Elizabeth Banks wore a sleek black look at the premiere of The Miniature Wife. I cannot believe that NBC/Peacock greenlit this show, nor can I believe that Matthew Macfadyen is in it. [Just Jared]
Offset was shot in Florida. [Hollywood Life]
Lil Nas X was in court yesterday & he’s doing better. [Socialite Life]
Why does The Pitt keep writing off women of color? [LaineyGossip]
I basically hate everything about Anne Hathaway’s look in Tokyo. [RCFA]
Lisa Kudrow wants modern sitcoms to stop being so tame. [Pajiba]
Rhea Seehorn looked awesome. [Go Fug Yourself]
Trying to figure out “looksmaxxing.” [OMG Blog]
CBS announced their replacement programming for The Late Show. [Seriously OMG]
Unexpected’s grandpappy got arrested?? [Starcasm]
The White House Easter Egg Roll was a f–king mess. [Buzzfeed]

Here are more photos of Peter Phillips and his fiancee Harriet Sperling on Easter Sunday. Given how many royals and royal-adjacents skipped out, Peter and Harriet got some of the Easter spotlight. Just days earlier, they finally set the date for their wedding as well – they will marry on June 6th in the Cotswolds. While various royals will attend, it will not be staged as a “royal wedding.” I’m actually looking forward to seeing who shows up and who doesn’t. I feel like we’ll be able to milk several controversies out of it.

In the meantime, the British media is doing their best to hype Harriet. We saw this last year too, when Harriet attended several events as Peter’s plus-one, and it turns out that she’s a willowy, photogenic blonde. The British papers LOVE that, and they love the fact that they can talk about her fashion and hair and on and on. Given all of the ridiculous angst over Prince Harry marrying a divorcee, you’d think that those same people would give Harriet some grief over being divorced and a single mother. You would be wrong – they f–king love it, and they love that Harriet brought her daughter to the Easter service alongside Peter’s daughters from his first marriage.

Ahead of their nuptials in June, Peter, 48, and his NHS nurse fiancée introduced Harriet’s daughter, Georgina, for the first time at Sunday’s high-profile outing. Harriet shares Georgina, 13, with her former husband, fitness instructor Antonio St John Sperling. The teenager has never been seen publicly before Easter Sunday, when Peter’s daughters from his first marriage walked alongside Georgina in a touching display of sisterly solidarity.

Savannah, 15, and Isla, 14, whom Peter shares with his ex-wife, Autumn Kelly, flanked Georgina protectively as they walked past photographers – just days after Princess Anne’s son and Harriet revealed they will tie the knot on June 6. The joint appearance sent a strong message of unity and support for the upcoming wedding as a new royal blended family stepped into the spotlight after Princess Beatrice broke the mould following her wedding to Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi.

Now a regular at Wimbledon and Cheltenham alike, Harriet has also earned praise for her fashion choices that appear to be inspired by the Princess of Wales’s immaculate royal style.

For her first royal Easter service, Harriet took a leaf out of Kate’s playbook as she wore pieces from four of her favourite brands. She picked a cornflower blue polka dot co-ord designed by Beulah London, a label Kate has worn for everything from polo matches to overseas visits.

Harriet paired the set with earrings from one of Kate’s most-worn jewellery brands, Kiki Mcdonough, and pumps from Emmy London – a staple in the princess’s shoe cupboard. She finished the glamorous look with a hat from royal-approved Jane Taylor. The milliner has designed some of Kate’s most famous headpieces, including ones worn at Prince Louis’s christening in 2018 and the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last year.

This isn’t the first time Harriet has turned to the Princess for style inspiration. When she joined her future sister-in-law Zara at the Cheltenham Festival last month, Harriet channelled Kate in Suzannah London’s Winchester coat dress – a favourite of the princess.

[From The Daily Mail]

When I downloaded these photos, I clocked the fact that Harriet looked like she was copykeening Kate’s style too. It’s not just the designers, it’s Kate’s whole vibe – Kate loves polka dots, she loves that shade of blue, she loves fussy bow details, she loves an asinine puffy shoulder, she loves styling her hair/wig in a similar way, she loves that style of hat, she loves a Kiki drop earring. You think Kate is mad about this? Will Kate be upset that an attractive blonde is copying, bar-for-bar, her terrible style? What if Harriet starts wearing sh-t with lots of buttons? LMAO. The palace gopher better hide all of Kate’s wigs of doom too.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.

What are Prince William’s interests? What are his passions? I would describe William’s interests and passions to be limited to football (specifically Aston Villa, and especially not any women’s teams) and cars. Reportedly, he enjoys cars. I don’t even think he enjoys polo at this point, and he’s basically only played polo a couple of times in the past three years. He’s not a natural athlete because of his physical awkwardness, so it’s not like he’s playing pick-up basketball or football/soccer. He doesn’t join his wife on her hobby of walking/hiking in nature. Additionally, William is a cultural wasteland. He doesn’t watch movies despite being the president of BAFTA. He doesn’t enjoy the theater. He doesn’t read books or even have a favorite magazine. No one has ever said he even listens to audiobooks. He’s been to one concert in like fifteen years (he took his kids to see Taylor Swift).

All of this is in comparison to his father, King Charles. Despite Charles’s many failings and flaws, he’s a very cultured man with many passions. He loves gardens, he loves being out in nature, he’s an accomplished painter who supports tons of art charities and even founded an art school. He loves opera and theater. I don’t think he likes watching TV, but he’s a huge reader who enjoys books about history, philosophy and religion especially. He has a passion for unique crafts and he supports many unique craftsmen and artisans. And on and on – he has a rich cultural life. Well, people are just now figuring out that the heir to the throne is a cultural wasteland. “Dull” doesn’t even cover William’s personality:

'William is a bit boring'

Catch up now on Friday's Daily T where @CamillaTominey and @timothy_stanley are joined by former Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II, Gavin Ashenden, to discuss how the King and Prince William approach faith, and whether the Prince's focus on the Church’s… pic.twitter.com/Q13Ui06Io3

— The Daily T (@DailyTPodcast) April 5, 2026

According to Camilla Tominey, William’s lack of passion, hobbies or interests is justified because “he’s never claimed to be an academic or an intellectual.” As if that’s a good thing? Well, at least he’s never claimed to be smart or culturally aware or a man of wide interests! And since when is it particularly “intellectual” or “academic” to read a f–king book or enjoy a movie or have passion for anything other than Aston Villa’s online forums? The future king has never picked up a history book or decompressed by listening to his favorite album. It’s pitiful. It’s not just that William is “a bit boring,” it’s that he’s completely unprepared for his role and uninterested in learning anything. They can’t even get him to read briefing memos, for goodness sake!!

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

I’ve just realized why there are suddenly all of these new “biographies” of Queen Elizabeth II – April 21st would have been her 100th birthday. So why not repackage a million old stories about QEII with a Sussex-forward slant? That’s what Hugo Vickers has done, and that’s what Robert Hardman has done as well. Hardman, like Vickers, wrote a book called Elizabeth II, and like Vickers, all of the early excerpts are about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Y’all, would you believe it if I told you that there was yet another tiara-story variant? I honestly think that seeing Meghan in a diamond tiara on her wedding day broke every royalist’s brain. It’s been eight years of screaming, crying and throwing up about Meghan borrowing a fakakta tiara from the queen. The stories keep changing too! I’ve lost count of how many variations we’ve gotten. Just going from memory, these are some variants: Meghan demanded a different tiara but was bitched out by QEII; Meghan bullied a reluctant QEII into giving her a tiara in the first place; Meghan demanded everything and Angela Kelly had no choice but to bitch out Harry; Harry made Angela Kelly cry, which was obviously Meghan’s fault; Meghan demanded that the tiara be brought to her immediately for a hair trial only for a palace SWAT team to be called in; Meghan kicked a corgi as she yanked the tiara off QEII’s head!! Well, here are some highlights from Hardman’s version of tiara events:

Meghan & Kate both cried, you guys: The couple had asked Princess Charlotte to be a bridesmaid, but tensions between Meghan and the Duchess of Cambridge over the bridesmaids’ dresses would reduce both women to tears.

QEII loved helping royal brides select a wedding tiara: ‘Her Majesty would pick out a small selection which she thought would suit that bride and ask her round to try them on and choose one,’ said a former staffer. ‘It was her lovely way of bonding with the bride. She did it with Sophie [Rhys-Jones] and with Catherine [Middleton]. But there wasn’t that bonding with Meghan because she turned up with Prince Harry.’ No one was entirely sure why the Prince had to come, too. His memoir suggests that it was a joint invitation; insiders say otherwise.

Wanting to borrow Queen Mary’s diamond bandeau before the wedding: The mood turned sour nearer the wedding when the couple rang the Palace to ask the Queen’s dresser and curator, Angela Kelly, to send over the tiara. Meghan wished to practise putting it on…Matters came to a head when Meghan’s hairdresser flew in for a ‘hair trial’. ‘People were frustrated – and confused. Why was it so hard to set up a time for Meghan to try the tiara with her hairdresser?’ wrote Scobie and Durand, adding that Harry was forced to go directly to the Queen as a result. The Prince, in his account, said that he did not. ‘I considered going to Granny, but that would probably mean sparking an all-out confrontation,’ he wrote, ‘and I wasn’t quite sure with whom Granny would side.’

QEII took Angela Kelly’s side: Insiders have now revealed that word did, indeed, reach the Queen, who took the side of her dresser. She was not pleased that the Prince had been calling around the Royal Household demanding that the tiara be dispatched forthwith. As the monarch told one of them: ‘It’s not a toy.’ She even recalled that, ahead of the 2011 royal wedding, Catherine Middleton’s hairdresser had practised using a plastic tiara from the accessory chain, Claire’s. Why could Meghan and her hairdresser not do the same? She told Kelly to ignore the phone calls.

Why QEII ignored the Sussexes’ calls: There were also two reasons, said the insiders, why the tiara was not simply produced at the click of a finger to suit a visiting hairdresser (quite apart from the less-than-straightforward protocols for transporting royal gems). First, it was Easter Court, with the Queen and her staff based at Windsor and also preoccupied with guests for the Royal Windsor Horse Show. Second, and of greater importance, was the question of provenance. The diamond bandeau tiara had very little known history, beyond the fact that Queen Mary had commissioned it in 1932, using a diamond brooch – a wedding present from the county of Lincolnshire – as its centrepiece. It had seldom been seen in public since.

Verifying the provenance: Angela Kelly and her team had been trying to verify that it had no awkward backstory – like the Timur ruby (alleged imperial loot) or the Cambridge emeralds (reclaimed at vast expense from Queen Mary’s dead brother’s mistress). Every centrepiece of a royal wedding is subject to forensic global scrutiny. Even if the tiara had only a few offcuts from South Africa’s mighty Cullinan diamond, that could be enough to generate furious headlines about colonial theft. ‘Can you imagine how that would have gone down on the wedding day?’ asked one member of staff.

Harry was abrupt with Angela: It had taken a great deal of research. Once due diligence had been done, there was great relief around the Palace. ‘Harry had been on to everyone about this. We thought Angela was like the fairy godmother who had delivered,’ said a source. ‘But when she called Kensington Palace, she was put through to Prince Harry who just said, “Get it here now”. And that was the end of the conversation.’ Harry later wrote that ‘Angela appeared out of thin air’ and asked him to sign a release for the tiara. He said that he thanked her but also added that ‘it would’ve made our lives so much easier to have had it sooner’. Whereupon, according to his memoir: ‘Her eyes were fire. She started having a go at me.’ He had replied: ‘Angela, you really want to do this now? Really? Now?’

Recollections may vary: As would be the case with much of the Harry and Meghan story, recollections would vary. As one staffer recalled: ‘There was already an atmosphere before Angela arrived. Meghan was nowhere to be seen. Harry poked the box and said “Is that it?” Then he stood over Angela and said he did not like her whining to his grandmother. ‘Angela gave it straight back. She said that she did not like him getting all these people to push her when she was just doing her job. She tried to tell him about the history and how it was for their own sake, but he walked out. She decided to put it down to pre-wedding nerves. All Angela did,’ said a former colleague, ‘was to try to protect them’.

[From The Daily Mail]

It’s clear that Angela Kelly remains one of the favorite sources of many royal biographers and royal reporters. Those same biographers and reporters never question why Kelly’s story has changed a million times in the past eight years, starting with the original leaks that Meghan demanded a different tiara and QEII personally bitched out both Meghan and Harry. The stories have morphed in recent years because many people believed Harry’s story about the tiara, which he wrote about in Spare. So all of the tiara lies from 2018 through 2022 have now been manipulated into this final boss tiara-gate story, where Angela Kelly still somehow comes across like a world-class bitch. Why would she even present a tiara to a royal bride when she, Kelly, the keeper of the royal jewels, didn’t know the provenance? Why did QEII order Kelly to not answer Harry’s calls, only for Kelly to relent at the last minute and provide the tiara for the hair trial, along with armed escorts? Why did anyone think it was appropriate to tell a royal bride to “practice” with a Spencers Gifts tiara?

Top 10 Royal Weddings!

Get the top 10 royal weddings when you sign up for our mailing list! I send one email on weekdays.

– Katie at Celebitchy

Email

First Name

Subscribe

Loading…

Thank you!

You have successfully joined our subscriber list.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Chloe Fineman is a 37-year-old comedian and actress, best known for being a Saturday Night Live cast member since 2019. She’s also known for her impressions. Well, a few weeks ago, Chloe and several SNL cast members did a Vanity Fair video where they were playing various made-up games. That’s what many magazines are doing now, creating digital/video content as opposed to conducting old-fashion print interviews. Well, this VF video quickly went off the rails as Chloe spoke about why she was fired as a camp-counselor when she was a teenager. It’s not just that Chloe freely admitted a pretty horrifying story about what she did to a six-year-old child, it’s that Vanity Fair then edited the video to remove the worst parts after a week of online backlash.

A Vanity Fair clip featuring the cast of Saturday Night Live has gone viral after it was edited to remove specific details and some awkward cast reactions to Chloe Fineman’s shocking tale of being fired as a camp counselor in her youth.

Vanity Fair’s video features Fineman alongside Mikey Day, Sarah Sherman, Ashley Padilla, Jane Wickline and James Austin Johnson as they test one another in an episode of the mag’s game show series, this one titled “SNL Cast Test How Well They Know Each Other.” One segment finds Fineman polling her colleagues to guess the job she got fired from and later rehired by with a bonus question of “Why was I fired?”

Day jokes it was for “racially insensitive comments” while Sherman guesses that Fineman was sacked from a restaurant for a bad attitude. Padilla asks how old she was at the time, and Fineman offers that she was 16. Then she tells the tale. “I was fired as a camp counselor,” Fineman says. “I pantsed a boy. He would lift my shirt all the time. It was a different time. He would be like, ‘Hey, could I have a hug?’ And then I’d go to hug him and he’d lift my shirt, like a dick. And then I was like, ‘I’m going to get back at you.’ And so we were on a hike and I was like, ‘Hey, Ollie, go look over there. It’s a hawk.’ He looked and then I yanked his pants down, and then I was fired.”

That’s how the clip currently plays out on Vanity Fair’s YouTube channel. However, eagle-eyed viewers noted that it’s not the same clip that was originally posted as that version has Fineman detailing that the young camper was 6 years old and when she pulled his pants down, his “little ding-a-ling was out.” Her colleagues appear floored by the story and in response, Padilla, who looks especially shocked, responds by saying, “Oh, honey, I think you’re on a list somewhere.”

It’s unclear if Vanity Fair responded to online backlash or a publicist’s request to remove the more salacious parts of the story or the awkward cast reactions. The Hollywood Reporter has reached out to a rep for the magazine for comment.

[From THR]

There are so many levels to this controversy. First, there’s the story itself, which Fineman never should have told or presented in such a jokey way. And obviously, she never should have done that to a child! Jesus. Two, why didn’t Vanity Fair immediately see the problem and edit it out before initially posting it? And by going back and re-editing the video after the backlash, VF has just Streisand-Effect’d their mess and Chloe Fineman’s mess. My god. I’m including the original clip below – to their credit, the other SNL cast members seemed absolutely horrified by Fineman’s story. “It was a different time” – girl it was 2005???

For those who haven’t seen the clip: pic.twitter.com/4ND1diftfk

— César (@delicaterocks) April 5, 2026

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

When the Princess of Wales stepped out on Easter Sunday, it was only her second public appearance in nearly three weeks. Kate and Prince William took all of last week off, and in the week prior, Kate had only done one solitary event, the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, for much of this year, Kate has generally just done one day of “work,” or one event a week. She’s not really burning the candle at both ends, and yet… her new Busy Thursday schedule is actually a heavier first-quarter workload than she’s ever had. That being said, old habits die hard, and after working her fingers to the nub (again, one day a week on average), Kate feels like she’s completely justified in taking a long-ass spring break.

As royal expert Jennie Bond exclusively tells the Mirror, all this will now be put aside for a few weeks so they can fulfill their other important role – being parents to their three children and enjoying precious time together.

The former BBC royal correspondent explained: “Both William and Catherine have put in quite a shift in recent weeks and months. They’ve been out and about, up and down the country. So I think they’ll feel justified in taking as much time as they can over the Easter holidays to be with their children. I know people say ‘Well, I work hard too, but I don’t get to ring-fence the school holidays’.

“But the fact is that William and Catherine have a job for life: there is no retirement age for a King and Queen. So I don’t begrudge them taking this valuable time to be with their young children as much as they can. Their holiday plans are always private, but the chances are they will spend most of their time at their home in Norfolk, Anmer Hall.

“I’m sure they’ll welcome the chance to get away from the scandal surrounding William’s disgraced uncle, Andrew – who, of course, is now living just a few miles from Anmer Hall. Meanwhile, the children will always enjoy having their granny and grandad around, and the Middletons are also very easy and welcome company for William and Catherine, who adore them.”

Jennie added: “William and Kate are sure to be encouraging their children to enjoy all the outdoor activities they love as a family: romps on the beach, long walks with the dogs, barbecues if the weather is good enough and all sorts of sports. Especially after her cancer diagnosis, the princess relishes every moment she can spend outdoors – no matter what the weather. And she has always encouraged her children to do the same. They love the wide open spaces in Norfolk, the freedom they have to explore the Sandringham estate and also to play, pretty unhindered, on the beaches.

[From The Daily Mirror]

“So I think they’ll feel justified in taking as much time as they can over the Easter holidays…” Royalists are completely delulu. It’s one thing to have the luxury of a five-to-six week spring break, it’s quite another to argue that you’re JUSTIFIED to take that kind of time off by averaging one day of work a week for roughly twelve weeks. “William and Catherine have a job for life: there is no retirement age for a King and Queen…” For fifteen years, we’ve heard variations of that excuse for their laziness too, that they don’t feel the need to work hard now because they’ll be king and queen consort, and THEN they’ll have to work hard. Which no one believes, especially considering that they plan to hide out at their emotional-support manor house Forest Lodge even then. Their big “modernizing the monarchy” plan includes “working less and tweeting out support instead of showing up.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and Cover Images.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will head to Australia next week for a variety of commercial and charitable appearances. They announced their trip last month – they usually don’t announce their travels so far in advance, but I think they had to announce it because of Meghan’s guest slot at the Her Best Life Retreat. As in, the retreat publicized Meghan’s scheduled appearance to hype the event and sell tickets. So it is what it is – the deranged community has now spent weeks creating bonkers conspiracies about the Sussexes’ Oz trip. Not only that, but the same community thinks they can “sabotage” the trip. I’m only posting this to show how far this has gone, with the tabloids working hand-in-hand with the craziest loons in the Sussex-hate complex.

Meghan Markle’s upcoming luxury women’s retreat in Australia has been targeted by trolls making security threats. Markle is headlining the three-day event taking place April 17-19 in Sydney, which will focus on “powerful conversations, relaxation, laughter and unforgettable experiences.” But online trolls have threatened to attend the event with negative intentions.

“Just in case if Meghan Markle didn’t despise me enough she’s about to HATE ME even more I hatched a plan with a friend who lives in Sydney to attend the best life weekend, they have been accepted & has a spot secured Good luck figuring out who it is, Meghan,” one X comment reads.

The user also hinted at secretly recording the event, according to the Daily Mail, writing, “There are button cameras, meta glasses, we got all the bases covered. Now that they’ve been accepted. Let the games begin!!!”

But some users speculated that security threats circulating on social media would be an “excuse” to cancel the retreat, which has raised eyebrows due to its high prices. The cost to attend the retreat ranges from $1,930 (for the early bird special) to over $3,199 for the VIP experience.

“The security risk could be used as an excuse to pull the whole thing. A cover for the fact that there are hundreds of tickets unsold,” one user speculated. “A cover for the lie that it was all sold out immediately. Not enough people want to pay ridiculous money for a short photo op with their quean [sic].”

[From Page Six]

This is such jobless behavior. Spending day in, day out, fantasizing about buying a $3000 retreat ticket just to “secretly record” Meghan making a speech about female empowerment and feminism, presumably. The sad truth is, these people are crying so f–king hard about this retreat because they’re too broke-ass to buy tickets legitimately. They want it both ways too – they want to be able to say that they have the right to hear Meghan’s speech because she’s a public figure/royal, but they also want to tear their hair out at the thought of Meghan existing as a famous celebrity (who is worthy of protection). The larger goal is to derail the Sussexes’ Australian trip completely, and in that, the deranger community is perfectly aligned with the Windsors and the British media. There’s something about this Oz trip which has made a lot of people lose their f–king minds.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Instagram.

Robert Hardman’s new biography of Queen Elizabeth II includes recollections of the late queen by various American presidents and first ladies. Would it shock you to learn that Hardman was granted an interview with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, all to talk about how much Trump loves the Windsors? I enjoy how the Windsors and their sycophants believe that Trump’s royal fixation is a good thing, and/or that it makes the royals look good that a sexual predator/Epstein associate/racist/fascist loves them. Trump spoke to Hardman at length about his admiration for QEII and how much SHE loved HIM, except that plenty of other biographers claim that she disliked him and thought he was rude as hell. Anyway, some highlights from Hardman’s interview:

On King Charles: Mr Trump immediately asked me about the King and his health. It was not small talk. ‘He’s fantastic and he has fought very hard. He’s a fighter,’ Mr Trump said firmly. ‘We’re close. I have a really good relationship with him. Let me just give you the bottom line. He’s a great guy and he’s grown so much in the last ten years and especially over the last couple of years as King. His fight has shown that.’ The King’s battle with cancer, he said, was ‘something that’s taken down a lot of other people.’

Obsessed with Princess Kate: In Florida, the President’s mind was on the Princess of Wales. ‘How is the princess doing?’ he asked me. He had been impressed by her dedication to duty both before and after her cancer diagnosis became known in March 2024. ‘She performed so incredibly because that’s a very tough position, and you couldn’t do better than the way she did,’ he reflected. ‘And then she became ill and she didn’t want to talk about it and wanted to keep it private. And they were so nasty to her – saying that there was something wrong with her…And once they’d found out, she went on.’ He wondered about the delay in explaining the situation. ‘Why didn’t she want people to know?’ he asked. ‘Were certain people embarrassed?’ I explained that the princess’s priority, as ever, was her children and that she had wanted to tell them at the appropriate moment. ‘I see. She wanted to wait,’ he nodded.

His fixation with Greenland & Canada: During another conversation, the President asked what I thought of his quest to annex Greenland. ‘Do you think I should go to war with Denmark over Greenland?’ he asked mischievously. I replied that this would probably destroy Nato and, while we were on the subject, could he please leave Canada alone, too. It had been a staunch ally through history, a gallant D-Day partner and attempting to acquire it would undoubtedly make the King of Canada unhappy. That prompted a slight pause. ‘Do they still recognise the King? Or have they stopped that?’ he wondered. I said that they did indeed still recognise him as head of state. ‘But they have these terrible politicians. They’re nice to my face and then they say bad things behind my back,’ he replied, adding that the cold weather meant that most Canadians lived in the far south and were only just over the US border anyway. ‘The problem is some guy drew that straight line to make a border. He should just have drawn it 50 miles further north and then there wouldn’t be a problem.’

He probably won’t invade Canada: However, Mr Trump conceded that some things might be beyond even him during the rest of his presidency. ‘I suppose the Canadians have got 200 years of history and all that “Oh, Canada” thing,’ he reflected. ‘You can’t deal with that in three-and-a-half years. I guess it’s not going to happen!’

[From The Daily Mail]

Even in Trump’s dementia-addled mind, he’s still a gossip. I’m not saying that’s an endearing quality, it’s just a fact. He loves to gossip about the Windsors and he’s awed by all of their gaudy palaces and stolen loot. Reportedly, he asked to be seated next to Kate at last year’s state dinner, because absolutely no one asks to be seated next to Camilla, apparently. As for Trump Always Chickens Out about invading Canada and Greenland… I think that’s why he invaded Venezuela and started a war with Iran. He has the mind of a very stupid child and he just wanted to invade another country and blow things up. Charles and Camilla’s state visit at the end of this month is going to be a huge disaster.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Chris Christie is currently jobless, I believe. I glanced through his Wiki, trying to see if he currently has any kind of position with the Republican Party, but it doesn’t look like it. I also totally forgot that he ran an uninspired presidential campaign in 2024, only to pull out right before the primaries. I truly have no memory of that. Well, he’s a former US Attorney and former New Jersey governor, so he still gets invited to speak at various institutes and colleges. On Monday, he spoke at Harvard’s Institute of Politics about how much he loathes Donald Trump, how his party has become unprincipled as the GOP circles around a cult of personality, and then Christie started complaining about Boomers.

Christie: Baby boomers—the most selfish generation in American history, the most self-centered generation, the least sacrificing generation American history. You look at Biden and Trump in particular, and they personify that pic.twitter.com/gHOTLAc12L

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 6, 2026

He’s right and he’s wrong. He’s right that there’s a huge generational divide. He’s right that the Boomers are one of the most selfish and politically self-serving generations in history. His argument completely goes off the rails when he both-sides Donald Trump and Joe Biden though – Biden isn’t a Boomer! Biden was born in 1942. He’s pre-Boomer, the Silent Generation. Trump is a Boomer though, and he personifies everything ugly about his generation. Just at a political level, the fact that Christie is ranting about how dare Biden run for reelection… while saying nothing about Trump’s senile gibberish on the campaign trail in 2024, well, it’s telling. Christie can’t even bring himself to criticize Trump’s age and obvious dementia. Also: by most metrics, Christie is a young Boomer. He was born in 1962, and he has more in common (generationally) with Trump.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

*Note: The above photo is of Kanye performing at a 2023 concert.

It’s truly disturbing to watch as too many people are perfectly willing to give Kanye West second, third, twelfth chances to screw up. You can acknowledge that he has profound mental health issues and also acknowledge that no one should support Kanye’s music, or support Kanye as an artist. “I hope he gets some help, but no, I’m not going to watch his stupid concert or buy his album.” It’s that easy. Yeezy apologists can’t even argue that Kanye only went off the rails for a brief time – that man has been promoting and profiting from pro-Nazism and antisemitic hate speech for years and years. He also created toxic work environments and treated multiple employees (many of them women) like sh-t. There’s a reason why he was thoroughly canceled. Well, someone in the UK got the bright idea to hire Kanye to headline the Wireless Festival in London. The backlash was immediate, with major sponsors pulling out and Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaking out:

Pepsi on Sunday said it was withdrawing its sponsorship of the three-day Wireless Festival in London this summer, which is being headlined by Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West. Ye’s participation in the festival was part of an effort by the artist to distance himself from a half-decade of antisemitic and racist controversies.

The decision by Pepsi came just hours after Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was “deeply concerned” that Ye had been booked to perform at what organizers call London’s “ultimate summer music festival.”

“Antisemitism in any form is abhorrent and must be confronted firmly wherever it appears,” Mr. Starmer told The Sun newspaper in an article published Sunday morning. “Everyone has a responsibility to ensure Britain is a place where Jewish people feel safe.”

The festival had been advertised as “PEPSI PRESENTS WIRELESS.” But a statement issued by the company on Sunday said, “Pepsi has decided to withdraw its sponsorship of Wireless Festival.”

On Monday, U.K. officials said they were reviewing Ye’s ability to enter the country, though they added that they were not aware that he had any immediate plans to travel to Britain. It was not clear if Ye has applied for entry into the country. NBC News first reported on Monday that British government ministers were scrutinizing Ye’s permission to enter the country for the event.

It is not clear what Pepsi’s decision will mean for the festival, which also lists Budweiser, Beatbox and several other major companies as corporate “partners” on its website. Diageo, the global alcohol giant, also pulled back from the event.

“We have informed the organizers of our concerns and as it stands, Diageo will not sponsor the 2026 Wireless Festival,” a representative for the company said in a statement.

According to several published reports on Monday, Rockstar Energy withdrew from its sponsorship of the festival, while PayPal distanced itself from the event.

[From The NY Times]

I have no idea why any music festival would want him, and clearly, major sponsors want no part of Kanye. It’s a huge liability for them too – even if Kanye is currently in a less Nazi state of mind, no one can predict the state of his disordered mind in a few months’ time. That man could literally stand up on stage in London in another klansman outfit with swastikas on stage, with “Pepsi Presents” signage alongside.

After multiple sponsors pulled out, Kanye issued a statement, saying: “To Those I’ve Hurt: I’ve been following the conversation around Wireless and want to address it directly. My only goal is to come to London and present a show of change, bringing unity, peace, and love through my music. I would be grateful for the opportunity to meet with members of the Jewish community in the UK in person, to listen. I know words aren’t enough – I’ll have to show change through my actions. If you’re open, I’m here. With love, Ye, formerly known as Kanye West.” As I said, this is possibly how he feels now, but as we’ve seen many times before, it can turn on a dime. We’ve already gone through several cycles of this, where Kanye spends months saying outrageous, harmful and despicable things, then he apologizes and demands that people forgive him, then it starts all over again. Enough. Break the cycle. Drop Kanye from the festival.

Update: Apparently, the British government has blocked Kanye from even entering the UK. So that solves the problem, I guess.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

Royal biographer Robert Hardman has written a new book about Queen Elizabeth II, and like all of the royal biographies in the past seven or eight years, despite whichever royal is on the cover, the actual books are about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. One of my favorite things is when some snooty courtier or deluded royalist claims that “everyone is over Harry and Meghan, no one even thinks about them!” Then why is every single royal biography full of endless Sussex stories? It’s almost as if the Sussexit completely broke the monarchy and they’ve spent six-plus years trying to justify or reimagine the way they treated Harry and Meghan. Well, I’ll give Robert Hardman a teensy bit of credit – at least he doesn’t make QEII sound like a crotchety old bigot who hated Meghan on sight for ~reasons~ which everyone knows but no one will say. Hardman acknowledges that QEII sort of liked Meghan and gave her a chance. Then all of the reimagining starts happening:

The 2018 train ride with Meghan: The monarch was also keen for Meghan to learn the royal ropes (despite subsequent complaints from the Sussex camp that the Duchess was offered little training). The Queen invited her to leave Harry behind and join her, one-on-one, for an overnight trip to Cheshire in the royal train. ‘The Queen was really wanting to give it a go,’ an insider recalled. ‘She was so sweet, she had brought Meghan a present and tried so hard. The train always left at 11 o’clock at night and the Queen was on the platform to welcome her. They had breakfast together in the morning and she was always trying to do small things, to show her the ropes and bring her in.’

The autumn of 2018: The Sussexes’ first official overseas trip together would be a Commonwealth tour, an extensive journey across the Pacific. It began with a happy surprise. The Duchess was expecting a baby. She made it clear that the tour would proceed as planned. And so it did. Back at home, work was under way to help Meghan build a portfolio of patronages with meaning. The Queen was keen on two in particular. After 45 years as patron of the National Theatre, she wanted to hand it on to Meghan, given her acting credentials. It was even suggested that the Duchess might have the occasional walk-on part in stage productions (a sweet idea, though one possibly unlikely to appeal to a former television star).

QEII wanted Meghan’s labor: Another important gift from the Queen was the Association of Commonwealth Universities. ‘It would allow Meghan a platform to give speeches with substance around the world. She could talk about, say, women’s rights in Africa but without being political,’ explained a Palace aide. ‘The Queen knew it was time to hand these on and was really excited for Meghan. The Sussexes were in a good place.’

Resentments: Within Kensington Palace, relations soon started to cool between the Cambridges and the Sussexes. Despite wildly over-optimistic talk of a new royal ‘dream team’ or, even more fancifully, a ‘Fab Four’, resentments were growing. The Sussexes, like any exciting new prospect, were attracting the bulk of the media attention and invitations at this stage. Yet, they had a smaller staff, a smaller budget and a very much smaller house. In March 2019 it was announced that the brothers would be splitting their offices. The Cambridges would keep their headquarters at Kensington Palace while Harry and Meghan would move their home to Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate and look for a new office at Buckingham Palace.

Splitting offices: Once there was a change of monarch, William would become Prince of Wales and inherit the Duchy of Cornwall. Harry, who would still be dependent on his father, would then have to swap cost centres and become part of the King’s operation. Hence the need to move the Sussexes to Royal HQ at some point. Why not now, while the Palace was undergoing major restoration work? The problem, say insiders, was the way it was handled. ‘They were dealing with two brothers but they treated it like a corporate split, with Harry being farmed off to a new sales division,’ was the impression of one Palace veteran.

Archie’s birth: The couple’s dislike and distrust of the media was such that, on May 6, 2019, when the Duchess gave birth to a healthy baby boy, Archie, both were back home even as the media received a bulletin saying that she had gone into hospital. The Palace was then accused of lying, and not only by the Press. The Metropolitan Police had gone to considerable trouble to create a strategy for crowd control around the hospital. ‘People from the Met were calling up the Palace and asking why we had lied – which we hadn’t,’ said one royal staffer caught in the middle. ‘The Sussexes just hadn’t told anyone. I think it was one area where no one could tell Meghan what to do. It was a case of “I’m going to show you who’s boss”.’

Harry & Meghan’s exit announcement: They were certainly not expecting the Palace to move as swiftly and firmly as it did, with an almost immediate response from ‘Royal Communications’. It stated baldly that these were ‘complicated issues’ and would ‘take time to work through’. In fact, they would not take much time at all.

What an admission: What the Press instantly branded as ‘Megxit’ had a different name within the Palace. The family talked about ‘UDI’, a reference to the Rhodesian crisis of the mid-Sixties when the minority white government there issued its ‘unilateral declaration of independence’ from Britain. That had not ended well.

Meghan wasn’t allowed to call in from Sandringham: Meghan had already returned to Canada when the Queen invited Harry to Sandringham for a family meeting a few days later. There would be no conference call dial-in from Canada either. No one could be sure who else might be listening in. Those on the Palace side look back with some sympathy. ‘That so-called “Sandringham Summit” was quite brutal,’ said one of those present. ‘But the Queen was absolutely solid from the start: No half-in, half-out.’ Grudgingly, the couple chose out.

[From The Daily Mail]

They can never keep their stories straight about so many major plot points, it’s pretty crazy. Why did QEII only agree to meet with Harry when Meghan left the country? Why wasn’t Meghan allowed to call into the summit again? Why did the Sussexes feel the need to release their exit announcement in the first place, and was it because Kensington Palace leaked their plan to Dan Wootton? Why are they still blaming Meghan for the birth announcement mess when Harry wrote about it in Spare, saying that he used that moment to show HIS disgust at the press? Why are they still doing spin on why QEII and Charles tried to shuffle the Sussexes off to a dusty closet in BP? Why were they so insistent on “letting” Meghan continue acting while endlessly complaining about “the actress”? And the UDI stuff is completely f–king bonkers and it only adds to the colonialist catastrophe of the monarchy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.

NASA’s Artemis II — the first crewed lunar mission in more than half a century — made history on its trip around the moon on Monday afternoon.

The four-member crew — NASA commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover, mission specialist Christina Koch and Canadian space agency mission specialist Jeremy Hansen — surpassed the record for the farthest distance from Earth traveled by humans, set by Apollo 13 in 1970 at 248,655 statute miles.

“We will continue our journey even further into space before Mother Earth succeeds in pulling us back to everything that we hold dear,” Hansen told mission control. “But we, most importantly, choose this moment to challenge this generation and the next to make sure this record is not long-lived.”

The crew also proposed naming one of the moon’s previously unnamed craters in honor of Wiseman’s late wife, Carroll Wiseman.

“It’s a bright spot on the moon, and we would like to call that Carroll,” Hansen said,

During their seven-hour lunar flyby, the Artemis II astronauts took photos and made observations from the Orion spacecraft, dubbed Integrity, which lost contact with mission control for about 40 minutes as it passed behind the moon. The crew members became part of that elite group of humans who have ever witnessed an “Earthrise” as they cleared the far side of the moon.

The Orion is now officially on its way back to Earth. The 10-day mission is due to conclude on Friday, when Artemis II makes its reentry before a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego.

[From Yahoo! News]

To borrow a quote from my new favorite book and movie, Project Hail Mary, “Amaze, amaze, amaze!” I’ve been following Artemis II’s journey since it launched and have obsessively refreshed NASA’s social media accounts all week. I was enthralled watching Monday’s Moonday’s livestream and every milestone made me so happy and emotional! I teared up when they asked to name the moon’s bright spot after Cap. Weisman’s late wife and then the sound cut out as they all hugged him. Listening to a voice memo that the late Jim Lovell, who served as Apollo 13’s captain, recorded for them in June 2025, just two months before passing, was also a heavy moment. I know that things are really sh-tty on Earth right now, but Artemis II’s mission gave me a rare thrill of hope in our weary world. I also got choked up at Victor Glover’s final words right before they lost signal when reaching the moon’s dark side: ”To all of you down there on Earth…we love you from the moon.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by NASA (@nasa)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by NASA (@nasa)

We see our home planet as a whole, lit up in spectacular blues and browns. A green aurora even lights up the atmosphere. That's us, together, watching as our astronauts make their journey to the Moon. pic.twitter.com/6JkKufBgtJ

— NASA (@NASA) April 3, 2026

photos credit: Best Image/Backgrid, Atlas Photo Archive/NASA/Avalon