It was funny to watch last week, as the Windsors decided to all come out and do various public events. Almost all of the public events were highly stage-managed, especially those for Prince William and Kate. Queen Camilla’s first event of the year was a solo appearance at a university, and then on Friday, Camilla joined King Charles in Manchester for a day of events. They arrived separately, which seemed really weird to me. Charles took the Royal Train and did some appearances before Camilla got to town. Still, these were their first joint public events of the year, and their first since Prince Harry’s Spare came out.

Meanwhile, the coronation’s planning is still underway and there are still a million little choices King Charles has to make before his big day. Decisions about… breeches. Apparently, it’s tradition for the new king to wear some kind of fancy knickerbockers or something and Charles says no, he won’t be doing that.

He’s breaching tradition to ditch his breeches. King Charles III’s coronation outfit is going to “break away from tradition” and steer clear of the “dated” look of the past, according to reports.

The monarch will be formally crowned on May 6 following his ascension to the throne in September after the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II — Britain’s longest-reigning sovereign. And while the royals have always stuck true to their centuries-old traditions, it seems as though the King is looking to switch things up to keep up with the times.

In previous coronations, the monarch traditionally wore silk stockings and breeches — often worn for horse riding. But a source told The Sun that Charles will don his military uniform on the big day in a bid to represent the “modern 21st-century monarchy.”

“Senior aides think breeches look too dated,” an insider told the outlet, suggesting that the monarch is being advised against tradition.

[From Page Six]

I’m not sure King Charles wearing all of his military regalia will be preferable imagery to breeches and silk stockings. I mean, Charles has given himself every military ribbon, medal, sash and pin in the British military. Seeing a 74-year-old man who never served in combat wear all of that at his coronation will actually provide a very “military junta by way of a tin-pot monarch” vibe. It will also highlight the fact that his veteran son (who served two tours in Afghanistan) will not be there. These people bathe in hypocrisy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

The British media is so eager for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to fail. They live in their own little world where they try to speak bad things into existence just by paying “sources” to make evil predictions. Predictions which then turn into headlines and stories about how the Sussexes failed at this or that. Then, days later, it turns out that the Sussexes had some kind of massive, record-breaking success. So it was with Netflix’s Harry and Meghan, a six-part docuseries which destroyed many a sleep cycle in December. We already knew it was a massive hit for Netflix. But the Daily Mail still tried to convince everyone that Netflix’s business was failing and it was all H&M’s fault. Last week, the Mail ran this headline: “Netflix expects to announce just 4.5 million extra subscribers – half the same time last year – despite launching low-cost tier and a string of hot ticket releases including Harry & Meghan.” One of the sub-heads was: “Netflix is expected to turn in its lowest addition for holiday period since 2014.” Would it shock you to learn that the Mail is full of sh-t?

Netflix reported its fourth-quarter 2022 earnings Thursday, revealing financial performance for the three-month period during which the platform’s cheaper, ad-supported plan launched and the new Tim Burton drama “Wednesday” regularly dominated the weekly Top 10 rankings.

The streamer added 7.66 million net new subscribers in Q4, compared to its own estimation of 4.5 million additions. And Netflix ended 2022 with 230.75 million worldwide, smashing its previous target of 227.59 million. That represents 4% year over year growth in total subs, with paid memberships rising by 910,000 in the U.S. and Canada, 3.2 million throughout Europe, the Middle East and Africa, 1.76 million in Latin America and 1.8 million in the Asia-Pacific region.

In discussing its financial results for the quarter, Netflix management stated flatly that the company’s most free-spending years are behind them. The current quarter marks 10 years since Netflix up-ended the industry with the launch of original series content with the David Fincher drama series “House of Cards.”

“Now that we are a decade into our original programming initiative and have successfully scaled it, we are past the most cash intensive phase of this buildout,” Netflix wrote in its letter to shareholders. “As a result, we believe we will now be generating sustained, positive annual free cash flow going forward. Assuming no material swings in (foreign currency fluctuations), we expect at least $3B of FCF for the full year 2023.”

[From Variety]

Packaged within Netflix’s announcements about their huge surge in fourth-quarter subscriptions and revenue, they also confirmed that Harry and Meghan was the second most-popular documentary in the company’s history:

Netflix has announced the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s explosive recent series is its second-highest ranked documentary ever. Netflix reported its fourth quarter earnings on Thursday and disclosed a gain of 7.7 million subscribers during the October-December period, a stretch that included the debut of an ad-supported option for seven dollars (£5.65) per month.

As defined by cumulative view hours in the first 28 days, it also reported on Wednesday as its third-most popular series ever, Glass Onion its fourth-most popular film and Harry & Meghan its second-most successful documentary series.

[From Bloomberg]

I sort of questioned the wisdom of putting the docuseries in the middle of December, but it ended up working out okay, I think. A lot of people watched it as the series came out, and then even more people got the chance to watch it over the holidays. I’m really glad that the series was such a success, and I hope that people support the Sussexes’ other Netflix projects, especially Harry’s upcoming Heart of Invictus series. I still say that, within the industry, the success of Wednesday is probably a bigger story though!

Photos courtesy of Netflix, screencap of the Daily Mail’s dumb headline.

Tom Brady’s football season has been pretty awful, from what I can tell (I don’t follow football). His season has been so bad that most football fans are constantly clowning him about how Gisele was the whole reason why he was successful for years. I’m a big fan of the “Gisele was a good witch who gave Tom a winning juju” conspiracy, honestly. Not only did Tom lose his wife and his good witch, he now has to watch as Gisele stops giving a f–k about him completely. Like, Gisele isn’t mourning their marriage at all. She wanted out, she got out quickly and she’s already moving on. It also looks like something is happening with Joaquim Valente, the jiu-jitsu instructor she’s been seen with a lot in recent months.

Gisele Bündchen remains close with jiu-jitsu instructor Joaquim Valente following her divorce from Tom Brady after 13 years of marriage. A source close to the supermodel, 42, tells PEOPLE that she and Valente share a tight bond, though they aren’t rushing into putting any type of romantic label on their relationship.

“Gisele adores and trusts [Joaquim] and has been spending a lot of time with him, but I don’t think it’s a traditional dating scenario,” the insider says. “They have a deep personal relationship, and he is a teacher to her and the kids. Whether or not it will ever become more than that rests on the table.”

The source adds that Bündchen loves Costa Rica — the spot where she and Valente have vacationed together on numerous occasions — and is keeping fit and active.

A second insider close to Bündchen notes that the star is “focused on her kids, her health and work,” adding, “She is happy and doing really well.”

“She had a wonderful Christmas in Brazil. It was the perfect trip. She feels excited and hopeful about the new year,” the source continues. “Last year was rough, but she is confident that things will just keep going up from here. She has no regrets. She wishes Tom the best, but is confident that the divorce was the right option.”

[From People]

LMAO. “She wishes Tom the best, but is confident that the divorce was the right option.” She makes Tom sound so pathetic. Like, every day away from Tom makes her understand that he’s a giant loser who chose football-in-his-40s over his wife, his children and his health. As for this new guy… I would assume that Joaquim is not a “boyfriend” per se, but a good friend and a solid, discreet rebound who is putting a spring in her step. She gets friendship and a dude who is crazy about her, and he gets to bang Gisele. Win-win.

Gisele shows off her toned frame as she steps out AGAIN with her hunky jiu-jitsu instructor https://t.co/NiuZVH5VZO

— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) January 17, 2023

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

God bless Pedro Pascal. pic.twitter.com/ncpb5k1G1i

— Jarett Wieselman (@JarettSays) January 16, 2023

Pedro Pascal knows he’s your daddy. HOT. [Pajiba]
This dinner sounds like a Mad Libs fail – Taylor Swift had dinner with Lena Dunham & Cameron Diaz? What a bizarre dinner party. [Just Jared]
Channing Tatum takes a lie detector test. [OMG Blog]
Reese Witherspoon wore Saint Laurent & a chunky necklace. [RCFA]
A couple locked themselves into their dogs’ crates. [Dlisted]
More theorizing on Brad Pitt’s mysterious real estate sales. [LaineyGossip]
Greg Wise & his daughter Gaia stepped out on a red carpet. [Go Fug Yourself]
Twenty years of Jimmy Kimmel Live. [Seriously OMG]
George Santos claims he was never a drag queen. Hm!! [Gawker]
Jennifer Lopez’s body is insane. For real. [Egotastic]
Netflix’s co-CEO Reed Hastings is stepping down. [Buzzfeed]
New Jersey middle schoolers aren’t allowed to have rainbow signs. [Towleroad]

Okay I moaned pic.twitter.com/rMGPp66yGi

— Ben Yahr (@benyahr) January 18, 2023

Here are some photos of Prince William on Thursday in London. He visited the London office of Depaul, an organization which works with homelessness in the UK. Homelessness is one of the few “issues” William has consistently worked on, and by that I mean, he usually does a few events every year with Centrepoint or what have you. But he’s been doing that since his early 20s. It’s one of the issues William considers “his.” “Africa” is also his issue, according to William. According to People, Diana visited Depaul several times. William “met with staff and spoke to clients, past and present.” It was a learning-and-listening visit. He might want to try not to look so alarmed when he’s interacting with Black women.

Before QEII passed away, William was already telling staffers – who then dutifully told the media – that he wanted to focus more on homelessness as an issue in the years to come. Of course, he’s doing this as he has four homes (that we know of) and he now controls the vast Duchy of Cornwall real estate empire. It will be interesting to see if he actually *does* something on this issue or if he merely visits shelters once or twice a year and makes faces at the people who work there.

Meanwhile, the British media has been filling their royal coverage with all kinds of unhinged “polls,” some of which I suspect were being conducted just as Prince Harry’s Spare came out and very few people had read it. The Telegraph reported on yet another poll, this one from Ipsos Mori (which is, in my opinion, a more legitimate pollster than the YouGov clownery). Ipsos found that post-Spare, William’s popularity has “plunged” eight percentage points. Kate’s popularity has also dipped five points. The same poll finds Prince Harry and Meghan’s popularity is in the gutter among British people, so once again, I wonder why British people are constantly being polled about people who haven’t lived in the UK in over three years.

Still, it’s interesting that there is a noticeable drop in William’s popularity. Not enough of a drop, if we’re being honest. I’ve been shocked to see how many British people completely shrugged off William’s violent assault on his brother.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

In Prince Harry’s Spare, he does an interesting job of detailing the many roadblocks set in his path when it came to proposing to Meghan and setting a wedding date. When he first considered proposing to Meghan, he told his father and Charles’s immediate reaction was to claim that there wasn’t enough money to support Meghan… or maybe any wife Harry might want. Next up, Harry told people on his staff, Edward Lane Fox and Jason Knauf. Their immediate reaction was to try to find some protocol or rule banning Harry from marrying a divorcee.

I told Elf and Jason that I wanted to propose. Congratulations, both men said. But then Elf said he’d need to do some fast digging, find out the protocols. There were strict rules governing such things. Rules? Really? He came back days later and said before doing anything I’d need to ask Granny’s permission.

I asked him if that was a real rule, or the kind we could work around. Oh, no, it’s very real.

It didn’t make sense. A grown man asking his grandmother for permission to marry? I couldn’t recall Willy asking before he proposed to Kate. Or my cousin Peter asking before he proposed to his wife, Autumn. But come to think of it I did remember Pa asking permission when he wanted to marry Camilla. The absurdity of a fifty-six-year-old man asking his mother’s permission had been lost on me at the time.

Elf said there was no point in examining the whys and hows, this was the inalterable rule. The first six in line to the throne had to ask permission. The Royal Marriages Act of 1772, or the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013—he was going on and on and I could barely believe my ears. The point was, love took a decided back seat to law. Indeed, law had trumped love on more than one occasion. A fairly recent relative had been…strongly dissuaded…from marrying the love of their life. Who? Your aunt Margaret. Really? Yes. She’d wanted to marry a divorcé and…well. Divorcé? Elf nodded.

…To say nothing about the furor over a certain king who’d wanted to marry an American divorcée, which Elf reminded me had ended with the King’s abdication and exile. Duke of Windsor? Ever heard of him?

[From Spare by Prince Harry]

So even at the beginning, they were talking about Princess Margaret and the Duke of Windsor. All because Harry wanted to propose to a divorced American. They were absolutely looking for some kind of “reason” to get Meghan out of there quickly. In later chapters, Harry describes getting QEII’s permission at a shooting party, then the proposal to Meghan (which was already covered in the Netflix series). Once everything has been announced, the palace then slow-walked their decisions about a wedding date and venue.

Strangely, the Palace had trouble focusing too. We wanted to get married quickly. Why give the papers and paps time to do their worst? But the Palace couldn’t seem to pick a date. Or a venue.

…On our return from that trip I rang Willy, sounded him out, asked his thoughts about where we might get married. I told him we were thinking of Westminster Abbey. No good. We did it there.

Right, right. St. Paul’s? Too grand. Plus Pa and Mummy did it there. Hm. Yes. Good point.

He suggested Tetbury. I snorted. Tetbury? The chapel near Highgrove? Seriously, Willy? How many does that place seat? Isn’t that what you said you wanted—a small, quiet wedding? In fact we wanted to elope. Barefoot in Botswana, with maybe a friend officiating, that was our dream. But we were expected to share this moment with other people. It wasn’t up to us.

[From Spare by Prince Harry]

According to Harry, the palace kept rejecting wedding date proposals and trying to block out full months because of one-day events like “Garter Day.” Finally, the palace settled on May 2018 and they agreed to allow Harry and Meghan to wed at St. George’s Chapel. But that only came after months of back-and-forth while Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace tried to throw up all of these roadblocks in Harry and Meghan’s path. Lord. So much for “we welcomed Meghan right away!”

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.

For years and years, we’ve heard the story about Prince Harry “inheriting” his mother’s famous sapphire engagement ring. It was said that, as a boy, Harry selected the sapphire-and-diamond ring and kept it for years, up until Prince William asked for it in 2010 so he could propose to then-Kate Middleton. There have been variations of the story, like William “picking it up” from Harry and carrying it in his pocket or backpack, or that William didn’t give up anything in exchange for the ring. In Spare, Harry writes about a trip he took with William to Lesotho in 2010, a trip where they went on adventures and checked in with Sentebale’s work. They returned to the UK and this is what Harry writes:

Soon after we returned to Britain the Palace announced that Willy was going to marry. November 2010.

News to me. All that time together in Lesotho, he’d never mentioned it. The papers published florid stories about the moment I realized Willy and Kate were well matched, the moment I appreciated the depth of their love and thus decided to gift Willy the ring I’d inherited from Mummy, the legendary sapphire, a tender moment between brothers, a bonding moment for all three of us, and absolute rubbish: none of it ever happened. I never gave Willy that ring because it wasn’t mine to give. He already had it. He’d asked for it after Mummy died, and I’d been more than happy to let it go.

[From Spare by Prince Harry]

That’s one of hundreds of tossed-off fact-checks in the book but I loved the way he just spit out that story. William didn’t even tell Harry that his engagement would be announced soon! I wonder if the Lesotho trip was part of William’s African travels that fall, when he claims to have proposed to Kate in Kenya? If Harry knows, he didn’t say. But I did find the part about the ring fascinating, that William always had it. I wonder if Harry always had Diana’s “freedom ring,” her large aquamarine cocktail ring, which he gave to Meghan.

Judging from what we’ve seen the brothers’ wives wear, Kate got Diana’s full sapphire suite, a particularly gaudy pair of pearl-and-diamond earrings and tons more. Meanwhile, Meghan got some of Diana’s less expensive pieces, like a pair of butterfly earrings, a few simple bangles, a diamond bracelet and the aquamarine.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

When she worked on Suits in Toronto, Meghan Markle rented a cute, modern house in the city. She lived there peacefully with her two dogs, minding her business and working up until November 2016. That’s when the British media learned of her relationship with Prince Harry, and her nice house was under siege day and night from the paparazzi. A year later, she moved to the UK, into Nottingham Cottage. Harry’s descriptions of NottCott in Spare make it sound like a dilapidated shack next to a palace, but he loved it. Meghan thought it was like a frat house, and she spent her own money making the place liveable and cute. Harry described NottCott as a place filled with love, and I’m sure he loved every minute of having Meghan there, all to himself.

Still, they outgrew NottCott and they eventually moved into Frogmore Cottage, another dilapidated shack which needed tons of renovations. As it turned out, Frogmore needed $3 million in renovations just to make it habitable. For years, the British media whined about the cost… to restore a small house on the Royal Windsor Estate. This was not private property! It was not Harry and Meghan’s responsibility to pay for anything involved with the structure of Frogmore. But the whining from the British media was too much, so Harry “paid back the cost” in the summer of 2020, months after he and Meghan moved to America. Harry explained what happened in Spare:

We’d rented a house in Oxfordshire. Just a place to get away now and then from the maelstrom, but also from Nott Cott, which was charming but too small. And falling down around our heads. It got so bad that one day I had to phone Granny.

I told her we needed a new place to live. I explained that Willy and Kate hadn’t simply outgrown Nott Cott, they’d fled it, because of all the required repairs, and the lack of room, and we were now in the same boat. With two rambunctious dogs…and a baby on the way…

I told her we’d discussed our housing situation with the Palace, and we’d been offered several properties, but each was too grand, we thought. Too lavish. And too expensive to renovate.

Granny gave it a think and we chatted again days later. Frogmore, she said.

[From Spare by Prince Harry]

First of all, “we’d been offered several properties, but each was too grand, we thought. Too lavish. And too expensive to renovate…” I wish he had gone into detail about what he was offered, the state of those potential properties and why he turned them down. I have believed for years that the Sussexes were offered a spacious apartment in Kensington Palace, but Harry turned it down because he didn’t want to be so physically close to his brother.

I also now believe that Buckingham Palace and Clarence House were constantly setting up the Sussexes, only offering them houses and apartments which would need millions worth of renovations. So much of “the cost of Frogmore” screams could have been mitigated by BP and CH saying clearly that Frogmore needed to be renovated anyway, and it’s royal property so of course the cost comes from the Sovereign Grant. The Queen and Charles could have provided some cover for the Sussexes. They chose not to.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Netflix, SussexRoyal IG.

Lucy Hale seems to be in a transitional phase professionally these days. She was the de facto star going into Pretty Little Liars, but was definitely not by the time it ended. And she’s struggled to find her footing with her projects since. I feel like she’d be a great streamer movie queen (coining it now, the 2020s version of the scream queen). Anyway, she recently appeared on Rachel Bilson’s “Broad Ideas” podcast. I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet because it’s one of their longer episodes at more than two hours and I find Rachel’s co-host a little annoying. The podcast ep covered a range of topics, including dating. Lucy, 33, talked about her age range of dating and clearly was talking about 52-year-old Skeet Ulrich when she mentioned the oldest guy she’s dated.. But never fear, “he was a young 52.”

“I haven’t really had rules with dating,” [Lucy Hale] said on Rachel Bilson‘s Broad Ideas podcast. “I’ve dated all the way up to 52 — [from] 27 to 52. I’m 33 and I feel like I’ll probably end up with someone around my age or older, just because of the non-negotiables. I feel like a lot of people in that older age bracket will meet those.”

Fans remember Lucy dated Scream actor Skeet Ulrich in 2021!

“He was a young 52,” Lucy said in the interview. “I loved it. No bulls–t, almost.”

In February 2021, Lucy and Skeet were photographed kissing on what appeared to be a date.

To fuel the fire, a short time after that, the Riverdale actor actually left a very flirty comment on the 31-year-old actress’ Instagram.

By April 2021, a source revealed if they were officially over.

[From Just Jared]

Did anyone else recall that line from Always Be My Maybe when Ali Wong’s character defensively describes her boyfriend as “a very young 50.” Um, I will just say, from people in my life in various capacities, there is definitely a such thing as “a young 52.” However, that’s not necessarily a good thing! It could mean youthful and energetic and or stunted and immature. What Lucy says sort of half makes sense. She’ll date people her age or older because they’re likelier to meet her non-negotiables. Sure, but what exactly are those? Because I’m the same age as Lucy and if I were to date someone 20 years older it would be because they’re mature and stable and straightforward. Like, I’d hope for the youthful energy to match my own (waning) energy, but that quality wouldn’t be my goal in dating someone just a few years younger than my parents. I guess the “young 52” thing was fun for a bit, but possibly turned out to be my more cynical reading of the phrase since she says “I loved it. No bullsh-t, almost.” Maybe there was some BS toward the end, which would make sense because their thing was pretty short-lived. Or maybe she caught up on Riverdale and thought it was too ridiculous.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Avalon.red, Backgrid and Getty

At some point, the Alec Baldwin story became about something else entirely. Alec’s accidental shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust in October 2021 became some kind of macabre “gotcha” for conservatives. The right-wingers were mad that Baldwin was and is a long-time Democrat, and that Baldwin spoofed Donald Trump on SNL. I’m trying to explain why I tapped out of the tragic story at some point last year – by most accounts, Hutchins’ death was a preventable tragedy if producers (like Baldwin) had paid closer attention to the live firearms being used in the production, and if the armorer and propmaster were doing their f–king jobs. I thought the people involved with Halyna Hutchins’s death were guilty of criminal negligence, not murder. So… I’m surprised that after a fourteen-month investigation, there are charges being brought for… involuntary manslaughter. Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (the armorer) are both facing two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Alec Baldwin, the producer and star of Rust, will be charged with involuntary manslaughter in the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. On Thursday, Santa Fe County District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and special prosecutor Andrea Reeb announced that Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will both be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. No charges will be filed related to the shooting of Rust director Joel Souza, who was injured in the incident. The charges will be formally filed before the end of the month.

Assistant director David Halls signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon, according to a press release.

“After a thorough review of the evidence and the laws of the state of New Mexico, I have determined that there is sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against Alec Baldwin and other members of the Rust film crew,” Carmack-Altwies said in a statement. “On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice.”

Reeb added, “If any one of these three people — Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls — had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple. The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the Rust film set. In New Mexico, there is no room for film sets that don’t take our state’s commitment to gun safety and public safety seriously.”

Baldwin’s attorney Luke Nikas of Quinn Emanuel said in a statement obtained by PEOPLE Thursday, “This decision distorts Halyna Hutchins’ tragic death and represents a terrible miscarriage of justice. Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”

Jason Bowles and Todd J. Bullion, attorneys for Gutierrez-Reed, said in a statement, “Hannah is, and has always been, very emotional and sad about this tragic accident. But she did not commit involuntary manslaughter. These charges are the result of a very flawed investigation, and an inaccurate understanding of the full facts. We intend to bring the full truth to light and believe Hannah will be exonerated of wrongdoing by a jury.”

In New Mexico, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine, according to a press release. The other involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act charge is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5000 fine; since a firearm was involved, this is punishable by a mandatory five years in jail.

[From People]

Okay, so I googled for a bit and I think I understand (in a general sense) why the charge is involuntary manslaughter. The DA will have to prove that Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reed were not only negligent but “reckless” in their handling of the gun. Remember, Alec’s argument was that, at the time, he believed he was handling a prop gun. He had no idea that he was handling a weapon with live bullets. I guess the DA’s argument is: well, he should have known. I agree, but I’m not sure that makes Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I tend to think the case against Gutierrez-Reed is a lot stronger than the case against Baldwin. We’ll see. I mean that literally, I’m sure all of the cable news outlets will have wall-to-wall coverage if this makes it to court.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, ABC.