Meghan, Harry, William And Kate (And Prince Andrew)

Issue dated December 2, 2019: The "Fab Four"


It's a royal cover again this week, claiming to have "new details" about the so-called royal rift, although as far as I can tell what's going on is less a "rift" and more a manifestation of the fact that William and Harry have grown up, gotten married and are now following different paths in life, all of which was inevitable and predictable. In particular, William's position as the future king means his life will always be different from Harry's, increasingly so as we move ever closer to the day when Charles becomes King and William becomes the Prince of Wales.

There's also the clickbait factor. Everyone is happy and getting along? Boring. A rift between William and Harry? Clickbait. Kate and Meghan hate each other? Clickbait. Prince Andrew screwed up and got fired? Oops, that's not clickbait. Just a few hours after this cover was posted at People.com Wednesday morning, a much juicier royal story exploded:

Breaking news: A statement issued by the Duke of York who will be stepping down from public duties for the “foreseeable future”. pic.twitter.com/icSTLIiY5Z

— Victoria Arbiter (@victoriaarbiter) November 20, 2019

Over the last couple of days more information has come out and clearly this was not Andrew's idea. In an article posted yesterday and titled The Toxic Prince, British newspaper The Guardian says the fallout from Andrew's disastrous BBC interview, which was broadcast Saturday night, was actually putting the monarchy in jeopardy. That's what caused the Queen and Prince Charles to kick Randy Andy to the curb. The most interesting part to me is that Prince Charles appears to be calling the shots, something that will only increase as the Queen continues to age. This is the Guardian article in its entirety:

After years successfully shrugging off questions about his judgement, his business relationships and, more seriously, his association with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew was finally undone not by a newspaper headline or a law enforcement agency, but by a woman called Sue from Leeds.

It was Sue – surname as yet unknown – who submitted a question to ITV’s leaders’ debate on Monday, asking: “Is the monarchy fit for purpose?” Julie Etchingham, chairing the debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson, put the question to the two party leaders, asking for their answers “in as few words as possible, perhaps even a yes or no”.

And with that, the Guardian has learned, the fate of the Duke of York was sealed. It was one thing for newspaper commentators and Twitter observers, in the wake of Andrew’s calamitous interview on Saturday with BBC Newsnight, to savage the prince’s performance, even to describe his position as untenable.

But the moment the value of the monarchy itself was being challenged in a general election debate was the point when Buckingham Palace and the rest of the royal family could stand by no longer. The debate question became the critical tipping point when it was finally clear the Duke of York had to be jettisoned.

On Tuesday, as companies, universities and charities rushed to distance themselves from the prince and his charitable activities, Andrew was summoned to meet his mother, the Queen, at Buckingham Palace, and was told in no uncertain terms that his role as an active, publicly funded royal was over “for the foreseeable future”.

He was permitted to issue the statement in his own name, maintaining the fiction that he had requested the demotion himself – a shaming instance of the royal crest appearing above the name of a sex offender, since Epstein was named in the statement. But no informed observer believes this was something that the prince either wanted or will have submitted to willingly.

By the following day, the palace was rowing back somewhat, saying he would continue in his association with the business mentoring initiative Pitch@Palace, though would do so as a private individual. Quite how an organisation which explicitly trades on the prince’s royal residences can be operated as a private enterprise is something which, palace insiders concede, has yet to be worked out. One suggestion being considered is that rooms might be hired in palaces – such as Blenheim or Eltham – which are not owned by the Crown.

Even as scrutiny of the prince’s actions has intensified following Epstein’s death in August and a wave of further allegations against the billionaire, he saw no reason to scale back his activities.

Within the royal household’s army of more than 1,000 staff, the prince has been building up a mini fiefdom which had been planning as recently as last week to take on new employees to help drive forward his focus on technology.

The office is still advertising a role for a project assistant with a background in technology to work on his Inspiring Digital Enterprise Award (iDEA) initiative, which has now been thrown into doubt after BT said it was reviewing its involvement. The prince’s office have also been looking for designers in recent weeks to work on the same brief.

The new hires would join what is described as a “dedicated team of professionals” who manage the prince’s official programme and initiatives. Central to the team has been his private secretary, Amanda Thirsk, a former banker who joined Andrew’s office in 2012. While she has been blamed for being the driving force behind the Newsnight interview, his office also includes Kerensa Jennings, a veteran of the BBC and ITN, who was also a Sky News producer.

The prince’s confidence in his position may lie in part with the way he has been indulged in the past. In March 2011, as controversy over Andrew’s association with Epstein swirled, prompting questions in parliament over his suitability as a British trade envoy, the Queen responded by awarding her second son a knight grand cross of the Royal Victorian Order, the highest possible honour for “personal service” to the monarch.

“You have to remember, Andrew was born in 1960 and was the second in line to the throne after his brother for 22 years, until the birth of Prince William,” notes Ingrid Seward, the royal observer and editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine. “That’s a long time to be a pampered favourite child and a prince and a war hero. And I think he slightly got it into his head that he could do what he liked.”

His abrupt removal from public life is not an indication of the Queen’s waning affection, observers say, but the reality of where power increasingly lies inside the household.

“He was sacked and he didn’t go willingly,” says Peter Hunt, the former BBC royal correspondent, “and even though the Queen will have handed him the royal equivalent of a P45, the form was filled out by Prince Charles. I see Charles as absolutely the driving force behind it.”

Palace protocol may insist that the Queen was making all the significant decisions, notes Hunt, but with the monarch now 93, Charles is effectively the “shadow king”. “She would not have done this by herself, and the fact that it has happened is a very clear sign that that inexorable shift in power which started about two years ago is continuing at pace.” Regardless of the fact that he is currently touring New Zealand with his wife, “Charles would have absolutely have been front and centre in that decision.”

“Fundamentally, Prince Andrew was toxifying the House of Windsor, and their desperate, desperate hope is that that toxicity will reduce over time. But they are not in control of events, that is the crucial thing.”

In an article this morning, CNN provides more context: 

"Many people's judgment has been called into question over this, not least the Queen for allowing the interview to take place," says [royal commentator Peter] Hunt.

The interview could not have taken place without the monarch's permission, Hunt said. "She will been told about the interview, will have agreed to the interview and her great misstep and her misjudgment was to allow it to happen and to be filmed inside Buckingham Palace. And inside the palace you had Prince Andrew talking about the actions of a pedophile."

Everything that happens now is designed to protect the Queen. Andrew is still her son, the blood bond is unbreakable, but his actions have undermined her, and she had no option to withdraw her professional support for him. A sovereign's primary duty is to leave the crown in a stronger state than when they received it, and Andrew had created a dent.

The Queen only wears the crown by virtue of her majority support in Parliament, which is the only body with the authority to remove it. That's where Andrew created a vulnerability for her and it became apparent in another TV moment this week.

During the first general election leaders debate on ITV, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his main opponent, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, were asked if the monarchy was "fit for purpose." That would have been enough to prompt gasps within Buckingham Palace -- without even hearing the answer.

"The sacking of Prince Andrew, as it is, is unprecedented. We have to go back to the abdication of Prince Edward VIII in 1936 to see anything vaguely comparable," said Hunt.

"The position of the monarch is now up for question in 2019 which it wouldn't have been just a few weeks ago. It's being raised in debates during the British general election campaign. It's being raised in debates on phone-ins across the UK on British radio stations. That is pretty unusual and that is why the British monarchy has acted as it has done and acted so speedily in removing Prince Andrew from public life."

... If it is indeed the case that the Queen forced Prince Andrew to step aside, it is a decision that would have been taken in the spirit of her long reign which is always to put duty above all else. She's proved more times than she would care to remember that she can recover from a crisis. It's still a crown worth inheriting. (Read more here.)

In what is absolutely not a coincidence, saving a little face for Andrew and reinforcing the notion that the royal bond is indeed unbreakable, the prince was photographed out riding with the Queen today:

My final thought, at least for now: Season 3 of the Netflix series The Crown premiered last Sunday and I've now watched all 10 episodes. The season ended with the Queen's 25th anniversary Jubilee in 1977; Lady Diana Spencer is scheduled to show up in Season 4. This week's events, Prince Andrew's screw-up and subsequent defenestration, are far, far more interesting and dramatic than the Queen's efforts to improve her racehorse management, the attempted coup by Uncle Dickie and Prince Philip's midlife crisis, all of which are featured in season 3. The show's storytelling must, absolutely must, continue through November, 2019. Anything else would be a travesty.

Last year at this time: Issue dated December 3, 2018

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by People Magazine (@people) on Nov 19, 2018 at 8:37am PST

Remember This Name: Jeffrey Epstein - Updated

A multimillionaire named Jeffrey Epstein was taken into custody by federal authorities overnight, a story that might become a very big deal indeed. Epstein has been notorious, if somewhat under the pop culture radar, for years, but it looks like he's about to get a lot more famous, and not in a good way. He also has a tribe of famous friends who may be feeling some unease this morning, including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and, wait for it, the current president of the United States. ("[Epstein] likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Thus sayeth Donald Trump, quoted in an October 28, 2002 story at New York magazine, read it here.) The current Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, could also possibly be impacted by all this; here's how the Washington Post is reporting the story right now:

Jeffrey Epstein, the well-connected multimillionaire who was sentenced to just more than a year in jail to resolve allegations that he molested dozens of young girls, has been taken into custody in New York on new charges having to do with sex crimes involving minors, a person familiar with the matter said.

The precise nature of the charges — and how they differ from the previous allegations to which Epstein, now 66, pleaded guilty in 2008 — could not immediately be learned. Epstein attorney Martin Weinberg did not respond to a request for comment late Saturday. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, where Epstein is expected to appear in federal court this week, declined to comment.

The latest charges add a significant new wrinkle to the considerable political and legal saga surrounding Epstein. The wealthy financier — who counted among his friends President Trump and former president Bill Clinton — pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida of soliciting prostitution in a controversial arrangement that allowed him to resolve far more serious federal allegations of molesting young girls.

His case was the subject of an investigation by the Miami Herald, which detailed how then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, now Trump’s labor secretary, shelved a 53-page federal indictment that could have put Epstein behind bars for life. The arrangement is now being investigated by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which is seeking to determine whether the attorneys involved committed “professional misconduct” in bringing about its close.

The person familiar with the matter said the new charges against Epstein are for conduct similar to those that brought about his plea deal. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the specific counts remain under seal.

Attorney Paul Cassell, who represents Epstein victims who argued in federal court that prosecutors broke the law by not informing them about the plea deal, said he was not informed about the arrest.

“If today’s report is true, it only proves that Epstein should have been charged by federal prosecutors 12 years ago in Florida,” Cassell said. “With his money, Epstein was able to buy more than a decade of delay in facing justice — but fortunately he wasn’t able to postpone justice forever.”

The Daily Beast first reported Epstein had been taken into custody.

Epstein’s victims and others had long raised concerns that he was treated too leniently because of his political connections, with much of their ire focused on Acosta. The former U.S. attorney has defended his handling of the case, saying at his March 2017 confirmation hearing for labor secretary that state prosecutors considered a charge that could have resulted in “zero jail time, zero registration as a sexual offender and zero restitution for the victims in this case.”

The arrangement that resulted in Epstein’s guilty plea, Acosta said, “guarantees that someone goes to jail, that guarantees that someone register generally and that guarantees other outcomes is a good thing.”

Notably, though, Epstein avoided federal charges entirely — until now — and his time in jail was limited, considering the allegations he faced. The Herald reported that he was allowed work release privileges, which let him leave jail six days a week for 12 hours a day to work in an office he had set up.

His obligations to register as a sex offender were also eased because when he pleaded guilty, the only minor he was convicted of soliciting was 16 years old at the time the offenses began. A federal investigation found scores of potential underage victims, including a 14-year-old girl who first flagged police.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), who has questioned how the Justice Department handled Epstein’s case, said in a statement that Epstein “received a pathetically soft sentence last time and his victims deserve nothing less than justice.”

Sasse added: “Justice doesn’t depend on the size of your bank account. This billionaire can’t be let out just because he can cut a bail check. The Justice Department needs to see this through.”

Prosecutors could face significant challenges if the new case is premised on conduct that was covered as part of Epstein’s plea deal, no matter how unsavory it might be. But if investigators discovered wrongdoing they did not know about previously or that was not covered by the plea — even if it occurred years in the past — they would be allowed to bring new charges.

A person familiar with the matter said prosecutors do not have significant double jeopardy concerns or concerns about Epstein’s previous plea, meaning the charges probably involve new victims or new alleged wrongdoing. (This is the article in its entirety.)

Last November the Miami Herald published a three-part series about Epstein, starting with this:

On a muggy October morning in 2007, Miami’s top federal prosecutor, Alexander Acosta, had a breakfast appointment with a former colleague, Washington, D.C., attorney Jay Lefkowitz.

It was an unusual meeting for the then-38-year-old prosecutor, a rising Republican star who had served in several White House posts before being named U.S. attorney in Miami by President George W. Bush.

Instead of meeting at the prosecutor’s Miami headquarters, the two men — both with professional roots in the prestigious Washington law firm of Kirkland & Ellis — convened at the Marriott in West Palm Beach, about 70 miles away. For Lefkowitz, 44, a U.S. special envoy to North Korea and corporate lawyer, the meeting was critical.

His client, Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, 54, was accused of assembling a large, cult-like network of underage girls — with the help of young female recruiters — to coerce into having sex acts behind the walls of his opulent waterfront mansion as often as three times a day, the Town of Palm Beach police found.

The eccentric hedge fund manager whose friends included former President Bil Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew was also suspected of trafficking minor girls, often from overseas, for sex parties at his other homes in Manhattan, New Mexico and the Caribbean, FBI and court records show.

Facing a 53-page federal indictment, Epstein could have ended up in federal prison for the rest of his life.

But on the morning of the breakfast meeting, a deal was struck — an extraordinary plea agreement that would conceal the full extent of Epstein’s crimes and the number of people involved.

Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal — called a non-prosecution agreement — essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes, according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records.

The pact required Epstein to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court. Epstein and four of his accomplices named in the agreement received immunity from all federal criminal charges. But even more unusual, the deal included wording that granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators’’ who were also involved in Epstein’s crimes. These accomplices or participants were not identified in the agreement, leaving it open to interpretation whether it possibly referred to other influential people who were having sex with underage girls at Epstein’s various homes or on his plane.

As part of the arrangement, Acosta agreed, despite a federal law to the contrary, that the deal would be kept from the victims. As a result, the non-prosecution agreement was sealed until after it was approved by the judge, thereby averting any chance that the girls — or anyone else — might show up in court and try to derail it. (Read more here.)

Click here to read the Miami Herald's current reporting on this story. 

This is a sample of what's showing up in my Twitter feed:

He knew. pic.twitter.com/XVkN0KYcyM

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) July 7, 2019

SDNY requires a defendant who wants a cooperation deal to tell the truth about all crimes he knows of. If Epstein doesn’t want to spend a very long time in prison, perhaps the rest of his life, in prison, his path to a reduced sentence may well be through Trump. https://t.co/525MLz2jz7

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) July 7, 2019

Jeffrey Epstein has been arrested for child sex trafficking

Remember, a judge ruled in February that Alex Acosta, Trump's Labor Secretary, BROKE THE LAW to give Epstein a sweetheart deal in 2007

How is Acosta still a member of Trump's cabinet?

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 7, 2019

When Acosta was nominated, I should’ve known, but didn’t know details & his role in giving Epstein a sweetheart deal. It’s gross. Acosta sided@w/the powerful predator instead of victims. Epstein needs to go to jail. Victims deserve justice. #FireAcosta  https://t.co/Heel62FEOi

— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) July 7, 2019

There has been speculation for years that some of the rich and influential men who frequented Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion — including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew — may have participated in the alleged abuse https://t.co/VusMFegHu5

— The Cut (@TheCut) March 12, 2019

I can only imagine how ugly this could get.

Update: Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter who has been covering the Epstein story for years, had this to say on MSNBC this morning, as reported at Real Clear Politics:

Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown, who has done original reporting on details of the alleged sex trafficking crimes of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein for the past several years, joined MSNBC Sunday morning to discuss the evidence against Epstein and the "rogues gallery" of rich, powerful, and famous people who are suspected to have used his services. Epstein was arrested Saturday in New Jersey on sex trafficking charges.

"I've felt a lot of pressure," Brown said. "Needless to say, these are very powerful people and I think that they're sweating a little bit, especially today. We don't know how much, how deep this went, how far-reaching it went in government, but there have been a lot of names that I could see on these message pads [listing clients] on a regular basis as part of the evidence. These message pads where they would call and leave Epstein messages, such as, 'I'm at this hotel.' Why do you do that, unless you're expecting him to send you a girl to visit you at your hotel? So there are probably quite a few important people, powerful people, who are sweating it out right now. We'll have to wait and see whether Epstein is going to name names."

She said Epstein's relationship with fellow Palm Beach resident Donald Trump was "friendly." "They went to dinner parties at each other's houses, Trump was also on his plane. Probably not as much as a lot of other people because, you know, Trump had his own plane. But they had a lot of social relationships. And the other interesting thing is Trump had a modeling agency, and Epstein also had a stake in a modeling agency, which they suspect he used to bring in underage girls from overseas."

"There is a comment in one of the court files where Epstein is quoted as saying, 'I want to set up my modeling agency the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.' I don't know what that means, but it is curious he was trying to do something similar to Trump." Brown said.

President Trump has commented on the case:



(Note that this is an old 10-second clip of Donald talking to Sean Hannity, saying that Bill Clinton has a "lot of problems" with Epstein. Update on July 10: Vanity Fair says this conversation is from February, 2015: Perhaps the most revealing commentary Donald Trump has offered on Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who pleaded not guilty this week to sex trafficking and conspiracy, occurred in late February 2015, onstage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump, then flirting with a presidential run, was fielding softballs from Fox News host Sean Hannity when a lightning round of questions turned to a favorite topic: Bill Clinton. “Nice guy, Trump said. “Got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein,” he added, seemingly veering off topic. “Lot of problems.” Read the article here.) 

"I started this story before the #MeToo movement, before the Harvey Weinstein story broke," she said. "But I think the story and my journalism benefited from the #MeToo movement because we're at a point in our culture where we're giving these cases a lot more scrutiny. I also think the reason why this case has touched a lot more nerves than some of the others is that these cases involve vulnerable girls -- 13,14,15-year-old girls."

"There are a lot of powerful people --men and women, by the way-- who take advantage of poor vulnerable women, whether they are underage, or even women who are young and come to this country trying to make a life for themselves, and really it is up to authorities to nail these cases and start to go after them, but it has been spotty," she also said. (Click here to watch the video segment.) 

And yes, there's (circa 2000) art, from Newsweek:



From left, American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000. (Photo by Davidoff Studios/Getty Images) PHOTO BY DAVIDOFF STUDIOS/GETTY IMAGES/GETTY

Update #2 on Monday morning. There's a lot being written about this story this morning, no surprise. Here's Trump biographer Timothy L. O'Brien, writing at Bloomberg, in an article titled "Epstein Arrest Is a Worry for Donald Trump." This is the article in its entirety:

At some point in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, Jeffrey Epstein, a prominent money manager who owns sprawling homes in Palm Beach, New York, the Virgin Islands and other locales, is likely to be charged as a sex trafficker and pedophile by federal prosecutors.

Epstein, who has been accused repeatedly over the years of manipulatingand molesting underage girls, was arrested at a New Jersey airport on Saturday, according to multiple media reports. The Daily Beast, which broke the news of Epstein’s arrest, said prosecutors will accuse the financier of luring minors and other women to his homes by offering cash for massages and then sexually molesting them.

In an interesting twist, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan has put its public corruption unit in charge of the Epstein case – not, as might be expected, its human-trafficking team (although the latter unit is being consulted reportedly). It’s likely, at least in part, that the case is being handled by corruption prosecutors because of a controversial and lenient plea deal struck between Epstein and federal law enforcement officials in Florida back in 2008. The financier was being investigated at the time for having sex with underage girls – many of them orphans or runaways – at his Palm Beach mansion.

The Justice Department said in February that it planned to investigate “allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved” in Florida. Later that month, a federal judge ruled that the same group of attorneys broke the law by not telling Epstein’s victims that the plea deal existed. The Miami-based prosecutors had prepared a 53-page federal indictment against Epstein, but his deal allowed him to plead guilty only to a state charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution. He served 13 months in a Palm Beach prison that allowed him to leave six days a week to work. The deal also granted immunity to any of Epstein’s potential co-conspirators, who otherwise might have been swept up in his abuses.

Alexander Acosta, who is now President Donald Trump’s labor secretary, was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in 2008 and he supervised the group of lawyers that forged the Epstein deal. Members of Acosta’s team from that period have said that they lacked the evidence to prove Epstein had violated federal law and did as much as they could to see that justice was served. But Julie Brown, a Miami Herald reporter, publisheda series of stories last fall that raised questions about Acosta’s independence and prompted the new federal probes of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Miami.

Brown’s stories took note of the extensive network of political, business and legal allies assembled by Epstein over the years and questioned the extent to which that network may have protected him or helped cushion his fall. It included: A former president, Bill Clinton; the U.K.’s Prince Andrew; powerhouse attorneys such as Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Roy Black; and business contacts such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell, and Leslie Wexner, the owner of retailer Victoria’s Secret. Several years ago, Gawker published a copy of Epstein’s address book and it was packed with marquee names from Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington.

Trump’s name was among them, too.

Seeing the president’s name mixed in with dozens, if not hundreds, of other well-known personalities is hardly unusual. He has had a certain form of celebrity for a very long time. But for a while Trump was more than just a casual acquaintance of Epstein.

The financier was a member of Trump’s Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago, and the men dined at one another’s homes. Trump flew on Epstein’s plane at least once. According to Brown, Epstein is quoted in court papers as saying he wanted to set up his modeling agency – which prosecutors believe he used to get access to underage girls – “the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.”

Although a court filing says Mar-a-Lago eventually dumped Epstein from its ranks after he approached an underage girl there, Trump has generally spoken about Epstein fondly – to me and to others. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, an unidentified young woman filed a suit against Trump in which she alleged that he raped her when she was 13 at a party at Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse in Manhattan. Trump denied the claims and the woman later dropped the suit because, her lawyer said, she was intimidated by death threats. The Trump camp described her allegations as “untrue.”

There’s a strong likelihood that Epstein will end up trying to flip for prosecutors as the reality of a lengthy prison sentence approaches, but it’s unclear how much he has that would be interesting to the feds. If he has anything sordid or compromising that he’s willing to trade about Trump, however, the president could be in for an uncomfortable summer. The public may be interested in that kind of stuff even if prosecutors aren’t.

Update #3 on Tuesday morning. Last night Bill Clinton's press secretary tweeted out a statement: 

Statement on Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l

— Angel Ureña (@angelurena) July 8, 2019

Update #4 on Thursday July 18: I'm a little behind in posting this but Labor Secretary Alex Acosta resigned last Friday:

President Donald Trump announced Friday that Labor Secretary Alex Acosta has resigned, a move that comes after furor over a plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein.

Acosta has been under renewed scrutiny over his previous role as the US attorney in Miami, during which he negotiated the 2008 plea deal with Epstein. Epstein, a well-connected multi-millionaire, avoided a federal trial at the time and served only 13 months in prison for state prostitution charges over his involvement with underage girls. A Miami Herald investigation published last November described the plea deal, negotiated by Acosta, as the "deal of a lifetime." (From an article at CNN posted on Friday, July 12, read more here.) 

Issue dated October 29, 2018: Meghan's Baby Joy

Issue dated October 29, 2018: Pregnant Meghan

View this post on Instagram

Celebrating a wedding and baby news all in one issue @People #meghanmarkle #princeharry #dukeandduchessofsussex #royalbaby #eugenieandjack

A post shared by Simon Perry (@sperrypeoplemag) on Oct 17, 2018 at 5:48am PDT

No surprise about the cover this week and I even called the headline: Baby Joy! (See the Guessing Game post here.) Also as expected, princess bride Eugenie is downgraded to a sidebar; on the other hand, no sign of new mom Pippa, possibly because no pictures of her with the baby are out yet. So far People.com hasn't posted the large version of the new cover, so for now we'll go with reporter Simon Perry's Instagram post.

Last year at this time: Issue dated October 30, 2017


And one more thing. I just had an intriguing thought. As I mentioned last week, the annual Sexiest Man Alive cover should come out in November. Could new husband/dad-to-be Prince Harry get the title this year? The more I think about it the more I think it's a pretty good possibility. Stay tuned...

The Guessing Game - Updated

What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses:

Eugenie's wedding: This will almost certainly be the main cover story. Eugenie by herself isn't that important but Harry and Meghan, Will and Kate, George and Charlotte, not to mention the bride's grandmother the Queen, were all in attendance. One request for the editors: Feature George and Charlotte if you must, but please, please come up with something more original than "stole the show." It's been done, done, done.
Pippa Middleton: Kate's sister was at the wedding on Friday and she's due to give birth any minute
Hope Hicks: At age 29, the former White House staffer has a new, very high level job as the head of PR for Fox
Joe Giudice: Will he be deported to Italy when he gets out of prison
next year?
Selena Gomez: Some kind of a breakdown
Melania: The big 20/20 interview
Kanye West: A strange visit to the Oval Office
Jamal Khashoggi: The Saudi journalist, who had been living in the U.S. and working for the Washington Post, is now believed to have been killed by the Saudi government at their embassy in Turkey. A strange and disturbing story.
Ryan Gosling: His new movie about Neil Armstrong opened yesterday, could he possibly be the sexiest man of 2018?
Khloé Kardashian: Is her relationship with Tristan Thompson falling apart?
Kane Brown: The country singer got married last night

Sunday morning update: Bristol Palin & Dakota Meyer, and/or Jordan Kimball & Jenna Cooper. Two reality TV couples are in the news right now, at least for people who care about such things. Palin and Meyer finalized their divorce a few weeks ago, but in the delayed reality of Reality TV, their break-up is now being shown on the MTV show Teen Mom OG and they've taken to sniping at each other in real time.

Jordan and Jenna got engaged on the final episode of Bachelor In Paradise, which aired the same day Reality Steve released text messages from Jenna to another man, which appeared to indicate that she doesn't really even like Jordan and she only went on the show to build her business/brand. Jordan publicly ended the relationship, Jenna hired a lawyer, Reality Steve snarked about it on Twitter, etc. Normally I wouldn't put an "Inside Bach Nation" story like this on the Guessing Game list but now I see that Jordan is going to be on Dancing With The Stars tomorrow night, dancing as part of a trio with Grocery Joe. There are many (many) Bach Nation men out there who would would jump at the chance to be back in the national TV spotlight on Dancing. The fact that ABC picked Jordan makes me think we might be hearing more about this soon. From Jordan's Instagram:

View this post on Instagram

First Day of Rehearsals and I couldn’t be more excited for Monday! Tune in and watch us make history! It’s going to be the Saturday Night Fever of Salsa🕺💃🕺

A post shared by Jordan Kimball (@jordan__kimball) on Oct 12, 2018 at 10:11pm PDT

Update #2: Ariana Grande and Pete Davidson: They've called off their engagement.

Monday morning, update #3: Meghan is pregnant, wow. Here's the text of the official announcement:

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Sussex is expecting a baby in the Spring of 2019. 

Their Royal Highnesses have appreciated all of the support they have received from people around the world since their wedding in May and are delighted to be able to share this happy news with the public.

I say wow because this announcement comes just as she and Harry have started their first big international tour, a 16-day slog through Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga. If my memory is correct, Charles and Diana cancelled their first big tour when she got pregnant very soon after their wedding. On the other hand, and as I've said here in the blog before, Meghan is now 37. There's no question she and Harry needed to get on with it. I just thought they'd get the trip out of the way first.

Regardless, congratulations to the happy couple. Two big questions now. Will their child get the title of prince or princess, or will he/she have to make do with lord or lady? (My guess? Prince or princess.) And will this news bump Eugenie's wedding from the main cover story? My guess? Yes.

Tuesday morning, update #4: Princess Kate's sister Pippa gave birth yesterday, a nice tie-in to the royal baby narrative that exploded yesterday morning. (Pippa's not royal, but close enough.) Between this new baby and Meghan's pregnancy, I'm almost certain "Baby Joy" will be the main story on the new cover that comes out tomorrow, with Eugenie's wedding downgraded to a sidebar headline and a small picture. Are the Yorks annoyed that Meghan's baby news, in particular, has stomped all over Eugenie's moment in the spotlight? I've seen some stories that say yes, but after watching the royals for all these years, one thing I've learned is that the hierarchy is clear and unchanging. Meghan and Harry will always be more important than Eugenie, and Will and Kate will always be more important than Meghan and Harry. In truth, Eugenie's wedding got more coverage than I would have expected, given her place in that hierarchy, i.e., 9th in line and falling lower every time the Cambridges or the Sussexes have a baby. (Even big sis Princess Beatrice's kids, if she eventually has any, will slide into the line of succession ahead of Eugenie.) She's also outside the absolute top tier, which consists of Prince Charles, his sons and his grandchildren.

Another possibility is Melissa McCarthy, whose new movie, titled Can You Ever Forgive Me?, comes out Friday.

Stories that appear on the cover will be highlighted in green.

Wednesday morning, update #5: See the new cover, with Meghan front and center and Princess Eugenie on the side, here.

Kate And Meghan

Friday morning, update #2: There was a third "Diana and Sarah" cover, which I had forgotten about:


This issue, dated March 17, 1997, was published after both royal marriages had imploded and both women were divorced. Diana would die in the car accident just five and 1/2 months later. I remember thinking at the time that the headline was a bit of a low blow against Sarah Ferguson and I still think so. As I've said here in the blog before, Fergie made some dumb mistakes but she was also thrown under the bus several times by various members of the royal family, including, according to Tina Brown in The Diana Chronicles, by Diana herself.

It turns out that Diana wasn't much of a friend to Sarah after all. Brown takes us back to 1992. Andrew Morton's bombshell book about Diana, titled Diana, Her True Story, was about to be published. There was another book in the works, however, by someone called "Lady Colin Campbell," that told some pretty unflattering tales about Diana. Here's what happened next:

Diana was thrown into a panic when she learned that Lady Colin Campbell’s tell-all book, Diana in Private, was due to come out shortly before Morton’s and might steal her thunder. At just the right moment, however, a story came along that blew the rival book off the front pages. On March 18, Morton and Richard Kay broke the news of the separation of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson as an exclusive in the Daily Mail. The story was ruinous for Fergie’s relations with the Palace. The Queen was personally infuriated by the leak, which later did not help Fergie’s financial negotiations. The Grey Men of the Palace were convinced the Duchess had handed out the information herself, accusing her of hiring a PR company to give it to the Mail.

Pretty bad for Fergie, right? So what really happened? A few paragraphs later, Brown tells us that [a]fter Diana’s death, Morton finally revealed that it was indeed the Princess of Wales who had served up her erstwhile best friend to provide the necessary press distraction. (From The Diana Chronicles, Anchor Books Mass Market edition, May 2008, pages 390-391)

"The merry wives of Windsor"? Not really.

Thursday morning update: I'm not the only one who sees parallels between Kate & Meghan and Fergie & Di. From a new story at people.com:

With Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton set to become sisters-in-law in just a matter of months, their newfound friendship evokes memories of another iconic pair of royal pals: Princess Diana and Sarah, Duchess of York (also known as Fergie).

Of course, there are notable differences between Kate and Meghan and Sarah and Diana. Kate and Meghan —both age 36 — are a decade older than Diana and Fergie were at the start of their marriages. And former Suits star Meghan she has had a far more established career than the three other women had before their own royal marriages. But not since Diana and Fergie have two sisters-in-law in the British royal family so captured the public imagination. 

Sarah and Prince Andrew knew each other throughout their childhoods, but were reintroduced by Diana and Prince Charles. They wed in 1986, five years after Diana and Charles’s wedding. Less than two years apart in age, Diana and Sarah became fast friends. (Read the article here.) 

Also included is this infamous photo, which was an example of the follies of Fergie and Di: 


photo credit: Ken Goff/The LIFE Images Collection/Getty

Note that I wrote the post below yesterday; this new story posted online this morning. In other words, your blogger got there first.

Original post:
Issue dated February 12, 2018: Kate and Meghan


Another in what I'm sure will be an on-going series of cover stories about Meghan and her upcoming royal wedding. Based on the article currently posted on people.com (read it here) People is stretching the "best friends" narrative a little. There are a couple of quotes from "sources" that point out that both women are now 36 and both live at Kensington Palace. There's also a reprint of that nice picture of the two couples at church on Christmas Day, also printed on the new cover. It's pretty weak tea. It would be lovely if the two royal wives could become good friends, but there's no real evidence that it's happened yet.

On the other hand, there's a deja vu aura to the story. Back in the 80s, People ran not one but two cover stories about a previous generation's royal wives, Diana, the Princess of Wales and Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. In the issue dated October 13, 1986, just weeks after Sarah's wedding to Prince Andrew, the headline was "The Merry Wives of Windsor":



Less than a year later, the issue dated July 20, 1987 had one of my favorite headlines of all times: "Naughty, Naughty, The follies of Fergie and Di." Wow.



The follies of Fergie and Di didn't work out so well, of course, but there's every reason to think things will go better this time around. At the time of these cover stories, Diana and Sarah were both still in their mid-20s. At 36, Kate and Meghan are the same as Diana was when she died. The royal family has worked hard to learn from the tragic mistakes of the past, and both William and Harry have been allowed to choose partners they actually love, even though neither woman would have been considered an appropriate royal wife just one generation ago. What will be the topic of the next royal cover? Meghan's wedding dress? Her unconventional family members? Harry's good friends the Obamas, and whether or not they're invited to the big day? Stay tuned.

Still no sign of Melania.

Last year at this time: Issue dated February 13, 2017