Connect with us

Entertainment

Buckingham Palace gets chills running down its spine as it announces DEFCON-1

Published

on

Buckingham Palace gets chills running down its spine as it announces DEFCON-1


Buckingham Palace announces DEFCON-1 as Parliament preps action

Buckingham Palace has recently seen DEFCON-1 being announced, and according to sources, there is a frenzy going on in the Firm as a result.

For those unversed, this is all due to the public calls for Andrew to be stripped of not just his dukedom or military honors, but also the title of prince that he enjoys as the younger brother of the reigning monarch, and son of the late Queen Elizabeth II.

A warning about the Firm’s state has been shared by a Whitehall source. According to their findings, the reason for DEFCON-1 was Andrew’s title fiasco that rocked the Firm, reason being Parliament “was sniffing around” according to celebrity news reporter Rob Shuter.

On his substack he explained that, behind closed doors, senior MPs has begun talks about Andrew’s behavior and conduct, and there were even plans to have him summoned “to testify under oath.”

According to the reporter, “the moment lawmakers start treating a royal like a cabinet minister, everything collapses. That’s DEFCON-1 at the Palace.”

For those unversed, should Parliament step in once into the Firm’s ‘jurisdiction’, they “can do it again. And if they tug the Andrew thread, more follows: private security, foreign dealings, royal finances, Queen Elizabeth’s decisions. The mere specter of hearings sent chills down centuries of royal precedent,” he added too.

According to Mr Shuter, that is why Andrew’s title was handled as swiftly as it was, and “we have never seen royal paperwork move that quickly,” he even added.

A big reason for that though, is because “the King had leverage — Prime Minister Keir Starmer owes him for discreet whispering in Donald Trumps ear. Lammy didn’t blink.”

However, before the news signed off a senior advisor was also quoted saying that King Charles’ reasons for going this route were not because “for shame,” instead Andrew “was sacrificed to protect the system.”





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

Simon Cowell responds to ‘staged’ December 10 show accusation

Published

on

Simon Cowell responds to ‘staged’ December 10 show accusation


Simon Cowell answered critics who claimed the new Netflix talent series The Next Act show which introduced boyband December 10 felt scripted.

December 10 which is made up of Cruz, Danny, Hendrick, John, Josh, Nicolas, and Sean released their first music video this week.

It sparked renewed debate about how the group was formed on Cowell’s show.

On The Rest Is Entertainment podcast, host Richard Osman questioned the show’s ‘authenticity’.

“What I thought I was going to watch was something with a bit more authenticity if that makes sense,” said the American Idol judge.

“You’re so brilliant at controlling narrative and understanding what people want and understanding how to give it to them.

“I wondered if you execing that show meant that we missed out on some genuine authenticity, as I felt a number of times where you were saying ‘oh this is a big problem, oh I don’t know what’s gonna happen here’ and I thought ‘I think you do know what’s going to happen here’.”

The 66-year-old pushed back firmly stating, “No, Richard… pinky promise I didn’t. Absolutely didn’t… I promise you it was all genuine, what you see is what happened. And there weren’t any second takes.”

Co‑host Marina Hyde also raised eyebrows over the inclusion of “bad auditions,” likening them to the “theatre of cruelty” seen on The X Factor.

Cowell insisted that showing both strong and weak performers was part of the reality of auditions.

“But that is the reality with auditions, I’ve always gone with about half a percent of the people you see are gonna be good,” share Cowell.

“So there were some not so good people. So I guess it was a decision to show the people that turned up and some of them weren’t very good.”





Source link

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Kiefer Sutherland recalls “extraordinary” day with Rob Reiner on “A Few Good Men” set

Published

on

Kiefer Sutherland recalls “extraordinary” day with Rob Reiner on “A Few Good Men” set



Kiefer Sutherland was directed by Rob Reiner at the start of his career when he filmed the 1992 legal drama “A Few Good Men.”

Sutherland recalled the day Jack Nicholson, who played Colonel Nathan Jessup, delivered his famous courtroom line, “You can’t handle the truth!” Nicholson did the entire scene from one end to the other in one “breathtaking” take, Sutherland said.

“No one said a word, and Rob went up to Jack Nicholson and whispered in his ear, ‘Do you want to do another one?’ And Jack Nicholson said, ‘Well, we’re here,'” Sutherland told CBS News in the upcoming special “CBS News: Rob Reiner – Scenes from a Life,” airing Sunday. “So they did another one, and it was just as extraordinary.”

The plan was to continue shooting the whole day, Sutherland said, but Reiner was so impressed with Nicholson’s last shot that he sent everyone home early.

“They had planned to shoot the whole day, and Rob looked at everybody and said, ‘I couldn’t ask for anything more, so you guys all have the rest of the day off,” Sutherland said.

Reiner and his wife, Michele, were found fatally stabbed in their Los Angeles home on Dec. 14, authorities said. Their son, Nick, has been charged with first-degree murder in their deaths.

You can hear more from Sutherland and others who knew Reiner in the one-hour special “CBS News: Rob Reiner – Scenes from a Life.” It will be broadcast Sunday at 8:30 p.m. ET/8 p.m. PT on CBS, and will stream on Paramount+.  



Source link

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Royal family, King Charles turn a deaf ear to warning about monarchy

Published

on

Royal family, King Charles turn a deaf ear to warning about monarchy


Royal family, King Charles turn a deaf ear to warning about monarchy

The royal family always maintained their silence on gossips about the monarchy and focuses on their mission and goals to serve their people with maximum approach.

However, latest questions about the Firm’s existence may have raised eyebrows among the concerned.

Presenter David Dimbleby left Britons in deep thought with his blunt queries about the monarchy’s role in the modern era.

He discussed the role and power of the sovereign in new BBC series What’s the Monarchy for?

The royal family has always tried to address things with their gestures instead of directly indulging in debate, but the questions seem to be too tough to be responded in words.

The Firm is often debated for it’s core objective to exist. However, the prople believe the monarchy symbolises national identity and unity. It promotes cultural heritage and tradition.

The royals also supporting charitable and public engagements and  foster tourism and economic benefits.

They are also called a unifying figurehead for the nation and have ceremonial role in governance as a symbol of continuity and stability.

The Question Time host has spent much of his career commentating on the royal family, but for the past two years he has dedicated his time to making this monarchy-focused three-part documentary.

He even asked, “What role is there for our unelected head of state?”

The monarch’s loyalists may also be shunning the question as they want them to continue with the same spirits.

However, the late Queen Elizabeth II herself said: “No institution should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t.”

Dimbleby asks what real tangible power does the monarch have with regard to government and explores cases, such as the time Charles’ private letters to government ministers and prime minister Tony Blair were made public, to prove if, in fact, the then Prince of Wales was lobbying politicians.

Dimbleby makes a point: “Charles may not have been able to influence government policy but he was determined to do so if he could.”

The presenter went on say that it would be naive to think that a Prime Minister’s weekly audiences with the monarch would have no effect or influence on government policy.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending