Ah, the return of the Hollywood Reporter’s Brutally Honest Oscar Ballot, here we go. Voting just ended for the Oscars, so THR will publish, on average, about three or four “Oscar Ballot” stories, where Oscar voters talk to Scott Feinberg about why they’re voting a certain way. The first ballot this year is pretty bonkers – this guy is a member of “867-person short films and feature animation branch,” and while he loves Everything Everywhere All At Once, the rest of his opinions are… pretty noteworthy. Some highlights:

His thoughts on Best Picture: “Women Talking was not bad — the acting and directing were really good — but I didn’t love it. I enjoyed The Fabelmans — [Steven] Spielberg did his Spielberg thing and directed the hell out of it — but it was a little long. Triangle of Sadness was so funny and well-written, and I love its commentary about class — the best since Parasite.”

On Tar & Top Gun: “Cate [Blanchett] was absolutely incredible in Tár, but the movie takes too long to get to its point. Top Gun [Maverick] was a fantastic thrill ride and it got people back into movie theaters and I’m glad it’s nominated — popularity is not a bad thing — but the story is pretty simple and straightforward, and I was weirded out by the faceless-enemy aspect of it. The Scientology thing [producer/star Tom Cruise’s affiliation with the church], on the other hand, doesn’t really bother me — punishing the movie is not going to make Tom Cruise leave Scientology.

He loved Elvis: “Austin [Butler] was so mind-blowing in Elvis that I watched it multiple times; the movie was fun, but it’s all about the performance. Banshees was so good, with a really funny and concise script. But for me, it’s a very close call between All Quiet on the Western Front and Everything Everywhere All at Once. They’re so different, but the execution of what they were trying to do is near perfect. All Quiet is one of the best antiwar movies ever made. It made me feel the dirtiness and grittiness and nastiness of war in a way that most movies don’t; it really put you in the f–king trenches. And Everything Everywhere is, to me, as a filmmaker, one of the most inspiring things I’ve ever seen. For someone to make a movie with a nearly all-Asian cast and tell this crazy, mind-bending, time-jumping story? It makes me believe that it’s possible to not have an Avatar-sized budget and not be Baz Luhrmann or Steven Spielberg and still make something that’s personal and cultural and can still be thought of as a potential best picture Oscar winner.

Best Director: “Tár [directed by Todd Field] is more about the performance than the directing and Banshees [directed by Martin McDonagh] is more about the writing than the directing. Ruben [Östlund] put a real stamp on Triangle. Steven did an amazing job with The Fabelmans, and it’s cool that it’s such a personal story. But what the Daniels [Everything Everywhere’s Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert] did across the board, with limited resources, was really remarkable. VOTE: Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, Everything Everywhere All at Once

Best Actor: “Paul Mescal [of Aftersun] is out immediately — he’s a great actor, but I’m confused about all the excitement over that movie. Bill Nighy is so great in Living and Colin [Farrell] is so great in Banshees. After I saw The Whale, Brendan Fraser being my choice. And then I sat down and watched Elvis, and I was so blown away by Austin Butler’s performance that I watched Elvis again that same week. He’s the clear winner, to me. And if you’re going to give Rami Malek an Oscar for Bohemian Rhapsody, when he wasn’t even singing, then you can’t not give it to Austin. This kid literally got a new voice! VOTE: Austin Butler, Elvis

Why he voted for Michelle Yeoh: “I would’ve definitely put Danielle Deadwyler [for Till] above Michelle Williams [for The Fabelmans] or Ana de Armas [for Blonde] — it felt like nobody cared about Blonde after it came out, so I was really surprised that she got nominated. I’d heard about Andrea Riseborough and To Leslie before the nominations, only because I kept seeing Academy members who were in that little camp posting about it on social media. That didn’t bother me at the time because it felt like it was going nowhere. Then when she got nominated, I thought about it some more. The performance is great — not the greatest of all time, as Kate Winslet lied to me, but great — but the way she was sort of muscled-in felt very Mafia-ish, like the people with the power decided that this should happen, so it did. For me, it was really close between [Tár’s] Cate [Blanchett] and [Everything Everywhere All at Once’s] Michelle [Yeoh]. Cate gets lost in Lydia Tár — it’s such an incredible performance — but to see what Michelle, a woman who’s so overdue, did in her movie, with the action and the fighting and the emotion? I had to pick Michelle. Tie goes to the person who hasn’t won over the person who already has two.

Best Supporting Actress: “Kerry [Condon of The Banshees of Inisherin] and Hong Chau [of The Whale] were fine. I think Jamie Lee Curtis could win for Everything Everywhere — she’s been a part of Hollywood since she was a child — even though Stephanie Hsu was better in the movie. But I’m hoping that the Academy stops treating Marvel movies like second-class citizens and recognizes that Angela’s [Bassett of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever] performance is great — she performed the f–k out of that role — and that, considering her body of work too, she’s long overdue.

[From THR]

Personally, I think people will vote for Michelle Yeoh and Angela Bassett for the same reason: they’ve been working forever, it’s not solely about this one singular performance but their body of work, and they both deserve it. And that’s fine, I agree, they’re both amazing women who deserve everything. But I’m irritated that this guy dismisses Tar as an overlong slog which is solely about Cate’s performance and then… doesn’t vote for Cate’s performance?? Like, Tar is the masterpiece here, it’s the film – this year – which people are going to be like “why didn’t that sweep the Oscars?” in ten, twenty years. His talk about Andrea Riseborough, Danielle Deadwyler, Ana de Armas and Michelle Williams is funny though – I agree that Ana and Andrea shouldn’t have been nominated, although I loved Michelle Williams in The Fabelmans. And truly, I will burn it all down if Austin F–king Butler wins the Oscar. What is it with rewarding these dumb f–king musical bio-pics?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid, promotional images from Tar, EEAAO, Elvis and To Leslie.

It’s no longer noteworthy when King Charles and Queen (Consort) Camilla face protests whenever they’re out in public. In the six months since QEII’s passing, the protests and demonstrations have been happening at a steady clip. Whether it’s egg-tossers, blank-paper protesters, anti-monarchy protesters or specifically anti-Charles or anti-Camilla people, it’s definitely a new era for vocal opposition of the British monarchy. The British media is so focused on “the Sussexes’ unpopularity” and “the Sussexes will be booed if they come back” that they’re all forcing themselves to ignore the steady drum of disrespect for the monarchy in general. Well, on Wednesday, Charles and Camilla were in Colchester. As soon as they got out of the car, hecklers and protesters started up.

The King and Queen Consort were met with a mix of boos and cheers as the royal couple visited Colchester today to celebrate its city status. As Charles and Camilla got out of a car, a crowd of anti-monarchy protesters had gathered, with one saying through a megaphone: ‘Answer your critics Charles.’

The protester also said ‘why are you wasting our money?’, and ‘don’t you believe in democracy Charles?’.

The King waved to gathered crowds before going through a gate into Colchester Castle’s grounds, but did not appear to acknowledge the protesters who were stood on the far side of the road behind a police presence. Colchester was awarded city status during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations last year, and officially became a city in November.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah… it’s like the Mail is only capable of breaking into their 24-7 Sussex hatefest to mention, in passing, that the king faced some protests, but we won’t talk about it beyond this one story. By all accounts, the Sussexit and the Sussexes’ interviews, memoir and Netflix series have done significant damage to Brand Windsor. Add to that, Charles and Camilla were always going to be historically unpopular given who they are and their past and current behavior. So here we have it: an open conspiracy to ignore the fact that Charles and Camilla face protests practically every time they leave one of their eleventy billion homes.

Their Majesties arrive at Colchester Library – there were a few very vocal protestors among the crowds pic.twitter.com/VByaWmXoBv

— Rebecca English (@RE_DailyMail) March 7, 2023

The King and Queen arrived at Colchester Library for afternoon tea with Age UK volunteers today to sound of some jeers and boos – to be fair it was from just one or two very loud people in the crowd pic.twitter.com/svP7zg6Uk6

— Matt Wilkinson (@MattSunRoyal) March 7, 2023

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

People Magazine got an interesting little update on the Frogmore Cottage eviction! I know some of you will scream “it didn’t come from the Sussexes,” but I tend to give props whenever I see a gossip/media outlet actually try to be fair to Prince Harry and Meghan. While I obviously don’t agree with a lot of People’s royal coverage, the fact is that they really do try to walk the middle ground of “being friendly to the Sussexes and the British royals.” Anyway, People’s sources say that the Sussexes are “matter-of-fact” about the eviction, but there’s a note in this piece about how King Charles needs to pay up:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are not pushing back on King Charles’ decision to evict them from their U.K. home, Frogmore Cottage. A source tells PEOPLE in this week’s issue that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are “matter-of-fact” about being requested to leave Frogmore Cottage and aren’t trying to overturn the decision. The source adds that Harry, 38, and Meghan, 41, are happy to raise their two children in California, where they moved in 2020 after stepping back as senior members of the royal family.

However, those close to the couple say the decision is “unfortunate” — especially in terms of security, as Frogmore Cottage in Windsor was a haven for the pair and their children, 3-year-old son Archie Harrison and 1-year-old daughter Lilibet Diana, when they visited the U.K.

Last week, a spokesperson for Harry and Meghan told PEOPLE, “We can confirm The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been requested to vacate their residence at Frogmore Cottage.”

PEOPLE understands that the couple knew about the move before the release of Prince Harry’s book, Spare, in January.

It remains to be seen whether the couple will receive a refund for part of the $2.9 million they spent on refurbishments and rental costs on the property over several years, as the time on their lease has not yet expired.

Royal historian Robert Lacey tells PEOPLE that King Charles is making moves that Queen Elizabeth did not. “Charles is now the guardian of the institution. The King just can’t sit back,” he says. “It shows Charles has a steel that his mother lacked. The Queen could never bring herself to confront Harry as an adult.”

[From People]

Is “confront” the correct verb in this case? The royal establishment – which includes Lacey, for better or for worse – has gotten the talking point that this eviction was King Charles showing “strength” – the strength of a petty, vindictive dogsh-t father, as opposed to a man who actually wants to spend time with his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren. The fact that they’ve turned “evicting his son who paid for everything, including an advance lease” into some kind of hero’s tale for Charles says a lot about the royal system’s priorities.

Now, it’s news to all of us that the Sussexes were told about the eviction before Spare came out. Sources claimed last week that the palace informed Harry about the eviction on January 11th, the day after Spare came out. Anyway, the Royal Estates better run Harry a check for $3 million right about now.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, ‘60 Minutes’.

Embed from Getty Images

Drew Barrymore’s daytime talk show turned around, rating wise. They made adjustments and Drew made some tweaks as a host that sound like it helped. As far as I can tell, that’s why she merited a huge profile in The Los Angeles Times. That and the fact that everyone is fascinated with Drew and her famously chaotically tragic family. But Drew is an absolutely open book. She tells everything, like how her alcoholic father was absent throughout her life or how her mother was ill-equipped to raise a child. Or about drinking at Studio 54 at nine years old and getting hooked on coke at 12, then being thrown in lock down rehab at 13. It’s always a lot with Drew. And when she moved to New York only to divorce Will Kopelman, her ‘a lot’ became alcohol. Her drinking was enough for her therapist to fire her and her friends to stage an intervention. Longtime friend Cameron Diaz was one of the friends that told Drew she was out of control but stood by her as she quit booze. Cameron, who has known Drew since she left rehab at 14, said that even with everything we do know, we still can’t understand how bad Drew had it as a kid.

On not being defined by her childhood: There’s a choice to be had in how you see your circumstances, and I refuse to be stifled as a human being because of what I lived through as a kid. Don’t f—ing cloak me in this dark s—. I don’t want to take on anyone else’s perception of what it should have been, because I don’t feel that way. I think that I’m incredibly rebellious because of it.

Drew can’t shake the PTSD of being forced into rehab as a teen: I will always have the ‘They’re coming, they’re coming’ mentality. It’s the one thing that, unfortunately, I can’t shake. I’m pretty sure that this will all go away at any moment, I will get locked up again, and I will lose my job.

Cameron Diaz on helping Drew getting sober: But I knew that if we all stuck with her and gave her the support she needed, she would find her way. I have absolute faith in her. You can’t even comprehend how hard it was to be her as a child, and then she shot out the other end with the ability to save herself.

Co-host Ross Mathews on Drew: You hear that a lot from our guests: What is happening? Sometimes I’ll be reading the teleprompter and she’ll just start petting my shoulder because she’s so tactile. If you say something that she loves, whether she knows you or not, she will storm through a room or TV studio and just embrace you. And if it wasn’t Drew Barrymore, you’d be like, ‘Excuse me, ma’am, do I know you?’

But because it’s her and it’s not put on, you just find yourself embracing her back. And I feel like that’s what’s happened with the viewers over the past three seasons. At first, it was like, ‘Wait, what?’ But now they’ve seen it’s the real deal, and they’ve embraced her back.

[From Los Angeles Times]

“There’s a choice to be had in how you see your circumstances,” I found this a powerful statement. There are parts of my life I rarely bring up because I choose not to be defined by them. Because Drew’s right, people do project their pity or whatever on you based on how they feel about those situations. But Drew gets to dictate how she’s drawn from her own experiences and how they shaped her, not the public.

That said, the article goes into much more detail about the ghosts that haunt Drew and the decisions she’s made as a result. She described sending her daughters, Olive and Frankie, to camp and having to call her therapist (who took her back when she stopped drinking) to assure her that she wasn’t abandoning her kids. She had to accept in that moment, “This is not me being a bad mom. This is not my childhood. There’s a lot of stuff I have to work through.” So I get what Cameron is saying. She’s known Drew since they came and got her, and she had to put her life back together from there. I don’t think we know how hard she had it. We saw much of Drew working through it, but we probably don’t know what was going on.

But as much as I want to see Drew continue to heal, she has to learn who it’s okay to touch people and when to keep her hands to herself. It’s not ‘okay’ because it’s Drew petting you. That’s not okay period.

Embed from Getty Images

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Los Angeles Times (@latimes)

Photo credit: Getty Images, Instagram and Cover Images

Aaron Taylor Johnson is one of the “young Hollywood” stars featured on Vanity Fair’s Hollywood Issue cover. Overall, I was disappointed with this year’s VF issue – the editorial is chaotic and ugly, and the people selected… well, I think better choices could have been made. Take, for example, Aaron. Aaron is an actor and I would consider him more internet-famous than movie-star famous. But people know his name and they have some idea about his story and the fact that an older woman groomed him when he was a teenager and they’re still married and raising their daughters. That’s arguably the most interesting part of his biography, but magazines tend to shy away from asking Aaron about it directly. Some highlights from VF:

Whether his character in David Leitch’s new film, The Fall Guy, is based on Brad Pitt: “My character’s far from Brad. I don’t want to give away what my character is like. But Brad was very much a team leader and a mentor [on Bullet Train]—someone who has this incredible ability to have a presence on and offscreen. You get actors at his level that are probably a little threatened by any other actor who might shine. But Brad’s guiding us along to have a good time and succeed. He’s a joy to work with.

The James Bond rumors: “It’s flattering. You can have something really positive [written about you], but you can also have something really negative that can circulate. You just want to stay in your lane, stay grounded, stay around the people that you love and love you back, and stay in that world. Because the moment you start believing the sh-t people say about you, you’ve lost your f–king mind. You’ve lost it. I’ve seen, especially from Nocturnal Animals, you pick up an award or something, and then the next day it doesn’t really amount to anything. It’s just these materialistic things. What’s real in my life are my kids and my home. Those are my rock and my center.

His relationship with social media: “Naturally, I’m pretty awful at it. I’d rather not carry a phone. I only started carrying a phone when my kids went to school and I thought, I’d better have a phone for emergencies. I ended up getting social media for the press tour for Avengers…. I had it for a few years. I found it really toxic and clogging up my imaginative brain space. Also, I’ve got a teenager. Being a parent that was like, “I’m going to have it, but you can’t” seemed ridiculous to me. It’s the way it was when we were kids and it was like, “I want to smoke.” And your parent goes, “You can’t smoke, it’s bad for you.” And you go, “You smoke a pack a day. Why can’t I have a cigarette?”

When he stopped using Instagram: “On top of that, there’s a lot of love on Instagram but there comes a whole bag of sh-t and anger towards you. When you’re in our profession, you build up a thick skin, but certain things still hurt. I put it to bed at the end of 2018 and brought it back for Bullet Train. There was a healthy gap. I felt like, if I do bring it back, I’ll have some boundaries with it.

He’s a big fan of Brad Pitt: “I was a big fan of Brad when I was a kiddo. I loved his presence onscreen. He really was the master of cool. Being able to work with him later on in life, and him actually be a great person and great, giving actor…that was cool.

[From Vanity Fair]

“I’ve got a teenager…” Jeez, let me look that up. His oldest, Wylda Rae, was born in July 2010. So… she’ll be 13 this year. Or does he mean his step-daughters? Sam Taylor Johnson was already the mother to two girls when she met Aaron – his stepdaughters are 26 and… 16 years old. He was probably talking about his youngest stepdaughter. “What’s real in my life are my kids and my home. Those are my rock and my center.” – but what about your wife, bro?? Hm. Anyway, I don’t actually hate his comments about social media. It’s completely fine to opt out, it’s completely fine to only use it for work, and it’s completely fine to enjoy social media.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Vanity Fair (@vanityfair)

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Vanity Fair.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tessa Thompson (@tessamaethompson)

It seems like it’s been mostly the men out there doing promo for Creed III, so it was nice to see that Tessa Thompson sat down for a very in-depth interview with Refinery 29. It seems like she gave them a lot of time; her answers were really long. They touched upon topics like the transition in Tessa’s career, awards show narratives, the representation of her Creed character, and therapy and going to couples therapy in character with Michael B. Jordan. Some highlights:

On going to couples therapy in character with MBJ: I’ll say it was an early experience in couples therapy for us both [personally], but it was as these characters, which is very weird. But I think it reminded us of our own personal lives that going to therapy, even when a relationship is good, can be a good thing if you’re trying to just sharpen communication and figure out how someone works. It’s useful in so many relationships. OK we were in therapy, yes, as Bianca and Adonis, but we were also reflecting on our own relationships. Since we’ve been making these movies for eight, nine years, we’ve seen each other through various stages in our own romantic things. So we know stuff about each other’s lives. We shared and talked about it. So therapy ended up starting at work and getting more personal.

On moving behind the camera more: I’ve been working on something that would see me taking this step behind the camera in a real way like Mike has done on this. The difference is that I would not also be in front of the camera. I would just be directing and I have been having that internal conversation with myself of like, how will that feel? But so far with my production company, we’re producing things that are roles that frankly I would have given a pinky for years ago when I started my career.

On the narrative around awards season: I think what tends to happen is then in retrospect, at the end or middle of the season, when we see that certain people aren’t being rewarded in the same way, then the conversation begins around legitimacy, the legitimacy of that. I think the conversation needs to begin earlier. I think there needs to be an awareness not just by journalists, but by the industry at large to say, look, we have a lot of history to rewrite in these moments and we have the opportunity now to really give praise to folks that historically have not gotten it.

On the biggest misconception about her: Oh, my God. There are a lot. Probably about my dating life. A lot of misconceptions there. But what can you do?

[From Refinery 29 via Buzzfeed]

It’s fascinating that Tessa and and MBJ attended therapy in character, as Bianca and Adonis. It seems like Tessa and Michael went to better understand their characters because their characters were going through things like marriage and parenthood, which neither of them has yet experienced. I do wonder if that was the best use of the therapist’s time, which could be better spent seeing actual patients, but I guess since the sessions turned away from their characters and toward their own personal lives it’s a wash. Anyway, I like what Tessa says about stepping behind the camera and giving more and fuller opportunities to new talent. And she’s right about changing the narrative around awards season earlier instead of it always being a reaction to the nominations. And yes, I’m sure there are a lot of misconceptions around her dating life ever since those Thor 4 photos. So who does she date?! Tessa, clear things up for us, the people want to know.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Creed III (@creedmovie)

photos credit: Avalon.red

Here’s an exhaustive rundown on the Raquel Leviss-Tom Sandoval-Ariana Madix scandal. Madix and Sandoval were engaged but they broke up after Madix learned that Sandoval was having an affair with Leviss for months. This all sounds… scripted. [Jezebel]
The Windsors are fully in their Bravo reality-show era. [LaineyGossip]
Marlon Wayans’ standup special is apparently a lot better than Chris Rock’s. [Pajiba]
Austin Butler’s Oscar date probably won’t be Kaia Gerber. [JustJared]
Jack Black stars in History of the World Part 2. [Seriously OMG]
Isaiah Washington is retired from acting? [Dlisted]
A round-up of the Spirit Awards fashion. [RCFA]
This is my least favorite look worn by Cate Blanchett for the entire awards season. Why would you put her in a cheap satin sack? [GFY]
What fifteen feet of snow looks like in California. [Buzzfeed]
Florida hates atheists or something. [Towleroad]
Jennifer Lopez is the latest model for Intimissimi. [Egotastic]

Elizabeth Banks has a big success on her hands with Cocaine Bear. It feels like she took the film on for a lark, but my gawd did it pay off. Good for her. I want to be angry that in light of her accomplishments as a director we’re talking about beauty and aging, but Elizabeth partnered with No7 so she wants to talk about skincare products. Elizabeth, who is a recent convert to retinol, doesn’t want to dictate how anyone should look or feel as they get older. She feels the person should define what aging gracefully means for them. The important part is to find a way to embrace aging because, as we’ve heard before, it’s a privilege not everyone gets.

Elizabeth Banks is embracing the aging process.

The actress and director, who just saw her most recent project Cocaine Bear hit theaters, turned 49 last month, and she’s embracing her age.

“My philosophy really is age gracefully, whatever that means to you,” she tells PEOPLE of the aging process. For her, it means treating her skin with the right ingredients, including those found in No7’s stable of skin-loving products.

Banks, who recently partnered with the U.K.-fave brand, tells PEOPLE that at the urging of her dermatologist to try retinol on her aging skin, she found No7. Admitting she was hesitant about how drying retinol could be, Banks says she was skeptical. However, No7’s retinol products convinced her.

“I was thrilled by them,” she gushes. “I had to step up my beauty routine, and No7 made me feel comfortable changing things up. People can be a little afraid of change, but No7 made it okay.”

“We live in a society that loves and values youth and beauty,” she says. “I get it. I love looking at beautiful young people too. I like to remind people, you’re never going to look as good as you do today, right now, because aging is a privilege. It’s better than the alternative, right? You want to age, trust me.”

It can be easier said than done, though, Banks says. As she’s looking ahead to entering a new decade, though, she encourages people to examine why they feel that pressure to look a certain way.

“If it’s for you, if it’s your mental health looking in the mirror, then do what you need to do to keep yourself feeling confident every day,” she says. “But if you’re looking around and going, ‘You know what? I don’t need to do this for somebody else,’ then make your decisions based on that.”

[From People]

“’You know what? I don’t need to do this for somebody else,’ then make your decisions based on that.” I agree with this wholeheartedly. I feel it’s when people make beauty choices for other people that they really go awry. When a person makes a choice for themselves, they know exactly what they want to do, like I want less lines around my eyes or I don’t like my grey hair. But if the choices are to please someone else, sometimes it’s shooting blind. Guessing what someone else wants fixed leads to the wrong thing getting tweaked (or too many tweaks).

As for retinol, I’m glad it works for those it does, but I can’t. I guess it’s a good thing I don’t mind the roadmap on my face because I just gave retinol a second chance and the burn was so bad it took almost two weeks before I could apply any product to my face. So like Elizabeth said, my version of aging gracefully is going to include lines, I guess.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Elizabeth Banks (@elizabethbanks)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Elizabeth Banks (@elizabethbanks)

Photo credit: Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency and Jeffrey Mayer/ Avalon

When Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez first reunited in 2021, one of the first big things they did together was look at real estate in Los Angeles. Ben owned a Brentwood home close to his ex-wife Jennifer Garner, and J.Lo has had her own home in LA for years. Their house-hunting was a signal that they were really serious and ready to build a life together with their blended family. In the nearly two years since then… they still haven’t managed to buy a f–king house together. They keep house-hunting and putting offers in on these mega-mansions and the deals keep falling through and/or Bennifer cancel the deal while they’re in escrow. It’s kind of insane that this keeps happening, and it just happened again. They were seen house-hunting on Sunday (the photos in this post) in Pacific Palisades just as they pulled out of escrow on another home.

Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck can’t make up their minds … they have dropped out of escrow again on a house they were about to buy. Sources with direct knowledge tell TMZ … JLo and Ben have pulled the plug on the Pacific Palisades home which they seemed set on buying for $34.5 million.

Our sources say … they were supposed to close escrow last Friday, but just before it was signed, sealed and delivered they pulled out.

As we reported, they were spotted at a nearby mansion last Tuesday — while they were still in escrow on the other house — so it looks like they weren’t sure about the house they were about to get. Our sources say they are now in escrow on ANOTHER house. We don’t know if it’s the same one they looked at Tuesday. We’re told they looked at yet another house last week as well.

At least one of the estates they looked at last week was going for more than twice what they were spending on the one that just fell out of escrow. This is at least the second house they’ve been in escrow on but bailed on at the last minute.

[From TMZ]

What’s going on here? Is it just “rich-people sh-t”? Or is something weirder going on? Both J.Lo and Ben are rich, although I would assume that Jennifer has more money coming in consistently. They’re married now, they’re settled, they obviously want more room for their blended family and their young children. When you get to this price point, are you just pulling out of escrow because you don’t like the kitchen hardware or the third en suite? Are they looking to buy something move-in ready or do they want something they can renovate to their tastes? I genuinely don’t get it.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

King Charles’s London home is still Clarence House, arguably the most “modern” of all of the London palaces/residences. He has not moved into Buckingham Palace, which is still undergoing an extensive renovation, one which began while QEII was still alive. In QEII’s last years, Charles planned for how the royal properties would be shuffled around, and it was widely known that he believed that Prince William and Kate should remain in Kensington Palace, and then move into Windsor Castle full-time. It’s weird that hasn’t happened in the six months since QEII died – the Waleses are still technically in Adelaide Cottage, but they’re plotting their move into Royal Lodge just as soon as Andrew is evicted. But why aren’t they moving into Windsor Castle with its eleventy billion rooms and suites? Well, it’s because Charles now fancies Windsor Castle for himself, no heirs allowed?

He has never had a strong desire to live at Windsor Castle, largely because of the noise of aircraft flying overhead to Heathrow. But the King appears to have had a change of heart in recent months and is busy putting his unique stamp on the late Queen’s Berkshire estate. Workmen have been seen sprucing up Queen Elizabeth’s private apartments, while staff have been putting some of her belongings in storage and bringing in many of the new monarch’s favourite pieces of art and antiques.

In the grounds, Charles, 74, has also been expanding his eco-credentials. New electric car charging points are being installed at several spots across the Windsor estate and thousands of new saplings planted.

Windsor is the oldest and largest inhabited castle in the world and has been the home of English kings and queens for almost 1,000 years. It is an official royal residence and home to around 150 people, hosting both ceremonial and state occasions. Queen Elizabeth loved it so much she spent most weekends there in her apartments in the Upper Ward, overlooking the Quadrangle to the front and the Rose Garden – designed by Prince Philip – to the rear.

While the entire Royal Family love Windsor, King Charles has always preferred the tranquility of Highgrove, the Gloucestershire house and estate he purchased in 1980. However, multiple sources said the King has now started spending an increasing amount of time at Windsor. This began before his mother died, when he began to stay the night before conducting an investiture in order to spend quality time with her.

Since last September his visits have increased in frequency and length, with the King often now staying two or three nights a week and conducting an increasing amount of official business from the castle as Buckingham Palace is still undergoing extensive renovations. Although their staff have largely moved over to the monarch’s official residence, he and the Queen Consort actually still live across The Mall at Clarence House. King Charles is still using his existing suite of rooms at Windsor Castle but workmen have been seen in the late Queen’s apartments, suggesting he may plan to take then over sooner rather than later. And the sad business of moving out the late Queen’s belongings – putting some into storage and cataloguing others for posterity – has begun.

‘The King is making the castle more to his taste, as would be expected, and bringing in some of his favourite pieces of art and possessions to make it feel more homely,’ a source said.

Now that the Prince and Princess of Wales have moved to Windsor, where they have taken over Adelaide Cottage during term time, Charles will be able to see his grandchildren more. While well-placed sources say the long-term plan had always been for the Prince and Princess of Wales to move into the castle as soon as possible, the couple and their young family seem very happy where they are. And there is always the possibility of moving into Royal Lodge if Prince Andrew vacates it, as is the King’s plan.

[From The Daily Mail]

Considering William and Kate began to use Windsor Castle to host photo-ops just days after QEII’s passing, my theory is that they believed they would be moving into the castle in, like, October of last year. You had the sense that they were already measuring drapes and carving out their work spaces. Instead, no move happened and William is back to whining over how his family needs Royal Lodge. Keep in mind, Charles apparently believes the Sussexes simply had to be evicted from Frogmore Cottage because it couldn’t sit there vacant… meanwhile, Charles is spreading himself out between BP, Clarence House, Sandringham, Windsor Castle, Highgrove, Balmoral, Birkhall and Castle of Mey, plus his Romanian home and his home in Wales.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Avalon Red.