In June 2016, John Oliver announced during an episode of Last Week Tonight that he had formed a debt-acquisition company. He purchased and forgave almost $15 million of medical debt for 9,000 people. The crazy part is that it only cost $60,000 to acquire that much money of other people?s debt. It really highlighted how corrupt the whole damn system really is.

John?s generous stunt actually ended up inspiring none other than Michael Sheen to do something similar. For the last two years, Michael spent around ?100,000 of his own money to buy around ?1 million worth of debt owed by approximately 900 of his south Wales neighbors. Once purchased, he immediately canceled all of it. He also filmed it as a documentary titled, Michael Sheen?s Secret Million Pound Giveaway, which aired on Channel 4 in the UK on Tuesday, March 11.

Not everyone knows that he canceled their debt: He doesn?t know who they are (data protection stopped that), but he hopes that the programme will alert those who hadn?t realised their debts had been cancelled (the people who might have been ignoring the scary letters that come through the door), as well as shine a light into the dark corners of high-cost credit, and what happens when debts are sold on to collectors.

The UK?s cost of living crisis: It feels more timely than ever, in a cost of living crisis where 20 million people are financially vulnerable ? but this is an area Sheen, 56, has been working on since 2018, when he set up the End High Cost Credit Alliance. He became interested when he was still living in Los Angeles in 2016, and watched John Oliver?s Last Week Tonight show spend about $60,000 to buy up $15m worth of medical debt and wipe it. Wondering if he could do something similar, he found it was harder in the UK, but by then he was hooked ? appalled at the way the poorest people were forced to use high-interest credit that had become impossible to pay off. Or, worse, were turning to loan sharks.

What opened his eyes to others? struggles: Sheen traces his change in focus to a decade earlier, when he staged his version of The Passion, the three-day epic, in Port Talbot. Working with 1,000 local people brought him into contact with many community organisations. ?I was learning about what was going on that I was totally unaware of, growing up,? he says. (He was born in Newport but moved to Port Talbot with his family when he was eight.) He realised that it was ?partly because you sort of didn?t want to know?.

He saw the caregivers: It was painful to learn, for instance, about the town?s young carers ? children who were looking after ill or disabled parents ? and to see that among the few bits of support available was a small organisation that took them bowling or to the cinema once a week. Another woman who had lost her son, a schoolfriend of Sheen?s, had set up a small grief counselling organisation to fill a gap. ?And then, a couple of months later, I come back and the money?s gone, that?s cut. It started making me not only become aware of what people were doing, but also aware of how underfunded it was. And then it made me ask the question, ?Well, why is that???

Unicef also opened his eyes: There were other flashpoints. Visiting a refugee camp with Unicef, he watched a hungry child pick grains of rice out of caked mud; feeling wretched, Sheen asked how soon he could get money from his bank account to that specific child, and was told it didn?t really work like that. It had a profound effect. ?I remember making a kind of a deal with myself and saying ?? His voice breaks and his eyes well up. ?I?m not going to get money to that kid, but I could only not do that if I?m then going to do something else. Going, ?Right, I can see that there?s a way of walking away from here, going home, back to your life, and no one?s going to blame you. But you?re not going to do that.??

It?s easier to be a decent human being: Being wilfully blinkered wouldn?t necessarily have been the easy option. ?I suppose that?s how you end up eating yourself from the inside. So no, I would say this is the easier thing.?

On feeling powerless to help: ?I think one of the most destructive things about the way we live now is that we?re constantly surrounded by injustice or a sense of things that are not right, and yet feeling like we can?t do anything about it. I?ve learned that by engaging in whatever way it is, it at least allows you to feel like you?re doing something.?

The system is broken: ?The system doesn?t work any more,? he says. ?But people find it easier to imagine the end of the world than something that?s a credible alternative to capitalism. I think people really feel there?s something intrinsically wrong and flawed with the system, and recognise that it needs radical change, but the only people who are offering radical change are people who are dangerous. And there?s no good end to that.?

What comes next? He knows his ?heist? is attention-grabbing, ?and also hopefully helps the 900 or however many people that we?ve actually been able to get rid of some of the debt. But it?s also about: how do you create change and do something that can help thousands or millions of people?? The Fair Banking Act is one solution, which would essentially encourage banks to offer affordable credit to people previously excluded based on their income, background or where they live.

Why he put up his own money: ?It shows that you?re serious about what you?re doing, but it also encourages other people to take that step.? It?s the same, he says, when it comes to being so public about it. ?I?ve heard people say, ?He can?t be that selfless, because he?s letting everyone know he?s doing it.? That?s something I had to think about, and I made a conscious choice.? He knows he can offer his profile and cash, bringing attention to issues. ?I never feel like it?s about me ? mainly it?s about working with other people or highlighting what they do. I?m not doing it because I want people to think I?m great; I want us to be able to imagine an alternative to this, because this doesn?t work. And in my own little way, I?m trying to create my own alternative. It doesn?t have to be the way it is.?

[From The Guardian]

This is awesome. He changed 900 lives! I just wish that we didn?t live in a world where this was even necessary. I also find it really outstanding that all of the debt owners have remained anonymous. No one has been identified against their will or hounded by the press to give statements or profess their gratitude.

So yeah, I love that Michael did this and that he even used his own money to prove that he?s serious about it. In a world that is increasingly easy for rich people to bury their heads in the sand, I?m impressed that he?s not only used his money for good but that he?s taken the time to learn about how people who aren?t as privileged as he is live. He took that and chose to grow and do good. Again, I hate that it?s come down to this, but I hope that other celebrities pick up on this trend.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos credit: CelebrityPhotosUK/Cover Images, PA Images/INSTARimages and Getty

As the Queen said, ?You know you that bitch when you cause all this conversation.? Queen Beyonce, that is, who did you think I was referencing? Obviously, people are still talking about the Duchess of Sussex and her new Netflix show, With Love, Meghan. Bitter people have thoughts, Daily Mail columnists have thoughts, random comedians have thoughts, British chefs have thoughts, trade paper ?critics? have thoughts and on and on. Who would have thought that a gentle little food/lifestyle show would become one of the biggest cultural conversations of the year?

One big discourse from WLM is about Meghan?s name. There?s a scene in the Mindy Kaling episode where Mindy called her ?Meghan Markle? and Meghan corrects her, saying ?I?m Sussex now.? You would have thought Meghan slapped QEII?s surviving corgi, the ink that?s been spilled over analyzing that one brief moment. Meghan was ?rude? to Mindy (nope), Meghan was wrong to use her title as a surname (nope), Meghan is breaking every royal protocol out there (lol). Well, Vogue and USA Today have already run ?explainers? for the ?Meghan Sussex? controversy, but I wasn?t expecting the g?damn New York Times to join in with their own piece: ?Wait, What Is Meghan?s Last Name? The Duchess of Sussex caused a stir on ?With Love, Meghan? when she said Sussex was her last name. But does that break from royal tradition?? An excerpt from the NYT:

It?s understandable that Meghan, whose representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment, insists on usage of what she feels is the correct form of her name. But as with most Meghan-related news, the clip quickly made waves online as people took to social media to criticize her. Some commenters thought she was being pretentious, and others called her out for seemingly having confused her royal house with the family?s surname.

Two days after the new series premiered, during an appearance on ?The View,? Ms. Kaling said that she had ?a great time? on the show, despite critics who felt like Meghan had behaved in a passive aggressive way toward her.

There is still some debate, however, on Meghan?s last name.

?She?s either totally oblivious to what her actual name is, she doesn?t understand it or she?s lying,? Hilary Fordwich, a royal family expert, said in a phone interview. Ms. Fordwich explained that while it isn?t new for a member of the royal family to choose to go by their birth titles (Prince Harry went by Harry Wales during his time in the British army), that doesn?t make it their family name.

?By established protocol, he can use Harry Sussex, which I?ve never heard him use,? she said. ?She could choose to use Meghan Sussex, but it?s not their surname. This was the issue in that Netflix clip.?

However, Rachel Bowie, the royals editor for the lifestyle website PureWow, didn?t think what Meghan said was problematic at all, adding that it?s ?totally within royal protocol? and she didn?t see it as a formal change.

?Even though Archie and Lili were christened ?Mountbatten-Windsor,? Harry and Meghan are borrowing Sussex from their title to make up their last name,? Ms. Bowie, who was previously the co-host of the ?Royally Obsessed? podcast, said in a phone interview. ?I never read it as Meghan formally changing her name, but more as this symbolic thing for herself, that she feels this connection, between the four of them, that they move through the world under the name Sussex,? she added.

Opinions have continued to roll in, even from relatives of Harry and Meghan. Lord Ivar Mountbatten, a cousin of King Charles III and a reality television star on ?The Traitors,? claimed she had been wrong about her own surname in an interview he gave to Town & Country, saying the family?s surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. ?Her children are called Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor; they?re not called Archie and Lilibet Sussex, because Sussex is a title,? he said.

[From The NY Times]

The Times then went around, trying to figure out the actual rules about surnames and the Windsors, and came back with nothing confirmed. Probably because the Windsors make it up as they go along? Everyone is breaking royal protocol until William and Kate do it, you know? Then it?s fine. Harry and William used ?Wales? as a surname in school and in the military when they were the sons of the Prince of Wales. Obviously, Harry intends for his wife and children to do the same with Sussex. I would also imagine that William?s kids are now using Wales as their surname in school, just as they initially used Cambridge as a surname before their dad became PoW. What kills me is that literally all of these ?royal experts? know that, and know that Meghan is totally within her rights to call herself Meghan Sussex. ?She?s either totally oblivious to what her actual name is, she doesn?t understand it or she?s lying.? Get a massive grip, you harpy.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images & Netflix.

Hugh Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, married his wife Olivia last year, in what was called (by the British press) the ?wedding of the year,? if not the wedding of the decade. They hyped the wedding so much, I was really expecting something very grand. It? did not turn out that way. Hugh and Olivia got married at a local Chester cathedral, and the wedding planners (??) decided to lay down beige-carpeted plywood as a sort of ?platform? for the wedding party. The whole thing looked extremely budget. I wasn?t a fan of Olivia?s bridal look either, but others thought she looked nice. Part of the reason why the British press hyped the wedding so much was because Prince William wanted everyone to know that Hugh invited him and NOT HARRY. As it turned out, Hugh did invite Harry, and Harry declined the invitation.

Another reason why the Grosvenor/Westminster wedding was so hyped was because the family is stinking rich. The Grosvenors own a wide swath of prime London real estate and a grand country estate (which basically supports a whole county). When Hugh and Olivia married, they promised to recommit themselves to the country estate and start a family. Well, not even one year later and Olivia is expecting!

Congratulations are in order for the Duke and Duchess of Westminster, Hugh and Olivia Grosvenor, who are expecting their first child.

A spokesperson for the couple said in a statement released on March 12: ?The Duke and Duchess of Westminster are very pleased to share that the Duchess is expecting a baby in the summer. The couple are delighted with the news and are very much looking forward to starting a family together.?

The child has some royal ties even before its birth, as Hugh is close friends with Prince William and Prince Harry. The Duke of Westminster is also a godfather to both of their first sons: Prince George and Prince Archie.

The Duke and Duchess tied the knot on June 7, 2024, with Prince William serving as an usher for the ceremony at Chester Cathedral. Princess Eugenie was also a guest at the high society wedding. While Prince Harry declined an invitation to the wedding, a source told PEOPLE at the time that his absence from Hugh?s wedding was an ?understanding between the two friends.?

Hugh and Olivia met through friends, and he proposed to her at Eaton Hall, his family?s ancestral seat on the outskirts of Chester. The couple gave back to his hometown before their big day, visiting the children?s programs that the Westminster Foundation puts on at Chester Castle.

Hugh?s ties to the royal family trace back generations. He is a godson of King Charles and his mother, Natalia, is a godmother to Prince William.

[From People]

Congrats to them! I?m glad they were able to start their family so quickly. They honestly seem like a pretty lowkey couple ? when I wrote about them last year, I could not find any photos of them attending society events or even charity fundraisers. It?s a different thing when you?re British and you inherit that kind of money, I guess. Which is why it was so tacky that William was briefing about Hugh?s wedding to the Times of London ? Hugh and Olivia clearly wanted no part of William?s childishness and look-at-me-Harry antics. Whenever this child is born, I predict that William will go on another briefing spree about how Hugh asked him AND NOT HARRY to be the godfather to this next-gen Grosvenor.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

For years, Prince William was actually the honorary patron of the Irish Guards, but it was always expected that his wife would turn up on St. Patrick?s Day. It?s the tradition for the Irish Guards, to have a female royal come to their barracks every March 17th to pass out shamrocks to the guards and pin shamrocks on their Irish Wolfhound. In 2023, William had to step back from the Irish Guards patronage ? he was given his father?s old Welsh Guards patronage, because he cannot have both apparently ? and so that was when Kate was officially made the honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards. Her first St. Patrick?s Day as the stand-alone honorary colonel was last year, and she did not show up. Obviously, she was ill and in hiding. But she will make her grand return on Monday. No mention if William will join her.

Kate Middleton is set to toast with a pint of Guinness this St. Patrick?s Day! On March 11, Kensington Palace confirmed that the Princess of Wales will visit the Irish Guards at the St. Patrick?s Day parade in Wellington Barracks on the holiday. Kate, 43, was named the honorary Colonel of the Irish Guards in 2022 but was a regular at the annual March 17 event even before that, often accompanying her husband, Prince William, who held the position before her.

Monday?s appearance will mark a return to the event for Princess Kate, who missed last year?s parade amid her health battles. The royal was recovering from a January 2024 abdominal surgery, and she revealed later in March 2024 that she had been diagnosed with cancer.

The Irish Guards kept the Princess of Wales in their thoughts, giving her three cheers at the end of their celebratory parade.

At Monday?s parade, Princess Kate will take part in various traditions. She?ll award long service and good conduct medals to soldiers within the regiment before joining the parade to present sprigs of shamrock to the officers and guardsmen. Their Irish Wolf Hound regimental mascot also usually receives some shamrocks as well as a sweet pat from the royal. The parade will conclude with a royal salute and march past where Kate will take the salute as colonel.

[From People]

I?ve always wondered why Kate didn?t embrace this more, or take on more military patronages before she was forced to when QEII died. It?s a pretty easy gig for a female royal ? stand around in a dress or some kind of military cosplay and flirt with men in uniform. Diana used to love all of her military patronages, but she had a thing for men in uniform. Anyway, I hope Kate has a good time. They?ll expect her to have a pint of Guinness too.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

Cate Blanchett wore Louis Vuitton to the London premiere of Black Bag. I?m not feeling this look whatsoever. It?s like she?s lost her style mojo? [RCFA]
Tiger Woods ruptured his Achilles tendon & he?s already had a ?successful? surgery on it. He will miss the Masters. [Just Jared]
Riley Keough & so many celebs went to the Chanel show. [LaineyGossip]
Chappell Roan?s makeup is so bad, omg. [Socialite Life]
Gene Hackman & the ?celebrity death industrial complex.? [Pajiba]
Nicole Kidman went to SXSW. [Go Fug Yourself]
Lady Gaga has learned a lot from Taylor Swift. [OMG Blog]
Rick Astley sang some AC/DC. [Seriously OMG]
The Duggars ?reunited? in Hawaii. Poor Hawaii. [Starcasm]
They?re turning Sudiksha Konanki, the student mysteriously missing in the Dominican Republic, into the next Natalee Holloway. [Hollywood Life]
Can you name all 21 EGOTers? [Buzzfeed]

Brain worm-addled Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made many incorrect and half baked claims. Jr?s belief that ?seed oils? are unhealthy is lower stakes than the misinformation he spreads about vaccines. It?s still wrong-headed and could contribute to poorer health, however. The Associated Press reviewed the research and spoke to a nutrition science professor who said research shows that plant-based oils are actually better for us, in certain contexts, than beef tallow or butter. When ?seed oil? is part of a diet high in ultraprocessed food it can of course be bad for us, but when used as part of a balanced diet vegetable oil can be a better choice than butter or lard.

I read that AP article and was still a bit confused about the differences between ?seed? oil and beef tallow so I?d also like to quote an article by The Cleveland Clinic, which breaks down why these types of oils have been demonized.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new health secretary, has said Americans are being ?unknowingly poisoned? by seed oils and has called for fast-food restaurants to return to using beef tallow, or rendered animal fat, in their fryers instead.

In response to consumer concerns, some food-makers have stripped seed oils from their products. Restaurants like the salad chain Sweetgreen have removed them from their menus?

The seed oil discussion has exasperated nutrition scientists, who say decades of research confirms the health benefits of consuming such oils, especially in place of alternatives such as butter or lard.

?I don?t know where it came from that seed oils are bad,? said Martha Belury, an Ohio State University food science professor?

Simply put, they are oils extracted from plant seeds. They include eight commonly targeted by critics: canola, corn, cottonseed, grapeseed, soybean, sunflower, safflower and rice bran.

Seed oils are typically made by pressing or crushing the seeds and then processing them further with chemicals and heat to remove elements that can leave the oil cloudy or with an unpleasant taste or odor.

The result of such refining is a neutral-tasting oil that is inexpensive, shelf-stable and able to be heated at a high temperature without smoking, said Eric Decker, a food science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst?

?Scientists who study omega-6 and omega-3 think we need both,? Belury said. ?Seed oils do not increase acute or chronic inflammation markers.?

In addition, research from the American Heart Association and others has consistently shown that plant-based oils reduce so-called bad cholesterol, lowering the risk of heart disease and stroke, especially compared with sources high in saturated fat?

That?s found in new research from Brigham and Women?s Hospital scientists as well. A study of more than 200,000 adults over more than 30 years released Thursday found that people who ate the highest amounts of butter had a 15% higher risk of dying than those who ate the least. People who ate the most plant-based oils ? including seed oils ? had a 16% lower risk than those who ate the least.

Dr. Daniel Wang, who led the research, said new modeling data suggests that swapping less than a tablespoon a day of butter for equal calories of plant-based oils could lower premature deaths from cancer and overall mortality by 17%. Such a small daily change could result in ?a substantial benefit,? Wang said. ? From AP

---

Seed oils aren?t necessarily good for you. But the real reason they?re considered so bad for you is related to how they?re most often used: in processed foods and ultra-processed foods.

?Most seed oils are utilized in the form of packaged foods, fast foods and eating out,? Zumpano says, ?and that?s where most of the danger lies.?

But you?re most likely to consume seed oils when you?re eating something that?s already pretty bad for your health ? something that?s also full of fat, sugar and sodium?

Occasionally frying your breakfast potatoes in a little bit of sunflower oil isn?t going to throw your body into disarray. But there are some caveats.

?It?s important to note that these oils shouldn?t be cooked at high temperatures or reused,? Zumpano cautions. ?That really worsens their negative effects.?

And if you want to stop consuming seed oils entirely, she says there are no downsides to doing so.

?When people say they?re cutting seed oils from their diet, what they really end up doing is cutting out many processed foods,? she continues. ?I think that?s why we often hear about seed oils as being so bad for your health. But the reality is that it?s less about the seed oils themselves and more about the fact that they?re so often found in ultra-processed foods.? ? From The Cleveland Clini

[From AP and The Cleveland Clinic]

I learned some things from The Cleveland Clinic article particularly and am going to try to cook with avocado oil. I think this quote sums it up ?the reality is that it?s less about the seed oils themselves and more about the fact that they?re so often found in ultra-processed foods.? (This article, from MassGeneral hospital, has a very concise summary if you?re looking for just the highlights.) Most of us could benefit from eating less highly processed foods and less fried foods, but that?s not what this debate is about. What?s more is that using beef tallow to fry fast food isn?t the answer for so many reasons. There?s no proof that it?s ?healthier,? as the AP?s expert noted, it doesn?t accommodate people who follow a plant-based diet, people who don?t eat meat for religious reasons, or the growing number of us who are allergic to beef and pork. It?s also much more taxing on the environment to use animal-based fats.

I hate that these people fixate on one thing, don?t examine the context, and then decide something is ?bad? or ?good.? We?re living in the Idiocracy era, except the dumbasses in charge of everything aren?t just stupid, they?re evil.

Photos credit: Max Avans, Athena Sandrini and Bulat Khamitov on Pexels

Have you noticed that a lot of men are really in their feelings about Gisele Bundchen divorcing Tom Brady and moving on quickly with Joaquim Valente? To make matters worse for those dudes, Gisele got pregnant with Joaquim and welcomed a healthy baby boy in her 40s. I think dudes are upset because Gisele wasn?t happy being ?Tom Brady?s wife? and they wanted her post-divorce life to be one of desperation and sadness rather than joy. They didn?t want her to move on so thoroughly from the man they consider the GOAT. Nevermind that if Tom had simply kept his word to Gisele about retirement and been a better partner to her, she probably never would have left him. In any case, sources close to Gisele insist that she?s happier and freer than ever. Like a giant Botoxed weight has been lifted!

Gisele B?ndchen feels ?freer? since she began dating Joaquim Valente, a source exclusively tells Page Six. The supermodel ?felt like she lived in Tom [Brady?s] shadow for a long time,? the insider says.

The former couple ? who called it quits on their 13-year marriage in 2022 ? share son Benjamin, 15, and daughter Vivian, 12. The Super Bowl champion is also dad to son Jack, 17, whom he shares with ex Bridget Moynahan.

B?ndchen and Valente began dating in June 2023 and have kept a low profile since welcoming their first child together in early February. The Brazilian model is ?grateful for what she had? with the former New England Patriots quarterback, 47, and ?is blessed for their children.?

But Gisele, 44, ?feels freer? with her jiu-jitsu trainer boyfriend, 37, and is ?absolutely loving this new chapter,? according to the source.

Reps for Brady and B?ndchen did not immediately respond to Page Six?s requests for comment. As Page Six previously reported, Brady was ?stunned? when he learned B?ndchen was having a baby with Valente.

?Tom knew that things were serious between Gisele and Joaquim, but he never imagined they would be having a child together,? our source said at the time. ?It just wasn?t something that was on his radar. So when Gisele broke the news to him, he was stunned, to say the least.?

However, the Fox Sports NFL broadcaster reached out to congratulate his ex-wife when news broke that she and Valente had welcomed their child. A source close to the NFL legend told us that he?s happy for B?ndchen and wishes her nothing but the best.

[From Page Six]

I?ll give Tom some credit ? I genuinely don?t believe he has any ill-will towards Gisele, and he probably does wish her the best. But Tom?s fans? Yeah, their projection has skyrocketed. Anyway, I hope Gisele really is feeling free, and more than that, I hope she?s found a partner who will really support her in every way.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Instagram.

I swear I pay attention to industry gossip, and I knew that Disney?s live-action remake of Snow White was beset with various controversies, but I didn?t know that it had gotten THIS bad. How bad? Disney can?t even host a real premiere in Los Angeles, and they can?t have an open red carpet with wide press coverage. Instead, the March 15th premiere will be limited to still photographers, no TV/media outlets and an in-house Disney team trying to put a bow on this catastrophic exercise. Variety listed all of the issues which are plaguing this movie and it?s a lot. This makes Karla Sofia Gascon?s social-media mess look quaint.

Disney is hosting a Hollywood premiere of ?Snow White? on March 15, but the studio won?t be rolling out a robust red carpet like it usually does. The afternoon festivities will include a pre-party and screening at the El Capitan Theatre with titular star Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot, who plays the Evil Queen, expected to attend. However, the red carpet will not include the dozens of media outlets usually invited by Disney to interview the cast and creatives at its premieres. Instead, coverage will be limited to photographers and a house crew.

The studio did not comment for this story, but the scaled back plans come amid controversies surrounding the Marc Webb-directed film, which hits theaters March 21. Some toxic Disney fans questioned Snow White being played by Zegler when her casting was announced because she is a Latina actor. The ?West Side Story? star also faced backlash when she called the 1937 original ?dated? because the prince ?literally stalks Snow White.?

Peter Dinklage spoke out about the movie?s portrayal of little people for perpetuating negative stereotypes. ?Literally no offense to anything, but I was sort of taken aback,? he said on the ?WTF With Mark Maron? podcast in January 2024. ?They were very proud to cast a Latino actress as Snow White, but you?re still telling the story of ?Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.? Take a step back and look at what you?re doing there.? Shortly following Dinklage?s remarks, Disney said in a statement to ?Good Morning America,? ?To avoid reinforcing stereotypes from the original animated film, we are taking a different approach with these seven characters and have been consulting with members of the dwarfism community.?

World politics have also come into play. Zegler has promoted ?free Palestine? on social media. At the same time, Gadot, who is Israeli, has become an outspoken supporter of Israel on social media as well as in a passionate speech she delivered on March 4 when she was honored at the Anti-Defamation League?s annual summit in New York City. ?Never did I imagine that on the streets of the United States, and different cities around the world, we would see people not condemning Hamas, but celebrating, justifying and cheering on a massacre of Jews,? she said, in part. Gadot has stayed away from politics in the past, but has said she felt she needed to speak up after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

In February, several dozen pro-Palestine protesters gathered outside the Hollywood premiere of ?Captain America: Brave New World? and called for a boycott of the film over its inclusion of the Israeli superhero Ruth Bat-Seraph, aka Sabra, played by Israeli actress Shira Haas.

MAGA supporters also blasted Zegler for her reaction to Donald Trump?s reelection when she posted on Instagram, in part, ?May Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself never know peace.? She apologized for her remarks two days later.

[From Variety]

I knew most of the Zegler stuff ? white supremacists are mad that a Latina was cast as Snow White, and those same white supremacists are unsurprisingly also pissed that Zegler thinks Donald Trump and his supporters are trash. I also knew about Peter Dinklage?s criticism and I still don?t really understand how Disney thought they could avoid a complete sh-tstorm by making this live-action adaptation and ?keeping? those seven characters. As for a political beef between Gadot and Zegler? Disney made them present together at the Oscars, so both women can make the effort to play nice when it suits them (or when it suits Disney). I strongly suspect that it?s not about the alleged Zegler-Gadot beef ? I think Disney is limiting the premiere access simply because they don?t want protesters out in force against Gadot specifically, like what happened at the Captain America premiere.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

It really does not look like the Princess of Wales will ever travel for work again. No more royal tours, no more overseas visits, no more day-trips to Denmark. Kate will travel, but only for pleasure. Only for vacations. Meanwhile, Prince William?s next solo overseas trip has just been announced. He?ll head to Estonia this month for a mostly military-themed visit.

The Prince of Wales will carry out a solo overseas trip to Estonia this month, in his role as Colonel-in-Chief of the Mercian Regiment. Prince William, 42, will travel to the country in northeastern Europe from Thursday 20 March to Friday 21 March to learn about how the regiment is bolstering NATO?s eastern flank as part of Operation Cabrit.

During the two-day visit, the future King will also carry out engagements in Tallinn to learn more about how the country has responded to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and how Estonia is innovating in renewable energy and technology.

William will begin the first day of his trip by meeting Alar Karis, President of Estonia ? which has been prominent among those giving military equipment and political support to Ukraine.

He will also visit a school founded by the Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia in May 2022 to respond to the war in Ukraine, and the Prince will meet teachers from Ukraine to hear about their experiences at the school, and how they have helped students settle in Tallinn and looked after their mental wellbeing. William founded his Earthshot Prize to help recognise and scale-up solutions to repair the planet, and he will also attend an event to learn about renewable energy start-ups.

The following day will be spent at Tapa Army Base where William, a former Army officer, will meet Estonian soldiers and attend a handover ceremony as The Mercian Regiment takeover from The Royal Dragoon Guards.

[From Hello]

I would imagine that this was something William was asked to do as part of the British concerns that Donald Trump is going to blow up the situation in Ukraine and leave Europe vulnerable to all kinds of Russian aggression. Plus, William simply doesn?t do enough with his military patronages, and he does look for any excuse to wear any uniform at any given time (take that, Harry!). Anyway, it sounds like a perfectly normal two-day tour. I wonder why no one expected Kate to go? If she can go to Mustique, surely she can go to Estonia.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

My theory: I think the British press is cold-calling various celebrities and chefs and asking them to either provide disparaging comments on the Duchess of Sussex and With Love, Meghan, or these celebrities and chefs are just being asked to sign off on/perform prewritten scripts. Because there?s a growing industry of ?white chefs/celebrities commenting about WLM out of nowhere.? I guess the Daily Mail was sick of just getting the same old ?royal commentators? to bloviate about Meghan, so this is their new thing. because why the f?k is some completely random, British-based comedian giving detailed commentary on why she hates Meghan and WLM and why does she sound like she?s reading off the Mail?s talking points?

Comedian Katherine Ryan has publicly laid into Meghan Markle, who she previously defended, in the wake of her much-derided Netflix series, With Love, Meghan.

?I liked Meghan Markle. I was rooting for Meghan Markle? though she is very Hollywood ? even for me ? and I don?t like that in people,? admitted Katherine, 41. ?I see now, and maybe it?s just the projects she?s choosing, it does feel like she has lied about whether she knew who Prince Harry was, and these details about her childhood change and don?t add up.?

Katherine defended the former actress in 2022, commenting on her position in the Royal Family: ?I love Meghan Markle?s voice and her confidence to challenge the norm and what?s expected of her in that role.?

However, speaking yesterday on the latest episode of her podcast, Telling Everybody Everything, Katherine added: ?She said on her new Netflix show that they ate TV dinners growing up. But then in an old interview, she was like, ?we would eat farm fresh?. Her whole act just seems very manicured and very forced. I?ve known a lot of Hollywood people ? they?re not bad people. I don?t think she?s a bad person, but I think she likes cosying up to celebrities and she wants the hundred million dollar deal and she likes the fact that she?s married to a prince. Of course. But I would rather someone lean into that and be like, oh my God, I used to be on Suits and now I?m married to a prince! I would rather that than this act of: Oh, I?m just so humble.?

Canadian-born Katherine, who lives in London with her three children and civil partner Bobby Kootstra, said she found Meghan?s ?flower sprinkles? particularly galling.

?I have seen this, I have seen it from chefs ? they like to put wild flowers on a meal. And I?m not about it. I also don?t think it constitutes an entire cooking show.?

She added: ?People are hate-watching it though. Who knows what Netflix are doing? They are smart ? whether they love something or hate something, whatever keeps them watching more episodes. If this was Netflix?s intention, to be like, let?s throw Meghan under the bus where even people who really liked her are turning? not against her, but? she just doesn?t seem to be the kind of gal I would want to be friends with. It?s too manicured, it?s too beige.?

Katherine adds of Meghan?s decision to change her surname to Sussex: ?I think less of women who change their name anyway, to match their husband?s name ? unless you have had a chat about it and unless you have approached that decision with equality. Let?s be honest about why you?re choosing Sussex. It?s a way to hang on to the Duchess of Sussex.?

[From The Daily Mail]

Do you want me to even start with this? As I said, it has the feel of someone performing a script. That?s what I thought of Jameson Stocks? comments too ? it had the sound of something cooked up by a Daily Mail writer. Unless that?s how every British person sounds, and that?s how you have to talk if you enter the UK. In the case of this white woman?we?ve seen, over the years, the way certain white gals just can?t stand that Meghan married the good prince and dipped out of that salty island. Those same gals cannot get over the fact that Meghan actually won, that she?s living a soft life, that she was not robbed of her joy, her marriage or her children.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Netflix.