If I was a monarchist, I could probably make a very basic argument for why King Charles’s coronation will be good for the British economy. It will drive consumerism, tourism will spike, the world’s media will once again descend into London to cover all of these arcane rituals and on and on. But here’s something I don’t get about all of the coronation planning: why isn’t a chunk of the nine-figure bill going towards paid employment? Like, sure, these are temporary jobs around the Chubbly, but work is work, and given the economic crisis in the UK, you would think Charles would be eager to look like his Chubbly was creating jobs (in the short-term). Instead, Buckingham Palace keeps demanding that the serfs work for free for the glory of the king. First it was the bell-ringers, all of whom will be unpaid volunteers (yet will still need extensive training to ring the bells). Now King Charles is looking to get thousands of people to sign up to… volunteer. All to reflect Charles’s “lifetime of public service”?

Britons are being encouraged to take up hundreds of thousands of volunteering roles highlighted as part of coronation celebrations that aim to reflect the sector’s central role in the UK’s “national story”.Love Island star Faye Winter and Dragons’ Den entrepreneur Deborah Meaden are among the celebrities promoting The Big Help Out, with more than 1,500 charities involved.

New opportunities offered to members of the public via the organisation’s app from Monday March 20 include options to help the elderly, the environment, support animal welfare and work within their local communities. The initiative is a formal part of the King’s coronation, with people encouraged to either lend a helping hand on the May 8 bank holiday or arrange another opportunity to volunteer their time or skills.

The Big Help Out app can be searched by postcode, the type of activity needed or the organisations involved. The project aims to raise awareness of volunteering opportunities throughout the UK and was devised by leading charities, including the Scouts, the Royal Voluntary Service and Guide Dogs.

Organisers hope for an unprecedented community mobilisation to “underscore the central role volunteering plays in our national story” and to inspire a new generation of volunteers throughout Charles’s reign. The minister for ceremonial events, including the coronation, Stuart Andrew, said: “The Big Help Out will shine a spotlight on the power of volunteering to help our communities. It is a tribute to His Majesty the King’s lifetime of public service and a wonderful way to begin this new age.

[From The Independent]

One, Charles is acting like he invented A Day of Service. That’s been a thing for a while, at least here in America. Two, Charles’s “lifetime of public service” isn’t unpaid volunteerism – he’s been paid handsomely with multiple castles, mansions, palaces, halls, manors and villas, not to mention taxpayers picking up the tab for his stupid Chubbly party. Once again, wouldn’t the actual message of “look at all of the temporary jobs we’re creating here, this will be a boost to the economy” be a much better argument? Instead, the man who’s blowing through $100 million-plus in taxpayer money is ALSO asking the serfs to donate their day off to volunteer in his name.

The comments and quote-tweets here are amazing.

How and why you should volunteer for the King’s coronation https://t.co/TdLf6cNJV6

— The Independent (@Independent) March 20, 2023

Photos courtesy of Instar, Avalon Red.

I’m struggling to come up with some kind of American equivalent to Britain’s coronation. Let’s go with the Fourth of July – in cities, towns and counties around America, local governments will organize various taxpayer-funded celebrations for Independence Day. Those celebrations might include a parade, a fireworks display, a concert, what have you. I think most taxpayers support that because those celebrations are for everyone and it’s a national holiday. Apparently, local councils in Britain don’t want to spend any money on “coronation parties,” even though King Charles clearly wants his coronation to be celebrated as a national holiday. The problem is, on a local and national level, Charles’s subjects are really struggling financially. So… there simply isn’t money to spend in many district councils.

King Charles’s local council is one of almost 100 tight-fisted authorities spending nothing on celebrating his Coronation. Cotswold District Council is among the 83 party pooper town halls snubbing the day. The unpatriotic authorities have been branded “disgraceful” and “disappointing” as Brits are being urged to get behind the first Coronation in 70 years on May 6.

For the past 43 years, Charles has lived at Highgrove House in Tetbury, Gloucs. But the Lib Dem-led Cotswold administration has no plans to mark his crowning ceremony.

Local Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “I think it’s an utter disgrace. They could at least find something, particularly with our royal connections — I think people are happy with our Royal connections here. I would expect Cotswold District Council to do something, particularly when we have Highgrove in the area.”

People are being gifted an extra bank holiday to celebrate Charles’s Coronation, with festivities planned to run between May 6 and May 8 across the UK. But our Freedom of Information request revealed the councils not allocating any money to it. They include Camden Council in North West London — home to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer. Authorities in Bolton, Leeds, Southend, Leicester, Brighton and Middlesbrough have also not set aside any money. There is anger at Labour-led Sunderland City Council’s lack of funds for the May festivities.

The leader of the Tory opposition there, Antony Mullen, said: “It is disgraceful that the council has chosen to allow a niche political view held by a small number of hard-left councillors to prevent residents across our city who want to celebrate the Coronation.”

[From The Sun]

From an economic perspective, I understand why various localities would want to spend the money to host celebrations, simply because that money is being spent within the community, you know? Local vendors, local grocery stories and local pubs, all benefiting from people coming out and buying drinks and little Union Jack flags and what have you. But I also understand why it doesn’t make sense in the middle of Britain’s enormous cost-of-living crisis. People are going broke trying to heat their homes. As Omid Scobie points out, many of the councils which are not allocating money for the Chubbly are the same ones struggling to fund libraries, street maintenance, public parks, etc. Basically, the coronation is a huge waste of money at every level, money which would be much better spent improving the lives of the king’s subjects.

Many of the country’s councils can barely afford to keep libraries open, maintain public parks and cemeteries, run free school travel for special needs students, fix potholes, clean the streets, support the arts… the list goes on. A street party is the LEAST of their concerns. pic.twitter.com/6YYBOgCbJt

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) March 19, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

A lying, charter-school Karen tried to come for Quinta Brunson and Quinta told her off and fact-checked her. [Buzzfeed]
Will Smith went to Saudi Arabia to support his friend Lewis Hamiliton. [Just Jared]
Tom Holland has “Z” stitched into all of his pants?? [Jezebel]
Tyga bought Avril Lavigne an $80K necklace? [Dlisted]
Keanu Reeves is enjoying being Keanu Reeves. [LaineyGossip]
Should we watch Lucky Hank? [Pajiba]
What were the worst Oscar looks this year? [Go Fug Yourself]
Tilda Swinton is very into Charles Jeffrey Loverboy. [RCFA]
Genie Bouchard wore green for St. Patrick’s Day. [Egotastic]
These Love After Lockup stories always end with “and then he was arrested again and he went back to prison.” [Starcasm]
Demi Moore posted a video with her ex-husband Bruce Willis. [Seriously OMG]
Some thoughts on “sensitivity readers.” [Towleroad]

you’re wrong and bad at research. I only attended a charter for high school. My public elementary school was transitioned to charter over a decade after I left. I did love my high school. That school is now defunct- which happens to charters often.

— quinta brunson (@quintabrunson) March 16, 2023

Last week, Oprah Winfrey appeared on CBS This Morning to promote her latest Oprah Book Club pick. During the interview, Gayle King (Oprah’s BFF) asked Oprah about whether the Sussexes should go to the coronation. Oprah replied, diplomatically: “I think they should do what they feel is best for them and their family. That’s what I think. That’s what the bottom line comes down to. What do you feel like is the right thing for you? They haven’t asked me my opinion.” Reading it back, it sounds like Oprah is making her peace with the idea that the Sussexes will probably end up going, even though Prince Harry’s dogsh-t father is making it clear that the Sussexes will be treated poorly. In any case, Dan Wootton saw the Oprah clip and he decided to fill his Daily Mail column with rage about how Black women need to sit down, shut up and listen to him. There’s a really f–ked up part where Wootton references Prince William violently assaulting his brother too.

Oprah’s CBS comments: Oprah Winfrey is now a sworn enemy of the British Royal Family. So while she might regard herself as the queen of the US chat show, it’s high time she shuts her big gob when it comes to highly sensitive matters relating to the coronation of King Charles. In yet another bid to destabilise our monarchy, following her despicable TV hit piece where she allowed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to utter countless mistruths, including fantastical racism claims, without a hint of journalistic pushback, she has now weighed in on the crisis surrounding the Sussexes potential attendance at the event of great significance.

The Sussexes should not consider their own feelings! Harry and Meghan have not once done what’s best for their family, illustrated by the fact they granted Oprah their vile score-settling ‘interview’ as Prince Philip was literally on his deathbed. And, for once, this decision should not be about what is right for them. Of course, it’s right for Harry and Meghan to be at the Coronation. Despite displaying a visceral hatred for the institution and the members of their family within it, the Duke and Duchess of Woke have had a crushing realisation recently that their proximity to the Royal Family is largely responsible for whether the Hollywood pay cheques will keep on rolling in. Their stock is lifted for their paymasters like Netflix and Spotify – both companies suffering from commissioning too much woke content ­– if they’re seen at one of the most consequential royal events in living memory.

But the Sussexes’ attendance wouldn’t be right for Peg!! But the Sussex sideshow overshadowing the crowning of our new monarch is absolutely not the right thing for Harry and Meghan’s family. Especially not Prince William, still understandably incandescent with rage over the string of attacks about him published in Harry’s vindictive autobiography Spare, including accusations of violence and bullying, which had all their context removed and whose effect was to cast a shadow over the future king’s reputation forever more.

Meghan is “obsessed” with American morning shows? Meghan is obsessed with US breakfast TV, believing it’s the best way to turn increasingly sceptical Americans to her floundering cause. While still in the Royal Family, I remember one of the Sussex Survivor Club members telling me that Meghan was so obsessed with the big three US breakfast anchors – Savannah Guthrie of NBC’s Today Show, Robin Roberts on ABC’s Good Morning America and her aforementioned pal Gayle on CBS Mornings – that announcements would often be timed to coincide with their programmes going to air at 7am New York time, with her advisers offering special briefings to the famous anchors. And Meghan hangs on every word uttered by Gayle and Oprah in particular, who she regards as queens of the American celebrity woke movement, of which she is so desperate to be a part. The message to Meghan from her pair of faux friends came through loud and clear: We need you to be at the coronation in order for us to retain our own influence as your powerhouse American media mates.

[From The Daily Mail]

The rest of the column just sinks further and further down into Wootton’s delusions about a woke cabal of royal-obsessed Black power brokers, all of whom need to “butt out” of white men’s business, namely, the monarchy. It’s also hilarious that Wootton can’t pick a f–king lane to save his life: the Sussexes MUST come, but even if they do, it’s only because that’s what their “paymasters” want, but their attendance isn’t wanted by William (who is engorged with rage) or Charles. And the part about “accusations of violence and bullying, which had all their context removed and whose effect was to cast a shadow over the future king’s reputation forever more.” Like… is there a context in which William’s violent assault of his brother is acceptable?

The thing about Meghan being “obsessed” with American morning shows is news to me, and it’s especially interesting given the Windsors’ interest in appealing to the American media. Honestly, many of the Windsors’ announcements are timed specifically for the American media time zones and that didn’t start with Meghan. Also: Wootton trying to insult Gayle and Oprah… whew, I wish both women were as petty as me, because I would rip him a new one in their place.

Photos courtesy of CBS/Harpo.

In 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex “paid back” the cost of renovating Frogmore Cottage, the dilapidated servant’s quarters on the Royal Windsor estate. They had already paid, in real time, for all of the furnishings and all of the “decor” (paint, finishes, wallpaper). But once they had enough money, they “reimbursed” the Crown Estates for the full cost of the renovation (reportedly around $3 million). Later, the Crown Estate and the National Audit Office confirmed that in addition to the reimbursement for a property they didn’t own, the Sussexes also paid a lump-sum lease payment to continue their lease on Frogmore for the foreseeable future. Meaning, instead of paying a monthly rent, the Sussexes forked over a huge lump sum upfront. In 2022, the National Audit Office said it was “satisfied” with the arrangement and called it a “good deal” for the Sovereign Grant. Well, someone in Buckingham Palace decided to lie about the arrangement and you would think that Frogmore Cottage is the only royal property in the entire Crown Estate.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex struck a deal with Buckingham Palace to pay no further rent on Frogmore Cottage after refunding the £2.4 million taxpayers paid for its refurbishment, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. It had been reported that the Sussexes would pay a ‘commercial rate’ for the five-bedroom mansion on the Windsor estate. But Palace officials last night confirmed that the lump-sum payment wiped out the couple’s rental obligations as the increased value of the property following the work was taken as ‘rent in lieu’.

It’s estimated the property would cost between £150,000 and £230,000 a year to rent, which means that the Sussexes may have saved up to £690,000. They will not renew their lease when it ends later this month.

A Palace spokesperson said: ‘The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a contribution of £2.4 million to the Sovereign Grant which covered the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage. They have fulfilled their financial obligations in relation to the property. In line with usual practice for the Sovereign Grant report, the accounting treatment was scrutinised and signed off by the National Audit Office and the Treasury. As with any such agreement between landlord and tenant, further details regarding the Sussexes’ tenancy arrangements would be a private matter.’

But last night one critic reacted angrily to the emergence of the deal. Norman Baker, a former Cabinet Minister and Privy Counsellor, said: ‘It is outrageous that Harry and Meghan should be able to live in a huge house on these terms while regular people struggle to put food on the table.’ He is now demanding to know how many Royal Family properties are rented out below the market rate.

The Sussexes quit Royal duties officially in March 2020 and a Palace spokesman told the BBC they would continue to pay a ‘commercial rate’ of rent on the property. In fact, they paid five months’ rent but then gave a £2.4 million lump sum in September to cover the refurbishment costs. Today we can reveal that a deal was agreed in which the payment wiped out any further financial obligations.

It was not a deal which was publicly announced by the Palace. Nor was it easy to see by looking at the official Sovereign Grant reports which outline public spending on the monarchy. Last night Buckingham Palace confirmed that the £2.4 million was split into three headings and recorded across two sets of accounts. In the 2020/21 figures, the lump sum is listed as both ‘rental income’ and as ‘recharges for functions and other income’.

[From The Daily Mail]

So now the Palace is telling the media that Harry *only* reimbursed the cost of the renovation and he did not pay for the lease extension? No, because… everyone made it clear in 2021 and 2022 that Harry did both: he reimbursed the Crown Estate for the cost of the renovation AND he paid a lump sum towards the lease. The palace is basically admitting as much, saying that the money was “split” between reimbursement and rental income. Is the palace saying that Harry only “paid” £2.4 million and that’s the exact amount of the renovation cost, so they gave him a sweetheart deal on the lease? Yeah, that doesn’t sound like Buckingham Palace. Clearly, Harry and Meghan believed they were paid up on a valid lease too. Anyway, the Sussexes better be reimbursed fully for everything they put into Frogmore (and I think that’s what this is about – Charles looking for a reason to avoid reimbursement to the Sussexes).

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

For weeks now, there’s been talk about whether Prince William and Kate’s children would be included in the coronation. It was said that King Charles felt strongly about including Prince George front and center, to create a visual reminder of the line of succession. Then Queen Camilla decided the Chubbly would be her victory lap, and that her children and grandchildren all needed to be front-and-center for all of the coronation activities. Suddenly, William and Kate seemed… less than pleased. There’s definitely a feeling that Camilla is pulling “rank,” and using her authority to write out Diana and her sons. So, obviously, William’s reaction is to put all three of his children in the coronation procession. That’s what this is about: William vs. Camilla, despite the Telegraph trying to make it seem like it’s about Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are all expected to take part in the King’s Coronation procession from Westminster Abbey back to Buckingham Palace, it has emerged. The three children, who will be aged nine, eight and five by the time of the May 6 ceremony, all feature in the Coronation rehearsal plans, according to reports. They will join their parents, the Prince and Princess of Wales, in a carriage behind the King and Queen, who will be in the Gold State Coach.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussexes’ children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, are not currently factored into the plans, The Telegraph understands. The couple have not yet confirmed their own attendance but if they do come, they are not expected to take part in the post-Coronation procession that will be reserved for working members of the Royal family, according to The Times. Kensington Palace has not yet confirmed the attendance of any of their children and is unlikely to do so until the day, given their tender years.

The Prince and Princess are still said to be “pondering” whether to take the lively Prince Louis, who turns five next month, but are thought likely to include him. Prince George, as a future king, is expected to take on an official role in the ceremony.

It comes after it emerged that the Queen Consort’s grandchildren will also have an official role at the ceremony. Her son, Tom Parker Bowles, has two children aged 15 and 13 and her daughter, Laura Lopes, has a 15-year-old daughter and twins aged 13. It is thought that the boys may be pages.

[From The Telegraph]

Ah, the “procession.” Yet another thing to which Prince Harry must be excluded. No wonder William suddenly wants all three kids involved in that. What are the options for the actual ceremony though? Louis and Charlotte will get to ride in a carriage through the streets of London, and then they’ll be fobbed off on Nanny Maria as soon as they arrive at Westminster Abbey? Cute. Anyway, I maintain that this is mostly about William’s irritation over Camilla’s grandchildren being front-and-center, but yeah, some of it is about Harry too. William and Charles are so obsessed with visually snubbing Harry that they refuse to consider how wrong it will look to exclude the king’s younger son, the fifth in line to the throne, from the procession. Oh well, if they’re too stupid, vindictive and racist to see it, it’s not our problem.

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

Prince Harry is involved in so many lawsuits, especially about his security in the UK. Living in Montecito, Harry and Meghan pay for private security and their security is (seemingly) very efficient – their movements are barely tracked and it does feel like the Montecito community is very protective of their royal neighbors. The problem comes when Harry travels to the UK, because his private security cannot be armed in the country, and Harry would like some level of coordination with Royal Protection and the Met, especially given his royal status and his status as a veteran. For that coordination, Harry has repeatedly offered to reimburse the police. The Daily Mail decided that Harry’s offer of reimbursement was a lie, a bit of PR, and they published an unhinged screed about how evil he was to lie about wanting to pay back the police for his security when he was in the UK. So, Harry sued the Mail for libel AND he sued the Home Office over their refusal to coordinate with his private security AND allow him to reimburse the police. The Home Office legal drama has been playing out for a while, and here’s an awful new update:

Prince Harry was told to give 28 days notice of his planned trips to the UK so that his security requests could be assessed, it has emerged. The Duke of Sussex was informed that it would then be a matter for the Home Office to consider whether the requested security arrangements were necessary, following his decision to “step back” from royal duties.

A furious Prince Harry hit back, demanding that the Home Office committee responsible for royal security give him an example of someone with the same threat assessment as him who had received no security after leaving public duty.

He also criticised the arrangements for his family’s visit to Britain in June 2021 for the memorial events for Diana, Princess of Wales, describing them as “patchy, disjointed and inadequate”.

Details of the dispute between the Duke and the Home Office over his future security arrangements were disclosed in legal documents relating to Prince Harry’s libel claim against the Mail on Sunday, which hinges on an allegedly “false claim” concerning his willingness to pay for his own police protection in the UK. The Duke is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over an article published last February concerning his legal challenge against the Government’s decision to deny him and his family the right to automatic protection.

The Duke won a judicial review against the Home Office’s decision to deny his family automatic security in September 2021. A date for the hearing has not yet been set, but the documents released as part of his legal battle with Associated Newspapers reveal the bitterness of the dispute over security arrangements.

In a summary of his claim against the Home Office’s Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC), Prince Harry’s lawyers state that he is “gravely concerned about his safety and security during future trips to the UK” and that he feels he has no choice but to take legal action “given the gravity of what is at stake for him and his family… The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been subject to intense media scrutiny, hostile social media attention, and targeting by violent extremists due to (amongst other things) the [Duke’s] ten years of military service in the British Army, the Duchess of Sussex’s race and their involvement in charitable and other social justice initiatives.”

The Duke’s lawyers say that the requirement to give 28 days notice of a visit, during which a case by case decision would be made by RAVEC whether to provide him with security, creates uncertainty and could threaten his safety. They state: “It hinders their ability to plan for and manage his security arrangements; may lead to [the Duke’s] actual arrangements being inadequate and compromise his ultimate security.”

[From The Telegraph]

RAVEC has really had it out for Harry from the word go. RAVEC is the group which decides all of the royal protection issues, who gets what kind of protection, and whether protection should follow rank or threat. Ravec is made up of palace advisors and high-ranking police officers, and Harry has been slowly peeling back the layers of Ravec’s operations over the past year. I’m astonished by the widespread belief in the UK that security is attached to rank solely, not threat. Meaning, they believe that because Harry is “not a working royal” and “not the heir,” they can play fast and loose with his life and his security. That’s not the way any of this should work. As for the 28-day notice thing… yeah, this has always been about control. The Windsors want to control Harry and Meghan at all times, especially when they’re in the UK.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Once in a while a celebrity reminds me what a joy my job can be. Pedro Pascal is a lovely man and I’m lucky to get paid to watch his shows and interviews. I’m happy that everyone is recognizing what an immense talent and sweet man he is. Pedro did an interview with First We Feast earlier this month that I’m just getting around to watching now. Sean Evans does solid, in depth interviews as celebrities eat increasingly hot chicken wings. He typically asks about their careers and doesn’t seem like a gossip trying to get pull quotes. Maybe that’s why so many celebrities like him, along with the crazy challenge of the show. My favorite parts were when Pedro talked about how much he admires Nicolas Cage, with whom he starred in 2022’s The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, and when he described how Prince’s music moves him. Here are some quotes and you can see the interview below!

I know that you’re a fan of Nicholas Cage before you starred alongside him. Do you have a Mt. Rushmore of Nicolas Cage movies
The earlier ones because of how impressionable they are but Raising Arizona, Peggy Sue got married, Face-Off. I got a soft spot for Moonstruck and it isn’t even about having a big swing in terms of performance it is actually highly intelligent choice making in his acting. It was really amazing to do homework for that movie and re-watch all these movies that I’d already seen so many times. Adaptation is maybe one of the best screen performances in the history of American cinema but the four that I mentioned have a personal place in my development.

What makes Captain Crunch the top dog of breakfast cereals for you?
Captain Crunch is just so tasty… it makes you think about your childhood and I would do anything to go back there.

As somebody who grew up in San Antonio can you break down the difference between good Tex-Mex and bad Tex-Mex
There’s no good Mexican food in New York. Come for me.

Why is Prince’s Purple Rain the song you’d most want to hear at your funeral?
It’s my favorite song. It’s the most moving song. I don’t know why it always emerges even before I actively just started implementing it into my spiritual routine. I didn’t go to church, I was raised by HBO, Spielberg and Prince. Purple Rain is like the most emotionally cathartic, the most musically sophisticated song that I can think of. If it’s casually or spontaneously playing somewhere I don’t have emotional space to go there because it just moves me so deeply.

[Adapted from YouTube transcript]

I watched The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent on Starz over the weekend and Pedro was such a standout in that movie! He does comedy expertly and was mesmerizing on screen with Nicolas Cage. While I’ve seen most of the Cage movies Pedro mentions and would add The Rock and Con Air to his list, I’m not a big fan and would have tuned out if Pedro wasn’t his costar. Oh and I have to say that although I enjoyed the finale of The Last of Us you could really tell that it was adapted from a video game. The plot, especially in the last episode, was not realistic but I guess you could say that of so many post apocalyptic survival shows.

As a New York girl I can’t comment on his controversial stance that there’s no good Mexican food in New York. I will defer to Hecate’s coverage of this very important issue. As for the quote in the title – I related to this so much except I was raised by HBO, John Hughes and Depeche Mode. Pedro is a couple of years younger than me and we had HBO running in the background constantly in our house.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: Getty and Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon

In 2021, suddenly there was a lot of talk about Prince Michael of Kent and his decades of shady business dealings. At the time, Prince Michael of Kent was considered a working royal, often representing the crown at public events and official events. He was also considered someone of an unofficial ambassador to Russia, where he traveled extensively and visited frequently. As it turns out, Prince Michael has made a lot of money in Russia and a lot of money acting on Russia’s behalf. He also exploited his royal connections for profit. It got even worse last year when Russia invaded Ukraine, and it looked like the Windsors were sheltering a Russian asset. Well, soon after QEII’s Jubbly, Prince Michael and his racist wife seemingly announced that they were “retiring” from public life. While I had my doubts at the time, I do think that they’ve mostly retired now, under King Charles III. But all this time, Michael still had his private “consulting” business… only now he’s shutting that down too.

His poise and bearing are truly monarchical — as is the beard which makes him look remarkably like his grandfather, George V. But there’s never been anything regal about Prince Michael of Kent’s need to pay his own way.

So King Charles will be heartened by the latest development in Prince Michael’s commercial affairs. I can reveal that he and his wife — the statuesque Marie-Christine, formally known as Princess Michael — are closing their business, Cantium Services.

It comes less than a year after Prince Michael, 80, a fluent Russian speaker, told undercover reporters posing as gold investors that he could be hired to make ‘confidential’ representations to Vladimir Putin’s regime — for £10,000 a day.

‘I have never had any close connection before with gold and the idea makes me very happy,’ he added. Prince Michael was less happy when it became apparent that he’d been recorded by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme and by a Sunday newspaper. His spokesman subsequently issued a statement, explaining that Prince Michael had ‘no special relationship’ with Putin, having last met him in 2003 and having had ‘no contact with him or his office since then’.

Today, the Prince’s spokesman declines to comment on the application at Companies House to ‘strike off’ Cantium. But it would appear to mark the end of an era for the ‘Rent-a-Kents’, as the couple were cruelly known. The company — Prince Michael owns more than 75 per cent, and he and Princess Michael are the only directors — was founded in 1978, the year they married.

They were always candid about the scope of their money-making ventures, with Princess Michael, 78, declaring that she would ‘go anywhere for a hot meal’ — and seemingly proving the point by attending the opening of a Happy Eater on the A3 near Guildford.

[From The Daily Mail]

When the extent of Prince Michael’s shady dealings first began to be reported, I remember wondering just how much money he had stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Because that’s what it sounds like – yes, the Kents made a point of crying poverty, but Prince Michael has spent the better part of 45 years as a well-paid Russian asset. You’ve got to think he has several nest eggs stashed away all over the place. He certainly wasn’t paying for his “grace and favor” apartment in Kensington Palace for decades (QEII picked up the rent) and he received some Sovereign Grant money too, over the years.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Avalon Red.

As a die-hard Sarah Michelle Gellar fan, I definitely watched both Scooby-Doo movies, but this is the first I’m hearing that they were originally supposed to be R-rated. Um, what the what? Anyway, Freddie Prinze Jr. said he regrets the version of Scooby Doo that they ended up doing. He says the studio pulled a “bait and switch” with the project and the script he agreed to was not the one they ended up filming.

Freddie Prinze Jr. probably won’t be going blonde to play Fred Jones ever again.

The actor, wife Sarah Michelle Gellar, Matthew Lillard and Linda Cardellini all starred in two live-action “Scooby-Doo” movies back in the early 2000s. The films were both directed by Raja Gosnell and written by James Gunn, who, of course, went on to become a massive name in pop culture thanks to “Guardians of the Galaxy” and his new gig as co-CEO of DC Studios.

The two films raked in a lot of cash at the box office for Warner Bros., though they weren’t exactly critically-appreciated hits. While kids back in the day were fans, the projects left something to be desired for older audiences who grew up on the cartoons. In the years since the movies, both Prinze Jr. and Gunn have confirmed that the script for the first movie was actually a much more adult film — with Gunn saying it actually received an R-rating from the MPAA before drastic cuts were made to get it down to PG. The R-rated cut is a thing of legend, but, according to Gunn, “doesn’t exist anymore.”

With fans still holding out hope for a more mature Scooby-Doo, TooFab asked Lillard if he’d be down to do one with the original cast at Comic-Con last year. He said he would, before Prinze chimed in on Twitter saying, “Rightly or wrongly they don’t have the guts to make that movie.” Gunn eventually added to the thread, saying, “I think they’d do it if we asked. I just don’t think I have the time right now!”

“It wouldn’t be something I would do. I have zero interest … It wouldn’t be for me, man,” he recently told TooFab, before calling out Warner Bros. “There was too much bait and switch on the first one, the studio was not honest with me in any way, shape or form. They were not straight forward in any way, shape or form.”

“It wasn’t the best. I’ve been on two jobs where I had regret doing it and Scooby was one of them,” he added. Prinze has previously said the script he was handed when he landed in Australia to film was totally different from the one he signed on to make … and even considered quitting the project on the spot.

“I’m a really honest guy, man … when I get lied to, you’re dead to me, I don’t trust you ever again. I’m telling you, ever again,” he continued. “So some of those people would have to still be involved if it got remade. And that’s not any business I want to be involved with.”

“I’m only gonna work with people I love and respect and who love and respect me,” said Prinze Jr. “I only want to work with people that I love and respect or are looking for an opportunity to earn my respect and vice versa.”

While the finished product was not what he wanted to make, the actor said he has come around to appreciating his time as Fred thanks to the reaction from fans in the years since.

“I didn’t fully appreciate Scooby until it was seen and children came up to me, like, ‘Oh my gosh,’” he explained.

“And when I was able to appreciate the experience through their souls — because that’s what they’re doing, they’re bearing their souls, ‘When I was a kid, I watched this and I made my dad watch it 30 times’ and they’re sharing their life, that’s your soul, right? — then all of a sudden I was like, ‘Hey, man, we did good,’” he continued. “We did good, there’s legit millions of people that love this movie. It wasn’t the movie I wanted to make, but I appreciate that and it made me change my outlook on it.”

[From TooFab.com]

I do think it’s for the best that they did not film an R-rated version of a children’s cartoon. Even the HBO version of Gossip Girl was uncomfortable, imagine an R-rated Scooby-Doo. Apparently, that R-rated Scooby script was written by James Gunn, which suddenly makes that rating make sense. Anyway, I get what Freddie is saying here. It’s not so much that he’s disappointed the movie wasn’t R-rated, but he’s upset that he was lied to and that the script was changed so much from the version he first saw. That makes sense, but I imagine it happens all the time with the finished product being quite different from what was originally pitched. Freddie seems to take a hard line about stuff and maybe that’s why he doesn’t work as much anymore. It does seem like he appreciates Scooby for what it was now. I wonder if SMG feels similarly. And I was surprised to learn that the thing he regrets most isn’t that horrible blonde wig.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by JJ’s Reviews (@jjsreviews2)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Freddie Prinze (@realfreddieprinze)

Photo note by CB: Some of these photos are from the 2002 Netflix movie Christmas With You starring Aimee Garcia and Freddie Prinze Jr. Credit: Netflix. He is also shown at the premiere of Wolf Pack with Sarah Michelle Gellar. Credit: MediaPunch/Backgrid, Jeffrey Mayer/Avalon