I love seeing photos of celebrity real estate and interior design. To me, they’re like shirtless photos of hot guys, they fuel fantasies of living in those pristine, decked out mansions. Or, like in the case of tacky houses like Nicky Hilton’s, it’s fun to point and laugh at rich people with bad taste. That’s the case with this latest story on a new documentary on the world’s largest mansion under construction, a giant eyesore in Florida dubbed “Versailles.” While the nouveau riche owners were constructing it, while filming was underway, they ended up losing a lot of money after the market crashed and facing the possibility that they were in way over their heads. The mansion remains to this day just a giant, gaudy shell of a house. (You can see tons of photos of it here. The few photos where it looks super gaudy and finished are just “artist’s renditions” of what they intended to do with it.) The film ends with their insane house still under massive construction and facing foreclosure. Now the homeowners, the owners of the biggest timeshare company, want the filmmaker to edit it in order to show that they’ve since recovered control of the home. The filmmaker isn’t backing down, though. Here’s more:

The timeshare tycoon who wants to build the biggest home in the country — America’s very own Palace of Versailles — claims an upcoming documentary about his exploits is misleading.

And because of that, Westgate Resorts President David Siegel wants the director of “The Queen of Versailles” to tweak the ending.

In a letter obtained by TheWrap.com, Siegel wrote to director Lauren Greenfield’s attorney that his real estate company is currently healthy and “the most profitable” in its 32-year history.

He said he’s having no problem finishing construction of the palatial 90,000-square-foot mansion on 10 acres in Windermere, Fla.

Today’s economic troubles served as a backdrop for the film’s drama.

“Versailles does not face foreclosure because it was refinanced, and construction is starting again,” Siegel wrote in a letter dated Monday.

He’s asking the filmmaker to update the postscript with that information.
“As it stands now, it’s like ending an account of a basketball game after the third quarter,” he added. “I believe that it’s only fair that (Greenfield) complete the story honestly and with integrity.”

Siegel, 76, also has a lawsuit against Greenfield, executive producer Frank Evers and the Sundance Institute for alleged defamation, claiming the documentary contains harmful statements, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Those include: “Their timeshare empire collapses” and “their house is foreclosed.”
The documentary first premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, and opens in limited release Friday. Cable TV network Bravo is supposed to air it in 2013.

Siegel, meanwhile, also contends that some of the scenes were orchestrated, with the whole documentary coming off as a “Real Housewives of Orlando pilot,” he wrote.
But Martin Garbus, the director’s attorney, told TheWrap.com that the film will not be changed.

“It tells a story about a time in America and everybody should see it and make their own judgement (sic),” Garbus said in a statement. “Nothing in The Queen of Versailles is staged. There is no reason to update the film.”

The documentary also features Siegel’s 46-year-old wife, Jackie, and the eight children they are raising together.
Construction on Versailles began about six years ago, but work was halted in 2009 after Siegel said he had to refocus on his company, the Wall Street Journal reported. Just two-thirds of the home was completed.

In the meantime, Siegel looked into selling the opulent stunner — at one point dropping the asking price from $100 million finished or $75 million as-is to $65 million as-is.

Siegel was recently approved for a $25 million loan to help finish construction, according to reports, after the documentary completed filming.
And with 13 bedrooms, 22 bathrooms, three pools, two movie theaters, a bowling alley, a ballroom for 500 guests and Italian white marble in the designs, Siegel isn’t exactly motivated to sell the house, he told The Journal last week.

“Then again, I don’t need it, either,” he added.

[From The NY Daily News]

There are photos below of the home as it is now (as I gather), under construction – I guess the Seigels are shown in their other giant mansion while this one is getting prepared. They needed a $25 million loan to finish it and that think that somehow means they’re not in too deep? I found several real estate listings for this “house.” It has its own website, Lake Butler Mansion, and it’s also listed on PriceyPads.com, which has a link to over a hundred photos of the place. Inside, it just looks like a big cathedral or a public building under construction. It’s just a tacky, overpriced dream. It reminds me of Candy Spelling’s house, but she was able to offload that one to a young heiress with gaudy taste. Candy also had much better, albeit early 90s, taste in decor. What billionaire would drop $65 million on this monstrosity or pay $100 million to get it completed? The Seigels are stuck with it.

Here’s the trailer for The Queen of Versailles

Photo credit: Magnolia films

When we discussed Jennifer Lopez’s announcement on Friday, I said that I was disappointed in her decision to quit American Idol. I read it as Jennifer quitting a show that had given her career a second act, and that she probably left after a squabble about money (and/or scheduling). But! Some of you theorized that with Jennifer AND Steven Tyler’s hasty exits, that they had been pushed out rather than deciding to leave of their own volition. The Wrap and Radar agrees with that theory – their sources claim that Jennifer asked for a $2 million bump in salary, and Idol was all “Eh. Not so much.”

Jennifer Lopez says it was her choice to leave “American Idol” — but the singer was actually dumped by Fox when she asked for a $2 million raise in salary to $17 million, a person familiar with the negotiations told TheWrap.

Fox also opted not to pick up Steven Tyler’s option, the person said. Tyler announced his departure Thursday, saying he had decided to devote his energies to his first love, Aerosmith. Lopez said she wanted to focus on other aspects of her career and her children.

The exits — and the possible departure of Randy Jackson, widely speculated to be considering an exit after judging on all 11 seasons of the former No. 1 show — come as it undergoes another dramatic overhaul, just two seasons after the show was retooled by introducing Tyler and Lopez.

The insider said top Fox executives Peter Rice and Kevin Reilly want to revamp the show, and that Rice has told colleagues he wants an “Idol 2.0,” of which host Ryan Seacrest would be the only essential ingredient.

A Fox spokeswoman declined to comment.

The insider said J. Lo’s fee went from $12 million in her first season to $15 million in her second. When she asked for another $2 million, the network surprised her by not making a counteroffer.

“Idol” lost its top spot in the ratings to NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” last season after eight years of dominance. In their two seasons, Tyler and Lopez helped prop up the show. But they could not return it to its former dominance as the sing-off market became glutted with competition, including NBC’s “The Voice” and Fox’s “X Factor” from ex-”Idol” judge Simon Cowell.

That glut — which also includes ABC’s “Duets” — has created a mini gold rush for singers.

Many music stars are being considered to replace Lopez and Tyler, including Mariah Carey — whom Cowell has long sought for “X Factor” — Kanye West, Mary J. Blige and Lenny Kravitz.

If Jackson stays with “Idol,” he has an inside track with Carey that his former “Idol” colleague lacked: Jackson is Carey’s manager.

[From The Wrap]

So it was about money AND it was about being dumped. Allegedly. I could see it playing out like this – Jennifer wasn’t sure if she wanted to do another season but she wanted to see how much they would give her, and when they didn’t dump at the chance to pay her $17 million, she saw the writing on the wall and it became a “mutual” decision. And poor Steven Tyler!

As for the names being mentioned as possible replacements… well, you know Mariah would be a glorious trainwreck and people would simply tune in to see THE MARIAH SHOW, also known as American Idol WITH MARIAH CAREY. Mary J. Blige has the benefit of being actually qualified to mentor young talent and give good criticism, so obviously she’s probably not really in the running. Lenny Kravitz would be interesting – have you ever seen him in a television interview? He’s actually a really good sport, and he doesn’t mind making fun of himself. He would be interesting. And Kanye… well, if Mariah is on board, then I really hope and pray that Kanye signs on too. Because that would be MAGIC!! Kanye + Mariah = MUST SEE TV.

Here are some photos of Jennifer performing in Montreal over the weekend:

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

I don’t know what to make of this. Us Weekly reported earlier this week that William was going to be dipping into his inheritance (left to him by his late mother) to help fund a new estate for his in-laws, Carole and Michael Middleton. The situation gave me a bad feeling, like the Middletons were playing a long con that was slowly paying off. I should note too that Us Weekly didn’t start the rumor/story – it was widely reported in the British press, both tabloid and legit. The Telegraph (one of the more respected papers) spoke to one of William’s friends, who said, “William regards them as family and is always keen to help, in any way he can.” The Telegraph also noted that the Middletons were “close to closing” on the new manor and they hadn’t even put their old estate on the market yet. The paper also noted that the manor comes with “outbuildings” which the Middletons were looking to convert into “accommodation for the protection officers who accompany the Duke and Duchess when they visit.” Except none of it is true? Maybe. Well, I do think the Middletons are buying this manor, but People Magazine claims William isn’t helping them out:

His late mother Princess Diana may have left him more than $16 million for his 30th birthday last week, but Prince William is not about to dip into the fortune – at least, not to buy a home for himself and wife Kate.

And, despite some reports to the contrary, he also has no plans to help his in-laws, Michael and Carole Middleton, buy their $7 million dream manor house in Bucklebury, about 55 miles west of London.

With their purchase of the seven-bedroom property, complete with tennis court on its 18 acres, set to be completed, a royal source tells PEOPLE it is not true William is helping to fund any of it.

The source does say that William and Kate, also 30, are happy with their current living arrangements, which has them living in a four-bedroom house on Anglesey in north Wales and a small cottage at Kensington Palace.

“They have two residences in Wales and Kensington Palace, and that is not about to change,” says the source.

Still, the royal couple will have to wait some time to forge ahead with moving into their more upscale digs at Kensington Palace. Surveyors and other experts are not able to get to go into apartment 1A (former home to the Queen’s sister, the late Princess Margaret) until September.

After that comes the long process of refashioning the palace and decorating it to the couple’s specifications.

[From People]

I don’t understand that non-specific denial – “They have two residences in Wales and Kensington Palace, and that is not about to change.” No one said that William and Kate were helping the Middletons buy the property because they (Will and Kate) wanted to live there. William isn’t buying a residence for HIMSELF. This story remains very sketchy, I think.

More royal news… sort of. There’s a British artist named Bambi who made a “stencil on canvas” art piece of William and Kate. I’m including a photo of the piece below – it shows Will and Kate on the day of their engagement announcement, and Bambi has included the words, “A bit like marmite.” Well, the work of art was just sold… to Brad Pitt. Apparently, Brad paid thousands of dollars for it. Brad loves the modern stuff, and he reportedly loves Bambi too – he allegedly bought other Bambi pieces of The Queen and Amy Winehouse too.

Photos courtesy of Bambi, WENN.

Last year, Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were widely criticized for offering a $39,000 alligator handbag/backpack through their high-fashion line, The Row. Allegedly, the 39K bag was “selling out” at Barney’s, and all of the divas had to have one. PETA complained, and everyone was like, “Ugh, conspicuous consumption sucks” but… I don’t know. I didn’t see what the huge fuss was about. No one was being forced to buy the bag. Of course it was ridiculously overpriced and of course no one needs a $39K bag. The Olsens took the criticism in stride, if “stride” means “completely ignoring their critics and going on to win ‘Womenswear Designers of the Year’ at the CFDAs.” And now the Olsens have one-upped their 2011 offering with a new $17,000 bag. Here it is:

OMFG. How hideous is that? I’m a purse person (as opposed to a shoe person), and you couldn’t pay me to carry that roadkill-looking thing. That was another reason I was meh on the $39K bag – I actually thought the bag was cute. Not “$39,000 cute” but cute. This one is just awful, though. Anyway, the Olsens are facing even more criticism. Because it worked so well the last time:

What Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (and Kim Kardashian, Kanye West and Reese Witherspoon to name a few) call fashion, PETA calls blasphemous.

The twin fashion designers received some flack from the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals after creating an almost $17,000—yeah, you read that right—backpack for their luxury fashion line The Row made of patches of animal fur.

And the animal-rights organization didn’t exactly sugarcoat their feelings on the situation.

“If it looks like a troll and acts like a troll, it’s probably a Trollsen Twin—or someone wearing one of their new $16,000 totes, which are made from the fur and skins of innocent animals,” PETA said in a statement to E! News.

“What the Olsens lack in creativity, they try to make up for in shock value. Sadly, it’s the foxes, calves, and alligators—who often have the fur ripped off them while they are still conscious and able to feel pain—who pay the dearest price.”

Meanwhile, the creation by 2012′s Womenswear Designers of the Year caught the eye of well-known stylist and reality star Rachel Zoe, who called the accessory next season’s staple item on her Zoe Report.

[From E! News]

Maybe the Olsens answer to last year’s criticism was to make a bag that was less expensive? No, they knew what they were doing by making a fur bag. They wanted the criticism. They wanted the scandal and controversy. All for an indefensibly ugly bag.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Earlier this week, we discussed the Duchess Kate story about exactly WHO pays for her wardrobe, and how much she’s spending. As it turns out, Kate’s public style (the clothes she wears for public appearances) is being entirely funded by Prince Charles through his Duchy of Cornwall estate. Sources claim that Kate has already spent $45,000 on clothes – in just this year. I discussed my issues with this – go here to review. Once again, I think that number is probably in line with what a fashion-forward princess/duchess should/could spend in six months… if only Kate worked a little bit more, she might be seen as “deserving” of that kind of wardrobe and extravagance. However, this is a woman who has barely held a real job EVER, and who barely makes one public appearance a week on average.

But the anal retentive math geniuses at The Mail decided to review a different set of criteria – how much has Kate spent over the course of the past 12 months, including the cost of new jewelry, hats, fascinators, clothes, purses and shoes. They have an honest-to-God LIST, broken down, of all of the stuff Kate has worn – go here to see it. The price tag for The Year of Waity? More than $163,000. For real. Of course, this harsh accounting came with a pro-Kate propaganda piece:

So it’s estimated that Kate’s clothing has cost Prince Charles £35,000 just since the beginning of the year. It is a princely sum. But Femail has delved more deeply into the Duchess of Cambridge’s wardrobe, and discovered that the ensembles she has worn over the past 12 months come in at just over £105,000.

While Prince Charles will have footed the bill for the outfits Kate wore to official functions, it is unclear who will have covered the cost of the rest, though they will include items she owned before she joined the Royal Family. But, whatever the answer, it’s still a staggering amount to spend on clothes, jewellery and accessories — especially in a recession, when so many are going without more basic day-to-day requirements.

Yet I maintain that we shouldn’t accuse Kate of unnecessary extravagance. She never accepts discounts or freebies, and nor should she. This is the practice by which most celebrities and fashion editors manage to look so good: Kate has to remain above such bribery.

Besides, we haven’t asked Charles to sell his Aston Martin; nor should we ask William and Kate to move into a Barratt home so that Kensington Palace can be made into a dorm for the homeless. Clothes may seem frivolous, but what Kate wears is so much more visible, and vital, than where she lives and what she drives. She is now — like it or not — an ambassador for Britain. What she wears is not about being attainable on the High Street; it is about being breathtaking. She needs to have the ‘wow’ factor. So to those members of the PC brigade, who presumably wear sackcloth, eat only gruel and insist Kate should not be spendthrift in a time of need, I say: ‘Poppycock!’

We need our morale raising, and our biggest industry — retail — needs boosting, especially as it is the largest employer of women in this country, and it is women who are being hardest hit by the downturn. During the Thirties’ Depression, people turned to the cinema and the likes of Carole Lombard, dressed in liquid satin, for escapism — a hit of much-needed glamour. Today, Kate is that superstar. Not a style-setter, but a nation-saver.

I actually wish Kate would spend more of her father-in-law’s money, and develop an intimate relationship with one or two couturiers, so all her clothes are made-to-measure, not off the peg. I also wish she would experiment more with colour: too often, she is in dove grey. She can afford to inject frivolity into her wardrobe, and add zing to her choice of shoes: I beg her to abandon those nude LK Bennett ‘Sledge’ courts at once. Above all, I’d like Kate to remember she is still a very young woman, with a fabulous figure. She needs to abandon the Chanelesque wool coats with no shape: I see her as a new Grace Kelly, not following in the footsteps of Carla Bruni, the Queen or even Diana. She must be her own person: a goddess and, yes, a clothes horse. There is no better boost for the economy, or our national psyche.

[From The Mail]

Carole Lombard actually worked for a living. She bought her own clothes, or borrowed them from the studio (and returned them later). I’m just sayin’. Anyway, this was just to let you know – months ago, I was joking that the royal propagandists were going too far by praising Kate for the most mundane things. I joked that people acted like Kate’s hair style was “The Hair That Saved A Nation.” But really, that’s what it’s come to. I can’t believe someone is falling all over themselves to praise Kate for spending all of this money, none of it her own, and with so little to show for it with, you know, actual WORK.

And we’re still not talking about how much she spends on hair, makeup, skin care, dental work, “princess training”, voice lessons, etc, etc.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Perhaps I’ve been watching too much White Collar – I’ve been catching up on my Season 3 DVDs over the past week. Maybe it’s White Collar’s influence, but it has never occurred to me before this week that Duchess Kate might have had us all fooled. Instead of Waity-ing and simply doing nothing for nearly a decade, is it possible that Kate was simply pulling one of the most intricate long cons in history? Was her marriage to Prince William merely a confidence scheme to get access to millions of dollars, fabulous jewelry, endless frocks and priceless artwork? And are Kate’s parents in on the “Waity Con” too?!? Don’t say it. I’ve been watching too much White Collar. But the Middletons are profiting from their daughter’s marriage, and not just in the typical “profit” of “access, added respectability and a boost to their business.” Carole and Michael Middleton are actually getting cold, hard cash from Prince William now. William “gifted” the Middleton some lump sum to help them make a deposit on a new Berkshire manor. For real.

That’s a surefire way to get in good with the in-laws! Prince William, who inherited $15.5 million on his 30th birthday last Thursday June 21, has already parted with some of that cash to help buy something special for Kate Middleton’s parents: a house!

Carole and Michael Middleton (parents to Duchess Kate, Pippa and James) are in the process of buying a sumptuous estate in Berkshire — featuring 18 acres and a Georgian manor with seven bedrooms — worth about $7.3 million. And their royal son-in-law has put down some of the deposit money “as a gift,” a source reveals to Us Weekly.

“He sees them as his own family and wants to help out in any way he can,” explains the source.

(A Palace rep has no comment, noting only that it’s a “private matter.”)

Indeed, William (whose 30th birthday windfall was from the estate of his late mother Princess Diana) has grown close to Carole, 57, and Michael, 63, during his nearly decade-long romance with Kate, 30, whom he wed in April of last year — recently joining the entire Middleton clan on vacations in Mustique and the French Alps.

As for the Middletons’ home-to-be, which they reportedly have scooped up in a bidding war with other interested buyers? Located near their current home in Bucklebury, the home (with ties to the royal family back in the 1500s) features a grand entrance hall, 17th century fireplace, topiary shrub and “fantastic views,” according to the Daily Mail. “It’s a quiet, secluded property along a country lane.”

Carole and former flight dispatcher Michael are the self-made entrepreneurs behind Party Pieces, a hugely successful mail-order party supply business that employed Kate herself before she became the Duchess of Cambridge.

[From Us Weekly]

There’s part of me that thinks this is very sweet, and that William is – beyond any other concerns and conspiracy theories – very fond of his in-laws. But about those concerns and conspiracy theories. For one, Kate and William still spend a lot of time with the Middletons, so I’m guessing that the royal protection officers need to upgrade the security of any and all properties where William and Kate will be staying. So part of the money might not have even come from William – it might be money to ensure that the security is worthy of the heir to the throne.

But there’s another conspiracy theory I have brewing away over here. There’s always been a question mark as to how the Middletons live so well and how they started their business and just what kind of profit Party Pieces really makes. I’ve heard whispers – and this was years before the royal whitewashing of Kate – that Kate’s dodgy, drug-dealing, pimping uncle Gary Goldsmith helped finance the Middletons’ entrance into the British middle class, and Uncle Gary was the one to finance much of the Middleton kids’ education and decade-long Waity-ing. Now, those were just rumors, just whispers in the wind. But could it be that the Middletons really aren’t that financially solvent? Could it be that Prince William is trying to do his part to whitewash his wife’s family so they won’t have to take more money from Uncle Gary?

Photos courtesy of WENN.

This story was mentioned yesterday, but I thought this issue deserved its own post. Yesterday, we discussed the Queen’s recent move to make “blood princesses” higher up on the royal food chain than commoners-turned-royals, meaning that Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice now “out-rank” Duchess Kate. I think the first hint of that should have been the Queen’s refusal to give Kate a “princess” title upon her marriage – Kate was simply made HRH the Duchess of Cambridge. She’s not a princess – but she sort of is, because she married a prince. But whatever. She still has to curtsey to Bea and Eugenie now. Anyway, in The Mail story I used, they referenced another royal story about Kate – apparently, Prince Charles is funding her shopping exertions. Did you realize that? I didn’t. I thought Kate was paying for her own clothes, and by that I mean “her parents are still funding Kate’s extravagant lifestyle.” Prince Charles began disclosing his (limited) tax information to the public, and he’s going to make another public declaration on the state of his finances in the coming days. And Charles is going to reveal the cost of Kate’s shopping sprees – she’s spent roughly $45,000 on clothes. This year. And it’s only June. Here’s more:

For a self-proclaimed Queen of the High Street, she has embraced the joys of designer shopping most enthusiastically. Indeed, a quick tot up of her recent purchases suggests the increasingly glamorous Duchess of Cambridge has spent more than £35,000 on couture and ‘high end’ outfits since the beginning of the year alone.

Quite a turnaround, then, for the young woman who, shortly after her wedding last year, insisted she did not want to be seen as a ‘clothes horse’ and went on her honeymoon in a £49.99 Zara dress. In the next few days the public is going to be given an insight into the real ‘cost of Kate’ when Prince Charles opens up his financial accounts for the first time since the royal wedding. For unusually, the Mail can reveal, it is not the Duchess’s husband who is footing the bill for her dazzling new wardrobe but her father-in-law, Prince Charles.

The future king has agreed to pay for the cost of any dresses the Duchess wears for ‘work-related’ functions and engagements through his official Household budget. While some may question why the duchess’s husband, Prince William, doesn’t fund his wife’s wardrobe this is because, ostensibly, he earns only £44,000-a-year as an RAF helicopter pilot. The £10 million he inherited last week from his late mother’s estate on turning 30, for example, is considered to be his private income.

Charles funds his public work – as well as that of his wife, Camilla, and both his children – through the Duchy of Cornwall, a private estate of land and property holdings which last year provided him a bumper pay pot of £17.8 million. His official expenditure – out of which will come Kate’s clothing allowance – amounted to £11.4 million of that.

Charles is extremely fond of his ‘darling daughter-in-law’, as he likes to call Kate, and – for the time being at least – does not mind indulging her in the slightest. But he may yet live to rue his generosity for it is a bill that is rising by the day, not least because the Duchess insists – rightly so, in the opinion of many – on paying full price for all her garments. While most celebrity clients can expect a substantial discount in return for their endorsement of a particular product, Kate has instructed her staff to never pay less than the going rate. She also point blank refuses to accept any of the hundreds of free garments sent to her by designers each month, desperate for a piece of what has been dubbed ‘The Kate Effect’. If a particular piece catches her eye she will instruct her Private Secretary cum Girl Friday Rebecca Deacon, or another member from her small team of private office staff, to buy it instead.

But Kate has privately made clear that while she is keen to champion British design around the globe, she does not want to become a ‘rent-a-royal’ fashionista. Indeed such is Kate’s growing sartorial confidence that she has refused all offers by the Royal Household to provide her with a stylist or a dresser, their female equivalent of a valet. Although she has, on occasions, sought the advice of Camilla’s own much-trusted dresser, Jackie Meakin, Kate hunts out and chooses all of her outfits herself. And while much research is conducted over the internet, Kate is still not above browsing the rails herself.

One of her fashion secrets is a small boutique called Moda Rosa, in the market town of Alresford, Hampshire, close to her parents’ Berkshire home. Owner Rosie Wild stocks a number of her favourite designers including Libelula and has become such a good friend that she was invited to Kate’s wedding.

‘The Duchess has barely put a foot wrong since she got married so why does she need anyone to do it for her?’ said an impeccably-placed source. ‘Catherine has an innate sense of style and, almost as importantly, knows what is appropriate for the occasion. She might not choose the most cutting edge designers, but she know what looks good on her and that’s what counts. Plus she is acutely conscious that she is not yet a full-time working royal and feels it is pretty pointless, as well as extravagant, to have her own dresser.’

Stewart Parvin, the Queen’s favourite couturier has welcomed Kate’s transformation from High Street Queen to Designer Duchess. He believes that whatever is spent on her wardrobe is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the business she brings in to the fashion industry.

‘I think she is looking fabulous,’ he said. ‘I understand with the way the economy is at the moment that she feels a needs to be seen in High Street clothes [but] I think people also want to see her in things that are slightly more unattainable. She can’t go walking into a function and bump into a woman wearing exactly the thing. People want the Royal Family to be slightly unreachable, it’s part of the magic they have. Princess Diana always wore couture clothes and it will become the norm for Kate as time goes on. The reaction that she has already received should give her the confidence to wear more. Especially in this day and age, people just want to be dazzled.’

[From The Mail]

I have to both defend Kate and slam her. I’ll defend her first: she is expected to look good, she’s expected to support British designers, she’s expected to not take discounts, and she’s expected to not traipse around in the same old frocks year after year. So, I get why Charles is paying for Kate’s shopping sprees and why she needs so many new dresses and such. It IS part of her job as a working royal. Being a pretty and well-dressed princess/duchess is part of the fantasy, and talking about her style is part of the fun for all of us in the cheap seats.

Now, my slam: Kate isn’t a full-time working royal. She’s already spent more than $40,000 on clothes in six months… and she barely averages one public appearance per week. Of course she doesn’t need a full-time valet/dresser – she doesn’t DO enough to need someone like that. Plus, it’s pretty clear that despite all of the claims that Will and Kate are so “normal” and they go without staff, they are in reality very well-staffed, and Kate is already quite staff-dependent. Which is fine (if she was a full-time working royal, which she isn’t) – she needs to surround herself with competent people, and she needs to delegate and manage her own affairs (she’s 30 years old, for God’s sake). It continues to bother me that the royal propagandists keep pushing this image of Kate, like we’re supposed to be overcome by her frugality at not employing a full-time dresser when she sends her personal assistant out on a daily basis to pick up clothes using her father-in-law’s credit card.

PS… Who pays for her hair appointments? She gets a blowout every three days. That’s a lot of money too, you know.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Back in April, Matt Lauer signed a new contract with the Today Show for more money than any of us will ever see. It was said at the time that one of Lauer’s conditions for staying with NBC was that Today producers needed to fire his co-anchor, Ann Curry. Ann is pretty awful as a morning show anchor. She’s a pretty awful interviewer and news-reader overall, but she seems truly overwhelmed by the anchor’s chair. Plus, you get the feeling that Matt and Today producers blame Ann for their falling ratings too. Anyway, the “Ann Curry is about to get fired” story picked up more steam last week when Ann acknowledged the rumors publicly. Now TMZ reports that Ann and NBC are negotiating her departure – apparently, she wants a $20 million golden parachute to just walk away. For the love of God, Ann.

Ann Curry and NBC are negotiating her exit from “Today” and the hang-up is money … sources connected with the network tell TMZ.

Our sources say Savannah Guthrie has already made her deal with the network to succeed Ann as co-anchor of “Today,” but the snag is the amount of money Ann will get.

As we first reported, Ann gets $10 million a year. She is one year into a 3-year contract, and from what we’re hearing NBC does not want to pay her $20 million for the balance of the contract.

Sources tell us Ann wants the full $20 mil and her exit papers. NBC wants to pay her $10 mil and give her a foreign correspondent job. And therein lies the hang-up.

The network could pay her the $20 mil and then prohibit her from working anywhere else for 2 years. But we’re told they don’t want to shell out that kind of dough, so Ann’s lawyer and NBC are haggling.

NBC wants to make the switch quickly … certainly before the Olympics so they can showcase Savannah. We’re hearing the goal is to make the announcement late this week or early next.

[From TMZ]

I mean… I understand the whole “using your parent company’s desire to get you the hell off the air to make even more money” negotiation tactic. But at the end of the day, Ann should be grateful for any amount of money, because she’s just that awful. As for the rumors of Savannah… I like Savannah. She’s perky, she’s quick, and maybe Matt Lauer has a thing for her. I’m surprised Lauer’s very alleged rumored lover Natalie Morales isn’t in the running for co-anchor too. Radar is still claiming that Hoda Kotb is the “frontrunner” for the gig… although I don’t buy that at all. I think Lauer is pretty much choosing his co-anchor, and he’s going with someone young and perky.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

I keep telling you, Hollywood is going to make Kristen Stewart out to be the next Angelina Jolie. Megan Fox’s attempts were a bust. Zoe Saldana was a non-starter. But Kristen has the staying power, and she incites controversy and fan flame-wars like no one else save Angelina. And now Kristen is even taking over one of Angelina’s old positions: that of “the highest-paid actress in Hollywood.” Forbes released their list of “Highest Paid Actresses” yesterday, and Kristen is positioned at the top – above such actresses as (in descending order): Cameron Diaz, Sandra Bullock, Angelina, Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts, Sarah Jessica Parker, Meryl Streep, Kristen Wiig, and Jennifer Aniston. Incidentally, Kristen is the only actress on the Top Ten who is under the age of 30. It’s a brand new Hollywood (except not really)!

Studios are notoriously stingy when it comes to paying young actors for the first film in a planned franchise. Forget about the $10 million they would have had to shell out to get a big name — an up-and-comer is lucky to get $800,000. That changes dramatically when it comes to the third and fourth films in a series. Suddenly, the star becomes indispensable and the studio has to pay up. That’s why Kristen Stewart has vaulted to the top of our annual list of the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood.

At this point, could anyone else play Bella Swan in Twilight? Probably not; if the studio tried to switch in another actress, fans would revolt. So for the last two Twilight films, Stewart has been able to demand an estimated $12.5 million per film, plus a share of the profits.

Her two co-stars, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, get paid the same, but Stewart earned more than them this year because of Snow White and the Huntsman. Stewart’s earnings between May 2011 and May 2012 totaled $34.5 million, helping her rank 43rd on our Celebrity 100 list. (The list measures a combination of money and fame.)

At 22, Stewart is the youngest woman on our list by 16 years. The next youngest is Kristen Wiig who is 38. Last year Stewart ranked 5th on our list of the Highest-Paid Actresses tied with Julia Roberts. This year Roberts ranked 6th.

Women are still paid less than men in the movie business. The 10 actresses who make up our list earned a total $200 million compared to the $361 million brought in by our top 10 men. To determine who the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood are, we considered upfront pay, profit participation, residuals, endorsements and advertising work. We talked to manager, agents, lawyers and other in-the-know folks to come up with our estimates. We did not deduct for things like agent fees or the expenses related to being a celebrity.

[Via Forbes]

Damn, that’s a lot of money per lip-bite and eye-roll! Still, I’m kind of surprised that Kristen’s flat-rate for the Breaking Dawn films was only $12.5 million – which is probably why she’s making so much more in the backend. Other stars might have asked for the money upfront, in a flat-out payment of $20 million or even $25 million for the sequels. But Kristen must have a really smart business manager to get a backend deal, because everyone knew after Twilight and New Moon that the franchise was only going to expand even further. Anyway… I’m kind of proud of Kristen. I’m glad that such a young woman is having such success in Hollywood, and that success hasn’t made her a total mess.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

These are some photos of Vanessa Paradis in Cabourg, France over the weekend. Obviously, she was flying solo at the Romantic Film Festival, but she did look happy and… free? A source told People Magazine that everything about her separation “was all decided before she got on that plane.” Which brings me to the questions I have, and I think a lot of people have: just when did everything go to hell between Vanessa and Johnny Depp? There have been rumors about them for a year, and those rumors really heated up in the past six months, with allegations of affairs (mostly on Johnny’s part) and financial dealings (did Vanessa already get a settlement?) and a constant back-and-forth in the media. I really don’t know WHEN they split, but I suspect that it’s not the version we’re getting right now.

People Magazine has a quote from a source close to the couple claiming that Johnny and Vanessa have been trying to work things out for months – “They’ve tried for months to save the relationship… but have known for weeks that it couldn’t be saved.” For weeks? My guess is still “months”. Anyway, The Mail has an exhaustive piece about the split, and since there’s some new information in there, let’s just go ahead and go through it:

They were said to have been living separate lives from months before it was finally confirmed that Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis had split. And while the break up was only confirmed yesterday it seems that the French singer was preparing to move on and move out weeks ago.

Vanessa, 39, was seen house hunting at a number of plush properties in Beverly Hills at the end of May. The Café de Flore star visited a number of properties with price tags of between $7million and $11million. Vanessa appeared glum as she looked around the properties on May 23 and there was no mistaking the strain of the relationship breakdown has taken its toll. The French star was seen looking at a number of properties in Malibu and Beverly Hills including a seven bedroom home which is listed at $7,995,000.

As late as last month Johnny Depp had denied there was any rift between himself and Vanessa, despite reports stating that they were living separate lives dating back to January.

A source told The Sun last night: ‘It’s so sad. Johnny and Vanessa gambled that they could move to California and be on long stays on film locations for his career. They bet that things would continue there as they had in the south of France. They lost that bet. She went seven years between albums and films, while he became Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates films.’

Reasons for the split have ranged from career obligations pulling them apart to claims Depp had a fling with his Rum Diaries co-star Amber Heard. The blonde bombshell, who came out as bi-sexual in 2010, was seen boarding Johnny’s private jet to Las Vegas in April, fuelling rumours of a relationship between the co-stars.

Yesterday Depp’s publicist confirmed the split in a statement that read: ‘Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis have amicably separated. Please respect their privacy and, more importantly, the privacy of their children.’

Depp is worth an estimated $300million and the family have divided their time between their homes in Meudon, in the suburbs of Paris, two in Los Angeles, an island he bought in The Bahamas and their villa in Le Plan-de-la-Tour, a small town 20 km from Saint-Tropez, in the south of France.

[From The Mail]

The real estate stuff is so interesting because, for the past year, Johnny Depp has reportedly been buying up properties in England and Los Angeles like they were candy. I guess part of the settlement with Vanessa is that she’ll have her own place in Los Angeles, where she and the kids can stay when they’re visiting Johnny at work? I wonder how the custodial issues are going to work out in the end – especially because Lily-Rose is already a teenager. Oh, and I suspect Johnny is worth more than $300 million. Which was probably a factor in the settlement?

Photos courtesy of WENN.