimer alongside the caption info, without elaborating specifically where the pre-recorded clip might deviate from Getty’s policies.

A spokesperson for Getty Images declined to elaborate further when contacted by Vanity Fair via email. “Getty Images includes a standard editors note to handout content provided by third party organizations,” the spokesperson said.

This doesn’t appear to be the case with all handout content, however. For example, a 2023 handout from Buckingham Palace from the coronation of King Charles III, a posed family portrait taken by royal photographer Hugo Bernand, does not bear the note, nor does the 2023 holiday portrait of the Wales family, a handout from Kensington Palace taken by Josh Shinner. Notably, when the Christmas photo was released, viewers speculated that it may have been manipulated, pointing especially to Princess Kate and Prince William’s youngest child, Prince Louis, appearing to be missing his middle finger on one hand.

Following the [Mother’s Day] incident, more images were identified as having been edited, including one shared by Buckingham Palace on what would have been the late Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday in 2023. The image, which is credited again to Kate, depicts the queen with several of her grandchildren at Balmoral. Getty Images added a note: “EDITORS NOTE: Image has been digitally enhanced at source.”

A spokesperson told VF then that the agency was “undertaking a review of handout images and in accordance with its editorial policy is placing an editor’s note on images where the source has suggested they could be digitally enhanced.” They declined to share the scope of the review.

In the case of the new messaging with Kate’s announcement video, Getty declined to specify when or why they had appended the note, nor why other handout materials from the royal family did not bear it.

“We are not commenting further than the statement,” the spokesperson said. “As the statement says, it is standard note that is now added to handouts provided by third party organisations.”

[From Vanity Fair]

As VF points out, there’s nothing “standard” about the editor’s note – I searched for the exact wording (“This Handout clip was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy”) and basically, the note was only added to NASA handouts. My theory is that CNN, Getty and probably other outlets are still investigating the Kensington Palace handouts and they’ll release their findings months from now, when the cancer news isn’t so fresh. Meanwhile, Getty wanted to tip their hand that A) KP lacks credibility and B) that something in the milk ain’t clean.

Photos courtesy of Kensington Palace/BBC Studios, screencap courtesy of Getty Images.

One of the wildest things about King Charles’s reign is that he insists on all of this simultaneously: a slimmed-down and very old monarchy; significantly fewer patronages, charities and royal events; and most importantly, the same amount of money, if not more money, from the Sovereign Grant. QEII used to support a large coterie of working royals and extended family from the Sovereign Grant. Nowadays, it’s just Princess Anne, the Edinburghs and the Kents. When Charles became king, people begged him to start passing out QEII and Prince Philip’s hundreds of royal patronages to the remaining slimmed-down royals. He refused for the most part, taking nine months to even make a handful of changes to the military patronages. That being said, I didn’t know it was this bad:

Eighteen months after the death of the Queen, most of her 600-plus charities are still without a patron. They include the Royal Academy, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Physicians, London Zoo, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the RSPCA, RSPB, MCC, RADA, the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal Philharmonic Society.

Smaller outfits like the Jersey Cattle Society and the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund aren’t losing any sleep but the failure to renew royal patronages has irked the big beasts.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, I’m sure Charles would say: this is what I meant by slimmed-down monarchy. Fewer royals doing fewer events with fewer patronages, but we still get the same taxpayer funding! And don’t forget all of the castles, palaces, mansions and forts! Anyway, even before Charles was diagnosed with cancer, it was bonkers that Buckingham Palace was content to do nothing or slow-walk the transfer of some of these major patronages. What’s even funnier is that in the “sliding doors” version where Prince Harry & Meghan were still in the UK, the story would be “the Sussexes are not important enough to take on these patronages, we want them for ourselves!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stanley 1913 (@stanley_brand)

I love how in the midst of the Stanley Quencher Cup mania we’re hearing more and more doctors pipe up with warnings about overhydration. It tickles my little impish heart. I get that our understanding of science is always evolving and improving, and that’s a good thing! But yeah the timing cracks me up. Back in January we covered signs of overhydration, and I was thrilled to learn that I have a new scapegoat to blame my irritability on. That update also noted that your first wee of the day should be on the lighter lemonade-colored side. Now UK-based NHS Dr. Sermed Mezher is adding that “clear pee” should not be the goal, at any time of the day:

One of the most popular health trends over the last few years has been staying as hydrated as possible, evidenced by the massive popularity of 40-oz Stanley Quencher cups. The theory among those who obsess over hydration is that, when you pee clear, you’ve removed all the waste in your body and are enjoying the incredible benefits of being 100% hydrated. Congratulations.

However, according to Dr. Sermed Mezher, an NHS doctor in the UK, peeing clear isn’t always a sign of being healthy.

“If you’re peeing clear, that means you’re having more than 2.5 liters (85 ounces) of fluid per day, which means your kidneys are working overdrive to keep that water off your brain,” Dr. Mezher said. He goes on to add that when kidneys can’t keep up with their water intake, it can cause water intoxication, which can lead to dangerous, even lethal, brain swelling.

According to Dr. Mezher, it’s all about finding balance when it comes to hydration and the goal shouldn’t be to pee clear all the time. “Of course, like most things in life, too much is not great, and too little isn’t either,” he continued. Two liters (68 ounces) [of water] is good for a healthy adult, and babies under six months shouldn’t be given any water at all.”

The news came as a bit of a shock to some folks in the comments. “One minute it’s not enough water, the next it’s too much… I’m tired,” Tiyana wrote. “I always thought the goal was clear,” Mountain Witch added.

[From Upworthy]

So the countdown is on for when Goop declares that clear pee is the only way it should be, no? I’ll say this, I did not have “we’ll be routinely discussing ideal pee color” on my bingo card for 2024. Now I’m disappointed that Pantone didn’t make their Color of the Year something on the wee spectrum! (And before you say, “Ew, Kismet!” May I remind you of the sad-sack, raw chicken breast-reminiscent color they gave us this year: Peach Fuzz.) As much fun as regularly keeping tabs on the tint of my pee sounds, for now I’m just going to focus on the suggestion of 68 ounces of water a day. That’s doable. I have two non-Stanley cups (why go Stanley when you can go Bubba!) that are 24 and 32 ounces respectively, so I could easily gauge my intake… If I made the effort to track. Which I’m totally motivated to do! After all, I still have that lofty goal of trying to drink enough water to balance out my potato chip intake. You gotta have a dream.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stanley 1913 (@stanley_brand)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by bubba brands (@bubbabrands)

There’s so much talk of Wallis Simpson these days. Surprisingly, the Telegraph’s latest history lesson isn’t a desperate attempt to force a comparison between Wallis and the Duchess of Sussex. A short primer: Wallis Simpson was the American divorcee who had several torrid affairs in the 1930s, and one of her lovers was with the then-Prince of Wales and then King Edward VIII. Historian Christopher Wilson has done a new deep dive into all of the government papers from 1936, the Year of Three Kings. The year King George V died, King Edward VIII ascended the throne and then abdicated, leaving his younger brother to be king (King George VI, Elizabeth II’s father). The big headline from Wilson’s research: Wallis Simpson’s lawyer suggested that the government buy her off to end her relationship with the king.

As the Abdication crisis reached boiling-point in the dying days of 1936, was Wallis Simpson ready and willing to be bought out of her forthcoming marriage to King Edward VIII? Newly viewed Cabinet documents indicate that, at the height of the crisis, the question of a cash settlement to get rid of the twice-divorced American was actually proposed by her lawyer.

Had the deal been struck it could have had far-reaching consequences lasting down to the present day, 88 years later, resulting in a different monarch occupying the throne – not King Charles. The proposal mercifully came to nothing. But for a fleeting moment it looked as if, in return for a large sum of money, “The woman I love” would abandon the hapless king to his fate and disappear over the horizon.

The evidence comes in the contemporary account of Sir Horace Wilson, the senior Whitehall mandarin entrusted by prime minister Stanley Baldwin to collate the avalanche of information coming in as the crisis grew. Though it came to the outside world as a seismic shock, the hurried exit of an errant king and installation of a reliable substitute appeared a seamless process administered with professionalism and dignity. But according to Wilson’s papers, nothing could be further from the truth – the whole thing was a shambles, one which could have ended with the present Duke of Kent, 88, being crowned king.

What I uncovered was a picture of panic and despair as the clock ticked down to December 11, the day King Edward signed the Instrument of Abdication – among people who should have been better prepared. In all, it took just 25 short days from the moment Edward loftily told the prime minister he was going to marry Mrs Simpson until his ignominious flight to obscurity.

Despite being told that a marriage between the head of the Church of England and a divorcee would precipitate a constitutional crisis, the king was confident he could have his cake and eat it – “you’ll be Queen, Empress of India, the whole bag of tricks” he promised Wallis. And meantime, over in Whitehall, there was a shockingly misplaced confidence that Edward could easily be deflected by financial sanction from taking what seemed an impossible step.

Those in the know were aware from the moment Edward inherited the throne in January 1936 that there was a problem over his relationship with Mrs Simpson. That he had caved in to her superior will was well-known. So too was King George V’s prediction that his son and heir would not last the course as sovereign. Yet no formal preparations were made – no Plan B formulated. And so in Wilson’s papers we see the first signs of the wheels falling off…

Horace Wilson receives a visit from Theodore Goddard, Wallis’s solicitor. Wilson notes, incredulously: “After some further talk, I discovered that what Mr Goddard was really saying, in effect, was what price could be paid to Mrs Simpson for clearing out.”

The civil servant, veteran of many cabinet crises, finds himself speechless at the thought of providing a massive pay-off to get rid of the problem. Goddard drops the idea like a hot potato when he realises he’s overstepped the mark.

[From The Telegraph]

It’s funny that the prime minister balked at the idea of paying Wallis to leave the king? Like… that might have actually been the solution to all of their problems, if they had more imagination. But it’s also clear that Edward VIII freaked out all of the British power players, he was too weak-willed and too compromised across the board. What’s also funny about these newly-discovered papers is that the government had next to no faith in King George VI, then the Duke of York. They saw him as a scared mama’s boy who wasn’t up to the job.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Embed from Getty Images
One of the rites of passages for a parent is for their kids to find them slightly embarrassing for one reason or other. I suppose if you have a famous parent, that really just opens up the chances for embarrassment exponentially. Sheryl Crow has two boys, Wyatt, 16, and Levi, 13, who are firmly in that teenage phase. During an appearance on Late Night with Seth Meyers last week, Sheryl, who is promoting her new album, Evolution, told Seth that Wyatt and Levi find most of what she does publicly to be “cringey.” Celebrities, they’re just like us!

When Meyers, 50, asked his guest — who just released her new album Evolution — if her kids are fans of her music, she replied: “They are.”

“I actually played ‘Alarm Clock’ for them because that’s the first song that came out on the record,” she said. “It’s about how much I hate my alarm clock, and it literally was inspired by 13-year-old Levi, because we are not morning people. Across the board. Wyatt jumps out of bed. He’s like, ‘Days on, let’s go.’ ”

“I also wrote a song called ‘Broken Record,’ and I played it for them and they were like, ‘Mom, you can not put that on your record. No.’ Same with TikTok, ‘Mom, you can not be on TikTok. That is so cringey,’ ” Crow recounted to Meyers.

As she told the show’s host — who is a father of three children himself — he needs to “just wait” before he gets similar comments from his little ones.

“It’s around the corner for you,” she joked to Meyers.

Crow is already watching her kids grow up before her eyes. During her latest television chat, she revealed that they’re now driving together to school, something that gives her an “odd sense of accomplishment.”

“They were happy, I got them fed. The homework is done, they’re on their way to school,” she said, adding that she gets herself a coffee and puts her feet up after they leave the house.

“The first couple days when they drove off I was like, ‘What are they talking about,’ ” Crow said, before Meyers asked if they talk about her.

“They would not be talking about me, unless it was something stupid that I had done. My kids, literally, they should have subtitles under them that are like, whenever they talk, you see, ‘Mom, you’re an idiot. Mom, you do not know anything. Just shut up.’ “

[From People]

I mean, if your kids don’t find you cringey, are you even parenting, brah? I kid, I kid! I kinda love hearing stories like these from famous people who are hands on parents. Anyone have any good stories about embarrassing their kids or being embarrassed by your own parents? I’ve been pretty lucky so far, with the exception being that my younger son (he’s six) asked me to stop calling him by his nickname in public. Once in a while, I’ll slip up and he’ll turn to me with a clenched jaw to remind me that he’s asked me to not call him it in front of other people because it embarrasses him. I do try to honor his request! It’s only a matter of time before both of them will find me cringe for something.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit Getty, IMAGO/Faye Sadou / Avalon, Felipe Ramales, PacificCoastNews.com / Avalon

Jennifer Lopez & Ben Affleck were out in NYC, having brunch with Matt Damon and possibly looking at real estate. Hm! [LaineyGossip]
Beyonce wore Versace at the iHeartRadio Awards. [JustJared]
Completely obsessed with 60 Minutes’ “disguise” for an FBI agent. [Buzzfeed]
Wake up babe, a new Khloe Kardashian face just dropped. [Seriously OMG]
A review of Beyonce’s updated “Jolene.” [Jezebel]
Bowen Yang & Matt Rogers talk about Las Culturistas. [Pajiba]
Lizzo is “quitting” the music industry. [Socialite Life]
Rebel Wilson “briefly” tried Ozempic. [Hollywood Life]
Timothee Chalamet is such a fun fashion guy. [RCFA]
Kristen Stewart gave Seth Meyers a makeover. [OMG Blog]

The Windsors’ Easter guest list was slimmed down this year, slimmed down like the number of working royals in the family. King Charles only allowed one of his nephews to come to church, and that was James, the 16-year-old Earl of Wessex. James’s older sister Lady Louise did not go to church, and I thought perhaps that Charles had banned Louise and all of his other nieces and nephews. But the Mail claims that Louise was probably still in Scotland, where she attends St. Andrew’s. Hm. I doubt that, but sure. While King Charles clearly doesn’t want his nieces and nephews to do any work on behalf of the crown – please, they might steal the king’s thunder! – the British media continues to try to convince Prince William that he needs to bring all of his cousins into the “working royal” fold. Especially Lady Louise.

As the British monarchy has faced health crises in past months – with both King Charles and the Princess of Wales undergoing cancer treatment – key players have stepped up. Among the royal family the Princess Royal, her brother the Duke of Edinburgh, and his wife Sophie, appear to have ramped up their public appearances and engagements. And amid them, one young member could be set for key role in the Firm’s future – Lady Louise Windsor.

Writing in his Palace Confidential newsletter, the Daily Mail’s Diary Editor Richard Eden expressed that contribution from the Duke of Edinburgh and his family ‘has never been more important’.

‘Although way down the line of succession, in 14th place, the Duke of Edinburgh is busier, and more prominent, than ever as he carries out duties while his eldest brother, King Charles, is undergoing treatment for cancer,’ he said last month. ‘Edward and his wife, Sophie, are often overlooked because they don’t seem to court attention from the media and appear happy to undertake their numerous royal engagements and foreign visits quietly and without fuss.’

He continued: ‘In my opinion, another great service the couple could do for the country would be to encourage their children, Lady Louise and James, the Earl of Wessex, to become working royals when the time is right. Louise, 20, is in her second year at St Andrews University, while James, 16, will sit his GCSE exams this year. When Prince William becomes King, I hope that he will follow the example of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, and ask his cousins, including Lady Louise and James, to share royal duties with him.’

‘Hopefully, William will realise that a “slimmed-down” monarchy wouldn’t safeguard the institution, as some claim, but would lead to its irrelevance and eventual death. What better way to build on its strengths than with an injection of energy from young people who have had values of public service and duty instilled in them from birth?’

[From The Daily Mail]

LMAO “Hopefully, William will realise that a “slimmed-down” monarchy wouldn’t safeguard the institution, as some claim, but would lead to its irrelevance and eventual death.” It’s so wild that they’re saying all of the quiet parts outloud. “If we don’t get some young blood in here, everything will fall apart!” Yep. I mean, in this very narrow case, Eden is actually correct. Which is why Charles and William will refuse! Huevo is just like his father – terribly afraid that someone will steal his thunder or get more attention in any way. Besides, as I’ve said about Louise this whole time – it’s not clear she wants any part of royal life. She’s not like her mother. Speaking of, “Edward and his wife, Sophie, are often overlooked because they don’t seem to court attention from the media…” LMAO again! Please, Sophie wants all of the attention!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Royalist commentator Petronella Wyatt has been writing some particularly unhinged columns over the past six months. Then, three weeks ago, Wyatt wrote about being checked into a mental health unit because her depression meds weren’t working. I have sympathy for anyone going through all of that. But it continues to be strange that in her darkest hour, she’s still so focused on… shrieking about the Duchess of Sussex, especially in comparison to the Princess of Wales. Meghan also felt suicidal because of the torment and abuse she suffered from the British media and people like Wyatt. But Wyatt has no sympathy for Meg. Not when Meghan can be used to prop up Kate. From Wyatt’s latest Telegraph column:

I am not concerned about the state of the Crown. It is only numbskulls who claim it is in crisis. Unlike democracy, the British monarchy, because it values tradition, avoids becoming a self-limiting disease. But as the Princess of Wales recovers from being forced into disclosing her cancer diagnosis, the nation should ponder the incalculable debt this woman is owed and pause in wonder.

Looking back at the troubles that have beset the Royal family – the death of the late Queen, the King’s own illness, the ugly web in which Prince Andrew has entangled himself, and the one-trick ponies in Montecito – we can comfort ourselves with one solid bond in the bank of our collective future. The woman who was once called plain Kate Middleton has proved to be the jewel in the crown. There have been doubters and naysayers, notably in the verdant hills of California, with its 50 shades of envy.

This is a tale of two women, and for the Duchess of Sussex the popularity of Catherine is a bitter pill. Did Harry and Meghan not say that the words duty and fulfilment are an oxymoron? If so, constraint has never suited anyone so well. Royal wives are not usually presentable. Caroline of Brunswick was so lumpen that her husband, George IV, had her banned from her own coronation. Princess Diana was an exception, but I would argue that Catherine surpasses her, only growing in poise by virtue of no inner lack.

There are only two kinds of royals in this world: the sanguine and the chronically unhappy. The latter, including Meghan, kick and squall against their fate, seeing the golden chalice as one filled with poison, and hoping, like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, that it will pass from their lips. They exist in a state of Byronic unhappiness, thinking their wisdom has seen through all their supposed advantages, and in doing so has become aware there is nothing left to live for aside from selling tomato leaf soap and candles scented with woe to Feminae neanderthalensis.

Then there are those like Catherine. This sort of royal sees not what they can’t do but what they can, perceiving that public service is not a prison but a means of liberation from futility. In the 13 years since her marriage, the Princess has reached a state of equanimity possessed by the late Queen, of whom she is increasingly reminiscent.

We would do well to consider the difference Catherine has made to her husband, the future king. Two boys walked behind the coffin of their mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. At the time, and in the years after, we often made the mistake of thinking it would be William who developed an eeyorish attitude to life. On occasion he seemed palpably uneasy in the presence of the media, or performing royal engagements. For a while, Harry seemed the happy prince, with all his mother’s charm and people-pleasing ways.

But while the country blinked, something changed. Shored and ballasted by meeting a girl called Kate Middleton, William looked duty squarely in the eye and decided not to flinch. As Harry began to drown, his older brother, with Catherine’s assistance, reached the shores of home. Of all the moments in the history of our monarchy, this may prove to be one of the most significant. For in saving William, Kate might be said to have saved the Crown. It is also advantageous that she is the Swan of all time.

As we have seen recently, she is human, and friends say she lives with a mischievous child inside her which will stand her health in good stead. “Catherine is William’s strength and stay because she is so normal,” a royal insider told me. “Despite vile rumours, some emanating from America, their marriage could not be stronger.”

[From The Telegraph]

We saw it happen in real time, as Meghan’s entrance into the royal fold changed the narrative around Kate – racists and royalists who had previously been ambivalent about Kate suddenly rushed to prop her up, claiming that she was the perfect white duchess (compared to Meghan) and that her marriage and happiness was so much better and more profound (compared to Meghan) and that Kate never put a foot wrong (unlike Meghan). Meghan escaped the prison they built for her more than four years ago and people like Wyatt still don’t know how to process it. Anyway, Kate didn’t save the crown nor did she save William. When all is said and done, the Middletonification of the monarchy will be a huge factor in its undoing.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.