View this post on Instagram

#StellaxTaylorSwift is coming soon ? It’s been SO much fun to work/dream up cute stuff with my friend @stellamccartney to create a line inspired by my new album Lover. Can’t wait to show you what we’ve been working on and tell you more about the pop up shop at the @YouTube Live event this Thursday at 5p ET! Sign up to receive more info at TaylorSwift.com and StellaMcCartney.com

A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) on Aug 20, 2019 at 11:56am PDT

We knew months ago that Taylor Swift would be doing some kind of fashion line in conjunction with her new album, Lover. Lover comes out on Friday, so of course we’re getting more information, more gossip, and more “drops” this week. Yesterday, Taylor dropped the “lookbook” for her collaboration with Stella McCartney. Longtime readers of this blog know that I kind of loathe Stella McCartney’s designs, and it has nothing to do with her eco-friendly fabrics and such. My loathing is mostly about how Stella is a terrible designer. So put a terrible designer within the confines of Taylor’s juvenile pastel-and-kittens pallette, and guess what we get? Yes – t-shirts and bomber jackets in pale pink and tie-dye pastels and, basically, kitten merch. Even poor Benjamin Button (Tay’s newest cat) has to hustle some merch.

You can see the Taylor + Stella lookbook here at Tay’s site. On one side, I applaud Taylor for… the cute photos and the attractive user interface. On the other side, the fashion collab still hasn’t “dropped” and it’s not for sale yet, so there are no prices. I assume that pastel kitten merch is hella expensive. How much would you pay for a stiff-looking cotton tie-dyed t-shirt with some of Taylor’s lyrics? That’s all this sh-t it – it’s not really a fashion line, it just looks like good-quality tour merchandise which would have normally been sold at Taylor’s concerts. But now you can buy that sh-t online at a steep markup because it’s “Stella.”

Also: the photo of Taylor in short-shorts, “working” with Stella on the designs is cracking me up. Stella: “What if we-” Tay: “MOAR KITTENS.”

Photos courtesy of TaylorSwift.com, Backgrid, Instagram.

Kara! Happy 40th Birthday with love from Brian who requested for you Taron Egerton, Michael B Jordan, and Nicholas Hoult. Welcome to your new decade. It’s the best one yet!

I kind of love how Miley Cyrus’s strategy to make Liam Hemsworth jealous sort of blew up in her face. She’s so immature – she was so clearly trying to get under Liam’s skin when she announced their split and then posed for some makeout photos with Kaitlynn Carter. She spent the next week trying to blame the split on Liam (because he’s moody and he drinks, maybe) and at the end of the day, Liam is just hanging out with his family in Australia. That’s where he’s been this whole time. Liam isn’t providing anyone with daily updates on his state of mind. But Miley can’t help herself. So, just FYI: Miley wants us to know that she’s FINALLY focusing on herself these days. For real.

Miley Cyrus is moving on. Days after the singer announced her separation from Liam Hemsworth, Cyrus released a heartbreaking new ballad titled “Slide Away” that seemingly reveals her side of their breakup. Despite the scorching lyrics, a source tells PEOPLE exclusively the star, 26, “isn’t trying to hurt” her estranged husband.

“Her song was her way of telling her story without having to say anything at all,” says the source. “She isn’t trying to bash him, but she wants to be able to share what she’s been going through.”

Cyrus is continuing to spend time with her longtime friend Kaitlynn Carter, 30, following their PDA-filled Italian getaway, and insiders say she’s trying to focus on herself after a trying few months.

“Miley is doing okay,” says the source. “It’s a relief the [breakup] news is out publicly so she can live her life and focus on herself.” Adds another insider: “Miley doesn’t talk about Liam much and is not dwelling in the past. She doesn’t want to hide, and her mood has changed drastically. She seems much more relaxed and happy.”

Both 29-year-old Hemsworth — who remains in his native Australia — and Cyrus are leaning on loved ones, and despite her sadness over the split, the singer feels it’s “the right decision,” adds the source. “She just wants them to both be as healthy as possible.”

[From People]

That song was absolutely part of her immature plan to get under Liam’s skin, and she so clearly laid the blame at his feet lyrically. The fact that she keeps insisting that she dumped him for all these reasons… well, I’m starting to wonder if it really went down like that at all. I’ve been saying that it feels likely that Miley and Kaitlynn were having a full-fledged affair. Miley having a guilty heart might explain things. As for “focusing on herself”… she’s always been focused on herself. She’ll try to change up her personality/persona to suit Liam for a time, but let’s be real – she’s always focused on herself and what she’s doing. I don’t blame her for being career-focused and self-obsessed, but don’t act like it’s a recent thing.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Dear Gossips,

The Toronto International Film Festival released its schedule yesterday and, as usual, most of the major titles and, therefore, the big celebrities, are heavily stacked on the first weekend. Saturday night is the one everyone is marking on their calendars though. That’s the night t…

We haven’t talked about the Lori Loughlin/College Admissions Scandal in more than a month. I’d halfway forgotten about it, but here we are – Lori clearly went to People Magazine and gave them some quotes (from a “source”) to get her side of the story out ahead of an August 27th court date. I mean, Lori has been running to People this whole time, and trying to paint herself as the extremely innocent and wholesome faith-based scammer who would never do anything illegal! So this is just more of the same. The added bonus is that Lori is the one who is truly suffering in this situation, please feel sorry for HER.

Since the college admissions scandal broke, Lori Loughlin’s every move has been under scrutiny. But while some have criticized the Fuller House star for seeming indignant in the wake of the scandal, a legal source says that’s far from the truth.

“Lori is remorseful, and she has definite regrets,” the source tells PEOPLE about Loughlin, 56. “She’s embarrassed and hurt, and she knows that her reputation has been ruined for life. But she also believes the allegations against her aren’t true,” the source shares. “She honestly didn’t think what she was doing was any different than donating money for a library or athletic field. That’s the crux of why she pleaded not guilty.”

Loughlin and Giannulli allegedly paid $500,000 to admissions consultant William “Rick” Singer to falsely designate daughters Olivia Jade Giannulli, 19, and Isabella Rose Giannulli, 20, as recruits to the University of Southern California crew team, though neither actually participated in the sport. While 14 defendants, including actress Felicity Huffman, agreed to plead guilty in April, Loughlin and Giannulli declined a plea deal.

“They weren’t ready to accept that,” says the legal source. Loughlin and Giannulli are due back in court Aug. 27, when they’re expected to waive their rights to separate attorneys, as both are being represented by attorneys from the same law firm in order to put forth a “united front.”

Still, the waiting can be excruciating. “Lori is ready for this to be over,” says the source. “They all are. At this point, it would be better to spend a few months in jail — because she’s been spending the last several months in her own prison.”

[From People]

“At this point, it would be better to spend a few months in jail — because she’s been spending the last several months in her own prison.” OMG, you guys, will someone please save this poor rich white bitch? She’s living in a prison of the mind! She’s living in a social pariah prison! Her version of prison is “not doing Hallmark movies and not getting invited to parties.” Lori and her white woman tears can take a seat. Why does she keep doing this? Is she, like, trying to piss people off even more, or is she really this f–king clueless?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

View this post on Instagram

#Tashi #EllaBella #DaddyDateNight

A post shared by Alex Rodriguez (@arod) on Aug 6, 2019 at 5:16pm PDT

Alex Rodriguez has two daughters, Natasha, 14, and Ella, 11. And if he makes good on his engagement to Jennifer Lopez, he’ll add 11-year-old twins Emme and Max to his brood. So what kind of parent is Alex? Is he a Tiger Dad? Fun Dad? Helicopter Dad? Turns out, he’s Spy Dad – but not in the cool way. Alex recently claimed that he set up a fake Instagram account so he can track his kids on social media.

Alex Rodriguez has a contract with his daughters about what he’s allowed to post to social media — but little do they know that he has his own way of finding out what they’re posting too.

The former Yankees star, 44, revealed on an episode of Barstool Sports’ Chicks in the Office podcast that he uses a “burner” Instagram account to see what his daughters are up to on social media.

“My daughters don’t let me follow them on social media. It’s awful,” he told co-hosts Ria Ciuffo and Francesca Mariano.

But Rodriguez revealed he has his ways of keeping tabs on Natasha Alexander, 14, and 11-year-old Ella Alexander‘s Instagram posts — when Ciuffo and Mariano asked if he had a “dad burner account,” he said “absolutely.”

But just because Natasha and Ella don’t want their dad following them, it doesn’t mean that they don’t weigh in on their famous father’s content.

“Oh my gosh, they are like the COO and the CEO of my social media craziness, whatever I do,” Rodriguez said. “They’re so good. Every time I post something, usually like, five out of 10, both of them would DM and say, ‘Dad, are you serious? Dad, you know I’m going into high school this year. Dad, this is how bullying starts.’”

“I have contracts with both of them that if I post something — now, you know, they’re getting to be teenagers, they have to approve everything — and I’m like, ‘Okay, I got it, I’m sorry,” he added.

[From People]

I think Alex is trying to come off as a dad who just cares so much but this branding reads more like, “I spy on my family” and it’s not a great look. I’m having a hard time getting past the part where his teen and pre-teen daughters forbid him from following them. But the part that really stands out to me is the cloak-and-dagger of a “ dad burner account.” That would’ve sent a hormonal-teen me into an absolute rage. Although, the hormonal-perimenopausal me would post the most illicit, controversial content possible just to give him a heart-attack.

Now, because I am nothing if not fair (I can’t believe I got through that sentence without laughing) this could be only half the story, picked up for the soundbite. Alex said later in the interview that his daughters used to like when he dropped them off but now, they ask him to let them out two blocks away. Famous kids, they’re just like our own kids. Anyway, it could be that his daughters know his fake IG presence and they just don’t want the famous A-Rod following them because he’d probably get more attention. If this is the case, it’s actually a really smart way to monitor your kids openly but allows them to save face. I might even do this myself.

Holy sh-t, am I taking parenting advice from A-Rod now?

View this post on Instagram

This is what matters most. #FamilyFirst ??

A post shared by Alex Rodriguez (@arod) on Aug 13, 2019 at 9:20pm PDT

Photo credit: WENN Photos and Instagram

Embed from Getty Images

I’m actually pleased to see that the stories of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators didn’t die alongside Epstein. If anything, it feels like there’s more scrutiny of Prince Andrew right now than there was when Epstein was alive. That being said, I still believe there’s a reason why Andrew was smiling and looking relieved just after Epstein’s mysterious death: my guess is that Epstein truly did have all kinds of blackmail information on Andrew, and Andrew truly thought that the story might die with Epstein. Anyway, the latest: there are flight logs proving that Prince Andrew was in the same place – several times – as Virginia Roberts. Virginia Roberts is the woman who has said, for years, that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked her to Andrew when she was 17.

Flight logs for Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet reportedly suggest that Prince Andrew was in the same part of the world as Virginia Roberts Giuffre on at least three occasions. Giuffre alleges she was “given” to Andrew by Epstein three times. The flight logs for Epstein’s luxury black Gulfstream jet are private, but the Daily Mail has obtained entries for March and April 2001, which show that Giuffre was flown around the world by Epstein, while Andrew was touring the globe himself, touching down in similar locations.

Cross-referencing the flight details with official announcements made by the royal family and press reports from the time reveals a number of coincidences. Giuffre, then known by her maiden name Virginia Roberts, arrived at London Luton airport on March 9 along with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Hours later, a photograph of Andrew with his arm around Giuffre’s waist was taken in Maxwell’s flat.

A month later, on April 9, the duke began an official visit to the U.S. in his capacity as chairman of the trustees of the Outward Bound Trust. The Court Circular, the official record of royal movements, recorded his presence in New York that day. The Mail says that the very same day, Giuffre also flew to New York. She and Epstein left his Palm Beach home to arrive in New York via Atlantic City.

Giuffre has also said she was forced to have sex with Andrew at Epstein’s home in the Caribbean. The flight logs show that Giuffre and Epstein left New York on April 11 for the U.S. Virgin Islands. On Easter Sunday, April 15, Andrew was “in the Bahamas,” The Telegraph, reported—quoting a royal courtier who said he was on holiday with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters. The Bahamas is a two-hour flight from Epstein’s island near St. Thomas. There are no records suggesting that he visited the island. The palace declined to comment. Giuffre previously claimed Andrew was there for one night.

[From The Daily Beast]

While I appreciate the fact that the papers are digging into this and finding evidence of Andrew’s perversions, I also sort of wonder if it just would have been easier to, you know, believe women and girls in the first place. Virginia’s story has remained the same for years. She’s told her story for years. She’s tried to get justice from Epstein and Prince Andrew for years. But now suddenly people are like “oooh, flight logs!” Believe women, damn it. Start there. Anyway, yeah – Andrew has been lying to a lot of people for a very long time. It’s all just… disgusting.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Did I completely ignore the stories about “fired nannies” in the Sussex household? I’m looking through our archives and I can’t find anything, and I have no memory of the “fired nanny” narrative. I want to say that I probably ignored it because the British press continues to be trash, but it’s also possible that I did make some kind of reference to a “fired nanny” and just forgot about it because I can’t keep up with the daily smears lodged against the Duchess of Sussex. I do remember that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quietly hired a “night nanny,” which I just interpreted as a night nurse, as someone who will be with Baby Archie for two months or so. There was apparently another nanny who got fired after a few weeks for “unprofessional” behavior. And so now the Sussexes have a new nanny, and the nanny was on holiday with them in France:

Meghan and Harry have hired another nanny for baby Archie — their third since he was born three months ago. The new worker, described by Meghan, 38, as a “godsend”, accompanied the family on their two private jet holidays this month. She was seen boarding one of the gas-guzzling planes in Nice, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their tot had been staying at Elton John’s £15million pad.

A source said: “Meghan is a very hands-on mum but the new nanny is a godsend. She is extremely professional, with a number of nannying years under her belt, and has fitted into the family really well. She’s great with little Archie and just adores him. Harry and Meghan are very happy with her.”

The couple’s first nanny was sacked for being “unprofessional” while the second was nights only. The third, who is not live-in, will join the Sussexes for their royal tour next month. Mum and baby and nanny are staying in South Africa while Harry, 34, will also visit Botswana, Angola and Malawi. Their new staff member is the latest addition to Team Meghan, after the couple also hired a housekeeper to look after them at Frogmore Cottage in Windsor.

[From The Sun]

One, the Sun (and other British papers) are doing the most to talk about the Sussexes’ staffing like… the Cambridges didn’t have the exact same arrangement. There was always talk about how the Cambridges got by with minimal staff, especially in the early days of their marriage, but we learned later that they had a housekeeper/cook who came in every day when they lived in Wales. The Cambridges also had William’s old nanny looking after George, and then they hired Nanny Maria when George was a few months old.

As for this new Sussex nanny… the Sun has some blurry photos. She’s a woman of color. I honestly have a pit in the bottom of my stomach because I know we’re about to get days and weeks full of reporting and editorializing about why Meghan is awful/unroyal/breaking protocol for hiring a black woman as a nanny.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and Avalon Red.

Late last week, a curious story trended all over social media, and the headlines were too absurd to be believed: Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland from Denmark. This wasn’t just Ivanka Trump speaking as an unnamed source to some media outlet either – Donald Trump went on the record (during his golf vacation) on camera about his desire to buy Greenland:

President Trump confirmed Sunday that he has asked his administration to explore the possibility of buying Greenland, opining that “essentially, it’s a large real estate deal.”

“A lot of things can be done,” Trump told reporters in Morristown, N.J., after wrapping up a 10-day vacation at his private golf club. He noted that owning Greenland “would be nice” for the United States from a strategic perspective, but he cautioned: “It’s not number one on the burner, I can tell you that.”

Trump’s desire to buy Greenland, which is part of the kingdom of Denmark, was first reported last week by the Wall Street Journal. Two people with direct knowledge of the directive told The Washington Post that the president has mentioned the idea for weeks, and that aides are waiting for more direction before they decide how seriously they should look into it. Trump is scheduled to visit Denmark in two weeks, although he said Sunday that his visit is not related to his interest in Greenland. “Not for this reason at all,” he said.

[From Washington Post]

Because we don’t know who Trump meets with and speaks with, no one really knows how his senile mind caught this idea. Which Russian operative whispered “you should try to buy Greenland”? Whoever it was, it worked – Trump has been obsessed with the idea for weeks, apparently. And of course, the Greenland deal was his entire reason for visiting Denmark. So as Danish politicians were like “LOL, it’s not for sale you absolute moron,” Trump threw a tantrum and tweeted that he is canceling his trip to Denmark:

….The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019

So, he very clearly canceled his trip to Denmark because THEY WOULDN’T SELL HIM GREENLAND. And because Denmark’s female prime minister Mette Frederiksen told him that Greenland is not for sale in no uncertain terms, Toddler Trump is refusing to take a state trip. It’s… all very 2019. From WaPo:

The episode was also a rare window into secret White House national security planning, albeit with a Trumpian dealmaker’s twist and an element of the surreal. Trump touts his real estate background as a primary job qualification, promising voters he can negotiate better than his predecessors and spot a good deal. But the notion of buying a part of another country was widely met with surprise and bafflement when news broke last week of Trump’s interest in the island.

Denmark’s government did not immediately respond to the visit’s cancellation, instead scheduling a news conference for Wednesday morning U.S. time. Danish lawmakers, however, were outraged. “It’s an insult from a close friend and ally,” said Micahel Aastrup Jensen of the influential center right Venstre party, who said talk of purchasing Greenland had originally been viewed by Danes as a joke, not the whole reason for the visit. Over the weekend, Frederiksen had visited Greenland and told reporters there that Trump’s idea of buying the island was “absurd.”

[From WaPo]

Just another sh-tty story in this terrible moment in American politics. No one is coming to save us. Wow, this Greenland story was really depressing in the end, right?

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen: “Thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over.” pic.twitter.com/JOCASC5TEK

— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) August 21, 2019

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

I only learned the studio-history of the Spider-Man property quite recently. Spider-Man was always a Marvel comic, and part of the Marvel universe, but in the ‘80s and ‘90s, Marvel was struggling as a company. During that time, Marvel sold off franchises to other studios, and Spider-Man was sold to Sony. Sony turned Spider-Man into a lucrative franchise with Tobey Maguire, and then Sony tried (and largely failed) to reboot the franchise with Andrew Garfield. Then Marvel worked out a deal to bring Spidey home, but there was a catch – the Tom Holland/Spider-Man universe was a co-production between Sony and Marvel, and Marvel was allowed to “borrow” Spider-Man for other Marvel movies. All in all, the collaboration was a lucrative one and those Tom Holland Spider-Man movies made big money. But now there’s a catch – apparently, the patched-together deal between Sony and Marvel/Disney has fallen through.

Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige won’t produce any further Spider-Man films because of an inability by Disney and Sony Pictures to reach new terms that would have given the former a co-financing stake going forward. A dispute that has taken place over the past few months at the top of Disney and Sony has essentially nixed Feige, and the future involvement of Marvel from the Spider-Man universe, sources said. This comes at a moment when the last two films Kevin Feige produced broke all-time records — Disney’s Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film of all time, and Spider-Man: Far From Home this week surpassed the James Bond film Skyfall to become the all time highest grossing film for Sony Pictures.

Sources said there are two more Spider-Man films in the works that are meant to have director Jon Watts and Tom Holland front and center, though Watts doesn’t have a deal for the next picture. Unless something dramatic happens, Feige won’t be the lead creative producer of those pictures.

There is a lot of webbing here, but it all comes down to money, and it’s easy to understand why both sides refused to give ground. Disney asked that future Spider-Man films be a 50/50 co-financing arrangement between the studios, and there were discussions that this might extend to other films in the Spider-Man universe. Sony turned that offer down flat, and I don’t believe they even came back to the table to figure out a compromise. Led by Tom Rothman and Tony Vinciquerra, Sony just simply didn’t want to share its biggest franchise. Sony proposed keeping the arrangement going under the current terms where Marvel receives in the range of 5% of first dollar gross, sources said. Disney refused. [UPDATE: Sony insiders counter that Rothman did offer compromises but Disney declined.]

Now, it’s easy to say that Feige has enough on his plate, especially after taking control of the X-Men universe in the Fox acquisition, including the Deadpool franchise, along with architecting the next phase of the Marvel superhero universe and building movies and shows for Disney +. But I’m told Feige loves Spider-Man, arguably the biggest superhero character in the Marvel canon. He would have continued if Disney and Sony could have reached new deal terms.

[From Deadline]

Deadline goes on to say that Sony wants to just do Spider-Man films without any involvement from Kevin Feige, and that’s a mistake because Feige has masterminded giant hit after giant hit. Disney wanted to continue with the arrangement, and Feige was looking for any way to stay involved, but Sony’s brass didn’t want him. There’s also the argument being made that Sony wants to mark its territory and establish that they not only own Spider-Man, but all of the secondary Spider-Man characters too – Sony is already producing the Venom sequel, Morbius with Jared Leto and a half-dozen other spinoffs in development.

So, from what I understand, Tom Holland will continue to play Spider-Man for at least two more films, but those films are solely under the Sony banner. And Holland will not be lent out for any future MCU movies, I think, and other Marvel characters will not be lent to Sony. Which… is a big deal to the die-hard stans, I get that. But isn’t Marvel already in their next phase, and won’t that phase be much less Avenger-dependent?

Photos courtesy of WENN.