Last Friday, the Washington Post announced that they would not make a presidential endorsement. WaPo CEO Will Lewis, who spent the bulk of his career working for Rupert Murdoch, claimed that it was his decision to dump the Post’s editors planned endorsement because Lewis doesn’t believe in newspaper endorsements. Lewis’s words meant nothing because everyone else, including WaPo’s editors, confirmed that WaPo owner Jeff Bezos gave the order to kill the endorsement. Bezos’ Blue Origin team met with Donald Trump on the very same day that the announcement came. In the wake of the non-endorsement, several WaPo editors resigned and WaPo is hemorrhaging subscribers (more than 200K at last count). So Bezos decided to address his reasons for ordering the Post to kill the Harris endorsement in a new column called “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media.” Some highlights:

In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally. Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement. I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.

[From WaPo]

There are so many fundamental mistakes being made here, and it’s being wrapped up in Bezos’ sanctimony about bias and credibility. Bezos’ perspective is that a presidential endorsement would exhibit “bias” and lessen the Post’s credibility. He fails to see that the lack of an endorsement for Kamala Harris is what looks biased and unreasonable. One candidate is arguing that America is only for white people, that he will overthrow democracy to get power, that millions of immigrants will be rounded up and sent into camps, that women’s pregnancies will be monitored by the state and that women will be blocked from leaving states to receive medical treatment. The other candidate is Kamala Harris. If journalists are not free to say “these two candidates are not the same and here’s why,” THAT is what’s destroying journalism, THAT is what’s ruining the Post’s credibility.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

2008 was the first election I was old enough to vote in, and I was so excited. I sent in an absentee ballot so that I could vote against California’s Prop 8 (an anti LGBTQ+ bill) and watched the results come in live from my dorm room in NYC. When it was called for Obama, everyone in our hall threw coats on over our pajamas and ran out to celebrate at Union Square Park, where someone had brought a HUGE American flag that we all danced under. It was a simpler time. Looking back on that hippie dippie scene, I guess I was channeling my inner Stevie Nicks, which is somehow cosmically fitting since Stevie recently revealed that she never voted in her youth. In fact, she didn’t vote at all until she was 70! But, how, Stevie?! She’s disclosing this now, what she calls “a big regret,” as part of her appeal to women to vote in this election. It’s one of many topics covered in a sprawling, really great interview from Rolling Stone. A few highlights:

Still so much left to do! I haven’t been able to do a lot of the creative things that I love in many, many years. I draw, I write songs, and I write poetry. I’d like to make a perfume because I actually have a smell that I love. I like to design blankets. Cashmere blankets are my favorite thing. That is what I buy for my friends if there’s a special occasion. I bought Travis Kelce a blanket.

She regrets not voting until she was 70: I’m going to reach out to women and say, ‘You have to vote.” You have to. I never voted until I was 70 years old because I wasn’t at all political. I was incredibly busy, I was having a fitting, and I didn’t want to do jury duty. It’s a big regret.

The meaning behind “The Lighthouse,” the song she wrote in reaction to Roe v. Wade being overturned: So I am the lighthouse, because I am the wisdom and I have the stories.” We are the women that can tell all these young women from 15 up to 45. We are the light that goes out, and we bring the ships in so they don’t crash. We save lives every day. The way I feel about this upcoming election is that Kamala Harris is the lighthouse, too.

That time she told Katy Perry to get off the internet: About 10 years ago, Katy Perry was talking to me about the internet armies of all the girl singers, and how cruel and rancid they were. I said, “Well, I wouldn’t know because I’m not on the internet.” She said, “So, who are your rivals?” I just looked at her. It was my steely look. I said, “Katy, I don’t have rivals. I have friends. All the other women singers that I know are friends. Nobody’s competing. Get off the internet and you won’t have rivals either.”

Her secret talent: It’s a silly thing to say, but I do my own nails. This is the first time they’ve been white in 20 years — I didn’t have time to put the gold on them before the last show. People say, “Who did your nails?” And I go, “Me, because I’m the best manicurist in the world.” Nobody does them as good as me, so why would I let anybody else do them?

[From Rolling Stone]

Reader, please do some math with me. “Cashmere blankets are my favorite thing. That is what I buy for my friends if there is a special occasion.” + “I bought Travis Kelce a blanket.” = A special occasion Stevie bought Travis a blanket for, right? Why’d you buy Travis the blanket, Stevie?! Taylor Swift and the Kelces actually make a few appearances in this article. Aside from Stevie totally shipping the couple and wanting them to have a happily ever after, Stevie also just recorded a Christmas song with Jason Kelce. I wonder how Taylor feels about her possible future brother-in-law horning in on her turf? It’d be pretty smooth if she posted a pic of herself sleeping while listening to the song. And speaking of smooth, that Katy Perry interaction was flawless, as is being noted on the internet, ironically.

Anyway, there is so much more in this interview, I highly recommend giving the whole piece a read. She says she’s gonna call producers so she can record another version of “Crystal” for the Practical Magic sequel, and of course she wants to jump off the roof like a groovy witch. And if you thought the excitement of getting the Barbie treatment had waned in a year, well, she has two displayed in her bedroom: the Rhiannon prototype and the final Gold Dust Woman doll. This Barbie says, VOTE!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Stevie Nicks (@stevienicks)

Photos credit: MediaPunch/Backgrid/InStar Images

In recent days, there’s been a revival in some Sussex narratives. This happens whenever the Duke and Duchess of Sussex go through a quieter spell – Harry did his big international tour (NYC, London, Lesotho & South Africa) in late September and early October, and Meghan popped up at the Children’s Hospital gala around the same time, and they haven’t been seen much since then. Instead of simply understanding that Harry & Meghan are doing their own thing and prepping their projects behind-the-scenes, the British media has predictably decided to scream about how Harry and Meghan have “separated” and something something maybe Harry will come back to them! Add to all of that, the royalists have spent five years trying to convince everyone that Harry & Meghan have flopped professionally. Which brings me to this GB News piece, in which they claim to have a source close to Meghan.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s professional separation was executed due to the couple’s brand being perceived as “toxic”, according to a PR expert. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have undertaken multiple solo engagements across the last couple of months as part of a wider strategy. The Sussexes plan to have greater separation in their professional lives as they work on different projects.

Ed Coram James, a PR expert, claimed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s brands are stronger as individuals rather than as a couple. He said: “Since their marriage, Harry and Meghan have had a distinct brand. That brand is based on a duo. Call it ‘Harry and Meghan’, call it ‘the Sussexes’, call it whatever you like. The fact is that for years they have become synonymous with one another.”

“And, since the famous Oprah interview, in which they took a simmering disagreement between themselves and the rest of the Royal Family and essentially declared all-out-war, that brand has been steadily becoming more toxic and thus commercially untenable to the point where not that many major brands are going to be rushing to write them a large cheque based on their brand value. When combined, the Sussexes brand is, from a PR perspective, toxic. But, when separate, they have a genuine chance of creating an entirely separate brand, with completely different labels.”

However, this separation professionally has led to speculation regarding their marriage. Meghan has found these rumours draining according to an insider.

The source said: “She has really felt the strain in recent weeks, and with all the speculation surrounding her and Harry and their marriage. They haven’t done themselves any favours by doing so many separate events but this is what they have decided to do as it works best for them at the moment as a couple and they both feel they can shine at events that are close to their hearts.”

[From GB News]

Something I’ve noticed about people who actually like and support Meghan and Harry is that many of us actually welcomed a professional divergence. We’ve been hoping for Meghan to lean into her commercial instincts and make the money, while Harry can focus more on philanthropy. Like, a lot of us armchair PR/branding experts have been saying that’s what they should do for years. Which is probably why few of us are freaking out about whatever is going on in Archewell. So no, I don’t think Meghan feels any strain about this, nor do I believe that Brand Sussex is “toxic” or whatever. Besides which, all of this talk of “separation” and “strain” and “rumors of marriage trouble” is projection because of whatever the f–k is going on with William and Kate.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Prince William: We Can End Homelessness is a two-part documentary set to air on ITV this week. But don’t you know, William didn’t make this navel-gazing documentary simply for British peasants. Of course not. Kensington Palace worked out a deal so that the doc will stream on Disney+. As you can imagine, the British media is leaning into a “rivalry” narrative, because Prince Harry has a contract with Netflix:

Prince William’s documentary about homelessness is to air on Disney+ ahead of his brother’s polo series on rival network Netflix. The Prince of Wales, 42, took part in the two-part ITV series to highlight his work in seeking to end homelessness.

The documentary, Prince William: We Can End Homelessness, will be broadcast in the UK on Wednesday and Thursday and will be available to international audiences on Disney+ from Friday Nov 1.

Meanwhile, the Duke of Sussex’s latest offering for Netflix, which is due for release in December, promises “an exclusive, behind-the-scenes look” at the sport of kings. Polo, a five-part series co-produced by Prince Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Productions, is the latest documentary to be released as part of the couple’s multimillion-pound deal with the streaming giant. While the Duke is not expected to feature heavily on screen, he was filmed playing the game in Florida in April in support of his charity, Sentebale.

Polo will be the fourth Netflix production released by the couple so far following Harry & Meghan, their six-part documentary series, Live to Lead, a series of pre-recorded interviews they introduced, and Heart of Invictus about the Duke’s Invictus Games.

More recently, Prince Harry appeared in an ITV documentary called Tabloids on Trial about his high-profile legal crusade against the media. Prince William has appeared less inclined to take part in television shows in recent years.

[From The Telegraph]

I forgot that Tabloids on Trial was on ITV. Prince Harry spoke on camera in that documentary, and it was specifically for a British audience. I don’t believe Tabloids on Trial aired anywhere in the US, on streaming or TV. As for the brothers’ “streaming wars”… um, Disney+ and Netflix don’t release much information about their streaming numbers, but I’m guessing that most people will not give a sh-t about William’s yammering about homelessness. I doubt that ITV will get high viewership for it either. People have memory-holed this, but William’s 2020 environmental documentary (Prince William: A World For Us All) bombed too. Princess Kate’s piano recital Christmas shows also get low viewership. The only way they can drive up interest in anything they do is by mentioning the Sussexes.

Photos courtesy of ITV, YouTube and Kensington Palace.

Imagine being a stand-up comedian and bombing so badly that you change the course of a presidential election, and in essence alter the course of history. So it is with “roast comic” Tony Hinchcliffe, an unsuccessful comedian who was hired to speak at Donald Trump’s Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Hinchcliffe’s set became one of the biggest stories of the Nazi rally, and that’s saying something. The parts of Hinchcliffe’s set which got the most attention: “I don’t know if you know this but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico” and the obscene joke about how Latin Americans never pull out and they “loved making babies.” Don’t forget the “joke” about how he has a Black friend and they “carve watermelons” together. Racism on top of racism. Well, the Trump campaign and Republicans across the board are trying to distance themselves from Hinchcliffe. The Bulwark hilariously points out that the Trump campaign knew exactly what Hinchcliffe was going to say because they already killed a “joke” in which he called Kamala Harris a C-U-Next-Tuesday.

Donald Trump’s campaign was left scrambling Sunday night after roast-comic Tony Hinchcliffe made insulting jokes about Hispanic and black people on stage at the ex-president’s Madison Square Garden rally. The lines sparked immediate backlash and even condemnation from fellow Republicans. But four top campaign sources said it could have been even worse.

“He had a joke calling [Vice President Kamala] Harris a ‘c-nt,’” a campaign insider involved in the discussions about the event told The Bulwark. “Let’s say it was a red flag.”

Hinchcliffe’s remarks—and the ensuing backlash—has sparked questions about how such an offensive speech was allowed at such a high-profile rally; whether it was deliberate; and why a presidential campaign would elevate a roast-master comic edgelord in the closing days of a tight race for the White House. Campaign staffers had asked all speakers to submit drafts of their speeches ahead of time—before they were loaded into the teleprompter—according to the aforementioned sources. Once the objectionable “c-nt” joke was spotted, the sources said, a staffer asked Hinchcliffe to strike it. He complied.

Those sources insisted that they did not spot the other objectionable lines in Hinchcliffe’s speech prior to him delivering it because they were ad-libbed. Hinchcliffe couldn’t be reached for comment.

About three hours after [Hinchcliffe’s] performance, as condemnation was pouring in from left, right, and center, the Trump campaign was forced to take the rare step of distancing itself from one of their speakers—though it only separated itself from the “trash” line and not the watermelon one. “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” Danielle Alvarez, a Trump senior adviser said.

By then, the political damage had been done. In Pennsylvania, home to a sizable number of Puerto Rican voters, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro denounced the comments. At roughly the same moment, Puerto Rican reggaeton superstar Bad Bunny announced his endorsement of Harris.

Behind the scenes, the Trump campaign debated how to respond. Some aides wanted a full-throated denunciation of Hinchcliffe while others, in accordance with MAGA’s no-apologies crowd on Twitter, advocated for no response at all. “It’s a joke. People need to grow up,” one Trump adviser in the no-apology camp told The Bulwark. “This is what we’re campaigning against: PC culture run amok.”

Another adviser, speaking to The Bulwark, took the opposite position: “This isn’t the hill we need to die on, Puerto Rico as a trash island—for f–k’s sake!”

[From The Bulwark]

That’s interesting that the Trump campaign is circulating a story about how Hinchcliffe ad-libbed the lines about Puerto Rico and watermelons, that those racist jokes were not part of the set he provided to them, the set which was loaded into the Teleprompter. The thing is, even if that’s true (and it could be, you never know), the Trump people have zero credibility. Especially since they platformed ALL OF THE OTHER RACIST AND SEXIST SH-T. It’s crazy that the one thing they struck was “hey, don’t call Kamala Harris a c–t” and left all of the other sh-t in.

I also wanted to highlight two despicable reactions to Hinchcliffe’s set, one from JD Vance and one from Jon Stewart. I don’t even have words for how much I despise Jon Stewart’s bullsh-t these days. The fact that he basically agrees with JD Vance should tell you everything about Jon Stewart. “Stop being offended by racism, you’re too sensitive, it was just jokes from a roast comic!!”

Vance: I have heard about the joke… Maybe it’s a stupid, racist joke.. Maybe it is not. But we have to stop getting so offended at every little thing can a United States of America. I’m so over it pic.twitter.com/I93s68plT8

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 28, 2024

Photos courtesy of YouTube.

As we discussed over the weekend, Jeff Bezos and WaPo CEO Will Lewis ordered the Washington Post to dump their planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. Will Lewis fell on his sword and publicly claimed that he was the decision-maker in this situation, and he felt like the hometown paper of America’s capital city should not endorse any presidential candidate, not even when Kamala Harris’s opponent incited a violent insurrection and tried to overthrow the federal government IN Washington, DC. I don’t buy that Will Lewis made this decision on his own, especially because editor Robert Kagan, who quit WaPo last Friday because of the endorsement situation, claims that Bezos had a backroom deal with Donald Trump. As in, kill the WaPo endorsement of VP Harris and the quid pro quo is that Trump would meet with Blue Origin people and presumably make promises for government contracts. Ever since the news came out last Friday, people have been canceling their WaPo subscriptions en masse. So much so that it’s become one of the biggest media stories of the month:

The Washington Post has been rocked by a tidal wave of cancellations from digital subscribers and a series of resignations from columnists, as the paper grapples with the fallout of owner Jeff Bezos’s decision to block an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

More than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday, according to two people at the paper with knowledge of internal matters. Not all cancellations take effect immediately. Still, the figure represents about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes print as well. The number of cancellations continued to grow Monday afternoon.

A corporate spokesperson declined to comment, citing The Washington Post Co.’s status as a privately held company.

“It’s a colossal number,” former Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli told NPR. “The problem is, people don’t know why the decision was made. We basically know the decision was made but we don’t know what led to it.”

Chief Executive and Publisher Will Lewis explained the decision not to endorse in this year’s presidential race or in future elections as a return to the Post’s roots: It has for years styled itself an “independent paper.”

Few people inside the paper credit that rationale given the timing, however, just days before a neck-and-neck race between Harris and former President Donald Trump.

Former Executive Editor Marty Baron voiced that skepticism in an interview with NPR’s Morning Edition on Monday.

“If this decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would’ve been fine,” Baron said. “It’s a certainly reasonable decision. But this was made within a couple of weeks of the election, and there was no substantive serious deliberation with the editorial board of the paper. It was clearly made for other reasons, not for reasons of high principle.”

Post reporters have revealed repeated instances of wrongdoing and allegations of illegality by Trump and his associates. The editorial page, which operates separately, has characterized Trump as a threat to the American democratic experiment. Several Post journalists say their relatives are among those canceling subscriptions.

[From NPR]

NPR also notes that Will Lewis touted a rise in subscriptions by 4,000 earlier this year, because that’s the state of media these days – 4,000 new subscriptions in an election year was considered big news. I’d say that 200,000 canceled subscriptions is even bigger news. As much as journalists are pearl-clutching over the canceled subscriptions, even they have to admit that legacy media has basically zero credibility at this point. It’s been nine years of Trump and the MAGA cult. Nine years of the media sanewashing Trump and minimizing his words and behavior. Nine years of these same journalists holding Democrats to a wildly different standard than an adjudicated rapist, felon and ultra-nationalist racist. Legacy media got so much support in the first years of the Trump presidency but they’ve utterly squandered that goodwill. F–k the Post, f–k the LA Times and f–k USA Today. Speaking of – USA Today has also declined to endorse this year, after endorsing Joe Biden in 2020 (which was their first presidential endorsement in decades). That means the NY Times endorsement of Harris was the only national newspaper endorsement.

PS… I wrote this before Bezos’ WaPo column came out, so I’m covering that piece separately.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Well, this shocked me. I thought Gisele Bundchen was probably done with having babies, but no, she is not done. Gisele is pregnant with her third child, her first with boyfriend Joaquim Valente. Gisele has been seeing Joaquim for over two years by my calculations – he started out as her friend and jiu-jitsu instructor, then it blossomed into a relationship. Joaquim is, to my knowledge, the only person Gisele has dated since her divorce from Tom Brady.

Gisele Bündchen is pregnant! The model, 44, and boyfriend Joaquim Valente, 35, are expecting their first baby together, Bündchen’s third, a source close to Bündchen confirmed to PEOPLE on Monday, Oct. 28.

“Gisele and Joaquim are happy for this new chapter in their life and they’re looking forward to creating a peaceful and loving environment for the whole family,” the source tells PEOPLE in a statement.

Bündchen has been dating the Jiu-Jitsu instructor since June 2023. Their baby will join Bündchen’s son Benjamin Rein, 14, and daughter Vivian Lake, 11, who she shares with ex-husband Tom Brady.

Bündchen, who served as a Victoria’s Secret Angel from 1999 until 2006, was notably absent from the 2024 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show held on Oct. 15, despite a variety of past Angels’ returns.

Bündchen and Valente were first spotted together in November 2022, when the pair visited Provincia de Puntarenas (a province located on Costa Rica’s coast) with her two kids. After originally denying a romantic relationship with her trainer, a love connection later blossomed between the pair, and in February 2024, a source confirmed to PEOPLE that Bündchen and Valente have been dating since June 2023.

[From People]

I forgot that Gisele is 44 years old now. That’s a lot for a 44-year-old body, but I’m sure Gisele sees this as a fresh start with the man she loves. I always thought that Tom probably wanted more kids with Gisele but she was the one saying no. That also makes me wonder if Tom is freaking out about the news. For what it’s worth, TMZ reports that Gisele told Tom and their kids ahead of time, before this announcement. It’s definitely interesting! Anyway, congrats to Gisele and Joaquim.

Also: in photos from September and October, she wore mostly baggier tops. She probably got to a point where she couldn’t hide her bump anymore.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Pippa Middleton and her Terribly Moderately Wealthy husband James Matthews now live primarily in Berkshire, just a short distance away from Pippa’s parents. Pippa and TMW James used to live in London, but I believe they sold their townhouse and relocated to the country, where they purchased a grand £15 million estate. They’ve done a lot of renovations to the house and the property, and they’ve invested in other commercial real estate in the area too, including a petting zoo and some sort of posh glamping venue. But this is about their private estate, which includes 145 acres. Apparently, Pippa and TMW James don’t want peasants to use their footpath, even though the footpath has been commonly used for decades.

Pippa Middleton and her husband are at the centre of a village row over the use of a footpath at their £15million estate. The Princess of Wales’s sister and finance tycoon James Matthews moved their young family into the 145-acre country pile in West Berkshire two years ago.

The estate was previously owned by late design tycoon Sir Terence Conran, who allowed locals to use a country lane leading up to the Georgian mansion’s private drive. However Ms Middleton and her husband have decided to close off the lane to walkers, with signs warning ‘Private: No Public Access’ and ‘No Trespassing’ appearing around the estate. One villager told The Mail on Sunday that the couple’s decision to block the pathway was ‘outrageous’.

He added: ‘I like to walk, and I don’t see why I can’t walk there. I have been walking along there for 50 years. When Sir Terence had it, he had no objections. I think we should have a right to roam. These people seem to be overprotective of their property. I don’t think it is right. We are quiet villagers. We don’t have vandalism around here. With all the notices stuck up, it feels like us and them.’

Another villager said: ‘I think it is a shame. It is a lovely walk. Although it wasn’t officially a footpath, Sir Terence didn’t have any objections. He was very nice. Everyone liked him. He was quite involved in the village. It feels they are depriving the village of an amenity. People might get the impression they are throwing their weight around.’

Through his estate manager, Mr Matthews submitted a Highway Declaration Notice to West Berkshire Council in March marking out his private territory. It made it clear that the road previously used by locals is off limits. Eugene Futcher, chairman of the West Berkshire Ramblers, has launched a counter application, seeking to have the driveway declared a public right of way. The council is expected to reach a decision next year but, as landowners, the Matthews family are allowed to impose their own restrictions until then.

However some villagers have expressed their support for the couple, with one business owner saying: ‘The public assume it is a right of way. It has never been a right of way. They were always allowed to walk it by the previous landowner but now it’s owned by somebody else. [The Matthews] have just exercised their right.’

They added: ‘Ramblers are narrow-minded people who don’t have anything and don’t want other people to have anything. It is jealousy. If it was their house or garden, would they want anybody to walk through it?’ Mr Matthews was approached for comment.

[From The Daily Mail]

Don’t get me wrong, we have these kinds of disputes here in America, but they’re really common in the UK. In America, the signs would go up and people would shrug and say “okay, well that’s they’re property after all.” But in the UK, people feel entitled to what they always saw as their right to walk on privately owned land. In the UK, Pippa is seen as haughty and bougie for this. Of course, maybe the answer is less privately-held land and more public parks and publicly owned trails? Maybe there shouldn’t be a vast real estate network owned by the crown and the Duchy of Cornwall?

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Timothee Chalamet hilariously crashed the “Timothee Chalamet look-alike” contest in NYC over the weekend. The prize was $50! [Socialite Life]
I saw Conclave on Sunday – I loved it! Ralph Fiennes is great in it. [LaineyGossip]
Review of Venom: The Last Dance. [Pajiba]
Olivia Rodrigo wore vintage Dior. [RCFA]
Photos from last week’s Power of Women party. [Go Fug Yourself]
Have you ever watched The Sandman? [OMG Blog]
Megan Thee Stallion recently got into Sex & the City. [Just Jared]
Selena Gomez & Benny Blanco did couple-costumes for Halloween. [Seriously OMG]
Flowerboy = THC-enhanced soda. [Starcasm]
Joaquin Phoenix & Julia Roberts have the same birthday?? [Hollywood Life]
What are some “accidentally” scary movies, like The Wizard of Oz? [Buzzfeed]

Timothée Chalamet making a surprise appearance at his look-alike contest in NYC. pic.twitter.com/z5hdXTVfpN

— Film Updates (@FilmUpdates) October 27, 2024

Prince William has been trying out his awful bearded look for a couple of months now. It actually began over the summer, when he appeared in a video praising British Olympians, and then he shaved soon after. Then he had second thoughts, and he grew out a sleazy little beard again. Throughout it all, I’ve gotten the impression that William believes that his beard has been well-received across the board. People are like “oh, you grew a beard,” and he responds with “Thank you, I do look amazing!” Plus, he’s obviously trying to copy everything his brother does, including Harry’s beard. But did you know this was all part of William’s single-guy rebrand? From the Daily Mail: “Secrets of Prince William’s ‘rugged rebrand’: How future King went from balding middle aged dad to hot heir – thanks to new trainers and THAT stubble.” I don’t know if I should laugh or hork.

When Prince William debuted his new beard in August a wave of fans praised his fresh appearance and encouraged him to keep the rugged look. This outpouring of support appears to have played a significant role in William’s choice to maintain his new style, and to even expand on it. However, it’s not only his grooming habits that have evolved – William has also revamped his wardrobe in recent years, confidently showcasing his new fashion choices.

Celebrity stylist Martine Alexander says: ‘This positive response has given William the confidence to be more contemporary with his style. It seems that he’s adopting an age-appropriate look and it’s great to see.’

During a recent visit to the NFL Foundation, William opted for a contemporary outfit, comprising a slim-fit blazer, shirt and chinos, finished off with a pair of crisp white trainers from Russell & Bromley. His relaxed ensemble struck the ideal balance between comfort and style, while maintaining a smart appearance. The white trainers, in particular, caused quite a sartorial stir.

Body language expert Judi James believes that William’s evolving style reflects his increasing confidence, with his choice of footwear signifying a shift in attitude.

She says: ‘William’s recent change of style and his much less cautious-looking and less formal body language seems to indicate both a growing confidence in terms of his stepping up to the throne and maybe an update in his priorities since Kate’s and his father’s illnesses. White trainers look symbolic of William’s recent shift in attitude when he is working. Some of his signals of inherent shyness have decreased and he looks happy to be more immersive and more relaxed as a result.’

William is believed to have been working with stylist Natasha Archer, who is responsible for creating some of his wife Kate’s most iconic outfits. As William adjusts to his new role within the royal family, his path towards becoming King has undoubtedly contributed to his growing sense of self-assurance.

Judi explains: ‘His step-up closer to the throne might have created pressure as his responsibilities increased, but pressure and stress will often decrease when feelings of control increase, making William’s recent outings seem to imply that he feels more in control of his own destiny as a royal than he did when he had his grandmother and father to answer to. William has feared being too spontaneous or even “giving” with his body language for most of his life thanks to the way he witnessed his mother’s life become an ongoing soap opera, but he seems more trusting with the press now.

[From The Daily Mail]

Style-wise, there really hasn’t been a significant change this year, or maybe I just haven’t paid attention? Like, he’s always preferred slim-cut suits and moose-knuckle-emphasizing tight pants. He’s always worn those slim, knit ties. He’s never worn clothes well or looked comfortable in any style. The only differences are: the gross beard and the fact that William has lost a noticeable amount of weight in the past five months or so. I genuinely believe that he grew a beard partially to hide how hollowed-out his face looks. This is not a “rugged rebrand” overall though – he looks ill and greasy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.