It’s always fascinating to watch what happens immediately after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do something big. It usually takes a couple of hours for the British media to catch up and figure out their strategy for how they will attack, smear, demean and insult them. The Mail couldn’t quite figure out their talking points on Duchess Meghan’s The Cut cover profile for hours. It was interesting to see what they did (eventually) latch onto. One of the issues was the section where Meghan is asked about her toxic father and I believe The Cut sort of misrepresented what Meghan said: “Harry said to me, ‘I lost my dad in this process.’ It doesn’t have to be the same for them as it was for me, but that’s his decision.” It probably should have been “Harry said to me that I lost my dad in this process” rather than a sub-quote, making it clear that Meghan was speaking about losing her father, not Harry saying that he lost his father.

Well,the Sussex PR people actually did some minor damage control on that. A source “clarified” to Page Six that “Meghan actually meant to say she did not want Harry to lose his relationship with his dad — and not that it was already ‘lost.’” Omid Scobie also got contacted by Camp Sussex, and he posted this:

There seems to be confusion in some headlines about this quote in The Cut interview. I understand that Prince Harry is actually referring to Meghan’s loss of her own father, and Meghan is saying she doesn’t want Harry to lose his. pic.twitter.com/rAZBK9J6Qz

— Omid Scobie (@scobie) August 29, 2022

Yeah. As I said, the royal commentators latched onto that odd quote after a few hours, to the point where palace sources were even huffing and puffing about it to Page Six:

Prince Harry “lost” his father, Prince Charles, following his exit from the royal family, Meghan Markle said in a bombshell new interview.

A source tells Page Six exclusively that Markle actually meant to say that she did not want Harry, 37, to lose his dad.

One highly placed royal insider adds, “I’m not aware that Harry has broken up with his father. Charles gave Harry and Meghan millions when they left the UK. Right now, the family are all at Balmoral, and I’m sure they are aghast at this interview.”

[From Page Six]

AGHAST! Were they, gasp, blind-sided? Did The Cut slap the Queen in the face? Did Meghan’s palm trees set off a grenade in the heart of the monarchy? Please tell me more! Anyway, I believe Charles gave the Sussexes some money before they left, but that’s because he knew the palace was cutting off their security. And then Charles cut off contact with them. Things were bad between Montecito and Clarence House for a while, but… there has been some minor thawing. Charles and the Sussexes met privately during the Jubbly. Charles apparently met Lilibet and got to see Archie too. The relationship between Charles and Harry is not dead, it’s just irrevocably damaged. I doubt Charles was aghast.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Cut (@thecut)

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, cover courtesy of The Cut.

In the first episode of Archetypes, the Duchess of Sussex told a story to Serena Williams about how there was a fire in Archie’s nursery during the Sussexes’ African tour. The Sussexes had arrived in South Africa with baby Archie, they left Archie and Archie’s nanny Lauren behind at the government house, where Lauren was going to put Archie down for his nap. Only Lauren took Archie to the kitchen first, and while they were in the kitchen, there was a fire in the nursery. Within 24 hours of the podcast drop, “palace sources” were already casting aspersions on Meghan’s story, claiming that there was no fire, there was only “smoke,” what’s the big deal. Then they made it sound like Meghan massively overreacted to a deadly threat against her child. Well, South African security people have now confirmed Meghan’s story. Not only that, they say that the British security hushed it up.

South African security has confirmed Meghan Markle’s podcast revelation that there was a fire in her son Archie’s nursery during a tour of the country. Meghan talked about the previously unreported incident on the first episode of her Spotify podcast Archetypes last week. It led to a backlash in the country, with #VoetsekMeghan, or “Go away Meghan” trending in the country after its release.

But a source familiar with the event told The Citizen newspaper that the fire had taken place at the official residence in Cape Town.

“The heater burnt. The house didn’t burn, the rooms didn’t burn. I didn’t see the fire itself, but I saw the heater when it came out of the room. The plastic was severely melted,” the source said. “We were driving in convoy and all of a sudden, the convoy with Meghan broke away. We followed after… We weren’t sure what was going on. When we got to the house, the house-keeper called me and showed me the heater that was burnt and told me what had happened and that the child was not in the room at the time the heater burnt, they smelt it, went up and saw the smoke. When we stopped at the residence, I can tell you that she didn’t get out of the car like a lady normally gets out. She bolted into the house.”

The source told the newspaper that British security traveling with the couple recommended they not make the incident public. “When we were outside, we discussed what we are going to do about this. It was a new heater that was just purchased and the consensus was ‘guys this is gonna look bad for us or for Cape Town, South Africa, or for whoever,’” they said.

“The British Police guys actually told us ‘guys just leave it as is, don’t talk about this.’ We decided we are not going to expose this thing. That’s why we kept quiet about it back then because we knew we were going to get backlash.”

[From The Independent]

I don’t know why the South Africans would get backlash when clearly the British security apparatus was making a point to be extremely “careless” about Meghan and Archie’s safety. I just keep thinking about several specific stories, like how Archie didn’t get his own royal protection, so there was no one securing the home for Archie and his nanny. How someone in the palace removed Meghan’s name from her son’s birth certificate. How a nanny was fired in the middle of the night. Anyway, of course Meghan wasn’t f–king lying.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Beyonce narrated Gatorade’s new commercial, a tribute and a goodbye to Serena Williams (Serena has long been sponsored by Gatorade). [LaineyGossip]
Leonardo DiCaprio went solo to a party in Malibu. Um, did he dump Camila Morrone? She turned 25 years old a few months ago. [Just Jared]
The thought of a “cold dog popsicle” makes me want to hork. [Dlisted]
The worst tattoos of all time. [OMG Blog]
Penelope Cruz on the cover of Vogue Spain. [Egotastic]
The Supreme Court’s popularity/approval is in the toilet. [Jezebel]
Vintage Pauly Shore, I miss him? [Go Fug Yourself]
It’s 2022 and they’re just now renaming Swastika Mountain?? [Gawker]
Recap of She-Hulk Episode 2. [Pajiba]
The best British tweets from August. [Buzzfeed]
If you’re going to get the monkeypox vaccine, get the full vaxx series. [Towleroad]
Janelle Eason makes $4K a month from OnlyFans. [Starcasm]

Think about what we already know about Prince William’s rage and anger issues. How many royal reporters and royal biographers flat-out say that William’s default emotion is “fury”? So many. Even somewhat sanctioned biographies and stories can’t even sugarcoat it, and I truly believe we don’t even know the half of it. I have no problem believing that at some point in 2017-2018, Prince Harry and Prince William got in each other’s faces and that argument (or “row” as the Brits would say) was probably one piece of the larger estrangement between the brothers. Given what we know now about the smears, the Jason Knauf mess, the lies from Kensington Palace, I have no trouble believing that Harry told William to go to hell ten different ways during that time period too. Well, all of that is being framed as “Harry hung up on William and William marched over to Harry’s place to scream at him.” And?

Prince Harry allegedly slammed the phone down on his brother William in a row about Meghan Markle bullying her staff. An explosive argument erupted between the royal brothers during heated allegations about Meghan, a new documentary will reveal.

Prince William was shunned by his younger brother after calling him about Meghan’s behaviour, according to a French TV series due to come out next week. Harry reportedly refused to hear William’s concerns and suddenly hung up the phone in denial – choosing to defend his wife rather than listen to witness statements.

The well-sourced documentary, “Red Line: William and Harry, the enemy brothers”, alleges that the abrupt end to the phone call enraged Wills. The Duke of Cambridge then raced furiously towards Kensington Palace to confront Harry, royal sources say.

Last year, claims emerged that Meghan had bullied one of her closest advisors during her time at Kensington Palace. The Duchess of Sussex allegedly drove two personal assistants out of the household and undermined the confidence of a third. The BFM TV series is the latest investigation into the Meghan allegations and the royal brother’s bitter break up. It claims that traumatised staff rapidly resigned from the Royal Household to escape Meghan’s aggression, setting up a WhatsApp group called “The Sussex Survivors’ Club”.

In the programme, Pierrick Geais, a Royal author who has written a book about the Duke of Cambridge, exposes the alleged argument over Meghan Markle. He says: “William, who already didn’t like his sister-in-law very much, became furious. He called Harry directly, and Harry slammed the phone down. Harry didn’t want to know anything, and so William jumped in a car towards Kensington Palace, where he was going to confront Prince Harry.”

The TV series also entirely blames, “The behaviour of Meghan for being at the heart of the break-up between William and Harry.”

The documentary narrative went on: “During 2018 there was indeed a spate of resignations among Meghan Markle’s team. Former members have even set up an informal group that they called between them, the Sussex Survivors’ Club. Some of them still remain traumatised.”

One victim was allegedly so afraid of Meghan Markle that she felt physically ill by the prospect of talking to her. Valentine Low, The Times Royal correspondent, says in the documentary: “There was a person who was so terrified by a conversation she was about to have with Meghan that she said, “I feel sick”. Some of these young women have been broken.”

[From The Sun]

I would assume that if this incident happened in some way, it would have arguably gone down in late 2018 or 2019. If it happened, it sounds like William screaming down the phone at Harry, Harry hanging up on him and William marching over to scream at Harry face-to-face. It says more about William and his f–king anger issues than any bullsh-t “bullying” done by Meghan. I mean, there were all of these staffers who were flat-out traumatized because they had to work for a Black woman and yet those same staffers suffer zero trauma from working for an incandescent rage machine who regularly screams at people and marches off to confront his family members?

As for the bullying investigation… it was completed and it was a big nothingburger. If the law firm doing the inquiry had actually found anything, the palace would have released it to make Meghan look bad. The buried inquiry means that the law firm found that Kensington Palace is a really sh–ty place to work.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN, Backgrid.

Shortly after George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, his advisor Karl Rove spoke to a reporter about the sort of alternate reality the administration believed in. Rove said, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities…” The idea of “we create our own reality” has been an article of faith for the American fascists in the Republican party ever since. I bring this up because the British media believes the same thing. When something is happening that they don’t like, they simply create a different “reality” for their readers. Say, when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are successful, instead of acknowledging those successes, the British media simply creates the narrative of “everyone hates them, the Sussexes are failing, they can’t do anything right.” Even when there’s empirical evidence of Harry and Meghan’s successes, you can find the British media executing their Alternate Reality strategy. No one seems to realize that information is global now? It’s weird.

All of which brings me to a lil’ column written by Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph. Tominey was the first person to falsely report on the Duchess of Cambridge’s “tears” at the bridesmaid’s dress fitting just before the Sussexes’ wedding. That’s who Tominey is, someone who gets leaks from Middleton Manor. In the face of the overwhelming success of Meghan’s Archetypes podcast, Tominey wrote a column called “The more Meghan Markle speaks, the less anyone wants to listen.” Archetypes was #1 in seven countries within 48 hours of the surprise release of the first episode.

If the Sussexes really wanted to be helpful, they would surely abandon Prince Harry’s autobiography and write a textbook on economics instead. In these testing times for household budgets, the couple could prove invaluable as the perfect case study for both the theory of inverse proportionality and the law of diminishing returns.

What better way to teach school children these most basic of mathematical principles than by studying the post-Megxit era?

Inverse proportionality might be defined by the dictionary as “related so that as one becomes larger the other becomes smaller”. But I think it is probably more easily explained by juxtaposing a graph showing the growing frequency with which Harry and Meghan have criticised the Royal family with their approval rating.

Look children, the more the couple have slagged off the Windsors, the less popular they have become!

Meghan’s latest podcast couldn’t be a better archetype, pardon the pun, of the law of diminishing returns, either. It is a theory in economics that predicts that, after some optimal level of capacity is reached, adding an additional factor of production will actually result in smaller increases in output.

But isn’t there a simpler way to put it? The more the Sussexes speak, the less likely we are to listen. That’s something even a primary pupil can understand.

I appreciate that there are a multi-million reasons why they keep on coming up with this stuff. Meghan’s 60-minute me-fest is currently top of the Spotify charts. But the trouble with word salad is that it does tend to give most people indigestion.

[From The Telegraph]

Keep in mind that Tominey is a regular on the British chat show circuit and a regular on week royal roundtable discussions, plus she obviously writes exclusively about the royals for the Telegraph. Her whole business model is talking about the royals and reporting on the royals and analyzing the royals. But for Meghan to… have a successful podcast, which is #1 in multiple countries, that’s suddenly a bridge too far for Tominey? “The more the couple have slagged off the Windsors, the less popular they have become!” – O RLY? Because I’m pretty sure that their Oprah interview was one of the most-watched interviews of the last decade. I’m pretty sure that Archetypes dethroning The Joe Rogan Experience is a big f–king deal. I’m pretty sure that Tominey wouldn’t be writing snitty little columns about Meghan unless the Royal Rota was completely terrified that the alternative reality they created and nurtured was coming crashing down on them.

Photos courtesy of Spotify, Instar.

Shia LaBeouf had already planned to come out of hiding late last week. He gave an interview about how he has converted to Catholicism, he’s speaking about his sobriety (he’s been sober/dry for the better part two years), he credits FKA Twigs’ lawsuit as a wakeup call to get help and he claims to be committed to making things right with all of the people he’s wronged. You can choose to believe what you want of all of that – I find it all very convenient and manipulative, but I hope for the sake of his infant daughter that he’s no longer the abusive monster FKA Twigs described.

So all of that was part of Shia’s planned redemption arc. Then Olivia Wilde addressed the fact that Shia left/was fired from Don’t Worry Darling just before the production began. Olivia told Variety that she fired Shia because “his process was not conducive to the ethos that I demand in my productions” and that he requires “a combative energy, and I don’t personally believe that is conducive to the best performances.” She said, repeatedly, that it was her responsibility to “protect” Florence and support her, so that’s why Olivia fired Shia. Except Olivia Wilde was lying her ass off. You can believe what you want about Shia’s redemption or his new manipulation, but honey, that man came with receipts. Shia provided those receipts to Variety, and he also provided them with a copy of an email he sent to Olivia right after her Variety cover dropped.

Shia LaBeouf has come forward to dispute the assertion that he was fired from “Don’t Worry Darling” by director Olivia Wilde just as production was starting in 2020. LaBeouf asserts that he chose to leave the production because he didn’t feel the actors were given adequate time to rehearse. In the Aug. 24 cover story with Variety, Wilde opened up for the first time about LaBeouf’s departure from her film.

LaBeouf’s representatives declined Variety‘s request for comment on the matter when contacted prior to the story’s publication. But in email messages sent to Variety on Thursday, LaBeouf denied he was fired, instead claiming he “quit the film due to lack of rehearsal time” on Aug. 17, 2020. The actor forwarded two emails he claims to have sent to Wilde on Wednesday and Thursday after the Variety cover story was published. In the emails, LaBeouf wrote, “You and I both know the reasons for my exit. I quit your film because your actors and I couldn’t find time to rehearse.”

LaBeouf sent Variety screenshots of text messages he sent to Wilde in August 2020, where he told Wilde he’d have to back out of “Don’t Worry Darling.” According to the texts, LaBeouf and Wilde met in person in Los Angeles to discuss his exit from the film on Aug. 16, 2020. Later that night, Wilde texted him, “Thanks for letting me in on your thought process. I know that isn’t fun. Doesn’t feel good to say no to someone, and I respect your honesty. I’m honored you were willing to go there with me, for me to tell a story with you. I’m gutted because it could have been something special. I want to make clear how much it means to me that you trust me. That’s a gift I’ll take with me.”

Variety has learned that the texts were sent before the production learned what Shia’s immersive method entailed. LaBeouf claims he “officially” quit “Don’t Worry Darling” the next day on Aug. 17, 2020, according to the email he sent to Wilde on Thursday morning.

In his email to Variety, he included a video that Wilde allegedly sent him on Aug. 19, 2020, two days after he claimed he quit. In the video, Wilde is driving a car and says she is “not ready to give up on this yet.” She also alludes to tension between LaBeouf and Florence Pugh, who stars in the film as Alice, the wife of LaBeouf and Styles’ character Jack.

“I feel like I’m not ready to give up on this yet, and I, too, am heartbroken and I want to figure this out,” she says in the video. “You know, I think this might be a bit of a wake-up call for Miss Flo, and I want to know if you’re open to giving this a shot with me, with us. If she really commits, if she really puts her mind and heart into it at this point and if you guys can make peace — and I respect your point of view, I respect hers — but if you guys can do it, what do you think? Is there hope? Will you let me know?”

In another message sent at an unspecified time between Aug. 16 and Aug. 20, Wilde texted LaBeouf, “You don’t have to be in my movies but don’t ever doubt me. We pinky promised. That means something in my house.”

[From Variety]

You can read Shia’s full email in all of its passive aggressive glory over at Variety – I will say again, I have no doubt that Shia is still a piece of sh-t, and his woe-is-me tone combined with his passive-aggression leaves me cold. But again, he kept the receipts and they prove his side of things. In this narrow issue, Shia has credibility and he outed Olivia as a complete f–king liar. It was an ongoing conversation for a week between Olivia and Shia about rehearsing and his method and I believe it was clear to everyone that Shia was not a good fit. But the video message Olivia sent him after he quit is… shocking. The reference to “Miss Flo” needing a “wake-up call” and the reference to the idea that Shia and Florence Pugh had already fallen out? And Olivia suggesting that Florence isn’t really “committed”? Oh, NO. Worry, Darling. And for Olivia to f–king lie so blatantly to a trade paper? Wow.

she wanted florence to make peace with an abuser you cannot make this up pic.twitter.com/T51dAYcElD

— kay (@harrymotif) August 26, 2022

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, cover courtesy of Variety.

Earlier this month, Page Six got the ball rolling, reporting on the “beef” between Olivia Wilde and Florence Pugh. Rumors of a beef had been circulating on social media for a while, as Florence’s fans kept noting that Pugh was not lifting a finger to promote Don’t Worry Darling, which Wilde directed and Pugh stars in. Pugh didn’t even bother “liking” any of the official social media posts when the trailers started coming out, nor did she repost anything. Page Six’s sources claimed that Florence didn’t like the messy way Olivia dumped Jason Sudeikis and started up an affair with Harry Styles on the set of Don’t Worry Darling. “Sources” later told Page Six that it wasn’t like Olivia and Harry flaunted their relationship anyway (which I doubt). Then Florence’s Harper’s Bazaar cover story came out and she barely talked about the film and she didn’t say one word about Olivia. I already felt like the beef rumors were probably true. Then Shia LaBeouf dropped his receipts on Friday and all hell broke loose. Olivia lied about firing Shia. Not only did she lie, she was still trying to get Shia to come back to the production (which he quit) with this video:

she wanted florence to make peace with an abuser you cannot make this up pic.twitter.com/T51dAYcElD

— kay (@harrymotif) August 26, 2022

“I think this might be a bit of a wake-up call for Miss Flo, and I want to know if you’re open to giving this a shot with me, with us. If she really commits, if she really puts her mind and heart into it at this point and if you guys can make peace…” Some sh-t went down and Florence didn’t want to work with Shia and instead of having Florence’s back, Olivia tried to get Shia to come back. “Miss Flo” needs to “really commit” huh? Yeah, this is a f–king disaster. The icing on the cake is that Florence Pugh has now told the studio that she will barely promote this f–king disaster now.

Florence Pugh has severely limited her promotional press for the upcoming feminist thriller “Don’t Worry Darling,” fueling speculation that she and director and co-star Olivia Wilde have fallen out.

TheWrap spoke to three executives connected to the film, as well as an individual with knowledge of Pugh’s involvement, who all declined to confirm any further press plans for the actress beyond attending the Venice Film Festival for the film’s premiere and red carpet, flying in from the set of Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Two.”

Pugh has been in Budapest filming “Dune: Part Two” and filming Christopher Nolan’s “Oppenheimer” prior to that. According to an individual with knowledge of the situation, she will be in Venice for the premiere direct from a night shoot in Budapest, and returning to filming afterwards. But the Venice Film Festival red carpet and press conference are expected to be the extent of Pugh’s traditional press duties on the film. “She’ll be doing greetings for us from the set of ‘Dune’ because she’s not doing press,” a studio executive said.

According to the exec, the studio knew that Pugh’s availability for the press tour on “Don’t Worry Darling” would be limited, considering “Dune 2” is also a Warner Bros. project, and planned for such. But the unusual lack of participation in promoting the film by its lead actor suggests there might be validity to speculation on a fallout between Pugh and the film’s director Olivia Wilde over Wilde’s relationship with co-star Harry Styles and an alleged affair on set.

[From The Wrap]

I have a theory about all of this and I hope you guys want to hear it. I think Florence signed on to DWD and was committed to doing chemistry tests to find her leading man. She didn’t gel with Shia or some sh-t went down between them, and Florence was basically like “no, this won’t work.” Olivia then went behind Miss Flo’s back and tried to get Shia to come back. When that didn’t work, Olivia hired Harry Styles. Florence had to do all of these intimate scenes, directed by Olivia, with Harry, all while Olivia was throwing herself at Harry. While I’m sure Florence didn’t like the whole “Olivia dumped Jason Sudeikis for Harry” thing, what really bugged Florence was how unprofessional and messy everything was on set. You think Olivia didn’t wield her power to ingratiate herself with Harry, at the expense of Florence’s work? Come on. So after DWD wrapped, Florence just disengaged from the mess and decided that she wouldn’t let Olivia hang the disaster around her neck. That’s my take. And I honestly don’t blame Florence at all for just pretending that this movie doesn’t exist.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, cover courtesy of Variety, promotional images courtesy of Warner Bros.

August 31 will mark the 25th anniversary of Princess Diana’s death in Paris. In years past, Diana’s sons have marked the day in different ways, and I suspect that Prince Harry will likely send flowers to Althorp (where his mother is buried) and do some charitable work in her memory on the day. William will likely mark the day in some way, probably privately. But what of Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth? They always make themselves scarce around the anniversary of Diana’s passing. In fact, Charles has leaked stuff before about how “hurt” he was that Harry and William did a joint interview to mark the 20th anniversary. Well, the Daily Beast has a story about how the Windsors have zero plans to mark the 25th anniversary. Diana, it seems, is still a sore spot for these people.

She is one of the most famous women who has ever lived. She is also a woman who changed how the British royals were understood around the world. Incredibly, however, the royal family has no plans to formally commemorate the 25th anniversary of the death of Princess Diana on Wednesday next week—illustrating, some would say, just how threatened they still are by her, even in death.

While her sons are widely expected to issue, at a minimum, online tributes, Prince Charles, who conducted an affair with his second wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, both before and throughout much of his marriage to Diana, which Diana publicly blamed for the collapse of their relationship, is likely to maintain radio silence.

“Charles can’t win,” an old friend told the Daily Beast. “Not saying anything makes him look unfeeling, but if he did say anything he would be accused of being a hypocrite. He’ll do what he always does and lie low.”

Charles’ office declined to comment in response to a question about whether or how the prince would be marking the day. However he has never before made a public statement on any anniversary of her death, and it seems unlikely he will change course now.

For Queen Elizabeth, paying tribute to Diana should be less controversial. After all, Diana is the mother of her grandchildren, one of whom, William, will one day take over the queen’s role as monarch. Had Diana lived, she would have continued to have an important constitutional and ceremonial role by virtue of that simple fact. However, a palace source told The Daily Beast it was “unlikely” there would be any commemoration of Diana’s death by the queen.

Jon Conway, the author of the controversial play Truth, Lies and Diana, which dramatized the inquest into Diana’s death, told The Daily Beast: “The reason there will be nothing said or done to mark the anniversary of her death is the same reason that there is almost nothing in London to mark her life. As a character says in my play, they want her ‘airbrushed out of history.’ It’s quite surreal when you consider she is one of the three most significant royal figures of the last 200 years: you have Queen Victoria, you have Elizabeth II and you have Diana. The establishment simply do not want any more focus on Diana.”

Conway believes that for the institution of royalty, not acknowledging Diana’s death is a strategic as well as moral error. “This is a woman who did untold good in her life, and whatever difficulties she caused for the family it is unthinkable to not commemorate her. I am a supporter of Charles and Camilla, theirs is a remarkable love story, but their behavior around Diana inflicted a lot of pain on Diana and the country. At some point they will need to acknowledge that and do penance for the way he treated her.”

[From The Daily Beast]

It is shocking, when you think about it. That Charles couldn’t even find some way to pay tribute to the mother of his sons. That the Queen can’t make some simple gestures in memory of the woman who rocked the monarchy. It legitimately does leave the impression that the monarchy is still scared of her and scared of her supporters. Plus, these are the same people who have tried to appropriate Diana for their own purposes and turn her into some kind of conservative monarchist at heart, willing to do anything for the continuation of the crown. Incidentally, whenever there’s a significant anniversary involving Diana or her tragic story is revived in pop culture, I’m reminded of the fact that Charles and Camilla’s careful, expensive, multi-decade rehabilitation campaign is just a mile wide and an inch deep.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

TGIF with Idris Elba looking fine. [Go Fug Yourself]
Here’s the full trailer for the live-action Pinocchio movie. [Dlisted]
Oh God the VMAs are this Sunday? Yikes. [LaineyGossip]
Heidi Klum’s tan problem! [Jezebel]
The history of Pell Grants. [Gawker]
Ryan Reynolds shared some personal photos of Blake Lively. [Just Jared]
What’s the appeal of Netflix’s Purple Hearts? [Pajiba]
Herschel Walker’s Senate run speaks volumes about the modern GOP. [Towleroad]
A compilation of Graphic Design Fails. [Buzzfeed]
This Erdem is trying to do too much on Jenna Coleman. [RCFA]
Ayesha Curry shows off her bikini body. [Egotastic]

Heather Morris is probably best known for her work on Glee, but before Glee, Morris worked as a professional dancer and a backup dancer to some very big musical acts. She’s probably auditioned for most of the major touring pop stars over the years, including… Jennifer Lopez. Well, Heather recently appeared on a podcast and she had a completely bonkers story about auditioning for J.Lo. Heather didn’t make the cut, but it had nothing to do with her dancing and everything to do with her astrological sign. OMG. The fact this story comes during Virgo Szn…

“Glee” alum Heather Morris, who worked as a professional dancer for many years, claims Jennifer Lopez once cut dancers from auditions for one of her tours over their astrological sign.

The actress, 35, alleged on the “Just Sayin’ with Justin Martindale” podcast that the pop star, 53, walked into the room after a long day of auditions and said, “Thank you so much, you guys have worked so hard. By a show of hands, if there are any Virgos in the room, can you just raise your hand?”

Morris claimed Lopez then whispered something to her assistant and told the dancers who were Virgos, “Thank you so much for coming,” revealing they “had to leave after a full day of auditioning for Jennifer Lopez.”

When host Justin Martindale asked if the story was true, the “Dancing With the Stars” alum joked the whole thing was “hearsay.”

Earlier in the clip, Morris explained just how daunting a dance audition could be to further drive home why Lopez’s alleged reason for cutting people was cringe-worthy.

“You’re not getting paid, you’ve been there since 10 a.m. and you’re auditioning until 6 p.m.,” she said. “You’re not getting any money. People judging you the whole time.”

Reps for Lopez did not immediately return Page Six’s request for comment.

It is unclear why the “Hustlers” star, who is a Leo, is seemingly not a fan of Virgos. However, her ex-husband Marc Anthony – whom she was married to from 2004 to 2014 and shares two kids with – is a Virgo.

[From Page Six]

I’m a Virgo and… um, let’s just say that I completely understand why a Leo (a PEAK Leo) like Jennifer Lopez wouldn’t want Virgo energy around her. Virgos are logical, analytical, rational. J.Lo does not have that vibe at all. Virgos tend not to react emotionally in personal or professional settings. We’re also not great “followers.” We’re fine with not being the center of attention, yet we’d rather do our own thing than have to play “backup dancer” to some Leo’s stunt queenery. I should also say: Virgos generally don’t f–k with Leos. We find them too attention-seeking and needy. All of this adds a fascinating new layer to J.Lo and Marc Anthony’s marriage though.

(All that being said, if Heather’s story is true, I’m sure this is considered astrological discrimination! You can’t just refuse to hire people because of their astrological sign! Unless they’re Geminis.)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.