Author: bang7

The Battle for Ferrari’s Future: Lewis Hamilton’s Ultimatum

As the Formula 1 world gears up for the 2025 Belgian Grand Prix, the unexpected moves of seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton have once again taken center stage. In a highly unusual turn of events, Hamilton publicly criticized his new team, Ferrari, for being unable to meet his high expectations since the start of the season. But this wasn’t just another plea for better technical input—it was an ultimatum that could have profound implications for Ferrari’s future and the Formula 1 landscape itself. What exactly is Hamilton demanding, and why has it sent shockwaves through the paddock?

The Unseen Conflict

Behind the iconic red walls of Scuderia Ferrari, a battle is raging. It’s a battle not fought on track but behind closed doors, where the roar of engines and the clicking of data devices mask the true conflict at the heart of the team. The battle isn’t about race strategy or tire choices but about the very character of Ferrari’s SF25 car—and the power to shape that character.

The catalyst for this conflict? Steering settings. For most Formula 1 drivers, power steering is a matter of comfort and control. But for Hamilton, the steering feel is an extension of his mind. After spending over a decade with Mercedes, Hamilton’s connection with the car’s steering has become almost instinctual. He knows precisely how it should feel when he turns the wheel—how it should respond in the heat of battle.

But when Hamilton stepped into the Ferrari SF25 for the first time, he immediately noticed a disconnect. The car refused to speak his language. It didn’t respond in the intuitive way that he was accustomed to, leaving him frustrated and unable to tap into his full potential. According to senior engineers at Ferrari, Hamilton’s requests to recalibrate the steering to better match his style were met with resistance. Every time he asked for adjustments to make the car more responsive in corners, the answer was always the same: it would take too long to implement.

However, as sources close to the team revealed, this refusal wasn’t merely a technical matter. According to one insider, it was a political issue—a struggle for control over Ferrari’s future. The true issue wasn’t the time it would take to adjust the steering system, but who would define the direction of the car’s development. Was Hamilton’s input to be valued, or would the team continue to follow the philosophy that had been shaped around their star driver, Charles Leclerc?

Leclerc’s Influence: The Power Behind Ferrari’s Design

The tension within Ferrari came to a head when Leclerc, during a simulator session, tried a steering setup more aligned with Hamilton’s preferences. The results were unexpected. After testing the configuration, Leclerc removed his headset, stopped the simulation, and muttered that the car “didn’t respond like before.” For those inside Ferrari, it was more than a simple comment—it was a clear sign of Leclerc’s dominance over the team’s development.

Leclerc’s remark sent shockwaves through the team, and within moments, the configuration was deleted from the system. It wasn’t just a technical decision; it was a statement. Leclerc, it seemed, held veto power over Ferrari’s direction. Any technical requests from Hamilton now had to pass through a lengthy and complicated approval process, whereas Leclerc’s preferences were implemented with remarkable speed and efficiency.

Ferrari had essentially created a two-tiered system within their development process: one for Leclerc and one for everyone else—including Hamilton. This power struggle had deep ramifications. It wasn’t just about steering feel; it was about control. Leclerc’s influence over the team had become so pronounced that it seemed as though he was not just Ferrari’s driver but its king, with the power to shape the car’s very identity.

Hamilton’s Quiet Rebellion

Despite the internal politics at Ferrari, Hamilton has remained calm and collected. He hasn’t resorted to public outbursts or media pressure, choosing instead to remain silent. But that silence is anything but passive. It is a carefully crafted strategy, a weapon of calculated observation. Hamilton is, in essence, documenting every instance of resistance. He knows that speaking too early could reveal his hand. He’s a chess master in a game of high stakes, waiting for the right moment to make his move.

Before the Belgian Grand Prix, Hamilton invoked a performance clause in his contract—a special provision that allows him to request specific technical configurations without the long evaluation process that typically governs Ferrari’s decision-making. His request? A steering setup similar to that of the 2020 Mercedes W11, one of the most dominant cars in F1 history. The setup Hamilton requested was aggressive, offering sharp torque and a responsive lateral feel that would allow him to push the car to its limits. This was more than just a technical request; it was a statement—a demand for change and for control.

Hamilton’s demand left no room for compromise. He made it clear: “If I can’t feel the car, I can’t fight with it.” That simple statement marked the beginning of a pivotal moment in Ferrari’s season. It was no longer just about one driver’s preferences—it was about a fundamental shift in Ferrari’s approach to car development. And for the first time, Hamilton’s technical demands were being treated with the seriousness they deserved.

The Tension in the Garage

As the team prepared for the first practice session of the Belgian Grand Prix, the atmosphere in the Ferrari garage was charged with tension. It wasn’t just about lap times—it was about who had the right approach to Ferrari’s development. While Leclerc stuck with a more conservative, simulation-friendly setup, Hamilton’s choice was radical, an attempt to push Ferrari in a new direction.

There were no words exchanged in the garage, no cheerful banter as usual. Instead, there was a thick silence as everyone waited to see how Hamilton’s setup would perform. If Hamilton’s configuration proved faster, it would call into question the very foundation of Ferrari’s technical philosophy. The implications were massive: it would force Ferrari to reevaluate their entire development strategy, a process that could undermine Leclerc’s central role within the team.

If Hamilton’s approach succeeded, it would validate everything Ferrari had been doing wrong. The entire team would have to admit that they had been developing a car for the wrong driver. It was a terrifying thought for some at Ferrari, who feared that Hamilton’s success would expose the flaws in their philosophy.

A Defining Moment for Ferrari

As Hamilton hit the track for his first lap, all eyes in the paddock were on him. His lap time was more than just a measure of speed—it was a test of Ferrari’s future. If Hamilton could deliver a flawless performance, it would send a clear message: his approach was the right one. It wasn’t just about the car—it was about the philosophy behind it.

Ferrari now stood at a crossroads. If Hamilton’s setup proved superior, it would force the team to confront the uncomfortable truth: their traditional approach had failed. They would have to tear apart their long-term plans and rebuild from scratch. For a team with Ferrari’s history and pride, such a shift would be a monumental challenge.

The question now is whether Ferrari is ready to sacrifice its ego and tradition for the sake of progress. Will they embrace Hamilton’s vision for the future, or will they continue to hold onto a philosophy that may no longer be relevant? As the Belgian Grand Prix approaches, the world watches, waiting to see who will emerge victorious in this silent battle for control over Ferrari’s future.

Full Video:

Ferrari’s Secret Test: A Game-Changer for the 2025 Season?

Ferrari’s 2025 Formula 1 season has been a rollercoaster of highs and lows, with their performance often falling short of expectations. However, a recent “secret test” may be the game-changer the team desperately needs. This wasn’t just any promotional filming day at the Mugello circuit — it was Ferrari’s last shot at salvaging their season. The team pulled out all the stops, testing a radical rear suspension redesign, a change that could have far-reaching implications not only for their immediate prospects in 2025 but also for their long-term competitiveness in the sport.

In this article, we’ll explore the significance of this testing session, the technical implications of the new rear suspension, and why Ferrari’s gamble could either save their season or force them into a rebuilding phase.

The Crucial Test: Ferrari’s Last Shot

On the surface, the test at Mugello may have looked like another routine filming day. After all, Ferrari has used Mugello for promotional purposes before. However, what was being tested was anything but routine. The test was Ferrari’s first opportunity to try out a completely redesigned rear suspension on their SF-25 — a car that’s been plagued by one major flaw: hypersensitivity to ride height.

This issue has been a thorn in Ferrari’s side all year. The team has been forced to run their car higher than optimal in order to avoid disqualification, which in turn has led to a loss of grip, reduced cornering stability, and ultimately a slower car. The new suspension, however, promises to eliminate this compromise once and for all.

Why This Suspension Matters

The new rear suspension isn’t just a minor tweak or adjustment; it’s a foundational change designed to resolve the SF-25’s biggest weakness. At the heart of the issue is the hypersensitivity to ride height, which has been causing the car to lose performance at crucial moments. By redesigning the rear suspension, Ferrari hopes to stabilize the ride height and maintain consistent performance across all conditions, from low to high-speed corners.

Behind this seemingly simple change lies a significant engineering challenge. The new suspension requires Ferrari to re-engineer how the suspension arms are anchored to the gearbox. This is no easy feat, especially considering that these changes rely on load-bearing components made from carbon-fiber transmission casing. The risks are high — one wrong move could end in catastrophic failure. But Ferrari is willing to take the gamble, as the potential rewards could be immense.

Testing the New Setup

The team’s decision to involve both Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton in the test speaks volumes about the importance of this upgrade. This is not some marketing exercise; it’s a real, driven test aimed at resolving Ferrari’s technical shortcomings. Both drivers are known for their ability to extract performance from a car, and their input on the new suspension setup will be invaluable in determining its viability.

The suspension is also being tested just days before the team heads to Belgium for the next round of the season. Ferrari delayed their preparations for the Spa-Francorchamps race to ensure that this test would take place. That speaks to the urgency Ferrari feels in getting this update right. The SF-25 has been underperforming all season, and if this suspension doesn’t deliver, Ferrari’s hopes for a strong finish in 2025 could be dashed.

The Risk and the Reward

What makes this suspension redesign so risky is the degree of complexity involved. Ferrari has to trust load-bearing parts of a carbon-fiber transmission casing, a material known for its strength but also its susceptibility to failure under stress. The added weight of the new suspension, coupled with the need to maintain strength and reliability, makes this a high-stakes move. If the suspension fails, it could compromise the car’s entire performance package — something Ferrari simply cannot afford.

However, the potential rewards are significant. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations have suggested that the new suspension could yield up to a tenth of a second in lap time gains. While that might not sound like much, in the ultra-competitive world of Formula 1, a tenth of a second can be the difference between finishing in the top five or languishing mid-pack. For Ferrari, the gains could be even more valuable. With McLaren already far ahead, the team is focusing on securing second place in the Constructors’ Championship, and this suspension could be the key to achieving that goal.

A Technical Turning Point

If the suspension works as hoped, it could provide Ferrari with a significant advantage as they head into the 2026 regulation changes. The introduction of new technical regulations in F1 is always a pivotal moment, as it levels the playing field and gives teams the chance to reset and start fresh. A successful suspension redesign could lay the foundation for Ferrari to challenge for titles in 2026, positioning them as a team to watch once the new regulations come into effect.

However, Ferrari’s immediate focus is on 2025, and the competition for second place in the Constructors’ Championship is heating up. With McLaren a distant 238 points ahead, Ferrari’s best hope for salvaging their season is to close the gap to teams like Mercedes, Red Bull, and Aston Martin. After being outpaced by the likes of Nico Hülkenberg in a Sauber at Silverstone, Ferrari knows that every upgrade must deliver results. If the rear suspension works, it could be the boost the team needs to finish the season strong.

Looking Ahead: A Critical Moment for Ferrari

This test is more than just a last-ditch effort to salvage Ferrari’s 2025 season. It represents a critical moment in the team’s journey. If the suspension is a success, it could be the technical breakthrough that propels Ferrari back into the championship fight. If it fails, Ferrari will need to regroup and focus on their long-term goals, potentially shifting their focus to the 2026 regulations.

Ferrari has historically been a team of high drama, often finding themselves at the center of attention due to both their triumphs and failures. This secret test is no different. It is, at its core, Ferrari’s Hail Mary — their final chance to fix the flaws in their SF-25 and return to the front of the grid.

For fans and insiders alike, this is a critical moment in Ferrari’s season. Whether or not the new rear suspension delivers on its promises, one thing is certain: Ferrari is not giving up without a fight.

As the test results come in, the entire F1 world will be watching closely. Can Ferrari make the technical leap they need to stay competitive in 2025? Or will this gamble prove to be too risky? Only time will tell, but for now, Ferrari’s secret test is the key to their future.

Full Video:

The recent buzz surrounding Max Verstappen and Mercedes is stirring up quite a storm in the Formula 1 world. While it may seem like the Dutch driver’s commitment to Red Bull is solid, behind the scenes, talks with Mercedes appear far from finished. According to reports, including one from The Telegraph, Verstappen and Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff are still in communication, which raises the tantalizing possibility of a major switch by 2026. But what does this potential move mean for the sport, and how could it reshape the Formula 1 landscape?

The Current Situation: Red Bull’s Struggles and the Growing Allure of Mercedes

Verstappen, who has dominated Formula 1 for the past several seasons with Red Bull, now finds himself in a more uncertain position. A key element of his success has been the synergy between him and the team’s technical leadership. However, with some of the key figures who helped shape Red Bull’s dominance departing, there are growing concerns about the future of the team’s technical direction. Max’s father, Jos Verstappen, has been vocal about pushing for the best possible future for his son, even suggesting that if Red Bull’s competitiveness falters, it might be time to explore other options.

In particular, the departure of technical director Adrian Newey, along with other major figures like James Allison, has left Red Bull’s future uncertain. While the team could rebuild and potentially remain a front-runner, it’s clear that they are losing key personnel that helped make their success possible. This shifting landscape has made Max question his long-term future with the team.

Given the uncertainty around Red Bull’s ability to maintain its edge, a potential switch to Mercedes seems to be an attractive option for Verstappen, especially when considering the upward trajectory of Mercedes’ performance. Wolff and Mercedes, with their highly competitive technical staff, have been working hard to return to championship contention. This makes them a serious contender for Verstappen’s services when his contract with Red Bull ends.

Why 2026 Could Be the Year of the Switch

The year 2026 marks the beginning of a new era in Formula 1 with significant technical and regulatory changes. The introduction of new engine regulations and other alterations to the car specifications could level the playing field and give teams like Mercedes a chance to challenge Red Bull’s dominance. This creates the perfect environment for Verstappen to consider a move to a team with a clear ambition to return to the top.

In fact, the idea of Verstappen moving to Mercedes in 2026 might not be as far-fetched as it seems. While the rumors of talks between Wolff and Verstappen have not been confirmed, the fact that both parties have shown interest in each other speaks volumes. Verstappen is already one of the most marketable and sought-after drivers on the grid, and Mercedes may well see him as the final piece of the puzzle in their pursuit of another championship.

Additionally, it’s no secret that Mercedes has been keen to strengthen their driver lineup. With George Russell already proving himself as a talented driver capable of challenging the best, it’s possible that Mercedes could look to Verstappen as the ideal teammate to take on Red Bull and Ferrari.

The Big Question: Will Red Bull Let Verstappen Go?

Verstappen has given Red Bull unprecedented success, and the team will undoubtedly want to retain him for as long as possible. However, the longer he stays at Red Bull without a clear path forward, the greater the possibility that he will look elsewhere. His contract situation with Red Bull is key. If the technical development stagnates or if the team struggles to maintain its dominance, Verstappen may see a move as the best option for his career.

Jos Verstappen, Max’s father, has been very vocal about ensuring his son is in the best possible position. He has suggested that if Red Bull’s performance declines or their competitiveness is no longer at the level Max expects, a change could be in order. The Verstappen family’s priority has always been Max’s success, and if Red Bull’s competitiveness falters, moving to Mercedes would be a logical step.

Moreover, as Max gets older, the urgency for securing his future at a team capable of challenging for championships intensifies. Unlike some older drivers who continue to race into their 40s, Verstappen has been quite clear about not wanting to race for much longer. His desire to be part of a competitive team is therefore even more pressing.

Mercedes’ Driver Dilemma: Russell, Hamilton, and Verstappen

While the idea of Verstappen joining Mercedes excites many, there is a significant challenge for the team: their current driver lineup. George Russell, who joined Mercedes in 2022, has proven to be a strong and capable driver. His potential is immense, and he is regarded as a future star. On the other hand, Lewis Hamilton, one of the most successful drivers in F1 history, remains under contract with the team for the foreseeable future.

Mercedes is faced with a delicate balancing act. With Verstappen on the radar, Russell’s future at the team could be under threat. However, it’s also possible that Mercedes could align their future strategy around Verstappen and Hamilton, creating a powerhouse team capable of challenging Red Bull for years to come. However, this would only work if the team can provide the cars and strategy to match their ambition.

It’s clear that the power dynamics within Mercedes could shift drastically depending on how things unfold. If Verstappen were to join the team, it would not only disrupt Red Bull’s dominance but also change the balance of power within Mercedes. A team with two World Champions in Verstappen and Hamilton would be a force to reckon with.

The Impact on Formula 1

If the move happens, it would mark one of the biggest shifts in Formula 1 in recent years. Verstappen joining Mercedes would likely spark an intense rivalry between him and the Red Bull team, which could reignite the competitive spirit within the sport. With two of the most dominant teams at the forefront of F1, the racing would be as thrilling as ever.

A Verstappen-Mercedes partnership would also influence how teams approach technical development. As the 2026 regulations change the game, it’s likely that the team with the best technical knowledge and adaptability will have the edge. Mercedes, with their engineering expertise, could become a major player again, leading to intense competition between them and Red Bull.

Conclusion

The prospect of Max Verstappen moving to Mercedes in 2026 is tantalizing and would undoubtedly change the trajectory of Formula 1. While Red Bull and Verstappen have had an incredibly successful partnership, the team’s uncertain future and the upcoming regulatory changes in 2026 might make it the right time for Max to seek new opportunities. Mercedes is positioning itself as a key contender in the post-2026 era, and Verstappen’s arrival could solidify their place at the top.

It remains to be seen how things will unfold, but one thing is certain: the next few years will be crucial for Verstappen, Red Bull, and Mercedes. For now, the talk of a move to Mercedes adds another layer of intrigue to the already exciting world of Formula 1.

Full Video:

Carlos Sainz’s Move to Williams: A Potential Mistake?

In the world of Formula 1, decisions regarding team moves can shape the trajectory of a driver’s career. Carlos Sainz’s move to Williams for the 2025 season was met with widespread surprise and speculation. The Spanish driver, who had previously established himself in the sport with impressive performances at teams like Ferrari, shocked the F1 community by choosing the Grove-based team for his next chapter. Williams, a team historically struggling at the back of the grid, had shown signs of improvement in recent seasons, but their overall pace was still a far cry from the top-tier teams. Fast forward a few months, and Sainz appears to be far from satisfied with his decision.

The Promises of Williams and the Reality

When Sainz made the switch to Williams, it was seen as a potential stepping stone for him to establish himself as a leading driver once again. The team was eager to make strides in the midfield, with a solid foundation and future plans that had the promise of putting them back in the fight for podiums in the near future. But despite the optimism and high hopes for the partnership, the 2025 season has not been smooth sailing for Sainz.

The team has faced numerous reliability issues, with consistent execution problems hindering their chances of progressing. Despite being ranked P5 in the constructor’s championship standings, Sainz has expressed frustration over what he perceives as missed opportunities. In an interview, he admitted, “Definitely, we’re going through a tough period with reliability issues and weekend execution problems, as you could see in Austria.”

At this point in the season, Sainz sits 15th in the driver’s standings, a stark contrast to his teammate Alexander Albon, who has secured 46 points and is currently 8th in the standings. The discrepancy between the two drivers’ performances has only fueled questions about whether Sainz made the right choice by moving to Williams.

The Challenges: A Tough Start to the Season

Sainz has had a difficult run of races, with several weekends marked by a lack of consistency and missed chances. Despite occasional flashes of speed and strong performances in certain races, Sainz has struggled to extract the most from his car. His own words reflect his discontent: “Everything that could go wrong this year so far has gone wrong for me. It’s been a run of races where we’ve had highlights and some good moments, but in the majority of it, it’s been very scrappy from every part involved.”

For Sainz, the speed of the car has never been the issue. As he has stated, “The one thing that keeps me smiling is the speed that I have in the car and with the team.” However, the bad luck factor has been a constant companion, making it difficult to challenge for better results.

Williams’ Development and the Fight for P5

Williams’ position in the constructor’s championship reflects the team’s relative progress over the last few seasons. As of now, they hold 59 points, comfortably ahead of the teams behind them. However, other midfield teams like Alfa Romeo (41 points) and Racing Bulls (36 points) are closing in, meaning Williams’ grip on the 5th spot is far from secure. The competition is growing fiercer, with teams like Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo improving their performances.

For Sainz, the pressure to perform is increasing. His underwhelming results compared to Albon have raised doubts about whether the Spaniard can help Williams maintain its strong position and progress further. As Sainz admitted, his lack of consistency in results may end up being detrimental to Williams’ ambitions. If this form continues, it will be hard for the team to remain the best of the midfield, and they might struggle to keep pace with the improving competitors behind them.

Was Williams the Right Choice for Carlos Sainz?

Given the circumstances, one of the most pertinent questions is whether Williams was truly the right choice for Sainz at this stage in his career. Sainz had a number of potential options when he made his decision, including an opportunity to lead Audi’s team or reuniting with Red Bull, where he would have been part of an already successful structure alongside Max Verstappen. However, Sainz chose to focus on the potential of Williams, seeing their long-term plans as the best option for future success.

But now, with Williams failing to capitalize on their car’s speed and showing inconsistency in execution, Sainz may be questioning whether he made the right call. While it’s easy to see the upside of joining a team on the rise, the reality of frequent reliability issues and missed opportunities has left Sainz wondering whether he would have been better off in a different team that could more immediately challenge for podiums and championships.

Gunter Steiner, the former team principal of Haas, was one of the individuals who voiced concerns about Sainz’s decision. He suggested that Sainz might regret joining Williams, especially after the difficult start to the season. Steiner, speaking in the aftermath of the season’s struggles, noted that while Sainz is a talented driver, the car’s performance, coupled with the team’s struggles, has made it a challenging year for the Spaniard.

Could Carlos Sainz Have Thrived at Another Team?

Sainz had other teams vying for his services. Red Bull was an option, but joining them would have placed him in a very difficult position alongside Verstappen, arguably the most dominant driver in F1 today. While it could have been a career-defining opportunity, Sainz has expressed concerns about being in the shadow of Verstappen, who has been virtually unbeatable over the past few seasons.

The move to Audi, where Sainz would have been their lead driver, could have provided him with more immediate control over his career, but the allure of Williams’ long-term prospects was too strong to resist. In hindsight, Audi might have offered a safer and more predictable path to success, but the risk of being part of a new team with little track record was a gamble that Sainz was willing to take.

The Road Ahead for Sainz

As we move deeper into the 2025 season, Carlos Sainz faces a pivotal moment in his career. The challenges at Williams are not insurmountable, but his failure to capitalize on the car’s potential, combined with the rising competition from teams like Aston Martin and Alfa Romeo, means the pressure is on him to perform. If he can find consistency and lead Williams to a stronger finish in the season, he will have proven that his decision to join the team was justified.

However, if his form continues to dip, and if Albon maintains his strong performances, Sainz might find himself reassessing his position at Williams. His future in Formula 1 may no longer be secure if he can’t prove that he belongs at the top of the midfield. The coming races will be crucial in determining whether Sainz will stay at Williams long-term or whether a move to a more competitive team could be on the horizon.

In the fast-paced world of Formula 1, timing and choices matter more than anything. For Carlos Sainz, the next few months could determine the future trajectory of his career, and whether he made the right call in moving to Williams.

Full Video:

Amanda Holden has reignited her feud with Sharon Osbourne after previously branding her ‘bitter and pathetic’ over comments she made about Simon Cowell

Amanda Holden has fuelled the flames of her feud with Sharon Osbourne again(Image: Joanne Davidson/REX/Shutterstock)

Amanda Holden has fuelled the flames of her feud with Sharon Osbourne again after making a savage comment about her use of Ozempic. The women were involved in a bitter exchange two years ago when Amanda accused The Osbournes star of being ‘bitter and pathetic’ over comments she made about her former boss on the X Factor, Simon Cowell.

Now, Amanda is at it again after saying ‘she would always choose her face over her waistline’ as she opened up Sharon’s use of the drug designed to treat diabetes, which is now being used for weight loss. Former X Factor judge Sharon, 72, has been open about how Ozempic had an severe effect on her appearance after she lost four stone in three months.

Sharon Osbourne, 72, has been open about how Ozempic had an severe effect on her appearance after she lost four stone in three months(Image: Variety via Getty Images)

But, Amanda, 54, doesn’t seem to have any sympathy as she told the Mail: “I would choose my face over my waist any day.”

She continued: “Obviously, yeah, with Sharon….”, she paused… “It is a crazy time for those sort of jabs and things. But I will always choose my a*** over my weight and my boobs. This is where the weight goes.”

Amanda added: “We’ve seen some huge differences [with celebrities appearances] at some of the red carpets in Hollywood.

“I think it’s been very helpful for lots of people, I’m obviously not an advocate of somebody using it if they don’t need to, just because we don’t know what the implications are yet, but I think if people have used it for health reasons and for the right reasons, then it’s great.”

Sharon irked Amanda when she said her Britain’s Got Talent boss pal, Simon Cowell, “doesn’t know how to keep friends” in a conversation with their fellow former X Factor judge Louis Walsh when the pair appeared together on Celebrity Big Brother.

Responding, Amanda branded the comments: “Stabby, stabby, stabby” and accused Sharon of being “bitter and pathetic”.

She also praised Simon for giving Sharon and Louis a “lot of money and a lifestyle they probably wouldn’t have had”.

However, retorting, Sharon took to Instagram fuming that Amanda did not know her “history in the music industry, my achievements, the artists I have worked with, the shows that I’ve produced, and my global celebrity”.

She said whenever she had seen the actress on television she always thought she was “very beautiful and talented” but told her: “Never make comments about my lifestyle given to me by Simon Cowell.

“It’s demeaning to me and my husband and all the achievements I have made in my life as you’re making yourself look like an ill-informed sycophantic.”

Sharon, who starred alongside her family in the 2000s reality show The Osbournes and had her own talk show, said her brand is “known worldwide” and she has been “blessed with an amazing lifestyle throughout my entire life”, with a mansion in Beverley Hills and an English country estate.

She continued: “I never discuss money, lifestyle, or positions of power. I find it to be classless and crude.

“Yes, Simon paid me very well. Probably more than what you’re receiving today, but all of that my darling went on a few handbags.”

The Tragic Death of Princess Diana: The Closed Casket and the Symbolism Behind It

Princess Diana’s untimely death on August 31, 1997, stunned the world. She passed away in a horrific car crash in Paris, and her death left an indelible mark on history. The shockwaves reverberated through the lives of millions, as people around the globe mourned the loss of a beloved figure whose grace, compassion, and humanitarian efforts had captured the hearts of so many.

Princess Diana, often referred to as “the people’s princess,” had dedicated much of her life to charitable work and had become a symbol of empathy and kindness. Her sudden passing at the age of 36 was both tragic and highly public, as it occurred in the presence of paparazzi who had been aggressively chasing the car she was in. Her funeral, which took place on September 6, 1997, was a globally broadcasted event that attracted millions of viewers. However, one detail about her funeral that has sparked speculation and curiosity over the years was the decision to keep her casket closed throughout the service.

The Emotional Toll of the Loss

Diana’s funeral was a solemn event, filled with emotional tributes and a profound sense of grief. London was covered with flowers, with an estimated 60 million flowers left in her honor. The streets were lined with mourners as her coffin was carried in a procession through the streets of London. One of the most poignant moments during the procession was when her two sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, walked behind their mother’s coffin. Both princes were just 15 and 12 years old at the time, and their visible sorrow highlighted the deep personal loss that their family was enduring, amidst a much larger public mourning.

At the funeral, Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, delivered a powerful eulogy, and the royal family, including Prince Charles and Prince Philip, participated in the ceremony. Prince Philip, despite his own grief, walked behind the coffin in solidarity with his grandsons, expressing his desire to support them through the shared loss.

The funeral was watched by approximately 2.5 billion people worldwide, making it one of the most viewed events in history. The emotions were palpable, and the grief was collective, as the world joined together to remember Diana.

Why Was Diana’s Casket Closed?

The decision to keep Princess Diana’s casket closed during the funeral has remained a subject of much debate and intrigue. The royal family’s choice was influenced by multiple factors, primarily the circumstances surrounding Diana’s death, the nature of her injuries, and the desire to protect both her dignity and the public from the distressing sight of her injuries.

Princess Diana’s death was the result of a high-speed car crash in Paris, which occurred as she and her companion were trying to evade the paparazzi. The car, driven by Henri Paul, crashed into a pillar in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel, instantly killing both Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed, her companion. Diana, however, survived the initial impact and was rushed to the hospital, but her injuries were extensive. Despite an emergency two-hour operation, Diana died from massive internal bleeding caused by a ruptured pulmonary vein.

The severity of Diana’s injuries was such that it was deemed inappropriate and disrespectful to display her body for public viewing. The royal family, in consultation with medical and funeral experts, made the decision to keep her casket closed. It was understood that an open casket might have been too distressing for her family, particularly her young sons, and could have caused unnecessary emotional harm to the public who was already mourning the loss of this iconic figure.

The Role of Tradition and Royal Protocol

Royal funerals are guided by strict protocols that balance personal wishes with tradition and public expectations. For Princess Diana, an open casket would have been seen as too public a gesture, especially given the nature of her death. Traditional royal practices often lean towards closed caskets when there has been significant trauma or when the public nature of the event requires discretion.

Moreover, the royal family had always been protective of Diana’s image, both during her life and after her death. She was seen not only as a beloved figure in the public eye but also as a mother, a humanitarian, and a woman who had endured personal struggles under the intense scrutiny of the media. A closed casket allowed for her memory to be honored in a way that was respectful of her dignity and that of her family. It also allowed the focus to remain on her life, her contributions, and the immense sorrow shared by the world rather than on the gruesome nature of her death.

A Final Tribute: Personal Items in the Casket

Despite the closed casket, details about Princess Diana’s final moments and the tributes placed with her remained poignant and meaningful. Among the many flowers placed atop her casket, a small but significant card stood out. The card was addressed simply to “Mummy” and was written in the handwriting of her two sons, Prince William and Prince Harry. The heart-wrenching gesture was a symbol of the love and loss the young princes were experiencing, and it captured the deep emotional bond Diana had with her children. Alongside the card, three wreaths of white roses were placed on her coffin, each carrying profound personal meaning. Diana had always had a fondness for white flowers, and the white rose was symbolic of purity and respect.

Diana was also dressed in a black woolen cocktail dress designed by one of her favorite designers, Katherine Walker. This dress had been ordered just weeks before her death, symbolizing Diana’s timeless elegance and her desire for simplicity. Additionally, a set of rosary beads from Mother Teresa, another deeply respected humanitarian with whom Diana had a close relationship, was placed in her casket. The beads served as a reminder of the spiritual connection Diana had with those she admired and respected.

In a deeply personal gesture, Diana’s butler, Paul Burrell, included photographs of her sons in her casket. These photographs, which Diana had kept by her bedside, represented the central role her children had in her life. The decision to include these items was a final tribute to her as a mother and symbolized her devotion to her sons.

The Burial: A Final Resting Place

Diana’s burial at the Spencer family estate, Althorp, was chosen with great care to provide privacy for her family and to honor her legacy. The initial plan was to bury her at the St. Mary’s Church in Great Brington, but her brother, Earl Spencer, made the decision to change the location after reflecting on the overwhelming public grief and the need for her sons to visit her in peace. Althorp, with its secluded grounds and private family setting, provided a serene and secure environment where the family could mourn without public interference.

Diana’s grave, located near an ornamental lake, remains a private site. The area is only accessible by a narrow footbridge, ensuring that her final resting place remains protected from unwanted attention. Over the years, Prince William and Prince Harry have visited their mother’s grave in private moments, and the estate has become a place where Diana’s life and memory are commemorated with respect.

Conclusion

The closed casket at Princess Diana’s funeral remains one of the most poignant and debated aspects of her death. The decision was made out of respect for her dignity, the protection of her family, and in line with royal tradition. It symbolized the family’s desire to honor Diana’s life rather than focus on the circumstances of her death. The tributes, personal items, and the choice of burial location at Althorp further emphasized the deep love and care the family had for Diana. While the world mourned her passing, the royal family sought to preserve her legacy in a way that allowed them to remember her as the compassionate, devoted mother and humanitarian she had been.

Full Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxhkGVr0k-w

Peter Andre and his wife Emily mutually agreed that they’d have no more children after welcoming their third baby, a daughter named Arabella, in April last year

Peter Andre shared why the major decision has left him ‘freaking out’

Peter Andre has revealed why he’s put the brakes on having a vasectomy, for the time being. The popstar said that although he and his 35-year-old wife Emily have agreed he should undergo the procedure, he is “freaked out” at the thought.

The 51-year-old and Emily, a NHS doctor, share three children; 10-year-old Amelia, eight-year-old Theo, and nine-month-old Arabella. Peter also has two kids from his previous marriage to Katie Price – Junior, 19, and Princess, 17.

Recently quizzed on whether or not he had considered a vasectomy, Peter shared the two reasons that had been holding him back. Firstly, he has believed for a long time that the procedure can cause “a high-pitched” voice.

Furthermore, the singer said he’s been told it can be “horrific” by those who have already had it done. Sharing his concerns on The Netmums podcast, he said: “I literally thought that if you get it done, you start talking like this (high-pitched).

“I literally did, so I started freaking out and I said, ‘I can’t do that’ and she [Emily] said, ‘What’s wrong with you?’. And I said, ‘Well, what if I start speaking really high-pitched?’ As if I don’t speak high-pitched already,” he added, laughing.

After Emily reassured him that this was a myth, Peter said he was up for the process, until he heard from others.

Peter and Emily Andre said they were ‘done’ with having children last year

He added: “I then went and started asking people who have had it done and they were like, ‘It’s horrific, it’s this, it’s that’.”

Those harrowing tales were enough to postpone the plan, however Peter isn’t ruling it out completely.

“I’m not going to lie, I’ve completely bottled it, it’s freaked me out,” he added. “If it means she doesn’t need to do anything to prevent it, I will do it, but it’s going to take some guts to do it.”

The singer and Emily, who married in 2015, mutually decided to close the chapter on expanding their brood following the birth of Arabella in April last year.

Previously speaking to OK! Magazine, he admitted that he didn’t think he would still be changing nappies at his age and declared: “This is it!”.

Emily added to the publication: “That’s a categorical no from me! I love them all so much, but I already feel I don’t have enough time for each one individually.

“I’m getting rid of baby things now. That’s how I know I’m done – I didn’t do that after having Theo. Facebook Marketplace is my friend!”.

Prince Harry echoed his mum with a solo trip to a minefield on Wednesday just days after ‘peace talks’ between his and King Charles’ top aides

Prince Harry made a moving visit to a location with connections to Princess Diana without Meghan, after his aides held secret “peace summit” with King Charles’ top team last week.

The Duke of Sussex visited an Angolan minefield 28 years after his mother’s famous visit to the same country. Harry, as a patron of landmine clearance charity the Halo Trust, spoke to families in a remote village near Africa’s largest minefield on Wednesday. This special trip comes just days after a remarkable meeting between the Harry’s and Charles’ camps, with senior aides from both sides spotted around a table at a London private members’ club.

Prince Harry went on a moving solo trip to Angola(Image: AP)

Prince Harry’s top aides extended an olive branch to the King by expressing the Duke of Sussex’s desire to avoid “ambushing” the royals in a attempt to regain regular communication with his cancer-battling father.

Meredith Maines, the chief communications officer for Harry and Charles’ communications secretary, Tobyn Andreae, met last Wednesday in London with the estranged Prince wishing for a “roadmap for more regular communication” with his dad.

Sources in the US have told the Mirror that although the summit was informal, it covered several critical issues. These included avoiding undisclosed revelations between LA and the Palace during sensitive periods and coordination to avoid “clashing narratives”.

Princess Diana visited the a minefield in Angola in 1997(Image: PA)

However, Prince William is still ‘deeply wounded’ by his brother and has no plans to contact him, a source told the Mirror. The source said: “The Prince of Wales remains deeply wounded by Prince Harry’s various allegations in his memoir and endless broadcast interviews over the last few years.

“There are no plans to either make contact with or arrange to see the Duke of Sussex in the near future and regardless of any members of the family seeking reconciliation, that is certainly not on the prince’s mind. Both the Prince and Princess of Wales are entirely focussed on their various important duties and their own family.”

The Prince gave children in Cuito Cuanavale advice on avoiding detonating mines(Image: AP)

Prince Harry was on a solo mission as he echoed his late mother on his visit to Angola. A source told the Daily Mail that the Duke of Sussex was taking the trip alone, after he decided it was too dangerous for Meghan Markle to join him. The source told the publication: “The duke won’t let his wife go to England over security concerns, so there was no chance he’d allow her to go to Angola to walk across landmines.”

The source added: “Halo is really his thing, it means so much to him to be patron and he just wants to keep his work with them to himself.”

The Duke of Sussex was highlighting the threat of the munitions in the African country, the same nation Diana, Princess of Wales visited in 1997 to urge the world to ban the weapons.

He gave children in Cuito Cuanavale advice on avoiding detonating mines, telling them in Portuguese: “Stop, go back and tell your elders.” On Tuesday, he met Angola’s President Joao Lourenco and welcomed the leader’s intention to continue support for the removal of landmines left from the civil war that ended in 2002.

Prince Harry spoke to families in a remote village near Africa’s largest minefield(Image: AP)

Months before she died in a car crash, Diana, wearing a protective visor and vest, walked through a minefield being cleared by the Halo Trust. She strode through a cleared path in a Huambo minefield, and the images of her in body armour and a mask gave the anti-landmine campaign global recognition.

Harry, who also echoed Diana in a 2019 visit to an Angolan minefield, said: “Children should never have to live in fear of playing outside or walking to school. Here in Angola, over three decades later, the remnants of war still threaten lives every day.” It is estimated that at least 60,000 people have been killed or injured by landmines in Angola since 2008, the Halo Trust said.

Prince Harry has previously called Africa his “home away from home” but he embarked on his latest trip without Meghan. The Prince himself ruled out his wife’s attendance on the landmine walk, which had been planned months ago.

A source in Angola, according to the MailOnline claimed “Harry didn’t want Meghan there”, partly due to concerns for her safety but also allegedly because he believed the Halo Charity was his “thing”.

John Torode and Lisa Faulkner met on MasterChef, and later fell in love after their respective marriages ended – later going on to launch their own cooking show together on ITV

ITV are set to stand by John Torode and give his TV career a lifeline, the Mirror can reveal.

Multiple sources at the channel said there were “no current changes to scheduling” for the weekend. This means the third episode of John and Lisa’s Weekend Kitchen will go out at 11.40am on Saturday. He hosts the show with wife Lisa Faulkner and it is the 10th anniversary series on air.

It follows Torode being sacked as MasterChef presenter after an allegation against him using “an extremely offensive racist term” was upheld.

One ITV source said: “I think we will keep going with the show. We don’t know the details of the BBC issue and have never had any trouble with him ourselves.

“We obviously have our own complaints handling procedure and a code of conduct for talent at ITV. There have been no issues raised with John so the series is set to continue to air.”

Torode followed his MasterChef co-host Gregg Wallace out of the door at the BBC for allegedly using racist language.

John & Lisa’s Weekend Kitchen returns for a brand new series (
Image:
ITV)
The Australian star continues to insist he had no knowledge of the “offensive” comment he was accused of making, despite lawyers Lewis Silkin upholding the complaint, said to be from 2018 in their independent investigation into the series.

It came after the firm upheld 45 out of 83 claims against Wallace, 60, including “unwanted physical contact”, “being in a state of undress”, bullying and inappropriate jokes.

MasterChef production company Banijay UK said it had discussed the matter with Torode and with the BBC and that they “are agreed that we will not renew his contract on MasterChef “.

But in a statement released on Tuesday night, Torode said: “Although I haven’t heard from anyone at the BBC or Banijay, I am seeing and reading I’ve been ‘sacked’ from MasterChef. I repeat that I have no recollection of what I’m accused of. The enquiry could not even state the date or year of when I am meant to have said something wrong.”

Grace Dent is tipped to replace Gregg Wallace after he was dismissed over dozens of allegations (
Image:
BBC)
He said Celebrity MasterChef, which he recently filmed with food critic Grace Dent, along with two Christmas specials, would be his last.

“Personally, I have loved every minute working on MasterChef, but it’s time to pass the cutlery to someone else.”

Speaking to BBC News on Tuesday afternoon, BBC Director General Davie described the allegation against Torode as “a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form”.

“It’s really important we are taking this seriously,” he said. “We’ve drawn a line in the sand.”

So far Gregg Wallace has yet to react to the news his co-star John has also left the BBC, where they both held their positions for 20 years.

speaking on Monday, after the report into his conduct was released, Wallace said he was ‘relieved’ everything was out in the open and apologised for his actions.

In his statement, Wallace said: “I’m relieved that the Banijay report fully recognises that my behaviour changed profoundly in 2018. Some of my humour and language missed the mark. I never set out to harm or humiliate. I always tried to bring warmth and support to MasterChef, on screen and off.

“After nearly 20 years on the show, I now see that certain patterns, shaped by traits I’ve only recently begun to understand, may have been misread. I also accept that more could have been done, by others and by myself, to address concerns earlier.”

“A late autism diagnosis has helped me understand how I communicate and how I’m perceived. I’m still learning.”

John Torode is preparing to take legal action against the BBC after he was sacked from MasterChef, sources have revealed to us. He was sacked from the show after an allegation against him using of him using “an extremely offensive racist term”

John Torode is preparing to take legal action against the BBC after he was sacked from MasterChef. He was ditched from the cooking show after an allegation against him using “an extremely offensive racist term” was upheld.

John said he had “no recollection” of it happening – and in a statement told how he’d only found out his contract had been terminated after the Beeb and producers Banijay put out the news. Now sources close to the star say he’s speaking to employment lawyers as he fights to “clear his name.”

“John is preparing to launch the lawsuit against the BBC,” tells the insider. “He wants to pursue them for unfair dismissal. He’s telling people there is no proof of his supposed comment. It was not in a work capacity, it was just hearsay. John is determined to clear his name.”

Torode, 59, followed his MasterChef co-host Gregg Wallace out of the door at the BBC for allegedly using racist language.

Torode said he had no recollection of using the “extremely offensive racist term”(Image: Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock)

The Australian star continues to insist he had no knowledge of the “offensive” comment he was accused of making, despite lawyers Lewis Silkin upholding the complaint, said to be from 2018 in their independent investigation into the series.

It came after the firm upheld 45 out of 83 claims against Wallace, 60, including “unwanted physical contact”, “being in a state of undress”, bullying and inappropriate jokes.

Torode himself revealed he was the subject on an allegation, saying: “I do not believe that it happened.” The source said the move took the Beeb by surprise.

“John is a tough talking Aussie and does not stand to ceremony. The BBC were not expecting John Torode to jump the gun about the comment and make a statement.”

MasterChef production company Banijay UK said it had discussed the matter with Torode and with the BBC and that they “are agreed that we will not renew his contract on MasterChef “.

Torode and Wallace hosted MasterChef together(Image: SOPA Images, SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

But in a statement released on Tuesday night, Torode said: “Although I haven’t heard from anyone at the BBC or Banijay, I am seeing and reading I’ve been ‘sacked’ from MasterChef. I repeat that I have no recollection of what I’m accused of. The enquiry could not even state the date or year of when I am meant to have said something wrong.”

He said Celebrity MasterChef, which he recently filmed with food critic Grace Dent, along with two Christmas specials, would be his last. “Personally, I have loved every minute working on MasterChef, but it’s time to pass the cutlery to someone else.”

Speaking to BBC News on Tuesday afternoon, BBC Director General Davie described the allegation against Torode as “a serious racist term which does not get to be acceptable in any way shape or form. It’s really important we are taking this seriously,” he said. “We’ve drawn a line in the sand.”

It comes as the Mirror can reveal ITV are set to stand by John Torode and give his TV career a lifeline. Multiple sources at the channel said there were “no current changes to scheduling” for the weekend. This means the third episode of John and Lisa’s Weekend Kitchen will go out at 11.40am on Saturday. He hosts the show with wife Lisa Faulkner and it is the 10th anniversary series on air.

One ITV source said: “I think we will keep going with the show. We don’t know the details of the BBC issue and have never had any trouble with him ourselves. We obviously have our own complaints handling procedure and a code of conduct for talent at ITV. There have been no issues raised with John so the series is set to continue to air.”

Torode, 59, followed his MasterChef co-host Gregg Wallace out of the door at the BBC(Image: Getty)

Another source said the developments have been “hard for Lisa”, who is “conscious of their ITV show and doesn’t want to jeopardise that.” Torode’s dismissal comes as the BBC confirmed that several members of staff have been sacked following a recent review into the corporation’s culture.

Samir Shah, chairman of the BBC, acknowledged that some powerful individuals still make life “unbearable” for their colleagues.

Speaking as the corporation released its annual report on Tuesday, he acknowledged that over the past year there had been a “string of revelations” about abuses of power at the corporation. Our staff are dedicated, hardworking and treat each other with respect,” he said. “However, there are pockets in the organisation where this is not the case. There are still places where powerful individuals – on and off-screen – can abuse that power to make life for their colleagues unbearable.”

John Torode has been dropped from MasterChef(Image: BBC)

Director-general Tim Davie insisted he can lead the BBC in the “right way” after the series of scandals. The corporation has been criticised for recent failings, which include breaching its own editorial guidelines and allegations surrounding the former MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace and John Torode.

Asked after the release of the 2024/2025 annual report whether he would resign, he said: “I simply think I’m in a place where I can work to improve dramatically the BBC and lead it in the right way.

“There’s enormous, massive noise and different opinions about what we should do, but I think we have been clear. We are making the right decisions. We’re being transparent. I would also say that… I’ve set a very clear stall out in terms of impartiality.”

Question marks now hang over the full recording of BBC1 ’s amateur version of MasterChef, put on ice over the probe into Wallace, and the 20th celebrity series, with 20 faces yet to be named, plus judge Grace Dent.

But Davie insisted the show would survive. “It’s a great programme, well loved by audiences. It is bigger than individuals. It can survive and prosper, but we’ve got to make sure we’re in the right place in terms of the culture of the show.”