Today in celebrity news: TayTay and Harry's breakup gets nasty, Lindsay Lohan weighs in on her big New York Times Magazine piece, and Kate Middleton celebrates her birthday.
RELATED: The 2012 Gossip Stories We Loved
We all know, every single one of us, from bleak Bangor to sleazy San Diego, that singer Taylor Swift and boy band moppet Harry Styles have split up. Their whirlwind couple-month-long romance is over, and there's nothing to be done about that. We'd all made our peace with it, consulted our various gods and sought their counsel, and were ready to move on. But the story just won't let us. Or Taylor just won't let us. Yesterday the tech-savvy Tennessean tweeted: "Back in the studio. Uh oh..." People are taking this to mean that she's headed to the studio to record yet another big Breakup Song, this one about young master Styles. Which is probably what she wants people to think! And maybe even is true. So what will the breakup song be about, really? Well apparently Harry "said something he shouldn't have" and that sent Taylor over the edge. What might that something have been? Well, if you want to listen to Radar Online, and probably you shouldn't, it was sex-related. See, they're going with a story that Harry, young fella in his prime and all, was looking to get down and dirty on the regular, but that Taylor wasn't having it. They quote a "source" as saying as much: "While it was clear she obviously had a thing for Harry, Taylor didn’t want to put out as often as he would’ve liked. Harry is a young boy, with ladies throwing themselves at him and has had a string of relationships with older women. It’s no secret he’s sexually active and is enjoying his fame at the moment. But Taylor just wasn’t up for it as much as he is. They were sexually incompatible." So... yikes. Pretty creepy that we are talking this way about a pair of children, but there it is. The source goes on to say, "Taylor is so concerned that the public will think she’s a wh*re because she dates around, that she doesn’t put out." I wonder if they actually spoke with the asterisk or what. But yeah, that's what Radar Online is saying, and we probably should not believe it, but then there is this line and you really want to believe it: "Harry wants to go out to fancy bars and clubs and enjoy being young – but Taylor’s more of a homebody and all she would talk about was antiques!" Ohh man. Antiques. I hope that at least that part is true, that Taylor Swift talks about antiques more than she talks about most things. That would totally make sense. Maybe that could be part of her song? "I'm Chippendale and you're IKEA / You're goin' so fast that I can hardly see ya." Do it, Taylor! Do that song and then go home to your pile of antiques and plot whatever dating adventure you'll unravel for us next. We can't wait. [Us Weekly; Radar]
Remember yesterday's amazing New York Times Magazine article all about Lindsay Lohan, Paul Schrader, and the shooting of the movie The Canyons? Well, Lohan now says, remarkably, that the thing is mostly accurate. Yes, someone "close to the actress" reportedly told TMZ that "most of the stories in the article are TRUE -- she was late a few times, she was nervous about getting naked and she argued with producers ... but LiLo says stuff like that happens all the time on movie sets, so it's no big deal. But we're told Lindsay says the allegations that she boozed on set and got behind the wheel of a car afterward are totally bogus. She claims she's not that stupid and irresponsible." Hm. OK. Big of her to cop to the lesser charges of lateness, but let's jump ahead to the part where she drives drunk. "She's not that stupid and irresponsible"? How long has this someone been "close to the actress" exactly? Because you'd have to have missed, like, the last six years to swallow that line. I mean, I'm not finding this annoying on any moral grounds exactly, it's just that, c'mon, Lohan camp. Not that stupid and irresponsible? About her? Those're some balls, my friends. Hasn't she crashed her car a bunch and gone to jail for DUI probation violations and stuff? Isn't that exactly as stupid and irresponsible as one needs to be to drive after a few drinks, as is described in the article? I don't care if she says she's changed or whatever — I'm happy to believe that. But the indignation of "she's not that stupid and irresponsible," as if she would never, ever do something as reckless as drive drunk is a bit rich. That's all. Just poorly chosen words, that's all that's bugging me. Anyway, the point is that if you haven't yet read the story in the Times, you gotta. [TMZ]
Duchess Kate of Cambridge, bride to the future king of all Britannia and its savage territories, had her 31st birthday yesterday, and she and some of her handmaidens and other chums went to the circus. Yes, the Cirque du Soleil set up a show near Kate's palace, this show called Kooza (ew? ew), and so she went. She was seen "clapping and laughing" at the show, throwing bread toward the performers and yelling "Bravo! Bravo! For you, for your hungry children!" One particular performer interested her especially, and so she turned to her husband, who sat next to her with a big horsey grin on his face going "Guhh-huhhhh" with delight for the whole show, and said "I rather like that one, I think I shall have him," to which Will nodded and gave a signal to one of his footmen. The performer was then delivered, bag over his head, to Kate's chambers, where she made him dance and folly and ring the little bells on his hat until she grew bored of him and he was sent to the dungeons and forgotten about. It was a lovely birthday, 'tis only a pity that at the very end of the show, poor simple Will felt that one of the acrobats was mocking him, so he had the entire company tied to the center pole of the big top and the whole thing burned to the ground. But other than that, it was wonderful! [People]
Tuneful yearling Justin Bieber is being sued by one of his former bodyguards. The bodyguard, an ex-Israeli army soldier, is claiming that little Justin, who is still green as a sapling, "berated him and punched him in the chest multiple times during a disagreement about how to handle a member of Bieber's entourage." He is now suing for damages and nearly half a million dollars in back pay. Ha, yes. I'm sure that the wee porcelain Canadian did quite a number on his hulking bodyguard. I mean, he may have tried, and if he did perhaps some sort of compensation for the bodyguard is in order, but come on now. I mean, if that's the way this guy wants to play it, he is more than welcome to. It's just a funny choice. I guess getting some money in the immediate is worth more to him than not damaging his reputation as a bodyguard forever by saying that he was beat up by a singing ephebe whom he'd been charged to protect. Whatever works for you, buddy. This is your show. [TMZ]
RELATED: Katie Holmes Goes Bust on Broadway
A new book written by a Pulitzer winner called Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief claims that the Church of Scientology viewed actress Nicole Kidman as "a gold digger who was faking Scientology" when she was married to Scientology mascot Tom Cruise, and that Kidman was an active participant in the search for her successor as Tom's beard-wife, who of course wound up being Katie Holmes. Now the Church's lawyer (who is also Cruise's lawyer, of course) is saying that the book is fake and dumb, basically. He told Page Six: "The chapter about Tom is based on provable lies by a bunch of bitter ex-Scientologists. The book itself is boring." Ha. Good third grade response. It's lies and and boring. Who cares. "The book itself is boring." Nobody asked you for a review, bub. "The book is factually incorrect and it's also stupid and the author is ugly." A measured response! It's no wonder everyone loves Scientologists. [Page Six]