Embed from Getty Images

GOP lawmakers in Tennessee expelled two Black Democrats, Rep. Justin Jones and Rep. Justin Pearson, from the state House over their gun-control protests. [Jezebel]
I can’t watch Jeremy Renner’s interview because those kinds of body-horror stories make me feel ill, but this guy has been through it. [Just Jared]
Taylor Swift’s merch fades in the wash cycle. [Dlisted]
Will the Kardashian-Jenners show up en masse at Coachella to support Kendall Jenner’s boyfriend Bad Bunny? [LaineyGossip]
What do you think Ted Lasso is going to do with that video? I have some ideas and they involve Trent Crimm’s press connections. [Pajiba]
Honestly, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker just makes me miss Heath Ledger. [Go Fug Yourself]
I really, really want Rosie Huntington-Whiteley’s MiuMiu pants. [RCFA]
The backstory on Elvis & Priscilla Presley. [Starcasm]
Molly Sims is in Cabo, nice. [Egotastic]
A lot of people are married to people they really don’t know! [Buzzfeed]
The Resident is officially canceled. [Seriously OMG]
Ron DeSantis and the war against Mrs. Doubtfire. [Towleroad]

The Hill is a DC-based political publication with a right-wing bent. They usually stick to soft-pedaling stories about Republican clowns and crying about Democrats. Well, The Hill published an absolutely unhinged column about Prince Harry, the royal court of Montecito and the coronation. It’s called “King Charles’s ‘Harry and Meghan problem’ grows as coronation nears” and it was written by Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet. As I opened this up, I thought “well, it’s just going to be a weird piece in the American press about how King Charles screwed himself over by forcing his younger son into exile.” But no – this is the most bonkers political analysis I’ve ever read about why King Charles needs to rein in Harry’s power. In Montecito. Part of it reads like a satire but it’s not a satire. Some highlights:

Prince Harry is just like the Duke of Windsor, you guys: Kingdoms, heirs, and “spares” seldom amalgamate well. Neither do recalcitrant English dukes who have lost their way. In an echo of history, but with a Meghan Markle twist 87 years later, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is setting up a parallel court to Buckingham Palace in Montecito, Calif., just as his great uncle Edward, Duke of Windsor, once did in Paris after abdicating the English throne in 1936. Yet, whereas Edward’s post-abdication court was only problematic due to the appearance of proximity to Nazi Germany in the lead-up to World War II, Harry’s Hollywood version is global in intent — and the damage being caused to the United Kingdom’s national security and that of its allies, including the United States, is very real.

The Sussexes are more problematic than Nazi-sympathizers: Whereas Edward and his wife Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, sought to establish an inward-looking court to live out their lives as “outcasts” as best they could, exiled in the shadows, the deeply troublesome Harry and Meghan, are not willing to go quietly into the Pacific night. Arguably, their version of a Netflix-funded parallel court is also intended as a rival court to King Charles III now, and subsequently to William, Prince of Wales, as heir apparent, in the future.

Harry is doing damage to democracy!! Harry and Meghan’s self-serving machinations might be laughable if King Charles were not the head of state and the world were not gripped by an increasingly existential battle between the Western-style democracies on one side and China, Russia, North Korea and Iran on the other. But he is just that — and we very much are “sliding” into a new and dangerous cold war. Consequently, the Duke and Duchess would do well to remember that reading the room in Southern California is not the same as reading the room on a global stage.

Harry is a national security threat?? By the time Harry’s autobiography, “Spare,” was released in January, it was clear something far deeper and more ominous was in play, in terms of national security. As Harry bandied about his “truths,” only for the wayward prince and Meghan to become a caricature of themselves in a “South Park” episode, the two would-be Hollywood monarchs continued to remain oblivious to the damage they were doing to the West as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular.

William & Harry’s war is a victory for China and Russia: Now, amidst the bloody war in Ukraine, the fast-approaching coronation of King Charles at Westminster Abbey is exactly 30 days from today in May, and the king’s sons are embroiled in a brotherly fight that Beijing and Moscow will win if Harry’s war against King Charles and Prince William remains unchecked.

Harry is hurting NATO by taking the Mail to court: Harry has done it again — this time foolishly, if not recklessly, indirectly benefiting Putin. During Prince William’s two-day surprise trip to Poland two weeks ago, at the request of the British government to visit Ukrainian refugees and U.K. front line troops stationed in Rzeszow near Ukraine’s border, Harry upstaged his brother’s efforts in Poland to rally Ukraine’s cause by needlessly flying in from Los Angeles and appearing alongside singer-songwriter Elton John and other celebrities in a procedural hearing in a London High Court. The lawsuit relates to a privacy claim against the owners of The Daily Mail that is already collapsing because of the recantation of Gavin Burrows, a key Harry witness, to the extent the creators of “South Park” are soon likely to lampoon in a World Wide Privacy Tour 2.0 sequel.

WHAT IS HAPPENING: As British royal historian Hugo Vickers told us in a comment for this piece, when we asked how the one-time “spare” to the English throne has jeopardized British national security, Harry “has surely put himself and his family at risk.” First, as Vickers noted, by being “unwise to discuss military matters,” and now, in our own opinion, by unleashing a series of assaults against the constitutional duties and responsibilities his family is tasked to carry out on behalf of the U.K. and its national security.

After all that, they’re trying to convince Harry to go back to England: King Charles needs both his sons and only Harry can decide if he is up to fulfilling his responsibility to his father and his country, either in dutiful silence in Montecito or by taking his own Ivan-style “freedom flight” back to Windsor Castle to stand by his father and brother in a time of global conflict.

[From The Hill]

Don’t you get it? Adolf Hitler wanted to install his sympathetic ally the Duke of Windsor back onto the British crown to oversee a Third Reich-vichy government in Britain, but all of that was nothing compared to Prince Harry writing a successful memoir, you guys. NATO is in danger because Harry is suing the Daily Mail! Democracy, as we know it, will fall because the Sussexes are popular and successful at building their brand. In summary, Harry and Meghan are the greatest threat to international security of the West AND they need to return to England to serve King Charles. Got it?

Photos courtesy of Instar.

Rob Lowe is complicated. While I have no desire to delve into his politics, of all the things I never thought he would excel at, Rob relishes being a husband and father. And he seems to have done the work in those relationships as well. His sons, Matthew and John Owen, both adore their dad and seek out opportunities to work with him. And Rob and wife Sheryl Berkoff just celebrated their 31-year wedding anniversary. While speaking to Bruce Bozzi on his podcast, Rob said the best plan is to marry your best friend. Other than that, he said to remember that everything has ebb and flow within a relationship.

Rob Lowe is revealing the secret to making his 31-year marriage to wife Sheryl Berkoff work.

On the latest episode of iHeartRadio’s Table for Two with Bruce Bozzi podcast, the 59-year-old actor opened up about how finding the right partner leads to lasting love.

“[Marriage] is hard anywhere, it is not just Hollywood – it’s everywhere,” he told host Bruce Bozzi. “Sheryl was and is my best friend. So if you marry for anything other than the fact that is your best friend, you’re at a disadvantage from the jump, because that will sustain when the other stuff ebbs and flows.”

The Unstable star adds that he believes that forgiveness allows a relationship to move forward, sharing, “People say marriage takes work. I’m not sure if it takes work, but what it does take is forgiveness, and being really cognizant of what hill you’re willing to die on.”

Lowe admitted that keeping the physical spark alive is another important factor in a successful long-term relationship.

“I do believe you need the heat for sure,” he shared. “If you don’t have the heat – and that’s a chemical thing – I mean I still have it with Sheryl, you gotta keep the heat.”

He continued: “That comes and goes too, there are times when you are like, ‘Nah.’ And then there are times when you are wild for somebody.”

[From Yahoo!]

I don’t disagree with Rob about the best friend thing. I can’t speak to relationships in which people meet and marry right away. I’m a slow simmer kind of person, I don’t open up easily. So becoming best friends with someone quickly seems impossible to me. But my parents did it and they are still best friends 62 years later. I agree with Rob’s points about ebb and flow, though. And trusting your partner will wait it out helps immensely with that. I know there’s a split #onhere whether marriage is hard or takes work so I’ll offer this instead: life is hard. And when the sh*t hits the fan and it seems like everything is stacked against you, having your best friend around really helps. Even if you lose sight of that for a little bit. Rob’s point about keeping the heat and accepting that the older you get, there will be peaks and valleys is some of the most real comments I’ve heard on that.

I just watched Rob’s Unstable series on Netflix. He and John Owen created the series. Plus, they wrote an episode, which I have to say impresses me, I didn’t know they had it in them. I liked it, the cast really makes it. Although it is yet another show in which the wife/mother died/was killed suddenly, leaving the husband devastated and having to stumble through parenting the traumatized offspring. Since the rest of the show is about John Owen’s character trying to come out from under his dad Rob’s character’s shadow, I wonder how Sheryl felt about being killed off to showcase her men’s growth? At least she’s painted as a saint, which I’m sure she is, putting up with Rob’s other bs.

Photo credit: Cover Images and Anthony Dixon/Avalon

This week, the Windsors’ historical connections to and profits from the transatlantic slave trade have been in the news like never before. An American historian named Dr. Brooke Newman uncovered documentation from the 17th century which has provided a direct link between slave trader Edward Colson and King William III. These links were already well known and there are (obviously) all kinds of historical records about the British monarchy’s substantial connections to and profits from slavery, but this document is being discussed like it’s brand new information. From the Guardian’s exclusive:

An imposing bronze statue stands tall on the manicured lawns at Kensington Palace, a formidable tribute to William III, who built the palace as a royal residence in the bustling heart of London. William’s namesake, the current Prince of Wales, grew up there with his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and today it is his official London residence with his wife, Catherine.

Awareness has grown in recent years of William III’s personal investment in the transatlantic slave trade at the time he built Kensington Palace, and of successive English monarchs’ involvement in the industrial-scale enslavement and exploitation of Black people. King Charles III and Prince William have made public statements recently expressing “profound sorrow” at the “appalling atrocity of slavery”, which they said “forever stains our history”. However, neither has explicitly acknowledged the full extent of the monarchy’s role.

At Kensington Palace, in the stories of kings and queens told on the information boards on the public tour, and outside on the William III statue, there is not a word about their links to slavery.

But now a document found in the archives by the historian Dr Brooke Newman, and published for the first time by the Guardian, highlights the involvement of the British monarchy in the appalling trade. The publication of the document has added impetus to calls for the royal family to thoroughly investigate their historical links to transatlantic slavery.

Four lines of elaborately ink-written scrawl state that £1,000 of shares were given to William III in 1689. The shares were in the Royal African Company (RAC), which captured, enslaved and transported thousands of African people, with the monopoly power of a royal charter. The document clearly bears the handwritten name of the now notorious Edward Colston.

Once revered as a philanthropist in his home city of Bristol, Colston has since been exposed by modern campaigners for his slave-trading business, and protesters toppled his statue in June 2020. After Colston transferred the RAC shares, King William III became governor of the company and earned further wealth from it. The royal charter gave the RAC a forcibly protected monopoly to trade in enslaved people from west Africa.

The Slave Voyages database, which collects information from historical research, states that in the 60 years of its operations, the RAC transported 186,827 enslaved people, including almost 24,000 children, to the Americas. More than 38,000 people died during the journeys.

Newman, who is writing a book, The Queen’s Silence, on the British monarchy’s historic involvement in slavery and modern failure to acknowledge it, found the Colston transfer in the National Archives in Kew on a research trip to London in January. She was commissioned as a consultant on the monarchy’s links to slavery by the Guardian’s Cotton Capital project, which has investigated the newspaper’s links to slavery.

[From The Guardian]

Soon after the Guardian revealed this documentation, Buckingham Palace rushed to respond – apparently, under King Charles, the palace is “aiding” a project cosponsored by the Historic Royal Palaces to examine “the historical ties that bind the monarchy and slavery.” Which I believe is a completely separate project from the Guardian’s Cotton Capital project? While the palace didn’t want to speak on the record about this specific documentation between King William III or Edward Colson, the palace said that:

“This is an issue that His Majesty takes profoundly seriously. As His Majesty told the Commonwealth heads of government reception in Rwanda last year: ‘I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact,’ ” a palace spokesperson told The Guardian.

“That process has continued with vigour and determination since His Majesty’s accession. Historic Royal Palaces is a partner in an independent research project, which began in October last year, that is exploring, among other issues, the links between the British monarchy and the transatlantic slave trade during the late 17th and 18th centuries,” they continued. “As part of that drive, the royal household is supporting this research through access to the royal collection and the royal archives.”

[From People]

Here’s where it gets very tricky – notice the careful wording here: “the royal household is supporting this research through access to the royal collection and the royal archives.” The monarchy is famous for refusing academic access to the Windsor archives, the vast records they have of their institutional business dealings, correspondence and decision-making. What *kind* of access is King Charles giving to researchers and academics? I bet the answer is not “unfettered.” But sure, everyone’s giving Charles a cookie because he acknowledged that (gasp) there’s are links between the British monarchy and the slave trade. The bar is in hell – of course he acknowledges the links, because there’s evidence everywhere, in the royal archives, in the archives of governments around the world, in academic archives and on and on.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Shakira dumped Gerard Pique last year when she came home to find some of her jam missing. She started to put the pieces together: Pique had a mistress, he was inviting his mistress into the home he and Shakira shared with their two sons, and he was sleeping with his mistress in their bed. The mistress in question was Clara Chia Marti, who is currently 24 years old (she was 23 when Shakira dumped Pique). Clara became the side-chick-turned-official. Slap a feathered ashy blonde wig on her and she’s Queen Camilla. Soon after Shakira dumped Pique, Clara began acting like she won some kind of f–king prize. Pique has also been defiant and arrogant in the wake of his split. Gerard and Clara seem like peas in a pod. Which makes this completely unsubstantiated rumor even funnier:

Gerard Pique’s separation from Shakira divided the world into two distinct sects. The Spanish defender, who had cheated on his partner at the time, did not show much remorse over his actions after a bottle of jam became his undoing.

Now, SPORT brings headlining news that adds a major twist to the love triangle between Pique, Shakira, and the center-back’s new partner Clara Chia.

According to the Spanish outlet, Chia has not been faithful to the former Barcelona player either. The media find that she could have a secret relationship with Pep Guardiola, the former coach of FC Barcelona. Guardiola is said to know Chia because his children went to the same school as her.

The triangle of infidelity continues to expand and include names one could have never imagined. It is however said that Chia’s affair with Guardiola was to get even with Pique who went behind her back with a young lawyer. There do not seem to be any problems between the couple in their public appearances or social media posts, but one knows that the world of the internet seldom represents reality.

[From Barca Universal]

Y’ALL. “Guardiola is said to know Chia because his children went to the same school as her.” I can’t. This Spanish soap opera is ridiculous. Imagine the coach of FC Barcelona sleeping with Gerard Pique’s side-chick! And Clara cheating on Pique as retaliation for Pique cheating on her!! These people need to get some hobbies. Also: the Mail has a piece about how Clara is trying to morph into Shakira. I cannot.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Pop Faction (@popfaction)

Photos courtesy of Instagram.

You know what I keep forgetting? If King Charles’s coronation follows the standard for most coronations, royal women and noblewomen will have to dress up in their best finery, jewels and tiaras. The Duchess of Hootentooter will have to dust off all of the family heirlooms. The Countess of Biscuitcrow will need to buy a gaudy new dress. The Chubbly will see a lot of women in evening gowns in the middle of the day. Gaudy. Tacky. Which is probably why there are rumors that Charles wants to change up the dress code, although I have my doubts that all of the royal women will have to adhere to whatever “business casual” dress code the palace tries to dictate to make Camilla stand out. Despite reports to the contrary, it’s more than likely that all of the Windsor women will likely wear tiaras – not just the Princess of Wales, but Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh, and Princess Anne and… Princess Charlotte?? Really? Apparently, they might have to find some child-sized tiara for Charlotte.

Royal fans are eagerly awaiting the next time Prince George, nine, Princess Charlotte, seven, and Prince Louis, four, will step into the spotlight after their attendance was confirmed at King Charles III’s coronation. It is understood that the Prince and Princess of Wales’ children will accompany the King and Queen Consort Camilla as they leave Westminster Abbey following the service on Saturday 6 May. The milestone occasion marks a first in royal tradition for the grandchildren of a monarch, who have historically played no active role in a coronation.

The crowning of King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla could also see a major moment for Princess Charlotte, who could be offered the opportunity to wear her first tiara. Traditionally, the wearing of a tiara is a privilege reserved exclusively for married royal women.

The first time a royal lady wears a tiara is usually her wedding day, which includes Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Princess Kate and Meghan Markle. Princess Anne and Princess Marget, however, were not afraid to break the mould of royal etiquette. Anne – the monarch’s only daughter – first wore a tiara at the tender age of 17, and again for her 21st birthday picture. This might be a tradition Charlotte follows, choosing to debut her first tiara in a portrait to commemorate a landmark moment, such as her 18th or 21st.

[From Hello]

Anne and Margaret were “blood princesses” and daughters of the monarch when they first wore their tiaras. Charlotte is a literal child and she’s only the granddaughter of the monarch. Now, don’t get me wrong, I bet William and Kate are both angling for Charlotte to be dressed up as Kate’s mini-me, complete with Royal Collection jewels. But I would also assume that someone will probably advise Peg and Buttons that it’s very inappropriate to put an eight-year-old (her birthday is just a few days before the coronation) in a tiara. Does the child even have pierced ears? I don’t think so. Maybe they’ll give Charlotte some kind of small, fancy brooch to wear.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, Cover Images, Backgrid.

Next week, Time Magazine will reveal their Time 100 list and cover story. The Time 100 is basically a newsy listicle of the 100 most influential people in culture, entertainment, sports, science and politics. Ahead of the Time 100 list, the magazine did a poll of its readers to see who they wanted to see included on the list. This would be the People’s Choice Time 100. Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan took the #1 slot. Iranian women fighting for their rights took the #2 slot. Healthcare workers took #3. Guess who took the fourth slot?

Third and fourth place went to Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, each of whom earned about 1.9% of the vote. The Duke of Sussex made headlines in January after the release of his memoir Spare, which recounts monumental moments ranging from Princess Diana’s death in 1997 to Queen Elizabeth’s death in September. He is also known for founding the Invictus Games, an international sporting competition for wounded, injured and sick service people.

Meghan Markle, a former actress turned humanitarian, now hosts her podcast Archetypes, where her mission is to “investigate, dissect, and subvert the labels that try to hold women back.” She previously narrated the Disney documentary Elephants and has been an advocate for anti-racism and women’s rights. The couple have also launched nonprofit Archewell Foundation, as well as Archewell Productions, which has a creative partnership with Netflix.

[From Time Magazine]

While these readership polls are less scientific than Britain’s fakakta YouGov polls, it’s still yet another sign that the British establishment’s attempts to marginalize and denigrate the Sussexes aren’t working. How many times was that f–king South Park episode mentioned as a “sign” that America “hates” Harry and Meghan? I doubt any British outlet will mention that the Sussexes made the top five of the Time 100 readership poll as consistently as we had to f–king hear about South Park. Also: hahahaha, Time’s readers don’t rate King Charles, Queen Side Chick, Peg or Buttons.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Kylie Jenner and Travis Scott have been over for months, although they’ve always been pretty off-and-on, so no one really knows what they’re up to at any given moment. I haven’t heard much about Timothee Chalamet’s love life in a while, but I’m sure he’s been dating around and working a lot, because that’s his vibe. Well, put the two together and you have a rash of Deuxmoi rumors that Kylie and Timothee are happening.

You guys know how Deuxmoi operates – people just submit sightings, rumors and reports and Deuxmoi posts them on her Instagram. After the first rumor about Kylie and Timmy, someone else submitted some tea about how Kylie and Timmy were together over New Year’s in Aspen. That’s very specific!! Here’s the thing though: hasn’t he been in Europe for the better part of a year working on the Dune sequels? That’s the part which I’m getting stuck on – like, Chalamet is booked solid, he doesn’t have time to hang out in Calabasas with Kylie Jenner. Of course, I also just don’t see it, in general. It’s not that I don’t believe that Chalamet would f–k with a reality star, I just don’t see him f–king with Kylie Jenner specifically. Maybe I’m wrong though, who knows.

RUMOR: Timothée Chalamet and Kylie Jenner are allegedly dating. (DeuxMoi) pic.twitter.com/rYA80mFsiu

— Pop Faction (@PopFactions) April 7, 2023

kylie jenner and timothee chalamet dating feels the same as when two people from your high school that never interacted start dating like 6 years after graduation

— jodie (@jodieegrace) April 6, 2023

the streets are saying timothee chalamet and kylie jenner are dating … the jenners are collecting my men like pokemons, signing OFF pic.twitter.com/SdLAzwEebn

— amie (@aamivv) April 6, 2023

Timothée Chalamet hanging out with Kylie Jenner and her two kids pic.twitter.com/Lz54AyEG94

— Zoë Rose Bryant (@ZoeRoseBryant) April 6, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Tom Sykes does the Royalist column for the Daily Beast. At least once a month, Sykes has an exclusive column about how much Prince William hates his brother. While I don’t doubt that Sykes gets briefings straight from Kensington Palace, I also don’t doubt that William’s “friends” feel like they can speak freely and emphatically about how William is constantly in a state of incandescent rage over all things Harry. I mean, no one is hiding it anymore – every royal reporter says exactly that in so many words. In recent months, we’ve heard from William’s “friends” that William “f–king hates Meghan and Harry now,” that William will not invite his brother to HIS coronation and William thinks Charles is an idiot for extending the invite to Harry. We’ve also heard that William believes that England is “his,” much like he believes Africa is “his” and conservation work is “his.” As in, William doesn’t want Harry to ever step foot in England ever again. Or else what? Or else William will likely violently assault Harry again. In any case, with all of that rage, hatred and violence simmering in England, William is now totally “baffled” why Harry is so reluctant about coming to the coronation.

Prince William is “baffled” by his brother’s reluctance to so far publicly accept his invitation to King Charles’ coronation, a friend of the prince has told The Daily Beast, and thinks Prince Harry is trying to “be difficult” by not announcing his and his wife’s intentions.

Harry and wife Meghan Markle have said that they have been invited to the coronation but have not yet said if they will come. In January, Harry told interviewer Tom Bradby that he needed to have a face to face meeting with his family of origin before attending, and told another interviewer, Bryony Gordon, that he wanted “an apology for my wife,” although without specifically linking it to their attendance at the coronation. Royal sources have insisted that the family will make no such gestures towards Harry and Meghan, firmly believing they have nothing to apologize for.

Meanwhile, the personal friend of William’s, who used to also be friends with Harry but has not maintained the relationship in recent years, told The Daily Beast: “William is baffled by Harry not publicly saying that he is coming to the coronation, especially because everyone thinks he will be there. Relations have never been this bad and it feels like Harry is just stringing it out to try and be difficult, frankly.”

Asked if William thought his brother would ultimately attend, The Daily Beast’s source said, “Everyone thinks he will.”

The king, meanwhile, is “working on the assumption that Harry and Meghan will come,” having not heard anything to the contrary, a friend of the king said, adding that the family and institution as a whole was determined not to be “distracted” by the will-they-won’t-they around Harry and Meghan.

One question likely to be asked in royal circles this weekend—especially if the couple do not make an announcement soon—is how Harry has reacted to the publication of the official coronation invite which unambiguously identified Charles’ wife as “Queen Camilla.”

Asked how William was reacting to Camilla being declared queen, the friend said he “will be enormously supportive.” They said Prince Harry’s description of how he and William had begged their dad not to marry Camilla was “ancient history and completely irrelevant,” and that William was totally focused on supporting his father. They said that while the change in her status from would-be Princess Consort to Queen Consort to Queen Camilla might have appeared rapid to outsiders, it was “no secret” within the family that she “was always going to be queen” and would not likely have come as a surprise to Harry, saying: “This has been on the cards for at least a decade.”

[From The Daily Beast]

This is actually the third piece I’ve read in 24 hours which has made explicit reference to Harry’s January interviews, in which he said outright that one of his preconditions for going to the coronation would be an apology to Meghan. One of the royal courts has briefed The Times, the Daily Mail and now the Daily Beast with the Windsors’ position that no apology will be proffered, that “they have nothing to apologize for,” and that the Windsors have “no desire to pander to his wishes.” Both the Times and the Mail used the word “pander” because (I believe) some courtier used it in the briefing. That’s how they view Harry’s flat request to acknowledge how Meghan was mistreated and have some accountability for everything that went down. That they would be indulging him, pandering to him by acknowledging their sh-tty, racist behavior. So, no apology for Meghan.

Speaking of sh-tty racists, I’m baffled by William’s bafflement here – as I made clear in my opening, William has spent months telling everyone that Harry is basically dead to him, that he f–king hates his brother, that he loathes Meghan and on and on. And now William can’t believe that Harry won’t simply come back when ORDERED. Imagine William being upset because someone else is “difficult.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Keira Knightley is currently promoting Boston Strangler, a film where she plays the real-life Record American reporter Loretta McLaughlin who first referred to the serial killer as “the Boston Strangler” in the 1960s. Keira in a historical drama/thriller? Yes, give it to me. Keira covers Harper’s Bazaar UK to promote the film and she acknowledges that it’s been a while since she’s been on a promotional tour or given an interview to a magazine. She has two daughters, an 8-year-old and a 4-year-old, and she’s still married to James Righton. A big chunk of this interview is Keira talking about how great James is and how he’s a hands-on father who relocates with Keira when she’s filming on location. Some highlights:

She lost her engagement ring on his Bazaar shoot. “I didn’t say anything to my husband when I got home. I’d already been onto the insurance, looked up cheap alternatives online. We were watching TV and I was desperately texting the team to see whether it had been found, and James was like, ‘Who are you texting?!’ I’d make a great spy.” Fortunately, it was found on the balcony and returned to her the next day. “I experienced loss, I came to terms with it, the ring came back. I am whole again.”

The husbands in her friend group are hands-on fathers: “The guys are super-active. Maybe that’s not normal. But [in my situation], it has to be a partnership. The heavy lifting of childcare has to be acknowledged. It’s hard work, it’s vital, it’s undervalued. And it’s so exhausting…. During filming, the hours are unpredictable and extreme. I worked out I needed three people to do what one full-time parent did. When you hear somebody say, ‘I’m just staying home with the kids’, that’s not a ‘just’. That’s a huge thing.”

She dislikes being asked about balance: “We’re constantly asking it, because what we actually want to know is, how are you doing it? Because I don’t feel like I’m doing it.”

Location shoot for ‘Boston Strangler’: “James is a really good traveller – that takes a lot of stress off the logistics. He’s fearless about exploring and doing all the research.” However, they were plunged back into the pandemic as the move coincided with a tidal wave of the Omicron variant. Filming was delayed by 10 days because the whole family caught Covid, and Righton ended up caring for Delilah throughout the production period (which doubled to four months), as group activities were cancelled. “My husband became a full-time dad. I felt a lot of guilt because I had suddenly put my very sociable two-year-old into a situation where she was basically in lockdown the entire time. It was amazingly bad timing. We were foiled by the plague.”

Playing a female journalist: “Women in public spaces – it’s a constant problem. From the everyday office situation, where your voice isn’t being heard, to the most extreme aspect, femicide. The film told an interesting story that covered the whole spectrum.”

Playing Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean. “She was the object of everybody’s lust. Not that she doesn’t have a lot of fight in her. But it was interesting coming from being really tomboyish to getting projected as quite the opposite. I felt very constrained. I felt very stuck. So the roles afterwards were about trying to break out of that.” She considers the period between 2003 and 2008 “a very tricky five-year window… she felt “quite powerless”. “I didn’t have a sense of how to articulate it. It very much felt like I was caged in a thing I didn’t understand.”

Burnout in her 20s: “I was incredibly hard on myself. I was never good enough. I was utterly single-minded. I was so ambitious. I was so driven. I was always trying to get better and better and improve, which is an exhausting way to live your life. Exhausting. I am in awe of my 22-year-old self, because I’d like a bit more of her back. And it’s only by not being like that any longer that I realise how extraordinary it was. But it does have a cost.” What is that cost? “Burnout.” Knightley took two years out from working after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. “There was never an ounce of me that wasn’t going to find a way through.”

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

I remember reading her interviews from her dogsh-t 20s and realizing how overwhelmed and miserable she was during that time. It was like a weight was lifted from her shoulders when she turned 30 and became a mother – it was almost like she was thinking “oh, I don’t have to be the It Girl/ingenue anymore, YAY!” Her husband sounds like a real one, super-supportive of her career and like a really good father. I love that she expected that from him.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Harper’s Bazaar UK (@bazaaruk)

Cover & IG courtesy of Harper’s Bazaar UK.