James Cameron is currently promoting The Way of Water, the sequel to Avatar. A lot of time has passed since Avatar, and that time is reflected in the story, apparently. I don’t think this is a spoiler because it’s in all of the promotional material, but Sam Worthington’s character and Zoe Saldana’s character are married (or whatever it would be in this universe) and they have children. This was the whole point of the story, that these two characters are still together and raising children. In a New York Times interview with Cameron and the cast, Cameron spoke about how he wants to tell stories where the characters develop and change and form real bonds over time. He compares this story to the lack of personal development within Marvel stories. So I’m sure the Marvel fans will be on his ass soon.

The characters are parents now: “Zoe and Sam now play parents, 15 years later. In the first movie, Sam’s character leaps off his flying creature and essentially changes the course of history as a result of this crazy, almost suicidal leap of faith. And Zoe’s character leaps off a limb and assumes there’s going to be some nice big leaves down there that can cushion her fall. But when you’re a parent, you don’t think that way. So for me, as a parent of five kids, I’m saying, ‘What happens when those characters mature and realize that they have a responsibility outside their own survival?’”

Changing the perspective by making his characters parents: “I was pretty wild in my misspent youth, and there are a lot of risks that I wouldn’t take now. I see some of that wildness in my own kids, and there are stories that are embargoed until they’ve turned a certain age. But it definitely colors your whole perspective to have children. I also want to do the thing that other people aren’t doing. When I look at these big, spectacular films — I’m looking at you, Marvel and DC — it doesn’t matter how old the characters are, they all act like they’re in college. They have relationships, but they really don’t. They never hang up their spurs because of their kids. The things that really ground us and give us power, love, and a purpose? Those characters don’t experience it, and I think that’s not the way to make movies.

[From The NYT]

I don’t think that he’s wrong? Again, his critique is of the character development throughout superhero “universes.” He’s the one saying: you’re going to have Batman or Thor go through all of this drama over the course of decades and you’re never going to show them in a loving marriage or as parents? I get Cameron’s critique while I also understand why these franchises don’t show that kind of development, and it’s because Marvel and DC want to appeal to certain younger male demographics. I mean, the Nolan-directed Batman trilogy was basically Michael Caine’s Alfred telling Bruce that he should hang up the Bat-cape and get a f–king girlfriend. And when Batman finally did just that, the story literally ended.

Photos courtesy of James Shaw / Avalon and Xavier Collin/Image Press Agency / Image Press Agency / Avalon and JW / Bang Showbiz / Avalon.

Here are some photos of Gwyneth Paltrow at a Tuesday event in Beverly Hills. The event? Veuve Clicquot’s Solaire Culture Exhibit. Gwyneth wore a Carolina Herrera dress with an awkward midriff cutout. Cutouts cycle in and out of style every couple of years and I hate that we’re in the middle of another “in style” cycle. In my opinion, I think this would have been such a stronger look for Gwyneth without the cutout? The thin stripes are also giving me a headache.

I was meaning to cover something else Gwyneth-related last week but I kind of forgot. There had been some gossip that Gwyneth’s daughter Apple went off to college, but Gwyneth hadn’t confirmed anything publicly… until last week. As it turns out, she was quiet about Apple going away because Gwyneth has been f–king devastated and she misses Apple so much. She told People Magazine that watching Apple leave home was “horrible. It was truly horrifying. I was sick to my stomach, bursting into tears.” Gwyneth has already visited her on campus during a parents’ weekend and she says that Apple is doing great and she’s really happy. Gwyneth also talked about it with Us Weekly:

“It’s been a major transition. I didn’t know what to expect, but I knew it would be hard because Apple and I are so close and were together all the time. But I had no idea. It was like the worst heartbreak I’ve ever [felt]. I felt like the love of my life broke up with me for weeks. It was terrible. Now, I’m getting more used to it and it also helps to see her happy and well-adjusted. That makes a huge difference. And she just came home for October break, so that was good. I’ll see her for Thanksgiving.”

Paltrow, who shares Apple and son Moses, 16, with ex-husband Chris Martin, opened up about how her youngest child has dealt with the change, saying, “I think he’s sort of feeling a new world without a sister in the house. But he’s adjusting well. He’s such a great kid.”

[From Us Weekly]

My mom cried a lot when I left for college, and I cried too – I was homesick for a few months, but college is great. You make friends, get involved with tons of stuff, you grow up and get exposed to different kinds of people. I honestly didn’t think Gwyneth Paltrow of all people would be this devastated though. It’s like she was completely unprepared for her firstborn to leave the nest! Poor Goop.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Queen Camilla slipped away last week, flying to India undercover. She’s still in India, staying at a pricey resort called Soukya, which is operated by Dr. Matai. The resort/wellness center is focused on holistic medicine. Both King Charles and Camilla have stayed at the resort before, and this is apparently Camilla’s seventh stay at the center. She checked in with “some friends” and her security. We learned some or all of this earlier this week, after some reports from India were seemingly confirmed. It’s driving me crazy that not only do we not know why Camilla slipped off to India last week, but the British media is making the whole thing sound like an inspo wellness retreat with zero drama. Where’s the outrage about the cost? Where’s the outrage about the lack of briefing from the Palace? Where’s the outrage about the lack of information about what Camilla is actually doing there? I thought of all of that as I read through the Mail’s curiously soft-focus coverage.

After an intense two months following King Charles’s accession to the throne, the Queen Consort has reportedly travelled to India to visit one of her favourite holistic health retreats. Camilla, 75, arrived at SOUKYA, an international holistic health centre in Bangalore last Thursday and it is thought she will stay there until later this week, the Times of India reported.

This will be Camilla’s seventh visit to the health retreat on a 30-acre organic farm, which offers yoga and Ayuverdic, homeopathic and naturopathic treatments. The late Archbishop Demond Tutu is also believed to have visited three times and actress Emma Thompson is a fan.

The visit, which is happening in a private capacity, will see the Queen enjoy some special treatments with friends at the £735-a-night retreat.

FEMAIL reached to Buckingham Palace for comment, who declined to comment on a ‘private matter’.

The newspaper reported that 75-year-old Camilla was accompanied by a few friends and her security detail from Scotland Yard’s Royalty and Specialist Protection squad.

‘There were strict instructions not to publicise her trip as it’s a private visit. No public engagement programmes or interactions have been scheduled during her stay,’ a source said.

Wellness expert Dr Matai, who founded the retreat, has been the personal physician for the Queen Consort and the King for years.

There is a variety of suites and rooms for guests to stay, ranging from deluxe to super deluxe special, which boast a spacious private garden with veranda, a pantry, king-size beds, an en-suite bathroom with a shower and bath tub and your own private outdoor shower. Prices start from £735/INR 42,900.

[From The Daily Mail]

£735 a night. For Camilla, her friends and her security. Plus the cost of the flight to India, plus the security costs, plus the cost of whatever “treatments” Camilla is getting. It’s not that I’m saying that everyone has the right to medical privacy and the right to have a little private vacation, but I’m shocked at the double-standards in covering Camilla’s “private” vacation versus the Mail’s coverage of literally anything to do with the Sussexes. God help us all if Meghan went to a spa for a weekend, the Mail would have all-caps banner headlines about the cost of the spa, her security at the spa, “insiders” telling the world that Meghan doesn’t deserve spa treatments and questions about whether Meghan “brought Netflix cameras” to the spa.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar and Cover Images.

A few weeks ago, British photographer John Swannell accidentally said something mildly critical and factual about the new Princess of Wales. Swannell said that Kate should use her keenness for photography to give work to up-and-coming British photographers, and that Kate is “not a great photographer, but she just snaps away, and with kids it’s easier if you know them.” I covered his comments and it was just a funny and mild story. I mean, we can clearly see that Kate isn’t some super-talented photographer, despite what her embiggening campaigners claim. But she has a right to take pictures of her kids and whatever, you know? Well, I guess people were mad. Mad enough to frog-march this same photographer, John Swannell, back to the Daily Mail just so he could say something insulting about the Duchess of Sussex. Curious!

A royal photographer claims Princess Diana would not have been a fan of Meghan Markle. John Swannell, who was personally commissioned by the princess to take what became classic portraits of her with her sons, predicts Diana would think that Meghan has ‘stolen’ Prince Harry.

He claims the Duchess of Sussex has turned Harry into a ‘puppet,’ alleging that she had her own ‘agenda’ when she joined the Royal Family.

Princess Diana was such a great admirer of Mr Swannell’s work, but he does not believe, however, that she would have been an admirer of the Duchess of Sussex.

‘I don’t think she would have liked her, because she’d think she’d stolen her son,’ Mr Swannell told The Daily Mail at Brown’s Hotel in Mayfair. ‘He’s like a puppet now.’

The photographer, 75, is convinced that former Suits star Meghan was determined to meet a future husband in this country.

‘She seemingly had an agenda when she came over,’ he claims. ‘She was a little known actress and an opportunity came up, and she took it, like anybody would. But she’s a very smart woman, that’s for sure. She’s an operator.’

[From The Daily Mail]

How do we go from “random dude makes an observation about the poor quality of Kate’s photos of her kids” to “random dude hisses that Meghan is a vile, manipulative snake and Diana would have hated her!” It’s almost as if – hear me out – the Mail issued Swannell some talking points and he recited those talking points back to a Mail reporter. Was he paid or something? Or is he truly just a random guy who hates Meghan? Judging solely from their reaction to Meghan and her marriage, these tabloids make it seem like British men cannot handle it when a woman has a career, makes money, has wit, a work ethic and intelligence.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Avalon Red.

In recent years, JK Rowling’s raison d’être has been “being a vile transphobe and then complaining about people’s reaction to her hateful rhetoric.” I truly don’t even believe that transgender issues have touched her life in any real or meaningful way – what’s striking is how this was always an intellectual exercise for Rowling, almost like she’s a fascist political commentator trying to fuel hatred just for kicks and clout. She seems hellbent on marginalizing an already threatened and persecuted community just because she can, because she insists that only white cisgender women can be the most threatened and persecuted. Of course, Rowling gets a lot of hate directed at her. She feeds on it, and it fuels her persecution complex, and that hate muddies the waters and enables her friends to “defend” her from the online attacks. Friends like Ralph Fiennes, who spoke up last year in defense of Rowling. Well, Ralph is at it again.

Harry Potter star Ralph Fiennes has defended JK Rowling against claims she is a “fascist” for expressing opinions on the transgender debate.

The actor, who played Lord Voldemort in the film adaptations of Rowling’s books, has said the author is facing “disgusting” abuse for expressing criticism of gender ideology and voicing concerns about threats to female-only spaces, views which have led critics to label her “fascist” and “transphobic”.

Unlike younger members of the Harry Potter cast, Fiennes has said he understands where Rowling “is coming from” and defended the writer against her detractors, arguing that expressing opinions as a woman does not make someone “fascist”.

The actor said: “The verbal abuse directed at her is disgusting, it’s appalling. I mean, I can understand a viewpoint that might be angry at what she says about women. But it’s not some obscene, über right-wing fascist. It’s just a woman saying, ‘I’m a woman and I feel I’m a woman and I want to be able to say that I’m a woman.’ And I understand where she’s coming from. Even though I’m not a woman.”

Speaking to the New York Times, Fiennes also praised the author, saying: “JK Rowling has written these great books about empowerment, about young children finding themselves as human beings. It’s about how you become a better, stronger, more morally-centred human being.”

[From The Telegraph]

When he defended Rowling last year, I wondered if Fiennes had actually been following all of the sh-t Rowling said and just how transexclusionary she was being. It felt like Fiennes had only gotten Rowling’s side. But he’s a grown man and he knows well enough that shutting up is free. He could have looked into what’s actually happening, the transphobia being written into law around the world, the very real danger and threats against the trans community, the erasure of transgender people and trans issues. This is Ralph Fiennes choosing to be an a–hole.

Photos courtesy of Instar, James Warren/Bang Showbiz/Avalon and Justin Ng/Avalon.

This Brittney Griner saga has been going on for most of 2022. She was detained for cannabis possession in Russia in February, her trial began in July, and she was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison in August. The Biden administration has offered a “substantial deal” to Russia for the release of Brittney and another American prisoner, Paul Whelan, but so far Russian hasn’t taken it. Brittney’s defense team filed an appeal of the verdict back in August and just yesterday it was denied. The appeals court upheld the original sentence to send Brittney to a penal colony.

A Russian court upheld WNBA star Brittney Griner’s nine-year prison sentence on Tuesday, a decision that will send the U.S. athlete to a penal colony.

The court near Moscow upheld the original sentence which the state prosecutor called “fair.”

Griner has about eight years left on her sentence though another appeal is possible through Russia’s court of cassation, the highest court of appeals. It is not clear if her lawyers will pursue another appeal.

“We think we should use all legal tools available but that is her decision to take,” Maria Blagovolina, Griner’s lawyer, told reporters outside of the court. Blagovolina added that the two-time Olympic gold medalist was disappointed to hear the decision from the three-judge panel.

“She had some hope but that vanished today,” Blagovolina said.

Griner, who plays professional basketball in Russia during the WNBA offseason, was arrested in February after Russian authorities found vape canisters containing cannabis oil in her luggage at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.

Her lawyers said Griner only uses cannabis medically and unintentionally packed the cannabis canisters in her suitcase because the professional athlete was in a hurry.

Under Russian law, the charge carried a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. In August, Griner was found guilty and sentenced to nine years. She was also ordered to pay 1 million rubles, approximately $16,301.

Griner’s lawyers added that they will see the 32-year-old athlete, who appeared in court via video conference, next week. Blagovolina said that Griner last spoke to her family by telephone one week ago.

The White House called for Griner’s immediate release following Tuesday’s “sham judicial proceeding.”

“The president has demonstrated that he is willing to go to extraordinary lengths and make tough decisions to bring Americans home, as his administration has done successfully from countries around the world,” national security advisor Jake Sullivan wrote in a statement.

Sullivan added that the Biden administration remains in regular touch with the families of wrongfully detained U.S. citizens.

[From CNBC]

According to the article, it’s unclear whether her lawyers will appeal again. Initially, I had concerns that her court-appointed lawyers would be as much of a sham as the trial turned out to be, but from what’s reported it does seem like they tried their best for her. They seem to be facilitating conversations with her family as much as they are able and bringing her what they can, such as birthday cards and photos. In a heartbreaking story on ESPN, the lawyers offered to bring her a basketball since her location has a hoop but no ball. But Brittney declined, saying it was too painful. The ESPN story, written before the appeals decision, also talks about the potential prison camp location. Apparently the camp to which she was sentenced has worse conditions and more potential for mistreatment, but Brittney’s lawyers say she can request a location close to them in Moscow and any move is likely to take a while. Also notable, the CNBC article about the appeals decision says she has about eight years left, which seems to indicate they’re counting the past year as part of the time served. Hopefully the White House is still in contact with Russia about bringing Brittney and Paul home. I’ve also seen speculation that Russia is unlikely to take further action — whether that be moving Brittney to the prison camp or accepting the White House deal — until after the midterms, so keep an eye on that.

Embed from Getty Images

photos credit: Backgrid and Getty

The Duchess of Sussex’s Variety interview was remarkable for how little news, information or scandal she gave the haters. The Variety cover had been postponed because QEII passed away, and instead of merely updating the old interview (which was conducted in August), Meghan sat down with Variety for a second time after she and Harry returned to California following the funeral. She brushed off any larger conversation about her in-laws, saying it would be a “distraction” from mourning, and she spoke about the “outpouring of love and support” in the UK, and that “I’m really grateful that I was able to be with my husband to support him, especially during that time.” She also said it was a “complicated time” being in the UK when QEII passed away. Zero red meat for the Daily Mail & company, but they valiantly tried to make her diplomatic and lukewarm comments into the scandal of the week.

When the interview was published, Richard Eden – the Mail columnist – even tweeted “the Duchess of Sussex shows total lack of contrition for any heartache she and #PrinceHarry caused #theQueen.” Contrition! More like Harry and Meghan have consistently shown a lack of capitulation. Well, Eden was still perturbed by the lack of “contrition” when he did the Palace Confidential roundtable talk. Only on that show, he framed it as the royals – or royal courtiers – are mad about Meghan’s lack of contrition.

Richard Eden said Meghan Markle’s Variety interview ‘raised eyebrows’ because there was ‘no sense of an apology’ for what she put the Queen through. The Daily Mail’s diary editor revealed the interview would have ‘left people with mixed emotions’ in the latest episode of Palace Confidential.

He suggested that Meghan should have apologised for ‘the hard times’ herself and her husband Prince Harry have put the Queen and Prince Philip through ‘with their interviews and insults of the royal family.’

Richard said: ‘She certainly could have said, “I am not here to talk about the Queen’s death at all because I am here to publicise my commercial projects”, but maybe that would have been unreasonable, and she was paid for some tribute to the Queen. Lots of it would of raised eyebrows because she talked about her relationship with the Queen. But there was no sense of an apology for the hard times that she put the Queen through, same as they did with Prince Philip, with their interviews and insults of the royal family, all of these things that led up to the Queen’s death. So it would have been an interview that would have left people with mixed emotions.’

Assistant editor of The Mail on Sunday, Kate Mansey, went on to speculate that Meghan was trying to ‘distance herself from her and Prince Harry’s Netflix docu-series in the Variety Interview.

She said: ‘Meghan seemed to distance herself from it, saying “well it’s their project” rather taking full ownership, so I wonder will there be some interesting points in there.

Richard added: ‘They signed this multi mullion deal with Netflix what have we seen so far? Nothing. But now, the first thing we are going to see is entirely a Netflix production about them which they are keen to distance themselves from. Let’s be clear why, because it looks like it’s going to be awful for the royal family, it’s going to be lots of negative stuff, they want to say that’s Liz Garbus vision its nothing to do with us, which is very alarming.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“Maybe that would have been unreasonable, and she was paid for some tribute to the Queen…” Meghan literally put her podcast on hold and arranged for her interviews to be paused so that she would be respectful to her husband’s family, the same family which treated her like sh-t for years, including banning her from supporting her husband at Balmoral when QEII passed away. The same family which was endlessly leaking about her and Harry while they were going through the mourning period. No, Meghan wasn’t “paid” for the Variety interview. Trade papers don’t operate in the same sleazy way as the Mail. She was asked about being in the UK during the mourning period and she kept it positive and diplomatic, which is more than any of those people deserve.

There’s also so much energy being put towards Meghan’s comments about the docu-series – what she was saying is that they’ve handed the artistic/direction vision of the series to Liz Garbus. What she was actually saying is that they’re not peppering Garbus with notes and demands to “include this” or “take that out.” Which is exactly the narrative the British media has been trying to create out of thin air, because they’re desperate for any information about Harry and Meghan.

Cover courtesy of Variety, screencaps courtesy of Variety’s YouTube video.

When the Sussexit happened in 2020, suddenly there was a very melodramatic conversation happening about Prince Harry’s role as “counsellor of state.” Both Prince Harry and Prince Andrew were Counsellors of State for Queen Elizabeth II, meaning that in a time of crisis or a time when the monarch is out of the country, the counsellors could step in and make decisions on behalf of the monarch. Except Andrew is a nonce and Harry lives in America, which is why there was so much melodrama about whether Harry and Andrew should be “thrown out” as counsellors. At the end of the day, QEII didn’t do anything about the situation because – I believe – she knew that Charles would have to deal with the issue when he became king. And here we are – King Charles was handed the issue, and now the House of Lords is trying to solve it.

Amid all this week’s frantic number-crunching and furtive haggling for the Conservative leadership, few were paying much attention to the House of Lords order paper on a quiet Monday afternoon. Yet in one brief exchange between the Leader of the Lords and a Labour backbencher we caught a glimpse of what may be the first constitutional reform of the reign of King Charles III.

Ministers and senior Palace officials are now finalising plans to avoid any future prospect of the Dukes of Sussex or York being involved in affairs of state in the absence of the King. Under proposals expected to come before Parliament, possibly within weeks, the King will be able to draw on a wider pool of royal substitutes — not least the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex — to conduct routine constitutional duties when he is out of the country.

The Mail has learned that these proposals were already being considered some months ago, with the approval of the late Queen. Monday’s parliamentary reply from the Leader of the Lords, Lord True, suggests that reform may be imminent.

At present, when the monarch is absent for whatever reason, state business — such as approvals for most appointments and legislation — can be conducted by two Counsellors of State. Under the terms of the Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953, these can be appointed from the four most senior adults in the line of succession, plus the consort of a monarch. Today, that means the Queen Consort, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice. Under the proposals in hand, the King would be able to extend that list at his discretion, with the option to include his two other siblings, Anne and Edward.

Reform is not without some sense of urgency, given that the King and the Queen Consort are likely to be heading overseas soon, the first time that the monarch has been out of the country in seven years. Palace officials are conscious that, at a time of great national, international and economic turbulence, it would be highly embarrassing if the smooth and immediate running of government were suddenly dependent on either of the two errant dukes.

In theory, state business could still be conducted by the Prince of Wales and Princess Beatrice, though she is a private citizen who might not be available at the click of a constitutional finger. She also does not carry the imprimatur of a working member of the Royal Family.

Rather than amend legislation to exclude any specific individuals, so the thinking goes, it makes much more sense simply to expand the options available to the King.

[From The Daily Mail]

“The two errant dukes” – one duke was credibly accused of rape and human trafficking. The other duke married a Black woman and left Salt Island to protect his family. Both “errant,” I guess. Equally “errant.” Yeah, they’ve been trying to do this for years, somehow equate Harry and Andrew. It’s always been gross, but it is what it is. It’s how these dumbasses think. As for the issue of counsellors of state… sure, whatever. They’ve needed to make some changes for years, as I said. Of course Charles would prefer Anne and Edward in those positions.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

It’s been more than three weeks since Kanye West turned up at Paris Fashion Week and all hell broke loose. He opened the Balenciaga show at PFW, he put “White Lives Matter” sweatshirts in his Yeezy line, he verbally attacked Vogue editor Gabriella Karefa Johnson, he harassed every person who stood up for Karefa Johnson, and then he flew back to the US and immediately sat down with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. The Fox News interview was incredibly offensive, and Fox News producers took pains to edit out all of the antisemitic sh-t he said on-camera. No worries – since that interview, Kanye went full-on antisemite, to the point where he’s lost all of his jobs, all of his fashion collabs, all of his colleagues. Anna Wintour cut him off. Balenciaga cut him off. Adidas canceled his line. CAA dropped him. He was set to make some kind of documentary and that’s canceled too. What’s interesting is that once Kanye’s corporate partners make the decision to cut him off, they’re not mincing words whatsoever. From Adidas’s statement:

adidas does not tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech. Ye’s recent comments and actions have been unacceptable, hateful and dangerous, and they violate the company’s values of diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and fairness.

After a thorough review, the company has taken the decision to terminate the partnership with Ye immediately, end production of Yeezy branded products and stop all payments to Ye and his companies. adidas will stop the adidas Yeezy business with immediate effect.

[From Adidas]

It’s terse, and it needs to be terse. It needs to be a solid boundary of “you can’t do this” and “this is unacceptable.” Before now, Kanye had legitimately gotten mixed signals. He was doing and saying whatever he wanted and he still had support from Adidas, Vogue, the fashion industry. Not anymore. Oh, and Gap also came out and said that they’re not selling anything related to Kanye:

Gap is removing all Yeezy product from stores following Kanye West’s recent antisemitic remarks, the brand announced in a statement on Tuesday.

“In September, Gap announced ending its Yeezy Gap partnership,” the statement began. “Our former partner’s recent remarks and behavior further underscore why. We are taking immediate steps to remove Yeezy Gap product from our stores and we have shut down Yeezygap.com.”

The iconic American clothing brand’s statement continued: ” Antisemitism, racism and hate in any form are inexcusable and not tolerated in accordance with our values. On behalf of our customers, employees and shareholders, we are partnering with organizations that combat hate and discrimination.”

[From People]

Good. As Forbes pointed out, while the Adidas/Yeezy line brought in significant revenue for Adidas (a reported 4-8% of their sales), the Adidas deal was a huge chunk of Ye’s net worth. It accounted for $1.5 billion of his worth on paper. That’s now gone. And he doesn’t have anything to fall back on either – no Gap collabs, no Balenciaga collabs, no documentaries, no CAA. It’s entirely his own doing too.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

The new Princess of Wales hasn’t done any public events in nearly two weeks. We probably won’t see her at all until November, as the Wales kids are currently on their half-term break. Apparently, it’s the height of bad parenting – according to William and Kate – for parents to do one iota of work during their kids’ school holidays. A source suggested that the Waleses are actually spending this two-week period at Adelaide Cottage in Windsor. That’s doubtful. I bet they’re either on holiday abroad or staying at Anmer Hall in Norfolk. In any case, their Kensington Palace office sent out a notice of a new “patronage” for Kate. She will now “support” Captain Preet Chandi’s expedition to Antarctica:

On Tuesday, Buckingham Palace announced that the Princess of Wales, 40, will be formally supporting Captain Preet Chandi’s upcoming expedition across Antarctica as patron. Chandi, an officer and physiotherapist currently serving in the British Army, hopes to become the first woman to cross Antarctica solo and unsupported in a journey of over 1,000 miles.

Last winter, the explorer made history as the first woman of color to reach the South Pole alone and without aid, trekking 700 miles over 40 days, The New York Times reported. In recognition of her accomplishment, she was awarded an MBE in Queen Elizabeth’s Birthday Honours List.

Now, Chandi plans to return to Antarctica with an even grander plan, venturing out in early November with the goal of crossing the icy continent in 75 days. She’ll push through temperatures of -68°F and winds up to 60 mph, hauling 265 lbs. worth of gear on a sleigh. Chandi will also walk with the confidence that Princess Kate is cheering for her all the way.

“My aim for this expedition has always been to inspire people to push their boundaries. I want to bring people on this journey with me, to help them believe that nothing is impossible,” Chandi said in a statement. “It is an absolute privilege to have The Princess of Wales as the Patron.”

“The Princess has long been an advocate of the huge impact the outdoors can have on our wellbeing and the life skills it nurtures, such as confidence and resilience,” the palace said in a statement on behalf of Princess Kate. “She is committed to promoting this to young people, including through her work with organisations such as the Scouts, of which she is joint President. Preet’s historic expedition is the pinnacle of such activity and that is why The Princess is delighted to have been invited to be Patron.”

[From People]

“The Princess is delighted to have been invited to be Patron” – meaning that this isn’t even an association sought out by Kate. This was not Kate following Chandi’s expeditions and wanting to get involved. This is yet another thing handed to Kate on a silver platter and being told “this will highlight your interest in the outdoors.” Kate probably rolled her eyes and asked Chandi if she had even heard about Kate’s Special Royal Arse Log.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Prince and Princess of Wales (@princeandprincessofwales)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Instar.