Katie Nicholl’s The New Royals features a lot of embiggening for the new Prince and Princess of Wales. You’d almost think that Nicholl was simply publishing the talking points she had been issued from Middleton Manor and Kensington Palace. In some new excerpts published by the Daily Mail, Nicholl – hold on, I’m laughing as I type this – writes about how Prince William and Kate are the “new Elizabethans” and they’re also leaning into their star-power and glamour, as evidenced by Kate’s 40th birthday portraits. LMAO. Some highlights:

The long game: The Princess of Wales, meanwhile, has notably grown into her role. Rebecca Priestley, her private secretary for six years, told the Daily Mail that Kate ‘knows every decision is for the rest of her life, everything is for the long game’, and Kate’s playing it accordingly.

Kate’s 40th birthday portraits. The images were confident, bold even. It’s no overstatement to say they heralded a new age of Kate. Taken by Italian fashion photographer Paolo Roversi, they showed Kate in two Alexander McQueen frocks and in jewellery from both the Queen’s and Diana’s collections. It was a significant contrast to her debut on Vogue’s cover in 2016, when she was dressed in a brown country coat and a green fedora. William had been wary about her doing things that could be seen as too showy. At that time, he didn’t want her to do anything that might be compared to the famously sexy yet sophisticated portraits of his mother by Mario Testino.

William has mellowed about Kate’s consumption glamour: A former aide says: ‘William has always been very firm that his role is about duty, not celebrity, but he recognises in today’s world that he and Kate can use their global profile as there is a huge amount of interest in them. There is always something meaningful behind a red-carpet moment.’

This is what they’re teaching their kids? That is the point for the Prince and Princess of Wales, and it is what they hope to impress on their children. The family already has a unique global platform, and following the departure of the Sussexes, they no longer have to share it.

The New Elizabethans: ‘[William] certainly models himself on the Queen’s sense of duty,’ says one of his long-standing former aides. ‘There are also elements of his father’s duty that he takes into close consideration, but the values he most looks up to are his grandmother’s. ‘He knows that the institution has to be genuine, it has to be authentic, relatable, and really make a difference to people’s lives.’ That’s their Royal ambition: to be new Elizabethans. The monarchy is theirs to fashion as they see fit.

The Wales kids in the spotlight: ‘We’ve seen the children performing in front of the cameras in a way that cannot have been part of the original plan,’ observes Royal historian Robert Lacey. ‘We know that William and Kate want to bring up their children in relative seclusion and privacy, but the children have had to become a prominent part of the show.’

When Meghan was the star of that ‘Fab Four’ talk for the Royal Foundation: Nicholl claims Meghan’s first public appearance as a board member of the Foundation was a ‘wake-up call’ for Kate and William. She quoted a source who said: ‘That was a wake-up moment for William and Kate when they realised that Meghan was very impressive, very confident and very capable.’

[From The Daily Mail]

“He didn’t want her to do anything that might be compared to the famously sexy yet sophisticated portraits of his mother by Mario Testino…” I mean, it would have been hilarious for Kate to try to copykeen Diana’s gorgeous Testino portraits but Kate, as we know, doesn’t have the range. Her range is “happy when QEII dies” to “OMG buttons” to “Victorian nanny.” Speaking of, that’s always been Kate’s default – not glamour, not glitz, but Victorian and dated. Her default is to copy someone else, even if that someone lived 120 years ago.

As for the kids… again, people act like William and Kate *have* to bring their kids out, like they’re being forced to exploit their children. It’s William and Kate’s choice to hide behind their kids. This is also curious: “It is what they hope to impress on their children. The family already has a unique global platform, and following the departure of the Sussexes, they no longer have to share it.” Ah, yes. William and Kate ran a destructive hate campaign on Harry and Meghan so that they could teach their children the valuable lesson of not sharing a spotlight.

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

Valentine Low’s Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown was excerpted in the Times. Most of the excerpts – and most of the headlines from those excerpts – were about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and “bullying” and the organized and unhinged smears against M&H. I wondered idly if that’s what the whole f–king book was about. Nope – it turns out that Low did cover/transcribe what then-Prince Charles’s courtiers said about him. After reading all of those ridiculous statements from Kensington Palace’s courtiers, would it surprise you to hear that Charles’s call-at-any-hour, workhorse energy is spoken about a lot differently than Meghan’s work ethic?

Charles is a demanding boss. Working for him is not a nine-to-five job. This, according to one former member of his household, is because he is very demanding of himself. “He is never satisfied with himself, or what he has achieved. People around him had to work hard to keep up. He had enormous stamina.” Another said: “He was demanding in that he is always working. Seven days a week. Never stops. At any moment he may want to call you about something. Working on his boxes, on his ideas, on his papers. The pace is pretty intense.” The phone calls could come at any time, from after breakfast until 11 at night, even at Christmas. In contrast to the conviviality of his grandmother’s household, Charles’s office is suffused with a ferocious work ethic: he is a man with a mission.

Oh, Charles has a temper, wow! “He would drive people hard. He was full of ideas, always asking people to go and do things. The workload as private secretary would be immense. He had strong opinions. He also had a proper temper on him, which was quite fun. He would rarely direct it at the individual. It would be about something, and he would lose his temper. He would throw something. He would go from zero to 60 in a flash, and then back down again. Things would frustrate him, especially the media.”

Charles can’t keep staff either, how weird: In the space of about seven years, Charles had five different private secretaries. Promotion, preferment, who’s in, who’s out: no wonder Charles’s household has been compared to Wolf Hall.

Charles’s office is full of dysfunction: In her book on Prince Charles, Catherine Mayer quotes a businessman who helped to set up an event with the prince’s household and later spoke “with amazement” about the “glaring flaws” in its organisational structure. He got the impression that aides used to obstruct planning so they could tell the boss of problems, which they would then solve. “There was a lot of backstabbing,” he said. According to another insider, some courtiers, though loyal and able, are also cunning and “involve themselves in the dark arts of undermining other people”.

Charles goes outside the palace walls for advice, to disastrous results: Charles was not always a good judge of who should have his ear. Jimmy Savile, the broadcaster and charity fundraiser who, after his death, was revealed to have been a serial sexual abuser, wrote a handbook for Charles on how the royal family should deal with the media after big disasters. Charles passed on his tips to the Duke of Edinburgh, who in turn showed them to the Queen.

Charles falls under people’s spells: One of Charles’s former members of staff said the most pernicious effect of his outside advisers was the way they suggested that his usual team were not doing a good job. “The prince is quite susceptible to new voices who tell him, ‘They are stopping you doing what you want to do. They are holding you back, the suits.’ He loves it when someone says, ‘Oh, they have got it wrong, sir, listen to me. I can see it better; I am outside of this.’ The prince falls under people’s spell. That could then lead to real problems for individuals.”

[From The Times]

Low includes several stories of Charles bitching out various aides and keeping aides glued to their phones over weekends and holidays, awaiting his calls over non-urgent business. Low includes stories of Charles’s short temper and the real crisis of leadership and management within his dysfunctional office. It’s actually giving me a better sense of just how poorly Meghan was treated and how thoroughly she was scapegoated. As for Charles “falling under people’s spells” and, equally, being a terrible judge of character, welp, now he’s the king. It will only get a lot worse now.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Harry Potter Film (@harrypotterfilm)

Madly, Deeply: The Diaries of Alan Rickman is coming out October 4 in the UK, October 18 in the US. The Guardian published some excerpts over the weekend and got everyone all a-titter. Alan wrote the diaries with the intention that they would be published, so read these with a clear conscience. His wife Rima Horton takes over the book when Alan is too weak from pancreatic cancer to write, and she details his last few days. The beauty of Alan’s entries is that he wrote in his own voice, so it feels like you’re having a chat. The bonus is there is all this wonderful gossip and insight we’re hearing for the first time. One of the big stories is that Alan almost didn’t return to the role of Snape in the Harry Potter movies after Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. In the brief blurb we got, he talked about “reiterating” that he was doing no more of the films. But the studios wouldn’t hear it. Thank goodness. By the fifth film, Alan decided Snape’s story was now his story, so he relented to see it through.

Excerpts from Alan Rickman’s diaries are giving insight into the late actor’s role as Severus Snape in the Harry Potter film series and why he decided to continue playing the character amid tough times and desires to quit.

In the diary entries, which were published online by The Guardian on Saturday, Rickman detailed that he wanted to leave the franchise in 2002, one month after the release of the second film: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

“Talking to [agent] Paul Lyon-Maris about HP exit, which he thinks will happen,” Rickman wrote in an entry dated Dec. 4, 2002. “But here we are in the project-collision area again. Reiterating no more HP. They don’t want to hear it.”

The actor decided to stay with the franchise, however, after he was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer in 2005, ahead of filming for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the franchise’s fifth installment.

After doctors opted to remove his entire prostate through surgery at a Tennessee hospital, Rickman wrote a journal entry detailing his decision to stay on as Snape in the beloved fantasy saga.

“Finally, yes to HP 5. The sensation is neither up nor down. The argument that wins is the one that says: ‘See it through. It’s your story,’ ” he wrote.

[From People]

My first question was why did Alan want out of the Potter films? I have no idea if the excerpts are just partial entries or if he just wrote a sentence or two at a time. Maybe Rima will give some interviews and fill in blanks during the promotion. Hard to believe the studios didn’t lock these characters down with multi-picture contracts from the start. Again, I never read the books, maybe Snape wasn’t featured in them as prominently so that wasn’t necessary. But later in his diaries, Alan talks about finishing the last HP book and Snape’s in it, thus my assumption they needed Snape past movie two. It’s also sad because Alan died in 2016, before J.K. Rowling had any tarnish to her. He speaks of talking to and about her in such a way, it makes me miss both of them.

Not surprisingly, the book is already a number one best seller on Amazon. My father keeps a diary. I know it’s going to tear me in two after he’s gone. I’ve always been a crap diarist, but they are important. Sometimes even more important for others more for us. That’s what Instagram has become for me. I suppose Facebook could be as well if you can avoid the toxicity. Alan died on my birthday. Four days after David Bowie died. Personally, I was in one of the worst places I’ve been in – for other reasons, obviously, but I took their deaths so personally. Maybe if I put on one of Bowie’s albums and read Madly, Deeply, it’ll feel like they’re back for just a few minutes.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Harry Potter Film (@harrypotterfilm)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Harry Potter Film (@harrypotterfilm)

Photo credit: Instagram and Avalon Red

The second Queen Elizabeth II passed away, the British media was harping on and on about Prince Harry’s memoir. It’s especially weird considering it hasn’t even been three f–king weeks since QEII’s death and Katie Nicholl, Valentine Low and Angela Levin all decided to release their royal books on schedule, if not ahead of schedule. That was always the plan – the desperados were trying to get ahead of Harry’s memoir to capitalize on the interest in the Sussexes before Harry’s book sales blew them out of the water. So for the past two and a half weeks, “sources” have claimed all kinds of dumb sh-t, like Harry is going to cancel his memoir completely, or Harry will push back the publication. Absolutely none of it is coming from Harry, Harry’s people or Penguin Random House sources. All of it coming from palace sources and their need to turn their own wishful thinking into reality. Speaking of:

Prince Harry has made an eleventh-hour attempt to tone down parts of his forthcoming autobiography because he fears being vilified for it in the wake of the Queen’s death, according to reports. The Duke of Sussex is worried that some of the revelations in his book “might not look so good” following the public outpouring of support for the monarchy, both at home and abroad, it is claimed.

The book, part of a three-title deal worth £36.8 million, is expected to be published this autumn, but the Duke is now said to be worried that it will be ill-timed as his father the King begins his reign.

He reportedly wants to make “refinements” to the manuscript, which had already been signed off by publishers Penguin Random House, though industry sources have questioned whether it might be too late.

Having invested such a huge sum of money in the Duke’s memoirs, the publishers are likely to want the book to be as revelatory as possible. The Duke had already been told to revise the manuscript after it was regarded as “too touchy-feely”, according to The Mail on Sunday, with too much of it taken up with his mental health struggles. A separate report in The Sun on Sunday claimed that the publishers found the first draft “disappointing” and “too emotional”.

A source told both newspapers that: “Harry has thrown a spanner in the works as he is desperate to get it refined in the light of the Queen’s death, her funeral and his father Charles taking the throne. There may be things which might not look good if they come out so soon after the Queen’s death and his dad becoming King. He wants sections changed. It’s not a total rewrite by any means. He desperately wants to make changes. But it might be too late.”

No release date for the book has yet been made public, though it is understood that the publishers want it to be on the shelves in the US before Thanksgiving on November 24 so that it will hit the all-important Christmas market.

[From The Telegraph]

Yeah, none of these sources have any idea. As Omid Scobie reported – and I believe Scobie’s reporting – the book was completed and it passed legal months ago. The book will be published as-is and I hope it comes out sooner than Thanksgiving. How about an All Hallow’s Day release? Besides, I think all of these f–king morons forget that Harry’s publishing contract was for multiple books, right? My guess/assumption is that this book will be published as-is and on schedule. And then Harry’s second book will be the barn-burner. I hope he dashes off the second book and it’s published next year. He owes these people nothing.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Backgrid.

Kelly Ripa has a new book called Live Wire: Long-Winded Short Stories. Full disclosure, I kind of love that title. It’s a memoir and probably redundant to point out that it’s a tell-all because Kelly lives her life by telling all. I don’t dislike Kelly, actually. She reminds me so much of myself, only she was smart enough to add the rich and beautiful part to her fairy tale. But I’m a big mouth too and I tend to rub people the wrong way in all the ways Kelly does. That’s probably why I’m so hard on her, because I’m criticizing myself as much as her.

But we aren’t identical because I would’ve skipped this chapter. In her new book, Kelly is dishing on some behind the scenes on Live. While she doesn’t talk about Michael Strahan at all, she casts some shade on America’s favorite grumpy grandpa, Regis Philbin. Not only does she say their on-set relationship was frosty from the day they met, Kelly said she tried repeatedly to stay connected after he retired and he simply didn’t respond.

“What I learned from working with Regis Philbin was that my favorite stories were the imperfect ones. I learned by watching him,” says Kelly Ripa.

From her first appearance on Live! — when a psychic revealed her third pregnancy before she and husband Mark Consuelos had told their parents or their bosses — to the time she told the world about her daughter Lola walking in on her and Consuelos having sex, the 51-year-old talk show host has shown that no one is better at sharing life’s imperfections. But there are some imperfect stories she’s never told — including her early struggles on Live! and her complicated, sometimes difficult relationship with Philbin. “The biggest misconception is that it all came easily,” says Ripa. “People think I just showed up one day and was handed a job and I lived happily ever after and now everything’s perfect. But it never is that way.”

“That was the hardest chapter to write,” she says. “I don’t want to feel like I’m slamming anyone or that I’m being disrespectful. But I also want people to know it was not a cakewalk. It took years to earn my place there and earn the things that are routinely given to the men I worked with. Including an office and a place to put my computer.”

Landing the morning show gig following the departure of Philbin’s cohost Kathie Lee Gifford in 2001 was like “getting shot out of a cannon,” says Ripa, who was also starring on All My Children at the time. When her agent called with the offer, she was told: “They want you to know who your boss is.” No explanation given. “It was very ominous, and it did not feel good,” she says. Her agent also said the show didn’t want her “bringing an entourage.” She brought two people. “I came with hair and makeup,” she says. “It was not an unusual thing for people on a television show to show up with.”

Moments before she walked on stage, Philbin greeted her and the show’s executive producer, Michael Gelman, with: “Uh-oh, Gelman, it’s got an entourage.” It?! Her heart started racing. “I felt horrible,” she recalls. “He was probably trying to be funny, but at the same time it felt like a pile-on.” The tensions continued. “I understand that probably he didn’t want a cohost, but the network wanted me to be the cohost and I didn’t think I should pass up that opportunity,” Ripa says. “I don’t think it was fair to him. But it was also not fair to me.”

Still, her sassy spark gave Philbin’s curmudgeonly charm a fresh appeal. “There were good and bad days,” Ripa says. “I thought I’d grown on him. I think I did.” She treasures some memorably joyful moments with him away from the show. “Off camera and outside of that building, it was a different thing,” she says. “The handful of times we spent together, I so enjoyed. We went to the same resort once on vacation and he came to a dinner I hosted—one of the favorite nights of my life. I never laughed so hard.”

Philbin retired in 2011, but wounds opened anew when he told Larry King in 2017 that Ripa was “very offended” when he left, that he’d never heard from her again and had never been asked back. “The show had reached out many times,” says Ripa, pointing out that he appeared on its 2015 Halloween episode. “It makes me sad but it’s not something I will ever understand. I was steadfast in my attempt at communication. You can’t make a person befriend you.”

[From People]

I actually think Kelly is doing herself a disservice by trying to interpret Regis’ actions and comments here. Like Kelly, if I’d heard, “it’s got an entourage” without any context, I’d probably be taken aback as well. However, it absolutely sounds like a joke Regis would make. I’ve never watched a full Live show and even I knew that. So Kelly’s sort of telling on herself that she didn’t do her due diligence before she walked on set. I’m not condoning calling another person “it”, just saying that I heard Regis refer to many people as “it” in the brief bits I watched of him. The fact that it took Regis a while to warm up to Kelly isn’t a surprise. He was a curmudgeon. Curmudgeons require a certain taste, you either have it or you don’t. (I happen to love them.) But you have to let them be when they need it. If Kelly pushed when Regis wanted her out of his face, she heard about it, I can promise you that.

As for this he said/she said postmortem, we only have the living person’s words to dispute what’s on record. We know that Kelly did not take Regis’ departure well. I don’t blame her, they basically sprung it on her. But “the show had reached out many times,” is not the same as Kelly contacting Regis. And “steadfast in my attempt at communication,” is very particularly worded. I’m sure Kelly wanted to stay in touch, but she is skirting around something here. It sounds like Kelly is still carrying a lot of pain from this. She admitted in the book she forgives but never forgets and that’s what this sounds like. I don’t blame her, but I wonder if her careful wording has anything to do with Joy Philbin and Kathie Lee Gifford being around to also set the record straight.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kelly Ripa (@kellyripa)

Kaley Cuoco’s been making the promotional rounds for her new movie with Pete Davidson, Meet Cute, which premiered on Peacock last week. No spoilers, but I liked the movie. I generally like Kaley and find Pete way more likable in motion than in photos. And he was dressed better in the movie than real life! Kaley appeared on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, alone, in a cute sequined suit, and talked about a bunch of things including her Emmys dress, her boyfriend, and working with Pete.

On her Emmys Dress
They literally cut that dress before I walked out. That was a full gown and they just cut it. We went wild. It was all long, no leg.

On meeting Tom Pelphrey, her boyfriend
We have the same manager. This is a very Hollywood story. My manager… had asked me if I knew who Tom was. And she goes, “And side note, he’s single.” And I was like, “Oh, I’m not ready to date.” And I had told my sister, I’m like, “Do you know this Tom Pelphrey?” she’s like,
“Have you seen ‘Ozark’?!”
“No, I haven’t!”

She met Tom at the Ozark premiere with her manager
I was at the bathroom, and I was waiting. And I hear this voice. It was Tom, and he’s like,
“Where’s this Kaley?” And I turned around, and it was Tom. It was like love at first sight. The world stopped.

On meeting Pete Davidson, her costar
He was attached to this film way before I was. Obviously everyone was like, “You guys need to meet. We hope that there’s chemistry.” I had never met him or anything… so I find out that he would like to meet me, but he wanted to meet me in an escape room. I don’t enjoy escape rooms. I like answers. I don’t want to know why there’s a 6 on the ceiling and why it connects to the bike that opens the door. I hate that. Pete just laughs a lot, he’s a happy guy.

[From The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon]

So I thought her frothy pink Emmys dress was an actual mullet dress, not just a gown that was cut right before the show. It turned out okay, but that was quite a risk! I wonder why they decided to do that. The straight cut in the front kind of matched her bangs. The story about meeting her boyfriend was cute. Some people (myself included) thought it was maybe a bit quick after her two brief marriages, but getting set up by their mutual manager sounds pretty organic. Sounds better than an app (I hate apps). The way Kaley tells the story, it sounds like the manager was just a bit meddlesome and Kaley wasn’t pushing to be set up or necessarily looking to date, but it seems like that’s always when you meet someone. She seems super into him and what she says about seeing him for the first time is cute. And the story about Pete Davidson totally tracks. Of course he wanted to meet in an escape room, so ~edgy and ~original. And we all know why he laughs a lot. But yes, Pete seems like a happy guy and a fun hang. They probably had a blast filming the movie together.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaley Cuoco (@kaleycuoco)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kaley Cuoco (@kaleycuoco)

Khloe Kardashian is possibly canoodling with Michele Morrone? [Just Jared]
Wow, I love Sam Smith & Kim Petras’ new single “Unholy.” [OMG Blog]
Pajiba’s review of the horrendous Don’t Worry Darling. [Pajiba]
Happy birthday to retired GOAT Serena Williams. [Dlisted]
Arizona will send abortion doctors to prison. [Jezebel]
Proenza Schouler is very flouncy & fringey. [Go Fug Yourself]
“Riverdale is camp” actually makes a lot of sense. [Gawker]
The protesters in Iran are so brave and bold. [Buzzfeed]
Joe Alwyn’s facial hair was on a red carpet last week. [RCFA]
Nazis & proud boys clash with… you know, normal people. [Towleroad]
Items from Chris Pratt’s Amazon wishlist. [Egotastic]

Valentine Low’s Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown continues to be excerpted in the Times. Unlike the excerpts we’ve gotten from Katie Nicholl’s book and Angela Levin’s book, Low seems to be breaking some news here and there, whereas Nicholl and Levin are merely recycling old stories in really stupid ways. This one excerpt about the final negotiations for the Sussexit was particularly interesting, because Low editorializes into his summary, basically saying that all of his sources – the courtiers – did an exceptionally bad job managing two stars of the royal family, then the courtiers compounded all of their own errors by f–king up the exit negotiations. Some highlights:

Different exit scenarios: The people sitting around the table went through five different scenarios, which ranged from Harry and Meghan spending most of their time being working members of the royal family, but having a month a year to do their own thing, to them spending most of their time privately, but doing a select number of royal activities. There was, according to more than one source, a positive atmosphere in the room: they wanted to find a solution. At one stage, Alderton made the point that if they could get this right, they would be solving a problem for future generations of the royal family who were not in the direct line of succession.

The palace still wanted to control the Sussexes no matter what: By the end of the week, the five scenarios had been worked through. The view from the palace establishment was that, however much time Harry and Meghan spent away from royal duties, anything they did would reflect on the institution. That meant that the normal rules about royal behaviour would apply. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. But the Sussexes wanted their freedom: freedom to make money, freedom to dip their toes into American politics. There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point.

They blame it all on QEII: Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless the couple were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the royal family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties. One source said: “There was a very clear view: you can’t be in and out. And if you’ve got such clarity of view, it’s very difficult to say, ‘Why don’t we go 10 per cent this way instead of 20 per cent?’ ” Compromise was off the table, removed by the Queen.

The incompetent courtiers: One former palace insider believes the way the developing crisis was handled was “incompetent beyond belief”. They said: “I think Meghan thought she was going to be the Beyoncé of the UK. Being part of the royal family would give her that kudos. Whereas what she discovered was that there were so many rules that were so ridiculous that she couldn’t even do the things that she could do as a private individual, which is tough . . . It just required the decision-makers to sit around a table and say, ‘OK, what are we going to do about this? What do you need to feel better? And what can we give?’ ”

Collective failure: There was a collective failure on the part of those who work for the royal family to recognise that there was a serious problem, to flag it up, and to try to do something about it. There were no high-level discussions any time in the first eight months of 2019 — when Meghan was later to say that she had suicidal thoughts and the first clues were emerging that the Sussexes were plotting an escape — about the nature of their unhappiness and what could be done about it.

Finding freedom: There is one final thought on this, and it comes from a surprising source, someone who knows Harry well but remains upset about what Harry and Meghan did. Their view is that perhaps the Sussexes’ departure was not the untrammelled disaster that so many think it was. “There is a part of me that thinks Meghan did Harry the greatest kindness anyone could do to him, which was to take him out of the royal family, because he was just desperately unhappy in the last couple of years in his working life. We knew he was unhappy, but we didn’t really know what the solution would be. She came along and found the solution.”

[From The Times]

“I think Meghan thought she was going to be the Beyoncé of the UK” tells me all I need to know about what Meghan was up against with these crusty old men. But Low actually underlined the point which should haunt the courtiers who are still smearing Meghan as a narcissistic bully and sociopath: if all of that was actually the case, why didn’t any of them actually do anything about it for two years? If Meghan and Harry were such a huge problem, why weren’t the courtiers in problem-solving mode long before the Sandringham Summit? Did they honestly think – as Meghan wondered in the Oprah interview – that Harry and Meghan were just going to sit back and take the endless smears and abuse in silence forever? Did they think Harry was just going to sit back and watch as the same people destroyed another woman he loved? The courtiers and the Windsors want to say that the family is “The Firm” and it’s run like a business – okay, then be a f–king a manager and manage the crisis. The courtiers and the family failed to do that.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Ellie Hall at Buzzfeed had a somewhat exhaustive look at the issue of royal titles for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s two children, Archie and Lilibet. Currently, the kids are not referred to, in the public sphere, with any royal title. They appear in the line of succession with the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, even though they automatically became prince and princess the moment QEII passed away. The institution of the monarchy simply refuses to acknowledge that though – it’s not King Charles III “giving” Archie and Lilibet titles, it would need to be Charles taking them away. Despite the royal commentators trying to pretend that Meghan and Harry spent the mourning period “arguing” with Charles about the titles, I believe they’re sitting back and waiting to see what Charles does now. Harry and Meghan already said their piece to Oprah, that they were told that their children wouldn’t get royal titles, that the Letters Patent would be changed to remove the titles from their kids, the first mixed-race royal children in the line of succession. Ellie Hall tried to parse what’s happening now:

We’re more than two weeks into the reign of King Charles III and there’s still no answer to one seemingly simple question: will his grandchildren, Archie Harrison and Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, become a prince and princess, to be addressed as “their royal highnesses,” or won’t they?

Buckingham Palace has said multiple times that it won’t be addressing that question until after the official mourning period for Queen Elizabeth II ends on Sept. 26 — although in press briefings, the royal spokespersons have given some eyebrow-raising quotes when asked about when the decision about titles will be made, in one instance replying “the future is an amazing thing,” as reported by the Daily Mail.

In a speech delivered on Sept. 9 just shy of 24 hours after the announcement of the Queen’s death, the new King gave his other son and daughter-in-law, the royals best known as Prince William and Kate Middleton, the titles of Prince and Princess of Wales. Within hours of the King’s speech, the page on the royal family’s official website listing the line of succession was updated with the new Wales titles for William, George, Charlotte, and Louis. (The children were previously Princes and Princess of Cambridge; they’re now Princes and Princess of Wales.) But Archie and Lilibet were — and, as of press time, remain — “Mountbatten-Windsors.” If Buckingham Palace is to be believed, those quick website updates for William and his kids were a fluke, a one-off.

When asked about why Archie and Lilibet’s titles hadn’t been updated on the royal family’s official website during press briefings, the King’s spokespersons somewhat evasively replied that they were waiting for further information from an unspecified party. “We will be updating the website as and when we get information,” one spokesperson said, as reported by the Sunday Times. The Press Association even titled its Sept. 10 story “Palace waits for information on Archie and Lili’s titles before website change,” as if it is a decision to be made by an outside force.

Without question, the best official response to a media query about the Sussex children’s titles and the royal family’s official website was made by a spokesperson who referenced King Charles III’s inaugural speech, in which the King said, “I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.”

“While the website was updated for the Waleses, clearly updating love on a website doesn’t quite work so we’ve not quite done that but clearly he does love [the Sussex children],” the spokesperson said, as reported by Hello! Magazine on Sept. 10.

Another spokesperson for the King confirmed the accuracy of the quotes above via email and said that “the focus now is on mourning the Queen, and [the issue of Archie and Lilibet’s titles] is something for further down the line.” The spokesperson declined to provide further specifics on how long that line might be.

[From Buzzfeed]

To be clear, this is entirely Charles’s mess and he’s the only one who can clean it up. Like everyone else in that ghastly family, he painted himself into a corner and he’s screwed either way. If he goes ahead with his original plan of changing the Letters Patent and taking away Archie and Lilibet’s titles, then he’ll look racist, punitive and evil. If he does nothing and allows Archie and Lilibet to retain their titles under the Letters Patent, then congrats, all of his grandchildren are princes and princesses and he’ll have to treat them accordingly (which he also doesn’t want).

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

In the past year, Kim Kardashian scored a print ad campaign for Balenciaga, she collaborated with Fendi on a collection for Skims, and she turned up to Milan Fashion Week back in February, wearing head-to-toe Prada on multiple days. Kim is absolutely leaning into big-name brands, and here’s another one: she’s been co-opted by Dolce & Gabbana. Kim arrived in Milan last week to host a special VIP party on behalf of D&G. She also walked the runway of D&G’s show, and she was seen out and about in Milan with the designers.

I hope Kim is being paid for all of this Dolce & Gabbana support, and I hope she’s not in contractual breach of any of her other campaigns and collabs. Stefano Gabbana and Domenico Dolce are massively problematic, with a long history of being anti-IVF, anti-gay rights and pro-racism against Asian people. All of that usually gets covered up because celebrities aren’t paying attention to the designers’ politics, so celebrities wear D&G on red carpets all the time. The designers also hosted Kourtney Kardashian’s wedding to Travis Barker, so clearly the Kardashian clan is just the kind of American tackiness they’re looking to procure, long-term.

Meanwhile, last week we heard that Kim had purchased a $60 million home in Malibu. People Mag confirmed the purchase, but sources stress that Kim isn’t moving out of the Hidden Hills home she and Kanye renovated extensively. Kanye signed that home over to Kim as part of their divorce, although he bought a house right across the street, because he’s still stalking her. That’s what the People Mag confirmation said – the new Malibu home is “just a beach house. She is not selling her Hidden Hills house,” but “Kanye’s home is very close [to the Hidden Hills house] and this is another way for her to have her autonomy.”

Her roots look so bad, but I hope she’s actually ditching the blonde. It never suited her!

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.