Speaking during a visit to Dublin, the US president said “it would be a great thing” if Northern Ireland was no longer part of the United Kingdom.

He said: “I’d love to see it unified. I have friends on both sides. I’d love to see it unified. I think it would be a great feather in everybody’s cap if that happened. It’s going to happen eventually.

“The way I look at it, it’s going to happen eventually [so] it might as well happen now.

“I think it would be a fantastic thing. The UK will have something to say about it, obviously, but I think it would be a great thing. How can it be bad?”

His comments supporting a united Ireland are the most explicit by a sitting US president.

Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, a referendum on Irish unity can only take place if the Northern Ireland Secretary believes there is clear support from voters for the move.

Asked about Trump’s comments on Sky News this morning, housing secretary Rayner attempted to defuse the row by playing down their significance.

She said: “Donald Trump is Donald Trump and the president will say and speak his mind as he sees it. But look, we’re really serious about the Good Friday Agreement. We’re very proud of our history.”

Rayner added: “President Trump will say whatever is on his mind. But I’m sure our prime minister also, you know, has conversations. And I’m sure he reiterated our position, which is that we support the good work of the Good Friday Agreement.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

When it’s time for your routine dental cleaning, you’re probably surrounded by pictures of “smiling teeth” next to fruits, vegetables and toothbrushes.

You might curse yourself for not flossing more consistently, or you might feel self-conscious as the dental assistant picks at your gums. You might nervously hope to avoid hearing “you have a cavity”.

Going to the dentist isn’t always fun, but being proactive about your dental health can help. When it comes to having strong, healthy teeth, there’s something that’s both under-discussed and important to know: some surprising foods can be damaging.

Besides well-loved cheese snack crackers, we’re also talking about a certain food that can do wonders for your gut health. Ahead, dentists reveal what it is (and how it messes with your teeth), the safer version, and how to protect your teeth after eating it.

The food in question, believe it or not, is yoghurt.

“Although generally [a] ‘healthy’ snack, there are certain aspects of yoghurt that can negatively affect teeth,” said Dr. Liel Grinbaum, a paediatric dentist and owner of Smiles + Grins in New York.

That comes down to one main reason: the sugar in it combines with bacteria in your mouth, producing acid, which is harsh on your chompers.

“When the environment around a tooth becomes sufficiently acidic, minerals can begin leaving the enamel surface,” explained Dr. Jonathan Richter, a dual-trained holistic periodontist, prosthodontist and expert in implant dentistry. “Repeated acidic exposures can therefore contribute to enamel demineralization and, over time, erosion.”

Additionally, the toppings you might include – while nutritious – can cause further problems.

“Sometimes, yoghurts with toppings like granola, peanut butter, crunchy things or jam can stick to your teeth and prolong acid exposure,” added Dr. Lilya Horowitz, a general dentist and owner of Domino Dental in Brooklyn, New York.

Don’t get us wrong: yoghurt isn’t all bad, even for your teeth. For example, a 2022 study found that yoghurt intake is associated with a lower risk of tooth loss from periodontal disease.

Plus, the kind you choose matters. Dentists recommend plain or unsweetened Greek yoghurt.

“If more sweetness is desired, consider adding whole fruit yourself,” Richter added. He cautioned against flavoured yoghurts, fruit-on-the-bottom yoghurts, squeezable yoghurts and drinkable yoghurts.

For a more savoury way to enjoy it, Horowitz suggested mixing Greek yoghurt into a salad dressing or using it as a substitute for sour cream in soup.

Grinbaum agreed that not all yoghurt is completely bad for your teeth, encouraging the milk-based kind.

“Milk (dairy) yoghurt has natural calcium, phosphate and casein proteins, which are beneficial to the protection of enamel,” he said. “Nut-based yoghurts can be fortified but do not contain the same natural proteins, and they usually contain some type of added sugars for flavouring.”

Still want to eat yoghurt (maybe even the sugary kinds)? We can’t blame you. Dentists shared steps you can take to reduce the dental risk:

• Swallow the yoghurt immediately rather than swishing or holding it in your mouth.
• Rinse your mouth after eating it.
• Chew sugar-free gum (xylitol gum) for about 20 minutes after eating it to stimulate saliva, which can clear food, buffer acids and return calcium and phosphate to the tooth surface.
• Wait about 30 minutes to brush your teeth afterward.
• Get regular dental checkups.
• Use fluoride toothpaste if you’re at high risk for cavities.
• Limit frequent exposure by eating a serving with a meal rather than repeatedly snacking or sipping on it over several hours.

To keep this message short and sweet, Richter concluded that yoghurt’s dental effect depends on four things: the type of yoghurt, amount of sugar, frequency of exposure and way it’s consumed.

“The key is not to avoid yoghurt altogether, but to understand which types are more tooth-friendly and how eating habits affect enamel and cavity risk,” he clarified. “Yoghurt isn’t the enemy, but not all yoghurt is equally friendly to your teeth.”

Donald Trump has triggered a fresh trans-Atlantic row by declaring he would “love” to see a united Ireland.

The US president was slapped down by Downing Street after he said “it would be a great thing” if Northern Ireland was no longer part of the United Kingdom.

His shock comments came as he sat next to Irish Taoiseach Michael Martin during a visit to Dublin.

Asked for his views on Irish unity, Trump said: “I’d love to see it unified. I have friends on both sides. I’d love to see it unified. I think it would be a great feather in everybody’s cap if that happened. It’s going to happen eventually.

“The way I look at it, it’s going to happen eventually [so] it might as well happen now.

“I think it would be a fantastic thing. The UK will have something to say about it, obviously, but I think it would be a great thing. How can it be bad?”

In response, Downing Street pointed to comments from Prime Minister Andy Burnham earlier in the week rejecting the prospect of an immediate border poll on whether Ireland should be unified.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused the president of “shooting from the hip as usual, just like he did with Greenland and Canada becoming the 51st state”.

She added: “This sort of loose talk about the future of democratic countries is deeply unhelpful and creates unnecessary tension.

“Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. At a time when separatists are in power in Scotland, Wales and NI, we need a government that will defend the Union clearly and confidently.”

Reform leader Nigel Farage, a close ally of Trump, also hit out at the president.

He posted on X: “Northern Ireland is a proud and integral part of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland neither want a referendum, nor unification. I disagree with President Trump.”

Gavin Robinson, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: “President Trump knows better than most that elections matter. Northern Ireland’s constitutional future will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland, not by commentary in London, Dublin or Washington.

“Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because that is the settled democratic will of its people. I am confident NI will continue to choose the UK and the security it offers.

“As unionists we are not interested in the destruction of our country by joining with the Irish Republic.”

But Irish politicians welcomed the president’s remarks.

Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said: “President Trump’s endorsement of a united Ireland is welcome.

“The Good Friday Agreement states that this is a decision for us on the island of Ireland to make on our own – north and south. That does not mean that outside opinions and advice cannot be offered.

“Going back to independence and before, America has always had a special role to play in our national story.”

Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald said: “President Trump’s comments on Irish reunification are timely. The Taoiseach must now begin planning for a united Ireland.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

An AI safety researcher at Anthropic raised alarm online Tuesday night after announcing he had quit his position over the AI industry “gambling with our lives” in the race to build AI superintelligence.

AI superintelligence is a hypothetical system where artificial intelligence could surpass the capabilities of all human beings in any topic or realm.

“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” Jacob Coxon wrote. “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. … No other human activity poses this level of danger.”

Coxon claimed that OpenAI employees do not seem to have fully grasped the “civilisation stakes” involved in their work, while at Anthropic “the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first”.

Nate Soares, a researcher focused on existential risk from AI, told HuffPost that it’s true that many AI employees believe they can create superintelligent machines that could replace or destroy humanity. Soares co-authored If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, which examines the threat of AI superintelligence.

“They really do think this is horribly dangerous,” he said. “Many of them think that their organisation is the one with the best chance of keeping the super-AI on a leash, or raising it to be friendly … They set out to make the machine god, and they think they’ve got a real shot at it.”

Anthropic employees, especially, have already spoken out about this in the past. In September 2025, at the Axios AI+ DC Summit, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said, “There’s a 25% chance that things go really, really badly.” He also added that there’s a “75% chance that things go really, really well”.

Another Anthropic employee, Samuel Marks, agreed, writing, “AI developers believe their technology could cause human extinction. … This could happen in the next few years.”

Evan Hubinger, a team lead at Anthropic focused on ensuring Anthropic AI models align with human values, said Coxon was “correct” in his response post.

“We really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans,” Hubinger said. “I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”

The problem is that these concerns don’t mean much to the outside world.

“He gave >10% that AI kills us all, but what about scenarios where humanity completely loses control of AI and it takes over, but keeps some humans in zoos? If we include scenarios like that, is Evan’s probability of catastrophe even higher still?” Soares asked. “These are exactly the sort of questions you have to press these folks on, because their concerns are often even larger than they seem.”

Neither Hubinger nor Marks responded to HuffPost’s request for comment as of reporting. HuffPost also reached out to Anthropic.

The debate over the exact probability isn’t the point, Soares said. But it’s significant that AI companies are still pushing for advancements when there’s a chance of a threat.

“If a bridge had a >10% probability of collapsing, we’d shut it down immediately,” he said. “If engineers were arguing over whether the true probability of a plane crashing was 10% or 25% or 90%, then fundamentally, you do not need to figure out which engineers are correct in order to figure out that you should not be boarding the plane. That’s where we are with AI.”

AI experts say AI development must hit certain thresholds before it gets closer to superintelligence, although the path isn’t precise or clear.

“Modern AIs are not carefully designed like old-school software; they’re grown like an organism,” Soares told HuffPost. “The exact chain of events is hard to predict.”

Right now, AI systems are mostly known as Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), which only excels at specific tasks. These models don’t reason or learn new tasks independently. Think: Chatbots, digital assistants or recommendation engines.

The next level is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which describes an AI system that can perform more human cognitive tasks without training. These models would be able to learn and think on their own. In September, OpenAI president Greg Brockman said GPT-6 might represent the arrival of AGI.

Then it gets into superintelligence, which is theoretical but still what many AI experts are nervous about. These models learn faster, can reason, can be self-aware, and will outperform humans in any area.

“I frankly don’t think that humans are up to the task of building a superintelligence,” Soares said. “Usually, when we try some new scientific project, it goes wrong, and we learn from our mistakes. We don’t have that luxury when it comes to superintelligence.”

At the stage AI is at now, it may seem confusing how it could negatively impact humanity in an uncontrollable way.

In reality, according to Soares, “AIs have everything they need to wipe humanity out already”.

“They have the motive and they have the opportunity,” he said. “The only thing they’re missing is the means.”

Soares pointed to two separate cases this year of OpenAI agents breaking out of their containment protocols. (An AI agent is more advanced than the average AI chatbot and can do more independent actions.)

In one, agents hijacked a dormant German-language wiki forum between May and June, using it as a message board to trade tips on evading their restrictions. OpenAI didn’t disclose the discovery for weeks. In the other, a swarm of AI agents breached the platform Hugging Face in July, which the FBI was reportedly alerted about before OpenAI even realised what was going on, Reuters reported.

“We have already seen multiple cases of AIs giving up on their own assigned tasks and sacrifice themselves to gather information for the collective,” Soares said. “This is evidence of AIs adopting goals that are merely related to the ones we give them, but not exactly the same as the ones we give them.”

Therefore, if AI starts seeing humanity as an obstacle or a threat, with humans trying to intervene in its work, AI agents could start acting accordingly. Especially if they have the means to, which is the one aspect Soares argues is missing from this being a big problem, but is in the process of potentially being built out by AI companies.

Soares pointed to how AI models have recently been hooked up to biological laboratories to experiment with making their own novel viruses.

According to a study published in August, Stanford/Arc Institute researchers trained the Evo model to write “recipes” for new viruses, 16 of which infected E. coli when synthesized, Forbes reported. Meanwhile, OpenAI is the lead investor in Red Queen Bio, a biosecurity startup that pairs AI models with automated lab equipment to anticipate and counter AI-designed bioweapons.

Soares told HuffPost that the race to build the highest-performing AI platform needs to stop; companies like OpenAI and Anthropic need to end development and find a solution. And there should be a global pause since the U.S. is also getting competitive with China on AI development.

“I’m not saying that there’s literally no way forward, but I am saying that this is a harrowing challenge of the sort humanity has never yet surmounted, and that it’s not the sort of thing that falls to normal trial-and-error type research,” Soares said.

For regular AI users, Soares recommends calling representatives and talking with others about the panic to spread concern.

“I think many people almost can’t believe what’s happening, because it feels too crazy,” he said. “The AIs have everything they need except the intelligence, and the AI companies are racing to make them more intelligent.”

When you’re abroad with your partner, do you ever feel that the conversation starts to sort of run dry by a certain point?

Of course, you might spend your lives together – but there’s something about spending all day, every day with each other that can occasionally leave you both a little lost for words.

While a comfortable silence can be exactly what the doctor ordered, these lulls can sometimes feel like an indicator that your relationship isn’t quite as strong as you once thought.

However, according to relationship expert Dr Charlotte Russell, aka The Travel Psychologist, this is very normal and there’s actually a name for it.

According to research by the travel experts at Booking.com, around one in four couples experience a “dialogue drought” while on holiday.

For most couples, this seems to hit around day five but for some couples, it can happen by day three.

For couples who have been together for two years or less, it’s more likely, with 56% of newer couples admitting they hit a so-called dialogue drought on their last trip away.

Don’t worry if it happens to you, though. Dr Russell assures “it’s not a sign that your relationship is in trouble”.

“Spending all our time together on a trip inevitably means that the conversation will dry up sometimes,” she added.

But when there are awkward silences a-plenty, here are some ways to keep the chatter going…

Excursions – such as tours, boat trips or structured activities – can make a huge difference. Almost three-quarters (71%) of the people Booking.com spoke with said that they felt closer to their partners following new experiences on their trip.

Additionally, 65% of holidaymakers agreed that the best holiday conversations happen while doing something.

If there’s a time to dig out your deepest and silliest questions, it’s on holiday. You have all the time in the world to debate and discuss their answers!

Dr Russell shares her favourite conversation starters:

1. What’s one weird habit of mine that revealed itself to you on this trip?
2. What’s an assumption you had about me early on that turned out to be wildly incorrect?
3. Which one of us would survive longest if we were stranded on a desert island, and why?
4. If we could bring one person along for the rest of the trip, who would be the best addition, and why?
5. If you could teleport us anywhere in the world for dinner tonight, where would we go, and what would we order?

Some of my favourite travel memories stem from the experiences I’ve had when connecting with other travellers. A bartender in Barcelona, some musicians in Berlin, a writer in Brooklyn, their stories were ones that I brought back and shared with others.

Dr Russell adds that putting the effort in makes a real difference, saying: “By being intentional, we can move past everyday small talk, reignite meaningful conversation, and build deeper connections when on the road.”

As women, we are used to the more passionate sides of ourselves being denigrated. Our determination is called “bossy”, experiencing anything other than constant glee is “moody” and being loudly passionate makes us “fiery”.

In fact, according to research done by Sweaty Betty 9 in 10 women have reported being described negatively using words such as moody, icy, dramatic and temperamental.

This is so surreptitious that even our dictionaries use these stereotypes in definitions, such as:

Now, as part of its Born for the Storm’ campaign, Sweaty Betty is urging language resources to better reflect attitudes of women and society today.

Interestingly, these words are also how we describe the weather, and this is consistent throughout history.

Between 1953 and 1979, storms were named exclusively after women*, partly because they were perceived as sharing similar qualities: dramatic, unpredictable and impossible to ignore.

Despite this, attitudes are evolving and the overall picture is one of confidence rather than caution. Yes, we are impossible to ignore and so we should be.

75% of women say being called a “force of nature” is a compliment, 76% believe women described in this way should be celebrated, and 71% would happily use the phrase to describe an inspiring woman in their own life.

Melissa Mullen, Brand President, Sweaty Betty, says: “People have spent a long-time comparing woman to storms. We see that as a compliment. Whether it’s being called fiery, relentless or a force of nature, these are the qualities that help women keep going when life gets messy.

“The research shows women aren’t interested in shrinking themselves, softening themselves or waiting for perfect conditions. They’re getting on with it. That’s exactly the spirit behind Born for the Storm. It’s a celebration of women who keep moving forward whatever the forecast, and whatever life throws their way.”

English lexicographer and etymologist, Susie Dent who started her career working on both bilingual and English dictionaries says that if we continue to reclaim the language within society then dictionaries will follow.

Susie Dent says: “It’s remarkable that women still regularly hear and receive such adjectives as “fiery” or “icy” in their everyday lives. Dictionaries, as always, will track these uses and reflect them in their examples, which are drawn from solid evidence of current language.

“Today’s lexicographers describe the usage they document rather than prescribe how words should be used. When together we begin to shift our language from negative to positive, our dictionaries will change alongside us. This research by Sweaty Betty proves just how powerful our word choices can be.”

For 80’s and 90’s kids, E.T: The Extra Terrestrial was a real family classic. Often on the telly, this cosy sci-fi adventure was the perfect mix of comforting and a little scary.

However, originally, our little alien pal was supposed to be much, much scarier. In fact, it actually was originally supposed to be an alien invasion film called Night Skies.

In this story, a family is terrorised by hostile aliens on a Kentucky farm in the 1950’s, according to Screen Rant.

As Steven Spielberg and special effects legend Rick Baker got to work on creating the alien, Spielberg was unsure whether this spooky path was one that he wanted to continue on.

Slash Film explains that screenwriter John Sayles’ script, “depicted a small group of malicious aliens — Squirt, Skar, Klud and Hoodoo — that threaten a rural family and brutally kill livestock with one touch of their long, bony finger, which emits an eerie light (this device is used in “E.T.” in a very different way).

“The kind-hearted alien Budde befriends the family’s autistic son Jaybird, and their sweet, playful scenes are moments of respite from the overall terror.”

As time went on, Spielberg realised that this sub-plot was what he wanted to explore, feeling himself pulled towards the ‘gentle’ story.

In the book The Films of Steven Spielberg by Neil Sinyard, Spielberg admits that he was growing weary of dark stories around this time saying: “I might have taken leave of my senses. Throughout [the production of] Raiders [of the Lost Ark], I was in between killing Nazis and blowing up flying wings and having Harrison Ford in all this high serialised adventure.

“I was sitting there in the middle of Tunisia, scratching my head and saying, ‘I’ve got to get back to the tranquillity, or at least the spirituality, of Close Encounters.’”

E.T: The Extra Terrestrial is available to stream on Disney Plus.

This article contains major spoilers for The Gentlemen season two.

If you’ve already finished the latest episodes of The Gentlemen, you’ll be pleased to know Eddie, Susie and co will be back for a third season.

Creator Guy Ritchie said in a statement shortly before season two began streaming: “The ambition of The Gentlemen has accelerated, the world has expanded, and the consequences carry weight. A third season felt inevitable, and I’m looking forward to pushing the boundaries of it further.”

While an exact release date for season three is yet to be revealed, there’s still plenty we do know already about the next outing of the hit crime drama?

So, what should we expect? Here’s what the cast has said so far…

In the show’s latest instalments, viewers saw Eddie becoming a more brutal, violent version of the man we met in season one.

The Gentlemen’s leading man Theo James has teased that his character is going to become even darker as the show progresses, as Eddie is now “on a path to surpass Bobby” as a drug lord.

He told The Hollywood Reporter that he was interested in exploring “privilege, power and the idea that there’s an apathy and an erosion of empathy that comes with that” in season three.

Theo compared Eddie’s arc to what “happens with kings or leaders of religious cults”, claiming: “They kind of start off in a version of trying to help, but by the end, power degrades the sense of self so much that they become poisoned by it and become numb to violence and everything that happens around them.”

Apparently, this will only intensify in the next season, now that Eddie has discovered his older brother helped orchestrate the attack that killed Eddie’s wife, Bella, on their wedding day.

“We’re going to do another season, and in that season I want to continue exploring that: How far has he lost himself, and how much has he corroded his soul?” Theo pondered.

Kaya Scodelario believes her character, Susie Glass, is going to step out “from under her father’s shadow” when we next see her.

The end of season two saw Susie quietly establishing her own business relationships and moving away from her father, Bobby, played by Ray Winstone.

“Expect to see the young her maybe trusting her own instincts and business acumen a little bit more,” Kaya teased to Town & Country about what she hopes the Netflix series will explore in season three.

“By the very end, she realises that she can’t be under her father’s name anymore, that she needs to branch out on her own, and that she can’t rely on Eddie to be her partner anymore,” she also told Tudum.

When asked by Town & Country what she’d like to see for Susie in season three, Kaya quipped: “Something really rogue. She decides to go scuba diving in the Caribbean for a year.”

Joking aside, the Skins star does want to see The Gentlemen continuing the tradition of travelling abroad.

“It’d be awesome if we get to go away again because that always adds so much texture to the show and kind of introduces you into the culture clashes that there are especially,” she explained.

“That’s something that we could explore anywhere in the world, because the British aristocracy is such a unique, fundamentally British thing. You’d get that conflict almost everywhere,” she added.

Meanwhile, Theo James confirmed to the same outlet: “In terms of story, we have the overarching ambition of where we’re going to go. We’re going to expand the world, go to different countries.

“But in terms of the minutiae, I mean, it’s still very much up in the air.”

Eddie and Susie are now firmly in business, but beneath the violence and business transactions, there is a chemistry fans can’t get enough of.

Both characters explored ill-fated romances in season two, only to end up single at the end of it.

Talking to Cosmopolitan, Kaya said: “[Susie’s] relationship with Eddie has evolved from this kinship, a purely business thing, into something deeper and more interesting.”

She added: “It was important to unlock whether she feels protective of him in a personal way or purely in a business sense… She sees something in him that’s extremely unique.”

Kaya also broke down why the chalk and cheese pairing works so well in the show.

“He sees in her what she wishes her father could see in her. Their work wife-work husband chemistry is really strong,” she continued.

When asked if Eddie and Susie are “endgame”, Kaya wasn’t sure, suggesting: “I think it’s a lot more complicated than that.”

Producer and writer Matthew Read told Tudum that through all their ups and downs, the pair’s “affection and connection always comes through”, adding that they are “probably closer than ever at the end of season two”.

Theo seems unconvinced of a romance between the two characters, though.

“Our touching point in the beginning was always Moonlighting – Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis – and the idea of two people who kind of are in love, but never quite get together,” he told The Hollywood Reporter.

He added: “We like the idea that they’re connected, but their distance is one of mistrust. On one hand, they’re the other’s greatest ally. But they are also heading to a path where one of them has to usurp the other because we’re talking about a kind of ascension story and how that’s going to happen, and who’s going to fail and who’s going to win.

“Then beyond that, I think the realities of an indentured Duke and then peer of the realm getting with a gangster’s daughter who runs a criminal empire is pretty unlikely. There’s a sadness to it, because maybe they would, but ultimately they probably never can.”

Theo told The Hollywood Reporter that production on season three is starting “very soon”.

Giving context for why it was so important not to have the same large gap between season two and three as there was between the first and second, he claimed: “We’re also cognisant of the fact that nowadays you don’t want massive lulls. There was a large break between season one and two, and I think we don’t want to be in that position again.”

He added: “That happened because people were available and then they weren’t. Then I did a film, then Guy would do a film, and [schedules didn’t align].

“ut I think we’re all aligned with the fact that if we want to keep momentum and also just tell the story and finish the story, then we should leave less of a gap between the seasons.”

Over the last few weeks, there’ve been conflicting reports in the press about whether or not Meghan Markle is “in talks” about a role in the third season of The Gentlemen, which have generated a whole lot of attention and conversation.

But, could the real-life Duchess actually be making an appearance amongst the fictional aristocrats? Not if you ask Theo James, who told The Hollywood Reporter that the rumours were “mostly hot air”.

“To me, it’s fascinating how [those reports] exploded that much, and how intrigued people are, and how much kind of cultural significance [Meghan and Harry] have,” he added.

He had a good reason why he thinks Meghan would be a bad fit for the drama.

“We talk about casting all the time, but, I mean, the practicalities of that are also complex for a show like ours. Can you imagine the amount of attention, paparazzi, and so forth you’d have? So I would say it’s pretty unlikely,” he explained.

Co-star Hugh Bonneville was also dismissive of the rumours, calling them “a genius bit of marketing”, while Maya Jama said she’d “be the last person to know” if the rumours were true.

Vinnie Jones, a man who never minces his words, had thoughts about Meghan joining the show.

“We’ve got a lot of pretty women in this series, so I’m not sure there’s room for any more,” he said on the red carpet at the London premiere of season two.

The first two seasons of The Gentlemen are now streaming on Netflix.

Donald Trump said “everything’s going to work out fine and dandy” after an attack on a Saudi-operated oil pipeline, then gave a rather convenient answer after being asked when his costly Iran war might finally come to an end.

The US president insisted the conflict, which is now in its sixth month, would reach a conclusion “probably right after” America’s midterm elections in November.

Israel and the US launched the war at the end of February, with Trump at the time claiming it would only last around six weeks.

Asked on a visit to Dublin when it might end, he said: “I think very soon. I think it’ll be probably right after the midterms.

“They’re trying to hold out as long as they can, to complicate the election, but I think people are wise to it because Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It’s very simple.”

Trump took questions alongside Irish prime minister Micheál Martin during his two-day visit, repeating the decades-old talking point from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Iran was “weeks” or “months” away from having a nuclear bomb.

“And they would have probably hit us too, before we put out the fire,” Trump claimed Saturday. “But they cannot have a nuclear weapon. But I would say [the war will end] shortly. And oil will come tumbling down when that happens; oil prices will come tumbling down.”

Trump’s claim that the war will end shortly after the midterms arrives amid disastrous approval ratings, largely due to his handling of the economy and unpopular Middle East conflict.

He has given several contradictory reasons for launching the war and appears to have achieved none of the core goals he set earlier this year. As a result, energy and food prices have spiked as Iran responded to US strikes by closing the economically-vital Strait of Hormuz.

The conflict escalated on Thursday after a major oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia — a US ally — was shut down following drone attacks launched from Iraq. Trump, who baselessly claimed Iran was responsible, tried to reassure the public.

“I have made a call with [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman],” he said. “He’s a good friend of mine, and it’s going to — I can just say everything’s going to work out fine and dandy. It’s going to be very good.”

The Iran war has already cost at least 18 US military service members and more than 3,000 Iranians their lives.

Some Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump, who is making the midterms a referendum on his supposed successes — despite his plummeting popularity.