A Hollywood film overshadowed by alleged feuds. Custody papers served live on stage. A video in which one famous person may or may not have spat on another. And now the most dramatic salad dressing in showbiz.
On Monday (17 October), a nanny previously employed by Olivia Wilde and Jason Sudeikis made a series of allegations against the former couple – and about Wilde’s subsequent relationship with Harry Styles – to The Daily Mail. Repeated references were made to Wilde’s mysterious “special salad dressing”, and the nanny included screenshots of alleged texts between her and the celebrity pair. So far, so internet catnip. What happened next, though, marked a turning point in what would otherwise have been your average soap opera-worthy celebrity scandal. Amid the nanny’s allegations, Wilde and Sudeikis came together to issue a joint statement against her.
“As parents, it is incredibly upsetting to learn that a former nanny of our two young children would choose to make such false and scurrilous accusations about us publicly,” the former couple wrote. “Her now 18-month-long campaign of harassing us, as well as loved ones, close friends and colleagues, has reached its unfortunate apex. We will continue to focus on raising and protecting our children with the sincere hope that she will now choose to leave our family alone.”
Let’s backtrack a little. Wilde and Sudeikis, who have two children, announced their breakup after nine years together in November 2020. At the time, Wilde was in the middle of shooting Don’t Worry Darling, starring Styles and Florence Pugh. Two months later, Wilde and Styles were an item, leading to conflicting reports over timelines. One Hollywood golden couple fell apart as another was created. Throw in the public serving of custody papers while Wilde discussed her movie at an industry event in April, and later rumours of rifts between Wilde and Pugh over her relationship with Styles, and it’s no wonder Don’t Worry Darling became overshadowed.
Despite everything, though, the fact that Wilde and Sudeikis appear to have been brought together by their nanny stands for something. After months of apparent acrimony, the exes have united in order to protect their children.
This is an unusual situation. Usually, when a third party intervenes in a breakup – such as a paramour, perhaps, or a jilted ex-lover or disgruntled mother-in-law – it creates conflict. Whoever it is, traditionally this third party would pull former partners apart rather than together. In this case, though, it seems that the nanny has provided Wilde and Sudeikis with an opportunity to find common ground and a common enemy: someone it’s easier to go up against than each other. At least that’s what it looks like.
“Involving a third party can contribute to getting a couple back together,” says relationship psychologist Madeleine Mason Roantree. “I’d say it’s definitely a possibility. Because usually people, in this case a couple, will unite against a perceived bigger threat.”
Matters become more complex, though, when you consider the gender dynamics at play here. The split between Wilde and Sudeikis is the latest addition to a long line of heterosexual celebrity breakups in which the woman gets blamed for the separation. With Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, for example, the media turned on Angelina Jolie despite the fact that Pitt was the one accused of cheating.
Wilde has denied cheating on Sudekis with Styles, just as Pitt and Jolie denied having an affair while Pitt was still married. In this situation, though, Styles has not been positioned as the Jolie-esque villain of the story. That’s been Wilde herself. And even now, via her former nanny, blame has drifted to an entirely different woman all together. It’s no coincidence that hours after the nanny’s interview broke, Wilde delivered a speech in which she referenced “the burning hellfire of misogyny that defines this business”.
The lasting effect of all this becomes complex in a legal sense; involving a third party is not always beneficial to either parent when it comes to custody of children. James Maguire, partner and founder of Maguire Family Law, explains that in England, a scenario where a third party is making allegations against a couple may lead the judge to direct what is called a “finding of fact” hearing.
“The purpose of this is for the judge at an interim hearing to decide (based on the evidence) what has happened and to make findings to that effect,” he adds. “In this situation, as I understand, the nanny has made allegations against both parties and that makes the case more complex.” Nonetheless, in England, Maguire says the same principles would remain. “What findings need to be made to determine, as best the court can, what the truth is, and do those allegations/findings actually go to the welfare issues concerning the child and, if so, to what extent?”
Where there is malicious intent coming from a third party, I can imagine this would likely lead the couple to want to batten down the hatches and protect their own
Maguire adds: “The problem a judge can be presented with is that with ‘warring’ parents who make allegations and cross allegations, the children can be lost in all of this. On occasions, a judge may feel that a child has to receive his/her own separate representation by way of a guardian.”
Where matters become more complex still, though, is when parents are in the public eye. “This category of relationships are very different from non-celebrity relationships,” explains Marc Hekster, clinical psychologist at The Summit Clinic. “The issue with celebrity relationships is that there is already a third party involved from the start, and that is the ‘external world’; fans, media, social media.”
With this in mind, Hekster explains that a celebrity relationship already faces additional challenges. “But where there is malicious intent coming from a third party such as a nanny, I can imagine this would likely lead the couple to want to batten down the hatches and protect their own,” he adds. “In the world of celebrity, though, it would be the most secure couples only who might manage to survive the external attacks emanating from others around them.”
