Boris Johnson resigned as the UK’s prime minister last summer as he faced down a tidal wave of scandal. From what I gather (I’m American!), the biggest issue was that BoJo, his staff and his cabinet were all constantly throwing parties during the pandemic lockdown, and then they all lied about it repeatedly and tried to cover up all of their drinking and partying. Mind you, Boris Johnson’s government was in utter shambles well before that controversy, but sure. After Johnson resigned, Liz Truss took over for 44 days (not even two menstrual cycles) before she resigned in disgrace as well, in October of last year, ensuring a victory for a head of lettuce. That set off a Tory Party crisis and I swear to God, Boris Johnson tried to pull some kind of power play, like he should have been allowed to be prime minister again, 44 days later. No one bought the idea that he had been politically rehabilitated in that short amount of time, but he did stay on in some kind of leadership position within the party, as he was still an MP. Well, now BoJo has resigned from his MP seat.

Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will give up his parliamentary seat amid a long-running ethics investigation that is expected to produce a report into his behavior as prime minister next week.

In a blistering statement announcing his resignation from the legislature, Johnson described as a “kangaroo court” the parliamentary committee tasked with examining whether he lied to fellow lawmakers about social gatherings inside government buildings that had flouted his own COVID-19 social distancing regulations.

The committee had provided him with a preview of its report, apparently prompting his decision. His departure statement, the investigative committee responded, had further “impugned” Parliament. Opposition parties termed the turmoil a “soap opera” and wished Johnson “good riddance.”

He and others — including current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak — had previously received criminal fines for their behavior during the pandemic. But Johnson has long insisted that incorrect and misleading accounts he gave on several occasions to Britain’s legislators denying these “lockdown parties” — as they became known — had not amounted to intentional lies.

[From NPR]

Given what I know about all of the crazy sh-t Boris was up to politically and personally, I still find it remarkable that this is what took him down. Like, British people can excuse racism, misogyny, fathering an unknown number of children, international clownery, national buffoonery and Brexit, but there will be hell to pay if someone threw some parties during lockdown. Anyway, I’m glad that you’re finally rid of him, although he always seems like he’s plotting some new political reinvention.

Also: BoJo got to put together an “honours list” even though he’s been out of Downing Street for ten months. He gave away honors to various former staffers and political allies, many of whom were part of the “Partygate” scandal.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Natalie Portman was out at the French Open this week (she went to Coco Gauff’s QF match). Natalie wore her wedding ring but her husband was not with her. [Go Fug Yourself]
Priyanka Chopra wore pigtails to a Bulgari event!! [RCFA]
Lewis Hamilton & Shakira really are happening! [Just Jared]
Leo DiCaprio & Gigi Hadid are still dealing with each other in some way, because they keep “hanging out” in NYC and London. [LaineyGossip]
Yeah, the Taika Waititi backlash is real. [Pajiba]
Would you eat Pizza Hut’s pickle pizza? [Dlisted]
Chris Hemsworth looked good at the Extraction premiere. [Tom & Lorenzo]
In praise of Never Have I Ever’s portrayals of teen sex & teen weirdness. [Jezebel]
Selena Gomez’s ice cream cone looks good as hell. [Egotastic]
What people did with their game-show winnings. [Buzzfeed]
Jana Duggar “felt worthless” because she wasn’t married. [Starcasm]
SCOTUS made one good decision. [Towleroad]

Prince William did have a public event this week, his first since he and his wife attended a royal wedding in Jordan. He stepped out at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London on Thursday, where he officially opened up a new cancer center. William and Kate put up such a huge fight about doing these kinds of “bread and butter” events, like opening new hospital wings or cutting ribbons at various store openings. For years, they swore up and down that they could reinvent the wheel and do things their way. And now, William just takes the path of least resistance. But only a few times a month. Apparently, there was something else on Peg’s schedule this week though. From Eden Confidential:

Awkard timing for Prince William, who, I hear, held his first private talks at Kensington Palace on Wednesday with Sir Keir Starmer. The previous day, Prince Harry had breached royal convention at the High Court by making an extraordinary attack on Rishi Sunak’s Government. ‘The timing was pure coincidence,’ a royal source insists.

[From The Daily Mail]

Interestingly enough, Ephraim Hardcastle (another Mail columnist) claimed that William’s meeting with Keir Starmer is actually scheduled for next week, so maybe William will meet him again? I have no idea. Starmer is the leader of the Labour Party and possibly the next prime minister, whenever the next general election happens. It’s interesting because William is a Tory stooge – his office is full of people who are in and out of Tory governments, and I’ve often gotten the impression that William is the Conservative Party’s useful idiot. I also think it’s funny that these people wail and cry about Harry being “woke” and “political,” meanwhile William is in a rush to prove that HE is political too, Harry! So competitive!

Lastly, William and Kate are now on the schedule for Royal Week in Edinburgh in July. They’ll go up to Scotland on or around July 5th alongside King Charles and Queen Camilla. Wimbledon starts on July 3rd, but Kate rarely goes to matches in the first week, so she should be fine.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Katherine Heigl (@katherineheigl)

There’s a Variety “Actors on Actors” conversation between Ellen Pompeo and Katherine Heigl that I was very surprised to see. It was titled as “The ‘Grey’s’ Reunion We’ve Been Waiting For,” which, uh, sure. I guess so since Sandra Oh doesn’t seem interested in revisiting the show. Apparently Katherine and Ellen are great friends with the former even throwing the latter a baby shower back in the day, which was also news to me considering I didn’t think Ellen was friends with anyone in the cast aside from Jesse Williams and I don’t think she said a public word in support of Katherine until recently. But anyway, their conversation did have some interesting insights for longtime Grey’s fans such as myself.

On Ellen leaving Grey’s Anatomy

HEIGL: With Meredith, are you letting her go, or is she coming with you?

POMPEO: Oh no, I’ve been on the show so long, I’m happy to let that go. We’re past that point. I think it’s OK for Meredith to stop making bad decisions. One of my frustrations is the Nick and Meredith of it all. Scott Speedman plays Meredith’s love interest, Nick Marsh, and I love Speedman. Somehow, Meredith can’t figure out how to make a relationship work, still, after all this time. I felt so happy to be able to step away, and I felt like I accomplished something incredible.

On Grey’s being a surprise hit

POMPEO: We came into work the next day, and everybody was freaking out. The ratings were huge. I don’t even know if people can count that high anymore. Then we went on hiatus, and the show was airing. I’m so grateful there was no social media then. We would’ve lost our minds, even more than we already lost our minds.

HEIGL: It didn’t take a lot. I just remember that I was nervous that they were not going to air it. There was a moment when it was unclear. They didn’t like it.

POMPEO: We’ll be very nice and not name the executive who almost took a nap on Shonda Rhimes. I’m not saying it, but he almost slept on Shonda Rhimes — almost didn’t air that pilot! You can do your research and find out who it was. Imagine being that guy.

On intimacy coordinators and supporting younger talent on set

POMPEO: This is not specific to the character of Izzie leaving, but stress on sets … I’ve only been on one set my whole entire career, so I guess people could critique this comment, but I hear a lot of stories; I don’t hear about a lot of support. That’s one of the things I try to do now as a producer, specifically on “Grey’s,” is try to offer support — try to have a place for people to talk through things. There was no one to tell me, “This is OK. This is not OK.” There’s a very exploitive nature to what we do. Intimacy coordinators create a whole other slew of problems, but the intention behind it is good.

HEIGL: I had this experience on “Firefly Lane,” because I was like, “I’m an old Hollywood broad, bitch. You don’t have to tell me how to make out on camera.” And I ended up loving this woman so deeply, and being so grateful for her, because she protected us in a way that I didn’t realize how unprotected we were. And I was so grateful to her as well, because we did have young girls on the set. There was a rape scene. And for her to be there protecting them, I felt this weight off of me in a way that I didn’t feel like I had to find a way to fight those battles for these girls. I’m always the bad guy. People like me to be the bad guy.

On women being the victim or villain

POMPEO: You know what I love? There’s two roles women fit into, victim or villain. And the women who are victims are only victims because they don’t have the guts to be the villain.

HEIGL: I was so naive. I got on my soapbox and I had some things to say, and I felt really passionate about this stuff. I felt really strongly. I felt so strongly that I also got a megaphone out on my soapbox. There was no part of me that imagined a bad reaction. I felt really justified in how I felt about it and where I was coming from. I’ve spent most of my life — I think most women do — being in that people-pleasing mode. It’s really disconcerting when you feel like you have really displeased everybody. It was not my intention to do so, but I had some things to say, and I didn’t think I was going to get such a strong reaction.

POMPEO: Listen, nobody likes a super confident woman. And that’s why they’re taking away reproductive rights, and voting rights all over this country, is because they don’t want women to find their power. They don’t want women to have a voice. They don’t want women to have control because they know that we can do it better than they can.

[From Variety]

In their conversation, they also mention that Grey’s showed an ectopic pregnancy for Sandra Oh’s character back in the mid-aughts, noting that Republicans should learn more about that stuff and give kudos to Shonda Rhimes for including it. But they also leave out that years later the same character later has an abortion just because she wants to and it’s her right, when not a lot of shows were doing that at the time. And the current iteration of Grey’s is focusing a lot on abortion activism and work in the wake of the fall of Roe.. As much as I complain about the show’s recent switch to hitting viewers over the head with very obvious and too realistic narratives (e.g. the covid storylines), it doesn’t change the fact that a lot of viewers need to see this stuff. Anyway, they are right about what they say about women and Katherine was treated badly at the time because she “stepped out of line” and was punished for her. I just find it curious that Ellen is so supportive now, but I guess she felt she had to toe the line back then and feels more empowered to speak up now that the show is entering its 20th season and she’s not even on it anymore? The whole thing is worth a read if you’re a Grey’s fan.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ellen Pompeo (@ellenpompeo)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Variety (@variety)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Variety (@variety)

Bill Murray is just one of those celebrities. He’s one of those (white) guys who gets away with it. He gets away with treating costars like garbage and people still hire him. He gets away with harassing Geena Davis and verbally abusing Lucy Liu and people just selectively ignore their stories. He gets away with getting fired for putting his hands on unconsenting women and he still gets asked to do another Ghostbusters movie. So, Bill Murray is in London, filming a new Ghostbusters movie. While in London, he went to a music festival, which is where he ran into Kelis. They were photographed together backstage at her show, and now the Sun claims that they’re dating.

Hollywood superstar Bill Murray has struck up an unlikely romance with Milkshake singer Kelis — who is almost 30 years his junior. The Ghostbusters actor, 72, watched the mum of three, 43, perform from the side of the stage in London last weekend – having also been spotted at her other recent shows.

Sources say the pair were also together at the same hotel, and have been “getting close for a while” after first meeting in their native US. They have reportedly bonded since Kelis’s second husband died in March last year, while Bill’s estranged wife passed away in 2021.

Father-of-six Bill was pictured during Kelis’s set at the Mighty Hoopla festival in Brockwell Park, South London. The pair also posed for a cosy snap backstage.

A friend said: “They’ve met up in the States before which got people in the industry talking, and now are meeting up in London while they’re both here. They’ve clearly hit it off. They were both seen at the same hotel, and he’s been to watch her perform several times before he went to Mighty Hoopla. But they’ve also both shared relatively recent bereavements and have that common bond between them. Whatever it is that has brought them together, and however unlikely it seems, they are both single and are having fun despite the fairly big age gap.”

Bill is currently filming a sequel to the classic Ghostbusters franchise in London, which sees him reprise his role as Peter Venkman alongside many of the original cast from the 1984 blockbuster. Off screen, his second wife Jennifer Butler accused him of domestic ­abuse and sex, marijuana and ­alcohol addictions — as well as ­infidelity — during their marriage. The costume designer filed for divorce in 2008, but the pair are understood to have remained in touch before her death in 2021.

[From The Sun]

Yeah, I doubt this is real. I think they met and they were probably nice to each other and had a conversation, but this feels more like the Sun’s editorial staff just making up a story to go along with the photos. In any case, I HOPE Kelis isn’t dating Bill Murray. She’s had so much drama and tragedy in her life and she’s had bad luck with men. She doesn’t need Bill Murray’s crap.

Milkshake singer Kelis, 43, and Bill Murray, 72, are dating https://t.co/uKkOLnGymC

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) June 8, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Following Prince Harry’s “brief” appearance at his father’s coronation last month, the Telegraph reported that Harry stopped by Buckingham Palace for a few minutes before heading off to Heathrow. There was speculation about why he would have bothered, and one of my favorite theories was that he was dropping off the keys to Frogmore Cottage and picking up a seven-figure check, a check reimbursing the Sussexes for the money they spent renovating that dilapidated shack. Harry’s 28-hour coronation stop-over was supposedly his “last time” at Frogmore Cottage, because his father evicted the Sussexes out of spite following the publication of Spare. Weirdly, the Telegraph now claims that Harry stayed at Frogmore this week while he was in England to testify against the Mirror Group Newspapers. Hm.

The Duke of Sussex was due to arrive back home in California on Thursday night after staying at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, The Telegraph understands. The Duke, 38, spent three nights in the UK as he returned to give evidence in his High Court phone-hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN). But he followed what has become standard practice by swiftly dashing back to the US, opting not to extend his stay any longer than necessary.

The Duke is not believed to have seen his father, the King, or his brother, the Prince of Wales, during his brief visit. Accompanied only by his security team, he stayed at his Windsor home for what is likely to be the last time.

The King evicted the Duke and Duchess from the property at the beginning of the year, just days after the publication of Harry’s memoir, Spare. The couple were given until early summer to vacate but are not thought to be planning to return to the UK in the coming weeks.

The Duke left the court shortly after 5pm on Wednesday, waving to onlookers as he was driven away in a black Range Rover. He is understood to have boarded a flight back home on Thursday afternoon, keen to get back to his family “as quickly as possible”. The Duke made a similar dash back home after the Coronation last month, when he headed straight to the airport from Westminster Abbey, via a quick vehicle change, having spent just 28 hours in the country. On that occasion, he was determined to kiss his son, Prince Archie, goodnight on his fourth birthday, which happened to fall on the same day.

[From The Telegraph]

I saw some tweets from royalists about how “sad” it was that Harry was staying alone in Frogmore Cottage while, just a short distance away, William was with his family at Adelaide Cottage. First of all, if you honestly believe William has been staying at Adelaide Cottage this whole time, I have a bridge to sell you. But I do find it interesting that Harry possibly stayed at Frogmore… it’s curious. I wonder if the British press has no idea where he was staying so they’re just assuming it was Frogmore? And why the f–k would Harry stick around Windsor endlessly when his garbage family has made it perfectly clear that they have a violent, twisted hatred for him? Also: “which happened to fall on the same day” – they still make it sound like the Sussexes *chose* to schedule Archie’s birthday on that day, when Charles decided to beef with a literal child about who was more important.

Meanwhile, the Sussexes also got a name-check in the Telegraph’s story about the upcoming Trooping the Colour, which is happening on June 17th. The Sussexes will not be in attendance. They haven’t been invited. But it will be twisted into “how dare they not come back for Trooping, where they would have been snubbed and thrown off the balcony!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Netflix.

The final part of the much-hyped Vanderpump Rules season 10 reunion just happened. There weren’t a ton of content surprises if you live online, but watching these people actually say and confirm some of these things… wow. Just wow. Tom Sandoval’s rude comment about his sex life with Ariana Madix was leaked on Deux Moi a few weeks ago, but in context it was even worse, if that’s possible. Ariana commented that they were still sleeping together while Tom was sleeping with Raquel and he couldn’t stop himself from clapping back on the betrayed ex-girlfriend he says he loves by saying “she kept her T-shirt on, it was really hot.” Awful!

Tom Sandoval was not making friends during the final episode of the Vanderpump Rules reunion special.

Wednesday’s special had a lot of drama, swearing, snide comments and bitter vitriol throughout — but there was one moment that seemingly unified everyone against one person: Sandoval.

As has been the case throughout the three-part special, much of the screen time has been devoted to “Scandoval” — the drama surrounding Sandoval and Ariana Madix, who split up earlier this year when Madix discovered that her boyfriend of nearly a decade had been cheating on her with fellow castmate Raquel Leviss.

At one point during Wednesday’s special, host Andy Cohen asked if Sandoval had slept with any other women since sparking his affair with Leviss, to which Sandoval said he had not — and denied rumors that he hooked up with another woman in Chicago last year.

This is when Madix brought up an important point, stating, “Well, you know who he did sleep with after he and Raquel started sleeping together? Me.”

“She kept her T-shirt on, it was really hot,” Sandoval shot back sarcastically.

In an hour of television filled with screaming and fighting and loud retorts, the speechless silence left in the wake of Tom’s comment was deafening.

“You’re such a f**king d**k,” Lala Kent declared, as James Kennedy asked simply, “What the f**k dude? You’re f**king disgusting.”

Even Sandoval’s longtime best friend, Tom Schwartz, was left with nothing to do but hang his head and quietly mutter, “Don’t say that, dude. Don’t say that.”

“This is your future Raquel,” Kent said, almost sympathetically. “He’s gonna talk to you like this too.”

Sandoval’s defensive “OK, I’m sorry” response was, unsurprisingly, not quite enough to win back any support.

[From ET Online]

So disrespectful and unnecessary. And he apologized to Schwartz, not Ariana! Tom keeps crying and pretending to be contrite, but then habitually lets the mask slip with sh-t like this. He apologizes because that’s what he’s supposed to do, but then he can’t help himself from taking shots at Ariana and defending himself and Raquel when he should just stay silent and take it. Same goes for his little side chat with Raquel after she left the stage. The pair pretended to be sobered and affected by the gravity of what they’ve done and everyone’s new opinions of them for five whole seconds before they started laughing and joking. Ugh. They also admitted, under Andy’s questioning, that they are in love, but I don’t think anyone aside from Raquel believes that Tom loves her. I am not sure Tom actually would have gone through with the breakup and I think that now being confronted with what he thought he wanted he is making the best of the situation he created for himself by sticking with Raquel.

And Raquel couldn’t even stick to his narrative. In a sort of addendum to the episode, Raquel did her final interview after the reunion in which she admitted several things we already suspected. They kept insisting their affair was a one-time thing until January, but she admitted it was ongoing, including when they were all in Mexico for Scheana’s wedding. And finally, she debunked the stupid lie that dipped out — no went to Tom’s room — no slept in the guest room — after the beach day / Jacuzzi night while Ariana away for her grandmother’s funeral. Tom really wanted to lie on that point because it’s a bad look to have sex with your affair partner in your home while your girlfriend is away for a funeral, but apparently Raquel couldn’t lie about that anymore. As if she’s not still lying about other stuff, like St. Louis. As if we thought there ever was a world in which cheaters have a boozy Jacuzzi sleepover and don’t have sex (though I guess they do drink a lot, but there’s always the next morning). Her crying over that confession to a producer was the most emotion we’ve seen from her throughout the whole entire scandal.

NO HE FUCKIN DIDNT WE ARE ALL SCHEANA RN ARE YOU SERIOUS ONDISBEISNEDIEBWBSB #PumpRules pic.twitter.com/9fKkzJXPGe

— rinna supremacy (@spicysucculents) June 8, 2023

photos are screenshots from YouTube

Vanessa Friedman is the chief fashion critic for the New York Times, and she decided to set her gaze on Prince Harry and his court fashion. Thank god! I’m still not tired of dissecting Harry’s California glow-up. The old version of Harry bought discounted shirts at TK Maxx and wore the same suede shoes with every outfit. California Harry wears Dior suits and beautifully crafted designer shoes, with a high polish. The Duchess of Sussex is a former actress and model, plus I think Meghan just has a good eye, a good baseline aesthetic, and her style has rubbed off on Harry. He puts care into how he presents himself, how he dresses for the occasion. It was nice of Vanessa Friedman to notice:

Now, thanks to his two days of testimony in London’s High Court in the phone hacking trial against the Mirror Newspaper Group, there is one more Harry: the serious private citizen, girded to fight for the right of all against the untoward intrusions of the British tabloid press.

It is the first time a royal has testified in court since 1891, and his appearance can reframe not just what that looks like for history, but also what Harry represents. After all, there are no cameras in the courtroom, so the entrance imagery is what the world sees even before they read reports about what is said (if they read reports about what is said). It is the basis on which new public opinion is formed.

This Harry wears neatly tailored single-breasted dark suits — deep navy on Tuesday, dark gray on Wednesday, shaded to convey the somber nature of the situation (also not Dior, according to the brand — at least not “to our knowledge,” a Dior spokeswoman said). Skinny ties in single shades just hint at his royal status: a purple so dark it was almost black, a light silver. Pure white shirts with slightly shrunken collars and black shoes shined to a high gloss.

His silhouette, like his ties, is narrow with just a whiff of California, rather than Savile Row, in the line. There is very little to distract from his words, save for the occasional flash of a rope bracelet when he waves at the watching public.

“The entire ensemble is ‘spare’ of detail,” said Joseph Rosenfeld, an image consultant for executives in New York and Silicon Valley, nodding to Harry’s former identity as the spare. The effect is traditional enough to be respectful without seeming hidebound, Mr. Rosenfeld said. “The man knows, whether he likes it or not, that many eyes are upon him.”

The effect is of someone somber and entirely unruffled, though also, thanks to his scruffy beard — the one Harry once described as a “shield” from anxiety — himself…He more closely resembles a successful businessman (one who works somewhere other than the family “firm”) than a royal, which also makes him more relatable.

It’s hard to imagine that he just randomly pulled the look from his wardrobe, given the strategic way his wife, for one, has clearly considered the couple’s image-making and its effects since their relationship began. Rather, for this purpose, Harry is clad in the supersuit of courtroom attire. Up, up and away with the phone hacking, the abuse of power, the irresponsibility. He’s an avenger of a different kind, and this is his endgame.

[From The New York Times]

I appreciate this, and it’s interesting that she got Dior to go on record about how these don’t look like their suits. I would imagine that the suits are probably from an American designer – she’s right that these don’t look like the Savile Row suits Harry’s father prefers. What’s also great is that Harry wears the f–k out of clothes. Even when he wore cheap sh-t, he still looked good, maybe like a rumpled bad boy with fluffy hair. Look at him now that he has the money and time to put together a modern civilian uniform.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Camilla Tominey at the Telegraph recently had piece which is shockingly not focused on lying about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Well, the Sussexes do get a mention, because of course Tominey has to scratch that itch, and the reason for the name-check is because Harry and Meghan were supposed to be around for King Charles’s reign, they were supposed to be part of Charles’s slimmed-down monarchy. But H&M are gone, which leaves the monarchy with a bunch of seniors and a couple of lazy 40-somethings. So this is Tominey giving advice to the king: Charles must “deploy the wives of Windsor” to be “a truly modern monarch.” I thought this was going to be about how Camilla, Kate and Sophie need to do more and be seen more, but no, it’s about one very specific thing: how the “married-in” royals need to be allowed to conduct investitures. As is, allowing Kate, Sophie and Camilla to hand out honors like knighthoods and CBEs and OBEs. As it stands now, only “blood royals” can pass out honors.

Despite Princess Anne’s unparalleled work ethic, there is arguably more the royals could do – if only they were allowed. Take Investitures – once described by the late Queen as among the most important of all her royal duties. These are the ceremonies at which those lucky enough to have made it onto the two honours’ lists every year are presented with their various awards. The most well-known honours are knighthoods, damehoods, MBEs, OBEs and CBEs, but there are a whole range of others that are handed out, such as the different classes of the Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George, and the rankless Order of Merit and the Companions of Honour.

Currently, Investitures are hosted by the King, the Princess Royal and the Prince of Wales in line with a long-standing convention that awards and honours should only be presented by a “blood” royal. But with Camilla now Queen, and Kate, the new Princess of Wales, might the King be minded to soup up his slimmed-down monarchy with a bit of girl power? As well as his wife and daughter-in-law, he could also call upon the Duchess of Edinburgh to host the ceremonies, when the member of the Royal family places the decoration on the recipient and congratulates them on their honour.

According to constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, there is no formal rule on who should preside over Investitures. “It’s up to the King – there’s nothing formally written down. It is one of the problems of slimming down the monarchy, that there may not be enough people to do these important jobs. But if the King did want more royals to carry out Investitures, then he could make it happen. It’s all down to his discretion and many would see it as an act of modernisation.”

Prof Bogdanor adds that any changes would have to be supported by public opinion. Christopher Joll, British military historian and author, agrees: “There might be a feeling that if an Investiture was conducted by someone who had married into the family, it wouldn’t be quite the same thing. But actually I think people would be happy to receive honours and awards from any royal with enough seniority. It’s perhaps worth remembering that the King can delegate anybody to act on his behalf which is why you get lord-lieutenants carrying out one-off Investitures – or generals in the field. As the fount of honour, the monarch can decide who can act on his behalf.”

Curiously, although the convention dictates that the Queen and Princess of Wales don’t currently host Investitures, as blood royals, Andrew’s daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie could, even though they are “non-working” royals. “This is perhaps one of the problems with the King introducing this relatively new concept of ‘working’ and ‘non-working’ royals,” says Joll. “On one hand, the Yorks could, in theory, carry out an Investiture as blood princesses, but because they are ‘non-working’ royals, they currently don’t.”

[From The Telegraph]

I truly can’t believe she managed to get something like 1000 words out of a one-sentence argument: let the married-in royals host investitures. And, I mean, it’s something that actually should happen. Queen Camilla should stagger around, half in the bag, and try to balance a sword on someone’s shoulder. The photos would be priceless. This is actually something Kate might be good at too, the quickest way to get Kate involved is to allow the York princesses to host an investiture. That’s the real problem – William and Kate don’t want to do it but they don’t want anyone else to do it either. Meanwhile, no one wants to get their MBE from Sophie.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

There are seemingly many layers to Edward Enninful’s ousting at British Vogue. Enninful handed in his resignation last Friday, saying that he was stepping into a global advisory role for international Vogue editions. Within hours, the rumors began that Enninful had gone up against Anna Wintour and she destroyed him. While I don’t doubt that some version of that actually happened, I also think there was probably a lot more nuance to this entire situation, including the fact that Enninful can and will make a lot more money outside of Conde Nast. The Telegraph had a surprisingly nuanced piece about how a behind-the-scenes ideological battle was part of this Enninful-vs-Wintour issue too. Unfortunately, the piece is called “Why Anna Wintour won Vogue’s war on woke.” The actual analysis is actually spot-on though. Some highlights:

Enninful clashed with Roger Lynch, the CEO of Condé Nast: According to some reports, Enninful’s decision was made at least in part because of a clash of ideas, with Lynch concerned about his progressive politics. At heart, Vogue is just another business, and as recent incidents at Nike, Bud Light, Disney and countless others have shown, the corporate world is an increasingly fraught place where you must strike a balance between selling your product and being seen to hold the “right” views.

Enninful’s progressive politics: As well as immaculate fashion chops (he started out as a stylist), Enninful had a contacts book bulging with famous friends. In the years since, he has cemented a reputation for diversity and activism. He featured the first trans contributor, Paris Lees, and cover star, Laverne Cox. Recent covers have featured disabled subjects. Last September he even featured a man, Timothee Chalamet, alone on the cover.

Advertisers loved Enninful: Advertisers were reportedly keen on Enninful’s new direction, which gave them the chance to be adjacent to a diverse, inclusive range of talent with right-on, social-media friendly messaging. It attracted hundreds of millions of pounds in advertising from companies like BMW. There were positive noises about circulation, too. Condé Nast can be opaque about its numbers, but Enninful’s Forces for Change issue in September 2019, which was guest-edited by the Duchess of Sussex and had Greta Thunberg on the cover, sold out in days.

But British Vogue became joyless: For others, however, Enninful’s activism came at the price of an entertaining magazine. “Everything that made [Enninful] not a classical editor (that is to say, a trained journalist with a ‘words’ background) was why he flew so high early on,” wrote Farrah Storr, former editor of Elle, in a Substack post. “Vogue morphed from a playful, albeit slightly horsey, fashion magazine into a deeply political manifesto.” Along the way, she writes, people stopped buying it: instead it was given away or sold at a discount. “It was joyless, too political and seemed to have forgotten its role as a high-end shopping magazine.”

A larger issue for businesses: “It’s pivotal for businesses to have diversity, not only for the moral sense but the business sense, too” says Octavius Black, the chief executive of consultancy MindGym. Black co-founded his management consultancy with a psychologist, so knows a thing or two about behavioural science. “We know that companies that are inclusive outperform those that are not. But some of these issues can become polarising, as it looks like certain protected categories compete with each other. Women’s rights and trans rights can come into conflict, as we’ve seen in Scotland. The risk is you’re appealing to a niche group and end up reducing your appeal to others. You want to be selling why your products are brilliant, and how you as a company are behaving responsibly and ethically in pursuit of that, but not taking a position on divisive social justice issues. You’d be unwise in America coming out for – or against – abortion, for example, which is not to say that it doesn’t matter, but it’s not the role of a company to take a position on those things.”

Vogue’s readership: Progressive views on gender might help win over celebrities, publicists and advertisers keen to bask in a bit of reflected diversity on social media, but they do not necessarily play as well with the core readership. Vogue readers skew older and female, while readers in the new territories into which Condé Nast is keen to expand: such as the Middle East, India and China, may have more traditional views on social matters. The Enninful approach seems to have been deemed too great a risk.

[From The Telegraph]

“You’d be unwise in America coming out for – or against – abortion, for example” – Wintour is a pro-choice Democrat and Vogue has, historically, editorially supported reproductive choice, abortion and birth control. But I get the larger point, which is: Enninful’s tenure at British Vogue was notable for how progressive and inclusive he made the magazine, but it came at the cost of alienating the core readership. Which I agree with, actually – you can argue that Enninful brought new readers, younger readers to the magazine, but if your core readership of middle-aged (white) women are canceling their subscriptions, what is the real cost-benefit analysis? Can you “make up” those lost readers in new readers, readers from a younger generation which doesn’t believe in buying fashion magazines at a newsstand, a younger gen which has already seen the new collections on social media? Is the purpose of British Vogue to give readers what they want or what they need? It’s not a woke-vs-non-woke thing, it’s about the changing landscape of print media.

All that being said, for all of the crying about “wokeism,” Enninful was overwhelmingly a political traditionalist who sucked up to the white establishment in the UK.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.