Do you think the Duchess of Sussex knew exactly what she was doing this week by emphasizing that her surname is ?Sussex?? I think she did. I think she laid a trap for the royalists and they promptly went DEFCON 1 about Meghan?s title, surname, royal protocol and that one moment in With Love, Meghan. The moment where Mindy Kaling called her ?Meghan Markle? and Meghan corrects her with ?I?m Sussex now.? Whether or not she planned this out, it?s all worked in her favor brilliantly. She exposed what those ?bullying? accusations were all about (Meghan correcting someone or stating a preference, and British people projecting all manner of insane things on her), she rebranded herself internationally AND by the end of the week, even the royalists had to admit that it?s totally fine if she goes by Meghan Sussex. From Becky English?s latest in the Daily Mail, ?Can Meghan REALLY call herself Meghan Sussex? What royal protocol says about her preferred name.?

The Duchess?s insistence on using her title as a surname has caused a stir amongst royal-watchers, with many questioning her decision to adopt ?Sussex? as her family name, particularly in light of the couple?s limited connection to the county. They have only ever officially visited the region once ? for just six hours ? after a whistle-stop tour in October 2018 taking in Brighton, Chichester and Peacehaven.

While members of the Royal Family entitled to the style of HRH Prince or Princess do not actually need a use surname day to day, according to Buckingham Palace, officially the family?s name is Mountbatten-Windsor ? and is recorded as such on both Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet?s birth certificates. This dates back to 1960 when Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh decided they would like their own direct descents to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family, without changing the name of the Royal House (which had been Windsor since 1917, after George V anglicised the name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as a result of anti-German public sentiment).

However it may come as a surprise to some to learn that Meghan is not actually wrong either.
In fact members of the Royal Family ? indeed, the peerage generally -often use their dukedom or title as a ?shorthand surname?. Hence Harry was always known as Harry Wales when at school and in the military as a nod to his father, King Charles, then the Prince of Wales. William has also always used the named Wales, and his children do so too now.

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie (at least before they got married) also used the surname York, after their father, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. But the children of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, who while entitled to be referred to as HRHs have chosen not to use their titles, use Mountbatten-Windsor.

It is, therefore, not entirely surprising at all that Harry and Meghan would choose to have their children, Archie and Lilibet, known as Sussex, or that they would use it as well.

Wendy Bosberry-Scott, editor of Debrett?s Peerage and Baronetage, explains: ?The official surname of the Royal Family is Mountbatten-Windsor. However, it has long been the practice of the Royal Family, and indeed the peerage, to use a title as a surname where one is available. This is why when Prince Harry was in the army, he was known as Harry Wales, as his father was then Prince of Wales. Now that he is the Duke of Sussex, it is perfectly within protocol for him to use Harry Sussex and for his wife to use Meghan Sussex. This is no different from the Duke of Norfolk calling himself Edward Norfolk, when his surname is Howard.?

Ms Bosberry-Scott adds: ?Typically, where a title is involved, children are registered under both names, as was the case when Prince Archie was registered in 2019; he appears in the indexes of the General Register Office under Sussex and Mountbatten-Windsor. There are many other examples of this happening. The Sussexes are not doing anything unusual here as it is common practice within the Royal Family and the British peerage.?

Joe Little, managing editor of specialist publication Majesty magazine, also confirms this, explaining: ?It is a practice that has been going on for years. While not specifically dictated in the rules according to Buckingham Palace, there is fluidity.?

What remains interesting, however, is that Meghan is suddenly so keen to have the new family name known now ? and so pointedly insisting on being called by it. And her reason for that, well, is anyone?s guess.

[From The Daily Mail]

?What remains interesting, however, is that Meghan is suddenly so keen to have the new family name known now ? and so pointedly insisting on being called by it.? Because a married woman with children wants to use her married name, the name she shares with her children? This is not rocket science and MEGHAN SAID IT HERSELF. Meghan, like millions of wives and mothers, shares a surname with her husband and kids and wants people to refer to her by her married name. As for this walkback? it?s so funny, because all week, the Mail has run a dozen outraged stories about ?how dare she call herself SUSSEX!? Then even Becky English is like, oh, it?s actually no big deal, royals and aristocrats do this all the time.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.

Jordan Chiles confirms that her lawyers & all of the other lawyers are still fighting over her bronze medal at the Paris Olympics. [JustJared]
Is Jessica Alba already dating someone new? [LaineyGossip]
Big surprise, they?re coming for abortion pills. [Jezebel]
Ben Stiller offered Barack Obama a voice role in Severance. [Hollywood Life]
Jennifer Lawrence is pretty quiet these days. [Socialite Life]
How many truly independent films have won Best Picture? [Pajiba]
I?m not going to pay attention to any of these people until they say ?I?m deeply sorry for voting for Donald Trump and I should have voted for Kamala Harris.? [Buzzfeed]
Joshua Jackson revisits Dawson?s Creek. [Seriously OMG]
Keira Knightley wore Chanel to Le Grand D?ner Du Louvre. [RCFA]
Harris Dickinson went on a Chicken Shop Date. [OMG Blog]

As we discussed, it feels like With Love, Meghan is being purposefully review-bombed. It actually reminds me of the recent glee from music critics when they got their hands on Drake?s latest album ? they already had their knives sharpened for Drizzy and they really tore that album to shreds (to be fair, the album was garbage). In the case of WLM, it?s different in the sense that there will always be a large and very vocal contingent of people who despise Meghan and hold her to an impossible standard, that she must be all things all at once. And when she does portray herself as a glossy homemaker who stays in her lifestyle lane, they hate that too. I wanted to highlight this part of the Hollywood Reporter?s review/analysis of WLM, which was originally called ?Why ?With Love, Meghan? Doesn?t Land With Viewers.? They changed it to ??With Love, Meghan? Lacks a Key Ingredient.? Probably because WLM is landing with viewers ? it?s already a top-ten Netflix show in dozens of countries, including the US.

Immediately upon the show?s March 4 debut, criticisms roared in from both American and British press, categorizing the series as ?an ego trip not worth taking? and an ?exercise in narcissism,? adding that long-standing assessments of the former actress and Suits star turned American princess likely underscored Meghan?s reticence to share more of herself with her audience. To an already leery viewer, Meghan lacking the openness and vulnerability that would allow a naysayer to connect with and change their opinion of her doesn?t help. And while it?s unfair to ask Meghan to apologize for her wealth or the world she and her friends who join the show live in, the attempts at being aspirational, like remarking how sweet it is to build a balloon arch by hand for her kids? parties rather than hire someone else to do it, fall flat when there?s no honest conversation about the difficulties of motherhood with fellow mom guests ? an element that would better ground the series for viewers than the overuse of edible flower sprinkles.

Media and public scrutiny of Meghan has been both lengthy and unwarranted since she first became romantically tied to Prince Harry in 2016. Unfortunately, unlike her 2022 Archetypes podcast, which gave listeners a greater understanding of both who she and her guests were outside of the personas placed on them, With Love, Meghan, no doubt in its attempt to protect its host from greater critique, presents her as nothing more than a stereotype of a perfect wife and mother. Without the ingredient of relatability, which audiences crave more than anything, the series doesn?t serve up much more than fancy recipes that, according to the latest data on the price of eggs, most viewers can?t afford to make anyway.

[From THR]

I do think there?s a nugget of truth here, which is that Meghan is reticent to reveal too much or show anything other than a glossy, stylized version of her life. This was a complaint with Archetypes as well ? that Meghan at times has difficulty letting her guard down and being a flawed human on Main. Here?s my thing ? I?m watching a cooking/lifestyle show to see the lifestyle and the cooking, I don?t need Meghan to sit with an economist and talk about working motherhood and the plight of Millennial women. I just want recipes and fun ideas.

Speaking of recipes, Netflix has all of Meghan?s recipes on their site ? go here to see. In the Abigail Spencer episode, she even says ?when?s the cookbook coming? or something like that, and Meghan was like, oh, I?m not even thinking about that right now. But this was filmed a year ago ? surely, she?s thinking about it now? Especially with Netflix publishing the recipes? hm.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

Are you hungry for more Sussex name/title discourse? It?s become a major story this week, with the Duchess of Sussex telling People Magazine that her family name, her surname, is now Sussex. She wants to share the same name with her children and husband. There was also a scene in With Love, Meghan where Mindy Kaling refers to her as ?Meghan Markle? and Meghan corrects her, saying ?I?m Sussex now.? As I said yesterday, the reaction to that WLM scene is what?s especially telling to me ? Meghan just stops for a second and corrects Mindy and that?s it. But the reaction has been that Meghan was ?rude? or ?mean? or that Meghan did something wrong. It?s a HUGE tell as to how people reacted to Meghan in the UK, and I think we?ve found the root of all of those ?bullying? accusations. Meghan: This is my preference. Staffers: OMG YOU?RE SUCH A BULLY.

Anyway, the British reporters/commentators are once again using this whole storyline to cry about the Sussex titles and how dare Meghan still ?use? her title, aka her married name. Richard Eden is still flogging this dead horse in his latest column. After an exhaustive summary of the Sussex-name situation this week, Eden spills some dirt about what his royal sources are saying:

Referring to her two children and husband Prince Harry, she said, ?I love that that is something that Archie, Lili, H and I all have together. It means a lot to me.? The Sussex name, she concluded, ?is part of our love story?.

They have, of course, visited Sussex only once, hosting a number of engagements in the county in their wedding year. It is striking, too, that, they chose to use the Royal Family?s traditional surname, Mountbatten-Windsor, on the birth certificates of children Prince Archie, five, and Princess Lilibet, three. Why, then, this sudden enthusiasm for the Sussex name ? and the desire to make it known around the world? Royal sources I have spoken to this week believe they know the answer.

?It?s clearly a warning shot,? one palace insider told me, confirming that Meghan seemed to be making a very public point of emphasising how much the title meant to her and, by implication, to Harry. Which is to say that the Royal Family should not so much as contemplate stripping them of their titles!

This is a course of action that has been mooted many times since Meghan and Harry abandoned royal duties five years ago, eventually moving to California to seek their fortune. There have been calls to strip Meghan and Harry of their titles whenever they have betrayed and insulted the Firm. And royal sources have suggested that it could be very much a sanction should the couple publish any more tell-all books about the Windsors or agree to further explosive Oprah Winfrey-style interviews.

Only when Charles succeeded to the throne in 2022, did Archie become the grandson of a king. Meghan and Harry had famously shunned royal life and made their home in the supposedly egalitarian US, they began using their children?s royal titles as early as 2023 when they announced the christening of baby daughter Lilibet. It seems beyond doubt that Meghan is anxious to hang on to the baubles of royal life ? even if that involves the embarrassment of publicly correcting showbusiness-star ?friends? who fail to address her in the style to which she has become accustomed.

[From The Daily Mail]

If she didn?t call herself Sussex, they would hold something else over her head, I?m sure. But once again, they?re doing all of this over her married name. They?re mad that a woman is using her married name. They?re mad that they can?t find a way to take Sussex away from her because they?ve tried to take everything else. Because I remember the actual history of this, I know that Harry and Meghan did give Charles the space of several months to decide if he was going to try to remove the Sussex titles. Charles made no such move, just as he made no move to attend his granddaughter?s christening. That was when Harry and Meghan were like, okay, fine, we?re just going to do it this way and if you don?t like it, too bad: these are the king?s grandchildren and they have prince & princess titles, and our family name is Sussex.

Photos courtesy of Netflix, Archewell.

There?s something incredibly funny about an entire national media stopping what they were doing so they can all scream, cry and throw up about a Netflix lifestyle/cooking show. Tell me the Left-Behinds are boring without telling me they?re boring, you know? While everyone in the British media seems focused on With Love, Meghan, it?s seems pretty obvious that the Windsors will likely pick up some tips as well. I?m sure Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace staffers devoured the show and some not-so-subtle rebrands and photo-ops are being planned. Speaking of, did you know that William and Kate have an almost Californian attitude towards staffers? They want their staff to wear casual clothes. I imagine we?ll hear that Kate walks barefoot through her gardens too.

The Prince and Princess of Wales are said to have a dress code for staff in their royal household, but it may surprise you. Although they reside in lavish royal residences and regularly attend fancy events, they have a set style they like to adopt when they are behind closed doors.

Royal author Valentine Low revealed the rules they have for their household staff in his book Courtiers: The Hidden Power Behind the Crown.

He claims a staff member told him: ?[Prince William] wants it to be casual. The kids run around the office, and he does not want it to be stuffy.?

To achieve this, the Prince and Princess of Wales ask staff to not wear formal attire unless it is appropriate to do so. The insider continued: ?If we have important meetings or are going to Buckingham Palace, then, of course, we [dress up].?

Kate and William also like to ditch royal tradition when it comes to parenting their kids, Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, eight, and Prince Louis, five. The devoted parents are keen to make the royal kids feel they can talk about their feelings, instead of losing their tempers. A source told Fabulous that ?shouting is absolutely ?off limits’? for the three children at all times. Instead, the kids are encouraged to discuss what it is that?s bothering them in a more constructive manner.

The source said: ?The children are encouraged to talk about their feelings. They express their concerns over school subjects, a swimming class, a tricky ballet manoeuvre, a missed tennis rally, or seeing children starving on a TV ad. But a talk ensues and a solution found.?

What?s more, William and Kate have also adopted the family?s no-shouting rule themselves in order to present a ?united front? to their children. ?There is no question of one parent saying ?no? and the other saying ?yes? later on as Kate and William want to present a unified parental front to their children,? our source added.

[From The Sun]

Given what we know of William?s incandescent rage and all of the stories about how often he screams at people, I seriously doubt that the kids are being raised in a ?no shouting? environment. As for the staffers? we?ve heard such wildly different things over the years. I remember when there was gossip that Kate and William were ?very grand? with staff and they both demanded staffers use their titles constantly. Of course, in Kate?s case, I?ve wondered a lot in recent years how often she?s even around KP staffers. Remember last year, during the ?Kate Missington? period, staffers even said they hadn?t seen her in weeks/months. It often feels like they shuffled her off to Adelaide Cottage and she maybe gets a weekly email.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

Once people realized that the Duchess of Sussex was in New York this week, many assumed that she would end up doing some TV interviews. I was thinking more like? the Today Show or Good Morning America, but she ended up going with a talk show. The two big options were: Drew Barrymore or Jennifer Hudson. Obviously, Drew won out. They match each other?s freak, spiritually speaking. I bet Drew heard ?I?m a hugger? and sat eyeball-to-eyeball with Meghan. The interview (and cooking segment) was taped on Wednesday and it will air today, Thursday. During one of the segments, Drew referred to her as ?Meghan Sussex.? Which is? correct, in a way? Most Americans don?t really care about titles anyway, so Meghan Sussex it is. Some early highlights from Meghan?s first talk show appearance since she was on The Ellen Show a few years ago:

She didn?t know where her life would take her: ?I mean, look, life is full of surprises. I did not expect to meet H and for this to be our love story and, you know, I?m very lucky,? Meghan told Barrymore, describing Harry as ?funniest, sweetest, most charming? as well as an ?amazing father? in a promo clip of the show.

Always date your spouse: Meghan also shared that when she was babysitting during her college days, one of the fathers told her, ?Meghan, when you meet your person one day, I want him to say to you the same thing that I said to my wife when we got married which is: ?I vow to always date my wife.? And I told H that when we started dating, and he goes, ?I vow to always date you,? So we have this connection, I think, because we?re so committed to treating each other the same way you did before had a ring on it. Before it was locked down. When you?re just courting each other and you can see all the good and joy during that butterfly period.?

The kids only have slight British accents on some words: Barrymore asks, ?What?s your favorite thing that you see in your kids that you go, ?Oh, that?s their dad? ?? Meghan replies, ?Oh, some of the words that they still say with a British accent. So they?ll say, ?Zebra,? and what else do they say? They have these little moments where it comes out. They have very American accents, but they say words that are just like him, and I think it?s adorable. Zebra is a good one.?

[From People Magazine]

The British pronunciation of ?zebra? unfortunately slaps. It?s way better than the American ZEE-bruh. Brits say it ?zEH-bra.? It?s one of the few things they have over us, although I will admit to enjoying ?chuffed? and ?are you mad?? said in a slightly hysterical tone. Also a fan of ?sort yourself out? said in a really derogatory tone. As for Drew and Meghan? as I said, I?m sure they matched each other?s freaks. I can?t wait to see it! PS? fashion notes: Meghan wore a J. Crew top and Brandon Maxwell trousers for the interview.

Meghan Markle spoke about her new Netflix series on The Drew Barrymore Show?episode airing Thursday, March 6 pic.twitter.com/SbPHCmxwHW

? Alexandra Hurtado (@AliMarieHurtado) March 5, 2025

Photos courtesy of The Drew Barrymore Show, Cover Images, Instagram and Netflix.

Lindsay Lohan did a Vogue GRWM video for her VF Oscar party prep. [OMG Blog]
Robert Pattinson is worried that he?s going to be ?Old Batman? by the time The Batman sequel goes into production. He?s 38? [Socialite Life]
Simone Ashley is in her Single Era. [Just Jared]
Teyana Taylor & Aaron Pierre are hard-launching. [LaineyGossip]
Tony Hawk?s message made me tear up. [Pajiba]
More photos from the VF Oscar party. [Go Fug Yourself]
Loewe made a delightfully bonkers look for Mark Eidelstein. [RCFA]
Kathy Bates? shocking confession. [Seriously OMG]
Southern Charm star is bombarded with racism accusations. [Starcasm]
Rumors about the next Bachelorette. [Hollywood Life]
Jeff Goldblum is so eccentric. [Buzzfeed]

The Duchess of Sussex was suddenly seen and photographed outside in recent days! Over the weekend, she was seen out and about in Montecito with Serena Williams (the photos are mega-exclusives). Then on Monday evening, Meghan was in New York! She was photographed walking into Ludlow House to meet some of her biggest fans and supporters from way back. Meghan posted all about the meet-up on her IG Stories, showing photos and videos and gift exchanges. It was all very sweet. She also got flowers with a special message from Archie & Lili:

I?ve tried not to wallow in Derangerville for too long, but I?ve seen some shifting in recent days about ?why is Meghan suddenly showing so much of her life and her kids?? First of all, Meghan can do whatever she wants, full stop. She hasn?t put her kids? faces on Main, but she?s definitely done enough to sow discontent among the conspiracy theorists who have claimed for years that her children don?t exist. I also think it?s lovely that Meghan is FINALLY in her ?reclaiming my narrative? era. People have been lying about her for years, and for the past five years, she?s had the tools and platforms to clapback or simply tell her own story on her terms. I?m glad she?s finally gotten there, I just wish it had happened sooner. That?s why they?re really mad ? the ?Meghan Hate Industry? can?t operate like it?s business as usual.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Meghan?s IG.

Inevitably, the Duchess of Sussex?s With Love, Meghan had become another referendum on ?Meghan versus Kate.? I think Kate lost this war the second she started copying every single thing Meghan wore, did and said, but whatever. This is going to be the conversation in many quarters for many more years to come. Kate will be queen consort (maybe) and they?ll still compare her to her sister-in-law. Which is insulting to Kate in about ten different ways, not least of which is that they can only make Kate sound good in connection/comparison to Meghan. It?s obvious that Kate is still watching and obsessing over everything Sussex-related too, that?s what the jam stunt and cake-baking stunt were all about last week. Anyway, there was some commentary this week:

There is ?no comparison? between Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, according to one royal expert. On Tuesday, the same day that Markle?s new lifestyle series premiered, royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams noted to Fox News Digital that Princess Kate and husband Prince William?s popularity is ?very high.?

Meanwhile, Markle has a 21% approval rating, another British royals expert, Hilary Fordwich, told Fox News Digital, citing a recent YouGov poll in Britain, adding that the Princess of Wales is ?Britain?s most popular living royal.?

?Princess Catherine actually is a beekeeper,? Fordwich said, referencing Markle?s beekeeping segment shown in a preview for ?With Love, Meghan.? ?Her bees are at Anmer Hall, in the corner of the gardens on the Sandringham estate. Instead of monetizing her real hobby, back in the summer of ?21, she actually took honey from the hives whilst visiting schoolchildren attending the biodiversity hub at London?s Natural History Museum.?

Fordwich said that everything Middleton ?does is to help others, those mentally challenged, the less privileged, the disadvantaged, the young, as well as those suffering from cancer, to name a few causes. She never belittles others, whereas this Netflix show is actually denigrating to those less fortunate,? Fordwich opined. She added that, to her, Markle is ?not only doing everything for money, she is seeking more fame and self-aggrandizement,? whereas Middleton and her husband, Prince William, do everything ?without fanfare.?

?Meghan married for titles and prestige,? Fordwich added. ?Catherine married in spite of the title and prestige.?

Royal expert Ian Pelham Turner disagreed. ?The beauty of Meghan is she is very precise with all the intricate ingredients and presentation and, obviously, with the usual Netflix styling the show looks immaculate,? he said, adding, ?I am a self-confessed Meghan fan and for me the show works.?

Pelham Turner called it a ?shame there is such a chasm with King Charles,? noting that the longtime environmentalist ?would like the show content, especially using the homeopathic herbs from the garden.? He added that the royal family would be ?fools? not to watch Markle?s show because ?royal members like Meghan show how [a] 21st century monarchy can be.?

[From Fox News]

Ian Pelham Turner?s comment reminded me of the jam war last year, and how Buckingham Palace played into it by highlighting THEIR jam at the same time Meghan was sending out jam-baskets to friends. BP and Clarence House got sales bumps just from? Meghan sending out jam. That?s the strength of the Meghan Effect and yes, if Charles, Camilla, William and Kate weren?t so jealous, dumb and racist, they could have easily benefited from a peripheral shine. Instead, we know what happened. As for ?Meghan married for titles and prestige. Catherine married in spite of the title and prestige.? The exact opposite is true ? Meghan married in spite of Harry?s weird family and the insane British media. Kate married William because of the titles, because of the money and because that?s what her mom wanted.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, Netflix and Cover Images.

It?s easy to forget, but Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner?s separation and divorce was actually pretty dramatic at the time. Garner left the marriage with her wholesome image unscathed ? if anything, people thought she was a saint for staying with Ben a lot longer than she probably should have. Post-divorce, Garner has built her own beautiful home and their kids primarily live with her, but Ben is an involved father. Garner and Affleck have spent the past ten years in a very peaceful coparenting situation, and I get the impression that they?re still very close and friendly. Garner has also been quietly dating John Miller for years, although we barely see them together. Well, now that Ben is officially divorced from Jennifer Lopez, he apparently wants to circle back to Garner. Ben is so damn predictable.

Ben Affleck ?would love another chance? with ex-wife Jennifer Garner, a source exclusively tells Page Six. The ?Justice League? star ?would definitely be open to giving things another shot with Jen if the timing is ever right,? the insider adds.

?At the same time, Ben knows it?s just not realistic at this time in their lives. Ben just got out of a marriage and finalized his divorce [from Jennifer Lopez], he is really busy with work and is focused on this new chapter,? the source explains.

?Plus, Ben respects Jen?s relationship with John [Miller] and would never come between them.?

A second insider tells us, ?The feeling is not mutual on Jen?s side. She?s happy with John and that?s just not where her head is at. She has a great co-parenting relationship with Ben, and that?s where things stand on her end at the moment.?

The ?13 Going on 30? actress and Miller, 47, have been dating on and off since 2018. Reps for Affleck and Garner did not immediately respond to Page Six?s requests for comment. The exes, both 52 ? who were married for 10 years from 2005 until 2015 ? were spotted giggling as they celebrated their son Samuel?s 13th birthday on Sunday.

[From Page Six]

I love ?The feeling is not mutual on Jen?s side.? LMAO ? Garner is like: nope, get out of here with that. Is Ben that guy, the guy who just wants to cycle back and forth between his exes for the rest of his life? I?m surprised Gwyneth Paltrow didn?t get a mention (she?s married, not that it would stop Ben). That?s also a really funny line ? ?Ben respects Jen?s relationship with John [Miller] and would never come between them.? You?re supposed to read it as a veiled threat, like Ben could ruin Garner?s relationship if he wanted to. Ben needs to stop messing with his exes? lives, my god.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images, Backgrid.