With The Falcon and the Winter Soldier dropping on Disney+ today—review of episode one coming Monday—the Marvel machine now turns to promoting Loki, which will premiere on June 11. That seems a long way away, but the marketing department must be bored since they are holding off on promoting Black Wi…

I passionately loathe Piers Morgan and I can’t stand writing about him or giving him any air. Piers Morgan is a narcissist, a famewhore, a bully, a misogynist, a stalker and a toxic abuser. We’re not debating any of that – he openly heaped verbal abuse on the Duchess of Sussex for years, on air, in front of millions of viewers every day on Good Morning Britain. He felt so entitled to Meghan that he ripped her to shreds on a daily basis because she refused to pay attention to him. He is toxic white male aggrievement personified, and he has a stupid face to boot.

Piers has still been in the news constantly since he had some kind of thin-skinned meltdown on GMB following the Sussexes’ interview. Within a day, he was fired/allowed to resign from GMB and it turned out that there were thousands of complaints about him, yet Meghan got the blame/credit for ending his GMB career. He’s spent his post-GMB time throwing Twitter tantrums about everything under the sun, from cancel culture to racism to Gayle King:

Piers Morgan has ripped fellow TV host Gayle King for acting as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s “PR mouthpiece” after she dished about the couple’s latest gripes over their split from the royal family.

“Hi @GayleKing — rather than acting as your Sussex friends’ PR mouthpiece to facilitate their ongoing public trashing of our Royal Family, how about doing your job as a journalist and ask them about all the lies they told in @Oprah’s interview?” Morgan tweeted the CBS host Wednesday. “America should hear THE truth,” he insisted.

Morgan’s ongoing insistence that the duchess lied during her bombshell Oprah interview ultimately led to the 55-year-old former tabloid editor quitting as host of the TV show “Good Morning Britain” — following a formal complaint from Markle. Morgan, meanwhile, insisted Wednesday that it was not “‘racist’ to disbelieve someone who’s telling lies.” He added, “You don’t have to agree with a word I say to support my right to have my own opinions.”

[From Page Six]

“It’s not ‘racist’ to disbelieve someone who’s telling lies” says the toxic white man who publicly stalked and harassed a Black woman and then accused that same woman of lying about the racism she experienced. Might I suggest that it is pretty f–king racist? Anyway, a pig is a pig and the whole reason I decided to even talk about this deplorable douchebag is because he will probably find himself employed again sooner rather than later. As much as we wanted to declare victory that we had successfully pushed Piers out of his GMB post, racist white misogynists always land on their feet. In the UK media, that is.

Piers Morgan has always divided TV audiences, but he gained new notoriety this month after taking on the Duchess of Sussex. With two combative UK media outlets about to launch, that could help him land his next job.

Two new UK media ventures — former BBC host Andrew Neil’s GB News and Rupert Murdoch’s News UK TV — are preparing to launch. They’re expected to replicate the contentious and personality-driven political discussions that dominate US cable and talk radio, but are largely absent from British television. And Morgan, a high-profile and outspoken critic of “woke” culture, would be a natural fit.

“He’s certainly someone who generates publicity,” said Patrick Barwise, co-author of the book “The War Against the BBC” and emeritus professor of management and marketing at London Business School. “He would fit that model very well.”

In a recent interview on the BBC, Neil said that Morgan “would be a huge asset to GB News,” and that he’d be “delighted” to talk with him if he’s interested. “Could we find a role for Piers Morgan? Of course we could,” said Neil, who is the network’s founding chairman. “Any network worth its salt could find a role for a broadcaster of his caliber.”

Murdoch’s News UK TV declined to comment on whether it had made the former tabloid newspaper editor an offer. Morgan is fanning gossip about his next move, which includes speculation that he could land in the United States. When The Sun tabloid ran a story with the headline that Morgan was at the center of a £10 million ($13.9 million) bidding war, he tweeted: “Just 10?”

“There is a lot of interest in securing my services,” he told CNN Business, while declining to comment on specific offers.

[From CNN]

So, basically, two new cable news channels are launching in the UK and both want a “legacy” name to help draw attention to their launches and Piers is just the kind of sniveling, whiny, reprehensible, spineless a–hole they’re looking for. I assume both networks will be modeled after Fox News and feature a lot of white men being disgusting about trumped-out “culture wars.” Ugh.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Selma Blair is the kind of exhilaratingly self-aware performer who will cartwheel weeks after a stem cell transplant, then curl up into a ball and laugh about how she wanted to stick the landing, only to lie on the floor dormant before saying, “I’m trying to look dead for a dramatic ending.” These p…

Embed from Getty Images
For all you can say about The Golden Globes, and there is a lot, they had the great idea to create virtual nominee rooms that the at-home audience could watch. They didn’t have the good sense to cut the filler, which was even less entertaining than usual, but they used technology to their advantage. The Emmys last fall with Jimmy Kimmel were not that bad, all things considered. They had a wall of monitors showing people at home and I loved the fact that for nominees living in LA they sent actual people in space suits with boxes to their homes. Nominees who lived out of town got just the boxes to open, which contained a confetti bomb along with a statue for winners. This pandemic is leading awards show to come up with creative ways to use technology to adapt. Only the Oscars are not going to bother to use technology much at all. We’ve already heard that they will only allow nominees plus one guest at the show. The organizers recently sent out an email to nominees saying they’re not going to accommodate anyone zooming in from home. Their reasoning is that “the virtual thing will diminish” everything they’re doing to let people attend in person. How f’cking old and privileged are the organizers? That was meant to be a rhetorical question, but I’ll check. Steven Soderbergh, 58, Stacey Sher, 58, and Jesse Collins, 59, are the show’s producers who sent out that email.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has released new details of the upcoming 2021 Oscars ceremony — including a request for all nominees to attend in person.

In a letter sent out to Oscar nominees on Thursday, producers for April’s award show revealed those nominated will not have the option to Zoom into the live show.

“For those of you unable to attend because of scheduling or continued uneasiness about traveling, we want you to know there will not be an option to Zoom in for the show,” producers Steven Soderbergh, Stacey Sher and Jesse Collins wrote.

The letter continued, “We are going to great lengths to provide a safe and ENJOYABLE evening for all of you in person, as well as for all the millions of film fans around the world, and we feel the virtual thing will diminish those efforts.”

For those unable to attend, the Academy will accept the Oscar on behalf of the artist.

The Academy’s COVID protocol for the live show takes its roots in “treating the event as an active movie set, with specially designed testing cadences to ensure up-to-the-minute results, including an on-site COVID safety team with PCR testing capability.”

The show’s theme was also revealed as “Stories Matter,” with the producers asking talent to take part in interviews where they’ll share their own personal stories. The idea is to connect each person’s story on the Sunday, April 25th award show.

Dress code was also touched on, with producers telling nominees to avoid “casual” attire.

“We’re aiming for a fusion of Inspirational and Aspirational, which in actual words means formal is totally cool if you want to go there, but casual is really not,” the letter said.

[From People]

This is so short-sighted, stubborn and so far behind the times. I get that they’re The Oscars and they want to maintain an air of exclusivity, but this is not it. Testing cannot take the place of masking, social distancing and just staying home. Yes Hollywood is continuing to work but they’re doing it in safe countries like Australia. In the US there are still outbreaks on sets. While the recent Grammys attendees wore masks, they did not have masks on the red carpet. Yes a lot of people have been vaccinated, but vaccines are still hard to come by in California and in some of the countries the nominees come from. Plus many of them will have to travel to get there! Also, how sh-tty does this letter sound? They’re adopting an air of faux youthfulness – “formal is totally cool if you want to go there” – while clinging to an old outdated format for the show. You know it will still be three plus hours too. I was really looking forward to seeing some pets and kids, but The Oscars are going to be interminable as usual.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Emily! Happy Birthday! I had to laugh about how your “fangirling crush criteria” has changed over the last decade. You’ve gone from Twilight to The Untamed – excellent progression! As for your loyalty to Keanu Reeves… well… he’s the security blanket we all need, non?  There aren’t a lot of options f…

Dear Gossips,  Authorities have still not released the identities of all eight of the victims of the shooting that happened in Atlanta this week. They’ve said they have to make sure they can contact family members who don’t live in the United States before they can share the information to the publi…

Two days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview aired on CBS, Buckingham Palace released a four-sentence statement. The background of how the statement came to exist and the very precise wording of it will probably make for an interesting season of The Crown. Apparently, Prince Charles was losing his mind over the interview he wanted to do a larger rebuttal. Meanwhile, William was rage-screaming at the top of his lungs while he punched walls. So it was left to the Queen to officially release this:

“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

As we spoke about at the time, “some recollections may vary” is doing a lot of work. Buckingham Palace’s official position was that Harry & Meghan are much loved and the palace is officially concerned, but the palace still had to give some red meat to racists who wanted to cling to any excuse to continue to abuse Meghan and Harry, this time for “lying about racism.” The Queen did that on purpose, big surprise.

Queen Elizabeth’s statement in response to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey contained a line that stood out. Buckingham Palace released a short, 61-word statement on behalf of the monarch, 94, two days after the interview aired in the U.S. While the Queen said the family was “saddened” to hear of Meghan and Harry’s challenges and stated “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members,” she also remarked that “some recollections may vary” when it comes to the issues and concerns raised in their interview.

The comment was an “underlying jab” and indicates dissent among the family at some of the claims made in the interview, a royal insider tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story.

[From People]

Of course it was an “underlying jab.” I mean, no sh-t Sherlock/“royal insider.” The whole reason the Queen’s statement couldn’t include an explicit jab at her grandson and his wife is because Meghan and Harry had made it clear that they have receipts. By saying “some recollections may vary,” the palace gave itself some wiggle room because they don’t know all of the cards (receipts) Harry and Meghan are holding. The palace does know that it could have been a lot worse though, because while recollections may vary, every one of those a–holes remembers what they did to Harry and Meghan.

Photos courtesy of CBS, Avalon Red.

Post-Oprah-interview, Prince Charles has not been as melodramatically reactive as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Sure, Charles let it be known that he “is at a loss” over the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview and their side of the ordeal. Charles also let it be known that he wanted to do a “point by point rebuttal” of the interview, which sounds about right for him too. But post-interview, Charles has been happy enough to let Kate and William make asses out of themselves while he plays a longer game. There are stark differences in how Clarence House is leaking to American outlets versus British outlets too. Last weekend, this is how Charles’ allies were describing his mood and reaction:

Details of the independent inquiry came as allies of the Prince of Wales accused Harry of “hypocrisy”, challenging his claim that his father had “cut him off” financially. They said Charles was “upset and cut up” about Harry’s remarks during the couple’s interview. A source close to Charles said: “It was a surprise to hear he’d been cut off, given the bank statements. The prince continued to provide Harry and Meghan with financial support after their move to America, while they found their feet.”

A friend of Charles said: “What f***ing hypocrisy. When Harry and Meghan left last year, they wanted to become ‘financially independent’.”

In a further move against Harry and Meghan’s claims, royal sources have expressed dismay at the couple’s allegation that they received no help from the institution when she felt suicidal. Harry added he had not told his family about her mental health struggles because he was “ashamed”. A royal source said: “To throw that at the family, I just couldn’t believe it. His mental health, and hers, were such an open part of the office. Given the number of staff that worked with them, it was a very open part of the conversations generally.”

[From The Sunday Times]

Notice Charles’ allies didn’t say anything about how Charles refused to take Harry’s calls in the winter of 2019/20 And Harry’s main beef was that Charles signed off on the withdrawal of their security. Charles was literally okay with his son, daughter-in-law and grandson dying in North America. Anyway, as you can imagine, Charles’ camp takes a much softer vibe when speaking to an American outlet:

During the couple’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey earlier this month, the Duchess of Sussex said there were “concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be when he’s born” within the royal family. Although they did not specify who made the comment, Oprah later clarified that it was neither Queen Elizabeth or Prince Philip.

Prince Charles “feels enormously let down” by the claims of racism made in the interview, a source close to the royal household tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story.

“The prince believes in diversity and his actions show that,” the source continues. “He was the first person to highlight the Windrush generation [the first mass immigration from the Caribbean to the U.K. in the 1950s] and the contributions they made to British society. He has worked hard for the Muslim community. Of all the members of the royal family, he has taken this issue the most seriously.”

“It’s not a straightforward father-son relationship,” the palace source says. “He is their father and their boss, and they are beholden to him to fund their offices and lives.”

Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth is “worried” about how the racism claims affect the Commonwealth, the 54 countries around the world which view the Queen as their monarch and head of state.

“She will be very worried about how [the racism claims] have gone down in countries she has supported and loved and given her life to throughout her reign,” says a royal insider.

[From People]

While I don’t like Chuck very much at the moment, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that he probably is the *least* racist in his family? That’s not some big prize or anything – clearly, the family is exceedingly racist, so it’s like saying that Chuck is the least racist Klan member. He’s still a member of the Klan! And I’m really starting to feel like Charles probably wasn’t one of the people explicitly talking about the baby’s skin color. I think that was William. Which makes me wonder why Charles is even worried? If the blind item is revealed and it’s William who remarked about skin color, then Chuck is “cleared.” Oh, wait, that would mean his heir is a racist douchebag who is constantly incandescent with rage and Chuck actively tossed aside the better son because William threw a tantrum.

… And of course the Queen is worried about the Commonwealth. She should be.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Thank you to the people who alerted me to these tweets. Over the past two years, we’ve seen time and time again that the British media has a complicit arrangement with Prince William specifically. It’s transactional – media outlets get a whiff of a story involving William and they go to him and he’ll give them something else in exchange. Or they yank his chain whenever they want more photos of his family, but that yanking wouldn’t happen unless they had something they were holding over his head. For the past two years, it’s been clear that one of the things they’ve been holding over his head is his alleged affair with Rose Hanbury, the Marchioness of Cholmondeley, who is his neighbor in Norfolk.

Around this time two years ago was when the affair story was just beginning to spill out into the British papers. A shady item appeared in the Daily Mail, the infamous “rural rivals” story about Kate trying to push Rose out of the Cambridges’ social circle. Then William ran to Richard Kay at the Daily Mail to whine and explicitly throw the Duchess of Sussex under the bus. William spent a lot of time threatening British media about the story. Was there an explicit tit-for-tat, where William served up negative stories about Meghan in exchange for keeping his wandering sceptre out of the news? According to Foreign Policy’s Deputy editor James Palmer, that’s something that’s pretty widely known.

the palace has been protecting Prince William from the tabloids for *years* and has a complicated relationship with newspaper editors, including alternating between sending them legal threats and effectively striking bargains with them to leak on Markle

— James Palmer (@BeijingPalmer) March 18, 2021

this is why British papers weren’t even *touching* William’s alleged affair with Rose Hanbury.

— James Palmer (@BeijingPalmer) March 18, 2021

While Palmer isn’t saying anything that wasn’t already known/believed in gossip circles and royal-media circles, it’s interesting to see it spill out on Twitter from a “legitimate journalist.” I genuinely believe that William and Rose’s “alleged” affair is common knowledge in British, American and international media circles, as well as common knowledge among the British aristocrats and probably the Royal family too. It’s just a matter of seeing which outlet – probably American, I would assume – will be the first one to do a major exposé. And the affair story is SO TIED to the smear campaign against Meghan too. March 2019 was when Meghan was in her last trimester with Archie. She was being viciously ripped to shreds in the British media and so much of that was because William actively made her a target in exchange for the media burying the affair story.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

A few weeks ago, Byline Investigates had a story about how the Sun (the UK tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch) had hired an American private investigator to dig into then-Meghan Markle’s life in 2016. It was soon after the British tabloids learned that Prince Harry and Meghan were quietly dating throughout the summer of 2016, and a rash of stories about Meghan began appeared in those tabloids starting in September 2016. The private investigator got so much information about Meghan, her family, her colleagues, and a lot more. He even got her Social Security number. The investigator passed it all along to the Sun. All of that has now been confirmed, and Meghan and Harry reacted to the news.

A US private investigator has told BBC News he was paid by the Sun newspaper to obtain personal information about the Duchess of Sussex in the early days of her relationship with Prince Harry. But Daniel Hanks says he unlawfully accessed detailed information including Meghan’s social security number. The Sun’s publisher said it requested legitimate research and instructed Mr Hanks he must act lawfully.

Meghan and Harry said it was a “moment of reflection” for the media industry.

BBC News has seen the so-called “comprehensive report on Meghan and her family” which the investigator, also known as Danno Hanks, passed to the Sun. It included her phone number, addresses and social security number as well as information on her family members. His report also included information on her ex-husband and a former boyfriend. In the US, licensed private investigators are allowed full access to databases of personal information for some permitted reasons such as court reports. But accessing this additional level of detail for journalistic purposes is unlawful.

Mr Hanks said: “Pretty much everything I found out they could find out themselves using legal means – with the exception of the social security numbers. When you have that information… it’s the key to the kingdom.”

While there is no evidence it happened in this instance, social security numbers in particular could potentially be used to further other intrusive investigations.

A spokesman for Harry and Meghan said: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex feel that today is an important moment of reflection for the media industry and society at large, as this investigative report shows that the predatory practices of days past are still ongoing, reaping irreversible damage for families and relationships. They are grateful to those working in media who stand for upholding the values of journalism, which are needed now more than ever before.”

[From BBC]

It really was so much, so fast for Meghan. She met a cute prince, said why not, then everything went sideways in a few months. The only thing she could hold onto, to anchor her, was Harry, who had some inkling about how his future wife would be treated. But holy sh-t, if I was dating a guy and after a few months, a national British paper gained access to my Social Security number and all of my vital information – not to mention the information about my family – I would be out the door. It wasn’t Harry’s fault, of course. This part of it wasn’t even the Windsors’ fault. But I would not have been able to handle it with any grace. I would have sued everybody and thrown a huge incandescent fit. While it’s not clear whether Meghan knew – at the time – that a private investigator had accessed her SSN, she knew pretty quickly that September/October that the media had their hands on her address, phone numbers, and family information. The Murdoch media empire needs to be dismantled, my God.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.