Tag:

bitchy

bitchy | What kind of ‘payoff’ did King Charles have to give Andrew Mountbatten Windsor?
Celebrity News

bitchy | What kind of ‘payoff’ did King Charles have to give Andrew Mountbatten Windsor?

by jummy84
written by jummy84

King Charles’s communications office has given multiple briefings to the royal rota in the past 24 hours about the “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” situation. According to the official rota, the degenerate formerly known as Prince Andrew is being punished severely by his brother King Charles. “The move” to strip Andrew of all titles and force him out of Royal Lodge was “entirely down to the King and his advisors, without pressure from the Government or other family members, such as Prince William.” Becky English was seemingly the first to report, in the Daily Mail, that while Andrew is being moved into a home on the Sandringham Estate, it won’t be Wood Farm, which was where Prince Philip retired to in his final years.

English also noted this: “Sources said it has been necessary, given how swiftly events were unfolding, to focus on getting proper security in place. In an act of mercy, the King will fund the move privately and, as Andrew remains a member of the family, Charles will also make ‘private provisions’ for him.” So… Charles is ensuring Andrew’s security, paying for Andrew to live rent-free in Norfolk, and Andrew will also get “private provisions.” What the rota doesn’t want to talk about (yet) is what kind of financial settlement was made. Well, Tom Sykes got a big tip for his Royalist Substack about what kind of money was involved.

In the end, King Charles didn’t have any choice. He had to give his brother, what he has long been asking for. For I am told that ex-Prince Andrew has received a “handsome” payoff worth millions in return for surrendering his lease on Royal Lodge.

On Thursday, Andrew was stripped of his princely titles in a humiliating manner. He will now be known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, following new revelations about his links to Jeffrey Epstein and the publication of Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre’s memoir. However, critics immediately said it was not an adequate response.

Graham Smith of the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic told The Royalist podcast (and fulsome apologies that it did not stream concurrently here): “The problem is the royals keep thinking this is enough. I couldn’t care less about the prince title. He remains accused of serious offenses and I do not believe that there is not enough evidence to have a genuine police investigation. Worrying about what he is called, or where he lives, is not an appropriate response.”

Royal aides said that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor “did not object” to the removal of his titles. Friends of Mr Mountbatten Windsor told the Daily Beast that Andrew had reached a generous financial settlement with King Charles as part of the deal, which will see him move to a private home on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk as soon as is practicable. He is understood not to be moving to Wood Farm, the retirement home of the late Prince Philip.

One friend said, “Andrew made it clear that he needed to be financially recompensed for surrendering the remaining 50 years of his lease on one of England’s finest homes. The lease was his daughter’s inheritance and an asset, and in this country, you can’t seize people’s assets. Charles was always going to have to pay him off, and he has done what he should have done in the first place.”

Another friend of both Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew told the Daily Beast, “The pension is handsome.”

Buckingham Palace declined to comment; however, in official documentation seen by The Royalist, the palace admitted that not only would Andrew be given a home on the Sandringham estate funded by the king, but that he would also receive direct funding in the form of “appropriate private provision.” The palace also suggested that he would be allowed to continue earning money privately.

[From The Royalist Substack]

While Sykes calculates that Charles “settled” with Andrew for low-to-mid seven figures, I think Andrew would be a fool to take anything lower than $10 million or thereabouts. Andrew had Charles over a barrel, and Charles had to pay more because Charles had let this situation fester for so long, and Charles had completely misread the public mood. In exchange for his titles and the Royal Lodge lease, Andrew got: a generous payoff worth millions; a permanent home on the Windsors’ private estate in Norfolk; some kind of income for general upkeep; security for life, funded by the monarch; the ability to travel freely to the Middle East and make sketchy “deals” there; protection from any larger investigation and prosecution. Andrew made out like a bandit, and I’m waiting to see if there will be another backlash to this “deal.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Mail: Duchess Meghan has a ‘secret plan’ to use Sussex as her surname!!
Celebrity News

bitchy | Mail: Duchess Meghan has a ‘secret plan’ to use Sussex as her surname!!

by jummy84
written by jummy84

This was a top royal story at the Daily Mail last weekend: “I think I’ve discovered Meghan’s secret plan for if – or when – William strips away the Sussexes’ royal titles.” Columnist Sharon Hunt is on the case! So what is the Duchess of Sussex’s “secret plan” for when Scooter King William throws a hissy fit about the Sussex ducal title? Well, as Hunt brilliantly deduces given the wealth of personal statements made by Meghan just this year, Meghan plans to continue to use “Sussex” as a surname. Gasp, horror, brand new information!

The historic move [to remove Prince Andrew’s titles] underscores the Royal Family’s readiness to safeguard its reputation by stripping titles when necessary. It also brought to mind a recent report by Tom Sykes, the well-connected royal correspondent for The Daily Beast, who believes that Prince William, when he becomes king, will formally revoke Meghan and Harry’s dukedoms. To be clear, the Sussexes’ conduct since stepping back from their royal roles bears no comparison to the gravity of the allegations against Andrew. Not even close.

Yet this week’s developments reveal a modernised Royal Family unwilling to sidestep controversy – and prepared to act decisively when titles become untenable. Recent reports indicate that William had a firm hand in the removal of Andrew’s titles. Inevitably, the unfolding drama has reignited long-standing whispers about the future king’s intentions for Harry and Meghan’s titles. Such talk has simmered for years, with royal insiders and commentators hinting it’s only a matter of time once William takes the crown.

But perhaps a subtle clue was overlooked: the Sussexes may have already laid the groundwork for this eventuality – with a strategy to preserve their brand, even if their titles are no more. Let’s revisit a viral moment from season one of Netflix’s With Love, Meghan. One of the show’s standout scenes – now widely shared online – appears in episode two, where Meghan is joined by celebrity guest Mindy Kaling. While cooking together in a Montecito kitchen, a particular exchange caught viewers’ attention. It began with Mindy joking about Meghan’s teenage fondness for a popular American fast-food chain.

‘I don’t think anyone knows Meghan Markle has eaten Jack in the Box – and loves it,’ Mindy quipped. But rather than letting the joke land, Meghan interjected with a correction.

‘It’s so funny too, that you keep saying “Meghan Markle” – you know I’m Sussex now,’ Meghan said. ‘When you have kids and you go, “No, I share my name with my children.” And that feels so… I didn’t know how meaningful it would be to me, but it just means so much to go, “This is our family name, our little family name.”‘

Yes, our first instinct may have been to cringe at the terse dressing-down. But in doing so, did we overlook a telling clue about the Sussexes’ long-term strategy to safeguard their royal brand?

As Meghan and Harry continue forging their path in the US, their connection to the core Royal Family grows increasingly tenuous. A time may come when King Charles – or more likely his successor – finds cause to formally revoke their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex. In anticipation of such a shift, have the couple – Meghan in particular – made the strategic move to adopt ‘Sussex’ as a de facto family surname? If so, it’s a shrewd piece of forward planning. Repurposing a royal title as a family name ensures the regal association endures – even if the formal honours are one day withdrawn.

To our knowledge, nothing prevents the former senior working royal from legally adopting ‘Meghan Sussex’ as her name in California. Their days as part of the ‘Fab Four’ may be behind them, but what has consistently underpinned their ventures in America – especially the lucrative ones – is that prized, intangible link to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex title. If my suspicions are correct, Meghan has quietly executed a masterstroke here. By transforming a royal designation that can be taken away into a family identity for her and Harry, she is securing her own dynasty. It means that whatever Prince William’s future plans, there will always be a Sussex stronghold in California. Bravo, Meghan.

[From The Daily Mail]

Months later, it’s still so telling that they refer to that With Love, Meghan scene as a “dressing down” or something about how Meghan was “frosty” or “furious.” Meghan stated a preference without even having to say “please don’t refer to me by my maiden name.” The commentary on that moment was fascinating, because it became a window into what it was like for Meghan in that dreadful place, with people accusing her of bullying for simply correcting someone or stating a preference. Anyway, yeah, breaking news, they use Sussex as a surname. They’ve used Sussex as their surname since 2023, when Charles dithered about their titles. It’s not some kind of PR masterstroke, it’s simply Meghan and Harry wanting a family name for themselves and their children, and for that name to reflect their marriage. It’s not a coincidence that all of this talk about title-stripping would effectively stop Meghan from using her married name, her title.

Photos courtesy of Meghan’s Instagram and Beyonce’s site.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Royalist: “King in all but name’ Prince William ‘masterminded Andrew’s disgrace’
Celebrity News

bitchy | Royalist: “King in all but name’ Prince William ‘masterminded Andrew’s disgrace’

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Who is responsible for the “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” situation? By that I mean, who negotiated the deal, who said enough is enough, who finally acted, weeks and months late, to banish Andrew? The terseness of the message from King Charles yesterday suggested, to me, that Charles had actually been locked in negotiation alongside various courtiers. The timing also suggests that Charles was ultimately the one making decisions – the past month of dithering, half-measures and ostriching was classic Charles. The palace line is that Charles made the decision in consultation with his family, and he sought their support on the move as well:

So what was the final nail in the coffin for King Charles? PEOPLE understands that the King reached his decision with the support of members of the royal family, including Prince William. While Andrew continues to deny the accusations against him, it is clear that there have been serious lapses of judgment from the King’s perspective.

As for why the King didn’t act sooner, PEOPLE understands that Charles acted swiftly following recent developments that made it possible for his brother to relinquish his titles and honors in the most immediate and efficient way possible. While a longer-term resolution to the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding Andrew’s status took time to finalize, sources say the necessity of further action was never in doubt. The King’s decision follows behind-the-scenes discussions, legal consultation and support from the wider royal family to bring about a resolution without imposing on Parliamentary time.

[From People]

Yeah… this is not it. “We knew the whole time that we would need to punish Andrew even further!!” No you didn’t. Charles thought taking away the York titles would be it, and he seemed surprised that the public demanded even more. He misread the public mood for weeks, and he’s still misreading it now. But still, I feel just a little bit sorry for Charles at the moment. His unhinged heir is rushing to claim credit for Charles’s wheeling and dealing on Andrew. Keep in mind, William has been in the wind, on vacation somewhere for the past two weeks. But sure, this was ALL William. From Tom Sykes’s Royalist Substack, “William is King in All But Name After Masterminding Andrew’s Disgrace.”

Friends of Prince William have told The Royalist that the heir to the throne masterminded the operation to evict Andrew Mountbatten Windsor from Royal Lodge in the teeth of what he saw as his father’s weakness and vacillation on the matter. The palace statement and a supporting briefing document issued to the media yesterday sought to position Charles as the author of the decision to strip Andrew of all his titles and remove him from the palatial property. However, sources who know William scoffed at the suggestion.

One said, “Charles has been trying and failing to get Andrew out of Royal Lodge for the past three years. William did it in two weeks. William is King in all but name now.”

A friend of the Prince of Wales said that William stepped in after being left “dismayed” by the deal announced two weeks ago, which saw Andrew lose the use of his Duke of York title, but, crucially, keep Royal Lodge and continue as a Prince. The King’s team has now attempted to retroactively present that as an interim step, with yesterday’s briefing document stating that “the necessity of further action was never in doubt.”

However, it is quite clear that the King hoped at the time that the measures announced on October 17 would be enough. Briefing documents issued then made it crystal clear that Andrew’s tenancy agreement with the Crown Estate was “unaffected” and that he would stay a Prince, not very subtly seeming to blame Queen Elizabeth for this latter reality, saying his princely title was his by virtue of Letters Patent issued in 1917 by George V which were “updated” by Queen Elizabeth II in 2012. This apportioning of blame was later made explicit in a disgraceful smear in the Sunday Times. This followed extensive briefing to the media by the King’s team that there was no way to remove Andrew’s titles.

The friend of William’s told The Royalist: “This is Andrew, so the solution was always going to be a pay-off. This is his father’s mess, and William wanted it cleaned up on his father’s watch.”

The notion that it is his “father’s mess” refers to deep unhappiness within William’s circle about the way Charles tried not only to rehabilitate Andrew, but to co-opt William and Kate into the effort by forcing them to drive Andrew to church in Balmoral in the summer of 2023, having invited Andrew to join the family’s Christmas Day photocall at Sandringham in 2022.

[From The Royalist Substack]

Multiple things can be true at once: one, William was right that the only solution was money; two, William is right that the York title removal was always a half-assed punishment with no meaning… and yet William still rushed to take credit for that as well! Which makes me think that this is less about William “being king in all but name” right now and more about him screaming and throwing hissy fits behind the scenes, and that’s his version of “doing it in two weeks.” William has always believed that he can just make pronouncements and things will be done – “I’m bored with racism,” etc – so William is claiming ownership of this situation simply because he rage-shrieked (from his vacation) to his father: “Andrew must go, strip all of his titles!”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | The Forest Lodge move is because Princess Kate ‘wants & needs a country life’
Celebrity News

bitchy | The Forest Lodge move is because Princess Kate ‘wants & needs a country life’

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Where is the Princess of Wales’s “Autumn” video? You know, the video from her Mother Nature/Four Seasons series, one of the dumbest “projects” to ever come out of Kensington Palace’s Keen Busywork Department. We didn’t get the “summer” video until pretty late in the season, which makes me believe that we’ll probably get the new video in mid-November, down to the wire! Anyway, just a reminder that we haven’t actually seen Prince William in two weeks and we haven’t seen Kate in more than two weeks. William will be in Rio next week, and I assume that means Kate will still be doing f–k all publicly. Because don’t you know, she’s in charge of the big move to Forest Lodge! They’re still struggling to put a bow on this latest “forever home” move, which is why Ingrid C-Word got sent out to wax rhapsodic about Kate’s love of being a simple country wife.

Kate Middleton and Prince William are signaling a different kind of life in their move to Windsor. As they prepare to settle into their new eight-bedroom home at Forest Lodge with their children, Prince George, 12, Princess Charlotte, 10, and Prince Louis, 7, it is clearly the leafy, country surroundings that they want for their family rather than city life. Forest Lodge is being called the family’s “forever home,” and they are set to live there even when William accedes to the throne.

There is a sense that the family’s three-year stay at Adelaide Cottage enabled them to test the waters and see if they could envisage living in the area for longer. That is certainly the case, palace insiders have told PEOPLE. Forest Lodge is a distinct upgrade from Adelaide and shows they are really putting down roots in the estate and parklands close to Windsor Castle.

“They like it around Windsor, and they’ve established themselves there,” Ingrid Seward, author of My Mother & I, says.

In a break from the practice of senior royals in the past, they don’t have live-in staff (it’s believed that the children’s nanny, Maria Turrion Borrallo, who has been with the family since George was a baby, and the housekeeper live at other smaller properties on the estate). They will also be paying the market rent for the property.

As well as renovations in the magnificent home, new trees have been planted and a security cordon has been created surrounding the house with about 150 acres.

Kate, 43, has stressed how important being out in nature has been for her recovery from cancer treatment – and the well-being it brings for young and old alike.

Seward believes that the royals have felt they were “prisoners” in Kensington Palace. The author, who is editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, points to the fact that Kate used to like the walk the dogs in the park that bounded the palace. However, in practice, there was only the field where the helicopters landed behind the palace to do so, which is backed up to embassies.

“In London, there was a lack of the kind of life that Kate has decided she wants and needs. She wants a country life,” Seward says.

Now, as they look towards the end of the year, Princess Kate is planning her annual Christmas carol service at Westminster Abbey, where they will celebrate some of the people, causes and charities that they have encountered during the last 12 months. Before then, William heads off solo to Brazil for a week around his innovative environmental awards, the Earthshot Prize. There, he will be supported by celebrities Kylie Minogue and Shawn Mendes in a star-studded show.

“They seem to have their lives very well under control, more than organized,” Seward adds. “It feels to me that they’re they themselves are holding the reins of their life and not letting anyone else do it. But I feel that William and Kate really are holding their own reins which is great.”

[From People]

“There was a lack of the kind of life that Kate has decided she wants and needs. She wants a country life…” I’m reminded of the Middleton PR around Pippa Middleton’s wedding back in 2017, when Carole basically sounded like a mother from a Jane Austen novel, treating her daughters as the “local beauties” of Bucklebury who simply wanted to be “married at home” and have simple, country lives. For Kate, it’s less about “being in the country” and more about living the kind of lifestyle she wants: that of a wealthy stay-at-home mother without a job. Little to no work, little to no expectations, just a vast, empty schedule which can be filled with tennis, school runs and drinking. Which would be fine if Kate, like Pippa, had just married some terribly moderately wealthy guy. But Kate is going to be queen consort! A work-from-home queen consort who does f–k all and lives grandly on her makeshift 150-acre estate.

.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Mail: Prince William has cleared the way to remove the Sussexes’ titles
Celebrity News

bitchy | Mail: Prince William has cleared the way to remove the Sussexes’ titles

by jummy84
written by jummy84

From where I sit, there was a tipping point on the Prince Andrew/Mountbatten Windsor situation this month which was years in the making. The Windsors misread the public mood, King Charles dithered and Prince William raged from his tenth vacation of the year. The tipping point on Andrew involved a decades-long cover-up, years of lies and abuse, and one of Andrew’s victims speaking from beyond the grave. The situation is simply not comparable to anything involving the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who were bullied and abused by the institution and press, so much so that they simply… left the country almost six full years ago. If Prince Harry’s September trip to the UK was any indication, the British public still loves him and supports him. Andrew, meanwhile, was heckled and called a “nonce” at his mother’s 2022 funeral. My point? It’s bizarre to see so many Sussex supporters and haters alike use the Andrew situation to talk about Harry and Meghan. The Daily Mail’s Maurren Callahan basically had a psychotic episode about the Sussexes in her column published after the Andrew Mountbatten Windsor announcement.

It is now a question of when. Not if. The bombshell announcement out of Buckingham Palace that Andrew has been stripped of his status as a prince immediately, that he will henceforth be known as ‘Mr. Mountbatten Windsor’, and that he has been forced to surrender the lease to Royal Lodge leaves no doubt in my mind: Harry and Meghan are next. The sun begins to set over Montecito — permanently.

And Prince William, as we posited earlier this week, emerges as the apparent force behind these most welcome reforms — despite the official statement having come from the King. This is William’s monarchy now. In that light, Andrew feels more like a pawn removed by William to clear the way for his real target: Harry.

If the late Queen’s favorite son can be coldly ejected and stripped of his birthright — if William can have convinced the infamously conflict-averse Charles to renounce his own brother — well, Harry’s days as prince and Duke of Sussex are surely numbered. As for Meghan? Like Fergie, she would just be collateral damage. An afterthought. Flotsam in search of a shore – perhaps QVC’s Pennsylvania headquarters and where she might shill As Ever overstock on deep discount.

To know that Meghan and Harry may now be consigned to the dustbin of Royal history, perseverating over the remains of the day from the cheap seats, is perhaps the most tantalizing and satisfying finale of the modern age. Sayonara, Sussexes!

Kate, though silent, is doubtless among William’s prime motives in dispatching first with his uncle, and perhaps next his brother. It was Harry who reprinted Kate’s private text messages with Meghan in Spare. It was Harry and Meghan’s cheerleader, their glorified biographer Omid Scobie, who named Kate and Charles as the so-called ‘royal racists.’ If William is just getting started, he surely knows the world is cheering him on, that any further attacks from his brother and sister-in-law, those epic dramatists, would be laughed off and dismissed.

A former royal aide at Kensington Palace, William and Kate’s London residence, told the Daily Mail that ‘now that they’re picking away at the edges [of the family]’ — that would be Andrew — ‘a bigger unravelling is coming.’

That bigger unravelling is, to my mind, Harry and Meghan’s royal titles, status and honors.

‘The role William has — to try to forge something sustainable — is now in stark relief. And no, Charles isn’t up to that job,’ the former aide continued. ‘Once Andrew stops being the convenient cover, then where will people look next?’

[From The Daily Mail]

So… those quotes from a former royal aide are… not about Harry and Meghan, right? “A bigger unravelling is coming” – for the monarchy itself, because this Andrew situation was and is a larger reflection of the monarchy’s corruption and abuses. “Once Andrew stops being the convenient cover, then where will people look next?” Literally, they’ll look to the remaining royals, none of whom are ready for primetime. They’ll look at a dying king, his unhinged, illiterate, workshy heir, and a collection of senior citizens who stagger through their busywork. If and when William “takes away Harry and Meghan’s titles,” it won’t actually mean a thing to Harry and Meghan. They live in California. They own a beautiful mansion. They are free from all of this bullsh-t. Let me say this as well: once the Sussexes stop being the convenient cover, then where will people look next?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | “It’s nice to see Neve Campbell star in another ‘Scream’ movie” links
Celebrity News

bitchy | “It’s nice to see Neve Campbell star in another ‘Scream’ movie” links

by jummy84
written by jummy84

As a fan of the original Scream movies (pre-reboots), it’s just nice to see Neve Campbell back and being the lead in another Scream movie. I’m glad producers finally paid her what she’s worth too! Anyway, this is the first trailer for Scream 7. Happy Halloween! [Hollywood Life]
Selena Gomez looked amazing at a Rare Beauty event. [Go Fug Yourself]
Zoey Deutch wore Dior. [RCFA]
Dubai chocolate is coming to Baskin Robbins. [Seriously OMG]
Colin Farrell’s partying upset Tom Cruise. [Socialite Life]
Prince Harry, the left-behinds, the Blue Jays and Hasan Minhaj. [LaineyGossip]
Justin Trudeau & Katy Perry make sense as a couple? Hard disagree. [Pajiba]
Brittany Snow confirms S2 of The Hunting Wives. [OMG Blog]
Olympian Tom Daley struggled with an eating disorder. [Just Jared]
Highlights & lowlights from the NY Film Festival. [Starcasm]
Creepy & terrifying facts/stories for Halloween. [Buzzfeed]

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | King Juan Carlos: Queen Letizia ‘did not help to strengthen our family ties’
Celebrity News

bitchy | King Juan Carlos: Queen Letizia ‘did not help to strengthen our family ties’

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Spain’s King Juan Carlos abdicated in 2014, and then he went into self-imposed exile in 2020 because his house of cards was collapsing in slow-motion. Juan Carlos is a shady man who used his position to enrich himself to a crazy degree. He also kept mistresses littered around Europe. Even before his exile, he was already straining relations within his family, especially with his son, the current King Felipe. Felipe is married to Queen Letizia, and let me tell you, Felipe’s parents have always hated Letizia. In 2018, there was an international incident involving Queen Sofia bitching out her daughter-in-law in church, and it was over Letizia’s daughters. Well, now Juan Carlos is trying to make some money, or maybe he’s just trying to settle some old scores. He’s written a memoir. Previously, we talked about his awful comments about “cold, taciturn” Princess Diana. Well, here’s what he has to say about Letizia:

King Juan Carlos, the former monarch of Spain, is telling all in his new memoir, Reconciliation.

Juan Carlos, 87, who has lived in self-imposed exile in the United Arab Emirates for the last five years after abdicating the throne in 2014, opens up his reign and his relationships in the forthcoming book, set to be published in France on Nov. 5.

In an excerpt shared by Spanish publication El Confidencial on Wednesday, Oct. 29, the former King has some harsh words for his daughter-in-law, the current Queen Letizia. Translated into English, Juan Carlos admits there is “personal disagreement” between him and the wife of his son and successor, King Felipe.

“She did not help to strengthen our family ties,” he adds of Queen Letizia.

The statement marks the first time the former King has confirmed long-standing rumors of a rift within the Spanish royal family.

King Felipe and Queen Letizia married on May 22, 2004. They share two daughters, Princess Leonor, 19, and Princess Sofia, 18. While the Queen was something of a controversial choice for the bride of a future king, as she had been married before and grew up working class, the royal rift likely stems from a more complicated history with the family.

[From People]

There’s another translation going around: “She did not contribute to the cohesion of our family relationships.” There’s nothing quite like being lectured on family values and the sanctity of marriage by a serial adulterer whose conduct was so audacious, he had to abdicate and leave the country before he was sent to prison for bribery and tax fraud! I know Letizia isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I’ve always felt such a pang of sympathy for her specifically because of how her in-laws have always treated her. Sofia and Juan Carlos have always been terrible to her, openly and in full view. I think some of it is “disappointment” that Letizia wasn’t some dishrag that they could walk all over, nor was she the picture-perfect obedient wife. Letizia did things her way, she modernized the role of queen, she was and is a vocal supporter of working women, journalists, artists, and more. Her daughters seem like wonderful, intelligent, driven young women too. Anyway, Juan Carlos is a pig.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Charles Spencer on his 1997 eulogy for Diana: I realized I had ‘to speak for’ Diana
Celebrity News

bitchy | Charles Spencer on his 1997 eulogy for Diana: I realized I had ‘to speak for’ Diana

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Before today, I’ve never searched out the video of Charles Spencer (the Earl of Spencer) eulogizing his late sister at her 1997 funeral. The eulogy is seared into the collective consciousness of my generation and the older generations – a young earl from one of the oldest noble families in England, telling the Windsors to their ugly faces that they mistreated his sister, Lady Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales. He made it clear that Diana’s blood was on their hands, and on the hands of the British media. Obviously, the Windsors have quietly ensured, over the course of decades, that few clean copies of that video remain online. Here’s one I could find, which is pretty poor quality.

My favorite part is still: “Diana was the very essence of compassion, of duty, of style, of beauty. All over the world she was a symbol of selfless humanity. All over the world, a standard bearer for the rights of the truly downtrodden, a very British girl who transcended nationality. Someone with a natural nobility who was classless and who proved in the last year that she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic.”

Over the years, Charles Spencer has spoken about eulogizing Diana and acting as caretaker to her memory. Especially in the American media, people will always ask him about Diana and that eulogy. But before now, I’ve never heard him speak about how it was decided that he should speak, and how he decided what he would say. He spoke about it on Gyles Brandreth’s podcast:

Charles Spencer is revealing new details about his original eulogy for Princess Diana. The 9th Earl Spencer, 61, said that the eulogy he’d initially planned for his late sister’s funeral was “very different” from what he eventually read.

“I flew back [to the U.K.] – I was living in South Africa – I flew back from Cape Town overnight. [I had a] very sweet stewardess help me, because I was in bits,” Spencer said on the Oct. 24 episode of Gyles Brandreth’s Rosebud podcast. He further explained that he initially searched for someone else who could give the eulogy. “I had a big, thick address book, and I thought, ‘I want to find someone who’s going to make the speech for her.’ And I got to ‘Z’ and I hadn’t found anyone,” Spencer recalled.

“[I] got off the plane in Heathrow [Airport], called my mother, I said, ‘I can’t think who’s going to give the eulogy. And I’ve got an awful feeling it’s going to have to be me,’ ” he continued. “And she said, ‘Well, it is going to be you. Your sisters and I have decided it.’ ”

When he started putting together the tribute, Spencer said, “[It was a] very traditional eulogy, almost … ‘She was very good at this as a child’ and all that. And then I thought, ‘Well, this is ridiculous, that’s not who she was.’ ” He said he then “realized” his job in that moment wasn’t to speak about Diana, but to “speak for” his late sister, who died at age 36 after a car crash in Paris in August 1997.

“And I knew I’d been left at that stage – it had no legal standing – but I knew she’d left me as guardian of her sons,” he continued, referring to his nephews, Prince William and Prince Harry. “Obviously, the other parent being alive, that meant nothing, but it meant something to me,” said Spencer. “That sort of duty, I think. And then I wrote it in an hour and a half and, yeah, that was it, really.”

[From People]

“I knew she’d left me as guardian of her sons. Obviously, the other parent being alive, that meant nothing, but it meant something to me.” Referring to the current king as “the other parent” is amazing and Diana would laugh her ass off at that. Something which really struck me as I read Prince Harry’s Spare is how much it meant to him that the Spencers really did stick by him and they were always there for him in a way the Windsors probably weren’t. I really wish Meghan had worn the Spencer tiara for the wedding. She and Harry probably felt like they couldn’t say no to QEII, but they should have.

Charles Spencer speaks about how he approached his sister Diana’s eulogy – knowing it was his duty to speak for her and protect her boys. It’s a shame nothing could save Willy; he turned out a sociopath. The Spencers have certainly been Harry’s rock.😍

[image or embed]

— Zandi Sussex (@zandisussex.bsky.social) October 25, 2025 at 9:40 PM

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | “Dove Cameron & Damiano David are engaged after two years of dating” links
Celebrity News

bitchy | “Dove Cameron & Damiano David are engaged after two years of dating” links

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Dove Cameron & Damiano David are engaged! This shocked me. Damiano is the lead singer of Italian rock band Måneskin, btw. [JustJared]
The winners of Jezebel’s annual spooky-story contest! This is one of my favorite online things, and some of the stories in years past still haunt me to this day. [Jezebel]
I recently downloaded my first Sombr song and I had no idea that this is what he looks like? His music is good, though. [LaineyGossip]
Doug Liman is still beefing with Amazon. [Pajiba]
An excellent anti-MAGA Halloween display. [Buzzfeed]
Sia’s messy af custody battle. [Socialite Life]
Rosie O’Donnell has five kids? [Hollywood Life]
The many laughs of Lisa Simpson. [Seriously OMG]
Sydney Sweeney went braless at an event. [RCFA]
There’s a life-sized Henry Cavill doll?? [OMG Blog]

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Prince Andrew will be stripped of all titles & become Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
Celebrity News

bitchy | Prince Andrew will be stripped of all titles & become Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

by jummy84
written by jummy84

I was *just* sitting here thinking about how extraordinarily weird it is that there’s been no movement on getting Prince Andrew out of Royal Lodge. Note: Andrew should face criminal investigation and prosecution for his many crimes, but as far as King Charles is concerned, it was simply odd that Andrew was still somehow in possession of Royal Lodge and his prince title and everything else, really. Well, the dithering days are over and Charles finally did it.

Prince Andrew will be stripped of all his royal titles and will leave Royal Lodge, Buckingham Palace has said. He will no longer be known as Prince Andrew and will instead be called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

In a statement, the Palace said: “His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.

“These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

“Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”

[From The Telegraph]

Good. It’s not enough, not near enough, but this is good. It should have happened years ago, but Queen Elizabeth II refused to do it, and then Charles launched a “bring Andy in from the cold” operation as some kind of screw-you to Harry. So here we are – a day late and a dollar short, but hey, it’s something. I certainly hope that Andrew’s new accommodation will not be Frogmore Cottage. That simply makes zero sense to do all of this and just shuffle him off to a renovated five-bedroom cottage just outside Windsor Castle. Update: The BBC reports that Charles is sending Andrew to Norfolk, meaning it’s more than likely Andrew (and Fergie?) will live at Wood Farm, on the Sandringham Estate. That’s privately owned by Charles, so Charles will fund Andrew’s life/home there.

Incidentally, a few hours ago, Tom Sykes reported exclusively on his Royalist Substack that “the only way Prince Andrew will leave Royal Lodge is if he’s paid ‘fairly,’ in the region of ‘a couple of million.’” It will be interesting to see if anything comes out about this in the coming hours and days, because it’s been perfectly clear (to me) that Andrew would willingly give up a lot if Charles simply paid him off. I could see an off-the-books quid pro quo happening here – Charles gets to look big and tough and like he hasn’t spent the entire month dithering endlessly, and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor walks away with a seven-figure or even eight-figure settlement from the Duchy of Lancaster funds.

Photos courtesy of Instar, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts