The Ridiculous Reason Palace Staffers Are Reportedly ‘Grumpy’ With Meghan Markle and Prince Harry

Today in petty royals news, Buckingham Palace officials are reportedly “grumpy” with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry over⁠—wait for it⁠—empty office rooms.

Here’s what’s going on, according to The Sun: As part of the separation of the royal households, Markle and Prince Harry are moving their business headquarters from Kensington Palace to Buckingham Palace—and the new digs are swanky. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will reportedly now occupy “six large rooms off the lavish master corridor” in BP, which, for some reason, has annoyed staffers.

“The Palace traditionalists are grumpy that such a prime space is being given over to Harry and Meghan, who have perfectly adequate offices already at Kensington Palace,” a royal insider tells The Sun. This may be true, but a component of the aforementioned household split for Markle and Prince Harry is a move to Buckingham Palace, so I’m not exactly sure what the fuss is all about.

“There are a lot of people trying to cause trouble for the Duke and Duchess as a result of this move,” the insider continued. Geez.

Photo by Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images

But Meghan Markle and Prince Harry shouldn’t have anything to worry about. “The facts are they were offered these rooms by the master of the household because they are currently unoccupied and used as meeting rooms,” the insider added. So in other words, no one has any real right to be upset with them.

And here’s the kicker: They aren’t even doing anything to the rooms, just “taking out the current furniture and installing new desks,” per the insider. Also, the permanent space in Buckingham Palace is still available to royal staffers. So it seems like Markle and Prince Harry are doing everything in their power to make this transition as seamless as possible. Remind me where the problem is again? Sigh!

We Tested Kate Middleton’s Favorite Lip Gloss—Here’s Our Honest Review

While it’s common to see your favorite celebrity touch up her lipstick in public or share zit cream selfies to Instagram, the royals are much more private. Unfortunately for us, that means tracking down the exact products behind Meghan Markle’s glowing skin or Kate Middleton’s perfect blowout is nearly impossible, save for what their glam teams let slip in interviews.

With Markle, at least, we have more to work worth thanks to her Hollywood past. But given that Middleton went straight from one of us to royalty (the dream), there’s little to no information on her beauty products of choice, other than speculation that’s slipped from British tabloids over the years. That’s why it was such a gamechanger when the Duchess was spotted with a beauty product in hand earlier this month at Wimbledon.

Getty Images

A Twitter fan account quickly ID’d the millennial pink tube as Clarins Instant Light Natural Lip Perfector in Rose, and it appears they are correct—the only thing up for debate might be the exact shade, but the tube Kate has is closest to Rose.

The brand describes the Lip Perfector as having a “melting gel” texture and “nourishing formula [that] delivers intense hydration with a hint of shimmer.” Essentially, it’s kind of like a hybrid of a lip gloss and lip balm. This low-key product fits right in with Middleton’s natural makeup style, which usually only consists of eyeliner, mascara, a touch of blush, and a rosy lip color.

If it’s good enough for royalty, it’s got to be good enough for us, right? We had five Glamour staffers put the Lip Perfector to the test. Read on for our honest thoughts.

Azadeh Valanejad, social video producer

Azadeh Valanejad

Rent the Runway Is Having a Massive Sale—and the Best Dresses Are Under $100

We’re about halfway through July, which might mean that you’re either running out of summer lewks, or just about to—especially as the weather continues to heat up and limit your wardrobe choices. But don’t sweat it (literally): Rent the Runway actually just launched its online sample sale on Thursday, and there are so many fun dresses available for purchase at up to 80 percent off retail. And the best ones are actually under $100.

Whether you’re just looking for something cool to wear to work or a show-stopper for a summer wedding, this is your chance to add new items to your repertoire (and serve some serious fashion moments) before fall gets here. Rent the Runway is mostly known for being the go-to place when you need to borrow high-end pieces for special occasions, but its sample sales give shoppers a rare opportunity to buy something at a massive discount right on the spot, from designers like Tanya Taylor, Theory, and LoveShackFancy. The one caveat is that this stuff is going to go pretty quickly. Luckily, we scoured through all of it so you don’t have to waste too much time browsing and picked out the very best dresses under $100.

This Big Little Lies Theory Makes a Convincing Case That Corey Is Perry’s Brother

The end of Big Little Lies’ second season is near, and fans are eagerly waiting to see how the hit HBO show will tie all of its loose threads together. The series is known for its surprise reveals and cliffhangers, so it’s understandable why fans think there are major twists on the way as the finale approaches—and one theory involves Jane Chapman’s love interest, Corey.

According to Reddit user emmyeggo, Corey (Douglas Smith) might be more than just a guy Jane (played by Shailene Woodley) has been dating: He could be Perry’s (Alexander Skarsgård) brother. If you watched episode five of season two—spoilers ahead—then you remember that Bonnie (Zoë Kravitz) saw Corey leaving the police station, sparking speculation that he’s an undercover cop. On episode six, he denies being a detective, but emmyeggo thinks he’s still hiding that he and Perry are related.

Alexander Skarsgård as Perry on season one of Big Little Lies

HBO

The Reddit user writes that they’ve based their theory on a few different details, including the structure of Liane Moriarty’s previous books. Namely, that you can “expect the unexpected.” The episode seven description also says Celeste “questions Mary-Louise about a tragic event from Perry’s childhood.”

So far, there have been several mentions of Perry’s deceased brother—something emmyeggo believes could be part of a big twist. “It’s highly likely that there was some sort of trauma inflicted upon Perry, and it’s not too far-fetched to believe that Mary-Louise had a motive to fake her other son’s death. There could be a myriad of logical explanations for this (of which we know Celeste starts to ‘question,’)” emmyeggo writes.

“Also to keep in mind – the way that the ’Perry was Jane’s rapist’ plot twist was so effective is because Jane and Perry were never introduced to each other in present time, so the audience struggled to put the two and two together,” emmyeggo continues. “Though Corey and Mary-Louise have been a big part of Jane’s life this season, Corey and Mary-Louise have actually never been in the same scene together…” “Jane also has a flashback to her assault when dancing with Corey, which would make sense if they were brothers. Celeste also looks at Corey very strangely at Amabella’s party.”

Here’s the scene the user is referring to:

The Reddit user also points out that Mary-Louise mentioned that her husband remarried after the trauma, which could also open Perry up to having step siblings. Even if Corey turns out to have known Perry in some way, there’s still the question of what his motives could be in establishing a relationship with Jane.

Hourglass Ambient Lighting Bronzer Review

When someone meets me for the first time, they’re generally confused. The name Isabella Cacciatore sounds like it should belong to bronzed Italian goddess with olive skin and dark hair, but my pasty English genes are stronger, and I’m addicted to bleaching my hair, so what people picture and what stands in front of them don’t exactly match up.

While I don’t mind being on the paler side, I also wouldn’t be mad if I had the glow of a woman who summers on the Amalfi Coast. However, most bronzers I’ve tried (and I’ve tried a lot), don’t fit the bill. They’re either too orange (Snookie, though also Italian, isn’t exactly the look I’m going for), a shimmer bomb, or too muddy.

After years of trial and error, I’ve found two bronzers that deliver exactly what I want: Too Faced Chocolate Soleil Matte Bronzer and Chantecaille Radiance Gel Bronzer. Both are shimmer free, subtle, and give me a natural (i.e. not orange) kiss of sun. I thought my bronzer stash was perfectly stocked, until I discovered one that goes above and beyond what I expect a bronzer to do.

I’m already a huge fan of the Hourglass Ambient Lighting Powders, so I’m not sure why it took me so long to give the Ambient Lighting Bronzers a try, but I’m hooked. The bronzer is a pigment swirl of the perfect mid-tone bronze that doesn’t look fake. It adds the perfect amount of subtle warmth to my face, and instantly makes me look more awake. But that’s just part of this bronzer’s magic.

Bella Cacciatore

The real selling point that makes the bronzer worth its $52 price tag is the radiant powder. The bronzer is formulated using what the brand calls “photoluminescent technology,” which essentially means it reflects light to blur your skin and add a lit-from-within glow. Most powders make my skin look flat, but because this one is so finely milled and has light-reflecting particles, it actually makes my skin look dewier—but definitely not sparkly. It also completely airbrushes my face, hiding both active pimples and acne scars, which is worth all the money in the world to me.

I like to apply it with a big fluffy brush where the sun naturally hits; across my cheeks, on my nose, and on my temples. However, on days where I look insanely tired or my foundation looks “bleh,” I’ll use a light dusting all over my face. My foundation suddenly looks seamless, and I look like I got a full eight hours of sleep. It usually makes me look awake enough to skip blush and highlighter, meaning I get out the door faster. It may be expensive, but anything that can take me from zombie to dewy angel in a sweep of a brush is worth the investment.

Hourglass Ambient Lighting Bronzer

Hourglass Ambient Lighting Bronzer in Nude Bronze Light

$52

Buy Now

Bella Cacciatore is the beauty associate at Glamour. Follow her on Instagram @bellacacciatore_.

Irina Shayk Loves These Under $100 Dresses From Reformation

Irina Shayk is becoming one of those celebrities, like Priyanka Chopra and Gigi Hadid, we look to for high-low shopping inspiration. Over the weekend she wore a $50 LBD from Mango with a $2,000 trench coat from Burberry. She followed it up with another excellent mix of affordable and high-end—and you’ll want to shop it ASAP.

Shayk was photographed in late June in New York City wearing a sunny minidress.

TheImageDirect.com

Like seemingly everyone else spending the summer in the city—including fellow model Kendall Jenner—she got it at Reformation, the celebrity-favorite brand known for its easy warm-weather pieces. Shayk was spotted in brand’s Karlie style, a short tank silhouette that retails for just under $100.

Reformation Karlie Dress

Reformation

$78

Buy Now

Reformation Karlie Dress

Reformation

$78

Buy Now

The Karlie comes in two colors, black and ochre—she chose the latter, to match with a mini bag from The Kooples she actually designed. You can buy it for yourself, for $395. She finished off the look with black Docs and a leather moto.

The Kooples Irina Yellow Leather Nano Bag

The Kooples

$395

Buy Now

Shayk wasn’t done showing off her love for Reformation. Not long after, in mid-July, the model was spotted wearing the brand’s Lindsay Dress.

Gotham

Once again, she styled her under-$100 Reformation dress with her black Docs and a black jacket (this time, a denim one from Levi’s).

Reformation Lindsay Dress

Minidress with tiny, twinkling star pattern.

Nordstrom

$98

Buy Now

These sightings come just weeks after Jenner was spotted wearing another of Reformation’s minidresses in New York—an on-trend leopard-print style dubbed the Rouen.

Game of Thrones’ Gwendoline Christie Put Herself Up for an Emmy Nomination—and Got It

Game of Thrones received a whopping 32 Emmy nominations for its final season—and the Internet can’t stop buzzing about one of them. Gwendoline Christie, who you know best as Brienne of Tarth, scored a nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, which isn’t much of a surprise. (I mean, her performance this season was brilliant.) What might surprise you, though, is learning that Christie submitted herself for the recognition—and got it.

Here’s why this is a big deal: Networks are generally the entities that submit actors for Emmy Awards. According to The Hollywood Reporter, HBO entered Kit Harington, Emilia Clarke, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Sophie Turner, and Maisie Williams for this year’s race—but it did not put forth Christie, Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy), or Carice van Houten (Melisandre), even though all three of those performers received nominations. They secured their spots by footing the $225 entry fee and submitting themselves into the race. THR says that it’s not uncommon for actors (or their teams) to do this, but it is atypical for those entries to result in actual nominations.

Christie celebrated her Emmy nomination by posting to Instagram, “CANT BELIEVE IT!!!!!!????!?!!?!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #EmmyAwards #CANITTRULYBEREAL??????????”

Fans on Twitter are, naturally, living for this and using it as a prime example of advocating for yourself. “HBO didn’t submit Gwendoline Christie for an Emmy so she submitted herself and got a nomination. Be your own biggest cheerleader,” one person tweeted.

Check out some more reactions for yourself, below:

For those who think HBO not submitting Gwendoline Christie was some kind of slight, THR says there is no beef between the parties and that the network plans on fully backing all the nominated actors.

The 2019 Emmys will air on Sunday, September 22 at 8 P.M. ET on Fox.

Gwendoline Christie of ‘Game of Thrones’ Put Herself Up for an Emmy Nomination—And Got It

Game of Thrones received a whopping 32 Emmy nominations for its final season—and the Internet can’t stop buzzing about one of them. Gwendoline Christie, who you know best as Brienne of Tarth, scored a nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, which isn’t much of a surprise. (I mean, her performance this season was brilliant.) What might surprise you, though, is learning that Christie submitted herself for the recognition—and got it.

Here’s why this is a big deal: Networks are generally the entities that submit actors for Emmy Awards. According to The Hollywood Reporter, HBO entered Kit Harington, Emilia Clarke, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Sophie Turner, and Maisie Williams for this year’s race—but it did not put forth Christie, Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy), or Carice van Houten (Melisandre), even though all three of those performers received nominations. They secured their spots by footing the $225 entry fee and submitting themselves into the race. THR says that it’s not uncommon for actors (or their teams) to do this, but it is atypical for those entries to result in actual nominations.

Christie celebrated her Emmy nomination by posting to Instagram, “CANT BELIEVE IT!!!!!!????!?!!?!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #EmmyAwards #CANITTRULYBEREAL??????????”

Fans on Twitter are, naturally, living for this and using it as a prime example of advocating for yourself. “HBO didn’t submit Gwendoline Christie for an Emmy so she submitted herself and got a nomination. Be your own biggest cheerleader,” one person tweeted.

Check out some more reactions for yourself, below:

For those who think HBO not submitting Gwendoline Christie was some kind of slight, THR says there is no beef between the parties and that the network plans on fully backing all the nominated actors.

The 2019 Emmys will air on Sunday, September 22 at 8 P.M. ET on Fox.

Secret Obsession Is an Even Creepier Version of You—So Get Ready

The premise of Netflix’s new thriller Secret Obsession, now streaming, is right in the title: A deranged stalker, Russell (Mike Vogel), forms an all-consuming fixation on Jennifer (Brenda Song). When Jennifer wakes up from a car accident with severe memory loss, Russell is there claiming to be her husband. Oddly, no one at the hospital questions this—and so, Jennifer believes him. She goes home to what Russell tells her is their beautiful (albeit secluded) mansion, but soon cracks appear in his plan. Jennifer starts getting suspicious—as does a detective—and Russell does everything in his power to keep his charade going. Including, as you’d expect, killing people.

If that premise sounds familiar to you, it’s because…well, it is. Not only is the stalker genre a staple in entertainment—please see: Fatal Attraction, Obsessed, The Boy Next Door—but it’s had a strong resurgence this year due in large part to You, the thriller series about a bookstore clerk (Penn Badgley) who uses technology to cyber-stalk a woman. The show became a viral sensation late last year, when Netflix acquired the rights to it from Lifetime. Secret Obsession is essentially You‘s feature-length twin: Both pieces are campy and over-the-top but nonetheless disturbing. The former has all the ingredients to become major social media fodder, just like the latter.

“I do feel like there is a similar aspect [between Secret Obsession and You],” Brenda Song tells Glamour. “Stories like this really take us out of our lives. Regardless of what anyone says, we all love scaring ourselves with worst case scenarios and sort of living out that nightmare-slash-fantasy without actually being a part of it.”

Both of these nightmares, You and Secret Obsession, have one similarity that stands out above all: the “hotness” of the male stalkers. Fans were so smitten by Joe on You that they seemed to forget he’s a serial killer—something Penn Badgley pointed out countless times on Twitter.

Song already knows what she’ll say to fans who may swoon over Secret Obsession‘s chiseled-but-chilling antagonist, Russell. “Just because someone’s handsome doesn’t mean they aren’t crazy,” she says. “You have to remember that when romanticizing these killers, stalkers, rapists—whatever they are—you still have to remember the crimes they did and the lives they affected, if we’re talking about real life.”

Donald Trump’s Attacks on Congresswomen Are Racist and Sexist. Ignoring That Is a Mistake We Can’t Afford

Donald Trump is spending his week doubling down on his racist suggestion that four Democratic lawmakers—Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan—should “go back” where “they came” from. Last night, he presided over a crowd in North Carolina that at one point chanted “Send her back!” in reference to Omar. At times, when Trump mentioned the women, people in his audience shouted “Treason!” and “Traitors!”

It’s utterly irrelevant to Trump and his supporters that three of four of the women were born in the United States and that the fourth, Omar, immigrated from Somalia as a child and has spent more than half her life as a citizen. In focusing attention on these particular women, Trump activates the well-documented passions and fears of his supporters, people demonstrably threatened by the browning of America. But, he also activates the disgust and repugnance that too many people feel about women claiming power and authority, particularly the power and authority to decide what America is and should be. It would be a foolish and dangerous mistake, particularly as we move towards a presidential election in which more women than ever are candidates, to ignore the confluence of these prejudices.

Trump’s “go back” dictate makes an assumption about who “real Americans” are, and research shows he’s not alone in his warped thinking. For most of our history, the notions of “citizenship” and “manhood” have been as inextricably linked in most people’s minds as “American” and “white” are. Only in our recent past have minorities and women been extended rights, like the freedom to vote, to run for office, to bear arms, to serve in juries, and to work, as elite white man have since independence. Studies show even now, in the words of one social science researcher, that “to be American is implicitly synonymous with being White.” In the same vein, many people’s explicit, and implicit, belief systems continue to support the notion that men are “natural” leaders, but that women are not; that men serve in public capacities, and women private ones. Trump appeals to the specific combination of these beliefs to undermine women as not only incapable of self-governance, but as unfit to govern others. That’s the hateful core of this latest diatribe; people like them aren’t suited to tell people like us what to do.

Trump’s casual “go back” is a dogwhistle to racists and xenophobes but it also reinforces age-old biases against the rise of a “feminized elite.” Women who are educated and progressive, the old chestnut goes, are dangerous to men and to the nation. This tired equation allows Trump’s most extreme supporters to rationalize threats against women as legitimate act of patriotism and renders violence against them a form of twisted self-defense. Trump’s campaign rallies were frenzied carnivals of this misogynistic idea, with thousands of mostly white Americans chanting “lock her up” and parading around effigies of a caged Hillary Clinton. It’s how a West Virginia Republican lawmaker tweeted, “she should be ’hung’,” and another proclaimed, “Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.” One of Trump’s supporters was particularly clear when he explained, during the 2016 race that “Hillary needs to be taken out“ and that he was prepared to do it himself. “[I[f I have to be a patriot, I will,“ he said. The same ideas were more subtly conveyed when, earlier this year, a video was aired during a Memorial Day Fresno-Grizzlies game in which Ocasio-Cortez was depicted as an “enemy of freedom“ alongside Kim Jong Un and Fidel Castro.

But Trump isn’t just content to question women’s patriotism. He also impugns their expertise and knowledge. The charge that people of color and women “don’t understand” the complicated affairs that animate our national discourse is a popular right-wing talking point drawn from racist and sexist science. It suggests that people of color and women lack the intellectual capabilities and emotional wherewithal to lead. Of course, that means that women of color who work in the public sphere are special targets of these attacks. A Media Matters supercut of Fox News’s coverage of AOC, for example, demonstrates the network’s near-obsession with portraying her—a woman with a degree in economics and the recipient of a fellowship awarded to high academic achievers—as “ignorant,” “idiotic,” and someone who “doesn’t know what she is talking about.” She is, the hosts emphasize, a “pompous little twit,” who “makes no sense.” In a similar vein, Trump has referred to black athletes, politicians, and media representatives as “low IQ individual[s]” and “dumb.”