Tag:

bitchy

bitchy | Reid: Prince Andrew’s scandals show that Britain owes the Sussexes an apology
Celebrity News

bitchy | Reid: Prince Andrew’s scandals show that Britain owes the Sussexes an apology

by jummy84
written by jummy84

As we recorded our first Gossip with Celebitchy podcast in months, CB and I talked about how the Prince Andrew situation blew up in the Windsors’ faces specifically because with the side-by-side comparison to how they treated the Sussexes. In my opinion, King Charles welcoming Andrew and Sarah Ferguson to so many public events (Christmas, Easter, funerals, the coronation) was always meant for an audience of one: Prince Harry. They were telling Harry, “this could have been your life, we would welcome you this way, if only you hadn’t left!” And now that everyone can plainly see just what an evil, degenerate, human-trafficking liar Andrew has always been, the Windsors just look crazy as hell. They look like they’re totally fine with all of Andrew’s depravity because he didn’t commit the ultimate sin of marrying a Black woman and moving out of the country. Well, the i Newspaper’s Rebecca Reid focused on this side-by-side comparison in a new column: “This is what a real royal scandal looks like – we owe Harry and Meghan an apology.” Six years too late, but sure.

There is so much that is sad about the story of the even-further-disgraced Prince Andrew and the late Virginia Giuffre. First and foremost is the trajectory of Giuffre’s life, which was cut horrifyingly short, and defined by the actions of the men who surrounded her as a teenager. But there are other sadnesses about this whole sordid mess, too. One is the way it puts in relief the previous most high profile royal “scandal”: the unhappiness and eventual departure of Harry and Meghan.

At the time, Harry and Megan’s defection from working royals to influencers/podcasters was a major controversy – one of the most serious the family had weathered in recent years. But now, in comparison to the miserable details alleged in Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, we can see it for what it is: extremely small fry.

It’s really quite staggering that in their years as working royals, Harry and Meghan managed to be at the centre of dozens of dramas. Yet none of them could be described as actually dangerous or evil. Yes, Meghan did accuse the royals of racism – which was a terrible blow for the family, but that was all part of a battle to drag the royals into the 21st century. What’s more, they were at least trying to be the kind of royals the country would embrace.

Just look at their insistence on paying for the Frogmore Cottage renovation to deflect allegations that they were indulgent, despite the fact that they were entirely entitled to a renovated home. Were they occasionally cringe or tone-deaf? Yes. And doesn’t that seem like a complete non-issue when you see what a real scandal looks like?

If someone was sitting in an office cranking out inoffensive plot lines for the couple, they couldn’t have done a better job. And yet if social media is anything to go by, Harry and Meghan appear to be held in the low regard as Andrew and Fergie. It’s profoundly depressing.

This is despite the fact that Prince Andrew is accused of allegedly asking his personal protection officer to “dig up dirt” on Virginia Giuffre, presumably to create a smear campaign against a victim of sexual abuse. It’s not uncommon to see Andrew and the Sussexes discussed in the same breath. They are seemingly unified by the embarrassment they cause to The Firm, as if being embroiled in a horrifying sex scandal and maintaining a friendship with a convicted sex offender (while lying about being friends with said convicted sex offender) is on par with being a bit earnest in interviews, asking for security and selling overpriced jams.

There were rumours last month that Prince Harry’s presence in the UK, and audience with his father, might signal a return to the family fold. The onus seemed to be placed on Harry, as if it was his responsibility to convince the Mountbatten-Windsor clan to allow him back into family life.But if King Charles and the rest of the gang have even an ounce of sense, the events of the last week, and the juxtaposition between Andrew and Harry, should clarify exactly how lucky the royals were to have Harry and Meghan. And how advantageous it would be to bring them back. The pair might be cack-handed on the public relations front and I don’t deny that they’ve got a special skill for annoying the British public. But compared to Prince Andrew they’re literal angels.

[From The i Newspaper]

While I take this column at face value and I believe she’s being sincere, this column was actually depressing as well. Like, it’s taken this long for someone to acknowledge this? British people could only step back and say “wait, the Sussexes never did anything scandalous” only after the scope of Andrew’s criminality, lies, trafficking and degeneracy came to a head in recent weeks? Y’all didn’t realize that BEFORE October 2025? Where are the critical thinking skills over there? And of course it’s been obvious since 2020 that the Windsors should beg the Sussexes to come back. The fact that the Windsors refuse to – and also refuse to acknowledge how much they actually need the Sussex family – says everything you need to know about the lack of long-term planning within the institution.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Prince Andrew believes his brother wants to give Royal Lodge to Queen Camilla
Celebrity News

bitchy | Prince Andrew believes his brother wants to give Royal Lodge to Queen Camilla

by jummy84
written by jummy84

There was some buzz late in the day on Thursday that there would be some kind of big royal announcement. Alas, it did not happen. But I kind of wonder if we’ll hear something by the end of business today. One week ago, the Prince Andrew “problem” reached a boiling point, leading to Andrew’s evening announcement: he would willingly relinquish his ducal title and honors. Buckingham Palace hoped that would be the end of it and everyone would move on. Instead, the past seven days have been even more chaotic. I said earlier this week that I wouldn’t be surprised if Andrew is shoved out of Royal Lodge by the end of this week. That is the next move, but it looks like Andrew isn’t going down without a fight. This piece was published in the Telegraph on Thursday:

Prince Andrew believes the King is trying to force him out of his Royal Lodge home because he wants to give it to the Queen, The Telegraph understands.

The Prince is refusing to move out of his 30-room residence near Windsor Castle where he lives rent-free, despite coming under pressure from MPs to move to a more modest property. Andrew has what he regards as a cast-iron lease on Royal Lodge, which means his older brother cannot legally evict him. Having been forced to give up his Duke of York title – following fresh scandals over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted paedophile, and his relationships with suspected Chinese spies – the Prince is facing a possible parliamentary inquiry into his living arrangements.

On Thursday, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, confirmed he would be writing to the Treasury and the Crown Estate Commissioners “seeking further information on the lease arrangements for Royal Lodge”. The answers to the questions will determine whether the committee takes the matter further.

Family friends have told The Telegraph that [Andrew] believes the King has an ulterior motive in wanting him to leave Royal Lodge. He and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, his daughters, have told friends that the King wants Royal Lodge to be the Queen’s base in Windsor should she outlive him. It would mirror the living arrangements of Queen Elizabeth II’s mother Queen Elizabeth, who lived in Royal Lodge when she became a widow and moved out of Windsor Castle.

The King’s aides flatly deny the suggestion, but the Prince has nevertheless become fixed on the idea, which surfaced a year ago, that Royal Lodge was being earmarked for the Queen.

In truth, Her Majesty, who became a member of the Royal family by marriage in 2005, is far less grand than Prince Andrew and is unlikely to want to live alone in such a large residence even for only part of the year. She still owns Ray Mill House, the Grade II-listed family house in Wiltshire she bought with the divorce settlement from Andrew Parker Bowles, her first husband, and it is said to be the place where she feels most at home.

Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales, who has no time for his uncle but remains on good terms with his cousins Beatrice and Eugenie, has made it known that he wants the issue of Royal Lodge settled before he becomes King.

[From The Telegraph]

That last part about Prince William “want[ing] the issue of Royal Lodge settled before he becomes King” – completely bizarre, right? William’s allies and courtiers describe his future reign as “ruthless” and “fearless about making changes.” If that’s the case, then surely William would want to wait until he’s king to take care of this Andrew Problem himself? Ruthless William should be using that as a threat to Andrew: make a deal with Charles, because you won’t like the deals on offer during my reign. William wanting Charles to deal with his brother leaves William looking like a coward who refuses to confront his rancid uncle.

As for Andrew’s conspiracy that Charles intends to put Camilla in Royal Lodge… multiple things can be true all at once. One, Andrew needs to be evicted, plain and simple. Two, Royal Lodge is much desired by multiple royals, including William and Kate. Three, while Camilla loves her private oasis (Ray Mill), she will absolutely want a home on a royal estate if she survives her husband, and Royal Lodge would suit her perfectly. Four, if Charles doesn’t settle the Royal Lodge situation during his reign, it’s guaranteed that Ruthless Scooter King would be unlikely to give the Dowager Queen Consort such a palatial mansion as her retirement home, which means Charles does need to take care of this right now if he really does want RL to go to Camilla. Five, Camilla “is far less grand than Prince Andrew and is unlikely to want to live alone in such a large residence even for only part of the year” is a complete lie.

Update: Sources are now saying, as of Friday afternoon/evening, that Andrew is negotiating his withdrawal from Royal Lodge. He’s apparently hellbent on staying in Windsor or London, while King Charles wants to see Andrew shipped off to a cottage/home in Balmoral or Sandringham.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Mail: Duchess Meghan’s publicist quit, this is the royal scandal of the week!
Celebrity News

bitchy | Mail: Duchess Meghan’s publicist quit, this is the royal scandal of the week!

by jummy84
written by jummy84

It seems the British media is done talking about Prince Andrew’s depravity and all of the crimes he’s committed. They’ve successfully deflected everything to “should Andrew be kicked out of Royal Lodge” and “look, the Windsors are doing another dumb half-measure to punish Andrew.” Another key part of Operation Deflect From Andrew is the British press’s favorite standard: attacking the Duke and Duchess of Sussex no matter what. Throughout this week, Mail columnists have been trying to keep up the attacks, even as it became abundantly clear that the monarchy has done the most to protect a serial sexual predator for decades. “But Meghan went to Paris,” they cried. “But Meghan’s business is struggling, we swear!”

Well, the Mail’s Alison Boshoff has a new exclusive: Meghan lost another staffer! Back in June, the Sussexes did a major housecleaning on their comms team, letting go of some of their comms people and hiring Emily Robinson, who used to work for Netflix (and did publicity for The Crown). I said at the time that Meredith Maines – the comms guru who was hired in February – was probably behind all of the June streamlining. Well, now it looks like Emily Robinson has left the Sussexes’ employ!

The Duchess of Sussex has parted company with her tenth publicist in just five years after a big name she poached from Netflix quit after just three months. Emily Robinson joined Harry and Meghan’s team as director of communications in June, but she has already jumped ship.

Ms Robinson was always a controversial hire as she had worked on The Crown for years – a show which aired a number of damaging narratives about the Royal Family. The final series included scenes in which the ‘ghost’ of Princess Diana appeared to speak to The Queen and Prince Charles, which many found insensitive.

One friend of LA-based Robinson, who built up a reputation as a ‘tough cookie’ at Netflix, said: ‘It was her decision. She left a few weeks ago. She’s not a quitter, so things must have been pretty horrible for her to go.’

Ms Robinson’s LinkedIn profile does not currently include any reference to having worked with the couple, but other roles which she has held are listed.

Ms Robinson is at least the tenth publicist to leave the employ of Meghan and Harry since they left the UK for California five years ago (although two former publicists, James Holt and Miranda Barbot, have been promoted into non-PR roles). Remaining on their team are Liam Maguire, director of communications in Europe, and Meredith Maines, their chief communications officer. They met the King’s press secretary, Tobyn Andreae, this summer – which is thought to have paved the way for Prince Harry to briefly see his father last month.

The couple have suffered numerous PR disasters, most recently the duchess’s surprise trip to Paris Fashion Week.

[From The Daily Mail]

“…Most recently the duchess’s surprise trip to Paris Fashion Week…” Ah yes, the publicity disaster of “Meghan drawing global headlines for looking amazing at the Balenciaga show.” Obviously, that’s why Emily left! She was like, no, I cannot have my client getting so much attention at Paris Fashion Week! It’s far more likely that Robinson left for a better job, or maybe there’s another restructure happening within Archewell, especially with Meghan focusing so much on As Ever. I’m defending the Sussexes’ comms team FINALLY because this year, they’ve really turned things around. Some of us had begged them for years to be more responsive, and to not allow these evil f–king narratives to fester unchallenged. And this year, we saw those changes. I believe it’s because of Maines as well.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | “Rose Byrne wore Prada with a peplum at the Rome Film Festival” links
Celebrity News

bitchy | “Rose Byrne wore Prada with a peplum at the Rome Film Festival” links

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Rose Byrne wore Prada to the Rome Film Festival premiere of If I Had Legs I’d Kick You. The “peplum pockets” are interesting, but it’s still a peplum and the dress, overall, isn’t great. There was some awards-buzz for this film a few months ago but then critics started reviewing the film and it doesn’t seem so buzzy anymore. [RCFA]
Did Emma Stone purposefully channel Gwyneth Paltrow’s famous green outfit in Great Expectations? Perhaps. [Go Fug Yourself]
More analysis of Kristen Bell’s horrible Instagram. [LaineyGossip]
I’ve always thought that Jason Clarke is an underrated actor, so I enjoy that he’s suddenly inescapable in films & TV projects. [Pajiba]
Jeremy Allen White covers Interview. [OMG Blog]
Meet a French Instahottie. [Socialite Life]
Megan Thee Stallion wrote a song about Klay Thompson! [Just Jared]
Jason Momoa in a bald cap = noooo. [Seriously OMG]
Which piece of stolen Louvre jewelry are you? [Jezebel]
Misty Copeland photos! [Hollywood Life]
Kim Kardashian has a brain aneurysm? [Buzzfeed]

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Will Parliament give the monarch the power to strip all royal titles?
Celebrity News

bitchy | Will Parliament give the monarch the power to strip all royal titles?

by jummy84
written by jummy84

As an American, I am often confused by the British monarchy and government’s “separation of powers.” Before this week, it seemed like prime ministers and Parliament basically left all of the title debates and housing issues up to the monarch’s prerogative. But Prince Andrew’s situation has changed everything, as MPs are loudly fuming about the monarchy’s mismanagement of this crisis. There is a growing political consensus that Andrew cannot be allowed to live out his days in a grand and rent-free 30-room mansion on the Windsor estate. It’s very likely that Parliament will have a formal inquiry into Royal Lodge and perhaps even the wider mismanagement of the Crown Estates. But there’s also proposed legislation to give the monarch power to remove titles on his own, only needing a “recommendation” from Parliament. The NY Times tried to explain:

Britain has been one of the world’s most durable constitutional monarchies, in part because its two pillars — the crown and Parliament — stay out of each other’s business. King Charles III steers clear of politics, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer leaves the affairs of the royal family to the monarch. That longstanding arrangement has come under rare stress in the last week, following scandalous new disclosures about Prince Andrew, the king’s younger brother, and his ties to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The details were outlined in a newly published email between Andrew and Mr. Epstein, and in a memoir by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an Epstein victim who accused Andrew of raping her when she was a teenager — an accusation he denies. They have led to calls for him to be stripped of his most familiar title, prince. This would likely require an act of parliament.

That, in turn, has set off a chicken-and-egg debate. The government says the decision of whether to deprive Andrew of his titles is one for the king, not for Mr. Starmer. Officials at Buckingham Palace say it would be improper for the king to take any position on a parliamentary act that might come before him for royal assent. Both sides are drawing on centuries of convention, a powerful argument in a country with an unwritten constitution. Yet as the outcry grows over Andrew’s alleged misconduct during his friendship with Mr. Epstein, falling back on century-old laws and even more ancient customs is proving contentious.

“The argument that this is purely a matter for the royal family will not wash,” said Vernon Bogdanor, an expert on the constitutional monarchy at King’s College London. “Our monarchy since 1689 has been a parliamentary one. It exists only so long as Parliament, representing the people, want it to continue.”

On Wednesday, a Labour member of Parliament, Rachael Maskell, introduced a bill that would give the king the authority to rescind royal titles on his own initiative, following a recommendation from a parliamentary committee. Without the government’s support, however, it has little chance to pass.

Last Friday, Andrew announced that he would stop using one of his titles, the Duke of York, a step he took under pressure from his brother Charles. But he did not formally lose either the dukedom or the title of prince, to which he is entitled under a 1917 royal prerogative, known as a Letters Patent. Under that decree, issued by King George V, the title of prince or princess is limited to the child of a monarch, the child of the sons of a monarch, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, the heir to the throne. Amending the Letters Patent to strip Andrew of his title is possible, experts have said, but it would be such a grave, unusual step that it would probably happen only if the king and the government agreed in advance.

[From The NY Times]

This is interesting from a how-the-sausage-is-made perspective, but it also has larger repercussions. Let’s be real – everyone can agree that Andrew should be stripped of all of his titles and that he should be forced onto an ice floe and set out to sea. THAT is not the debate. The real debate is: who will do the title-stripping and what happens if and when we give the monarch power to strip titles at will, with nominal input from the government? The actual debate is “what happens when we have a king who is petty, jealous and violently unfit to lead, and who uses his power to childishly settle scores?” Gee, I wonder why everyone is hesitating to give the crown these powers???

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner swears he covered up his Nazi tattoo
Celebrity News

bitchy | Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner swears he covered up his Nazi tattoo

by jummy84
written by jummy84

A lot of politicos are already looking ahead to the midterms next year. I get that people want to be prepared, but there’s an election this year! My state, Virginia, is voting in all of the state-government races, including governor (go Spanberger!). NYC is voting for mayor. New Jersey is voting for governor & legislature. There are tons of local and state ballot measures and races to vote on, and it’s important to vote in off-years. That’s my PSA before I get into a big controversy up north.

So, next year, Maine will have a Senate race. Profoundly unpopular Republican Senator Susan Collins is running for reelection, and Democrats have been trying to field a good candidate to run against her. Certain politicos think they found their guy: Graham Platner, a veteran and former Blackwater mercenary. I think the podbros spent all of two minutes grooming Platner for this run – while he certainly has a suspiciously astroturfed campaign apparatus, his primary run has already been marred by controversy after controversy. The biggest of which is that the man has a Nazi tattoo (which he covered up).

Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maine, said on Wednesday that he had covered up a tattoo that he got years ago that resembled a Nazi symbol. Mr. Platner, who is running for the seat held by Senator Susan Collins since 1997, said in a video podcast interview that was broadcast on Tuesday that he got the tattoo, a skull-and-crossbones image that is widely recognized as a Nazi symbol, while drunk 18 years ago and was unaware of its extremist association.

Mr. Platner, a Marine veteran and oyster farmer, has also come under scrutiny for a series of posts he made years ago on Reddit that played down sexual assault in the military and criticized the police and white Americans living in rural areas.

Mr. Platner acknowledged the tattoo in an episode of the podcast Pod Save America. The podcast played a video clip from a decade ago in which Mr. Platner dances shirtless, with the tattoo visible, at a bar while lip-syncing to a Miley Cyrus song at his brother’s wedding. A host of the podcast, Tommy Vietor, said that some of Mr. Platner’s “political opponents” had been telling reporters that he had a tattoo “with Nazi affiliation.”

Mr. Platner said on the podcast, which is hosted by former Obama aides, that he got the tattoo in 2007 in Split, Croatia, and that he and other Marines had chosen a “terrifying-looking skull and crossbones off the wall” and that “skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing.”

“I am not a secret Nazi,” Mr. Platner said on the podcast. In a statement, Mr. Platner reiterated that he was not aware of the tattoo’s Nazi connections when he got it. “It was not until I started hearing from reporters and D.C. insiders that I realized this tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol,” he said. “I absolutely would not have gone through life having this on my chest if I knew that — and to insinuate that I did is disgusting.”

He added in the statement that he had never tried to hide the tattoo, including during a physical examination he had when enlisting in the Army that he said included a check for tattoos with hate symbols. His campaign confirmed in an email on Wednesday that he had gotten the tattoo covered.

Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, said that the skull and crossbones symbol depicted in Mr. Platner’s tattoo, known as the Totenkopf, was, after the swastika, one of the most well-known symbols from World War II. Guards at Nazi concentration camps wore the symbol prominently on their caps, Professor Lipstadt said. Its seemed “disingenuous” that Mr. Platner would not know the symbol’s Nazi links given his military experience, she said.

[From The NY Times]

Despite Platner’s excuses now, there are stories circulating that Platner actually did know what he had tattooed, to the point where he even described it as “my Totenkopf.” So, now there are Democratic activists (like the podbros) excusing the whole “Nazi tattoo” thing. Like, whomst among us has not gotten a Nazi tattoo, amirite? Which has led to revulsion across the Democratic Party, like “not having a Nazi tattoo” should be pretty standard.

Additionally, the Nazi tattoo is covering up a host of other issues with Platner, including a lengthy history of online homophobia, blaming women for being raped, and the kind of general racism you’d expect from someone with a Totenkopf tattoo.

Photos courtesy of Platner’s Instagram.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | “Sarah Paulson wore Schiaparelli & had terrible bangs in Paris” links
Celebrity News

bitchy | “Sarah Paulson wore Schiaparelli & had terrible bangs in Paris” links

by jummy84
written by jummy84

I actually would have thought that Sarah Paulson’s Schiaparelli ensemble was okay but the bangs ruined the whole look. Top-five worst bangs I’ve ever seen. [RCFA]
Khloe Kardashian hasn’t had sex in three years. [JustJared]
Will Emma Stone get another Oscar nom for Bugonia? [LaineyGossip]
Here’s how ICE has treated pregnant detainees. [Jezebel]
James Gunn won’t break his rules for Keanu Reeves. [Pajiba]
Music videos which defined the MTV era. [Buzzfeed]
Jacob Elordi hypes Euphoria Season 3. [Socialite Life]
Does anyone watch Outer Banks? [Hollywood Life]
Stevie Nicks got a second Barbie! [Seriously OMG]
A long-lost Spanish treasure has been found off the coast of Florida. [OMG Blog]

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Queen Camilla wore quite a statement headpiece for her visit to the Vatican
Celebrity News

bitchy | Queen Camilla wore quite a statement headpiece for her visit to the Vatican

by jummy84
written by jummy84

King Charles and Queen Camilla arrived in Italy on Wednesday evening. They just did a tarmac greeting with various Italian and Vatican officials, then they went to their hotel or whatever and rested for their big day, which is today. These photos are of Charles and Camilla arriving in Vatican City. Today is the day when Pope Bob (Pope Leo) gets to “pray” with a divorced Anglican adulterer who is sheltering and protecting his rapist degenerate brother. This whole thing is part of Charles’s bucket list for some reason, he’s been trying to stage something big with a pope for a while. Pope Francis didn’t play his games, but Pope Bob is like “sure, whatever, let’s do this.”

So, let’s talk about Camilla and what she’s wearing? There’s a dress code in Vatican City, for general visitors, including women not exposing their knees or shoulders. Specifically for Protestant women who are heads of state/first ladies/queen consorts, women are expected to wear black and be as covered-up as possible, with some kind of head covering. Incidentally, there’s an exception for Catholic queens, like Spain’s Queen Letizia – it’s called “privilège du blanc,” which means they can wear white when they’re meeting a pope. So, Camilla is an Anglican divorcee and adulterer, and as such, she had to wear black and some kind of head covering. I’m not sure they were expecting THIS headpiece though. What in the world?

Anyway, it’s worth noting that 2025 is the Vatican’s Jubilee year. That’s why Charles has been so focused on visiting the Vatican this year in particular, almost to the exception of everything else. I still find it odd that the head of the Church of England is so focused on this.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Donald Trump forgot to say that he’s demolishing the entire White House East Wing
Celebrity News

bitchy | Donald Trump forgot to say that he’s demolishing the entire White House East Wing

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Months ago, Donald Trump announced his plan to build a gigantic, gaudy new “White House ballroom” on the east side of the WH campus. He actually said, repeatedly and on the record, that the plan was to build a big ballroom adjacent to the existing structure, and perhaps attach the ballroom to the mansion via some kind of breezeway. Like everything that comes out of that ugly orange man’s mouth, all of that was a lie. Several days ago, construction started on the ballroom. Scratch that – construction has NOT started, because they’re too busy demolishing the White House’s East Wing. On Wednesday, the White House confirmed that the entirety of the East Wing will be demolished by this weekend.

The White House is demolishing the entirety of the East Wing to make way for President Trump’s $200 million ballroom, a construction project that is far more extensive than he initially let on, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

The tear-down should be finished by this weekend, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the plans. When Mr. Trump first announced his plans for the ballroom, he pledged that the East Wing wouldn’t be touched by the construction.

“It’ll be views of the Washington Monument. It won’t interfere with the current building. It’ll be near it but not touching it,” the president said. “And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of.”

But, upon further evaluation, the White House determined it was cheaper and more structurally sound to demolish the East Wing to construct the ballroom, rather than build an addition, the official said. The new structure will also have enhanced security features, the official said.

[From The NY Times]

The few wide-perspective shots of that side of the White House already showed just how extensive the project is, but it’s pretty crazy that Trump has been lying his ass off for months, and then mid-demolition, he’s like “oh year, we’re taking this whole thing down.” Historic preservationists are really upset, obviously:

Photos of construction teams knocking down parts of the East Wing, first revealed by The Washington Post on Monday, shocked preservationists, raised questions about White House overreach and lack of transparency, and sparked complaints from Democrats that President Donald Trump was damaging “the People’s House” to pursue a personal priority.

“They’re wrecking it,” said Martha Joynt Kumar, a political scientist and professor emeritus at Towson University in Maryland. “And these are changes that can’t be undone. They’re destroying that history forever.”

A White House spokesman said that the “entirety” of the East Wing would eventually be “modernized and rebuilt.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a nonprofit created by Congress to help preserve historic buildings, sent a letter Tuesday to administration officials, warning that the planned 90,000-square-foot ballroom “will overwhelm the White House itself,” which is about 55,000 square feet. “We respectfully urge the Administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes,” Carol Quillen, National Trust’s CEO, said in a statement, citing two federal commissions that have traditionally reviewed White House additions.

White House officials dismissed the criticism as “manufactured outrage,” arguing that past presidents had pursued their own changes to the executive campus as necessary. They said that the privately funded ballroom will be a “bold, necessary addition” to the presidential grounds.

“For more than a century, U.S. Presidents have been renovating, expanding, and modernizing the White House to meet the needs of the present day,” the White House’s rapid-response team posted on social media, listing examples of prior campus construction.

The Treasury Department on Monday evening instructed employees not to take or share photos of the construction project without permission, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail an internal email. The Treasury headquarters is next to the White House, with some of its offices providing a close view of the East Wing. But areas where the demolition is viewable are closed to the public, fueling criticism about the Trump administration’s lack of transparency.

One of the people who witnessed the demolition Tuesday said that views of the site from Treasury headquarters amplify the demolition, but a large part of the structure remained by late afternoon. However, it appeared that what remained was also headed for demolition, with no evidence that the structure was being protected and only jagged damage visible in the exposed building.

[From WaPo]

“U.S. Presidents have been renovating, expanding, and modernizing the White House to meet the needs of the present day.” Yeah, during the Cold War, the space UNDER the White House was dug out and filled with rooms/shelters and tunnels which could conceivably survive a massive bomb or terrorist attack. We’re not talking about security upgrades, nor are we talking about “Michelle Obama adding a vegetable garden.” Trump didn’t consult with anyone before ripping out the entire East Wing of the People’s House.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Getty.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
bitchy | Platell: Princess Beatrice & Eugenie are ‘blue-blooded leeches’ who should be exiled too
Celebrity News

bitchy | Platell: Princess Beatrice & Eugenie are ‘blue-blooded leeches’ who should be exiled too

by jummy84
written by jummy84

There are lots of conversations about Princess Beatrice and Eugenie this week. My working theory is that Prince Andrew only agreed to relinquish his royal titles and honors with the understanding that A) he could continue to live in Royal Lodge and B) his daughters’ titles would be unaffected. Well, people are coming for Royal Lodge, but I’m not sure if anything will happen with Beatrice and Eugenie. Eugenie is better positioned to weather this moment – she lives part-time in Portugal with her husband, she is less visible than her sister, and (imo) Eugenie has had one foot out the door of royal life for several years now. Beatrice, on the other hand, has historically enjoyed her parents’ contacts and she has involved herself in their disgraceful behavior. Well, one royalist is trying to help save the York princesses. From Richard Palmer’s piece in the i Newspaper:

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are expected to publicly distance themselves from their disgraced parents in the fallout over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. The sisters – who are both said to be in shock amid lurid revelations about Prince Andrew and Sarah Feguson’s friendship with Epstein – want to remain loyal to their parents but wish to disentangle themselves from the toxic York brand, according to some royal insiders. But in private, the sisters have both been spending time with Andrew and Sarah, offering them solace amid ongoing revelations about their friendship with the late paedophile, according to those who know the family well.

“They’ve always been a very resilient family who support each other in times of crisis,” one friend said, denying rumours in royal circles over the weekend that the sisters had cut off contact with their parents. On Monday, Beatrice, 37, drove to see her parents at Royal Lodge as Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir – which details alleged sexual encounters with Andrew – hit the shelves.

As the elder daughter, Beatrice has been more involved in her parents’ affairs, offering advice to her father in particular, although her judgment has sometimes been called into question. She took notes for two hours when Andrew met the BBC Newsnight team in November 2019 and is reported to have advised him that agreeing to that ill-fated interview with Emily Maitlis would help clear the air. Beatrice has told friends, “I’m just numbed by it all,” as she struggles to process a succession of new revelations about her father.

Beatrice and Eugenie, 35, now face a difficult trick trying to navigate through the chaos left by their father’s enforced decision to give up using his Duke of York title and various honours. Andrew Lownie, whose biography Entitled gave a blistering account of the scandals surrounding Andrew and Sarah, believes Beatrice and Eugenie will have to try to distance themselves further now. “I think the sisters need to lie low until the dust has settled and to keep their hands clean,” he said. “They have their careers, families and charities.”

Professionally, however, it is in their interests to emphasise their connection to their uncle, King Charles, and the institution that has just heaped humiliation on their branch of the family. Being royal helps boost their profiles. The two Princesses, who occasionally attend royal events, both have business careers and receive no taxpayer-funded support. The King regards both Beatrice and Eugenie, who are respectively ninth and 12th in line to the throne, as blameless and has made it clear that they remain Princesses as the male-line grandchildren of a sovereign. Unlike Andrew and Sarah, they will be welcome to join the rest of the Royal Family at Sandringham for Christmas. “The King is fond of both of them and his intention is that they are unaffected,” one source said.

[From The i Newspaper]

It’s like the royal reporters are trying to publicly convince Beatrice and Eugenie that they need to distance themselves from their parents, despite the royalists also knowing full well that Bea and Eugenie remain very close to Andrew and Sarah (they’re said to be especially close to Sarah, especially during and after her cancer battle). Well, at least one royalist is prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater – Amanda Platell devoted her Mail column to the princesses and how they need to be exiled from royal life as well.

After the disgraced Andrew and, by association, Fergie gave up their royal titles over links to the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein last week, the King and Prince William both made it clear that their daughters Beatrice and Eugenie will continue to be princesses – with all the trappings that royal blood brings. I – and I’m sure many others – am flabbergasted by the decision.

Why should we feel a shred of sympathy for the two pampered princesses who have lived their lives enjoying, unknowingly perhaps, vast privileges and wealth courtesy of their dishonoured father and his dodgy millionaire friends? And was this really the moment for Charles and his heir to go out on a limb for two non-working royals who have fed, like blue-blooded leeches, off their parents’ connections – and are now mothers and businesswomen in their own right? I think not.

Prince Andrew’s biographer Andrew Lownie, in his bombshell book Entitled, wrote that Beatrice and Eugenie ‘claim they’re modern princesses juggling jobs and children, but they’re just as entitled as their parents’. And he claimed that they, like their parents, have ‘shady’ connections to the super-rich of Saudi Arabia. Do the King and the Prince not realise that every time the public sees the pair, we are reminded of their awful, money-grubbing parents? Embracing them now only further damages their dwindling support, especially among young people – polls show of Generation Z, upon which the future of the Royal Family depends, only 30 per cent believe the monarchy is ‘good for Britain’.

King Charles and Prince William need a reality check: they must now go further and ban the princesses, as every time Beatrice and Eugenie appear in public they will again shine the spotlight on their family’s disgraceful legacy – and remind us that their father, still eighth in line to the throne, befriended a paedophile and then repeatedly lied about it. And, though the King and William might disagree, it is unthinkable to me that the princesses should be invited to the royal Christmas at Sandringham and the traditional walkabout after attending the Church of St Mary Magdalene.

Harsh it may be, but I feel little sympathy for Beatrice and Eugenie, however innocent they may be. They should be self-aware enough to know that their presence at any royal event would be a disastrous distraction – and serves no one but themselves. If, unlike their parents, they have a shred of decency and indeed care for the future of the Royal family, they could completely disappear from royal life and get on with their happy married lives and children and their successful businesses. That would be the appropriate way to show respect for the enduring pain suffered by Epstein’s young victims.

[From The Daily Mail]

I mean… a broken clock, etc. Platell is heavy-handed, for sure, and I’m not prepared to put this much on Beatrice and Eugenie’s shoulders. Despite everything, I still have some sympathy for them and I can’t even imagine what it was like growing up with those ghastly parents. As I said, I think Eugenie has had the right idea for years now – she’s carved out her own life, away from the Windsors. She has a job, her husband works and makes a good salary, she lives abroad for part of the year. Beatrice is the one who wants to be accepted by the family, and she wants to be a working royal. And that’s not going to happen. PS… I always love how royalists treat “Sandringham Christmas” like it’s the most coveted invitation out there. Please. No one gives a sh-t.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Sarah’s social media and Eugenie’s social media.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts