Ken Wharfe was one of Princess Diana’s royal protection officers and he’s part of the cottage industry of “people who used to work for Diana who now profit off of that connection.” Wharfe isn’t as sycophantic as most of those people though. Over the years, Wharfe has been extremely critical of Prince William’s “I’m just a normal bloke” stunt-queenery, and Wharfe was one of the first (and only) people saying that William is an arrogant, spoiled and difficult man. In recent years, Wharfe has been critical of Prince Harry too, and he clearly believes Harry “must” come back to the UK. Wharfe acknowledges that Harry has always outshone his older brother though. Anyway, to mark the 25th anniversary of Diana’s death this year, Wharfe and Ros Coward have written Diana: Remembering The Princess. The Mail had some excerpts, most of which were kind of dull, but there were some interesting asides:

Why people still care about Diana: “Because, thanks to these unique traits, she laid the grounds for the changes to the monarchy we see today. The Royal Family is much more open than it ever was, and it was Diana who saw that was the way to go many years ago. She did things that had never been done before, and it is only now that they can see what she knew was right.

William as a father: When you see how William has carved out his life with his children, it’s a replica of the world he had as a child: the same sort of school, the same style of raising his children, keeping them out of the public eye but also introducing them to a way of life that is a combination of some normality and privilege – and Diana laid the foundations for that. On the rare times we see William with his children, there does seem to be a genuine warmth, and he got that from his mother.

Diana came up against a lot of resistance when trying to break down barriers. She came out from one of her regular visits to the Queen crying, after the monarch had expressed her disapproval of her involvement with AIDS charities, wanting her to concentrate on something more pleasant.

Diana knew she was the star: Towards the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s, though, Diana felt she’d had enough. She felt she was propping up the popularity of the Prince of Wales, and she was right. Coming back to Kensington Palace from an engagement one afternoon, we passed Charles and his bodyguard, who were leaving. There was an almost Tudor feel to life with them. It was ‘them and us’, what Diana referred to as the ‘A Team’ (naturally, her side) and the ‘B Team’.

Streetwise Diana: So much of that was, of course, predicated around the ‘Camilla issue’. Charles’s relationship with Mrs Parker Bowles was an open secret, although when Diana commented or reacted against it, she was the one who was made to feel she was in the wrong. But it was only Diana who had a grip on the real world. While there’s a lot of good about the Prince of Wales, he is completely disconnected from the real world, or at least he was in the 1980s and 1990s. I can see no reason why it will have changed. Diana, who was very streetwise, would have understood it better. The others don’t. They think they can just move on when they’ve had enough of things, controversial or not.

Wharfe thinks Diana would have understood Harry’s move: There is no doubt in my mind that she would completely understand the position Harry finds himself in and would probably have been jetting across the Atlantic on a regular basis to offer help. She too opted out of the Royal Family, but if she had lived, I am sure she would have been in a very high-profile role in the charity world and I am also sure she would have supported all of the causes Harry fights for.

William & Harry: Although William has perhaps reverted to a world away from the limelight when it comes to his children, he does try to engage and to bring a more modernised approach. But with Harry, we can see Diana’s legacy more clearly – and when he returns into the Royal fold, which I think he will do, I believe that will be even clearer.

[From The Daily Mail]

“With Harry, we can see Diana’s legacy more clearly – and when he returns into the Royal fold, which I think he will do, I believe that will be even clearer….” As in, Harry will return to the UK and what? Fulfill Diana’s legacy within the Windsor clan? That makes no sense, especially since Wharfe even acknowledges that Diana would have completely understood Harry’s move and what he’s doing. So many Salt Islanders just can’t get it through their heads that there’s not some kind of magic scenario where they’ll get their charismatic prince back (and he’ll somehow leave his wife and children in America). And all of the talk about how we rarely see the Cambridge children is pretty funny because those kids have been front and center so much over the past year. It’s crazy how much Will and Kate use their kids as shields and as PR. Yet another reason why Harry left – he could never do that to his kids, he could never participate in that “business model.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Beyonce released Renaissance Act i last Friday. Every single day since, the Beyhive has been going to war. I don’t remember Lemonade’s release being this chaotic? But that was six years ago, and the Beyhive decided that they have time. They had time for Kelis. They had time for Diane Warren. And currently, they have time for Monica Lewinsky. Back in 2013, Beyonce had a song called “Partition” on her self-titled album. The lyric in question: “He popped all my buttons, he ripped my blouse/He Monica Lewinsky’d all on my gown/Oh there daddy, daddy didn’t bring the towel.” Monica complained about it shortly after the song was released, pointing out that technically, it should be “he Bill Clinton’d all on my gown.” But Beyonce ignored her.

Well, now Beyonce is changing sh-t on Renaissance because of complaints. She removed the ableist slur and as of Tuesday evening, Beyonce is removing the short sample of Kelis’s “Milkshake” from “Energy” too. For some reason, Monica decided this was her moment to complain about the “Partition” lyric from 2013.

uhmm, while we’re at it… #Partition

Beyoncé to Remove Renaissance Lyric After Outrage: Ableist, Offensive – Variety https://t.co/DzN80FdzPB

— Monica Lewinsky (she/her) (@MonicaLewinsky) August 1, 2022

I know some people have sympathy for Monica Lewinsky, but I am not one of them. Monica’s name has been referenced in many songs over the years, why does she solely have agitation about a 2013 song? Beyonce isn’t going to change it either. I hope Bey ignores Monica’s thirsty ass. The Beyhive is beyond pissed off about it too. But hey, I’m so glad that Monica is getting all of the attention she wanted.

The Hive been battling leakers, blogs, kelis, diane warren, crying activists and monica lewinsky and the week isn’t even over.. pic.twitter.com/En7MpNZSiq

— renaissance rogue (@soleanddta) August 1, 2022

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Mark Hamill got a job at Jack in the Box. [Seriously OMG]
Rest in peace, Pat Carroll. [Dlisted]
What do you think of Balmain’s graffiti print purse? [Tom & Lorenzo]
How was the Riverdale finale? [Pajiba]
Showtime canceled The First Lady series after one terrible season. [JustJared]
Beautiful Grace Kelly & Jimmy Stewart photos! [GFY]
How is monkeypox presenting in children? [Buzzfeed]
Are we ready for the Blonde discourse? [LaineyGossip]
President Joe Biden will name the FEMA and CDC point people for the administration’s monkeypox response. [Towleroad]
I hope Beto O’Rourke stays safe. [Jezebel]
Seeking Sister Wife’s Brazilian drama. [Starcasm]

Something I find incredibly interesting about the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge: Kate has gotten “her way” about the children’s education so far. Maybe that won’t always be the case, especially as Prince George gets older and there will be a heavy expectation that he be sent off to Eton. But for now, Kate has gotten her way. Her way is only-coeducational schools and never any schools which are pipelines for aristocrats’ kids. Kate prefers to send her kids to posh schools for new-money families, where the children of lawyers, hedge-funders and businessmen might go. Reportedly, for the new school year, George, Louis and Charlotte will attend the co-ed school Lambrook, which is “fifteen minutes away” from Adelaide Cottage, the Cambridges’ “new home” on the Windsor royal estate. The Telegraph had a fascinating look at Lambrook and why the Cambridges chose that school. Some highlights:

Prince George won’t board: It’s off to prep school for Prince George this September but happily without a tuck box, teddy bear and tearful goodbye. If whispers are to be believed, the third in line to the throne, who turned nine this July, will become a day pupil at Lambrook School in Berkshire, along with his sister, Princess Charlotte, seven, and brother, Prince Louis, four.

Lambrook is nurturing: It offers a modern, cosy and nurturing take on the quintessential prep school experience. “There’s no comparing it to the hot house our daughter attended in London – there’s acres of space and no pushiness,” says one. “The lessons are fun and there’s a tight, all-inclusive community. I defy any child not to love it.” At Lambrook, where termly fees are currently £4,389 from reception and £6,448 from year 3, they’ll have to go to school on Saturdays – the weekend! – and there’s no ski chalet; Thomas’s has one in Austria, which they’d have got to use if only they’d been allowed to stay on to the senior school. And anyway, why Lambrook rather than Ludgrove, their father’s alma mater, or St Andrew’s in Pangbourne, where their mother was a pupil?

Will & Kate’s school runs: Ludgrove is likely to have been ruled out as it only takes boys and the Cambridges, who strive to do school runs every day despite their hectic schedules, will find it far easier to have all their children at one school. St Andrew’s, meanwhile, 35 minutes away, is too far: having navigated the school run from Kensington to Battersea on a daily basis for the past few years, the Cambridges will want the next school to be as close as possible.

Lambrook isn’t the poshest choice: Among Berkshire’s circle of prep schools, which also includes Cheam and Elstree, Lambrook is regarded as “very respectable yet not one of the posh ones” – rather similar then to Thomas’s Battersea, which was considered an off-piste choice for the Cambridges who, friends assumed, would send George straight to Wetherby in Kensington, the all boys day school Prince William himself attended before Ludgrove.

Wealthy families only: Like Thomas’s, Lambrook has a few aristos on its books but its bread and butter is driven, affluent families who want their children to have a happy, free-range childhood, while ultimately scoring places at top public schools. A bus load of pupils arrives from London each day but most families live locally – which is financially no mean feat, given that a nondescript-looking five-bedroom house a mile from the school, with just over 2.5 acres, is currently for sale for £3.5 million.

Blue-chip parents: “Everything at Lambrook is freshly painted; it’s very blue chip parent wise and the children are all very polite,” explains one parent who opted instead for a more rough around the edges prep school. “On our open day tour the children all made personalised Lambrook key rings in the DT centre, and were sent home with Lambrook wooden yo-yos in a Lambrook reusable jute bag – I dread to think how much it cost them. We went back there a few weeks ago, as our son was playing in a cricket match and again I couldn’t believe how polished and manicured it is. I have to say that the match tea looked good but the cakes tasted of nothing.”

Optional boarding: Meanwhile, Louis will have rows of welly boots outside his reception classroom ready for “Forest Fridays”, when the younger children head deep into the grounds for den building and marshmallows by the fire. From the age of seven, boarding during the week is an option, either for a night every so often or, for £1,481 extra per term, five nights every week. “Even the most local parents like the idea of their smalls being able to stay over for a night when necessary – it means they can throw dinner parties and have hangovers without having to get the kids to school the next day,” says a source. For this reason, Friday night is most popular for boarding – parents can turn up well-rested after lessons on Saturday to watch matches, plays and recitals without it affecting their working week or their social life.

[From The Telegraph]

From the outside looking in, it strikes me as pretty bold for Kate to insist on co-educational schools and no boarding. I’m sure Kate and William have felt a lot of pressure from “the establishment” to send George to boys-only boarding schools, the prep schools which are seen as pipelines for all of Britain’s future leaders of politics and industry. It’s likely Kate insists on George and Charlotte attending the same school for as long as possible simply because it makes the logistics easier, but I also think they probably want George to enjoy co-education for as long as possible before he eventually goes to Eton. I continue to find it fascinating that the Cambridge kids are sent to regular wealthy-family schools, schools for the children of nouveau riche families. Why does Kate keep winning these battles? Is it because William genuinely agrees with her, or does William simply not care?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid, KensingtonRoyal social media.

I’ve seen this mentioned in the comments before, but it’s worth noting: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are well-informed about internet comments. When people show disappointment in some minor thing, Will and Kate tend to make some kind of adjustment for the next outing. As in, people wished that William had brought Princess Charlotte to the women’s Euro final – he didn’t, but look, Charlotte got to go solo with her parents at the Commonwealth Games. So, the Cambridges are aware. I pity the person who had to explain to William why he was trending so hard last week.

These photos are from today at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. It looks like Kate is repeating the slim-cut McQueen suit which she wore during the Flop Tour. I wonder why Kate’s white pantsuit is getting so many rewears! It’s so curious. It would have been nice to see Kate in some sportier clothes, given the event, and maybe go for fewer wiglets and less makeup? Most spectators at the games are just wearing shorts and t-shirts. But at least they let Charlotte wear a light sleeveless dress. I bet Kate envies Charlotte’s twee little collar.

Anyway, there you go. They heard people saying that they separated George from his siblings so they’re showing us that Charlotte gets special solo time with her parents too. And I’m sure Kate is so mad that she hasn’t been allowed to disappear from public view for months at a time for her summer holiday.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Kim Kardashian is selling elbow-length swim-gloves?? [Dlisted]
Rest in peace, Nichelle Nichols. [Buzzfeed]
Review of BJ Novak’s Vengeance. [LaineyGossip]
Emily Ratajkowski has been liking a lot of shady tweets. [OMG Blog]
Vanessa Hudgens wore a Michael Kors mullet dress. [RCFA]
I hope Dr. Caitlin Bernard sues everyone single one of these dumbasses. [Jezebel]
Louis Vuitton had a lighting problem. [Go Fug Yourself]
Queen Elizabeth’s stick of secrets. [Gawker]
Jennifer Lawrence steps out in NYC, wearing a strange sack dress. [Just Jared]
Is AppleTV’s Surface any good? [Pajiba]
Moderate Republicans are “concerned” that extremist Republicans are taking things too far with their culture wars. I’d love to know what “moderate” opinions they have. [Towleroad]
Christina Aguilera is keeping busy. [Egotastic]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian)

The Duchess of Cambridge stepped out on Sunday for one of her favorite kinds of events: a sailing race with Ben Ainslie. To make this event even better, Kate went solo – no Prince William acting and looking like a bump on a log. Kate got all dolled up too, with a face full of makeup, a head full of hairpieces and shorts with big, shiny gold buttons. She has a million navy-and-white striped sweaters and tops, but the shorts are new. They’re from Holland Cooper and retail for $242 (insane) and they definitely have the same kind of high-waisted, flared cut that we’ve seen on another royal woman recently. Those shorts are so unflattering on Kate, my goodness. Kate also wore her favorite Superga sneakers. That was all before she changed into that wetsuit or whatever it’s called.

The boat race was between Team GB and Team New Zealand, and the whole thing went down in Plymouth. Kate is patron of the 1851 Trust, but I think this race had something to do with the Commonwealth Games? Team GB won and I’m sure Kate will get credit for it!

LOL, she tucked her sweater into her shorts?! She probably did that so everyone could see those giant buttons.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Weeks after Prince Philip passed away, the Daily Mail had a curious story about his will. Their sources claimed that Philip had accumulated an estate worth around $42 million, and that he left significant sums to his three main personal aides, while also setting up trusts for his grandchildren, and then leaving the rest to the Queen. Keep in mind that no one even knows how Philip was worth that much – before his marriage to then-Princess Elizabeth, he was known as Pauper Prince, living on his naval salary plus whatever his uncle Lord Mountbatten gave him. Then the story got even more curious when the British High Court ruled that Philip’s will would remain a secret for 99 years, explicitly to protect the “dignity and standing” of the Queen. Even stranger, the High Court made their ruling without allowing any arguments from the media about why Philip’s will should be made public. They hushed it all up really quickly. Well, the Guardian sued. And lost.

The contents of Prince Philip’s will are to remain private due to “exceptional” circumstances. A judge ruled last year that the will of Queen Elizabeth’s late husband would be sealed and kept private for at least 90 years. However, The Guardian challenged the decision to exclude media from a July 2021 hearing that made that ruling.

On Friday, judges rejected the claim, saying there were “exceptional” circumstances for the hearing to be held in private, according to The Telegraph. The three judges — Sir Geoffrey Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lady Justice King — said press could not be alerted to the private hearing “without risking the media storm that was feared.”

“The hearing was at a hugely sensitive time for the Sovereign and her family, and those interests would not have been protected if there had been protracted hearings reported in the press rather than a single occasion on which full reasons for what had been decided were published,” they said in the ruling.

Although wills in the U.K. are usually public record after someone’s death, it has been practice for over a century for the wills of royal family members to be sealed. The judges said, “It is true that the law applies equally to the Royal family, but that does not mean that the law produces the same outcomes in all situations. These circumstances are, as we have said, exceptional.”

“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed,” they added. “A perceived lack of transparency might be a matter of legitimate public debate, but the (Non-Contentious Probate Rules) allow wills and their values to be concealed from the public gaze in some cases. The judge properly applied the statutory test in this case.”

[From People]

“We are not sure that there is a specific public interest in knowing how the assets of the Royal family are distributed…” LOL. Um, yes there is. There is a public interest in knowing Philip’s net worth at the time of his death AND knowing how his will distributed that wealth. The emphasis on how it was “a hugely sensitive time for the Sovereign and her family” makes it sound like the High Court made their decision just days after Philip’s passing. The hearing was in July 2021, three months after he passed. I remember that the Queen spent much of June and July going to horse shows and doing public appearances and events. Of course she was still grieving, but they’re acting like it would have been the height of insensitivity to have a public conversation about Philip’s estate while the Queen was having a hot girl summer. As for all of this talk about the Queen’s dignity and “exceptional circumstances”… it just makes me think that he gave large sums to his “special friend” Penny Knatchbull.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Don’t Worry Darling looks pretty good, just judging from the trailers. A heavy homage of The Stepford Wives with a dash of Rosemary’s Baby gaslighting. A misogynistic dystopia lurking underneath a glossy mid-century Palm Springs veneer. Olivia Wilde directed the film and she brought in Harry Styles to play the role which she originally cast with Shia LaBeouf. Florence Pugh plays the lead, and Gemma Chan and Chris Pine are also in it. Currently, rumors abound that there is some kind of beef between Pugh and Wilde. Pugh hasn’t put anything about Don’t Worry Darling on her social media, nor has she commented or “liked” anything about the film on Olivia’s social. Page Six claims that Pugh didn’t care for the way Wilde cheated on Jason Sudeikis with Harry Styles. Damn.

In just a few weeks, Olivia Wilde and boyfriend Harry Styles will step on the red carpet at the prestigious Venice Film Festival for the world premiere of their new movie, “Don’t Worry Darling,” which she directed. They will be joined by Styles’ co-star Florence Pugh, one of Hollywood’s brightest young things. But Hollywood is buzzing that the 26-year-old actress has fallen out with Wilde, 38, over the director hooking up with Styles.

“I can tell you for a fact that Flo seeing Olivia and Harry all over each other on set did not go down well as Olivia was still with Jason when she first hooked up with Harry,” one insider told Page Six, referring to Wilde’s ex, “Ted Lasso” star Jason Sudeikis. At the time, sources cited Wilde’s relationship with Harry as the main reason for the split with Sudeikis, with one insider telling Page Six that the affair with Styles, now 28, had been ongoing for a month, leaving “Saturday Night Live” vet Sudeikis distraught.

“Jason and the kids visited Olivia on set at the beginning a few times, so I think this all made people feel a little uncomfortable,” the insider said this week.

Internet sleuths certainly think something is up — finding it strange that, in an industry where stars live and die by Instagram, Pugh failed to “like” a post in which Wilde included the full official trailer for “Don’t Worry Darling” last week. Wilde followed that up by posting a photo of Pugh with the comment: “Watching this woman work was such a f–king thrill! Cannot wait to show you more. @florencepugh@dontworrydarling.” Pugh, again, was conspicuous by her silence — and the fact that, on the same day, she posted a teaser trailer for another new project, “Oppenheimer,” about J. Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called father of the atomic bomb.

A source told Page Six, “I heard she was already scheduled to post [about ‘Oppenheimer’] that day for some specific reason, it had nothing to do with a response to Olivia.”

“Don’t Worry Darling” is described as a tale of an unhappy 1950s housewife, played by Pugh, who discovers a disturbing truth about her idyllic life, while her loving husband, played by Styles, hides a dark secret.

On the blue carpet in support of a Tiffany and Co. opening in London this week, Pugh was asked about working with Styles. She said he was “a total professional and it was a great experience working together.” She then spoke about the cinematography and styling — “It was a joy to walk into the hair and makeup trailer every day,” Pugh said, noting, “the way that everything looks delicious and golden” — but had nothing to say about her director, Wilde.

[From Page Six]

Sometimes I think Page Six’s sources are talking out of their asses, but in this situation… it does feel like there’s something there. It’s especially notable because Pugh’s fans have picked up on it too and they’re openly talking about how Pugh has nothing to say about Olivia Wilde. If you’re forcing me to have an opinion, I would say it’s less about Pugh being mad on Jason Sudeikis’s behalf and more like Pugh and Wilde simply didn’t get along that well, or maybe Pugh found Wilde’s affair with Harry Styles to be massively unprofessional. Which it was – Olivia was Harry’s boss, she was in a relationship with Jason Sudeikis and she openly pursued and began the relationship with Harry while they were working together.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, promotional pics from ‘Don’t Worry Darling’ courtesy of Olivia’s Instagram.

Osama bin Laden wasn’t just a huge piece of terrorist sh-t, he was also a scion of one of the wealthiest and most well-connected families in Saudi Arabia. The Bin Laden family is still pretty powerful within the Kingdom, and obviously they’re still very rich. They like to travel too, and I would guess that members of the Bin Laden family own commercial and private real estate throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia and America, ownership which is mostly hidden through a web of shadowy shell companies. The point is that they have a lot of money and they can still exert a lot of influence when they want. Enter Prince Charles, who thinks it’s perfectly fine to accept literal suitcases full of cash. Apparently, Charles accepted a £1 million donation from the Bin Laden family.

The Prince of Wales accepted a £1 million payment from the family of Osama bin Laden, The Sunday Times can reveal. Prince Charles personally secured the money from Bakr bin Laden, the patriarch of the wealthy Saudi family, and his brother Shafiq. Both men are half-brothers of Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda who masterminded the September 11 attacks.

Charles, 73, brokered the payment after a private meeting with Bakr, 76, at Clarence House in London on October 30, 2013, two years after Osama bin Laden was killed by US special forces in Pakistan. The future king agreed to the donation despite the objections of advisers at the Clarence House and the Prince of Wales Charitable Fund (PWCF), where the money was ultimately deposited. According to sources, several of Charles’s advisers, including at least one trustee, pleaded with him in person to return the money.

One of his household staff said it would cause national outrage if the news leaked to the media. They told the prince that “it would not be good for anybody” if it emerged that he had accepted money from the family of the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in history. A second adviser also urged the prince to return the money. They told the prince he would suffer serious reputational damage if his name appeared in the same sentence as the terrorist, who was responsible for the murder of 67 Britons alongside thousands of Americans on 9/11.

One source said: “The fact that a member of the highest level of the British establishment was choosing to broker deals with a name and a family that not only rang alarm bells, but abject horror around the world . . . why would you do this? What good reason is there to do this?” They added: “I just didn’t feel any member of the British royal family should be involved in that sort of undertaking.”

However, Charles was said to have felt it would be too embarrassing to hand the money back to the brothers and feared that they would suspect the reason. It is understood that one household staff member believes they were “very vociferous” with the prince but were “shouted down”.

[From The Times]

Think about how odd this is, that Prince Charles already has one ass cheek on the throne and his close, high-ranking staffers think nothing of spilling their guts to the Times about how it’s not THEIR fault that Charles was taking £1 million from Osama bin Laden’s half-brothers. Over the past year, there’s been a whole cascade of grifter dominoes about Charles’s decades of financial impropriety and I cannot for the life of me understand any part of it. One, why was Charles behaving this way for years and Buckingham Palace didn’t shut him down? Why didn’t the government?? Two, why didn’t Charles’s staffers raise their concerns PUBLICLY before now? Three, what is broken in Charles’s brain that he thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to receive tens of millions of dollars from some of the shadiest people in the world as long as the money is nominally used for “charity”?

As for this specific story… holy sh-t. Yes, granted, the Saudi government still treats the Bin Ladens as largely siloed from Al Qaeda operations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism. I can see how someone could make the intellectual distinction between the family and Osama bin Laden. But it still looks completely awful. Here’s another question: why did Charles even meet with the Bin Ladens in the first place? If his argument is that it would have been rude to return the money, why was he even meeting them or courting them in a fundraising capacity?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.