This morning, I saw one of my favorite headlines of the week: “Former President Trump faces serious criminal, civil investigations after White House.” There isn’t a LOL big enough. Even Trump’s own lawyers – during the second impeachment trial – insinuated that if Trump should face any consequences for inciting an insurrection, it should be in criminal court, not a Senate trial. Hopefully, that will happen. Among other criminal investigations and civil cases.

Former President Donald Trump might have easily avoided conviction at his second impeachment trial — but he could find it a lot tougher to beat the several serious criminal and civil probes that he now faces. And at least one of those investigations carries the potential for Trump to be sent to jail if convicted. That would be an unprecedented event in American history, as no ex-president has ever been charged with a crime, much less locked up for one.

Trump, a Republican, whose spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has claimed that the probes are politically motivated witch hunts by Democratic prosecutors. But judges in two of those investigations have repeatedly ruled against Trump’s lawyers in disputes related to evidence. Those rulings underscore the criminal and civil risk that Trump faces, as does the fact that on Jan. 20, he lost the protection from prosecution effectively rendered by holding the office of president.

“There’s a lot of balls up in the air in the potential criminal arena, and if I were Donald Trump, I would not be resting easy,” said Joseph Tacopina, a leading criminal defense attorney in New York City.

[From CNBC]

CNBC had the breakdown of all of the investigations and lawsuits Trump is currently facing or will face soon enough. Couldn’t have happened to a better Nazi! Meanwhile, Trump’s old white supremacist rainmaker Steve Bannon had some thoughts about Ol’ Bigly’s mental state when Trump was in the White House:

Former White House strategist Steve Bannon thought Donald Trump was suffering from early-stage dementia and campaigned covertly to remove him from office via the 25th amendment, according to a veteran TV producer. Ira Rosen, the author of a new memoir about his work for CBS, Ticking Clock: Behind the Scenes at 60 Minutes, was speaking to Skullduggery, a podcast from Yahoo News.

Rosen told hosts Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman his book was “not a dish on this person or that person”, then gave listeners a taste of the dish inside. He was asked about his relationship with Bannon, which developed around attempts to set up a 60 Minutes interview. “Steve is a big talker, a big gossiper,” Rosen said. “He became a source for a lot of media people in Washington.”

In his book, Rosen writes that Bannon “believed Trump was suffering from early stage dementia and that there was a real possibility he would be removed from office by the 25th amendment, where the cabinet could vote that the president was no longer mentally capable of carrying out his duties.” He also writes that one Bannon text said: “You need to do the 25th amendment piece. By the way brother I never steer you wrong.”

[From The Guardian]

I mean… we knew all of this at the time? We knew there were people in the White House (and in the Pentagon) freaking out about Trump’s mental state. We knew that there were people in the White House actively rooting for the 25th Amendment to be invoked. I guess it’s notable that Bannon was even saying it, which means that Trump’s mental deterioration was so obvious to literally everyone he was in contact with.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Salma Hayek is François-Henri Pinault’s second wife. They married in 2009, after she gave birth to their daughter Valentina. Their relationship was big news at the time, and they were part of a tabloid storyline because Pinault seemingly overlapped the start of his relationship with Hayek with the end of his relationship with Linda Evangelista, and then Linda had to sue Pinault for child support for their son. Crazy times back then for gossip. Anyway, Pinault and Evangelista eventually worked out their child support drama because Pinault is a for-real billionaire and, in context, what Linda was asking for was a drop in the bucket of his wealth. Salma stayed with him and she’s a very happy wife, and she defends him constantly. She’s always talking about the strength of their marriage and making him sound like he’s wonderful in every way. She did the same when she appeared on Dax Shepard’s Armchair Expert podcast:

Salma Hayek is opening up about her marriage to her husband François-Henri Pinault. Hayek, 54, explained how Pinault, 58, has made her a “much better person” on Monday’s episode of the Armchair Expert podcast.

“Can I say something about your husband, really quick? What a f—— nice, fun, generous, nice warm guy. He’s super sexy too,” co-host Dax Shepard told the actress. He added, “I’m gonna be honest, I didn’t know who he was, I just heard or maybe read in a headline that you had married a really rich guy. Maybe that’s why she married him.”

Hayek responded, “You know the thing is that in pictures you cannot begin to guess the magic in him. He’s made me become a much better person, and grow in such a good, healthy way. And, you know, when I married him, everybody said, ‘Oh, it’s arranged marriage, she married him for the money.’ I’m like, ‘Yeah, whatever, bitch. Think what you want.’ Fifteen years together, and we are strong in love. And I don’t even get offended, I’m like, ‘Yeah, whatever,’ ” she said.

Hayek continued, “We’re touching on a very interesting conversation. There is a discrimination also to rich men. Immediately you think because somebody’s rich, [they] might not be a good person, might be somebody materialistic, might be somebody that doesn’t have values, might be somebody that is even stupid or that doesn’t deserve it [or] that in order to have a lot of money, you did it the wrong way, there is all this preconceptions and I heard them, by the way.”

The Like a Boss actor then defended her husband’s character and said, “My guy, finished work, no matter how hard it was — and trust me he has a lot of responsibilities — big smile on his face, happy to be home, happy to see me and the kids, make us laugh. We go on vacation, he completely shuts off, he’s in the moment. It’s not just an insult to me. I’m not the one being judged only. They cannot begin to imagine what a joy that human being is.”

[From People]

I’ll be honest, if I was a billionaire’s trophy wife, I would be doing the exact same thing as Salma. “You don’t know him, you guys, you’re prejudiced against rich white men, this is discrimination!” And then I would get into the Lambo and pick up some sapphire jewelry for myself using his credit card. I am that f–king shameless. Kiss my ass, peasants! My rich husband is amazing! Anyway, Salma and Francois genuinely seem happy with each other and whatever, it is what it is and I’m happy for them. But no, it’s not “discrimination,” Salma. Jesus.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Dear Gossips, Last week on The Social, we talked about a news story about the “massive drop in cancer screenings” due to the pandemic. Unfortunately it’s not because people have less cancer, it’s that they’re not going for regular checkups. Since then I’ve been thinking about how I’m probably overdu…

Embed from Getty Images
Oya who writes with us lives in Houston and she has been dealing with Internet outages, cell reception spottiness and low water pressure. She has not lost power yet but her mom and aunt have. It’s treacherous to drive there and I’m waiting to hear back from her on if her mom and aunt have power back yet or if they were able to make it to her house. They cannot go out for food because all the stores are closed. Our friends LaUnica Angelina, David and Marigold also live in Texas. They’re all dealing with either full power outages or rolling blackouts and very cold homes after most of that state’s power grid failed due to a rare winter snap hitting the area. The outages are also due to the fact that Texas is on its own power grid and is not connected to the national grid. It’s been privatized and is now mostly run by an agency called ERCOT. Obviously ERCOT was not prepared at all to deal with freezing weather. People are suffering and at least 20 people have died. The Washington Post explains why Texans are without power – because other states can’t share power since their energy agency is cut off from the grid.

Millions of Texans have been plunged into darkness as the state’s electric grid strains to provide power during a historic cold spell.

The bone-chilling winter weather is bringing into stark relief the vulnerabilities of the electricity system as over 4 million customers in Texas remain without power Tuesday morning in a state that prides itself as the energy capital of the world.

A cocktail of high power demand, strained gas supply, iced wind turbines and an independent streak that bleeds into how Texas runs its grid has led to widespread and persistent outages stranding people without power to hunker down in their homes as temperatures remain dangerously below freezing.

Much of the situation behind the blackouts remains unknown. But the outages in Texas, coming just months after rolling blackouts roiled California during another extreme weather event, highlight how the changing climate is poised to test the mettle of the power sector — both in Texas and throughout the rest of the country…

True to its nickname, the Lone Star State runs its own self-contained electric grid. That lets Texas avoid dealing much with the federal government when it comes to its grid. But that gives the state’s grid operator few ways of drawing power from neighboring states during times of extreme energy demand.

“One state over might be doing just fine where Texas could be struggling because there’s no way to move power between those two states,” said Joshua Rhodes, a researcher at the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin.

[From The Washington Post]

To all our friends in Texas, I’m so sorry that you’re dealing with this and that your governor is a complete ass. I’m hoping that your power is restored quickly and that you and all of your loved ones are safe and stay warm. This is outrageous and you should not have to be dealing with this.

Thanks to LaUnica Angelina for many of these tweets and links!

This is a good time to note that the electrical grid in Texas was deregulated, privatized, and removed from interconnected networks to avoid federal regulation and increase profits to a small number of wealthy individuals.

— Bryan William Jones (@BWJones) February 16, 2021

This is how cold it is at my Apartment.

As a Texan, yes, I’m certainly not built for this. I don’t even care. pic.twitter.com/FMt8imglJp

— ?????? ????? ? (@ThomasBlackGG) February 16, 2021

For those without heat in Texas, there are warming shelters throughout the state. See map at link below or call 211 for assistance. If you have a medical device that requires power, call 911. Texas twitter, please add additional resources to this thread. https://t.co/1RcNbFfTwZ

— Beto O’Rourke (@BetoORourke) February 16, 2021

Another winter storm front is blowing through the nation’s midsection, where power grids haven’t adjusted for the wild weather swings that come with climate change. Millions remain without power, mostly in Texas, and at least 20 have died. https://t.co/RxOXkJcOQZ

— The Associated Press (@AP) February 17, 2021

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

The news of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah interview was met with angst, anger and condemnation… from the royal press pack. These people are so salty and so eager to condemn and profit from Harry and Meghan, so it’s all a very toxic blend of shenanigans. I was reading Tom Sykes coverage of the reaction at the Daily Beast, and he pointed out that the Daily Mail had some very tricky wording about the Sussexes losing their patronages. The Mail claims that Harry and Meghan could see which way the wind was blowing and that they were already going to lose their patronages anyway, and so why not go out with a bang and a tell-all interview. The point, from Sykes’ perspective, is that Buckingham Palace is trying not to piss off Harry and Meghan at the moment:

Intriguingly, the Palace appears eager to show it is not behaving in retaliatory or vindictive fashion against Meghan, who is pregnant, and Harry, briefing that the move to strip the couple of their last remaining royal titles is not a reaction to the interview. The suggestion is that Harry and Meghan could simply sense which way the wind was blowing and got out ahead of it.

The Daily Beast understands that Buckingham Palace had not been informed of the interview in advance, but courtiers sought to dial down any sense of grievance Monday night, with sources saying that as the couple were no longer working royals, any decisions taken with regard to “media commitments are matters for them,” and that they were “under no obligation” to inform the palace of their plans.

While unlikely to impact the royals as badly as Prince Andrew’s 2019 interview with Newsnight and Princess Diana’s bombshell 1995 interview with Panorama, there is likely to be a certain dread at what Meghan may reveal in the interview. The palace is thought to be particularly nervous about possible allegations of racism or sexism and the settling of “old scores,” The Times reports.

[From The Daily Beast]

I think that’s an interesting interpretation, because the Mail definitely wanted to leave the impression with casual readers that the Queen IS punishing Harry and Meghan partly because of the Oprah interview. I guess you have to really parse the DM article to understand that the onus was subtly put on H&M, that the Queen was always going to be a vindictive a–hole and take away their official patronages… and that’s why H&M did the interview. I’m not sure why Sykes thinks that makes the palace look better though! “We did an interview.” “How dare you, we were getting ready to punish you for existing!!” And yes, old scores will absolutely be settled.

People are also revisiting some year-old quotes from Tom Bradby regarding the potential for a tell-all Sussex interview. “I have some idea of what might be aired in a full, no-holds-barred, sit-down interview and I don’t think it would be pretty. I suspect the royal family would carry British public opinion still—perhaps only just—but its international standing is a key part of its value to the British state. If that were to be tarnished, it could be very damaging indeed. The days ahead will be challenging. But the family urgently needs a meaningful peace deal with the young breakaway couple, because a protracted war would be very bloody indeed.”

Tom Bradby knew what it was on January 12, 2020.

?? https://t.co/16Zbhm3c7V pic.twitter.com/GQRmVDku6O

— Royal Suitor (@royal_suitor) February 15, 2021

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

I’m not sure when Gina Carano really started saying and tweeting offensive crap, but people really began to take notice of it last year, when Carano’s role in The Mandalorian became a fan-favorite, and thus, the spotlight on Carano got a lot bigger. Last year, she was making fun of trans-inclusionary language and she criticized… mask-wearing protocols in a deadly pandemic. Around the election and after the election, she was absolutely tweeting out MAGA-adjacent sh-t, and then last week, she posted this disgustingly convoluted thing about how Republicans are being treated like Jewish people during the Holocaust. That was final domino – Disney and Lucasfilm said “enough” and they fired her outright. Her agents dropped her too. Carano instantly became a cause célèbre among fascists and Nazis, and she will probably spend the rest of her career making sad-clown MAGA films with Kirk Cameron. The Hollywood Reporter has a new story about what was happening behind-the-scenes – go here to read the full piece. Some highlights:

Disney knew Carano was a MAGA loose cannon last year: In Carano’s case, the move to cut ties had been brewing for some time. In the months leading up to Disney’s investor day presentation Dec. 10, Carano’s agents at UTA were negotiating for the actress to receive a sizable bump for a planned spinoff of Disney+’s The Mandalorian that was to star her fan-favorite character, Cara Dune. The actress, who sources say made $25,000 to $50,000 per episode of The Mandalorian, was poised to be touted during the presentation, in which Kathleen Kennedy announced 10 new Star Wars shows, including Rangers of the New Republic, a series that seemed tailor-made for Carano. But Carano was nowhere to be found during the lengthy presentation.

Disney knew by December that they couldn’t do a spinoff with her: “She was originally in that presentation when they announced all those things, and they pulled her off of it,” a source tells The Hollywood Reporter. A Lucasfilm source counters that Carano was never officially part of the Dec. 10 presentation and no negotiations for future work had taken place.

Disney is now being accused of pandering to the left? “I don’t know what people at Disney personally believe or don’t believe with regard to politics, but as a corporate entity, they want to stay as trouble-free as possible. And anything that’s going to offend the left is a problem,” says crisis PR rep Juda Engelmayer. “I have clients who are making an extraordinary effort to post what the social left wants to see.”

This wasn’t on Jon Favreau: The decision to banish Carano from the Disney kingdom went higher than Mandalorian creator Jon Favreau and was made by Lucasfilm executives. Carano, sources say, had repeatedly been warned by those around her about her social media behavior, with the actress even noting publicly in September that her Mandalorian co-star Pedro Pascal, who has a trans sibling, educated her about the use of pronouns after a social media flare-up. “She knew it was going to alarm people,” says one person in her orbit of her recent posts. “Why would you put Favreau in that position?”

No more Cara Dune action figures: Carano’s ouster had a domino effect, with Hasbro ending production on its popular Cara Dune action figures. (Hasbro says there are “no current plans to create more” Dune products.) Amazon appears to have pulled most of its Cara Dune toy merchandise. When asked why, an Amazon rep declined further comment. Meanwhile, the Dune action figures are seeing brisk sales on eBay at prices well above the original list prices.

Will Cara Dune be recast? Insiders say Cara Dune wasn’t part of the Star Wars series next up, a Boba Fett spinoff, but expect that the character will be recast down the road, for both story and merchandising reasons. A source at Lucasfilm says that a recasting is not expected, however.

Lucasfilm is trying to do better: Carano’s firing comes at an inflection point for Lucasfilm, which was previously criticized for not more strongly defending Star Wars sequel trilogy stars John Boyega and Kelly Marie Tran from racist bullying online over the years. On Jan. 23, the company signaled a shift when it put out a statement of support for Krystina Arielle, the host of The High Republic Show, after she was subject to racist bullying and threats.

[From THR]

I guess I have to give props to whatever Lucasfilm or Disney executive who kept his ear to the ground on social media last year and realized that Carano was a disaster waiting to happen. It feels like her spinoff was going to happen as late as November or the first week in December, but then executives were like “you know what, let’s wait on this.” And I’ve see, on Deuxmoi, much of the same stuff about Favreau’s role in this, which THR reports here – I heard that Favreau wasn’t happy with Carano’s sh-t and that Disney executives were well aware, and there were high-level discussions about Carano and around/including Carano. She was clearly told to tone it down and not be so f–king offensive and deranged online. Oh well. Now she gets to cry about her FREEDUMB to literal Nazis.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

While it’s still early – as of this story, it’s been less than 48 hours since we learned about the Sussexes’ Oprah interview – I was waiting for the very predictable royal reaction stories. You know the ones – “the palace was blindsided by the news” and “Meghan made someone cry” and, the most important one, “Prince William is incandescent with rage at the news.” Those are the three standards which get played every time there’s a big breaking story about Harry and Meghan. We got a version of “the palace was blindsided” and we’re still waiting to learn who cried at the Oprah news (someone did, I’m sure). But thus far, Prince William’s rage has been neatly tucked up inside Sandringham House, where he’s likely living working separately from his wife and children (cough). So instead of rage incandescence, we’re getting a very “concerned” William.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey is “cause for concern” within the royal family — and especially for Prince William, according to a royal insider. The exclusive sit-down, set to air on CBS next month, has conjured up memories of Princess Diana’s infamous 1995 interview with BBC host Martin Bashir — in which she candidly addressed Prince Charles’ affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, the insider told The Post.

Harry and Meghan’s bombshell announcement last year that they were quitting the royal family drove a rift between the two famous brothers, who reportedly didn’t speak for months afterward. Even a year later, Harry, 36, and William, 38, are not believed to be in regular contact, the insider said.

The source added that the soon-to-air interview with Winfrey has dredged up memories for William of Diana famously telling Bashir, “Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded” — an admission that rocked the royal family.

But confirmation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s 90-minute sit-down with Winfrey, which will air March 7, hardly comes as a surprise. “This interview has been an open secret at the Palace for months,” the insider said.

One source underscored to The Post that the couple’s chat with Winfrey has the potential to turn explosive — as the veteran host’s best friend, Gayle King, gabbed on Tuesday that “nothing is off limits.”

“Tom had, like, 10 minutes with Harry and Meghan,” the source said. “Oprah has 90 minutes — can you imagine what she will do with that?”

The Sussexes, who moved to Montecito, Calif., after their spectacular split from the Palace and are now expecting their second child, are not being compensated for the upcoming interview, The Post has learned. A spokeswoman for the Oprah Winfrey Network confirmed that the couple won’t be collecting a paycheck and said that no donations are being made to their charity.

[From Page Six]

Gayle’s reference was about Tom Bradby, who interviewed Harry and Meghan separately as part of the documentary Harry & Meghan: An African Journey. Bradby did have more than 10 minutes with H&M, especially Harry. But lord, that documentary went off like an atomic bomb in the Windsor clan. The Oprah interview will do the same.

Anyway, regarding William’s “concern” – I wonder if someone in Kensington Palace has finally learned to not leak stories about William’s rage attacks at this point. I imagine William had to punch some walls and scream at three sycophants before finally agreeing to release the information that he’s quite “concerned.” And there’s always this bizarre disconnect when it comes to William’s thoughts about Diana’s Bashir interview – Diana did that to save her life, to get it all out, to tell her side, to use her voice. You would think that both of her sons would understand that.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, WENN.

Embed from Getty Images
Gillian Anderson and The Crown director, Peter Morgan, were together for four years but weren’t living together. They broke up in mid December with the official reasoning that it was logistics. That’s the default reason couples give for splitting and doesn’t mean much. When I reported on it I wrote “I would like to learn more about this but they’re British and Gillian isn’t messy about her personal life.” Gillian isn’t messy, but Peter sure is! Right after that we heard that he was seeing Jemima Goldsmith, a British TV presenter and producer whom I know as Jemima Khan (she is going by her maiden name now). Peter and Jemima had known each other as friends and supposedly hooked up romantically in January, although I bet there was overlap. Gillian was reportedly “bemused” by that news. About a month later and Peter and Jemima broke up and he came running back to Gillian. Supposedly she took him back and Jemima is “shocked and confused!”

[Peter Morgan and Jemima Goldsmith] were said to have enjoyed an intense romance that blossomed early in the New Year, and by mid-January friends were saying they were in a ‘legit support bubble’ during the third lockdown.

Gillian, 52, whom he had dated for four years, was said to be ‘bemused’ by the news — and, notably, by the speed with which it progressed, just weeks after they had parted ways.

Now it can be revealed, however, that this romance has come to an abrupt halt after just a month, and Peter has gone back to Gillian, leaving Jemima ‘shocked and confused’.

Peter is said have joined Gillian in Prague in the Czech Republic, where she is due to spend the next two months working on her latest film, White Bird: A Wonder Story…

One of Jemima’s friends says: ‘Peter pursued her, rather than the other way around. He persuaded her that they would be great together, but has now gone back to Gillian.

‘This has happened in the past week. She is pretty knocked for six about it.

‘People are appalled by his behaviour. It seems really rather unstable. He had said he was serious about Jemima and she was certainly serious about the romance with him.’

Jemima had endured gossip over an apparent breach of the ‘girl code’ in taking up with Peter. Even though she and Gillian were not close friends, she found the attention painful, particularly as she takes loyalty to girlfriends very seriously.

[From The Daily Mail]

The title to this story has the parenthetical question “(but why would she want him?)” which I am asking too. I say that, but it’s hard to date in your late 40s/early 50s when you have teenagers at home. The pool is small and dirty, and I bet it’s even worse among those rich famous people. The Mail quotes Gillian’s recent interviews where she says she’s happy single. I kind of wish she hadn’t taken Peter back, but I get it. Pickings can be slim, even when you’re a gorgeous celebrity. I just made myself a little depressed writing this.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

A post shared by Gillian Anderson (@gilliana)

There were snide comments all around when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s upcoming interview with Oprah was announced this week. I saw a few royal reporters reference Meghan and Harry’s Netflix deal in a strained, obvious way, like “how dare H&M agree to an interview on network TV instead of Netflix.” Like, stalker much? Why do you care about their business deals again? OK! Magazine picked up on that thread and the lowest-tier American tabloid now claims that Netflix bosses are big mad that Harry and Meghan haven’t delivered any product in what, five months, and that Netflix is mad that H&M are going on CBS. First of all, they’re going on CBS because it’s network television and tens of millions of people will watch it and have access to it. Second of all, I’m guessing that Netflix is quite happy that there will be a 90-minute network television interview which will act as de facto free advertising for Netflix. Come on, how many times do you think H&M or Oprah will say “Netflix”?

Speaking of, the Times of London (via Page Six) had a story about how Oprah “courted” Harry & Meghan for three years for this interview.

Oprah Winfrey courted Meghan Markle and Prince Harry for three years to land her exclusive interview with the couple, it was reported Tuesday. While the 67-year-old talk show queen was described as a “friend of the couple” when she was a guest at their May 2018 royal wedding, she had only met Markle once before then — while first trying to land an interview, according to the Times of London.

She continued to play the “long game” and acted as the Duchess of Sussex’s mentor, even befriending her mother, Doria Ragland, when they moved to Oprah’s upscale California neighborhood last year, the UK Times said.

Winfrey’s series about mental health for Apple TV with Harry was seen by many royal insiders as a “canny move” to “keep the couple happy,” the report said.

The fact that Oprah would land the interview was long an “open secret in palace circles” — with Page Six noting speculation about it in January last year. But Monday’s formal announcement caught Buckingham Palace by surprise, with royal officials only learning about the finalized interview on Twitter, the report said.

[From Page Six]

Again, I’m continuously, deeply offended by the way British reporters are speaking about Oprah. They’re ascribing certain characteristics to Oprah to make her sound conniving, thirsty, desperate and like a third-rate, ambulance-chasing tabloid reporter. They have zero idea about Oprah’s elevated status in American culture. Frankly, Oprah doesn’t NEED Harry and Meghan. If anyone needs anyone, Harry and Meghan need Oprah to give this interview the “Oprah halo” of credibility. They wanted this done right and they wanted to be taken seriously, but they didn’t want to go with a more hard-newsy outlet like 60 Minutes, obviously. And besides all that, I would imagine that Meghan and Harry have been courted by all of the major names and outlets for their first post-Sussexit interview. I imagine the Today Show wanted them, Good Morning America, 20/20, Anderson Cooper, Ellen DeGeneres, Savannah Guthrie, Gayle King, et al. This kind of reporting (from the Times/Page Six) is meant to minimize Oprah and the Sussexes.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

As Rebecca English reported in the Daily Mail, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are going to lose all of their remaining royal patronages. Note: they will not lose any of their personally established patronages. Harry will lose his honorary military titles/patronages but obviously he will keep Invictus and he is still free to work with veterans’ charities and the like. Meghan will likely lose her patronage with the National Theatre (something given to her by the palace) but she will probably keep her patronage with Mayhew. The point of the Daily Mail story was to show the world that the Queen is petty AF and she’s taking punitive action against the Sussexes, but not necessarily because of the Oprah interview. Liz is just incandescent with rage generally, I suspect. Anyway, now the Times reports that Harry is suddenly super-upset about something which he’s known was going to happen for months.

The Duke of Sussex is said to be upset after the Queen agreed that he should lose his royal patronages and honorary military appointments. An announcement is expected in the next weeks confirming that he is to be stripped of a range of official positions, including his cherished role as captain general of the Royal Marines.

As part of the deal with the Queen, Harry and Meghan were allowed to keep their patronages for the time being. However, Harry had to put on hold his military appointments, although no decision was made about whether he would be replaced. As well his role with the Royal Marines, which was previously held by the Duke of Edinburgh, Harry is honorary air commandant, RAF Honington, and commodore-in-chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command.

“His military work is one of the most important things to him,” a friend was quoted as saying. “Of course he wants to keep them.”

The Palace has long maintained that it would not be possible for the couple to be both half in and half out of the royal family. A source said: “There was no choice. The reality of not being able to have their cake and eat it is finally dawning on him. I am sure it is really painful for him. He is very upset to be in this spot. But they have made some choices. They have lots of exciting things to work on, and that can be done with everyone’s best wishes. But you cannot confuse representing the institution and the head of state with the sort of commercial operations that they intend to run.”

A former senior naval officer said: “I think people would not wish to upset Her Majesty. Nor can I see how, if the rumours that Harry wishes to live in America and even become an American citizen are true, his wishes could possibly be acceptable.”

It is thought that an announcement will be made before the review period closes at the end of next month. Their positions with two Commonwealth organisations are understood to be more of a grey area. The duchess is patron of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and both are respectively president and vice-president of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, an organisation set up by his office in 2018 to mark the Queen’s 92nd birthday.

A Commonwealth source said: “I think for them the novelty has worn off. In the early days they thought the Commonwealth could be their thing. But I don’t see any appetite for maintaining that engagement.”

[From The Times]

So… Harry has known that he’s going to lose his patronages for months, in January the “one year review” was basically cancelled, he didn’t even call to set up an appointment for the fakakta review, and he’s building a lovely life for himself in California and someone, somewhere said “I bet Harry would love to keep working for the Firm in some capacity, especially when it comes to representing the military” and that was the jumping-off point for this story. It’s just an excuse for a royal source to whine and project all of this bullsh-t onto Harry. Also: The Times should be pretty careful with their implicit accusations that Harry and Meghan aren’t doing anything for the Commonwealth – Harry has truly sued over that kind of thing. Last thing: I think Harry is more than happy with his California cake and he’s eating it too. (Therein lies the problem for these dumbf–ks.)

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, WENN.