THE MAIL’S GREATEST BOOKS: In part one of an unmissable series that marked William’s 30th birthday, Penny Junor revealed how the prince overcame the trauma of witnessing his parents’ disintegrating marriage… 

At the age of 13, Prince William faced the daunting prospect of becoming a new boy in a school that was almost ten times the size of his old one. 

That was hard enough. What made his transition to Eton far more of an ordeal was that no one — from masters to pupils — could fail to be unaware of the open warfare that was tearing his parents’ marriage apart. 

Unlike his prep school, where the head often pretended the newspapers hadn’t been delivered, multiple sets arrived on the premises daily — and William could simply no longer be shielded. 

So it was doubly unfortunate that, almost immediately after his arrival, his mother’s love life was once again making lurid headlines. 

This time, the man in question was the England rugby captain Will Carling, whom William had met several times with Diana. For a boy trying to handle his first weeks at a big school, it was excruciatingly hard to bear. 

But there was worse to come, as his house master Andrew Gailey soon discovered. While William was still settling in, Gailey learned that the Princess of Wales was recording an interview in secret for the BBC. 

Concerned for his pupil, he phoned Diana and told her it was imperative to explain to William, face-to-face, what she was intending to do. ‘Is that really necessary?’ she said. It was, he said — but she refused to come. The next day he phoned again and was even more insistent. 

Reluctantly, she agreed to go to the school. In the end, the meeting between mother and son lasted no longer than five minutes. Diana told William that the programme she’d recorded would not contain anything controversial. 

It would make him proud of her, she assured him. And before he had a chance to ask any questions, she left. There’s no doubt she anticipated a magnificent triumph. ‘It’s terribly moving,’ she told her private secretary, when he asked what the programme contained. 

On November 20, 1995, a large proportion of the nation sat glued to their TV sets in disbelief as Diana gave the performance of her life on Panorama. Looking pale and vulnerable, with heavy black kohl lining her eyes, she talked about her bulimia, her affair with James Hewitt and her husband’s obsession with Camilla Parker Bowles. 

It was clear she’d chosen to punish Charles in the most damaging way she could. What she’d failed to appreciate, however, was the damage she was inflicting on her elder son. William watched the whole programme in his house master’s study. And, not unnaturally, he was deeply upset. 

No child wants to hear one parent assassinating the integrity of the other, let alone talking about mutual infidelities. It was as if his mother had forgotten, as she told her story to an audience of 20million people, that he was just a boy in his first term. There was one bombshell after another, which landed with devastating force. Charles, she said, was ill-equipped to become King. 

Did she want William to succeed the Queen? ‘My wish is that my husband finds peace of mind, and from that follows other things, yes,’ she replied. It must have been mortifying for William that she kept mentioning him by name. 

After her lover James Hewitt contributed to a book about their affair, she said: ‘The first thing I did was rush down to talk to my children. And William produced a box of chocolates and said, ‘Mummy, I think you’ve been hurt. These are to make you smile again.’ ‘ 

It was to William, too, that she’d uttered that memorable phrase: ‘There were three of us in this marriage.’ Asked how her eldest son had taken this, she told Panorama: ‘Well, he’s a child that’s a deep thinker and we won’t know for a few years how it’s gone in.’ 

There was no doubt, however, about the short-term effect of her words. By the time William emerged from Dr Gailey’s study, he was angry and incredulous. How, he must have asked himself, could his mother have done such a terrible thing? 

As one of his friends says: ‘Imagine what it must have been like to live through the s**t of William’s childhood: the divorce, the acrimony, the shame of it all being played out in public, his mother’s Panorama interview, then she’s dead. His father’s mistress hanging around, then moving in. 

‘It makes you shudder. Even if you were living on a sink estate, you’d feel sorry for your neighbour if they’d gone through that.’ With extraordinary resilience, he’s emerged from his troubled childhood and adolescence as a strong and resolute character, with a normal complement of vulnerabilities, but a great capacity to love. And to the credit of his parents, love for William was never in short supply. 

Like his young wife, Charles was elated to have a child and quickly mastered the art of bathing and nappy-changing. Together, Charles and Diana went home to Kensington Palace full of hope that their baby would bring them closer together. 

But, although they’d been married for less than a year, they were already facing serious problems. Within days of their engagement, Diana had changed from a happy-go-lucky teenager into a volatile and unpredictable stranger. Even the honeymoon on board HMS Britannia failed to work its magic: physically, Diana confided to friends, the marriage was a disaster. 

There were fearsome rows and rages and tears, and during the final stage of the honeymoon, spent at Balmoral, Diana lost so much weight that Charles arranged for her to see a psychiatrist. 

At one point, she was so thin he thought she was going to die. The Prince was dumbfounded. He hadn’t the faintest idea what was the matter with his beautiful wife, but imagined he must be responsible. 

Either marriage to him was just too awful, or he’d destroyed her by bringing her into his bizarre way of life. Before the marriage, no one in Charles’s camp had spotted that she was suffering from an incipient mental illness. And the people who did know kept quiet. In 1993, when the marriage was in ruins, her grandmother Lady Fermoy — who died a month later — told the Prince she’d known Diana was ‘a dishonest and difficult’ girl and wished she’d screwed up her courage to tell him he shouldn’t marry her. 

Even Diana’s father said shortly before he died in 1992 that he’d been wrong not to warn Charles. Both knew Diana had been badly affected by the traumas of her childhood. Like the Princess, her mother Frances had been unhappy in her marriage, but for a different reason. 

In public, Johnny — later Earl Spencer — was affectionate and witty, but in the privacy of their home he could be very different. 

Indeed, Frances put up with years of physical abuse, just as the Earl’s mother, Cynthia, had endured similar treatment from the 7th Earl. 

Finally, in 1967, Frances left home after falling in love with the millionaire businessman Peter Shand Kydd. None of the Spencer staff condemned her. Condemnation came from the one person Frances might have looked to for support: her own mother, Ruth. 

She was so appalled that her daughter should leave the son of an earl for a man ‘in trade’ that she gave evidence against her daughter in the divorce, claiming she was a bad mother. 

Custody of all four children went to Johnny. Sadly, Diana — just six at the time — concluded she must be worthless because her mother didn’t want her. She grew up never having watched a couple play happy families, and probably took her role models instead from the idealised plots of Barbara Cartland romances. No one, of course, could live up to a romantic fiction hero — and certainly not Prince Charles.

 Vulnerable and insecure, he’d been brought up by nannies and had minimal contact with his parents, who were away for long periods during his childhood. The Queen and Prince Philip loved their eldest son, but they were poor communicators with a surprising dearth of emotional intelligence. 

Philip, baffled by Charles’s sensitivity, often reduced him to tears, and any signs of overt affection from the Queen stopped altogether as he grew older. As a result, Charles was left feeling that he was a disappointment. 

He did not confide in them or anyone else about the difficulties he was experiencing with Diana, and became increasingly depressed and despondent. His wife needed constant reassurance, constant attention, constant love; but the mood swings were violent and unnerving. 

In the blink of an eye, she went from cheerful and funny to brooding and sobbing, or furiously angry and screaming. At other times, she cut herself until she bled profusely. Charles had no idea how to cope. He became prone to temper tantrums, for which he didn’t always apologise. But he did everything she asked: He got rid of loyal staff whom she said she didn’t like; gave away the faithful dog she couldn’t stand; and stopped seeing the friends she neither liked nor trusted. But nothing seemed to make her happy. 

This, then, was the anguished and dysfunctional relationship that formed the bedrock of William’s childhood. However much his parents loved him in their separate ways, it undoubtedly played its part in forging the man he is today. 

In his early years, however, he was shielded from much of the fallout by a devoted nanny. Barbara Barnes had a sense of fun and soon forged a close bond with William.

Her presence was crucial because the truth was that Diana didn’t know how to be a mother. Though there’s no doubting her all-consuming passion for her boys, the Princess had never been successfully mothered herself and had a skewed view of what that entailed. When a friend once suggested it was unwise to have hysterics in front of Prince William, Diana said he was too young to notice — and anyway, he’d ‘have to learn the truth sooner or later’.

As the Princess continued to suffer from bouts of depression and self-loathing, from which the only release was to cut herself, Barbara must have sometimes wondered who needed looking after the most: mother or baby.

By all accounts, William was quite a handful. At nursery school, he quickly became known as ‘Basher Wills’ or ‘Billy the Basher’. At home, his mother nicknamed him ‘Your Royal Naughtiness’, but was mostly amused by his cheekiness.

She was good at providing hugs, but was sometimes more like a big sister than a mother. William’s antics made her giggle, which of course undermined any discipline he was getting from Baba, as he called Barbara.

Yet on other occasions, Diana would smack him, which must have sent a confusing message to the child. Barbara was told she must never smack him or raise her voice if he misbehaved. Yet it was she who managed William’s tantrums, read to him and comforted him if he was upset.

Whenever there was an impasse with the nanny, he’d run to Mummy to complain. Usually, Diana would side with him, thus entirely undermining Barbara’s authority.

In the absence of any real discipline, William pushed the boundaries further and further. 

He became so noisy, cheeky and unruly that the Queen, who was a loving grandmother, let it be known his behaviour was not acceptable.

The final straw came in 1986, when William — then four — was a page boy at Prince Andrew’s wedding. After dragging his cousin Laura Fellowes up the aisle, he fidgeted throughout the ceremony, rolled his order of service into a trumpet, scratched his head, covered his face with his fingers, poked out his tongue at Laura and left the abbey with his sailor hat wildly askew.

Diana, for her part, was determined to give him — and Harry, born two years later — a normal childhood. But in truth, it was still very traditional. At Kensington Palace, the children lived in the nursery on the top floor, which was almost a court in its own right.

There were bedrooms, bathrooms, playrooms, a kitchen and dining room. In addition to Barbara, there were part-time nannies, policemen and a shared driver. The children didn’t always have the run of the house, but usually came downstairs before bedtime.

And it was the same at Highgrove, the Prince’s house in Gloucestershire, where they generally ate all their meals with their nanny.

After a week cooped up at Buckingham Palace, they found the weekends couldn’t come fast enough. Highgrove was the perfect environment for noisy, energetic and inquisitive small boys — with plenty of space to roar around and lots of places to explore. As they grew older, Charles would kick a football round with them, join in their practical jokes and take them to polo matches and shoots. All three shared the same silly sense of humour and a talent for mimicry. 

Teaching them manners was a struggle, as it is with most lively little boys. Once, William barged into a meeting his father was having with the habitually dishevelled musician Bob Geldof. ‘Why do you have to talk to that man?’ he demanded. ‘Because we have work to do,’ said his father. 

‘He’s all dirty,’ said William. ‘Shut up, you horrible boy,’ said Geldof. ‘He’s got scruffy hair and wet shoes,’ said William, undeterred. ‘Don’t be rude,’ said Charles, mortified.

Like Diana, the Prince often hugged and kissed his boys. There were also cuddles from Barbara, into whose bed William often crept when he woke.

Sometimes, he’d then go next to visit his mother’s bed — but she wasn’t often there. Highgrove had quickly lost its charm for Diana, so she usually stayed behind in London at weekends.

Increasingly, she was jealous of William’s love for his Baba. Eventually, Barbara was dismissed on the flimsiest of excuses. Diana didn’t consider what her removal would do to her four-year-old son; here, she thought with the selfishness of a child.

The irony is that she was inflicting on William the same painful feelings of loss and bewilderment that she had struggled with at six, when her mother suddenly disappeared.

William had no idea why Baba had gone. Had he, perhaps, been so naughty that he’d driven her away? Once Barbara had gone, Diana stopped any contact with her. But William never forgot: 25 years later, Barbara Barnes was one of the most important names on the guest list for his wedding.

Other nannies followed, but something had died in William the day he lost his beloved Baba. He became less outgoing, less trusting, less inclined to make himself vulnerable.

By contrast, Prince Harry — who’d been a timid little boy, overshadowed and bossed about by his big brother — began to flower.

Too young to have been deeply affected by Baba’s departure, he took William’s place as the naughty boy and extrovert of the family.

Arguably, the only people Diana consistently loved were her sons. But she needed continual reassurance that her love was returned. ‘Who loves you most?’ she used to ask them on a regular basis.

Often, she’d cry in front of them. Once again, she was repeating a pattern from her childhood when her mother Frances had wept openly after she had lost custody of her children. Diana had found this painful and upsetting. Yet now she was a mother herself, she seemed unconcerned that the boys should witness her distress.

William, being older, almost took on a parenting role. Once, Diana recalled running into her bathroom in tears one day after an altercation with Charles. William, then ten, had pushed paper tissues under the closed door, saying: ‘I hate to see you sad.’

The reality was that Diana was not always as warm and demonstrative in private as she was in public. Away from the cameras, the boys saw the extremes of her moods and were often frightened and bewildered by them.

No attempt was made to hide the fact she had lovers. Indeed, James Hewitt, a good-looking young officer in the Life Guards, became part of the boys’ lives during his five-year affair with the Princess.

When Charles was away from Highgrove, she’d invite him to stay and he’d creep into her bed at night. Whether William knew about this or not, he thought the world of Hewitt.

In many ways, he represented everything that small boys admire. He read them bedtime stories, took them to his barracks, dressed them in little Army uniforms and let them climb all over the tanks at Windsor.

Hewitt was a redhead like Harry, and a rumour persisted that Harry was his son. It was untrue — Diana didn’t meet Hewitt until her younger son was two years old.

As his parents’ marriage imploded, William was sent away to boarding school. Aged eight when he arrived at Ludgrove in Berkshire 1990, he was homesick and found it hard to settle. He was also anxious about the rows and uncertainty at home.

The joint headmaster Gerald Barber and his wife Janet kept a particularly watchful eye on him. But living away from home appears to have done William no harm. 

As the present joint headmaster Simon Barber explains: ‘The continuity offers wonderful stability for the few from broken homes. It can be easier to be here than at home, with all the anguish.’

Even so, William became an occasional pawn in his parents’ battles. Once, he was rushed to hospital after being hit on the head by accident with a golf club. Both parents rushed to his bedside. After William was transferred to a special brain unit at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, tests showed he had a depressed fracture of the skull.

Diana stayed while he had an operation to relieve the pressure on his brain, but Charles — assured by the surgeons that William was fine — went on to a long-standing engagement. Afterwards, Diana’s friend James Gilbey let it be known that she thought Charles was a bad and selfish father who would give up nothing for his children. 

This was not the only occasion when William found himself at the centre of a game of marital one-upmanship. When Charles promised to take them on their first skiing trip to Klosters in Switzerland, Diana objected.

Instead she quietly booked a half-term skiing holiday in Austria for herself and the boys in 1991 — for the week when Charles was hosting a large shooting party. She also angered the Prince by taking William out of school for a day and flying to Cardiff to attend a service in Llandaff Cathedral. Charles was not told — even though the couple had agreed the children wouldn’t undertake public engagements until they were older.

It would have been a public relations disaster for the Prince of Wales’s elder son to make his first visit to the principality without his father. However, by sheer chance, Charles’ Private Secretary found out about the trip — so Charles made it in time.

A greater disaster was looming, which marked the beginning of several acutely difficult years for William. In 1992, when he was 11, Andrew Morton’s book Diana: Her True Story — based on tapes made by the Princess — was serialised in a Sunday newspaper. Though his friends at Ludgrove formed a loyal and protective ring around him, this upset William more than anything so far. 

And little wonder. Under the headline ‘Diana driven to five suicide bids by ‘uncaring’ Charles’, the public was invited to read about his mother’s bulimia, her husband’s indifference, his shortcomings as a father and the loneliness and isolation she’d experienced for so many years. 

A few months later, the Sun newspaper published the transcript of a flirtatious 30-minute phone conversation between Diana and James Gilbey, in which he called her darling 14 times. Among the endearments, Diana talked about how her husband made her life ‘real, real torture’. 

But her marriage finally fell apart in 1992 only after she had yet again used the boys to outmanoeuvre Charles. Once more, the ensuing row involved a half-term arrangement: Charles had invited 16 friends and their children to a shooting party at Sandringham, and was expecting Diana and the boys. 

Less than a week beforehand, he discovered she was planning to take them to stay with the Queen at Windsor instead. ‘They’re all his friends,’ she complained about the Sandringham weekend. ‘I’m going to be completely outnumbered.’ 

Her instincts were probably right. But Charles went to war: he complained to the Queen, who then spoke to Diana. The Princess, however, was adamant: if she couldn’t go to Windsor then she’d take the boys to Highgrove instead.

On the advice of her lawyer, she wrote a careful letter of explanation in which she said she felt the atmosphere at Sandringham would not be conducive to a happy weekend for the children.

At this point, Charles lost any desire to save the marriage. But before their formal separation was announced, he and Diana travelled to Ludgrove, where Harry had joined William that year. There, in the homely surroundings of the headmaster’s sitting room, they broke the news to their sons. 

William’s rather grown-up response was to hope they’d both be happier now. Pensive and more circumspect than he’d been as a younger boy, he must have desperately hoped for an end to all the embarrassing stories. 

Within months, however, came the most humiliating one of all. Camilla Parker Bowles — the woman his mother called the Rottweiler — was about to take centre stage. And, more than anything, Prince Charles was scared of the effect this would have on William and his little brother. 

 

After almost five weeks of tears, tantrums and explosive rows, the first Love Island All Stars final is just around the corner. 

The series started on Monday January 15 and after five drama-filled weeks, it will come to an end on Monday. 

The winners will be given the option to split a cash prize of £50,000 between them or steal it, meaning one person walks away with the whole sum and the other gets nothing. 

Viewers have witnessed everything from exes being left heartbroken for a second time, while others have formed strong connections that will later be tested outside of the show.

MailOnline takes a look back at the most dramatic moments of Love Island All Stars.

Exes Callum Jones and Molly Smith BOTH entered the villa

Love Island exes Callum Jones and Molly Smith were given quite the shock as they both entered the villa as bombshells at the start of the series.

The couple met when Molly was a Casa Amor bombshell on the 2020 season and went on to have a three-year relationship, even moving in together in Manchester.

But they broke up just six months ago and had an awkward on-screen reunion when they both shockingly entered the South African villa during the All Stars launch.

Callum was revealed to be the first bombshell shaking things up in the villa directly after host Maya Jama coupled up the main line-up of former show legends.

However in an epic and very unexpected twist, Molly walked in directly after him as a second bombshell, leaving Callum completely stunned. 

Upon her entrance, Callum was wide-eyed as Molly strutted her stuff through the doors, leaving the rest of the villa reeling at the very uncomfortable reunion.

Maya then explained that Callum would have a choice between stealing one of the girls from an existing couple, or coupling up with his ex-girlfriend Molly. 

Molly was seen looking unimpressed and rolling her eyes at the prospect of Callum picking her following their break-up, as the pair did not appear to be on good terms.

He picked Molly in the first recoupling, but the pair have went on to enjoy connections with other islanders.  

Jake Cornish QUIT within days of entering the villa

Jake Cornish dramatically quit Love Island All Stars after just three days in the villa.

The former contestant, 26, who starred on series seven of the show, faced an awkward reunion with ex Liberty Poole, 24, when he entered the South African villa.

Jake decided he ‘couldn’t stay’ after the public voted for the exes to be coupled up together on last night’s launch show.

‘Jake was really shocked to see Liberty in the villa – they had no idea the other person would be there,’ a source told The Sun.

‘It was clear from the start they wouldn’t get back together, then none of the girls wanted to step forward for him.

‘Jake had a nice three days in the villa and had a very emotional chat to Maya Jama, he couldn’t stay in the villa so he quit the show. It’s not his time and it’s not the right time to find love. 

‘Messy Mitch’ got into an explosive argument with Luis Morrison

‘Messy Mitch’ got into an explosive argument with Luis Morrison over Demi Jones.

Luis fell out with Mitch after learning the former gas engineer had told some of their fellow Islanders of Luis’s kiss with Demi.

Series one star Luis was chosen by Kaz in the recoupling after they shared a number of flirty chats.

But he was seen sharing a passionate kiss with Demi during Thursday’s episode, which Mitch had gossiped about, as he is also vying for Demi’s affections.

Luis exploded into a shocking outburst, summoning Mitch over by raging: ‘Mitch, come here Bruv. You know what you did there, Bruv.’ 

He went on to brand Mitch a ‘s**t stirring little p***k’ and ordered: ‘Don’t talk to me ever, Bruv’.

Mitch again told him to ‘behave” and then told Luis to ‘take his hands out of his face’ while their co-stars looked on in shock. 

Once things later calmed down, Luis attempted to clear the air, saying: ‘Come here brother, sorry bro…I’m sorry man…I don’t want any rift in here.’

Demi Jones and Luis Morrison were given the boot from the villa just one week in

Love Island All Stars viewers were left stunned as two Islanders were given the boot from the villa in a shock dumping just one week after the show launched. 

In a surprise twist Demi Jones and Luis Morrison became the first Islanders to be dumped after both contestants were left single.

Bombshell Tyler Cruickshank was seen arriving in the villa just before the dumping, with him and fellow bombshell Arabella Chi, who arrived last week, choosing who they wanted to be coupled-up with.

Arabella picked Chris Taylor, who had been paired with Demi, while Tyler chose to reunite with his ex Kaz Kamwi, who had been coupled with Luis.

After their partners had been stolen, host Maya Jama said: ‘Demi and Luis, I’m afraid your Love Island journey has now come to an end.

‘You’ve both been dumped from the island. I’m sorry guys. Please pack your bags and head outside of the villa.’

The surprise move left the other Islanders stunned before the said their emotional goodbyes.

Anton and Mitch’s explosive row 

Anton put Messy Mitch ‘in his place’ 

Anton was praised by fans when he put Messy Mitch in his place during a tense argument. 

The Scot, 29, had firm words for fellow Islander Mitch, 27, from 2023’s series, after his actions caused partner Liberty Poole to run to Anton in tears.

Comforting a distressed Liberty, Anton told her he believed Mitch was chasing ‘clout’ as he spoke constantly about growing his social media following.

When Anton’s suggestions that Mitch does not have noble intentions for Liberty got back to Mitch, he confronted Anton over breaking ‘bro code’.

Mitch declared: ‘You are talking to Lib behind my back, going against me, and it’s not really bro code.’ He then firmly told Anton: ‘Keep your nose out of my business.’

Anton swiftly hit back: ‘There is no bro code. There is right and wrong… I’m telling her my opinion. If your girl comes crying to me asking for advice I will give her my advice. You’ve been together seven days and made her cry twice…’

Unimpressed, Mitch said: ‘You’re just a d**k Anton,’ before calling him a ‘k***head’.

Un-fazed, Anton replied: ‘Look at yourself, don’t look at me. Be a man, not a boy.’

Toby dumping Arabella to steal Georgia S from Callum in the series’ most shocking recoupling

Love Island All Stars viewers are left in complete shock as Toby Aromolaran recoupled with Georgia Steel over flame Arabella Chi.

The former footballer hinted he was still interested in Georgia earlier in the episode to Chris Taylor after he previously ditched her to her to know other people.

In the dramatic recoupling, Toby had not told Arabella he was still interested in the brunette beauty still.

He said: ‘I’ve been going back and fourth with this.

‘I have her back as much as she has mine. I can see this working on the outside and I have a real opportunity here.

‘Fortune favours brave, so the person I would like to couple up with is…. Georgia’.

Jaws quickly dropped in the South African villa as Georgia made her way to sit with Toby while Arabella remained standing around the fire and Georgia’s partner Callum looked over in shock.

Sophie Piper was heard saying: ‘Imagine waiting til the recoupling speech and not saying anything to you Arabella’.

ITV2 fans quickly took to X – formerly known as Twitter – to praise Toby for finally ‘bringing the drama’ to the villa.

Georgia S was FINALLY exposed during dramatic PDA Awards

Love Island viewers rejoiced as Georgia Steel’s ‘sneaky’ ways were finally exposed during the dramatic PDA Awards.

The reality star, 25, had been coupled up with Callum, 27, before her head was turned by new arrival Tom Clare, who she has romantic history with.

Viewers have watched as Georgia, who is now coupled up with Toby Aromolaran, dismissed her flirty chats with Tom to the other Islanders.

Most notably to her love interest Callum when they shared a night in the hideaway together and she told him he was the only person she wanted to be there with.

However, the villa was rocked when it was revealed that Georgia isn’t quite as honest as she was making out.

During the nominations for ‘sneakiest islander’, a video clip of each of Georgia’s interactions with Tom was aired for the entire villa.

This included a clip of her approaching Tom following her night away with Callum, where she told him that she still fancied him.

A further video of the pair playing a game of truth or dare, showed her telling Tom that she would rather be coupled up with him over Callum.

While viewers have watched it play out, her co-stars have been none the wiser to her flirty antics with both contestants.

As she was finally exposed during the awards challenge, viewers admitted they were delighted to watch her downfall.

Molly broke down in tears following confrontation with Georgia S

Love Island All Stars fans heaped praised on Molly Smith after she broke down in tears after the PDA awards.

Georgia S’ ‘sneaky’ ways were finally exposed, as clips revealed her flirtations with Callum Jones, Tom Clare and Toby Aromolaran.

The villa was rocked as they learned about her flirty antics as she was voted ‘sneakiest islander’.

The fall out from the awards was far and wide as the Islanders shouted across the garden at each other following the revelations.

Callum declared he was ‘done’ with Georgia as she tried to defend herself, and then compared her ‘history’ with Toby to Callum’s three and a half year relationship with Molly.

This angered the exes and Molly then broke down in tears as she fumed that Georgia was diminishing her relationship.

She stormed off with Arabella Chi and said: ‘It’s a three and a half year relationship and she’s comparing it to her and Toby. What the f**k? I know I’m getting so upset but she’s p***ed me off.

‘It just really infuriates me that she’s trying to compare her and Toby to my three and a half year relationship that I stepped to the side for, for her to crack on.

‘I don’t understand how someone can be so self absorbed to that extent. It’s f***ing rude and then also trying to crack on with Tom? Make your mind up!’

Joanna Chimonides crying over Chris Taylor and Anton Danyluk’s fiery argument over ‘sexual chemistry’

Joanna Chimonides broke down in tears as a wild row erupted among the villa’s sexy singletons.

Things got heated around the firepit as Chris Taylor and Anton Danyluk got into a viscous argument over ‘sexual chemistry’ as the Islanders were encouraged to tell each other what they really thought of their pairings.

After being told to ‘chill out’ by his co-stars, Chris exploded at Anton: ‘It’s f***ing starting to p**s me off.’

During the game, Georgia Steel and Toby Aromolaran read out the questions, with the first being: ‘Which couple has the least sexual chemistry?’

Turning around he and Georgia Harrison ‘s blackboard, Anton revealed he had voted for Chris and Joanna and took a swipe at Chris’ ‘jokey’ personality.

He said: ‘Chris and Jo, purely because when we see you it’s really jokey and I get that’s a big part of your personality but again, I’ve just not seen that sort of display of affection with either of you.’

Chris admitted: ‘That’s a stinger that.’

Joanna added: ‘There’s nothing really else to say.’

Tensions began to rise as Toby read out the next question: ‘Which couple is the most one-sided?’

Speaking under his breath Casey O’Gorman said: ‘This is probably the easiest one isn’t it’.

Anton revealed he and Georgia H had chosen Chris and Joanna again, he explained: ‘Obviously Joanna’s expressed that she’s not feeling the same way’.

Butting in and circling back to the previous question, Joanna replied: ‘The fact that I’m exploring something else doesn’t mean that we didn’t have sexual chemistry, that we didn’t have anything like that.’

Casey added: ‘If you wanted to defend about the sexual chemistry, you should have said it then’.

Defending Joanna for processing her thoughts, Chris argued: ‘We’re allowed a bit of time to think about how we are feeling about things.’

‘Yeah, chill out, f***ing hell’, Casey replied.

Turning to Chris, Anton agreed: ‘Piping up way too much, mate’.

Chris was left unimpressed by the boys and added: ‘It’s f***ing starting to p***me off. Anton, what do you mean? What because I’m defending the situation?’

Raising her hands to her face Joanna couldn’t hold back her tears, she said: ‘I hate this f***ing game’.

The heartrate challenge

Molly and Callum awkwardly raised each other’s pulses the most in the heartrate challenge during Monday’s Love Island All Stars.

The heart rate game sees the Islanders dress up and perform a series of sexy dances to the group of the opposite sex who gather around the fire pit.

After the boys and girls stripped down to risqué outfits for the steamy challenge, the results revealed Callum and Molly, who split just last year, might still have a spark for one another.

As Callum and Molly surprisingly got each other’s pulses raised, Tom Clare was left fuming at the results.

Tom and Molly, who are seemingly going strength to strength in their couple, landed bottom of the challenge for failing to raise their hearts at all.

Tom had his heart raised by former flame Georgia Steel, while Callum manage to raise his partner Jess Gale’s heart.

Coming out triumphs in the challenge, Sophie Piper and Joshua Ritchie were the only couple to collectively raise each other’s hearts.

Minutes after Georgia Harrison revealed the results tension quickly rose between Molly, Callum and Tom, leaving the group too stunned for words.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby insisted Monday that there will a ‘very consequential response’ to the weekend drone attack that killed three Americans on a base in Jordan – even as the U.S. seeks to avoid a war with Iran.

Kirby spoke after President Joe Biden met with his security team to develop options following the attack, which threatened to bring the U.S. into an expanded regional conflict that Biden says he hopes to avoid as the U.S. tries to discourage further brazen attacks on American forces. 

The U.S. will respond ‘in a very consequential way,’ Kirby told CNN in one of a series of interviews as national security leaders develop next steps.

‘He’ll do this in a time and a manner of his own choosing, and we’ll respond as he said – we’ll respond and we’ll respond in a very consequential way. But we don’t seek a war with Iran. We’re not looking for a wider conflict in the Middle East,’ he said.

Kirby didn’t respond to directly to a question about whether there were targets inside Iran. ‘In fact, every action the president has taken has been designed to de-escalate, to try to bring the tensions down,’ he said. Kirby said the U.S. has a ‘pretty good sense’ about which group was responsible, but said the U.S. is still working on the attribution.

It was one of several times when Kirby cautioned against escalation on Monday, while the White House is also engaged in multilateral talks seeking to free hostages held by Hamas inside Gaza. 

‘We’re not looking for a broader war in the region. We certainly aren’t looking for a conflict with Iran,’ Kirby told ABC’s ‘This Week’ Monday. 

‘But make no mistake, Iran is supporting these groups that are already resourcing them training them. You know, certainly not discouraging these attacks at all,’ he said.

Then Kirby rattled off just some of the militant proxies that Tehran has backed in the region, with more than 150 attacks on U.S. forces since Israel launched its war in Gaza after the October 7 attacks.

‘We know they support the Houthis Hezbollah, Hamas, they are definitely causing a lot of these attacks to happen. We just – we’re going to work through the right options here and make the right decisions,’ he said.

That prompted interviewer George Stephanopoulos to tell him that deterrence ‘does not seem to be working.’

Kirby didn’t give any clues about the size or the pace of the U.S. response, which Biden said Sunday would come at the time of America’s choosing.

‘He’s going to have to weigh what the options are going to be. There will be a response,’ he underlined. ‘This was a consequential attack, no question about it and our thoughts and prayers go to the families that are cut the worst possible news over the weekend,’ Kirby said.

His comments came after Biden addressed the attack over the weekend in South Carolina, amid pressure from Republican critics to undertake strikes inside Iran as punishment for its support for proxy forces hitting U.S. troops and commercial targets in the region.

Biden vowed that  ‘we shall respond’ following the Saturday night attack – which also injured dozens and required some to be evacuated for treatment in a sign of the seriousness of injuries.

‘We had a tough day last night in the Middle East. We lost three brave souls,’ he said during a visit to a church in Columbia, South Carolina, where he also asked for a moment of silence for those lost. 

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq took responsibility for the attack, but Tehran has denied involvement in planning it.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani said it was ‘not involved in the decision making of resistance groups’ over how they ‘defend Palestinians or their own countries’. He called claims of Iran’s own involvement ‘baseless.’

Earlier on Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) demanded Biden act swiftly and decisively to counterstrike against Iran after the suicide drone strike sparked widespread outrage.

The Pentagon confirmed that the Saturday strike resulted in three soldiers’ deaths and injured another 34. The top suspect remains Iran and its proxies.

‘I am calling on the Biden Administration to strike targets of significance inside Iran, not only as reprisal for the killing of our forces, but as deterrence against future aggression,’ the South Carolina senator wrote in a statement. ‘The only thing the Iranian regime understands is force. Until they pay a price with their infrastructure and their personnel, the attacks on U.S. troops will continue.’

Graham urged Biden: ‘Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.’

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul also blamed the Biden administration for being too weak on Iran and facilitating a foreign policy environment where they thought they could get away with it.

‘Iran’s proxies have launched over 150 attacks on US troops since October, as the Iran-backed Houthis attack global shipping, and Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas attack our ally Israel,’ McCaul wrote. ‘The Biden administration’s failed Middle East policy has destroyed our deterrence against adversaries in the Middle East.’

The deaths of three US soldiers in a drone attack by Iran-backed militants risk further inflaming the on-going crisis in the Middle East, experts have warned.

A former CIA director called the weekend strike on the US base a ‘dangerous escalation’ in tensions that have already engulfed the region following Hamas’s October 7 terror attack on southern Israel, and Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza.

After he warned that the US ‘shall respond’ to the strike, analysts say US president Joe Biden must be calculated in his retaliation and strike a balance between pleasing those at home who want to see a show of force, and averting a wider conflict.

If the White House is not strong enough in its response, experts say Iran’s proxies will remain undeterred and continue to carry out attacks. Too strong, and Biden risks plunging the Middle East into a deeper conflict.

Further escalation, one expert warns, ‘would bring the Middle East to the precipice of a regional war’, while another said they expect a ‘expect a serious escalation around the corner.’

But in doing so, Biden also runs the risk of playing into the ‘optimal scenario’ for Vladimir Putin, whose war in Ukraine would benefit greatly from a wider conflict.

Meanwhile, one British MP warned that the escalation in the volatile region also affects the UK, saying that it could become a ‘necessity’ for Britain to get involved.

‘It’s important that the British people understand this: This is one example of many of the new era of insecurity that we’ve entered and that we need to prepare for,’ said former Defence Select Committee chairman and soldier Tobias Ellwood.

Such concerns come amid fears that the wars in Europe and the Middle East could proliferate into something even larger, with former US president Donald Trump warning on Sunday: ‘we are on the brink of World War Three’.

‘While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq,’ Biden said in a statement following the strike. ‘Have no doubt – we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing,’ he warned.

At least 34 personnel were also injured in the Sunday attack in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border, according to a statement from US Central Command. 

The US military said the attack occurred at a base near the Syrian border.

It did not name the base, but a person familiar with the matter identified it as Tower 22 in Jordan – a base which holds a strategically important location in Jordan, at the most northeastern point where the country’s borders meet Syria and Iraq. 

Iran’s mission to the United Nations said in a statement on Monday that Tehran was not involved in the attack. 

The attack came amid concerns that Israel’s war against the Iran-backed Hamas terror group in Gaza could spread into a wider conflict involving Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

US and allied forces in Iraq and Syria have been targeted in more than 150 attacks since October 7, according to the Pentagon, following the deadly Hamas terror attack on southern Israel which sparked the on-going Israeli offensive in Gaza.

Washington has already carried out retaliatory strikes in both Iraq and Syria.

Former CIA Director John Brennan described the deadly attack as a ‘dangerous escalation’ in the Middle East amid the Israel-Hamas war.

‘Given that there were three American military personnel killed, and over two dozen injured – it’s a sizeable attack,’ Brennan said on MSNBC’s ‘Inside with Jen Psaki’.

‘Whether it was one or more drones, these are drones that are packed with explosives and then detonate upon impact. But to have that type of the number of casualties suggested it was a fairly sizeable one,’ he added.

The former CIA man also predicted there would be ‘consequences’ to the attack. 

‘As the White House has pointed out, Iran has cultivated relationships with a number of the militia and extremist groups in Syria, Iraq and other areas as a way to put pressure on regional adversaries as well as on the United States,’ Brennan said.

‘So the big question, I think, for the White House is whether or not this is an Iranian supported group, or whether we want the indirect attack, but either way, I think [there are] going to be consequences.’

In a scathing attack on Biden, former US president Trump suggested the strike on the Jordan base brought the US to the brink of World War Three.

Trump wrote on Sunday: ‘This brazen attack on the United States is yet another horrific and tragic consequence of Joe Biden’s weakness and surrender.

‘This attack would NEVER have happened if I was President, not even a chance – Just like the Iranian-backed Hamas attack on Israel would never have happened, the War in Ukraine would never have happened, and we would right now have Peace throughout the World. Instead, we are on the brink of World War 3.’

Michael Butler, associate professor of political science at Clark University, Massachusetts, said the attack was a ‘game changer’ for the Biden administration’s strategy in the Middle East, adding that he expects a ‘serious escalation’ soon.

‘The attack on Tower 22 is undoubtedly a game changer for the Biden Administration’s policy of deterrence,’ Butler said.

‘While the US has been trying to thread the needle between degrading the capacity of Iranian proxies without directly engaging Iran itself, it is hard to envision that policy remaining viable now. 

‘I’d expect a serious escalation is around the corner,’ he added.

However, experts have also warned that the US must find the right balance in its response, or risk bringing the Middle East ‘to the precipice of a regional war’.

‘The challenge for those crafting the US response is to ensure that it is significant enough to prevent additional attacks on US forces while also not starting another war in the region,’ Alex Plitsas, of the Middle East Programs’ N7 Initiative, told the Atlantic Council think tank.

‘This is why the United States and its allies must hold adversaries accountable at lower levels of deterrence to prevent movement up the escalation ladder that would bring the Middle East to the precipice of a regional war,’ he added.

Sir Hew Strachan, a professor of international relations at St Andrews University, said Biden is ‘caught between his desire not to escalate the situation in the Middle East and the domestic pressures not to seem weak during an election year.’

He said based on Biden’s initial comments, he expected the US’s initial response will be calculated and un-rushed, but that the attack cannot go unpunished.

‘He cannot let the attack pass unpunished but he will do his best not to court escalation. Some form of long-distance and specifically targeted response using drones and/or guided missiles is the obvious outcome,’ the professor said.

Sir Strachan played down the possibility of the UK getting involved in the conflict at this stage, saying that the US, UK and their ally Jordan do not wish for escalation.

However, he added, ‘the problem for all three is that a wish not to escalate the situation from their side does not rule out a wish to do so from the other.’

As for what such a US response could look like, Matthew Kroenig – senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said targets could include ‘Iran’s navy, its top leadership, or even its nuclear program.’

He said that Iran has been waging a ‘shadow war’ against the US in recent weeks, and blamed America’s ‘cautious’ response out of fear of an escalation for demonstrating to Iran that it could ‘attack with impunity’.

‘Deterrence works by convincing an adversary that the costs to attacking the US and its allies and interests greatly outweighs any conceivable benefits,’ he said, before calling on US forces to ‘hit Iran hard’.

‘Washington could sink the Iranian navy, like then President Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s,’ he told the Atlantic Council.

‘It could strike Iranian naval bases. It could target Iranian leadership, following in the footsteps of then President Donald Trump’s killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. It could seize this opportunity to degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile program – which must be addressed soon regardless.

Such actions, he said, ‘would convey to Iran that it badly miscalculated and that attacking the United States was a foolish decision that should not be repeated.’

But the US response to the strikes, experts have warned, also run the risk of directly playing into the hands of another of its adversaries: Vladimir Putin.

With the Russian president currently waging war in Ukraine, Moscow would greatly benefit from further distraction in the form of a wider Middle East conflict, says Vlad Şutea, founder and lead analyst at threatcasting group T-Intelligence.

Kyiv has been provided with funds and military assistance by its Western allies since Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

However, that support has hit road blocks in recent months, with the attention of the US and its allies being split due to Israel’s on-going fight against Hamas, as well as attacks on ships by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebel group in the Red Sea.

‘Global geopolitical and war risks are at their highest in recent years, with tensions escalating on every continent,’ Mr Şutea told MailOnline over the weekend.

‘The current state of play appears remarkably advantageous for Russia, diverting attention and resources away from its ongoing war on Ukraine – as we already see with Israel. 

‘The optimal scenario for Putin involves coordinated moves by his allies towards their respective objectives: China’s aggression against Taiwan, Iran fully unleashing its proxies in the Middle East, a resumption of the Korean War, and a Venezuelan invasion of Guyana,’ he said.

Meanwhile, British MP and former soldier Tobias Ellwood warned that any escalating conflict in the Middle East also impacts the UK.

Speaking to TalkTV, he said: It’s worth just stressing, and it’s important that the British people understand this: This is one example of many of the new era of insecurity that we’ve entered and that we need to prepare for. That’s why there’s been so much discussion about the size and complexion of our armed forces.

‘This does affect Britain, we need to make it very clear: This is not an operation of choice, it’s a necessity because our economy is increasingly being affected by instability in the Middle East,’ he added.

‘And that of course don’t forget, all prices going up, is to Iran’s benefit.’