EXCLUSIVE Inside the wild rumours about Robert Irwin and Shawn Mendes that are rocking the internet
Robert Irwin is certainly no stranger to breaking the internet, but it seems that the Wildlife Warrior has found himself at the centre of another online storm.
Instead of his raunchy Bonds underwear causing a stir, this time around it all has to do with wild fake images featuring Canadian singer Shawn Mendes, 26.
The pair have been bizarrely romantically linked thanks to a slew of AI -generated posts and clickbait headlines suggesting they are secretly dating.
Obviously there's no truth to the romance rumours, and insiders say the Irwin family are just as baffled as the rest of us.
The strange pairing all started when the Treat You Better hitmaker teamed up with Robert, 21, and Oscar-winner, Javier Bardem, to promote the animated film Lyle, Lyle Crocodile back in 2022.
From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop.
In the video, Robert quizzes the pair on crocodile trivia, sharing his passion for reptiles with his signature enthusiasm.
The clip, seemingly innocuous, was enough to send the internet into matchmaking mode.
Hopeful fans across TikTok and X have been busy concocting AI-generated memes and images showing the duo as a fake couple.
Some cheeky users have even praised the pair as the 'perfect match' and dubbed it the 'crocodile love story we never saw coming!'
One fake clickbait laden image shows a shot of Robert flexing his form in Bonds underwear on top of another of Shawn leaning in to kiss an unidentified person.
The fake headline on the image reads: ''He didn't say a word, but one quiet gesture from Shawn Mendes to Robert Irwin is breaking the internet – and fans think it means everything.'
Another shows a tryptic of images - the first of Shawn bearing his torso as he reclines on a couch, coupled with another showing Shawn and Robert embracing, and a third of a smiling solo Robert.
The headline on the fake image reads: 'Shawn Mendes and Robert Irwin just shared a moment so low-key, it broke the internet.'
Hopeful fans across TikTok and X have been busy concocting AI-generated memes and images showing the duo as a fake couple
According to insiders, the Irwin family are at a loss to explain the sudden concocted fake romance.
'It's been a whirlwind,' a source close to the family told Daily Mail Australia.
'People are congratulating Robert on social media like it's official, but he and Shawn are obviously just friends.'
'Shawn has always had fun with fans' theories, but there's clearly nothing going on romantically,' they added.
Despite the relationship being fabricated, the clickbait seems to be doing the trick, with many fans swooning over the pairing on social media.
'Well, it's about time we saw some exciting news! I've been following Shawn Mendes for years, and I think he deserves all the happiness in the world,' one fan wrote on Facebook.
'Let's keep our fingers crossed for this potential new couple!'
Another added: 'According to "so called" news reports I keep getting on my feed, this now makes around 10 different people Shawn is supposed to be in "a romance" with.'
Daily Mail Australia has reached out to Robert Irwin for comment.
The Grammy-nominated singer, who famously dated Camila Cabello, has been open about taking time off from music to prioritise his mental health.
While questions about his sexuality have followed him for years, Shawn has never confirmed anything.
Back in October, The Señorita hitmaker spoke to the crowd at Colorado's Red Rocks Amphitheatre on Monday to address the 'truth' about his love life.
Telling his fans he was trying to be 'really brave', the singer admitted that sexuality was a complex issue.
'There's this thing about my sexuality, and people have been talking about it so long,' Shawn said, saying it was 'kind of silly, because I think sexuality is such a beautifully complex thing, and it's so hard to just put into boxes.'
'The real truth about my life and my sexuality is that, man, I'm just figuring it out like everyone.'
He continued: 'It always felt like such an intrusion on something very personal to me. Something that I was figuring out in myself, something that I had yet to discover and still have yet to discover it.
'And it feels really scary because we live in a society that has a lot to say about that. And I'm trying to be really brave and just allow myself to be a human and feel things. And that's all I really want to say about that for now.'
Meanwhile, Robert was in a relationship with Rorie Buckley for almost two years, with the couple announcing their split in February 2024.
He also allegedly cooled his relationship with his 'secret' girlfriend - fellow Australia Zoo worker Charlotte Briggs in February this year.
The pair were first linked back in July 2024 when they looked cosy arriving in Sydney together ahead of the I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here! star's appearance on The Project.
Reports later suggested they started officially dating in November, but sources now tell Daily Mail Australia their plans to 'hard launch' their relationship have 'fizzled'.
'It seems like the tide has turned on that,' confirmed one source from the South African set of the Channel Ten show.
'The itinerary has changed and what has changed for Robert personally is what has many over here suspecting that his post-jungle relationship is over.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
33 minutes ago
- The Sun
90s one hit wonder, 51, has barely aged a day 27 years after topping the charts – do you recognise her?
SHE shot to fame with a chart-topping hit back in the '90s - but nearly three decades on, the pop sensation looks just as fresh-faced at 51. The singer stunned fans with her youthful appearance in a new social media snap - but would you recognise her? 4 4 Jennifer Paige - the voice behind 1998's chart-topping smash "Crush" - who wowed fans with her age-defying looks in a recent Instagram post. She wrote: "New music and art projects on the horizon. My hubby's art will be released on Friday, as well. "Very happy for him, as it's been a long time in the making. I'll share it here so you can let him know what you think! Let's go, men! 👏 You were born for greatness." Fans took to the comment section shocked to see her looking as ageless as ever, with one writing: "You still look just as beautiful." Another added: "Wow! You were the soundtrack to my 5 year old self & you haven't aged a day! 🔥 thank you for sharing your talent with the world." A third penned: "You look exactly like you did in 1998!" Jennifer's song 'Crush' shot to No 1 in 16 countries and sold 11 million copies. It then went on to become the station's most requested song of the summer. Crush was also the top three Billboard chart hit in the US, while in the UK it listed in the top 10. Her debut album was released the same year and Jennifer went on to record three more - although they failed to gain the same traction as her first. She even recorded a duet with Backstreet Boy Nick Carter called "Beautiful Lie", featured on the deluxe edition of her 2008 album Best Kept Secret. Once dropped into semi-retirement after chart success, Jennifer faced childhood heartbreak, melanoma and the loss of both parents in 2008. She later retreated from fame, moved into song writing for commercials, charity music and podcasts. She then eventually crowdfunded a comeback album, Starflower, in 2017. Jennifer is married to artist Jason 'Hawk' Carter. The couple tied the knot in 2010 and have a daughter named Stella Rose, born on October 5, 2014. Jason made a surprise cameo in Jennifer's 2017 music video for "The Devil's in the Details." The original actor dropped out, meaning he had to step in last minute. The American star still has her blonde hair and regular posts on her Instagram account. 4 4
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
America is showing us football in its final dictator form – we can't afford to look away
Should we give it a miss? Is it best to stay away from next summer's Trump-Infantino US World Cup? Depending on your politics the answer may be a resounding no or a bemused shrug. Some will see pure drive-by entertainment. Why would anyone want to boycott a month-long end-of-days Grand Soccer Parade staged by two of the world's most cinematic egomaniacs? But it is a question that has been asked, and will be asked a lot more in the next year. Those who intend to travel will need to answer it by action or omission. Would it be better for dissenting media and discomfited football fans to simply no-platform this event? The picture is at least clearer now. After a week of the new steroid-fed Club World Cup we know what this thing will feel like and who it will benefit. There is no mystery with these events now, no sense of politics lurking coyly out of sight. Under Gianni Infantino Fifa has become a kind of mobile propaganda agency for indulgent regimes, right out in front twirling its pompoms, hitching its leotard, twerking along at the front of the parade like an unholy Uncle Sam. So we had the grisly sight this week of Donald Trump not just borrowing football's light, but wrestling it on to his lap and ruffling its hair, burbling like a random hot-button word generator about women and trans people, while Juventus players gawped in the background. We have the spectacle of both club and international football hijacked as a personal vanity platform for Infantino, the dictator's fluffer, the man who sold the world not once but twice. Infantino's status as a wildly over-promoted administrator has always had an operatic quality. But there is something far more sinister in his political over-reach, out there nodding along at the latest Oval Office freak-off, helping to legitimise each divisive statement, each casual erasure of process. Nobody gave Fifa a mandate to behave like this. Its mission is to promote and regulate. And yet here is it acting as a commercial disruptor in its own sport and as a lickspittle to the powerful, disregarding the human rights fluff and political neutrality enshrined in its 'statutes', offering zero transparency or accountability. To date Infantino's only public interface in the US is a 'fireside chat', AKA approved PR interview, at the Dick's Sporting Goods stage in New York. There he is, up there on the Stage of Dick's, mouthing platitudes to pre-programmed questions, high on his own power supply, the newly acquired Gianni glow-up eyebrows arched in a patina of inauthenticity. They say celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. Take a look at what football can do to you. And so far this tournament has presented the full grotesquery in store. What is the Club World Cup like on the ground? Pretty much the same as it is on the screen given this event is invisible in physical form beyond the stadiums. The key takeaway is confirmation of the weirdly jackboot, cult-like nature of the Infantino-shaped universe. Even the optics are trying to tell you something, all black holes, hard surfaces, gold, power-flash. Why does Fifa have its own vast lighted branding on the pitch like a global super-corporation or a military dictatorship? What is the Club World Cup logo supposed to represent, with its weird angular lines, the void at its heart? An obscure Stalinist plug socket? Darth Vader's space fighter? Not to mention the bizarre obsession with that shapeless and indefinable trophy, present on the big screen in every ground in weird scrolling closeup, one minute a Sauron's eye, the next some kind of finger-snapping torture instrument, with its secret draws full of ectoplasm, a dead crow, the personal effects of Pol Pot. Mainly there is the very openly manipulative nature of the spectacle, football in its final dictator form, with a sense of utter disdain for its captive consumer-subjects. Yes, they will literally put up with anything if we pipe it into their smartphones. So here is beauty, love, colour, connection, the things you're hard-wired to respond to, cattle-prodded into your nervous system for the benefit of assorted interests. Here is football reimagined as a kind of mass online pornography. Fifa even calls its media website Fifahub. With all this in mind some have suggested a World Cup and US boycott is the correct and logical response, not least in two recent articles published in these pages. The organisation Human Rights Watch has carried a warning about the implications of staging the tournament under the Trump regime. Guardian readers and social media voices have asked the same question from all sides of discourse. The hostile versions of this: if you don't like it then just don't come, we don't want you anyway [expletives deleted]. If you were worried about us in Qatar, western imperialist, why are you going to the US? And from the liberal left a concern that to report on sport is also to condone a regime that sends deportation officers to games, imposes travel bans on Fifa members and is edging towards another remote war. And all the while marches football around in a headlock, snapping its underwear elastic, saying thanks, Gianni, for the distracting firework show. This is not a normal situation. So why normalise it? Why give it legitimising light and heat? And yet, one week into the World Cup's rehearsal dinner, the only logical response is: you just have to go. Not only would a boycott serve no practical purpose; it would be counterproductive, an act of compliance for a regime that will happily operate without an opposing voice on the stage. There are two structural reasons for this. And a third that relates to the United States itself, or at least to the idea of the United States, to its possibilities, which are not defined by Trump, by the latest military action, or by Infantino. Most obviously, if you leave the stage you abandon the argument to the other person. Dissent remains a useful commodity. However pointless, ineffective and landlocked the process of pointing out the flaws and contradictions may have become, it is necessary to keep doing so. Qatar 2022 was a dictator show that simply sailed above the criticisms. But someone, however minor, has to make them, to offer at least some kind of counter-view. No-platforming an autocrat's show makes no sense on a basic level. These people would prefer you weren't there in any case. Whereas in reality the people platforming and enabling Trump and Infantino are not journalists trying to give another version of events, but the people who keep voting them into power, friendly dictators, subservient football associations and client media who will be present whatever happens. Fifa and its Saudi-backed broadcast partner Dazn are glossing up an army of in-house influencers and content-wanglers to generate a wall of approving noise. Is it healthy if these are the only voices at the show? Shouting into a void may have little effect. But you still have to shout. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Second, football does still have a value that steps outside the normal rules of show and spectacle. This is why it is coveted, courted and used like a weapon. Last week these pages carnied a logical, entirely legitimate wider view, written by two academics from City University New York, which concluded that a boycott was not just an option but 'necessary'. At the same time, the article defined the football World Cup as something that basically has no value, 'spectacles of recreation designed to distract people from their day-to-day lives, cultural and political branding opportunities for their hosts. For authoritarians, they have long been used as a tool to distract from or launder stains of human rights violations and corruption.' Which is definitely true. But it also reads like a vision of sport defined by the most joyless version of AI invented. Under this version of events no World Cup or Olympics would have taken place, because they are essentially worthless, home only to malevolent actors, lacking any notion of colour, human spirt, joy, art, beauty or connection. Who knows, maybe this is accurate now. It is undeniably true that the idea of football as a collective people's game is fairly absurd. Fans of football clubs struggle with this state of cognitive dissonance on a daily basis, the contrast of legacy identity and hard commercial reality. Liverpool are a community club owned by a US hedge fund. Manchester City see themselves as outsiders and underdogs, and are also owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Football is the enemy these days. But both sides of this are important, because without that emotional connection, without the act of faith that enables the warm, human part, everything becomes diminished, all our institutions toxic shells. To give up is to abandon sport for ever to the dictators and the sales people, to say, yeah, this just belongs to you now. No-platforming something that still means connection and culture and history. Are we ready for that yet? There will be another version of the present at some point. The final point is about the US, a deeply divided and unhappy place right now, and a much-derided host nation, not least by members of its own populace. What has it been like here? The evidence is that an actual World Cup is going to be very hard to negotiate, spread over vast spaces, with baffling travel times, unreliable infrastructure, and a 24-hour attention industry that is already busy gorging on every other spectacle available to the human race. The US has a reputation for peerless razzmatazz around public events. And while this is undeniably true with cultural spectacles it invented – rock'n'roll, presidential races, galactic shopping malls, enormous food, rural tornadoes, its own continental-scale sports – the US's version of other people's specialities, from cheese to professional football, can seem a little mannered. But the fact remains the actual games have been quite good. There has been a European-flavoured focus on tickets and empty seats. But 25,000 people on a weekday to watch Chelsea in an ill-defined game is decent evidence of willingness to stage this thing and develop the market. The dismay at 3,500 turning up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando overlooks the upside, the fact that 3,500 people actually turned up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando. Sundowns get 9,000-odd even at home. How many of their South African fans can afford to travel for this? Fifa, which uses its faux-benevolence cleverly, will point out an African team received $2m (£1.7m) for winning that game. Do we want to develop something or not? A wider point is that football here is a game beloved of immigrant populations. There is a different kind of warmth, often among people without a platform or the means to make it to the matches so far. The waiter who adores Cristiano Ronaldo. The taxi driver who wants to talk for 40 minutes about Chelsea's wastefulness with academy players. The cop who loves the Colombian national team and is desperate for his son to see them in the flesh. As for the US itself, it still feels like false equivalence to state that this is now an actual dictatorship, a lost land, a place that doesn't deserve this show because of its flaws and structural violence. This has always been a pretty brutal nation, human life as a constant pressure wave, mainlining heat and light into your veins, but also always taking a bite. The opening week in Miami captured this feeling, football's most hungrily transactional event staged on a sunken green peninsula, a place where the sea seems to be punching holes in the land, but which is still constantly throbbing with life and warmth and beautiful things. There is a nostalgic attachment to the idea of the US for people of a certain age, 20th-century holdovers, brought up on its flaws and imperialism, but also its culture and brilliance. But for the visitor America does seem in a worse state than it did 20 years ago. There is an unhappiness, a more obvious underclass, a sense of neglected parts and surfaces. All the things that were supposed to be good – cars, plenitude, markets, voting, empowerment, civil rights, cultural unity, all the Cokes being good and all the Cokes being the same – seem to have gone bad. But this is also a democracy with an elected leader, albeit one with a lust for executive power and some sinister tendencies. Mainly the US seems to have a massive self-loathing problem. Perhaps you can say it is correct in this, that Trump is enacting actual harms. But Trump is also a symptom of that alienation and perceived decline. He's an algorithm-driven apparition. Say his name enough times and this cartoon will appear. America remains a great, messy, dangerous, flawed idea of a place. What else is the world currently offering? This is in any case where football will now live for the next year, an unquestioning supplicant in the form of its own autocratic leader. The game is not an indestructible product. It can be stretched thin and ruined by greed, is already at war with itself in many key places. It will at some point be necessary to pay the ferryman, even as the US is packed away a year from now and the sails set at Fifa House for all corners of the globe and then Saudi Arabia. However stormy the prospects, it is not quite the moment to abandon this ship for good.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
My cultural awakening: I watched Sleepless in Seattle and realised I had to cancel my wedding
When my boyfriend proposed, I said yes – not because I was madly in love with him, but because it seemed like the correct thing to do. We'd been together for eight years and all of our friends were getting engaged; my life felt like a constant cycle of hen nights. I knew something was wrong but I suppressed it. Sometimes I'd get these flashes of anxiety. I'd worry about the fact that I no longer felt excited when my boyfriend walked into a room, or that we didn't have sex any more – but I was 28, which at that point felt ancient to me, and I was frightened of being alone. I told myself I was experiencing nothing more than a classic case of pre-wedding jitters. I threw myself into buying the big white dress and designing the invitations. I planned to stash a bottle of gin in the church, so I could have a shot to calm my nerves before I walked down the aisle. About three months before the wedding, I was home alone one evening and decided to watch Sleepless in Seattle. It was my father's favourite film – he loved the classic jazz soundtrack and Nora Ephron's dialogue. It had been on in the background a lot during my childhood and teenage years, so I was expecting it to be a comfort watch; something to almost lull me to sleep. I'd remembered the film as being about a man (Tom Hanks) and his cute son grieving the death of his wife. But that night I interpreted the film completely differently. I was sucked into the perspective of Meg Ryan's character, Annie, who is engaged to a perfectly decent but slightly boring man – and deciding whether or not to call it off. I'd always seen Sleepless in Seattle as being about bereavement, but that night on my sofa, it felt like a film about one woman's decision whether to get married, and play it safe, or give it all up and take a leap. There's a scene towards the beginning where Annie is trying on a wedding dress at her family home. Her mother is talking about the 'magic' she felt when she first laid eyes on her own husband, and Annie's face just goes completely blank. You can tell she doesn't feel anything close to 'magic' with Walter, her fiance. Watching that scene, I felt the familiar squirm of panic, but I squashed it down. I did love my boyfriend, in a way. We trusted each other and were good friends and he cared for me. I told myself: I'm not going to be the person who has the magic, and I'm OK with that. I'm going to be the person who has a sensible, kind husband, and children, and a life that is beautifully mapped out. But as the film went on I began to feel this overwhelming sadness. My wedding venue was booked, the deposit was paid – but watching Annie agonise over whether or not to leave Walter, I began to realise that the way I was feeling about my own wedding couldn't be ignored. Right at the end, Annie tells Walter about her doubts, and he has a line that illuminated everything for me: 'I don't want to be someone that anyone settles for. Marriage is hard enough without bringing such low expectations into it, isn't it?' I realised, listening to that, how selfish I was being. My boyfriend was good and generous. He didn't deserve to be 'settled' for. He didn't deserve to have a wife who had to get drunk to force herself down the aisle. That night when he came home, I said I wanted to postpone the wedding. I wasn't brave enough to outright ask to call it off, but he told me that if I didn't want to marry him now, he didn't want to be with me. I like to think perhaps he was having doubts too, but wasn't able to voice them – I hope that's true. I emailed all of our guests and told them that the wedding was cancelled, and people were generally supportive. I remember being so grateful that I didn't have to 'face' anyone. I could call the whole thing off while hiding behind a screen. I told my father that Sleepless in Seattle had inspired me to make the decision, but I kept that part a secret from everyone else in my life. He understood, but I suspected other people would think I'd gone mad. I spent about 11 years being single after the breakup, so I definitely had to face my fear of being alone. Often it was hard, feeling like a spare part at my friends' parties, but as I got older, being 'coupled up' and safe lost some of its allure. I saw the cracks in the marriages around me, and I realised coupledom doesn't actually insulate you from loneliness. I am married now, but I don't completely buy into the idea that there has to be 'magic' in a romantic partnership. I don't believe in the Disneyland, mind-altering, life-completing version of romance – that part of Sleepless in Seattle just doesn't ring true to me. But I still believe you should never settle for anyone. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion You can tell us how a cultural moment has prompted you to make a major life change by filling in the form below or emailing us on Please include as much detail as possible Please note, the maximum file size is 5.7 MB. Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian. Your contact details are helpful so we can contact you for more information. They will only be seen by the Guardian. If you include other people's names please ask them first.
