Embed from Getty Images

The Duchess of Sussex went outside! She hasn’t been seen in weeks – she skipped Kevin Costner’s charity concert benefiting first responders in the Santa Barbara area, and she did not accompany Harry on his two-week travel blitz which took him from New York to London to Lesotho to South Africa. Mama deserved a night out! Meghan attended the LA Children’s Hospital gala, alongside her dear friend Kelly Mckee Zajfen.

Meghan rewore her Carolina Herrera gown in a red taffeta. She wore this in 2021, to the Salute to Freedom gala in New York. In 2021, she wore it with a detachable train, and on Saturday, she just wore the slim-cut dress without the train. I’m still not crazy about the boob-darting of the dress, but overall, Meghan looked amazing. Meghan usually goes for such severe hairstyles, especially that center-part tight chignon (which I dislike immensely), so it feels like we’re seeing a completely different woman when she does loose, beachy waves. It suits her so much, it makes her look younger and, frankly, more glamorous.

The British media is always asking why Meghan and Harry aren’t attending the Emmys or the Oscars or whatever, but my question is: why aren’t they attending more charity events like this? They would be such huge hits on the LA charity circuit.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

After a press campaign that felt much longer than the one-month it’s been since it premiered in Venice, Joker: Folie à Deux finally came out over the weekend. And it broke records!! Just, not in the direction anyone associated with the film was aiming for. The sequel is now the first comic book movie to nab a D from CinemaScore (2019’s Joker scored a B+), and it also netted 33% from Rotten Tomatoes (compared to Joker’s 68%). But those are only the opinions of people who saw the movie, which was a much smaller contingency than projected/expected/prayed for. Less than a month ago the studio boasted it would earn $70 million domestically in its opening weekend. The actual number will be around $40 million or less. It did better internationally, raking in $81.1 million, but even when you add that to the domestic tally, the figures are well below its $190 million budget. The Hollywood Reporter did a breakdown on the low numbers for Folie à Todd:

Todd Phillips’ sequel Joker: Folie à Deux bombed in its box office debut with an estimated domestic opening of $40 million, well behind expectations after becoming the first Hollywood comic book movie in history to earn a D CinemaScore from audiences. Exit polls are equally as grim as audiences express their unhappiness with the antihero-musical mashup, which did less than half of the business the first Joker did in its launch despite costing more than three times as much to make, or $190 million.

The Joaquin Phoenix-Lady Gaga pic was expected to open to at least $50 million to $60 million, but projections were continually downgraded throughout the weekend as traffic stalled. Even on Saturday, most rival studios showed it opening to at least $45 million to $47 million. And don’t forget that when the Warner Bros. movie first came on tracking three weeks ago, it was pacing to earn $70 million.

Overseas, Joker 2 opened to $81.1 million, in line with expectations for a global debt of $121.1 million. While the overseas result provided some relief, it’s still notably behind the first Joker. The sequel opened everywhere save for Japan and China, where it launches in the coming weeks.

The culprit behind the unfortunate turn-of-events: terrible word of mouth. Hence, rival studios believe the final domestic number could actually be in the $37 million to $39 million range when final grosses are reported Monday. Warner Bros. insiders say there is no way to sugarcoat the results and that the studio is stunned and sorely disappointed. At the same time, they believe Phillips is a creative genius and worthy of gambling on.

In 2019, Phillips’ Joker debuted to a dreamy $96.2 million in North America on its way to a record-shattering worldwide total of $1 billion against a $55 million budget. It remained the top-grossing R-rated film of all time domestically and globally until Deadpool & Wolverine came along. Joker earned relatively good reviews, while audiences gave it a B+ CinemaScore. Its critics’ score on Rotten Tomatoes is a fresh 68 percent, compared to a rotten 33 percent for Folie à Deux.

Phillips’ polarizing, R-rated sequel — which made its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival — is a genre-busting, music-infused film that strays outside of the comfort zone of the typical fanboy-fueled comic book pic. Just as worrisome as the D CinemaScore are terrible exit scores on PostTrak, with audiences giving it a half-star out of five, similar to the early scores for Francis Ford Coppola’s Megalopolis, which bombed in spectacular fashion last weekend with $4 million after earning a D+ CinemaScore.

[From THR]

You see, all is not lost — Folie à Deux out-performed Megaflopolis! And not only that, but Francis Ford Coppola lavished praise on Todd Phillips over the weekend, writing on his Instagram that Phillips is always “one step ahead of the audience never doing what they expect. Congratulations to Joker: Folie à Deux.” I guess in this case, Phillip’s “one step ahead” meant an actual step into the theater. Most of the reviews have been good for the performances and art direction, it’s the story that’s the problem. Or lack thereof. Also, I think they shot themselves in the foot with the marketing being so afraid to call it a musical. I mean, sure, I can understand the returning filmmakers worrying that saying the word “musical” would scare off the bros. But I thought at least Lady Gaga would embrace the genre! Instead she toed the line, giving this inexplicable explanation: “The way that music is used is to really give the characters a way to express what they mean to say because the scene and just the dialogue is not enough.” My Lady, you just very eloquently defined the essence of a musical. Anyway, now that Folie à Deux has conclusively underperformed, can we press Joaquin Phoenix on why he bolted the Todd Haynes movie at the last minute?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Joker: Folie à Deux (@joker.folieadeux)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Joker: Folie à Deux (@joker.folieadeux)

Photos credit: Jeffrey Mayer / Avalon and via Instagram

Back in July, Quinta Brunson and the cast of Abbott Elementary did a panel at San Diego Comic-Con. During the panel, Quinta teased an “interesting crossover” that was in the works for this season, which is its fourth one. According to Quinta, it would “change television.” At the time, the most popular guesses were The Bear because it stars Ayo Edebiri, who plays Janine’s sister on Abbott and It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia because while it’s a pretty random pairing, both shows are set in the same city. Now, we have our answer! AE will be doing its crossover with It’s Always Sunny. Last week, Quinta posted a picture of her with It’s Always Sunny co-stars Rob McElhenney and Charlie Day, along with the caption, “Season 4 of Abbott Elementary gets real Sunny.”

Two of the most popular television shows set in Philadelphia are teaming up.
“Abbott Elementary” star and creator, Quinta Brunson, and “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” star and co-creator. Rob McElhenney, both shared news they’re collaborating on a crossover episode on social media.

“Season 4 of Abbott Elementary gets real Sunny :),” Brunson wrote in the caption of a photo of her with McElhenney and his “Sunny” costar, Charlie Day.

In his Instagram stories, McElhenney shared a photo of the trio, along with “Sunny” star Danny DeVito and “Abbott” stars Tyler James Williams and William Stanford Davis, in front of the exterior of the “Abbott” school set.

Both comedies lean into their Philadelphia, Pennsylvania settings. Back in February, McElhenney mentioned “Abbott” when posing about a Willy Wonka immersive experience.

“A lot of you are saying this feels like an episode of Sunny, but to me it feels more like an @alwayssunny @AbbottElemABC crossover episode,” he wrote on X at the time.

Brunson screen-grabbed the post and responded, “Just say the word @robmcelhenney. I love you guys.”

“Abbott” is centered on an elementary school serving inner-city students and “Sunny” is about a group of friends who run a dive bar in South Philadelphia.

No information about the plot or air date of the crossover episode has been announced.

[From CNN]

Thoughts on this crossover? I think it’s going to be very interesting, hahaha. These two shows have nothing in common other than both taking place in Philadelphia! I’ve always been a fan of shows lining up in the same universe for crossovers, but this one is so random! I do trust both creators to do what’s right and make the most sense. Quinta gave more information to Us Weekly about the crossover:

I think it’s very cool. I think it’s unexpected and I think that it’ll be like a delight to the audience of both shows. You know, I think it’ll be very exciting for the people who watch our shows. And if they watch one show and not the other, I think that’s cool too because it’ll make people interested in that show. I’m just excited about it and I think it’s just a fun way to shake up TV.”

So how do we think they’ll do it? Will the Abbott students take a field trip and run into the Sunny Gang? Are there any familial ties between the two series? Will there be some special assembly that brings the Gang into the school? Will they all end up at some parody version of the Wonka Experience that takes place in Philly? So many possibilities! I’m not gonna lie, this pairing may be super random, but I’m really curious and looking forward to it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Quinta Brunson (@quintab)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Quinta Brunson (@quintab)

Embed from Getty Images
Music historians will look back at this decade as when some of the biggest catalog deals of all time were made, both in terms of the artists and the money. Since 2020 we’ve seen rock and pop greats like Stevie Nicks, Bob Dylan, Tina Turner, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie (and randomly also Justin Timberlake and Katy Perry) sell varying degrees of rights for hundreds of millions of dollars. And now add to that list, iconic British rockers Pink Floyd. After apparently difficult negotiations over a few years within the band itself, the group has finally settled on selling their entire music catalog and name and likeness rights to Sony for $400 million. Even once you divide that sum among the members, it should still be enough to make each of them comfortably numb… to debt. AV Club has more reporting on the sale:

Pink Floyd is about to find out if money really is a gas. After what Variety describes as “years of false starts,” the brand has finally completed a deal to sell their entire music catalog as well as their name-and-likeness rights to Sony for $400 million. The deal includes all of the band’s recorded albums — such as hits like The Wall, The Dark Side Of The Moon, and Animals — as well as merchandise, theatrical rights, and presumably, according to Variety, access to their iconic album artwork. Songwriting credits were left out of the deal and will remain with individual writers.

But while the band hypothesized that cash was “the root of all evil” in their 1973 song “Money,” its individual members — lead songwriters Roger Waters and David Gilmour, drummer Nick Mason, and the estates of keyboardists Richard Wright and founding singer-songwriter Roger “Syd” Barrett — might have slightly more nuanced answers if you asked them today. Financial Times, which originally reported the deal, claims that it was delayed at least two years due to infighting among the band about tax structures and, more saliently, some incendiary comments made in recent years by Waters. In a 2022 interview with Rolling Stone, Rogers spoke out against Israel, in favor of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and against the United States, which he called “the most evil [country in the world] of all by a factor of at least 10 times.”

In this case, the money might actually buy happiness for at least one member of the band. In a separate Rolling Stone interview, Gilmour said that he wanted to close the deal less for financial reasons than “to be rid of the decision making and the arguments that are involved with keeping it going,” which he called “my dream.” In 2018, Mason — who has been caught in the middle of all of this for years — said of the infighting in his own interview with Rolling Stone, “It’s really disappointing these rather elderly gentlemen are still at loggerheads.”

Pink Floyd adds to Sony’s growing collection of “heritage” artists, into which they’re invested over a billion dollars in recent years. Other artists in the catalog include Queen, Michael Jackson, Bob Dylan, and more.

[From AV Club]

I understand the appeal to older artists of selling off their catalogs for a tidy sum. They won’t be writing and touring (i.e. generating income) the way they used to, and it removes the headache of having to review and approve all uses of their songs. Plus all the time and lawyering it takes just to combat the Trump campaign using stuff without permission! So I get it from that viewpoint. On the other hand, there’s something sad about the best pop cultural music of the 20th century — music borne out of free-minded, free-spirited artists responding to the mad world around them — all belonging to four or five mega corporations. (Yes, I know my hippie is showing.) With Pink Floyd in particular, though, it also appears that a big impetus to sell was some of the members really and truly wanting to run like hell from each other. Within hours of the sale being announced, an interview with guitarist David Gilmour came out in which he unequivocally said he would “absolutely not” ever perform with frontman Roger Waters again. Bandmates having a dramatic falling out? Now that’s classic rock & roll.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Pink Floyd (@pinkfloyd)

photos credit: Getty

The British media has spent the past two and a half weeks screaming “where’s Meghan” and “Harry needs the Windsors” in equal measure. That should tell you something about the monarchy and the media and the obsession, the jealousy, the stalking, the national and international harassment of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The latest lunatic analysis of the Sussexes came from the Daily Mail, obviously, and this was so bilious, I don’t even want to excerpt it or analyze it. Thankfully, a pro-Sussex piece dropped in People Magazine. In case anyone needed it spelled out, Meghan will being doing more commercial ventures from here, while Harry will be focusing more on philanthropy. I thought that was obvious, but again, the British media has been having meltdowns about this for weeks.

As Prince Harry gathered around a bonfire in the African kingdom of Lesotho on Oct. 1 with key allies from his charity, Sentebale, he reaffirmed his commitment to a cause close to his heart. Engaged in meaningful conversations about the HIV/AIDS crisis in southern Africa — an issue the Duke of Sussex has championed for years — it was the latest in a series of public engagements supporting his philanthropic interests. These recent outings strikingly reflect the duties Harry once carried out as a senior working royal.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in California, Meghan Markle remained at home in Montecito, focusing on a different but equally significant chapter of their shared journey. The Duchess of Sussex is preparing for the upcoming launch of her new Netflix show and lifestyle brand, American Riviera Orchard, while caring for the couple’s two children, Prince Archie, 5, and Princess Lilibet, 3.

Insiders say that what’s unfolding reflects a clear shift in the couple’s public lives. While Harry is immersed in philanthropic efforts, Meghan is leaning into entrepreneurial projects and commercial ventures.

“It’s clear that a twin-track approach is evolving,” a friend tells PEOPLE. A royal insider echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the evolution of their working dynamic. “The Duke and Duchess have now hit their stride as individuals – not just as a couple. The Duke appears focused on his patronage work, and the Duchess focused on her entrepreneurial track,” the insider says.

Though their paths may seem divergent — philanthropy for Harry and business for Meghan — their shared initiatives, like the Archewell Foundation, show they remain united in their efforts. Meghan, 43, remains invested in causes such as mental health and children’s welfare, while Harry balances his nonprofit efforts with production projects like his polo documentary for Netflix.

The couple’s collaborative work endures, from launching The Parents Network, a new initiative to support families impacted by online harm, to local community engagements like attending the opening of Godmothers, a bookstore near their home in Montecito. Insiders confirm these joint efforts will continue, even as their individual projects expand.

“An entrepreneurial and enterprise focus is going to be more the Duchess’s priority and the Duke will continue to champion his not-for-profit patronages,” the friend adds. “But there will be joint efforts around those cause-driven areas of work.” This shift in focus has led to several recent solo appearances for Harry, but Meghan’s absence far from signals a split. “[It’s] as much a reflection on parenting priorities, in that one of them stays behind with the children,” says the friend.

It also reflects a strategic decision, given the intense scrutiny they face. Had Meghan accompanied Harry, critics might have accused her of trying to steal the spotlight, as they have in the past. “This truth is, this couple is damned if they do, damned if they don’t,” says the insider.

Ultimately, their dynamic reflects a balanced partnership, where individual passions complement their joint mission. “With their recent trips to Nigeria and Colombia, as well as their foundation-led events, it is still evident they show up together for the causes they jointly support,” the royal insider says. “What we are seeing is a functional and healthy relationship with two working partners, not the contrary.”

[From People]

I question why a “royal insider” is quoted here and whether the insider is in Camp Sussex. I point that out because a lot of other “royal insiders” have been quoted in recent weeks, swearing up and down that Harry desperately needs a peace treaty with his father. Now, I agree with everything written here. It feels like the royalists are trying to throw “you said you’re salt-and-pepper, you always move together” back in H&M’s faces, when really, Meghan said that as pushback. She was tired of everyone trying to break up her marriage. She was saying: we’re a team, we’re in this together, you can’t break us. And they are a team, a team with many joint projects and interests, and individual projects and interests too. You know, a real marriage and a real partnership. The collective hysteria about Harry taking a two-week business trip without Meghan has been really telling about how these horrible people view marriages and partnerships.

PS… Yes, I saw that Meghan was out solo last night! We will cover that tomorrow. I’m adding a preview photo of Meghan in her Carolina Herrera gown!

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, Cover Images, Backgrid.

Boris Johnson’s book tour has commenced. The Daily Mail has been exclusively previewing his memoir, Unleashed, and now the real promotion has begun ahead of the release. Boris stopped by GB News to give an interview to Tory wingnut Camilla Tominey. Tominey is best known around here as one of the biggest Sussex haters out there – she not only exclusively revealed Harry and Meghan’s relationship, but she also exclusively revealed the lie that Meghan had made Kate cry, something which clearly came from Camp Middleton. Tominey still writes royalist fan-fic, but she’s turned more to political commentary these days (she was so mad when Keir Starmer became PM). Anyway, the clips from her interview with Boris are pretty funny. She asked him about his weekly audience with QEII, and then of course she asked about the Sussexes. Here’s the Sussex part:

The look on Tominey’s face when Boris says nice things about the Sussexes! She was bewildered and disgusted. It’s really like the British commentators have an agreement that every single thing must be slanted heavily against Harry and Meghan, and those commentators totally malfunction when someone goes off-script. BoJo told Tominey:

“They [Meghan and Harry] came to an event we did for female education. They were brilliant and she [Meghan] was particularly good and articulate on it. I got on well with both of them. I also worked with Harry when he did his Invictus Games for disabled veterans in the Olympic Park…. I thought, in a bit of pomposity, this national asset is leaving our country. I thought he, on the whole, could be a force for good so I’m going to try and discourage him. I had a pathetic attempt at that. It didn’t work. I failed to avert Megxit, but I did deliver Brexit.”

[From GB News]

Notice that Boris has already hedged away from saying (as he apparently writes in his book) that the palace asked him to convince Harry to stay. The current palace has denied it, but I think Boris’s original story is probably closer to the truth. I believe someone – likely associated with QEII – asked Boris to speak to Harry. Now the people in King Charles’s orbit are trying to say that of course no one asked Boris to do that. Anyway, I will give BoJo a sliver of credit – it would have been easy for him to say and write that Harry alone should stay. But no, he’s emphasizing that he liked Meghan and he hoped that they both would stay. If even BoJo gets it, then that says something about how short-sighted and out-of-touch the left-behinds were and are.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, GB News.

Here are some photos of the Duchess of Edinburgh in Surrey on Friday. She did an event with her patronage, Girlguiding, and it was all about encouraging girls and young women to enter into STEM fields. Meanwhile, there’s some interesting news about a horrible situation from 2023. Just after King Charles’s coronation, Sophie was traveling in a multi-vehicle police motorcade, and the royal protection officers were apparently speeding and being reckless. One of the speeding police cars struck an 81-year-old woman named Helen Holland. Holland was hospitalized and in a coma for two weeks, and then she passed away. While the Holland family was outraged by what happened, they made a point of saying that they didn’t blame Sophie. It did make people wonder why Sophie needs a multi-car motorcade to simply go to a garden party or whatever. Well, in any case, a police officer has been charged in Holland’s death.

A Metropolitan Police officer has been charged over the death of a woman who was hit by a motorcycle escorting the Duchess of Edinburgh through London. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had authorised a charge of causing death by careless driving against 67-year-old Christopher Harrison.

He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 6 November.

Helen Holland, 81, suffered serious injuries in the collision in Earl’s Court on 10 May. She died in hospital two weeks later.

In a statement released at the time, Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh, said her “heartfelt thoughts and prayers” were with Ms Holland and her family. Ms Holland, a mother-of-four who was also a grandmother-of-10 and great grandmother-of-seven, was struck at the junction of West Cromwell Road and Warwick Road. The CPS said the charge against Harrison was authorised following a review of the evidence by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

[From Sky News]

From the descriptions of the road and the circumstances, the accident made no sense unless the police driver made zero attempt to slow down or show caution in a pedestrian-heavy area. So, I can understand why Christopher Harrison is being charged with a crime. I wonder if they did a larger investigation into why Sophie needs that many RPOs and why they believed they needed to speed in the middle of the day, carrying out non-urgent business.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

In the past week, there have been a handful of national-media stories about What Kamala Harris Is Doing Wrong. Or “doing wrong, according to the national media.” I’m not going to pretend that I would like to see the Harris-Walz campaign tweak their strategies here and there in the final month of this neverending election cycle, but I’m also not going to pretend that I don’t see Politico’s agenda and the NY Times’ agenda and WaPo’s agenda. They’re mad that Kamala Harris is running a disciplined and smart campaign. They’re mad that she hasn’t given them any “gotcha moments.” They’re mad that she hasn’t f–ked up. And most of all, they’re mad that she’s not giving them unfettered access so that they can rip her to shreds.

Democratic operatives, including some of Kamala Harris’ own staffers, are growing increasingly concerned about her relatively light campaign schedule, which has her holding fewer events than Donald Trump and avoiding unscripted interactions with voters and the press almost entirely.

In interviews with POLITICO, nearly two dozen Democrats described Harris as running a do-no-harm, risk-averse approach to the race they fear could hamper her as the campaign enters its final 30-day stretch.

With early voting by mail and in person already underway in more than half of the country, Harris spent just three days of the last week of September in battleground states. On Sept. 28, when Trump gave a speech in Wisconsin before flying to Alabama for the Georgia-Alabama football game, Harris was attending a fundraiser in San Francisco. And beyond concerns about her schedule, Democrats argue that Harris would benefit from venues that allow her to introduce herself to voters in a more authentic way, such as town hall events, more sit-down interviews and unscripted exchanges with voters.

“There’s a time at which you just have to barnstorm these battlegrounds,” said David Axelrod, the longtime Democratic operative who helped lead Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and was an early critic of President Joe Biden’s campaigning style. “These races are decathlons, and there are a lot of events, and you have to do all of them because people want to test you. It’s the most difficult oral exam on the planet for the most difficult job, and part of that is just that spontaneous — town halls, all kinds of interviews, and not just friendly interviews. OTRs where you interact in a substantive way with people, all of those things are valuable. And I would be doing them if I were her.”

[From Politico]

“And I would be doing them if I were her.” As in, David Axelrod is mad that VP Harris didn’t hire him. Axelrod is always convinced that female politicians are doing everything wrong – I remember how he sniped at Hillary Clinton from afar in 2016. Anyway, the real point is what Axelrod says here: “town halls, all kinds of interviews, and not just friendly interviews.” Axelrod is carrying water for Politico and the Beltway media because Harris continues to speak to outlets outside the Beltway. Speaking of, VP Harris is going on the Call Her Daddy pod, in an interview which will be released next week:

Vice President Kamala Harris will be a guest on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast next week, a campaign spokesperson confirmed to Axios Friday. Why it matters: The show, hosted by creator Alex Cooper, was Spotify’s second-biggest podcast last year and the most listened to among women.

Harris sat for an interview with Cooper Tuesday, and the episode will air next week. The conversation focuses on reproductive rights and abortion, along with other issues important to women in the upcoming election. Representatives for Cooper did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.

Harris, who has continued to widen her advantage among women voters, has made abortion rights a defining topic of her campaign. Reproductive rights are among the key political issues exacerbating the wedge between male and female voters ahead of the November election, and a winning issue for Democrats in the post-Roe era. Harris’ appearance on “Call Her Daddy” highlights her campaign’s emphasis on appealing to women voters and younger audiences.

[From Axios]

Last week, VP Harris appeared on the All the Smoke pod too. The Call Her Daddy pod is going to be a lot different, and I imagine it will reach so many more people (women) than if Harris did an interview with WaPo or whatever. It’s a presidential candidate meeting people where they are, and in this case, specifically targeting a young female demographic with a winning message about their rights. Whenever I worry about the ghosts of the 2016 election, I remind myself that 2024 is fundamentally different because of Dobbs. This is the first presidential election after women’s reproductive rights were stripped away. In 2016, Hillary Clinton told everyone what could happen and she was widely mocked. Eight years later, people can see for themselves what happened and how awful it is.

PS… Can we PLEASE get an emergency Hot Ones episode with Kamala??? And someone suggested that Tim Walz should go on the New Heights podcast and I keep thinking that sounds like a great idea. Also, I just saw that Kamala will go on Howard Stern’s show next week too.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Bruce Springsteen endorsed Kamala Harris in a new video. [Variety]
Halle Bailey & DDG broke up. Girl, we tried to tell you. [Just Jared]
Timothee Chalamet’s mustache is so bad. [Socialite Life]
Jennifer Aniston & her dog were on Jimmy Kimmel Live. [LaineyGossip]
Dakota Fanning just wants to work! [Pajiba]
Pierre Cardin’s whimsical new collection. [Go Fug Yourself]
Fanatical: The Catfishing of Tegan and Sara is coming to Hulu. [OMG Blog]
Zoe Saldana wore Saint Laurent to a premiere. [RCFA]
That ‘90s Show was canceled. [Seriously OMG]
Plathville updates. [Starcasm]
Eminem is going to be a grandfather. [Hollywood Life]
Trying to nail down JD Vance’s sociopath vibe. [Buzzfeed]

Wow, this isn’t just an endorsement of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz by Bruce Springsteen, it’s a sermon, a song, and a love letter to America! pic.twitter.com/6u33rjqo8D

— John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) October 4, 2024

There’s a new story from the Royalist column in the Daily Beast. Tom Sykes, the “Royalist,” recently wrote that ridiculous piece in the Times, which was all about how HIS sources insist that the Duchess of Sussex “screamed” at a florist for 30 minutes in 2018. The other part to Sykes’ Times piece was that Prince Harry is apparently desperate to reconcile with the Windsors because the Windsors alone hold the keys to the charitable and philanthropic world. This is the bizarre equation Sykes and other royal reporters keep fiddling with: that while Harry has no interest in “coming back” to the UK, HE is the one who wants to make peace with the Windsors, solely because he will never be taken seriously as an activist and advocate without the left-behinds’ blessing. Nevermind that a still-estranged-from-his-family Harry just spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative, or that he had a busy schedule of meetings and events in New York with his charities and patronages, nevermind that he’s currently in Lesotho and South Africa on business and charity work. Well, Sykes has decided to expound on this bizarre talking point in his new Daily Beast column: “How Charles’ Cancer, and ‘King William,’ Are Rewiring the Royal Family.” Would you believe that this piece is mostly about Harry? Weird.

Charles’s cancer spurred the courtiers to prepare for a “change of reign.” The planning and positioning for the reign of King William V, necessarily and behind the scenes, began—and it will be very hard to put that genie back in the bottle. Charles’ family were told the truth: that it was serious. That, of course, is why Prince Harry flew over from California three days later, and that is why the king agreed to meet him.

Harry needs the left-behinds!! For Harry, the changed potential timeframe for the reign of his father poses particular problems, because for Harry there can be no meaningful rehabilitation, allowing him to maximize his impact as a global social activist, “showing up and doing good,” as he and his team like to say, without a peace deal being hammered out with the institution of his family. And the truth is Harry is much more likely to be able to make a deal with King Charles III than King William V. The change of reign won’t really affect wife Meghan Markle, who seems quite happy being implacably at war with the British royal family.

Harry is tired of being a “bit part” in the Windsors: But speak to sources close to Harry, and it’s quite clear that, his successful monetization of it aside, he is tired of playing a bit part in a narrative of family drama and conflict and would like nothing more than to recover his reputation—and perhaps even become known, in time, as a serious player in the philanthropic world. One royal source told me that some insiders believe Harry went about cashing in on his family’s secrets in the expectation that he would be able to work his way back into the royal fold because of his father’s affection for his “darling boy.” “He thought he might have 20 years with his father as the ultimate authority to mend those broken bridges,” the source said. The source added that if a settlement were made with his father, William would not want to waste time or political capital trying to rewrite it when he became king.

The royalists still believe Harry regrets writing Spare?? When asked if they thought Harry would have written the book he wrote, or have publicly accused members of the family—one of whom was later revealed to be Kate Middleton—of being racist if he suspected Kate might be queen alongside his ‘nemesis,’ King William, a few short years later, the source said, “Exactly the point. I doubt it.”

The dumbass cancer-free video: Executive power and influence is already flowing William’s way. Anyone who doubts that only has to look at the glossy Instagram video William and Kate published last month to announce her recovery from cancer. It wasn’t signed off by the king, and featured not Charles, but Kate’s parents, Mike and Carole. To get away with such cheek showed William and Kate have an instinctive understanding—even though they would never acknowledge it and their office did not dignify The Daily Beast’s enquiries on the matter with a response—of how the power dynamic has shifted since the king’s diagnosis.

Charles’s staff didn’t want him to announce his cancer diagnosis: Intriguingly, The Daily Beast has been told that some of Charles’ advisers, instinctively preferring not to let daylight in on the magic, felt the announcement he had cancer was politically naïve. The inevitably diminished authority of a dying monarch is the reason palaces are usually so obsessively secretive about a monarch’s health.

A fixture of the gossip rags: Harry—whose office did not want to comment to The Daily Beast—does not want to trade the glorious California sunshine and the freedom he, his wife, and kids have for a return to the stultifying goldfish bowl of royal life. Stories saying he is searching for a path back to it are nonsense, reliable sources have told The Daily Beast. But he would like to be a regular part of the philanthropic/social activism space again, rather than being a fixture of the gossip rags.

[From The Daily Beast]

There’s more in the piece about William’s potential reign of terror, not only in regards to Harry, but William’s plans to put Princess Anne out to pasture and make Edward and Sophie take on more work. But the main thrust is not actually “here are the reasons why Harry and Charles should make peace.” These are royal sources – likely close to William – spinning fantasies to Sykes about Harry’s needs and desperation for reconciliation with the Windsors. These are not Sussex sources, this is William’s asinine projection. It’s their new thing which they think they’re holding over Harry’s head: capitulate or you’ll never be a global statesman! “Rather than being a fixture of the gossip rags” is telling as well – that’s an acknowledgement that the Windsors are largely behind the British media’s unhinged obsession with all things Sussex, five years after they left. The Windsors still toss the Sussexes to the media wolves. The wolves are fine with it, because they don’t want to ask themselves: why are “sources close to William” so eerily focused on what Harry is doing and why is William’s jealousy of his brother the only thing motivating William to do anything?

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.