Here’s the latest Thor: Love and Thunder trailer. This is our first look at Christian Bale as the villain Gorr. [JustJared]
The title alone is annoying me: Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. The film has its first trailer. [Pajiba]
Will Smith likely predicted his own career downfall after doing hallucinogens fourteen times. I mean… self-fulfilling prophecy. [Dlisted]
Ryan Seacrest’s gross TMI. [Seriously OMG]
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams made factual statements which were then tabloid-ized by conservative media. [Jezebel]
I love Michelle Yeoh’s pink ensemble. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Henry Golding has scruff! [GFY]
Billie Eilish talks about living with Tourette’s Syndrome. [Buzzfeed]
Is the revival of Kids in the Hall any good? [Towleroad]
I’m not a coffee drinker, but I thought French press coffee was supposed to be the best? Is that a lie? [Gawker]

Emma Thompson is doing press for her film Good Luck to You, Leo Grande, which comes out in a couple of weeks. As Kaiser mentioned, the film’s premise is that Emma’s character hires a sex worker to help her have her first orgasm. It will also be the first time Emma has appeared nude in a movie. One might think it took Emma until her 60s to work up the courage to be naked on film, but she said that she wasn’t ever offered the opportunity. According to Emma, she’s been told her whole career that she doesn’t have the right body to disrobe. She said she’s been judged harshly her whole career and by her 30s, the press said she’d let herself go. But Emma said she hadn’t given up, she’d just stopped starving herself.

Emma Thompson has experienced her share of body shaming.

The two-time Academy Award winner, 63, recounted male executives telling her she didn’t have “the right kind of body” for sex scenes as she spoke to The Times about her new movie Good Luck to You, Leo Grande.

“I’ve never really been offered sex scenes,” she said. “As my mother said, I’ve basically played a series of ‘good’ women. I do ‘cerebral.’ And I have also never conformed to the shape or look of someone they might want to see naked.

“And by ‘they,’ I mean male executives. I’m too mouthy, not pretty enough, not the right kind of body. And, crikey, you are constantly told what kind of body you have,” Thompson added.

She also recalled enduring disparaging comments about her body from the media for the better part of her career.

“In one interview I did, the male journalist wrote that I’d put on a lot of weight since I appeared in Fortunes of War, and that my legs were ‘now like tree trunks,’ and that I’d ‘let myself down,’ ” Thompson said. “I was 31 and, quite frankly, no longer starving myself. I don’t think anyone realises quite how thin most actresses are in real life. They look quite… unreal.”

[From People]

We’ve heard these stories about what execs say to women and yet, every time I hear them, I’m shocked. I agree that people don’t know how thin actresses are. Nor do they know the measures they have to go to stay that way. It’s not that actresses come off as frail or brittle in person, but their figure has to have no bad angles. My heart hurts thinking about the demands made on these women and the critiques they hear. The larger problem is, those critiques are passed on to all of us. When a non-actress-sized woman hears someone tell a thin woman that her legs are “like tree trunks,” she’ll only see herself as even more flawed.

The People article talked about how Emma and her co-star, Daryl McCormack, got comfortable for the nude scenes. They and director Sophie Hyde all got naked and rehearsed that way after discussing their bodies and their relationships with their bodies, including what they liked and disliked. That sounds like my version of hell given my own body issues, but it must have been incredibly freeing for them. I like this new journey for Emma. I like that’s she’s dictating what’s desirable now. Like when Diane Keaton did her first full-frontal nude scene at 57, I’m sure we’ll be phrasing this as how brave Emma is but it shouldn’t be brave, it’s just a choice. And the best part is, it’s a choice Emma got to make on her own terms.

Embed from Getty Images

Photo credit: Avalon Red and Getty Images

I would have hoped that in the year of our lord Beyonce 2022, we would be done with pearl-clutching over religious imagery? Getting mad about the monetization of specifically Catholic imagery has been done before. People got so mad at Madonna. People still get mad at fashion designers for “misappropriating” crosses and images of the Virgin Mary and such. But here we are – people are in their feelings about Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker’s Portofino wedding. What offended me about the wedding is that it was sponsored by Dolce & Gabbana. That alone is tacky as hell, but it’s especially galling because Stefano Gabbana and Domenico Dolce are racist AF and problematic AF. But sure, let’s talk about Kourtney’s Virgin Mary veil.

Kourtney Kardashian and Travis Barker are being called out for “mocking” Catholicism with their lavish Italian wedding ceremony. While saying “I do” on Sunday, the reality star wore a white Dolce & Gabbana mini dress with a dramatic veil, which was emblazoned with the image of the Virgin Mary – a nod to a tattoo her new husband has inked on the top of his head.

While Barker, 46, has spoken publicly about his ties to the Catholic faith, it’s unclear whether Kardashian, 43, is a member of the church. However, the Poosh founder has shared plenty of texts about faith, quotes and Bible passages via her Instagram Stories over the years.

“Kinda weird that kourtney [sic] wedding is like this catholic ‘aesthetic’ like the Virgin Mary on her dress and her wedding veil ??” one person wrote on Twitter. A second added, “I just really feel like Travis & Kourtney [sic] wedding is mocking the catholic religion? They don’t symbolize religious people at all, just feels like mockery. I’m not catholic but just doesn’t sit right with me.”

Another fan said they were “happy” for the newlyweds, but argued that “liturgical garments used during mass are not something fashionable.”

One person even said they were “offended” by Kardashian’s short gown. “I’m just going to say it point blank. Kourtney Kardashian’s use of the Blessed Mother in her outfit(s) during her wedding weekend was extremely offensive to me as a Catholic … I have a right to feel offended by it,” they wrote on Twitter.

Barker, for his part, previously told Vice he was raised Catholic. “I got the Virgin Mary tattooed on my foreman when I was 18, 19. And I was brought up Catholic,” he said in a November 2015 interview. “I definitely pray; I believe in God. I definitely think I was blessed … So I’m not at church every day and I’m not pushing religion on people. But I believe in God and I pray and my kids pray.”

[From Page Six]

I mean… Travis was not dressed as the pope! Kourtney wasn’t wearing a nun’s habit. Are Catholics really bothered by this? Kourtney’s Mary veil was actually based on one of Travis’s tattoos. All of their wedding clothes were made by “good Catholics” Dolce & Gabbana. While I didn’t care for Kourtney’s wedding dress either, that was mostly because I hoped she would at least go slightly more traditional. This is her first real wedding, after all. Then again, I thought everyone in that family looked tacky as hell.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instagram.

Last November, we were gifted with another public rage-meltdown from Prince William. This one was about the BBC special The Princes and the Press. Amol Rajan did a documentary where he examined how and why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex left the UK, how the media was hellbent on destroying them, and whether Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace and Clarence House all briefed against Harry and Meghan. Rajan barely scratched the surface of what really happened, but his pointed questions and the admissions from royal Rota journalists was enough to send William spiraling. It wasn’t enough that William was largely responsible for the smearing of Harry & Meghan, it was also about how he was too stupid to NOT leave his fingerprints all over the smear campaign.

Anyway, William threw a tantrum about the documentary and, even more specifically, about the BBC and why they dared to even produce it and air it. William was trying to bully the BBC and he threatened to remove all royal associations and royal programming from the Beeb. Hilariously, Kate’s Christmas piano recital was “given” to ITV as punishment and the ratings were terrible for it, making it look like the BBC wisely passed on a half-assed Keen dud. I bring all of this up because the BBC is the official programming partner for all things Platinum Jubbly. William lost this particular battle, and the royals are once again closely aligned with the BBC. I News did a fascinating report about what has gone down behind-the-scenes with the Windsors and the BBC, and it basically sounds like they’re joined together in mutual loathing and need.

High-level talks: The BBC has held high-level talks with the Royal Family to heal a fractured relationship ahead of the Platinum Jubilee. But the broadcaster has been encouraged to ask “tough questions” about the future of the monarchy as it prepares to screen extensive coverage of the celebrations.

There was talk of a boycott: There was talk of the Palace boycotting the BBC over the Jubilee celebrations following the Amol Rajan series The Princes and the Press which is said to have annoyed the Queen by repeating claims about briefing wars between royal households. However after awarding coverage of a carol concert hosted by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to ITV, seen as a snub to its rival, relations are back on an even keel after the BBC shared plans with the Palace to make the Jubilee a central highlight of its own centenary year.

The Queen is fine with the Beeb: The BBC promises that its Platinum Party at the Palace on June 4, featuring stars including Queen, Sir Rod Stewart and Diana Ross, will be a spectacular “once-in-a-lifetime experience”, with Her Majesty granting special permission to site a stage in front of Buckingham Palace’s gates. Home recordings filmed by the Queen, her parents and the Duke of Edinburgh are among a treasure trove of private family footage released by the Royal Household for a BBC documentary Elizabeth: The Unseen Queen, which airs on May 29.

Do not give uncritical coverage?? Yet the BBC has been warned not to give uncritical coverage of an event, certain to feature extensively on its news output across an extended bank holiday weekend running from June 2 to 5. Executives have learnt from the viewer response to its coverage of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death, which some found excessive. “The BBC is under huge pressure to get this right. There has to be a certain amount of forelock-tugging. But this isn’t the 1977 Silver Jubilee. There will have to be tough questions asked about the future of the monarchy too,” Mark Borkowski, the leading PR consultant told i. “There will be a lot of empathy for the Queen. The baby boom generation feel very protective of her and feel this is her last hurrah. By its nature the Platinum Jubilee celebrates what has gone but also has to examine what will be the shape of the Commonwealth after the Queen. The BBC has to reflect that too.”

The question of how much to cover Harry & Meghan: This time, the BBC must make an editorial judgement over how much coverage should be given to the presence of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, set to divert attention when they arrive in the UK with their children Archie, three, and Lilibet, who turns one over the Platinum Jubilee weekend. Palace aides are desperate to prevent the Harry and Meghan show “destabilising” the weekend, especially if they decide to go on “ad hoc” walkabouts, generating huge crowds, outside of the official events.

Toxic Tom is flying in: An irritant for the Sussexes will be the arrival of Meghan’s estranged father Thomas, who is flying to Britain to be a Jubilee guest on the late-night GB News show presented by Dan Wootton. ITV delivered its star-studded contribution early, with a Platinum Jubilee Celebration last week, attended by The Queen, staged as part of the Royal Windsor Horse Show. The event, which paired Tom Cruise and Alan Titchmarsh as presenters, was a “carriage crash which showed why the BBC is the natural broadcaster for these productions,” said Mr Borkowski.

[From i News]

This is honestly a fascinating look at an arrangement which should have much clearer boundaries. The BBC *should* operate independently, without needing to play these stupid games with a bunch of horsey losers. It’s being positioned as “the BBC better get this right” when really, the Windsors are the ones who need to get this right. They’re the ones forcing everyone to “celebrate” the fakakta Jubbly. And I can feel all of the angst from Buckingham Palace about Harry and Meghan too – the Sussexes have not informed the Palace of their plans once they’re on the ground in the UK. The Sussexes know that the Palace will leak against them no matter what, so they’re playing their cards very close to the chest. And the fact that Thomas Markle is still being flown in by Dan Wootton… lmao. How evil, though.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instar and Avalon Red.

Pete Davidson, Kate McKinnon, Aidy Bryant & Kyle Mooney are all leaving Saturday Night Live. I’m bummed about Kate & Aidy, but I’m sure they’ve got plenty of work lined up, right? Right?!?!? [Dlisted]
Jessica Chastain & Ralph Fiennes’s new movie looks interesting. [LaineyGossip]
The trailer for gay rom-com My Fake Boyfriend. [OMG Blog]
Emily Blunt is doing a Netflix movie. [Just Jared]
Review of Men – I want to see this! [Pajiba]
I could see Jared Leto in all of this, which probably isn’t the best aesthetic. [Go Fug Yourself]
Elon Musk continues to be disgusting and broke. [Gawker]
Catholic archbishop bans Nancy Pelosi from communion, which just reminds me that the Catholic Church needs to pay taxes. [Towleroad]
What is the biggest tourist faux pas in Europe? [Buzzfeed]
Does an Unexpected star have a Nazi tattoo? [Starcasm]
Kelly Bensimon is still around & wearing a bikini. [Egotastic]
Fala Chen’s Armani is so good! [RCFA]

Two and a half weeks ago, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed (via their spokesperson) that they would visit the UK for the Platinum Jubbly. Not only that, but Harry and Meghan would bring their two children. It was widely reported that the Queen personally extended an invitation to the Sussexes during their visit to Windsor just days before the start of the Invictus Games. It’s also widely believed (by me) that Prince Charles has made quiet moves to ensure the Sussexes’ return, and not only that, Charles seems to want to dial down a lot of the drama around Harry and Meghan. The impression I have is that the Queen and Charles really want to make some kind of peace with the Sussexes and “bring them back into the fold” in some way, perhaps even on Harry and Meghan’s terms.

What has largely gone unsaid (by the Royal Rota) is that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge do not share the Queen and Charles’s desires whatsoever when it comes to the Sussexes. William and Kate bullied the Sussexes out of the country and they don’t want to live in a royal system where they’re still being overshadowed by the charismatic Sussexes. Speaking of, this completely random tabloid story is hilarious and it accidentally rings true.

Kate Middleton is reportedly dreading her reunion with Meghan Markle, after it was announced the Sussexes would be attending the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations. Sources say her “heart sank” when she learned that Prince Harry and Markle would be attending the landmark event.

“Kate can’t believe that she, as a future queen, is having to deal with all this,” a source reportedly said, via Woman’s Day. “Meghan would know Kate is a sensitive person and this would be getting to her.”

Middleton is reportedly dreading the day and fears she won’t be able to hide it. An insider said: “Unlike Meghan, she’s no actress and finds it difficult to mask her true feelings.”

Sources say “Meghan and Harry are spoiling for a fight” and it has everyone nervous, reports the title Suggest.

[From The Daily Star]

This tabloid fluff is supposed to be read as sympathetic to Kate, but it actually reads as hilariously shady. Kate is a 40-year-old woman throwing a tantrum about the fact that she might have to share some space with her glamorous in-law, the same glamorous in-law she copykeens constantly. Kate the Future Queen doesn’t have the emotional facilities to simply fake-nice for a few days. Kate is so “sensitive,” which somehow means that Kate is incapable of masking how horrible she feels that… her in-laws are briefly coming back to visit because the Queen and Prince Charles wanted them back. I’m starting to get excited for this visit, honestly.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

Camilla Tominey is one of the Telegraph’s main royal reporters, and she’s broken several big royal stories over the years. These days, she’s firmly encamped on Team Cambridge, which is par for the course, honestly. Most of the royal reporters will choose William and Kate, because they want that Keen access. And access to the Sussexes isn’t happening, Harry and Meghan have completely cut them off. Which is basically how Tominey framed her new Telegraph video. The Telegraph actually put some “production” into a pretty basic story. That story? When Prince Harry and Meghan come to the UK for the Jubbly, they’ll likely “destablize the monarchy.” First, here’s the Telegraph video:

Psychotic. I really mean that. It’s even worse when you read her quotes:

The Sussex sideshow: ‘You can include the Sussexes but you don’t want there to be some sort of Harry and Meghan sideshow going on when the main event must be the Queen. The Palace has a degree of control over Harry and Meghan while they’re in the confines of Buckingham Palace and the confines of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations official, but there’s nothing to stop them freelancing and doing their own thing while they’re in the UK. Of course, if they’re going to be seen out and about with their children, it’s going to generate publicity.’

Overshadowed: ‘Equally, there will be other members of the Royal Family who are doing the daily grind who will resent being overshadowed by Harry and Meghan, even if they don’t admit it. You’re not going to want to have the likes of Princess Anne and the Earl and Countess of Wessex, for instance, who, day in day out, plant trees, unveil plaques and go to the opening of royal envelopes, only to have the media focus completely on Harry and Meghan who aren’t playing a role at all in the so-called family Firm.’

The body language: ‘The most interesting addition to the proceedings is Meghan. Previously we have seen Harry by himself in the UK and now the Duchess will come back into the fold. The body language and the reading of it is going to be quite fascinating.’

No briefings from California: However she insisted the focus for all camps will be on ensuring the Queen remains ‘front and centre’ of all proceedings. There cannot be any ‘briefings’ from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s team hinting at any discontent between the family members. She added: ‘The main priority for all the members of the royal family is, as it always has been, the Queen and making sure she isn’t overshadowed. Nobody is going to ingratiate themselves with the public in the UK or overseas if they overshadow our 96-year-old monarch on the most momentous and historic weekend of her reign.’

[From The Daily Mail]

This is where we are. Royal reporters and their outlets are producing slick commentary videos which amount to “we don’t know what Harry and Meghan are going to do but we’re terrified!” And: “don’t blame us for covering every tiny detail of what Harry and Meghan are doing!” That last thing… I mean, she’s right. There is legitimate interest in what the Sussexes are doing. Of course the British papers are going to cover their every move. Tominey is framing it a certain way, though. She’s framing it as a threat – they better not do anything which isn’t palace-approved! They better not correct any incorrect stories we report! They better not do anything to overshadow poor William and Kate! These people are tying themselves in knots and it’s so funny.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Backgrid.

During any given British monarch’s reign, the monarch has four counsellors of state, people who can step in and do the work of the Crown in case the monarch is incapacitated or out of the country. Currently, Queen Elizabeth’s counsellors of state are Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Andrew and Prince Harry. See the problem? It’s not a new problem either, there have been calls for the Queen to change her counsellors of state since 2020, when Andrew initially “stepped back” from public duties and when Harry sussexited out of there. Since the Queen’s health has declined so rapidly over the past eight months, there’s been a renewed conversation about how Harry needs to be removed immediately, or Harry and Andrew need to be gone forever. Nothing has happened. Even as the Queen cancels her biggest and most important duties as head of state, nothing has happened.

Now, I suspect that no movement has been made to remove Harry and Andrew as counsellors of state because the Queen is doing so poorly. It’s weird, right? But I’m starting to think that Charles simply knows he’s around to do almost everything and why kick the hornet’s nest right now when he could simply wait until he takes over and then appoint his own counsellors of state. When Charles does appoint his own, his counsellors will likely be Prince William, Princess Anne, Camilla and… maybe Prince Edward, but I doubt it. It would be bold if Charles kept Harry on as a counsellor of state. But I also suspect that’s one of the reasons why Harry has retained the Sussexes’ lease on Frogmore Cottage, to maintain a residence in the UK so technically he qualifies as a counsellor of state.

I also wonder if some of this will be dealt with during the Fakakta Jubbly. Harry will be in town, Andrew will be itching to make appearances, I wonder if Charles is going to deal with some of this sh-t in person.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

Sadiq Khan is the mayor of London and a high-ranking member of the Labour Party. Last week, he traveled to the United States on some kind of goodwill/we-need-American-tourism tour which saw him meeting with representatives from government, charity and the arts. He was in LA for a meetings and at least one VIP party. Do you see where this is headed? Because Mayor Khan is like most British people, he seemed to think that Montecito-to-LA was some kind of easy distance and that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex could simply pop by the VIP party in LA. Khan invited them and they declined, but like the lovely people they are, Harry and Meghan extended an invitation to Mayor Khan to come up to Montecito. He declined. Guess how the story is being reported?

Sadiq Khan was secretly invited to meet the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at their £11m mansion in California on his trip to the US, the Evening Standard can reveal. The offer was made after Harry and Meghan were unable to accept an invitation to be the star guests at a VIP party hosted by the mayor in Los Angeles last week.

However Mr Khan was unable to accept due to “logistical” difficulties with an already packed schedule and because their home near Santa Barbara was a 90-minute drive from where the City Hall-organised party was being held in West Hollywood.

It is also likely the mayor would not have wanted to be drawn into the royal family’s “civil war”, especially ahead of meeting Prince William at the FA Cup final last Saturday and the Queen’s visit to Crossrail on Tuesday. Mr Khan has a good relationship with the Duke of Cambridge who he has met on several occasions. They have a shared interest in tackling environmental issues.

Harry and Meghan, who stepped back as senior royals in 2020 and relinquished their role as working members of the royal family last year, sent three aides to the mayor’s rooftop party. They included James Holt, who was head of communications for Nick Clegg when the then Lib-Dem leader was Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Holt is now executive director of the Archewell Foundation, the couple’s charity.

A spokeswoman for the Archewell Foundation, when contacted by the Standard this week, did not deny the couple had been invited to the party nor that a return invitation had been extended to the mayor.

[From The Evening Standard]

Imagine leading with “Harry and Meghan invited Mayor Khan to their home” and/or “Mayor Khan REJECTS Harry and Meghan!” While the Evening Standard puts it in some kind of context, other British outlets did not. Outlets like the Daily Mail, which made the story into something hyper-political… despite the fact that it’s clear Sadiq Khan reached out to the Sussexes first and not the other way around.

Norman Baker, former Lib Dem Transport Secretary and an author of a book on the Royal Family, said he was ‘surprised’ at the Sussexes decision to invite Mr Khan to their home.

‘Although Harry and Meghan are semi-divorced from the Royal Family they need to be careful not to demonstrate any political allegiance,’ he told MailOnline. ‘Sadiq Khan was right to turn this invitation down.’

Mr Khan, 51, is a friend of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, and it is likely he would want to avoid being drawn into the ‘civil war’ between the Sussexes and the rest of the Royal Family. The Mayor met William before the FA Cup final last weekend, and also appeared alongside the Queen during the opening of Crossrail on Tuesday.

Meghan, 40, is believed to harbour political ambitions, with past reports suggesting she had been networking with senior Democrats with a view to building a campaign and fundraising teams for a tilt at the US Presidency. Sources close to the couple have previously declined to comment on the rumours, but the couple have made little secret of their political beliefs.

[From The Daily Mail]

Again, for all of us in the cheap seats… Khan reached out to the Sussexes first. They were merely being nice by offering him a chance to come by, which they only did because they were declining HIS offer to come to LA. And why all of this talk about how Khan is close to Prince William? William is quite clearly and quite openly a Tory stooge. William barely associates with anyone from the Labour Party. All of his senior staffers are Tories. But we’re supposed to be left with the idea that Khan has to “choose a side” between William and Harry. Worse yet, we’re supposed to believe that Khan declined Harry and Meghan’s invitation *because* Khan doesn’t want to piss off Willy Incandescent.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and Instar.

This is completely charming. Harry Styles decided to appear on the cover of the June issue of Better Homes & Gardens. BH&G usually doesn’t have big celebrity covers, but considering his new album is called Harry’s House, I would assume someone thought this would be clever cross-promotion. It’s adorable! The magazine’s profile of Harry reads like a standard celebrity profile, the kind of thing you would read in Vogue or GQ. Some highlights:

He loves cold-water swimming: “I feel like people who have discovered cold water swimming are just so happy for you that you’ve also found it.”

Why ‘Harry’s House’: “I realized that that home feeling isn’t something that you get from a house; it’s more of an internal thing. You realize that when you stop for a minute.”

Pandemic navel-gazing: “I think everyone went through a big moment of self-reflection, a lot of navel-gazing, and I don’t know if there’s anything more navel-gazing than making an album. It’s so self-absorbed.”

How is he so sane & productive? “My producer keeps asking me when I’m going to have my big breakdown. The most honest version I can think of is, I didn’t grow up in poverty by any means, but we didn’t have much money, and I had an expectation of what I could achieve in life. I feel like everything else has been a bonus, and I am so lucky.”

Ashamed about his sex life: “For a long time, it felt like the only thing that was mine was my sex life. I felt so ashamed about it, ashamed at the idea of people even knowing that I was having sex, let alone who with… At the time [during 1D], there were still the kiss-and-tell things. Working out who I could trust was stressful. But I think I got to a place where I was like, why do I feel ashamed? I’m a 26-year-old man who’s single; it’s like, yes, I have sex.”

He’s been thinking a lot about celebrity & privacy: “I think we’re in a moment of reflection. You look back, especially now there’s all the documentaries, like the Britney documentary, and you watch how people were abused in that way, by that system, especially women. You recall articles from not even five years ago, and you’re like, I can’t even believe that was written.”

He thinks it’s “outdated” to ask him how he defines his sexuality: “I’ve been really open with it with my friends, but that’s my personal experience; it’s mine. The whole point of where we should be heading, which is toward accepting everybody and being more open, is that it doesn’t matter, and it’s about not having to label everything, not having to clarify what boxes you’re checking.”

[From Better Homes & Gardens]

He comes across as a genuinely nice guy, honestly. I’ve always appreciated that Harry doesn’t explain his sexuality or why he wears pearls, corsets, lace and dresses. He just… does it and shrugs and keeps living his life. When he talks about working out who he could trust and the kiss-and-tell stuff, my mind immediately went to the Taylor Swift mess, but honestly, the British media had a field day with all of Harry’s hookups back in the day. He had a thing, for a time, for older women, and those relationships or flings were always splashed across the British tabloids. I think getting some distance from England really helped him figure out some things too – he seems to spend more time in America these days, plus he’s back on tour, so all of that means less time within the confines of Salt Island and their crazy tabloid culture.

Cover courtesy of BH&G, additional photos courtesy of Avalon Red.