Taylor Swift’s police escort during her Eras Tour shows in London has led to a political scandal in Britain—as well as allegations of a “double standard” in connection with Prince Harry.

The Shake It Off singer was dragged into the major political storm engulfing the new Labour government after allegations that the home secretary pressured police to provide her with an escort from her hotel to Wembley Stadium. Lisa Nandy, the government’s culture secretary, denied the allegation on Sky News and cited the foiled terror plot in Vienna as grounds for the decision, which she said had been made independently by officers.

 

However, the saga has sparked comparisons with security for Prince Harry, whose round-the-clock protection team was removed after he quit his royal duties in 2020, despite his protestations that he, Meghan Markle and their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, were at risk from terrorists and the far right.

Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, author of This Is Why I Resist and a prominent commentator in Britain on both the royals and British politics, told Newsweek: “I’d say there’s a double standard. There’s people trying to politicize the Metropolitan Police actions in giving Taylor Swift protection, but that was the right thing to do.

“Why would you let her go up and down without police protection, knowing fully well that there were the terror alerts? And the same can be said for Prince Harry. “The same grounds that exist for giving her protection are the same grounds that exist for giving Prince Harry protection, especially since his reasons are long-standing,” Mos-Shogbamimu said.

Harry and Meghan experienced a scare when a suspicious-looking white powder, sent alongside a racist note addressed to them, was intercepted on its way to Kensington Palace in February 2018. The powder was tested and found to be harmless. The prince sued the British government in an effort to overturn its decision to strip him of his police bodyguards and lost twice, although he is pursuing an appeal.

Among his arguments was that his and Meghan’s police bodyguards should have remained in place even after they quit their roles within the monarchy, based on the threat level. Harry has at times been given police protection in the past four years but only when going to and from royal events for which he had an invite from his family, Newsweek has previously been told. The decision regarding Swift comes after the Manchester bombing in 2017, in which 22 people were killed when Salman Abedi detonated a suicide bomb at an Ariana Grande concert.

The Labour government in Britain is currently facing multiple allegations that free gifts and hospitality were taken from donors who may have had a vested interest. Prime Minister Keir Starmer accepted Swift concert tickets for himself and his wife, Victoria, to a Wembley show, though he has since paid back the money. The Sun reported that Swift’s mother had threatened to cancel the shows unless a police team was provided and that Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Labour London Mayor Sadiq Khan stepped in to exert pressure on the Metropolitan Police.

The newspaper suggested the police were reluctant because of the high level of cost to taxpayers. The allegations—which have been denied—risk supporting Harry’s argument that members of the royal household may have interfered to stop him from getting security. “I do not have a problem with Taylor Swift having that police protection,” Mos-Shogbamimu said. “I think it is appropriate because of the terrorist alarm, which is what caused them to cancel the shows [in Austria this past August]. “We all know what happened with Ariane Grande in Manchester, so of course it makes absolute sense that there’s a police escort,” she continued. “Where she was able to get a police escort because she’s in the country, and because of the reports and death threats of terrorism and the like, the same should be afforded to Prince Harry, who faces the same if not more.

“The threats, the death threats—and I would call it domestic terrorism that he and his family face—is real, so it does make sense that he gets police protection,” Mos-Shogbamimu said. Nandy was asked about the controversy by Kay Burley on Sky News and replied: “It’s an operational matter for the police, not for the government.” She went on: “Don’t forget that when it comes to Taylor Swift, what had just happened was that a series of concerts have been canceled in Vienna because of the very serious security threat. I really utterly reject that there’s been any kind of wrongdoing or undue influence in this case.”

 

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said in a statement: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”

Word on the street is that Harry’s been invited to spend Christmas at his mother’s childhood home, Althorp. Now wouldn’t that make for a Hallmark movie in the making? Except, plot twist—Meghan’s not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect.

Our sources say Harry’s all gung-ho about heading back to the UK for some festive cheer. Can you blame him? After years of being stuck in Montecito with nothing but avocado toast and Meghan’s constant scheming for company, a proper British Christmas probably sounds like heaven on Earth—roast turkey, crackers, and the Queen’s speech. Oh wait, scratch that last one. Rest in peace, your Majesty.But here’s where it gets juicy, my friends! Meghan, our self-proclaimed victim extraordinaire, is reportedly dragging her Louis Vuitton-clad feet. Now, why oh why would that be? Let me put on my detective hat and dive into this mystery.

First up, we’ve got the classic security concerns excuse. Oh please, give me a break! The woman couldn’t wait to parade herself around every red carpet and TV show, and suddenly she feels unsafe in the UK—the same UK where she lived, got married, and enjoyed all the perks of royalty. Something smells fishier than the Thames at low tide, and it ain’t the Christmas pudding!

But wait, there’s more! Let’s not forget about the real elephants in the room—or should I say the invisible elephants? That’s right, I’m talking about the ghost children of Montecito: Archie and Lilibet.

Now, I’m not saying they don’t exist, but has anyone actually seen these kids? I mean really seen them—not just conveniently timed blurry paparazzi shots or carefully curated Instagram posts. Think about it! If Meghan brings her children to the UK, the jig is up.

No more mysteries of unseen royal babies to dangle over Charles’s head like some sort of twisted inheritance blackmail. No more excuses for why they can’t attend family events or why they’re never seen in public. The whole house of cards could come tumbling down faster than you could say “genetic pain and suffering.”

And let’s not forget the biggest reason of all: Meghan’s victim narrative would crumble faster than a stale scone. Imagine the horror if Harry actually reconciles with his family! Where does that leave our favorite martyr? No more tearful Oprah interviews, no more telling her truth—whatever that means—and no more playing the race card every time someone dares to criticize her. The horror!

But here’s the kicker, dear viewers. Meghan’s reluctance to return to the UK isn’t about maintaining her carefully crafted image as the most persecuted woman in history. Oh no, it goes much deeper than that. It’s about control, pure and simple.

You see, our Duchess of Duplicity has spent years molding Harry into her perfect little puppet. She’s isolated him from his family, his friends, his entire support system.

She’s convinced him that she’s the only one who truly understands him and has his best interests at heart. And now, the thought of him potentially reconnecting with his family? That’s Meghan’s worst nightmare come to life.

Because let’s face it: if Harry spends time with his family without Meghan’s constant whispering in his ear, who knows what might happen? He might remember the good times, realize that his family isn’t the group of racist monsters Meghan’s painted them to be, and even want to repair those relationships.

And where would that leave Meghan? High and dry, that’s where. No more royal connection to exploit, no more victims to milk for all they’re worth. She’d be right back where she started: a failed actress with delusions of grandeur and a talent for manipulation.

But here’s the real tragedy, my friends. While Meghan plays her games and Harry dances to her tune, real people are getting hurt. William and Kate, who have done nothing but try to support Harry, even as he’s thrown them under the bus time and time again.

King Charles, who’s trying to navigate his new role while dealing with a son determined to tear down the very institution he’s meant to uphold.

And let’s not forget the late Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, who spent their final years watching their beloved grandson turn his back on everything they stood for.

Then there’s Harry himself—oh Harry! The once charming prince has been reduced to a shell of his former self. The man who used to light up a room with his smile and dedicated his life to serving others seems destined for greatness. Now, look at him—a puppet on Meghan’s string, trotted out for publicity stunts and tell-all books. His every move calculated for maximum drama and profit.It’s enough to break your heart, isn’t it? To see a family torn apart and a legacy tarnished all because one woman couldn’t handle not being the center of attention. But that’s the Meghan Markle effect for you, folks. She came, she saw, she conquered—and she left nothing but destruction in her wake.

 

So will the Sussexes make their grand return to the UK this Christmas? Only time will tell. But one thing’s for sure: if they do, you can bet your bottom dollar it’ll be on Meghan’s terms. Because in the twisted fairy tale that is the Sussex saga, there’s only room for one star, and her name sure as hell isn’t Cinderella.

Prince William Reportedly Bans Sussexes from Future Royal Events, Signaling a Growing Rift Within the Royal Family

The reports suggest that Prince William is taking on a more prominent role in shaping the future of the monarchy. This might be due to the likelihood of King Charles’ reign being shorter than that of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, with Prince William positioning himself as the next leader of the monarchy.

A primary reason behind the ban is said to be Prince William’s concerns about the Sussexes’ tell-all interviews and the potential for them to reveal more private information about the royal family. Prince Harry’s recent book, “Spare,” is seen as a source of tension, and William is likely worried about other sensitive details the Sussexes might disclose if they were reintegrated into royal events.

This reported decision contrasts with King Charles’ apparent openness towards reconciliation with the Sussexes. There are reports that the King sympathizes with Meghan Markle’s claims of mistreatment within the royal family and that he wishes to spend more time with his grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet.

In summary, the reported ban on the Sussexes from future royal events indicates a deeper rift within the royal family. Concerned about the monarchy’s privacy and reputation, Prince William appears to be taking a firmer stance against the Sussexes, while King Charles seems to lean towards reconciliation. It remains to be seen how this situation will develop in the future.

Reports are circulating that Prince William has banned Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, from attending future royal events. This news emerges amid a publicly acknowledged rift between the Sussexes and the royal family, highlighting an increasing division between Prince William and his father, King Charles.

Meghan Markle reportedly reached out to her former *Suits* co-star Patrick J. Adams, not for a casual chat, but seemingly to secure a spot on his new rewatch podcast, according to *People* magazine.

Adams, who played Mike Ross in the popular legal drama, shared that although he and Markle have lost touch over the years, she recently texted him offering her help with his latest project.Adams and Markle played love interests on *Suits*, where he portrayed Mike Ross and she played Rachel Zane. Since the show ended and Markle transitioned into British royalty, she has carved out a dramatically different life, trading her role on the USA Network for a royal title.

 

However, with her Hollywood career cooling off and the dust settling around her royal life, Markle now seems to be making an unexpected return to her roots.

When asked if he still kept in touch with Markle, Adams responded that they aren’t really in contact due to their very different lifestyles. Yet, with *Suits* experiencing a resurgence in popularity on Netflix, Adams and fellow castmate Sarah Rafferty have launched a rewatch podcast titled *Sidebar: A Suits Watch Podcast*. It seems Markle couldn’t resist reaching out when she caught wind of this development.

In Adams’ words, Markle sent him a lovely text expressing how thrilled she was for him and asking how she could assist. He appeared genuinely appreciative, saying it was nice to still feel that kind of support and friendship after so much time.

However, the timing and nature of Markle’s sudden interest in *Suits* have raised a few eyebrows. Her post-royalty career hasn’t exactly been smooth sailing; projects with Netflix and Spotify have struggled to gain traction, and now she seems to be on the sidelines while her former castmates bask in renewed *Suits* fame.

Markle’s post-royal ventures have not been met with open arms. Her podcast, *Archetypes*, was recently dropped by Spotify, reportedly due to lackluster reviews and low engagement. Additionally, her latest business endeavor, American Riviera Orchards, hit a major roadblock with a trademark rejection from the U.S. Patent Office.

Meanwhile, Markle hasn’t announced any new projects, leading some to speculate that she may be struggling to find her footing outside of royal life.

Given this backdrop, it’s not entirely surprising that Markle might be looking to reconnect with her *Suits* colleagues, especially as the show’s popularity soared again this summer. *Suits* broke records on Netflix, leading fans to wonder if Meghan was hoping to capitalize on the nostalgia surrounding the series.

Notably, her former castmates have reunited at various events, such as the Golden Globes earlier this year, where they took the stage together as presenters. However, Markle was notably absent and, according to Gabriel Macht and Gina Torres, isn’t part of their group chats, seemingly keeping her distance from the cast since marrying Prince Harry.

For someone who once held the title of a British royal, Markle’s latest moves are quite an interesting twist. Some might see this as a fall from grace, with the former actress turned duchess returning to her roots and reaching out to the very co-stars she left behind to become a royal. Her quick exit from *Suits* in 2018 marked the beginning of what many assumed would be a glamorous chapter, but with recent setbacks, Markle appears to be, if not crawling, at least inching back toward the people and projects she once left behind.

 

So, is Meghan Markle looking to rekindle old friendships, or is this simply a desperate bid for relevance? With a lack of new projects on the horizon and her ventures into podcasting and entrepreneurship floundering, Markle’s sudden interest in *Suits* feels almost too convenient. Perhaps she’s hoping that a sprinkle of her former castmate’s success will rub off on her.

Queen Elizabeth II’s reign was defined by her unwavering sense of duty, ironclad commitment to service, and deep-rooted responsibility to her people.

Throughout her remarkable 70-year reign, she faced numerous challenges, both personal and public, yet she consistently navigated them with grace and resilience.

As her reign neared its end, the Queen recognized that the royal family would inevitably experience significant changes without her steady leadership.

She understood that future monarchs, including her son, Charles, would need to approach these changes with determination and strength.

Following Queen Elizabeth’s passing, King Charles III has taken on the mantle of the monarchy with a profound sense of duty. However, the emotional toll of losing his mother is evident, and Charles has found solace in the unwavering support of his family, including Prince William, the Prince of Wales, and other key figures like Princess Anne and Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh.

In the wake of Charles’s more limited public engagements due to health concerns, other royals have stepped up to fill the gap. Princess Anne, known for her tireless dedication to royal duties, and Sophie, the Duchess of Edinburgh, have become central figures in maintaining the monarchy’s public presence. Princess Anne, especially, has continued to set a high standard of service with a packed schedule of engagements, leading royal duties by example. In October alone, she is scheduled for 75 engagements, compared to Sophie’s nine, although it is expected that Sophie will take on more unlisted engagements during her travels to Malta.

Sophie has been dubbed the “royal family’s secret weapon” in 2024, significantly increasing her involvement during this period of transition. Her close relationship with the late Queen Elizabeth is said to have been one of deep trust, with some suggesting that the Queen viewed Sophie as more of a daughter than a daughter-in-law. This connection has only strengthened Sophie’s role within the monarchy, as she continues to prove her loyalty and value to the institution. Some royal commentators have even speculated that King Charles may reward Sophie and Edward’s dedication by offering them the prestigious Royal Lodge, currently occupied by Prince Andrew.

Sophie and Edward’s decision to raise their children, Lady Louise and James, without royal titles has also drawn attention. Despite being entitled to the style of HRH Princess Louise of Wessex at birth, Lady Louise was raised without the title to allow for a more private upbringing. However, Lady Louise’s increasing public visibility, including her appearance at the Trooping the Colour ceremony where she paid tribute to her uncle King Charles by wearing the same dress she wore to his coronation, has sparked speculation about her future role in the royal family.

As King Charles faces the complex task of modernizing the monarchy while preserving its rich traditions, he has the steadfast support of his family, particularly Princess Anne. Anne, having grown up as the sibling of an heir to the throne, has a unique understanding of the pressures associated with royal life. Her support and guidance have proven invaluable to King Charles during these challenging times.

With the continued loyalty of his family and a deep respect for the values of service exemplified by Queen Elizabeth, King Charles remains focused on navigating the future of the monarchy with resilience and hope, determined to uphold the traditions and responsibilities passed down to him.

Royal Editor Russell Myers Opines: “Harry Really Hasn’t Figured Out What He Wants to Do with His Future Yet”

In a recent discussion, royal editor Russell Myers shared his insights on Prince Harry’s uncertain future following his departure from the British Royal Family. According to Myers, Prince Harry appears to be struggling to find a clear direction for his life after stepping back from his royal duties alongside his wife, Meghan Markle.

 

Myers’ commentary sheds light on the complexities and challenges that Prince Harry faces as he navigates his new life in the United States. “Harry really hasn’t figured out what he wants to do with his future yet,” Myers stated, emphasizing the ongoing struggle the Duke of Sussex seems to be experiencing. The decision to leave the Royal Family, a significant and unprecedented move, has undoubtedly left Prince Harry in a state of flux.

Following Meghan Markle out of the Royal Family, Prince Harry has found himself amidst a whirlwind of public scrutiny, personal revelations, and media controversies. Myers suggested that Harry’s departure has led him into a chaotic environment, far removed from the structured and predictable life within the royal institution. “He’s lost in the chaos,” Myers remarked, highlighting the stark contrast between Harry’s previous life of royal duties and his current situation.

Since relocating to California, Prince Harry and Meghan have been involved in various ventures, including launching their Archewell Foundation, producing content for Netflix and Spotify, and participating in numerous public engagements and interviews. Despite these endeavors, Myers believes that Harry still lacks a clear vision for his long-term future. The transition from a life of royal service to one of private enterprise and public advocacy has been anything but smooth.

The couple’s high-profile interviews and media appearances, particularly their explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey, have only added to the tumultuous nature of their new life. These public disclosures have deepened the rift between Prince Harry and the rest of the Royal Family, further complicating his journey towards a stable and defined future.

Myers pointed out that the absence of a well-defined role or mission might be contributing to Prince Harry’s sense of disorientation. While Meghan appears to have adapted more swiftly to their new lifestyle, utilizing her previous experience in the entertainment industry and advocacy work, Harry seems to be grappling with his identity outside the royal framework.

The public and media have closely followed every step of Prince Harry’s journey, often speculating on his next moves and potential career paths. However, Myers emphasized that the Duke of Sussex needs time to find his footing and carve out a path that aligns with his values and aspirations.

As Prince Harry continues to adjust to his new life in America, it remains to be seen how he will define his future and whether he will find a sense of purpose and direction. Myers’ insights underscore the challenges that come with leaving behind a life of royal duty and the ongoing quest for identity and fulfillment in a vastly different world.

Fans have noticed that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been stepping out lately for solo appearances and charity events. Experts say it’s all part of a PR strategy to pull the couple out of the narrative that the only thing they have to offer is dirt on the royal family and become more known for philanthropic efforts.

The Duchess of Sussex has also been dealing with some bad press lately after The Hollywood Reporter published what former staffers said about working for her. Members of the “Sussex Survivors Club” described the former Suits star as a “terrible boss” everyone is “terrified of” who “barks out orders” like a “dictator in high heels.” And when some came to Meghan’s defense, those former employees doubled down calling her a “demon boss.“To distract from all that, Harry’s wife attended the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Gala on Oct. 5. However, Meghan gave a reason for attending that is being challenged by her ex-pal who was also there.

 

Statement regarding Meghan’s attendance at Children’s Hospital Gala

Meghan attended the affair with her friend Kelly McKee Zajfen and following that appearance, the Sussexes’ website shared her reason for being there.

A statement posted on the site read: “This weekend, Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex attended the biennial Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) Gala, an inspiring event dedicated to celebrating the exceptional services provided to children across LA … The duchess was proud to stand alongside esteemed guests in support of this vital cause.“The duchess has a long-standing connection with CHLA, having visited the hospital on several occasions to meet with patients and participate in the annual Make March Matter campaign. Her presence at the gala underscored her commitment to advocating for the health and well-being of children around the world.”

 

The statement concluded: “The evening was a resounding success, reminding us all of the power of community support in improving the lives of those in need. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to CHLA and everyone involved for their dedication and generosity. Together, we can continue to make a meaningful difference in the lives of children and their families.”

The duchess’s old pal claims this is the real reason Meghan was there

King Charles waited a very long time indeed to finally become king. The late Queen Elizabeth lived on longer than perhaps even her staunchest fans had hoped, thus making Charles the oldest monarch in history to take the throne.

But is it necessary for Charles to remain on said throne for much longer, especially considering the health issues he has battled in recent times?

No, perhaps it would be better for everyone if Charles said his fond farewells, retired to the many comforts of his Sandringham estate, and let Prince William be the one to focus on saving the monarchy and its future.

Though no one actively wanted the beloved Queen Elizabeth II to pass away, it’s safe to say that King Charles had been preparing for the role of monarch for many, many years.

King Charles – is it time to abdicate?

In fact, Charles broke the record in becoming longest-serving monarch-in-waiting in British history, surpassing Edward VII’s record of 59 years. He also became the oldest person to ever succeed to the British throne.

As we all know, the King’s reign so far has been quite turbulent. The Royal Family has been dealing with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s many outbursts and allegations, and the popularity of Charles and his fellow senior royals plummeted for a while. At the same time – and though the royals don’t publicize their political views – crucial subjects such as climate change have affected them, too.

While the Royal Family still has excellent support from many fans worldwide, it also faces a crisis of legitimacy. In recent years the monarchy has been accused of being out of touch with current social issues, and not attracting or being appealing to the younger population. With that in mind, is King Charles, a 73-year-old man, really the one who can steer the Royal Family towards being more trendy, relevant, and, quite frankly, up to date?

Personally, I don’t think he is.

Understandably, Charles wants to continue his reign and remain king for many years. He’s been waiting for decades for the role, though perhaps comparing other monarchies in Europe would be helpful.

Earlier this year, Queen Margrethe of Denmark decided it was time for some new blood and abdicated. She was 82 at the time and, in her own words, felt “time was running out and the ills were increasing.” Instead, her son, King Frederik, has taken over, and the Danish monarchy has entered a new era.

“Leave room for the next generation of kings and queens”

In the past decade, many European monarchies have gone through the same thing. In 2013, at age 75, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands signed her abdication. That same year, Albert II of Belgium decided it was time to step down for health reasons.

Meanwhile, in 2014, the disgraced King Juan Carlos of Spain left the throne.

In Europe today, three monarchies are ruled by older kings: Sweden’s King Carl Gustaf XVI (age 78), King Harald of Norway (age 87), and King Charles (age 75).

In The Guardian, Simon Jenkins writes that the abdications of older monarchs show signs of a “sensible constitutional monarchy.”

It’s better to leave room for the next generation of kings and queens before the older heads are too ill to act out their royal duties—and given the pace of technology development in just the last few years, this might be more critical than ever, not only for the UK but also for other monarchies as well.

So, therefore, isn’t it time for Charles to abdicate? It’s time to do what’s right, and leave room for the younger generation.

Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton, have both been at the forefront of bringing the monarch into a new digital world. The debate regarding the monarchy’s importance in today’s society – especially how it has failed to evolve like the rest of the world – has never been bigger.
King Charles has also faced cancer this year, and while he’s lucky enough to be on the mend, perhaps now is the perfect time to abdicate, even if it might be a heartbreaking realization for some.

Natural to “hand the throne to Prince William”

Experts at University College London’s Constitution Unit stated in 2022 that while it would be “perfectly natural” for Charles to assume the throne and perform royal duties “which he has spent so long preparing in waiting,” it would also be as natural to “hand the throne to Prince William.”

There aren’t many monarchs that welcome the idea of abdication, but in King Charles’ case, it could actually be a positive thing.

Firstly, by acknowledging that it’s time for a new era with a “King William,” Charles can somewhat revolutionize the monarchy and break old traditions, leading the Firm into a new modern world.

At the same time, the Royal Family has received plenty of criticism for being out of touch with many issues, and a younger monarch could be helping the Firm to remain relevant and trustworthy. With that said, Charles has already taken a step towards transforming the royals into a more modern institution by opening up Balmoral to the public.

While it’s still a guess at this point, it’s not difficult to believe that William would take further steps in that direction, possibly giving the public an even greater insight into royal life.

King Charles could “prioritize the future of the Crown” with abdication

Social media is a huge thing today, and Prince WIlliam and Kate MIddleton have already shown that they are in touch with the younger generation. It’s something that seems crucial for the Royal Family’s survival, and if Charles abdicates, they could do even more.

For example, William is already very much involved in issues such as global warming, and with him in charge, it could pave the way for new visions and ideas that could help the country as a whole.

No one wants to take the Crown away from King Charles on a whim, but if he abdicated, it would also imply that he is not staying in power just because he has the right to. Public support for the monarchy could even increase if he stepped down, with Charles choosing to prioritize the future of the Crown more than personal winning and power.

Prince William will become king one day, though just now we have no idea when that might be. I for one believe that the earlier he does so, the better, and King Charles has the power to do something as radical as it is positive by stepping down and helping his family for future generations.

 

Loose Women panellist Charlene White was upset that her friend Brenda Edwards wasn’t given the chance to announce son Jamal’s death after he passed away at the age of 31

Loose Women’s Charlene White feels upset that Brenda Edwards wasn’t given the chance to announce son Jamal Edwards’ death.

The panellists – Charlene White, Judi Love, Linda Robson, Carol McGiffin and Frankie Bridge – appeared on the ITV daytime show today to pay tribute to Jamal, who had appeared on the show just a few months ago with his proud mum Brenda.

The news of Jamal’s sad death after a sudden illness was broke on social media last night and whilst Charlene understands that a lot of his success comes from social media and online, Charlene admits she was disappointed Brenda didn’t get the chance to announce the news herself, before she read out a statement that Brenda made earlier today.

Charlene led tributes to Jamal ( 
Image:
ITV)
Speaking on the ITV lunchtime show today, Charlene said: “The opportunity to share Brenda’s loss and the family’s loss, that was taken away from Brenda because of various people on social media who decided to tell Brenda’s story and to tell Jamal’s story without consulting Brenda, which was not fair in any shape of form.”

“We understand that a lot of Jamal’s incredible work was done through social media and done online and all those things. He was a powerhouse, he changed the UK music scene,” she added.

Charlene went on to pay tribute to Jamal’s incredible work in music – for which he received an MBE in 2015.

Jamal appeared on Loose Women with Brenda in November ( 
Image:
Ken McKay/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)
She explained: “One man changed the UK music scene in a way we’ve not seen in decades.

“But what people have to understand that there is work life and there’s family life and there’s home life and it should have been Brenda who was able to choose when the world got to know about his death.”

Some viewers took to Twitter to criticise those on social media for breaking the news first.

“No family should have their hand forced into confirming the passing of a loved one just because insensitive creatures want to do “hear it here first”. Honestly praying Brenda & her family get all the privacy they deserve moving forward #LooseWomen,” one wrote.

Jamal died after a sudden illness ( 
Image:
Ken McKay/ITV/REX/Shutterstock)
A second added: “I didn’t realise that the news wasn’t shared on Brenda’s and her families terms, disgusting. Condolences to Brenda, the family and who all knew Jamal, rest in peace #LooseWomen.”

Other viewers praised Charlene and co for a heartfelt and emotional show, insisting they did Brenda – and her late son – proud.

One penned: “Thank you #loosewomen for showing the humanity in grief and for honouring Brenda in the sad loss of her beloved Jamal,” as a second added: “Beautiful tribute on #loosewomen today. My heart goes out to Brenda, his sister and their Family.”

Brenda shared a heartfelt statement earlier today to confirm the tragic news.

“It is with the deepest heartache that I confirm that my beautiful son Jamal Edwards passed away yesterday morning after a sudden illness. Myself, his sister Tanish and the rest of his family and friends are completely devastated,” she said.

Judi and Charlene went to support Brenda after Jamal’s tragic death ( 
Image:
ITV)

“He was the centre of our world. As we come to terms with his passing, we ask for privacy to grieve this unimaginable loss. I would like to thank everyone for their messages of love and support. Jamal was an inspiration to myself and so many. Our love for him lives on, his legacy lives on. Long live Jamal Edwards MBE, MBA, PHD.”

Elsewhere on the show, Linda Robson paid tribute to Jamal for taking her son under his wing.

“Jamal kept in touch with Louis over the years and took him under his wing. Took him to the BRITs, took him out socially with him as well. Brenda did such a good job with her son because he was a proper gentleman, he really was. He was the loveliest boy,” she said.

Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford’s feud with Phillip Schofield appeared to have been reignited at the weekend after Eamonn branded the presenter ‘passive-aggressive’

This Morning fans were left raising their eyebrows today as Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford were noticeably absent from Phillip Schofield’s work anniversary celebrations today.

It comes after their feud with Phil appeared to have been reignited at the weekend after Eamonn branded the presenter “passive-aggressive”.

Phil had been celebrated 40 years in the TV industry today, with Lorraine Kelly hosting a whole show dedicated to the presenter, which included Holly Willoughby and Phil’s wife Steph praising him.

Viewers were even surprised to see Fern Britton pay tribute, despite the pair famously falling out after she quit the show.

Yet Eamonn and Ruth did not make an appearance, prompting viewers to flock to Twitter to comment.

One wrote: “#Lorraine still no Eamonn and/or Ruth…”

While another joked: “They obviously ran out of time for the glowing tribute from Eamonn and Ruth.”

A third questioned: “Any tributes from Eamonn yet? #Lorraine.”

Another quipped: “No well wishes from Eamonn and Ruth?”

It comes after Eamonn addressed Ruth’s famous behind the scenes feud with Phil after he cut her short in the middle of a segment for Loose Women in 2019.

Eamonn said: “Phillip is renowned for snubbing people.

“He’s very passive-aggressive. It’s up to Ruth to say how she felt, but I was feeling hurt for her. No one would have snubbed me like that.”

A spokesperson told the Daily Mail: “This isn’t a version of events we recognise and as we have said before we wish Eamonn all the very best.

Eamonn took aim at Phil at the weekend
“We are committed to improving representation both on and off screen and we publicly report on our progress against our commitments and targets.”

Eamonn had presented on Fridays and during half-terms alongside wife Ruth for 15 years to cover for main hosts Holly and Phillip .

However, it was revealed in November 2020 that the couple would be dropped from their usual slot and replaced by Alison Hammond and Dermot O’Leary.

Eamonn and Ruth were noticeably absent from the tributes ( 
Image:
S Meddle/ITV/REX)The couple were rumoured to have been “hurt” by the change at the time and now Eamonn has suggested that ITV bosses wanted to make it look like he had walked away from the role.

Speaking to the Daily Mail’s Weekend magazine, he said that “no one explained anything” to him, adding: “They’re sly. They didn’t want to announce that I’d been dropped because it would adversely affect audience figures, so they made it look as if I’d walked away from them rather than the other way round.”

He went on to claim that bosses had had a chat with his agent and announced that he was going to GB News – despite the channel at the time only asking if he was interested in enjoying.

Eamonn also hit out at ITV’s diversity drive, branding his former bosses “hypocrites”.