Oprah Claims Megxit is Not Her Fault, Which Seems Obvious?

By Joan Summers  |  January 10, 2020 | 3:33pm
CelebritiesDirt Bag
Oprah Claims Megxit is Not Her Fault, Which Seems Obvious?
Image:Getty

Oprah can be blamed for many things: celebrities who take pictures with vegetables, mansions with 15 bathrooms, talk shows, and maybe even the careers of half the people in Hollywood. But what no one can blame her for, unfortunately, is the demise of the House of Windsor. Too bad!

Page Six chased a rumor Thursday that Oprah was the progenitor of the Royal Schism, dubbed “Megxit.” Had the iconic host planted the seed of rebellion inside the Sussexes, like one of the many vegetables in her ever-abundant garden? Sources claimed that she had first broached the topic at their wedding, as well as on the set of Harry’s upcoming mental health series for Apple TV+. Page Six reports: “It is believed the pair had frank conversations about the turmoil he and Meghan have faced in the spotlight.

Unfortunately, the speculation was short-lived. This morning, Oprah issued a statement to NBC insisting otherwise. “Meghan and Harry do not need my help in figuring out what’s best for them. I care about them both and support whatever decisions they make for their family.”

Wouldn’t it be a much better story though, if she did indeed claim the exit was her idea? Someone should tell Oprah that this is definitely not what class solidarity looks like, as the least that could happen is she draws some of the attention away from Meghan and Harry, whom she “cares about and supports.” [E!]

Let me test something: At the Golden Globes on Sunday, Rachel Brosnahan looked at a plate of food but did not eat the food. Now I wait, but for what exactly? Page Six reports that New York Times writer Ben Widdicombe was slapped with a confounding correction after he wrote, in his Golden Globes after-party roundup: “Rachel Brosnahan, a 2019 Golden Globe winner and 2020 nominee for her work on The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, arrived at the party having missed most of dinner.” In Widdicombe original piece, he followed this up with the detail that Brosnahan “eyed but did not touch a passing tray of pigs-in-blankets.” After reporting this, Brosnahan’s press team swiftly descended on the Times, which then corrected the piece to say: “She did not see trays of hors d’oeuvres being served at the party.” Good use of time!

Allegedly, the food served at the main even included vegan meals like mushroom scallops, so many celebrities opted for “meaty dishes” at the afterparties. Not Brosnahan, though! Unless she did, in which case I would love for her press team to get in touch and correct my insistence that she did. Also, in the replies to Widdicombe’s tweet, Brosnahan wrote: “In arguably the strangest thing I’ve been asked to fact-check, no. We were on the carpet & much to my dismay they don’t feed you on those. But we did chat about climate change+steps we can take to ensure a brighter future for all of us … and this is what got printed. So there’s that.”

Interestingly, Ben Widdicombe’s original reporting did not take place on a red carpet. It took place at the afterparties, of which there were plenty, and which Brosnahan allegedly attended. [Page Six]

Harry Styles moonlights as a dog babysitter for strangers.

Would like everyone to know I am consciously uncoupling from this narrative about Grimes, but would like to add—Azealia Banks was right.