Here on this blog, I think we referred to “Queen Consort Camilla” a handful of times before we dropped “Consort” completely. Some of that is simply a space issue, especially for headlines, it’s easier and faster to write “Queen Camilla” than whatever gaudy half-measure title the palace dreamed up as a placeholder. Plus, everyone could see the writing on the wall: Queen Consort Cam would be phased into “Queen Camilla” in no time. And that’s exactly what will happen officially:

Buckingham Palace is set officially to describe Camilla as ‘Queen’, rather than ‘Queen Consort’. The change is likely to come after King Charles’s coronation in May, according to well-placed sources. It will set the seal on a remarkable transformation for Camilla in the nation’s affections.

When she married the then Prince of Wales in 2005, it was widely assumed she would never be called Queen when he acceded to the throne. That was because of her longstanding relationship with Charles while he was married to Diana, who famously said in her Panorama interview: ‘There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.’ But Camilla has won around the public, and the late Queen’s intervention in February last year when she called for her daughter-in-law to be known as ‘Queen Consort’ is seen as a crucial show of support.

Now Buckingham Palace is set to go further, according to insiders. The first sign of the new approach came last week when Camilla launched the ‘Queen’s Reading Room’ – without the ‘Consort’ – when she updated the name of her charity, the Duchess of Cornwall’s Reading Room. It is thought that the Court Circular – the official register of Royal engagements – may also soon reflect the change.

A well-placed source said: ‘There’s a view in the Palace that Queen Consort is cumbersome and it might be simpler for Camilla to be known just as the Queen when the time is right. The Reading Room was a sign of that. Her Majesty is the Queen after all. Prince Philip was Prince Consort officially, but he wasn’t known as Prince Consort. The Queen would of course still be Queen Consort so the Palace of course wouldn’t stop anyone calling Her Majesty that if they so chose.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This was always what Charles wanted and he basically just wore everyone down. It’s not that Camilla is suddenly some beloved figure in the UK, and it’s not like the vast majority of Britons forgot that she’s a homewrecking side-chick who actively tried to destroy Princess Diana. It’s just that no one cares about this heifer’s title at this point. Let Queen Sidepiece have her title, she’ll probably be the last consort.

Meanwhile, William and Kate’s titles have now been formalized too:

Prince William and Kate Middleton’s titles as the Prince and Princess of Wales are now official. Just one day after the Sept. 8, 2022, death of Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III gave his first speech as the United Kingdom’s monarch. In the televised broadcast, the new sovereign announced that his son Prince William would be the new Prince of Wales and his daughter-in-law Kate would become the Princess of Wales.

However, the royal titles only became official this month, when the Letters Patent passed the Great Seal of the Realm on Feb. 13. The full notice from the Crown Office was printed in The Gazette on Friday.

The announcement read in full: “In accordance with the direction of HIS MAJESTY THE KING Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 13th February 2023 for creating His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cornwall Rothesay and Cambridge, Earl of Carrick and Strathearn, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Carrickfergus, K.G., K.T., Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, PRINCE OF WALES and EARL OF CHESTER.”

[From People]

I forgot how many gaudy titles came along with the PoW title. Plus, they got to keep their Cambridge and Strathearn titles. Anyway, Charles issued a Letters Patent about Peg, but still no Letters Patent about Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, huh? Oh well.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid, Buckingham Palace.

Prince Harry’s Spare still sits at the top position of the New York Times’s non-fiction bestseller list. Spare has been #1 for six weeks going, with millions of copies sold in North America alone. Thus far, I don’t think Penguin Random House has released extensive data about how many hardcover copies have been sold where, but… yeah. In all likelihood, Spare is the hands-down best-selling book of 2023. And that was with minimal promotion too – one newspaper interview and three television interviews. Well, it looks like Harry has agreed to an international livestream event organized by his publisher for Saturday, March 4.

Prince Harry is taking center stage at a virtual book event for his groundbreaking memoir, Spare. PEOPLE exclusively reveals that Penguin Random House will produce an international livestream event with the Duke of Sussex on Saturday, March 4 at 12 p.m. EST on VIMEO.

Dr. Gabor Maté, author of The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture, will join Harry at the live event. The renowned speaker is known for his trauma, addiction, stress and childhood development expertise. During the intimate conversation, the pair will discuss living with loss and the importance of personal healing before answering questions from the audience, which can be submitted when registering for the live event.

Ticket information and more details about the event can be found on: PrinceHarryMemoir.com. Each ticket includes a hardcover copy of Spare.

Spare became an instant New York Times bestseller when it was published on Jan. 10 and remained at the #1 spot on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction bestseller list for six consecutive weeks. English-language sales for Spare top more than 4 million copies with over 1.43 million units purchased on the first day it was available, making Spare the fastest-selling nonfiction book of all time.

[From People]

Amazing, looking forward to seeing it and hearing about it. Given Dr. Gabor Maté’s presence, my guess is that the conversation will involve a lot of talk about Harry’s magical thinking about his mother’s death and how that affected him throughout his life. Dr. Gabor Maté is also a childhood development specialist… which means that he’s the same as our very own credible keen early years expert Captain Buttons, correct?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, ABC, WellChild, CBS/youTube and cover courtesy of People.

Ana de Armas hasn’t done much in the way of Oscar-campaigning. She’s nominated for Best Actress for her role as Marilyn Monroe in Blonde, an unequivocally terrible movie. Ana tried to give an okay performance, but they really turned Joyce Carol Oates’ book into a torture-p0rn mess in which fetuses were repeatedly “talking” to Marilyn. In any case, Ana hasn’t been campaigning because she’s currently working on Ballerina, a John Wick-spinoff action film. She did make time to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair’s Hollywood Issue, and she did this mini-interview with Vanity Fair:

Relating to Marilyn: “There was a lot there that I could relate to. If you put Marilyn Monroe “the movie star” aside, she’s just an actress trying to navigate life and this system, which is so hard to navigate for anybody. On top of that, you add this point of view of Andrew’s, which was to see that through her trauma. I truly thought it was going to do justice to a more dimensional human being, because I wouldn’t want to be remembered just for one thing. I am more than just an actress on the cover of a magazine.

Does Hollywood still produce movie stars like Marilyn? “I feel like the new generations don’t have that concept, because of social media. There is so much information out there and oversharing. The concept of a movie star is someone untouchable you only see onscreen. That mystery is gone. For the most part, we’ve done that to ourselves—nobody’s keeping anything from anyone anymore.

Blonde’s portrayal of the entertainment business: “The sad part for me—and the most challenging—is to see not only what happened in the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s but to see patterns continue to happen. It’s definitely made me more protective of myself and set boundaries and know my limits for how much I’m willing to give—and how much I want to keep to myself. But at the same time, it clearly is a place where incredible opportunities happen. I’m very grateful to be working in the industry.

She only has Instagram now: “Yeah, at this point I only have Instagram, and I barely use it because I just feel like things are always wrong on social media. If it was up to me, I would delete Instagram right now, but I can’t. I understand that I’m not just an actress. I have other brands that I’m working with and I have other commitments. It’s been good for Blonde and for films that I want to talk about. It’s tricky because you feel the pressure to share some personal insight, or something about your private life, to keep people interested in you. You have to find a balance somehow, which I find very difficult.

Facing scrutiny when she was dating Ben Affleck: “The pandemic was horrible for everyone. In any other city, people were just hanging out with their families or bored at home or walking their dogs. The problem in LA is that, I guess, they were so bored that all they had to do was scrutinize someone else’s daily life. It was kind of frustrating that my work wasn’t coming out—Bond got delayed three times and then Blonde wasn’t coming out either. But also, I was working nonstop, literally one thing after the other, and that was good.

[From Vanity Fair]

I’ve seen people criticize her for the comments about social media and actors not having mystery anymore… but I don’t know, I think she’s halfway correct. People do overshare, actors included, and a lot of actors aren’t banking on “mystery” anymore. There are exceptions, notably in this year’s class of Oscar nominees: Michelle Yeoh isn’t telling us everything about her life, neither is Cate Blanchett. Colin Farrell has kept his private life buttoned up for years. And on and on. Plus, the business model of Hollywood has changed and there aren’t as many “movie stars” in general. “Accessibility” is seen as more important than “mystery” too, at least in this current era.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Vanity Fair (@vanityfair)

Covers & IG courtesy of Vanity Fair.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Paris Hilton (@parishilton)

Paris Hilton revealed her son’s name: Phoenix Barron Hilton Reum. [Dlisted]
Mark Wahlberg’s 40-day Challenge is… Lent. [Just Jared]
Tom Cruise is Mr. Popularity in LA these days. [LaineyGossip]
Lana del Rey’s father made an album? [OMG Blog]
Harvey Weinstein & R. Kelly got long prison sentences. Hurray. [Pajiba]
I can’t wait to see Sophie Hunterbatch in some of these Erdem looks. [Go Fug Yourself]
The Goldbergs is ending after ten seasons. [Seriously OMG]
Cate Blanchett rewore an Alexander Vauthier look in Berlin. [RCFA]
One of Marilyn Manson’s accusers rescinded her story and… yeah, I have some thoughts about what’s really happening here, but I’ll shut my mouth. [Jezebel]
Sabrina Carpenter is trying to bring back early-’00s style. [Egotastic]
Selena Gomez is going out of her way to talk sh-t about Hailey Bieber. [Buzzfeed]
Well, at least the cat wasn’t euthanized. [Starcasm]
Raven-Symone will receive an Icon Award. [Towleroad]

The Prince of Wales stepped out on Thursday, his first event since Sunday’s BAFTAs. He’s not really working himself to the nub. Prince William visited The Passage, one of a handful of homeless centers he works with in various capacities. I’ll be fair: out of the few “issues” in William’s patronage portfolio, he does the “most” with homeless issues. For months now, William has promised to be even more keen about homelessness now that he’s Prince of Wales. He still hasn’t opened up Duchy of Cornwall properties, nor has he made Duchy resources available, but he did make a big speech.

The Prince of Wales has said that he wants to play a “significant role” in ending homelessness in the UK. During a visit to The Passage in central London, the Prince pledged his support and determination in making rough sleeping “rare, brief, and non-recurrent”.

Tackling the issue will be a key focus for the Royal this year and on Thursday afternoon he visited the homeless service to officially open its two new accommodation buildings and meet residents who now live there.

In a speech, the Prince vowed to do all he can to end the “human tragedy that is homelessness”, saying: “I am determined to play a significant role to support this becoming a reality”.

He said: “Every time I come to The Passage I am always struck by the lasting impact of their work. The work that I have seen first-hand over many years is the reason I know that ending homelessness must be thought of as more than simply a wishful aspiration. Instead, it should be viewed as an achievable goal, one that working together we can and must accomplish. The Passage is taking an innovative approach to preventing homelessness – they are working collaboratively with others in society to tackle this challenge.”

The Prince added: “I believe this is how we can make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurrent. I am personally more determined than ever to play my part in working with others to do all we can to stop the human tragedy that is homelessness,” he vowed.

[From The Telegraph]

“Rare, brief and non-recurrent” reminds me of Hillary and Bill Clinton’s line about abortion – “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” That was in the 1990s and the line and mindset has evolved and changed. My point is that William’s writers were studying some famous speeches and they came up with this for Peg to parrot. It also reminds me of William’s habit of making pronouncements, as if his words carry the weight to simply change the conversation or end debate. He made similar pronouncements about racism in football and the environment and the needle didn’t move at all (if anything, everyone’s worse off). William is not a man with a plan, he’s a man with a cleverly-written speech.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Here are some photos of Queen Camilla and King Charles at Clarence House yesterday, part of Camilla’s first big day of events since she was diagnosed with Covid last week. The event at Clarence House was for the second anniversary of The Reading Room, an initiative she started during the pandemic to encourage reading and general literacy. Authors and people in Britain’s literary society were invited, including Richard E. Grant (I knew he was a royalist). At the event, Camilla made a short speech where she waded into the latest dumbf–k culture war, whether Roald Dahl’s books should be censored or altered because he kept calling fictional children “fat.” This issue has become some kind of pressing concern in the UK and abroad I guess. Well, Camilla chimed in.

The Queen Consort has made an extraordinary and unprecedented defence of free speech and the right of writers to express themselves just days after she let it be known privately that she had serious concerns about the censorship of one of her favourite authors, Roald Dahl.

In a speech to mark the second anniversary of her literary initiative Reading Room at Clarence House, she urged writers “to remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or your imagination”.

In what will be interpreted as her disapproval of the changes made to the text of Dahl’s classic books to make his stories more palatable and less challenging to modern readers, the Queen said “let there be no squeaking like mice but only roaring like a pride of lions!”

Camilla said: “Thank you, on behalf of book lovers and book clubs everywhere, for sharing your talents with us and for everything you do to promote literacy and a love of literature. Please keep doing so and please remain true to your calling, unimpeded by those who may wish to curb the freedom of your expression or impose limits on your imagination.”

After the speech, a source close to Camilla said she was “shocked and dismayed” that Dahl’s words should have been altered and believes in the power and freedom of writers as one of the most important things that must be protected at all times.

[From The Independent]

I… don’t disagree with her? Taken as a siloed issue, her stance is fine with me. But yes, of course people are whatabouting her. Why is she taking this principled stance on Dahl censorship when she would never lift a finger to help Harry and Meghan? What does her anti-censorship stance look like when it’s tested at a personal level if and when the British papers begin to report on her scheming, homewrecking, lying and very real unpopularity? Is Camilla willingly entering into the culture wars with a decidedly less inclusive worldview? Does Camilla believe that Augustus Gloop should be called “fat”? Does she think children should be called fat in real life? We need answers to these questions, Cam.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Tom Bower is a rotten old fart, an unhinged Sussex hater and a “royal biographer.” The fact that American media outlets use Bower as a source for anything is pretty despicable, but there are hundreds of versions of Bower in the British media, giving interviews and claiming to know something about how Prince Harry and Meghan live, work and think. Over the years, Bower has made it clear that he believes Harry and Meghan are so powerful that their Sussexit destabilized the monarchy (accidentally true) and that the only remedy for this destabilization is a wall-to-wall smearing of Meghan specifically. Bower wants Meghan “gone,” Meghan is the one he’s after, because then (Bower believes) Harry will come running back to the monarchy. Bower’s deranged fan-fiction is wildly popular in certain circles, which is why I think we should spread it far and wide that Bower thinks King Charles is a “weak man.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attending the Coronation would “ruin it” for King Charles, a royal commentator claims. Author Tom Bower said King Charles is a “weak man” who worries about Harry and suggested their attendance at the Coronation on May 6 could be too much for him. Speaking to GB News, he claimed”people were “sick” of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and would prefer them to stay at home for the momentous occasion.

Mr Bower said: “His problem is that he is a weak man in a way and he’s worried about Harry. If only he said to Harry, look, come to the Coronation, but you can have row Q, seat 54 and viewers partly obscured by a column, then the message will get through. But I think if he allows Harry to come to the Coronation, it is going to ruin the Coronation. It’ll be overshadowed by Harry’s presence and Meghan’s too. So I think Charles has to make a decision now. The king has to decide and I think that people are on the whole getting sick to death of Harry. I think his behaviour now is going to irritate people again. People will be sick to death of him, hopefully very soon.”

[From The Daily Mirror]

Well, to all y’all who love what Bower says about the Sussexes, do you agree that Charles is a “weak man” for inviting the Sussexes to the coronation? The thing is, it’s becoming clear that this is an angle coming from Prince William. Dan Wootton said something similar, which is that if Charles feels so strongly about having Harry there, Charles needs to “protect” poor William and worry about Peg’s rages too. William’s unhappiness with his father is sliding out of these royalists’ mouths with some regularity these days. As for the other sh-t that Bower is saying… the Sussexes literally have not said if they’ll even go and an entire nation’s media is braying for them to be punished, ignored, berated and abused.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Buckingham Palace.

Jan Moir is a columnist for the Daily Mail. She’s old, white and terrible. She’s written completely unhinged things about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and she’s been particularly racist and dehumanizing to Meghan. So, she’s a garbage person. But she still has a job and she still needs to fill her columns somehow, which makes it extra funny when she turns her nasty, withering gaze onto the all-white Windsors. Moir has also been extremely critical of Prince William and Kate for how much they trot out their kids, and she had some vicious words for their Caribbean Flop Tour last year. Now Moir turns her gaze on the coronation, and the headline is: “I fear Charles’s Coronation will prove to be the beginning of the end of the monarchy… The Carolean age may be historically correct but the term lacks a certain glamour.” Ouch. Some highlights:

The Carolean Age: “King Charles and Queen Camilla? How the heart sinks at the prospect. I’m finding it hard to be inspired at the elevation of these former star-crossed lovers into the constitutional head of state and his fragrant consort. Yes, they seem like perfectly nice people who have embraced myriad good causes. And yes, they always do their best on duty, shuffling about in their mossy tweeds or evening velvets, oozing twinkly charm when needs must.”

Charisma vacuums: “But let’s be honest. Charles and Camilla are about as charismatic as a couple of garden gnomes. Can they really be trusted to carry the mantle of monarchy onwards and upwards, appealing to a new generation and deepening bonds of fealty with the public? I just can’t see it. Or feel it. Or get it. For together, these snowy-haired septuagenarians muster the combined star power of an imperial Uncle Bulgaria and Madame Cholet, handicapped by an unfortunate lack of magnetism and a changing shift in attitudes.”

Charles can’t inspire like QEII: “When the Queen was crowned in 1953 she was a young, unknown entity and a clean page; a dark-haired, solemn monarch who went on to put duty first for decade after decade. A woman who inspired devotion and even love in her subjects — but can her son ever command the same depth of loyalty? He hasn’t even got the crown on his head yet, but already we know that Charles often puts Charles first. Perhaps he is right to do so, considering that for him — and his elder son — destiny is something that is singular and fixed. A gilded prison that is becoming increasingly corporate and under attack.”

People are hostile to the monarchy: “Not only has the age of deference gone, the very concepts that the monarchy is built upon are regarded with suspicion and even hostility. These include inherited wealth, white privilege, possession of territories and the rules of succession — not to mention the enthusiastic acquisition of gold and jewels, titles and lands, rents and riches. With the best will in the clamouring world, it is beginning to feel a little . . . uncomfortable.

The thrill has gone. “Since Charles was a boy his life has been pegged out in increments; from cherry brandy to Tampongate to fountain pen petulance to his failings as a father; the latter so cruelly divulged by his bitter younger son. Charles cheated on his wife and married his mistress, accepted bad money for good causes, had his valet pre-paste his toothbrush every morning. This doesn’t make him a bad King, just an all too human one.

Unpopular Charles: “Charles comes to the throne in the autumn of his life, dragging an unfortunate hinterland and a tattered cloak behind him. One can wish him well, but also accept the unlikelihood that he will ever enjoy the widespread love and devotion of the people that his mother did. In the symbiotic relationship between the monarchy and the people, something profound died along with the Queen and Prince Philip. And despite Charles’s best efforts, no amount of pomp or magic anointing oil will ever bring it back.

[From The Daily Mail]

She may be vile, but Moir isn’t wrong in this particular, narrow instance. The Carolean Age is not it. “Charles and Camilla are about as charismatic as a couple of garden gnomes.” Very true. Does anyone else find it curious that Moir is basically joining Dan Wootton in explicitly criticizing Charles? Tom Bower also called him a “weak man” in an interview this week. Is… is Prince William making some kind of move? Is there an effort to kneecap Charles even before the Chubbly? Or are all of these commentators merely looking at what’s before them, another decade trying to make fetch happen, and they’re quietly revolting?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

pic.twitter.com/K1WsJZkmZq

— Fiona Applebum’s Videos (@VideosbyHanna) February 21, 2023

Yeah, why wouldn’t Will Smith brag about his Oscar? He won it, he deserved it, and good for him. [Dlisted]
Evan Peters almost played Aubrey Plaza’s husband in White Lotus Season 2. I hate to say it but Evan would have been good in that role? [Buzzfeed]
Elizabeth Banks sparkled in gold at the Cocaine Bear premiere. [GFY]
My nemesis Laura Dern looked prim & evil in Dior. [RCFA]
Why did Brittany Griner have to take a pay cut? [Jezebel]
It’s Cocaine Bear Week. [LaineyGossip]
Michael B. Jordan looks great in Gucci. [Tom & Lorenzo]
The colossal flop shaking up the French film industry. [Pajiba]
Amanda Seyfried shares her theory on who her dad is in Mamma Mia. [JustJared]
Public art could get drivers to slow down. [Towleroad]
Nicki Minaj did Carnival too. [Egotastic]
Remember when Joan Rivers learned about voguing? [OMG Blog]

Days before Prince Harry’s Spare was released, the British tabloids got their hands on a Spanish-language copy and they proceeded to excerpt the book from poorly-done translations. That was when the British media decided that Harry “bragged” about the number of people he killed in combat during his two tours in Afghanistan. Harry did not brag – in Spare, the sections devoted to his combat tours were very thoughtful and, in context, he wrote about the questions every soldier has: does morality have any place on a battlefield, are these righteous kills, are these really “bad guys,” how will I live with the knowledge that I’ve taken these lives? As Harry explained to Stephen Colbert, Harry wrote about his “number” and his tours of duty because veterans need to be able to have these conversations and because he’s trying to prevent veteran suicides. Well, a month and a half later, the current British Defence Secretary hasn’t read Spare but he definitely reads the Sun and the Daily Mail.

The Defence Secretary has accused the Duke of Sussex of “boasting” about the number of people he killed while on tour in Afghanistan. Ben Wallace said that Prince Harry’s kill count revelation in his memoir Spare “distorts” the idea that the British Army is a team.

He told LBC: “I frankly think boasting about tallies…distorts the fact that the Army is a team game. It’s a team enterprise, it’s not about who can shoot the most”.

The Duke was heavily criticised by senior military figures for the revelation that he killed 25 Taliban fighters while he was on tour in Afghanistan. Many warned that he had jeopardised his own security as well as that of others.

Having never previously waded into the row, the Defence Secretary has now accused the Duke of “letting down” his former colleagues in the military.

“If you start talking about who did what, [you’re] letting down all those other people, because you’re not a better person because you did and they didn’t,” he added.

The Duke has previously defended his decision to publish the kill count, saying on a US chat show that his aim was to give veterans the “space” to share their experiences in the military without shame. “My whole goal and my attempt with sharing that detail is to reduce the number of suicides,” he said, denying that he was “boasting” about the figure.

[From The Telegraph]

“It’s not about who can shoot the most” – Harry never said it was, dipsh-t. As Defence Secretary, shouldn’t this motherf–ker be concerned about what’s happening to Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans? Shouldn’t he operate with more nuance and thoughtfulness? “If you start talking about who did what, [you’re] letting down all those other people…” Again, Harry’s message to veterans is: talk about it, go into therapy, talk to your friends about what you’re going through, it will save your life. And the g–damn British defense secretary is telling veterans to shut up about their PTSD, they’ll let people down if they talk about what they’re going through?

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Avalon Red.