Prince Harry once had a “naked encounter” with a dominatrix.

The 38-year-old royal – who stepped down from his official duties in 2020 and moved to L.A with his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex – is set to release the controversial memoir ‘Spare’ on Tuesday (10.11.22) but is said to have left his “fumble” with Las Vegas stripper Carrie Royale, 51, out of the book.

She told The Daily Star on Sunday: “I was with him for a good 20 minutes, with lots of kissing and fumbling. I was wearing a dress over a string bikini and and the dress soon came off, leaving only my bikini. He was already naked. He’s a coward, I knew he wouldn’t tell the whole truth in this book!”

Harry – who now has children Archie, three, and 20-month-old Lili with the former ‘Suits’ actress – is thought to have met the Sin City worker a decade ago and Carrie went on to add to the outlet that she and her friends had been “invited to party” at a hotel with the Duke of Sussex and “laughed” when she heard his claims that he had lost his virginity to an older woman.

She added: “Harry was already naked and running around laughing by the time we got to his room and he was giving people naked hugs. Maybe because I was talking about from Britain, he took me by the hand and led me to his room. We kissed for about 20 minutes and he said afterwards ‘That was really nice’ and then we went back to the party.

“I always knew he had a taste for a cougar!”

Lizzo thinks that cancel culture is “appropriation.”

The 34-year-old pop star took to social media on Sunday (08.01.23) to explain that even though it is a “random” time for her to express her feelings, she believes that the act of cancel culture – which usually sees a person ostracised from society or their profession for holding certain views – has become “trendy” and “misused” in recent years.

She tweeted: “This may be a random time to say this but it’s on my heart.. cancel culture is appropriation. There was real outrage from truly marginalized people and now it’s become trendy, misused, and misdirected. “

The ‘About Damn Time’ hitmaker w tent on to add that she wants to move on from the current nature of cancel culture and begin to focus on the “real problems” within society.

She added: “I hope we can phase out of this and focus our outrage on the real problems.”

Her comments come just days after the GRAMMY Award-winning star – whose real name is Melissa Viviane Jefferson – claimed that the discourse around bodies was “tired” and pointed out that as an artist it is not her job to “fit into” beauty standards.

She said: “The discourse around bodies is officially tired. I have seen comments go from: ‘Oh my gosh, I liked you when you were thick. Why did you lose weight?’; to ‘Oh my gosh, why did you get a BBL [Brazilian butt lift]? I liked your body before’; to ‘Oh my gosh, you’re so big. You need to lose weight, but for your health’; to ‘Oh my gosh, you’re so little. You need to get a** or titties or something’; to ‘Oh my gosh, why did she get all that work done? It’s just too much work.’

“Are we OK? Do you see the delusion? Do we realize that artists are not here to fit into your beauty standards? Artists are here to make art. And this body is art!”

Prince Harry believed Princess Diana’s death was a hoax until he was 23.

The Duke of Sussex was just 12 years old when his mother died in a car crash in Paris in 1997 but he admitted it was “many years” before he accepted she was really gone, and it took retracing her steps from that fatal night to truly understand she wasn’t going to get in touch with him again.

Speaking to Anderson Cooper on ’60 Minutes’, he said: “For a long time. I just refused to accept that she was gone. Part of [it was] she would never do this to us.

“But also, part of it maybe [felt like] this is all part of a plan

“For a time [I believed she was alive] and then she would call us, and we would go and join her.”

Harry, now 38, claimed his brother Prince William shared his hope Diana was still alive and living a quiet life away from scrutiny.

He said: “William and I talked about it as well. He had similar thoughts..”

When Harry was 20, he asked to see the police report about the crash – which also killed Diana’s boyfriend Dodi Al-Fayed and their driver Henri Paul – which included photos of the accident scene.

Asked why he wanted to see the report, he said: “Mainly proof. Proof that she was in the car. Proof that she was injured. And proof that the very paparazzi that chased her into the tunnel were the ones that were taking photographs– photographs of her lying half dead on the back seat of the car.”

But Harry’s private secretary urged him not to look at all of the photos, and he is thankful he didn’t.

He said: “All I saw was the back of my mum’s head– slumped on the back seat. There were other more gruesome photographs, but I will be eternally grateful to him for denying me the ability to inflict pain on myself by seeing that. Because that’s the kinda stuff that sticks in your mind forever.”

Although the BetterUp CIO still doesn’t think he has the “answers” he wants about his mother’s death, he no longer wants to have her inquest reopened.

He said: “William and I considered reopening the inquest. Because there were so many gaps and so many holes in it. Which just didn’t add up and didn’t make sense.”

Asked if he still wants to do that, he said: “I don’t even know if it’s an option now. But no, I think – brrrr – would I like to do that now? It’s a hell of a question, Anderson.

“Truth be known, no. I don’t think I do [have the answers I need]. And I don’t think my brother does either. I don’t think the world does.

“Do I need any more than I already know? No. I don’t think it would change much.”

By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden’s administration to weigh in on whether the justices should decide whether a publicly funded charter school in North Carolina may have violated the rights of female students – deemed “fragile vessels” by the school’s founder – by requiring girls to wear skirts.

The justices are considering whether to hear an appeal by Charter Day School, located in the southeastern North Carolina town of Leland and operated by a private educational management company, of a lower court’s ruling that found that the dress code ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment civil rights protections.

The justices asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to file a brief expressing the Biden administration’s view on the litigation and whether the Supreme Court should take up the matter.

Aaron Streett, a lawyer for the school, called the Supreme Court’s decision to seek the solicitor general’s input rather than reject its appeal a “positive sign” that “indicates that the court views this as an important case that may merit further review.”

Charter Day School, which enrolls students from kindergarten through the eighth grade, emphasizes what it calls “traditional values” and has implemented a dress code that its founder, businessman Baker Mitchell, has said would “preserve chivalry” and ensure that girls are treated “courteously and more gently than boys.” Mitchell, as explained in the lower court’s ruling, viewed chivalry as “a code of conduct” under which women are “regarded as a fragile vessel that men are supposed to take care of and honor.”

Charter schools are publicly funded but operated separately from school boards run by local governments.

Lawyers for the school said the ruling last year by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals posed an “existential threat” to a conservative-backed movement to increase alternatives for parents who want their children to receive public education by expanding the numbers of charter schools.

After being hit with a civil rights lawsuit by three female students backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Charter Day School argued that the 14th Amendment does not apply to it because it is a private entity, not a “state actor” like public schools operated directly by North Carolina school districts.

The 4th Circuit on a 10-6 vote decided that the school was a “state actor” because North Carolina delegated to it its duty to provide free, universal education to students. The 4th Circuit found that the school violated the rights of the plaintiffs to equal protection with a dress code based on gender stereotypes about the “proper place” for girls in society.

Charter schools usually are independently run as a stand-alone entity but can also be managed by for-profit companies or nonprofit organizations running multiple schools, as in this case, with Charter Day School among a group of schools operated by the private Roger Bacon Academy.

The plaintiffs argued that the dress code violated their 14th Amendment rights and subjected them to discrimination and denial of the full benefits of their education in violation of the civil rights law Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education. The 4th Circuit ruling did not make a conclusion on the Title IX claim.

“Courts may not subjugate the constitutional rights of these public-school children to the facade of school choice,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, in a decision joined by her fellow Democratic appointees on the 4th Circuit.

The six dissenting votes on the 4th Circuit came from Republican-appointed judges including Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr, who wrote that the decision would stifle “innovative alternatives to traditional public education.”

Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson called the ruling a “shame” and said the school’s “chivalric approach should neither be legally banished from the educational system, nor should it be legally imposed.”

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Ten Republican state attorneys general, led by Ken Paxton of Texas, backed the school in briefs to the Supreme Court, saying the 4th Circuit’s ruling threatens charters school independence.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham)

By Jason Lange

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A federal watchdog on Monday accused newly elected Republican U.S. Representative George Santos of breaking campaign finance laws by concealing funding sources and using donor money to pay rent on his personal residence.

The Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan government watchdog, made the complaint in a filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) after Santos admitted in an interview with the New York Post that he fabricated much of his resume.

“The commission should thoroughly investigate what appear to be equally brazen lies about how his campaign raised and spent money,” according to the complaint.

Santos’ office in Congress referred queries to the lawmaker’s election campaign, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Santos, who was elected in November to represent a district in New York City’s Queens borough and parts of its wealthy Long Island suburbs, already faces an investigation by a New York prosecutor’s office, according to the district attorney for Nassau County. The nature of that inquiry remains unclear.

Citing federal disclosures, the complaint filed on Monday with the FEC alleges that Santos “appears to have spent $13,500 on rent payments for Santos’s personal residence in blatant violation of the law.”

The Campaign Legal Center said Santos’ campaign finance disclosures also do not square with other disclosures he has made regarding his income and assets.

“The overall circumstances instead indicate that unknown individuals or corporations may have illegally funneled money to Santos’s campaign,” according to the complaint.

An FEC spokesman said the commission does not comment on pending enforcement matters.

Following news stories detailing falsehoods in how Santos has described his education and work and family history, Santos last month apologized for “embellishing” his resume, while defending aspects of the way he had represented himself.

(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Bill Berkrot)

London (AFP) – Prince Harry’s publicity blitz for his new memoir led his public ratings to plummet to a record low in Britain on Monday, before the unflinching autobiography about his troubled royal life hits bookshops.

Some stores open just after midnight Tuesday for the release of “Spare” — the biggest royal book since Harry’s mother Princess Diana collaborated with Andrew Morton for “Diana: Her True Story” in 1992.

It has been preceded by a six-part Netflix documentary and four television interviews in the UK and the United States, where he now lives with wife Meghan.

But in the run-up to the first, on British channel ITV on Sunday evening and watched by a relatively modest 4.1 million people, YouGov polling indicated his popularity had sunk to a new low.

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Britons have a negative view of him, up from 59 percent in December. Just over a quarter (26 percent) had a positive opinion. Meghan polled similarly badly.

Yet he found some support on the streets of London.

Adam Whitty, a 34-year-old management consultant, said not enough people realised the royals were fallible. “I feel like everyone doesn’t give them enough compassion,” he told AFP.

Maraid Fanning, who is 58 and self-employed, praised Harry for speaking out, particularly against the negative media coverage.

“I think history will show that he was on the right side,” she added.

But others criticised Harry for sowing division.

“I don’t like seeing it,” said retired lawyer Antoinette McClaine, 65, contrasting Harry’s candour as the opposite of his grandmother Queen Elizabeth II’s 70 years of “dignity and honour”.

“This feels like exactly the opposite and it’s terribly sad,” she added.

‘Olive branch’

The ITV interview baffled viewers by insisting Harry and his mixed-race wife never accused the royal family of racism over comments made about the skin tone of their unborn son.

“No I didn’t. The British press said that,” Harry said, adding that Meghan had also not called the royals “racist”.

The initial allegation, made in a bombshell interview given by the couple in March 2021 to US chat show host Oprah Winfrey, caused a transatlantic uproar.

Harry’s elder brother and the heir to their father King Charles III’s throne, Prince William, told reporters at the time that “we are very much not a racist family”, but Harry himself stayed silent then.

The late queen said then that “recollections may vary” about what was said — a line that was repeated by some UK commentators in mocking response to Harry’s interviews.

Several described his denial to ITV as an “olive branch”, but one that was contradicted by the Oprah interview and coming too late, given the incendiary nature of his other allegations in the book.

‘Probably bigoted’

Potentially the biggest claim that could hurt his hope for reconciliation with his family was in another interview with US network CBS about his stepmother, Camilla.

The Queen Consort — a hate figure for some for being the other woman in Charles’s marriage to Diana — waged a cunning but “dangerous” campaign to win over the press herself, Harry said, calling her “the villain”.

The book includes a claim that William physically attacked Harry as they argued about Meghan.

It also gives an account of how he lost his virginity, an admission of teenage drug use and a claim he killed 25 people while serving in Afghanistan with the British military, which earned him a rebuke from hardline Islamists the Taliban.

To ITV, Harry also defended a long-serving royal courtier, Susan Hussey, after she grilled a black British guest at a palace reception about where the woman “really” came from.

But to CBS, the prince also admitted to being “probably bigoted” before he met Meghan, and accused William and his wife Kate of never giving her a chance.

The Sun newspaper said Harry had “astonished” viewers with his racism “U-turn”, and described the 38-year-old prince as a “troubled, lonely man”.

“Nothing is Harry’s fault and almost everything can be blamed on the press,” the Daily Telegraph wrote.

The contents of Harry’s ghost-written book have already been widely leaked after it mistakenly went on sale early in Spain.

He insisted to ITV that he still wanted a rapprochement with his father and brother, but said the onus was on them, refusing to confirm whether he will attend Charles’s coronation in May.

He also urged his family to respond. “Silence only allows the abuser to abuse, right? So I don’t know how staying silent is ever gonna make things better,” he added.

Noah Schnapp has come out as gay.

The 18-year-old actor – who is best known for playing Will Byers in ‘Stranger Things’ – shared the news with his fans in a TikTok video.

He said: “When I finally told my friends and family I was gay after being scared in the closet for 18 years and all they said was ‘we know.’ You know what it never was? That serious. It was never that serious. Quite frankly, it will never be that serious.”

Noah’s on-screen character in ‘Stranger Things’ is gay, and the teenage actor even referenced Will’s sexuality in the TikTok caption.

He wrote: “I guess I’m more similar to Will than I thought.”

Noah previously explained that season four of the show will explore Will’s “personal struggles and struggles with his identity”.

He said: “I feel like people are used to seeing him fighting a monster or struggling with the supernatural side of ‘Stranger Things’.

“But this season, it’s just more about his personal struggles and struggles with his identity, and I think it’s interesting for the audience to see that.”

Noah also addressed Will’s sexuality during an interview in July.

The actor – who stars on the show alongside Millie Bobby Brown and Finn Wolfhard – confirmed in the interview that Will had feelings for his best friend Mike, adding that it was “100 percent clear that he is gay”.

Noah said at the time: “Obviously, it was hinted at in Season 1: It was always kind of there, but you never really knew, ‘Is it just him growing up slower than his friends?’

“Now that he’s gotten older, they made it a very real, obvious thing. Now it’s 100 percent clear that he is gay and he does love Mike.”

New York (AFP) – Republican George Santos admitted to hamming up his life story and is under investigation in America and Brazil, but he still went to Capitol Hill this week for his swearing in.

The 34-year-old has defied calls to stand down and if rebel Republicans hadn’t repeatedly blocked the election of House Speaker then Santos would be a Congressman by now.

For some experts, the lawmaker-elect from New York is an example of what politicians think they can get away with today in the deeply polarized United States. 

“There is no getting around the fact that Mr. Santos’s con game is a manifestation of a growing political phenomenon of saying or doing anything, with no automatic consequences,” Santos’s Democratic predecessor, former representative Tom Suozzi wrote in the New York Times. 

Joshua Tucker, a politics professor at New York University notes that “people have lied about their record forever.”

“(But) what’s crazy about this story is the extent to which he lied,” he told AFP.

Santos portrayed himself as the embodiment of the “American Dream” ahead of his election victory in New York’s third congressional district in November.

The son of Brazilian immigrants grew up in the Queens borough of New York City and is openly gay.

His story began to unravel in December when the New York Times reported many falsehoods in his CV, including on education and employment.

He did not graduate from Baruch College, nor did he attend the Horace Mann School, a prestigious private school in the Bronx. Nor did he work for Citigroup or Goldman Sachs.

Santos — who grew up in a Catholic family — was also accused of exaggerating reality, our outright lying, by presenting himself as “a proud American Jew.” 

He later said he never claimed to be Jewish, just “Jew-ish.”

Reports also cast doubts on his claim that he is the grandson of Holocaust survivors who fled Nazi barbarism. 

Santos, who has been likened to “The Talented Mr. Ripley” or “The Great Gatsby”, has been accused of inflating his financial income and real estate holdings as well.

Amid the allegations, New York’s top prosecutor, Letitia James, said she would investigate Santos’ claims while Brazilian prosecutors reinstated over-decade-old fraud charges against him for using a stolen checkbook.

‘I’m not a fraud’

Santos told the conservative Fox News channel this week that “embellishing my resume was a mistake.”

But he added: “I’m not a fraud, I’m not a fake.”

Santos appeared isolated in the House of Representatives on Monday, and avoided questions from journalists, but by Tuesday he was seen mixing with other Republicans.

While Democrats have called for him to quit, no high-profile Republicans have done so.

Some commentators say that highlights the fragile state of American democracy.

“Today’s hyperpolarized political culture is fueled by a win-at-all-costs mentality in which the ends justify the means,” Ken Paulson and Kent Syler, two professors at Middle Tennessee State University, wrote in The Tennessean newspaper.

Tucker sees the influence of former president Donald Trump, who is known for his flexible relationship with facts.

“Trump has shown that it doesn’t really matter what your relationship to the truth is,” he said.

“Maybe in this modern era, the bar for what triggers politicians to think they have behaved so egregiously that they should resign is different than it was in previous eras.

“It’s sort of hard to fathom that he’s not going to resign at some point,” Tucker added.

A local conservative newspaper, The North Shore Leader, raised concerns about Santos’s financial situation before his election, but the information was not picked up nationally after the vote.

Some observers also criticize the Democratic Party for not spotting and highlighting Santos’s fibs earlier.

So what might happen to Santos if he doesn’t quit?

Experts say the House may vote to censure him when he is finally sworn in, but they add that Republicans are unlikely to expel him due to their slim 222-213 majority.

Voters, armed with more facts about Santos than they had this time round, will get another say in two years’ time — if he decides to seek re-election.