I like the Duke and Duchess of Sussex a lot, but even more than that, I root for them. I want them to be successful, I want them to be rich, safe and protected from the high-level campaign to hurt them and disrupt every part of their lives. Which is why I want them to make better decisions about how they communicate with the world and how they promote their work. This is turning into their Achilles, their bizarre and outdated communications strategies and their refusal to advocate on their own behalf when it comes to their business. They massively f–ked up last year when they went silent as Spotify dropped them and Bill Simmons called them “f–king grifters.” And they’re f–king up again this month by refusing to promote the Netflix Polo series. Meghan and Harry wouldn’t even do a couple of interviews in the trade papers, they wouldn’t even host a screening. So, obviously, the narrative of “Polo is a bomb, and the Sussexes don’t even want to acknowledge it” narrative has taken hold.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle seem to be galloping away from any association with their new show about polo, after it was ridiculed by critics as a tin-eared foray into the “world’s stupidest sport.”

Notably, there has been no visible promotion for the show, entitled, imaginatively enough, Polo; no interviews or podcast episodes with Meghan or Harry have dropped, and records suggest there are no premieres or press events scheduled to support its launch earlier this week. It’s a grim turn of events for the couple, once heralded as Netflix’s golden duo. Their own lack of engagement with promotional efforts for the show, which they executive produced and have a cameo role in, suggests even they know it’s a dud.

Sean McNulty, a producer, writer, and Hollywood veteran who also created and wrote the Hollywood newsletter The Wakeup, told The Daily Beast: “This one hasn’t been on my radar at all this week, which maybe says it all right there.” McNulty noted the absence of coverage in the Hollywood trade papers and the apparent absence of any scheduled premiere or press activity for the series, saying: “The lack of a proper, visible press campaign for a series from Harry & Meghan raises an eyebrow to say the least.”

He said that Netflix has launched “other much higher profile content this week” such as Carry-On, Jamie Foxx and Sabrina Carpenter specials, which suggested Polo “could very well disappear in to the Netflix ether quite quickly.”

Harry and Meghan do not have official social media accounts but their friends who have often promoted things on their behalf have been eerily quiet too. Even Nacho Figueras, the player sometimes described as the David Beckham of polo, who is one of the stars of the show, only posted a few tweets and one Instagram story about the show earlier this week before moving on.

More shuffling away from the bad smell was evident in remarks attributed to a source reportedly quoted in Closer Magazine, who said the end result was “pretty much out of their control” because “the bosses wanted the series to appeal to the masses and push this reality TV angle.”

With a spokesperson for the couple declining to comment, it looks suspiciously like Harry and Meghan would rather we all quietly pretend this new show doesn’t exist. Critics, however, do not appear ready to extend that courtesy.

Even Harry’s arch-foe Prince William appeared to troll the couple earlier this week, revealing he has been enjoying Netflix—except he said he was watching the hit new show Black Doves.

[From The Daily Beast]

As I said, I watched one episode of Polo and I’m going to finish the series this weekend. It’s enjoyable and actually well-done. Harry and Meghan should be proud of the finished product, and I cannot understand why they’re refusing to hype it or even remind people that it’s out now. Sussex fans will say “the British media gives them free promotion for whatever they do,” but that’s how the “Polo is a terrible show and it’s bombing” narrative came about in the first place. Even if H&M aren’t particularly proud of Polo – which, again, I think is a good show – they still have the responsibility as producers to hype their product and ask people to watch it.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Netflix.

In September, a judge ruled on the Heritage Foundation’s 20-month attempt to gain access to Prince Harry’s visa records. Originally, Heritage FOIA-requested Harry’s visa records, which of course are not public documents. Heritage then took that FOIA request through several federal courts. They wanted access to Harry’s records because Harry wrote about his drug use in Spare, and Heritage was on a fishing expedition to discover IF Harry lied about drugs on his visa application. The idea being, if Harry lied about drugs, he could be “deported back to the UK.” Heritage was openly doing the bidding of the British media AND the monarchy. Anyway, back in September, the judge examined Harry’s records and then ruled in favor of the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security, denying Heritage access to Harry’s file and putting the whole thing under seal. Meaning, the judge saw nothing alarming in the file and saw no reason for Heritage to have access to someone’s private immigration documents. We hoped it was all over.

Then Donald Trump “won” the election. Suddenly, there’s been a revival of interest in the “Prince Harry could be deported” storyline. The British papers are salivating at the thought of it. Royal reporters even suggested that Prince William might have spoken to Donald Trump about his brother’s immigration status last weekend. And so now Heritage has filed another legal challenge. This time, Heritage’s argument is not “we need the records to see if Harry lied!” This time, the argument is “ANY drug use should have prohibited his residency in America.”

A right-wing think tank has launched a fresh legal challenge against the Biden Administration over Prince Harry’s US visa records, claiming there was “no proper method” for his admission to America. The Heritage Foundation’s latest court filing seeks to overturn a judge’s earlier decision to terminate their case, which aimed to force the release of the Duke of Sussex’s immigration documents.

The organisation’s lawyers wrote in the filing, seen by Newsweek: “[Heritage] submitted there was no proper method by which the Duke of Sussex could have been admitted.”

The case had previously been dismissed in September by Judge Carl J. Nichols after he privately reviewed confidential Department of Homeland Security files. The Heritage Foundation argues that the sealed nature of the judge’s reasoning denied them the opportunity to challenge the DHS’s private disclosures.

The Heritage Foundation’s case centres on Prince Harry’s past drug use disclosures during the US immigration process. The think tank contends that if the prince was honest about his previous drug use, he should have been denied entry to America.

In his earlier ruling, Judge Nichols addressed Heritage’s argument that Harry either disclosed his drug use and was “admitted inappropriately” or failed to disclose it entirely. A recent Government filing responded to these claims, stating: “The evidence before the Court plainly sufficed to show that [Heritage’s] speculation of impropriety was unfounded.”

Heritage’s lawyers have now clarified their position, asserting they were actually arguing that it would have been impossible for Harry to have been properly admitted to America through any means. Heritage’s challenge focuses heavily on the sealed nature of Judge Nichols’ decision-making process. The think tank argues that the confidential handling of DHS files prevented them from properly contesting the department’s private disclosures to the judge.

Their lawyers maintain that if the Department of Homeland Security had “paroled” the Duke of Sussex into the country, it would be both “illogical and illegal.”

[From GB News]

We’ve gone from “we just want to look at his records to double-check that he didn’t lie about drugs” to “actually, we meant to say that if he admitted any kind of past, casual drug use, he should not be allowed to live in America!” The thing is, this kind of ridiculous bullsh-t will find a home in the incoming Trump administration. The new administration is going to be teaming with Heritage’s dumbf–k fascists, and you don’t think one of them will end up at DHS? What I’m saying is that it’s probably inevitable that Harry’s visa records will be made public, probably handed right over to the Mail and the Telegraph. I just hope Harry has really good immigration lawyers in California, because this whole thing has been lunacy.

Top 8 Stories about the Heritage Foundation targeting Prince Harry

The ultra right wing Heritage Foundation has been trying to deport Prince Harry since Spare came out! Sign up for our mailing list and get the top 8 stories about the Heritage Foundation targeting Prince Harry! – Katie at Celebitchy

Email

First Name

Subscribe

Loading…

Thank you!

You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

Behold, American Vogue’s December 2024 digital cover. This became controversial as soon as it was released. First, some backstory on the cover. It features seven actual models (only one of whom is a nepo-baby): Angelina Kendall, Anok Yai, Vittoria Ceretti, Amelia Gray, Lulu Tenney, Loli Bahia and Devyn Garcia. A real who’s-who of the under-30 models and I think all of them qualify as Gen Z?

Vogue’s cover story is called “How Fashion Is Coming Down To Earth.” The cover models are all wearing various mass-market brands on the cover, brands like Gap, Toteme, Dôen, Levi’s and Polo Ralph Lauren. The thesis is that fashion is headed to mass-market brands, because people – especially young people – do not want to wear couture or excessively priced fashion in this new era. There’s also a focus on how many major designers are moving into established mass-market brands, like Claire Waight Keller moving from Givenchy to Uniqlo. Zac Posen is also creating a Gap line, and that’s especially highlighted in the Vogue piece. I enjoy these kinds of “trendspotting/where is fashion going” pieces but I think Vogue is missing some components of what awaits the fashion industry in the coming years.

Anyway, the controversy! Basically, Vogue could have highlighted the the style diversity within affordable, mass-market brands and really showcased the affordable looks in the best possible way. Instead, Vogue made the choice to make everyone looked washed out and same-y. All the models in jeans and white tops, placed in a grey box with a grey letterhead. This is the future of fashion? Dull, sexless models in a grey box, all wearing the same thing?? I can handle a lack of glamour if the magazine is giving us a striking or striped-down cover image. But this just looks like some AI sh-t.

Elaborated on this https://t.co/owX0mimPGc pic.twitter.com/8b0JNPYeTs

— Louis Pisano (@LouisPisano) December 12, 2024

Love that there are models on the covers. HATE the covers. pic.twitter.com/Rq7cp67x4A

— Linduh Evangelista (@marcuslmorris) December 11, 2024

Cover courtesy of Vogue.

A big dream of mine is to go to Australia one year to get to experience a summer birthday and swim in the ocean there. I never feel more spiritually grounded and supported than when I’m bobbing along with the waves, and my gosh their waters look gorgeous. So bright, so clear! And much warmer than the northern Atlantic and Pacific oceans I’ve always lived near. So that’s my fantasy, but one aspect of Aussie culture, particularly beach Aussie culture, that I wasn’t aware of until now is that some people walk around barefoot? Not just on the beach, but everywhere. And I am not alone in just learning this. A video has gone viral on TikTok that shows Aussies doing everything from food shopping to walking their dogs at indoor and outdoor venues, all sans shoes. Naturally, people online have very strong opinions both for and against barefoot living:

Barefoot in the park… and store, and beach, and supermarket: For many down under, going barefoot is a way of life. When we’re not getting around in thongs (flip flops, for the dirty-minded), we often forgo shoes when going for a quick trip to the supermarket, the petrol station or Maccas. But now, the rest of the world has discovered our collective shoelessness, leaving many stunned and even horrified. A video montage of Sydney locals walking around barefoot has gone viral on TikTok, racking up over 4.4 million views, 200,000 reactions and 7,000 comments. … The video exposed our dirty habit, with the poster saying: “POV: You’re in Australia” with a crying emoji.

The world reacts: Even though we pride ourselves on being a clean country, people still seem to take issue with our nonchalant attitude towards the hygiene and safety of our feet. “But why?? So many insects, broken glass, urine etc.,” one comment, with 1,500 likes, read. …Even our fellow countrymen chimed in, with one saying, “I’m from Melbourne and can’t think of anything filthier than being barefoot on public floors.” … Other international commenters thought it was a joke. “Can someone please confirm if this is real?” one confused viewer asked. “What?! Do people not have shoes??” another shocked man wrote. “Aren’t there bugs, snakes and weird plants everywhere?” someone else replied.

Australia responds: “As a born and raised Aussie, this is true, but only in beachside suburbs, more people wear shoes than not but definitely have memories of hot days barefoot in the supermarket getting ice cream,” one said. “It’s only acceptable if you’re close to the beach,” someone wrote. Others went so far as to specify the exact radius from the beach it’s acceptable to go sans shoes. “10km or less,” one said. “Nah, it’s 5km,” a second quipped. Others couldn’t see the issue and even argued that it was our “natural state of being.” “We weren’t born with shoes, why is this so strange to some people?” one questioned. “It’s ‘grounding’,” another joked. … There isn’t a clear reason why it’s so common to go barefoot in Australia. Some have put it down to the influence of our Indigenous culture. Others see it as a reflection of our casual, laid-back society.

[From NY Post]

What do we think? I am all over the place on this issue! My gut reaction was nope, not happening, I don’t care how clean you think your country is. But then I wondered if I was just recoiling thanks to my frame of reference for the past 10+ years: the mean streets of New York City. I would sooner remove my shirt, split it in two, wrap my feet in the strips, and go around topless than walk these streets barefoot. But hygiene isn’t the only consideration here. What about temperature? I’ve had times where we left our flip flops at the beach entrance, thinking we’d frolic freely, only to have to make a mad, desperate dash back when the sand was burning our feet. I can’t imagine the sidewalk being any cooler! And speaking of flip flops, I only ever wear them in beach or pool situations, because despite their being ubiquitous, I have never found them comfortable. Is going around all day barefoot comfortable? I need support! As I’ve opined before, I don’t f–k with fashion stilts (aka high heels), instead proudly wearing the cloudlike footwear that are Hoka sneakers. After living with that level of buoyancy, am I a lost cause for trying out barefeet?

Clearly I have a lot of sole-searching to do (see what I did there?!) before I’m ready to book my trip down under. Wait for me, Bondi Beach… I’ll make it someday!

Is going barefoot acceptable? #barefoot #australia #onlyinaustralia #barefootlife #barefooting pic.twitter.com/rQFVoXmMFB

— 7NEWS Australia (@7NewsAustralia) December 12, 2024

Note by CB: I found this BBC news report about Australians going barefoot!

Photo note by CB: These photos of Chris Hemsworth, Matt Damon, Elsa Pataky and Luciana Damon are from 2018 and were taken in Sydney! Bonus pics of Hugh Jackman on Bondi Beach in 2019. Credit: Diimex/Backgrid. Photo of Chris Hemsworth at the Transformers One premiere in September credit: James Warren/Bang Showbiz/Avalon

Remember Angela Kelly, Queen Elizabeth’s dresser and BFF? According to Kelly’s leaks about herself, she was QEII’s best friend and constant companion, and Kelly was given free rein to disrespect and smear anyone in the Windsor clan. It was always funny that Kelly was held up as some kind of discreet confidante and companion. Her history of violence and tacky personal dramas should have been disqualifying, but no, she continued to back-stab her way into being a seriously ill queen’s right-hand woman. I bring up Angela Kelly to point out that Buckingham Palace does not attract the best and brightest. Unsurprisingly, there’s a new drama involving a palace maid getting arrested at a Christmas party for palace staff. How deliciously tacky.

A Christmas party for Buckingham Palace staff spiralled “out of control” with cops called to a nearby bar after glasses were hurled and punches thrown. Trouble flared when up to 50 servants arrived for a pre-arranged All Bar One bash after Palace drinks. A woman believed to be a housemaid aimed a punch at the manager, smashed glasses and was arrested. Security tried to calm her down but she continued to throw glasses, it is claimed.

A witness to the chaotic scenes said: “I’ve never seen one person get that crazy during a night out. She was on another level.”

Police raced to the bar after 9pm on Tuesday and the woman, 24, was arrested for common assault, criminal damage and being drunk and disorderly. She was thrown in a cell for the night and was released almost 24 hours later with a fine.

A source admitted to The Sun it had been a “tough night” for everyone involved. Another said: “Someone kicked off outside, was smashing glasses, and then got arrested.”

Details of the drama emerged as offices across the country hold Christmas parties with warnings they can spiral out of control ahead of Black Eye Friday, or Mad Friday, next week.

Royal staff had enjoyed drinks at the Palace at 4pm, with the event passing without incident. A group of around 50 including the woman later arrived for a pre-arranged party at the All Bar One — a nine-minute walk away in Victoria Street.

One insider told The Sun: “The group walked in and this one girl just got hysterical. She started smashing glasses and abusing our staff members, so we had to call the police. I’ve never seen one person get that crazy during a night out. She was on another level.”

It is understood Met Police officers also seized its CCTV. A force spokesperson said: “At 21.21hrs on Tuesday, December 10 officers were called to a bar in Victoria Street, SW1, following reports that a customer had smashed glasses and attempted to assault a member of staff. Officers attended and arrested a 24-year-old woman on suspicion of common assault, criminal damage and being drunk and disorderly. She was taken into custody and released the following evening having been given a penalty notice for disorder.”

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “We are aware of an incident ­outside the workplace involving a ­number of Household staff who had previously attended an early evening reception at the Palace. While this was an informal social gathering, not an official Palace Christmas party, the facts will be fully investigated, with a robust ­disciplinary process followed in relation to individual staff and appropriate action taken.”

[From The Sun]

Okay, now I’m curious – the Sun makes it sound like this happened early in the night? Like, did the maid arrive with 49 palace staffers and immediately get hammered and start beefing with everyone? Was there some kind of inciting incident? Did she have an issue with the All Bar One staffers or with her coworkers? Anyway, it’s not a good look for Buckingham Palace, and yet this feels on-brand for King Charles’s reign. This is what happens when you make your tacky-ass side-chick the queen consort, you know? This is what gets normalized.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Around this time last year, Kensington Palace excitedly announced that there were plans afoot to send Prince William and Kate on a “charm offensive” trip to Italy in 2024. As we know now, the trip never happened, but I’ve often cited those briefings of a planned trip to question the palace narrative that Kate’s abdominal surgery was “planned” as well. In any case, in November, Buckingham Palace claimed the Italian trip for King Charles and Queen Camilla – they will likely head to Italy at some point in the first half of 2025. But that hasn’t stopped “a source at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office” from expressing disappointment that William and Kate remain so unwilling to travel on state business.

The King and Queen are hoping to visit Italy next spring, partly to make up for William and Kate pulling out of a trip planned for earlier this year.

A source at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whispers that there is a sense of frustration at the lack of ‘limelight royals’ – those who will attract crowds and headlines – available for the Government to deploy.

There is some annoyance that Wills consistently declares himself unavailable. Difficult family circumstances were perfectly understandable, says the source, and the FCO were suggesting only short-haul, short-duration trips for William sans Kate.

So they were somewhat surprised that he was able to head to South Africa last month to support his Earthshot Prize. He also made three trips to Germany to watch the Euros and turned up at the recent Notre-Dame reopening to glad-hand Donald Trump.

[From The Daily Mail]

Yeah, there’s a sense that “everyone understands” why Kate no longer travels (she hates traveling, William doesn’t want her around, she doesn’t want a repeat of the Caribbean Flop Tour). There’s also a sense that everyone knows that William is a lightweight, so the Foreign Office begs William to just do quickie solo visits to various countries and he just refuses or claims that it would interfere with his “me time.” And yet he has all the time in the world to travel to football matches or his Earthshot busywork. When Charles was Prince of Wales, he was deployed internationally for decades, even when he sometimes made a hash of it, he still did it and showed up. Anyway, it’s interesting that the Foreign Office is muttering about this to the Mail.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Judging from British dramas, I’m always left with the impression that London is chock full of all kinds of spies. I’m sure that’s true of New York and DC, and I’m sure both America and the UK have all kinds of glaring espionage loopholes which are mercilessly exploited by foreign actors. I’m still convinced that Donald Trump was fully handing off highly classified documents and secrets out of Mar-a-Lago’s tackiest bathrooms, you know? But I digress. Apparently, there was a Chinese spy operating in England, and he befriended Prince Andrew. The (alleged) Chinese spy was so close to Andrew, the spy was invited to Andrew’s 2020 birthday party AND Andrew authorized this guy to “do business” on Andrew’s behalf in Asia. It’s all coming out now:

A “close confidant” of the Duke of York is an alleged Chinese spy who has been banned from entering the UK on national security grounds. The man, known only as H6, was once a junior civil servant in China and was so close to Prince Andrew that he had been told he could act on the royal’s behalf when dealing with potential investors in China, according to a secret hearing. He was also invited to the Duke’s birthday party in 2020, and was described by the judges overseeing the case as a “close confidant of the Duke”.

However, the Home Office decided to exclude H6, aged 50, from the UK in July 2023 after MI5 deemed him to be an agent who had engaged in “covert and deceptive activity” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and that he posed a threat to national security. A letter from a senior adviser to the Duke was found on H6’s phone, stating that he was authorised to act on behalf of the royal in engagements with potential partners and investors in China.

H6 challenged this, but a special immigration commission has now ruled that Suella Braverman, the home secretary at the time, was justified in her decision to ban him from the UK. In their 53-page ruling, the judges said that the Duke could have been made “vulnerable” to the misuse of H6’s influence.

In a ruling on Thursday, Mr Justice Bourne, Judge Stephen Smith and Sir Stewart Eldon said: “The secretary of state was entitled to conclude that the applicant represented a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom, and that she was entitled to conclude that his exclusion was justified and proportionate.”

The SIAC hearing was told that the contents of the businessman’s mobile telephone was downloaded when he was stopped under counter-terrorism laws at a UK border in 2021. The mobile’s contents revealed that the Duke authorised the man to set up an international financial initiative known as the Eurasia Fund to engage with potential partners and investors in China. The phone contained a March 2021 letter from Dominic Hampshire, a senior adviser to the Duke, confirming the businessman could act on behalf of the royal in engagements with potential partners and investors in China.

The letter states: “I also hope that it is clear to you where you sit with my principal and indeed his family. You should never underestimate the strength of that relationship … outside of his closest internal confidants, you sit at the very top of a tree that many, many people would like to be on.” It added that after a meeting with the Duke they had “wisely navigated our way around former private secretaries and we have found a way to carefully remove those people who we don’t completely trust… Under your guidance, we found a way to get the relevant people unnoticed in and out of the house in Windsor.”

The immigration judges were told that in a briefing for the home secretary in July 2023, officials claimed H6 had been in a position to generate relationships between prominent UK figures and senior Chinese officials “that could be leveraged for political interference purposes”.

[From The Telegraph]

This reads, to me, like Andrew has been constantly in need of money for decades and he’s willing to leverage whatever “influence” he has to openly sell access to himself and his family to whoever is willing to pay. The problem is that even China understands that Andrew is not any kind of golden goose when it comes to influence, intelligence or power. I hope the PRC enjoyed hearing Andrew yammer on and on about his sweat glands or his ponies. Like, I understand the severity of this and of course it looks (and actually IS) incredibly bad for Andrew. But also – lol, the Chinese spy had to go to his bosses and admit that his big asset within the British royal family is just this human-trafficking loser and buffoon.

This is probably the most concerning part for the Windsors: “Under your guidance, we found a way to get the relevant people unnoticed in and out of the house in Windsor.” As in, the Chinese spy was advising Andrew on how to get people in and out of the establishment undetected? Hm.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

In late October, Jeff Bezos and Will Lewis (Murdoch crony and Washington Post CEO) ordered WaPo’s editors to dump the newspaper’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. The backlash to the decision was immediate, with thousands of people unsubscribing from WaPo and several journalists and editors stepping down. The day after the election, Bezos dropped his endorsement of Donald Trump though – Bezos congratulated Trump and openly kissed Trump’s dinosaur ass. Now this: Bezos will donate $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Amazon.com is planning a $1 million donation to president-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural fund, as founder Jeff Bezos and other tech leaders shore up ties with the incoming administration. The donation is being prepared as Bezos, Amazon’s executive chairman, is slated to visit Trump next week at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., according to people familiar with the matter.

Tech companies have been the target of intense criticism by Trump and his allies, and other tech leaders have hastened to smooth ties with him. Mark Zuckerberg directed Meta Platforms to also make a $1 million contribution to Trump’s inaugural fund, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

Bezos and the company decided on the contribution earlier this week, and communicated it to Trump’s team, according to some of the people. “Bezos is donating through Amazon,” according to a person close to Bezos. Amazon also will stream the inauguration through its Prime Video business, a separate, in-kind donation valued at $1 million, another of the people said.

Amazon gave about $58,000 in cash and in-kind donations to Trump’s inauguration in 2017, when other tech companies donated larger amounts. Amazon was told by the Biden administration that it wasn’t accepting tech donations for the 2021 inauguration, according to a person familiar with the matter, although Amazon streamed the inauguration for President Biden.

[From WSJ]

During the first Trump administration, Bezos and Amazon actually lost a big government contract. Instead of holding a grudge and making it his life’s mission to send Trump straight to hell, Bezos has spent recent years “making nice” with Trump, supplicating and capitulating to whatever Trump does or says. It’s a pretty awful look in general, and a catastrophic look for the owner of the Washington Post. This is why millions of people have abandoned their newspaper subscriptions, by the way. People are also tuning out cable news in droves. The post-election media landscape is dire, but hey, those are the same media outlets who sanewashed Donald Trump for years and helped get him elected. (Also, it f–king sucks that Mark Zuckerberg is donating too.)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

King Charles was outside on Thursday – he toured Apple’s UK headquarters with Tim Cook, and he toured the Curated Makers Christmas Market. Both events were associated with the King’s Trust (formerly the Prince’s Trust), which has offered support to various entrepreneurs who were involved with the Christmas Market. Charles always manages to look genuinely delighted whenever he’s in markets, shops or grocery stores. He always manages to look mildly horrified whenever they make him do photo-ops with computers or anything tech-related too.

Anyway, Charles is preparing for Christmas and trying to make his Christmas-hosting sound much bigger and better than his late mother’s Christmas hosting. Per usual, Charles will celebrate Christmas in Sandringham with his family. Reportedly, it’s supposed to be a larger gathering than usual, and Charles and Camilla have both made a point of asking their families to come to Norfolk for the holiday. Tom Parker Bowles spoke about it extensively in an interview with the Telegraph last weekend – Tom usually spends Christmas Day at his ex-wife’s house, with their two kids. This year, Camilla asked Tom and his kids to come to Sandringham. I assume Camilla’s daughter Laura will also be there. Obviously, Charles did not not invite both of HIS kids to Christmas. We heard that weeks ago, that the Sussexes did not receive an invitation to Sandringham. But someone wanted it emphasized, so Richard Eden got a call.

The King is determined to make this Christmas a big celebration for the extended Royal Family. Indeed, Prince William told families at a Christmas event for the 1st Battalion Mercian Regiment in Wiltshire this week that he was looking forward to spending it with 45 relatives ‘all in one room’!

Among those present for the first time will be the King’s stepson, Tom Parker Bowles, who revealed last weekend that he would be taking his two children to the royal retreat in Norfolk.

Despite the profound significance of this year’s celebrations, and the King and Queen’s intimations of mortality, there will be four conspicuous absences at the Christmas dinner table. While the King’s stepson will be there – the first time a monarch’s stepchild has ever stayed at Sandringham – his younger son will not.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, will instead be in California. Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, is likely to be the only member of either family to join them as they carve their turkey.

I am told that it is unlikely Prince Harry and his family were even invited to Sandringham this year.

‘Relations between Harry and his family are not sufficiently close for an invitation to be sent,’ a royal source tells me. ‘It’s very sad that things are that bad. We know that Harry wants to mend fences, but there is an awfully long way to go.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“Relations between Harry and his family are not sufficiently close for an invitation to be sent… We know that Harry wants to mend fences, but there is an awfully long way to go.” First off, the way it’s worded, they’re assuming that Harry was desperate for an invitation, but they can’t say that Harry requested an invitation (because he would deny that lie swiftly) or that he offered to come (again, he could deny that lie). It’s more likely that Harry and Meghan sent Christmas cards or holiday messages to Charles and then began planning their Christmas feast in Montecito. The fact that Buckingham Palace keeps pursuing this storyline – Desperate Harry Wants Reconciliation, Only To Be Brutally Snubbed By Charles – says more about Charles than Harry. It’s also a confession that all of this “big family gathering at Sandringham” PR is just another storyline for an audience of one: Prince Harry. “Look at us, Harry, we’re enjoying Christmas without YOU, aren’t you jealous?!?!” Psychotic.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

In an era in which society has moved away from legacy broadcast media and onto streaming platforms, there have been some great, independent, interview-style shows popping up via YouTube. One of the absolute best shows to come from YouTube is Hot Ones, which is produced by the studio First We Feast and now has more than 14 million subscribers and many more million views per episode. I’m sure you’ve all watched at least one episode. It’s a fantastic show with well-researched questions. Sean Evans is an amazing host.

Buzzfeed bought First We Feast back in 2021 as a part of a larger media acquisition of a company called Complex Networks. In February 2024, the company sold Complex Networks off but kept First We Feast. Well, Buzzfeed needed to reduce more of its debt, so it just sold First We Feast to a group of investors, including Evans, Chris Schonberger (FWF’s founder), Crooked Media (Pod Save America), Rhett & Link’s Mythical Entertainment (Good Mythical Morning), and George Soros’ Soros Fund Management. The deal was for $82.5 million. Schonberger will serve as CEO while Evans will become the company’s first chief creative officer.

BuzzFeed announced a deal to sell First We Feast, the studio behind the popular YouTube chicken-wing-eating celebrity talk show “Hot Ones,” for $82.5 million in cash to a group of investors. The consortium of buyers includes First We Feast founder Chris Schonberger and “Hot Ones” host Sean Evans, alongside podcast media company Crooked Media, Rhett & Link’s Mythical Entertainment and Soros Fund Management, the investment firm founded by billionaire financier George Soros. First We Feast said additional investors will be announced at a later date.

“Hot Ones,” first launched in 2015, now has more than 14 million subscribers on YouTube and 4 billion views to date on the platforms. Hosted by Evans and “known for its deeply researched questions,” the show has featured dozens of high-profile guests including Gordon Ramsay, Jennifer Lawrence, Shaquille O’Neal, Tom Holland, Jimmy Fallon, Kevin Hart, Post Malone, Millie Bobby Brown, Paul Rudd, Margot Robbie, David Beckham, Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman.

Earlier this year, First We Feast was engaged in talks with Netflix to produce live “Hot Ones” shows for the streamer.

With BuzzFeed’s sale, First We Feast will become an independent company led by Schonberger, who will assume the role of CEO, and Evans, who is taking on the newly created position of chief creative officer in addition to his ongoing tenure as host of “Hot Ones.” Sarah Honda, SVP of operations and brand strategy, will continue to oversee operations and serve as a co-executive producer of “Hot Ones” and SVP of client partnerships Brendan Kelly will continue to head up brand partnerships and ads sales for the business.

Today’s announcement marks an exciting new chapter in First We Feast’s history,” Schonberger said in a statement. “Being part of this incredible journey has been one of the greatest joys of my life. Our proven expertise in developing compelling formats, iconic IP, and best-in-class interviews makes us uniquely positioned to build on the brand’s momentum and supercharge our growth.”

The new investment in First We Feast will let it expand into new areas, Schonberger said, including new platforms, live events and talent acquisitions.

Evans, who noted that he hosted the very first episode of “Hot Ones” in March 2015, said, “As we approach the 10th anniversary of ‘Hot Ones’ next season, I’m constantly amazed by the passion and loyalty of our fans, who have made this journey so special. Not only is ‘Hot Ones’ a hit show, but it’s an experience — a cultural touchpoint that audiences want to be a part of, whether they’re watching, tasting the sauces, or sharing in the challenge with friends.”

He added: “The future is spicy, and I can’t wait to see what’s next.”

[From Variety]

That group of investors is interesting. Soros and Rhett & Link’s financial involvement didn’t surprise me at all. Crooked Media did a little bit, though, because Pod Save America’s interview with VP Kamala Harris’ campaign team a few weeks ago broke the “news” about why we never got that Harris/Walz Hot Ones appearance, which is that the show didn’t want to get political. I’d love to know what went on behind-the-scenes there because this deal had to have been in the works when it was recorded. (FWIW, I don’t think their involvement is anything other than another financial investment, so I don’t think we’re going to be seeing any sudden hard political turn from FWF.)

Anyway, good for Evans and Schonberger! They’re living the dream right now. The first content that will be produced post-sale is the Hot Ones annual holiday special on December 19. I hope First We Feast is super successful as its own independent entity. And while I don’t think they’re going to suddenly get political, I do wonder what new and creative shows they’ll produce now and whether or not any of the current shows will change now that they don’t answer to a parent company. It sounds like they’ve got some big plans to expand the brand and I’m looking forward to seeing what comes next.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: Ferrari – Look/Look Press/Avalon/Avalon, Robin Platzer/Twin Images/Avalon, Getty and screenshot from YouTube/First We Feast