| | |  | Kimberly Kardashian News & Gossip
|
|
| | Ripley's Museum claims Kim Kardashian didn't damage Marilyn Monroe's dress | | Added 964 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier this week, the Marilyn Monroe collection posted before-and-after photos of Marilyn?s famous Jean Louis dress, the one she wore to sing ?Happy Birthday, Mr. President? to JFK. Kim Kardashian borrowed the dress from the Ripley?s Believe It Or Not Museum in Florida. Ripley?s purchased the dress at auction in 2016, and the dress had already been bought and sold a few times before then. Ripley?s lent out the dress to Kim Kardashian for the Met Gala, despite the fact that she couldn?t fit her ass, thighs or boobs in it. Kim reportedly left the dress unzipped for the red carpet, then changed into a replica for the actual gala (once the red carpet was done).
I wondered how the MM Collection even got their hands on the dress to monitor it for damage, considering one would think that Ripley?s has their own in-house restorers/costume-repairers. But the MM Collection did seem to get a look at the dress after Kim wore it and they were beyond pissed at the damage Kim did to it. Several of the crystals were lost/popped off. The fabric was stretched and frayed. The zipper was fked. But now Ripley?s claims that actually, it?s fine? Ripley?s posted this press release ?debunking? the MM Collection?s claims:
Kim Kardashian?s walk up the Metropolitan Museum?s stairs at this year?s Met Gala caused quite the stir, but one thing Ripley?s Believe It or Not! can say with confidence is that it did not cause damage to Marilyn Monroe?s famed ?Happy Birthday? dress from 1962.
Ripley?s Believe It or Not! is not the first owner of this dress. It was acquired at a Julien?s Auctions event in 2016 for $4.8 million. A report written on the dress?s condition in early 2017 states, ?a number of the seams are pulled and worn. This is not surprising given how delicate the material is. There is puckering at the back by the hooks and eyes,? among other instances of damage.
Kim Kardashian wearing the ?Happy Birthday? dress has been hotly contested, but the fact remains that she did not, in any way, damage the garment in the short amount of time it was worn at the Met Gala.
?From the bottom of the Met steps, where Kim got into the dress, to the top where it was returned, the dress was in the same condition it started in,? noted Ripley?s VP of Publishing and Licensing, Amanda Joiner, who was continuously with the dress the day of the Gala and during transport from Orlando to New York.
A recent social media post asked, ?Was it worth it?? Kim Kardashian did not pay Ripley?s Believe It or Not! to wear the dress, nor did the company pay her. Rather, Kardashian made a charitable donation to two charities in the greater Orlando area on behalf of the company. Ripley?s Believe It or Not! will continue to exhibit the dress ? in as-is condition ? at Ripley?s Believe It or Not! Hollywood through Fall 2022.
[From Ripley?s]
Yeah? what?? ?Ripley?s VP of Publishing and Licensing, Amanda Joiner?? Is Ms. Joiner a costuming expert or professional fashion archivist? Does she have a professional background in seamstressing, fabric preservation or clothing repair? When you?ve got your VP of Publishing swearing up and down that the dress wasn?t compromised in the least, you?re panicking.
The MM Collection responded with a lengthy IG statement and the before-and-after photos, which they say were taken 52 days apart, before and after the gala. Kim damaged the gown.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by The Marilyn Monroe Collection (@marilynmonroecollection)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian irreparably harmed the Marilyn Monroe dress at the Met Gala | | Added 967 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
I?m confused about something involving Marilyn Monroe?s iconic Jean Louis dress. Marilyn wore the dress for one of her last public appearances, and after she passed away, the dress likely traded hands a few times. Then in 2016, the Ripley?s Believe It Or Not Museum purchased the dress at auction for a historic price: $4.8 million. The museum obviously keeps the dress in one of their permanent exhibitions, and they only lent it out for the first time for the Met Gala, for Kim Kardashian to wear (she only wore it briefly on the carpet, then changed into a replica for the dinner). Following the gala, I assumed the dress was returned to the museum.
That was all the long-winded backstory, so here?s my question: the Ripley?s museum is in charge of the dress, correct? They have their own museum people looking after the dress, right? It does not appear so. It appears that while Ripley?s OWNS the dress, they allow the Marilyn Monroe Collection to look after the dress or make repairs as needed. And the MM Collection is NOT happy. The MM Collection?s social media posted several Instagrams about the damage done to the fragile dress by Kim and her team. Several crystals are missing/popped off, the zipper is fked and the fabric around the zipper is ripped and frayed.
The MM Collection notes that Ripley?s did try to ensure that the dress was not damaged and that Kim was not alone with the dress, and that the museum could pull the plug on it at any time. But that doesn?t change the fact that the fragile dress never should have been lent out for the Met Gala, especially not for Kim. I?m not criticizing Kim?s figure, but her figure is NOTHING like Marilyn?s. Of course Kim couldn?t fit her giant ass in the dress. Though Marilyn wasn?t as assy as Kim, even Marilyn had to be sewn into the dress! Anyway, a whole mess.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by The Marilyn Monroe Collection (@marilynmonroecollection)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian & Pete Davidson really are in London for the Platinum Jubbly | | Added 978 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Kardashian and Pete Davidson have been in London this week and no one knows why. Kim was like this with Kanye West sometimes too they would just fly to some city for a few days and we would only find out later that they did a photoshoot or visited friends or something. I don?t think that?s what Kim and Pete were doing though, I think it started out as a vacation. The thing is, everyone knows that the UK four-day Jubilee weekend is happening. So people did wonder ?is Kim about to gatecrash the Jubbly?? Turns out, that was her plan. Instead of gatecrashing the Jubbly, royal aides decided to gatekeep the reality star and billionaire.
She may be the Queen of celebrities, but Kim Kardashians dream of joining the official Platinum Jubilee celebrations in the UK have been dashed. Despite her best efforts, officials at Buckingham Palace have rejected her pleas to attend the Platinum Party at the Palace on Saturday. Representatives for the star, 41 ? who landed in the UK with her boyfriend Pete Davidson, 28, this week ? asked for tickets But the Palace turned the American couple down, as did publicists at the BBC, which will broadcast the show.
Kim was so determined to attend that a source told the Daily Mail she is trying to acquire tickets by other means ? and has even said she doesnt mind if the tickets are not VIP.
They said: Kim rarely gets turned down to attend any event, so this has been quite surprising, especially as she doesnt visit the UK often. Kim and Pete love the Royal Family and really wanted to be a part of this special celebration.
Its not clear if the Jubilee celebrations were the only reason for the couples trip to London. The likes of Queen, Diana Ross and Nile Rodgers will perform at the event, while Sir David Attenborough and David Beckham will make appearances. Some 10,000 tickets were allocated via a public ballot, and 7,500 have been given to key workers, those in the Armed Forces, volunteers and charities. Members of the Royal Family are expected to attend on behalf of the Queen, who is pacing herself but will be watching on TV from Windsor Castle.
[From The Daily Mail]
Yes, lord help the Windsors if some American celebrities turn up at? a public concert and party staged in London. The question is more like? why did Kim even want to go? I know she fancies herself ?American royalty,? but this is not the way! Maybe it?s all bullsh-t though, maybe she and Pete are just on vacation and/or she has some kind of work to do in London.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian bought a 'buffer home' in-between her house & Kanye's house | | Added 983 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are more photos of Kim Kardashian in Portofino, Italy last weekend. Kim and the fam were all in attendance at Kourtney and Travis Barker?s third and hopefully final wedding. Kim and her children flew out to Italy at the same time as the rest of the family. I imagine the whole thing was filmed for their Hulu series and I don?t even remember the last time the entire K-J clan was together, with all of the kids, for a big event like this. Rob skipped it though. Rob really is the forgotten Kardashian.
Unsurprisingly, Kourtney and Travis didn?t invite Kanye West. We?ve barely heard much about or from Kanye in a few months, since Pete Davidson told him to back the fk off. Reportedly, Kanye had a come-to-Yeezus moment about Kim and what he was doing to her, so he decided to back off and stop publicly harassing her. But? Kanye still owns a house very close to Kim?s house. He thinks it?s his place to monitor Kim. Well, Kim is trying to block him, even if it means overpaying for an adjacent property.
Kim Kardashian just dropped $6.3 million for the home next door to her custom-built Hidden Hills mansion. And she wanted it so badly, she was willing to pay $800,000 over the asking price. By the looks of it, the 4,230 square-feet California home was purchased to expand her already massive footprint in the neighborhood. It also happens to sit directly in the middle of her current house and the house that Kanye West bought across the street back in December. Is it a place for her beau Pete Davidson to hang out while in town? What we know for sure is that it appears to be in need of some major renovations.
Meanwhile, sources told The Post ?Kim and Kanye continue to co-parent their four children and as such buying the property around the main home for their kids one day falls in line with that shared goal.?
Made up of four-bedrooms and 3.5 baths, the interiors are a bit outdated, with green shaggy carpeting, velvet furniture and curtains, walls made of mirrors and plastered flooring. Chances are this home will be torn down and turned into something more extravagant and Kardashian-proof. But on the upside, the property is situated on over an acre of land, giving Kim, 41, four acres after buying out Kanye?s stake for $23 million in October amid their ongoing divorce.
[From The NY Post]
She absolutely bought this as a buffer property, and she was likely worried that Kanye would buy it and expand his monitoring. My guess is that she?ll tear down the current home, build some kind of cute bungalow or, like, an art space, and then she?ll plant a lot of tall trees or some kind of privacy fence or wall.
Kim really jammed her body into too-small clothing and just went ?vibes.?
Photos courtesy of Backgrid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian: Ban assault weapons & ban teenagers from buying guns | | Added 986 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
We?re living in a world where Kim Kardashian is consistently more coherent, politically engaged and thoughtful than Matthew McConaughey and every Republican politician. McConaughey?s big statement on the Uvalde massacre of children was that ?both sides? need to think about things. Kim Kardashian said fk you, here?s what actually needs to happen: you need to be over 21 to buy a gun and you need a full ban on assault weapons. While Kim?s gun control ideas are not new, I?m glad that she at least has something very specific to say.
A day after a teenage gunman shot and killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., Kim Kardashian reiterated her earlier call for more gun control by resharing a blog post she had written in 2017, in honor of National Gun Violence Awareness Day.
Unfortunately it has not aged, Kardashian posted Wednesday on social media. In it I asked is it more important to protect the second amendment than to protect our own children? Yesterday 19 children were murdered by an 18 year old, and I find myself heartbroken, disgusted and furious about how little has been done by law makers to enact gun laws that protect our children. There is no excuse and no justification for what happened yesterday. The current laws in our country around gun control are not protecting our children. We have to push law makers to enact laws that are fitting in today?s world.
Kardashian called for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which she described as designed to kill. Assault weapons didnt even exist when the Second Amendment was written, the mother of North, 8; Chicago, 4; Saint, 6; and 3-year-old Psalm, said. We have to stop allowing people to use a sentence written centuries ago when technology, times, humanity were completely different, to dictate how we regulate gun ownership, & how we protect our kids today.
The Parkland shooter, the Buffalo grocery store shooter, the Texas shooter yesterday, they were all under 21 and reportedly purchased weapons legally. These are teenagers, she wrote. Someone who is not old enough to buy alcohol should not be allowed to purchase a firearm. There is no world in which an 18 year old needs a semi automatic weapon, or any weapon, and no world in which the outcome can be anything other than tragic. As I even type these words I am seriously dumbfounded that this is something considered normal, acceptable and legal.
While she acknowledged that factors such as mental health and hatred, including racism, have driven people to commit mass shootings, she noted that communities can do more to combat that. Lawmakers have another role.
The one thing that law makers can and should control now is access to weapons, wrote Kardashian, whos advocated for prison reform and is studying to become a lawyer. There are of course people over 21 who buy guns to cause harm, and other mass shootings in recent years have been carried out by people over 21, but if we increase legal age to purchase, coupled with a ban on assault weapons, we can without a doubt reduce the number of senseless tragedies and save childrens lives.
[From Yahoo]
Again, good for her. After 212 mass shootings in 2022 alone, ?thoughts and prayers? are not enough, and it?s not enough to talk out of both sides of your mouth about what?s actually happening at the political and legislative level. Name the problem, name the solutions to the problem. All of us have to be willing to say that assault weapons should be completely banned, that there needs to be a national gun registry, that teenagers shouldn?t be legally allowed to buy guns, that nothing will change until people actually become single-issue gun control voters, and that children are going to continue to be murdered in their classrooms until we fix this.
Photos courtesy of Instar, Backgrid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian claimed she lost 16 lbs in three weeks to fit into Marilyn's dress | | Added 1008 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
People are still very mad about Kim Kardashian?s Met Gala look. She worked on it for weeks, if not months. Meaning she spent a lot of time convincing the Ripley?s Believe It or Not Museum to lend her Marilyn Monroe?s iconic Jean Louis dress, the same one Monroe wore to sing ?Happy Birthday, Mr. President? to JFK. Marilyn famously had to be sewn into the dress, and the piece is sixty years old and very, very delicate. Kim only ?wore? the dress for the length of the Met Gala red carpet she changed into the dress just before the carpet, and changed out of the dress just after the carpet. In the aftermath, people couldn?t believe that Kim and Marilyn have anywhere close to the same measurements. They don?t, really. Kim couldn?t even zip it up, and that was after Kim reportedly lost 16 lbs to ?fit? into it.
Kardashian, 41, told BFF and Vogue guest host La La Anthony that she lost a whopping 16 pounds in just three weeks in preparation for the star-studded event.
?It was like preparing for a role,? Kardashian, who also bleached her hair platinum blond and wore a white fur shrug to complete the look, said of her dedication to transforming into Monroe.
She also added that the Ripley?s team ?didn?t believe? she could do it, but the ?challenge? made her even more committed.
Later in the night, Kardashian showed off endless mini doughnuts and Joe?s pizza in her hotel room, sharing that she cut out sugar and carbs for ?almost a month.? The reality star also has been posting her extreme two-a-day workouts on Instagram that include running on the treadmill in a sauna suit.
[From Page Six]
Do you believe she ?lost? that weight naturally, by eliminating sugar and carbs? I do not. Keep in mind, Kim has been on an extreme diet for a while (before all this) and she also has regular plastic surgery to maintain her body. I would be more willing to believe that Kim had some quick lipo a few weeks ago rather than dieting to the point of losing 16 lbs in three weeks. And, as I said, the dress still didn?t fit it took a village to get the dress over Kim?s ass, and she wore the white fur to cover the fact that she couldn?t get it all the way up.
As for all of the Marilyn-lovers who say that this is an insult to Marilyn?s memory? I agree? But Marilyn?s memory has been pawed over and misused for decades. People are still profiting from her in crazy ways. What makes me mad is that Kim wore this incredibly historical piece of clothing and she made it look so basic and Kardashian. Her styling sucked, the hair was completely wrong, the jewelry was wrong, and Kim doesn?t actually have the natural charisma or sexiness to pull this off.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian really wore Marilyn Monroe's iconic dress to the Met Gala | | Added 1009 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Truly, I didn?t believe the rumors. For weeks now, people have been theorizing that Kim Kardashian would wear Marilyn Monroe?s iconic ?Happy Birthday Mr. President? dress to the Met Gala. I thought ?no, that?s impossible, it?s probably in the hands of some private collector.? I was wrong. The dress which Marilyn was famously sewn into on the night is part of the Ripley?s Museum, and they lent it to Kim? briefly. Kim was very careful with this iconic piece of fashion history, to her credit. She never intended to wear the dress for more than the length of the Met Gala carpet, and that?s just what she did. She changed into it just before the carpet, walked the carpet and then changed into a replica in a bathroom/dressing room before entering the museum. Kim was adamant: she never intended to sit down or eat in the dress. So it?s fine. It looked good on her honestly. She?s short and curvy like Marilyn, so the dress fit her like a glove. Oh, and Pete was her date. Do you think he even realized that they were out of Washington and this wasn?t the WHCD?
Bonus: Kris Jenner in Oscar de la Renta, trying to channel Jackie O. I actually appreciate the fact that Kris mixed it up and went for a real Americana look, but I kind of think she was off-theme and? whatever. Her jewelry was fking gorgeous though, her diamond earrings were HUGE. (Oh God I just realized that Kim did Marilyn and Kris did Jackie, what a MESS.)
Photos courtesy of Instar, Avalon Red.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian wore Balenciaga & walked her first carpet with Pete Davidson | | Added 1010 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some photos of Kim Kardashian and Pete Davidson at Saturday night?s White House Correspondents? Dinner. Kim was a guest of ABC because of Hulu?s The Kardashians. Pete was Kim?s date. This was the first time I believe? that they actually walked a carpet together. Pete was her date at The Kardashians premiere a few weeks ago, but he didn?t pose with her on the carpet. Kim?s dress is Balenciaga, btw. It?s nice but I wish she hadn?t done the ?wet look? hair at this event. It?s Washington DC?s Nerd Prom, not the Met Gala. Speaking of, every Kardashian-Jenner woman has been invited to the Met Gala this evening, and they all plan on attending.
It?s Anna Wintour?s party and we?re just her guests (or, more likely, not). On Monday night, the Vogue guru will once again welcome the rich and powerful ? or, at least, the TikTok-trendy ? as she hosts the Met Gala for the 26th time. As always, Wintour, the ultimate influencer, is in charge of the guest list. This year?s theme, ?Gilded Glamour,? will draw inspiration from the Gilded Age, an era when Astors, Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers ruled NYC.
Now, of course, almost no one wields more pop-culture power than the Kardashians. And The Post has learned that, for the very first time, nearly the entire family will be there ? including Kim and boyfriend Pete Davidson; Kourtney, who will make her Met debut with fianc Travis Barker; and Khlo; momager Kris Jenner; and Kendall and Kylie Jenner.
(Likely not in attendance: brother Rob ? currently embroiled in his court battle with former girlfriend Blac Chyna and who is rarely seen in public ? or Kylie?s baby daddy Travis Scott, who has been keeping a low profile since the November 2021 mass-casualty incident at his AstroWorld concert in Houston. Kanye is not expected to attend this year, The Post is told.)
?Everyone is scheduled to go,? said a Cond Nast insider.
[From Page Six]
Page Six is making this sound like it?s the first time the K-Js have been out in force at the gala, but they?ve all made big appearances before, and I remember one year when I think everyone but Kourtney and Rob came? Anyway, something to look forward to, the K-Js coming en masse. Honestly? The Kardashian-Jenners actually ?fit the theme? of robber barons, excess, the Nu Gilded Age.
A little bit surprised that Kim ?gave away? her first red carpet appearance with Pete at the WHCD and not the Met Gala. But that was likely by design too. Last new notes Pete was high as a kite at the WHCD and he held hands with Martha Stewart (Snoop is going to be MAD). And some believe that Pete already has tattoos of Kim?s kids? initials. Too much! Too soon!
Martha Stewart, Pete Davidson, and Kim Kardashian at the White House Correspondents' dinner. pic.twitter.com/qyG2anuK11
Pop Crave (@PopCrave) May 1, 2022
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian never wore underwear before she invented her SKIMS line | | Added 1022 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Kardashian?s SKIMS is still her most successful company. Skims is already worth billions and that?s partly because Kim is making a good product underwear, loungewear, swimwear and shapewear. Half of the promotion is word of mouth, I?ve heard from multiple people that Skims products are pretty great. Anyway, to promote Skims, Kim has been talking about how she never wore underwear before she invented her own underwear line. Yikes.
Kim Kardashian invented her own favorite underwear. The reality star has long told stories of wearing multiple pairs of shapewear and layering up on boob tape, but apparently she?s been going commando underneath it all.
In a video posted on Skims? Instagram Stories Monday, the 41-year-old star of Hulu?s ?The Kardashians? showed off her brand?s Dipped Front Thong ($18) and declared, ?I never wore underwear until we invented this style.?
She also confirmed her undying love for Skims? dipped thong during her recent interview on the ?Not Skinny But Not Fat? podcast.
And she shared a similar sentiment while giving followers a tour of her underwear closet last month, saying, ?I was a non-underwear kind of girl for a long time, just because they bothered me.?
Continued Kardashian in the clip, ?For a good last few years I just wouldn?t wear underwear, and now I do and I?m obsessed.?
[From Page Six]
To me, this is like (mostly white) people talking about how they never bathe. Like, how do you consistently go without underwear as an adult? Its just basic adult hygiene. I?ll be even more specific? how do you go commando as a WOMAN? A grown-ass, period-having woman? Kim?s thing is that she used to just wear shapewear constantly, like she would wear Spanx all the time and that?s it. While that?s not exactly ?going commando,? it?s still not great. You know how great it feels to just slip on a pair of cotton panties after a shower? Why wouldn?t you want that?
Photos courtesy of Kim?s IG and SKIMS? IG.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Kim Kardashian & Pete Davidson didn't walk 'The Kardashians' premiere carpet | | Added 1034 days ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Last night, there was a premiere event for Hulu?s The Kardashians and it seemed? especially chaotic for no reason? This is the premiere of a reality show on a streaming service, with some of the most famous reality stars in the world. Why wasn?t there more press access? There are barely any photos on the actual carpet. Kim Kardashian arrived at the premiere with Pete Davidson, and they held hands as they entered the venue. And yet there are no photos of them on the carpet? Kontrol, thy name is Kardashian.
E! News asked her about why Pete didn?t walk the carpet with her and Kim said, Hes here to support me. Its my thing. I dont think its his thing to be all up here with me. So, Im just so happy hes here. She was probably like ?do you want to wait in the car?? LMAO.
Anyway, all of the Kardashians and Kardashian-adjacents were there, and here are assorted photos. Kim?s silver dress was meh. Khloe brought True and they matched. Kourtney and Travis Barker were there, and I believe those are his three kids, plus Kourtney?s youngest. Scott Disick was there with his latest girlfriend, Rebecca Donaldson.
Embed from Getty Images
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | 5.641.722
Photos Online+ 47.940 past week
2.057
Users Online | | |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Katrina Bowden
Photos of Katrina Bowden will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
10 hours | | |
| | |
|
