EastEnders star engaged after romantic proposal in Ibiza as she shows off huge diamond ring
AN EASTENDERS star has revealed she has got engaged.
Actress Gurlaine Kaur Garcha, 31, shared her happy news as she flashed her huge diamond ring after a romantic proposal in Ibiza.
3
3
3
The soap star - who played Ash Panesar on EastEnders for three years - is thrilled to be getting married.
Gurlaine revealed her happy news with a sweet post on Instagram.
On there she shared a snap of herself on holiday sipping a cocktail.
But one thing that really stood out in the picture, was the huge diamond engagement ring on her left hand.
Confirming the news that her partner had popped the question, she simply wrote: "v happy & v engaged!!!!!!"
Although she has kept the identity of her partner private, she revealed they had proposed in Ibiza.
Gurlaine's EastEnders co-stars rushed to congratulate her.
While her EastEnders mum Balvinder Sopal posted: "Oh my days!!!!!!!!! CONGRATULATIONS BABY"
Gurlaine's onscreen brother Shiv Jalota said: "Ahhhhhhhh CONGRATS XX"
EastEnders Ash leaves for good as she lands new job
BECOMING AN EASTENDERS STAR
Gurlaine joined EastEnders in 2019 and was an immediate hit.
Bosses introduced the wider Panesar family around her with brothers Kheerat, Vinny and Jags arriving shortly before their mother Suki.
Over the years most of the Pansears have left the Square, with Gurlaine's character Ash departing in 2023.
It was announced in January that year that the actress would be leaving the BBC One soap.
Soap bosses said: "We can confirm that Gurlaine will be leaving EastEnders, and we wish her all of the best for the future."
Gurlaine then shared her own statement, and said she was "excited for what's to come."
At the time sources claimed she was heading for Hollywood.
An insider told us: "She's hoping to join the long list of former soap stars to crack America.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Danny Boyle: 28 Years Later Covid pandemic parallels were inevitable
says it was inevitable the Covid-19 pandemic would shape his latest film, 28 Years Later, which premiered in London on Wednesday (18 June). The post-apocalyptic horror, directed by Boyle, is a direct sequel to 28 Days Later (2002), set nearly 30 years after the rage virus outbreak. It stars Jodie Comer, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Ralph Fiennes. 'Even if you're not intentionally including it in a specific way, it definitely influences what you are doing, and some of the behaviour patterns,' Boyle told The Independent. 'It's inevitable, really, because of what we all went through,' he said. 'The way we all reacted to Covid initially… We all hid and put masks on and gloves and disinfected everything. You can't live like that for very long.' He likened the pandemic to the film, adding, 'After 28 years, you would take enormous risks, you know, because you think you could.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
What uncomfortable detail links the weddings of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with Edward and Wallis Simpson? Royal biographer Robert Hardman reveals all on new Mail podcast
Podcast All episodes Play on Apple Spotify On the latest episode of Queens, Kings and Dastardly Things, Royal biographer Robert Hardman reveals a striking parallel between the weddings of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and Edward and Wallis Simpson. The episode, the second instalment in a new podcast miniseries examining the 'objectionable' lives of the first celebrity Royal couple, focuses on how the British establishment turned its back on Edward and Mrs Simpson following the King's abdication. Edward abdicated under the mistaken belief that he and his twice-divorced bride would be permitted back into the Royal fold. The Duke of Windsor expected his new wife to receive the royal titles and privileges due to a former King's bride. During preparations for their June 1937 wedding, it became apparent that Mrs Simpson would never gain full Royal status and that the couple faced complete exile from the family. The Wedding of Edward and Wallis Simpson After failing to convince the government and Commonwealth to accept Mrs Simpson as Queen, Edward abdicated on December 11, 1936. Simpson was deemed unacceptable because she was an American divorcée with two living ex-husbands, which violated both the Church of England's stance on divorce and the constitutional requirement that the monarch be the head of that church. The crown passed to Edward's brother George VI, who made him Duke of Windsor. Edward then fled to Europe while Simpson's divorce from Ernest Simpson was finalised. The former King reportedly felt relieved, 'liberated' from the great burden of the crown. As Mail Columnist Robert Hardman explained: 'Winston Churchill was said to have been in tears when he listened to the announcement of the abdication on the radio. 'One man who was not in tears was the King himself. His view was that the crown had been a terrible burden and that now, he was, in a sense, liberated. 'Edward believed he could continue being much loved without any of the hassle of going about his Royal duty.' 'He was definitely deluded – Edward failed to understand that the nation moves on quite quickly. They were a serious threat to the institution they had left behind.' Planning his wedding to Mrs Simpson, any hopes Edward had of retaining some form of Royal power were dashed. George VI forbade his brother from returning to England, forcing the couple to celebrate their union in France. The Church of England also refused to sanction the marriage, leaving an obscure clergyman, Robert Anderson Jardine, to conduct the service. On top of this, the new King, on the advice of the government, pressured members of the Royal family and aristocracy not to attend the wedding. 'Edward hoped to have lots of members of his family there', Hardman began. 'But he's told – they are not coming at all. George VI and Queen Elizabeth send a telegram – but that's it. They told all the other Royals they were not to attend. 'Dickie Mountbatten, always trying to ride two horses at once, writes to Edward saying he does want to be there, but the King won't let him. 'Even members of the aristocracy are told they cannot turn up. For example, Ulik Alexander, keeper of the Privy Purse and a great friend of Edwards is told he will lose his position if he attends. 'There's a lot of establishment pressure to completely boycott and ostracise this event. In the end, only seven British guests are in attendance.' The government's opposition to senior British establishment figures attending was not solely born out of spite. Officials knew that within Britain and across the Empire, there would be outrage at the prospect of Simpson being honoured as a full Royal. If the wedding resembled a state occasion, there were fears it might embolden Mrs Simpson to use the title Her Royal Highness. Hardman told the podcast: 'There is very strong pressure, from the other realms and dominions – that people do not want Simpson given Royal status. 'If she's made Her Royal Highness, people would have to curtsy to her. That cannot happen.' The event was equally poorly attended on the bride's side, leading the Royal biographer to draw a comparison with Harry and Meghan's wedding some 80 years later. Hardman said: 'Wallis had one member of her family there, her aunt Bessie. This slightly echoes Harry and Meghan's wedding in 2018, where only Meghan's mother attended.' To hear more stories of historical Royal gossip and court intrigue, listen to Queens, Kings and Dastardly Things now, wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes are released every Thursday.
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
28 Years Later review: Zombie-apocalypse horror is a 'never-dull' monster mash-up
Alex Garland and Danny Boyle have reunited for a follow-up to their 2002 classic. It has visual flair, terrifying adversaries and a scene-stealing performance from Ralph Fiennes. 28 Years Later is part zombie-apocalypse horror, part medieval world-building, part sentimental family story and – most effectively – part Heart of Darkness in its journey toward a madman in the woods. That mashup is not necessarily a bad thing, since most of those parts work so well in this follow-up to the great 2002 film 28 Days Later, about a virus that decimates London. The new film is one of the year's most anticipated largely because it comes from the original's creators, director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland. It glows with Boyle's visual flair, Garland's ambitious screenplay and a towering performance from Ralph Fiennes, whose character enters halfway through the film and unexpectedly becomes its fraught soul. But as with Frankenstein's monster, the seams are conspicuous, making for a patchwork that is never dull but not as fully engaging as it might have been. A lot has changed in the 23 years since the original, of course. Boyle, then known for smart indie films like Trainspotting, went on to win an Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire. Garland, then a novelist and screenwriter – 28 Days was his first – is now the director of politically pointed films including Civil War. In 28 Years Later, the central problem is that Garland's political bent and Boyle's commercial instincts don't entirely mesh. The world they have created is specific and impressive though, starting with an island where people have survived the decades since the outbreak by isolating themselves from the still-plague-ridden mainland of England, reached by a causeway that can only be walked across at low tide. It is a community that might have existed in the Middle Ages. Without 21st-Century resources, they make their own arrows for weapons and use wood for fuel. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is impressively solid as Jamie, a harried but responsible husband and father. Jodie Comer plays his wife, Isla, bedridden and occasionally delirious in this community which has no doctor to diagnose her. Mostly, Comer has to look woeful. Isla can barely remember why Jamie is about to take their son, Spike (Alfie Williams), on a ritualistic trip to the mainland. It is time for him to make his first kill of an infected creature, a survival tactic he will need to know. Boyle takes full advantage of his striking technical skills in the father-son hunting scenes, which are pure zombie action-horror, full of kinetic camera movements and quick cuts as Jamie and Spike race through the woods, shooting arrows and trying to outrun the infected. The creatures are officially not zombies, as much as they look and act that way, but victims of the same blood-borne virus that caused people to become full of rage in the original film, turning them into lumbering, mush-brained marauders. Decades later they have morphed. Some, called the Slow-Lows, look like hippos crawling on all fours. Others are faster and smarter than ever. All are naked, caked in dirt, and spout geysers of blood when an arrow hits them. The danger feels visceral. Some stylish flourishes briefly comment on this embattled world. A scratchy, ominous 1915 recording of the Rudyard Kipling poem Boots, about infantrymen, (the same used in the film's trailer) is heard over recurring images of war, from the Crusades to the 20th- Century World Wars. Text at the start of the film tells us that Europe managed to push the virus away, quarantining it in Britain, which has been abandoned by the rest of the world. French and Swedish boats patrol the waters to enforce the quarantine. But that politically acute theme, which might have been so resonant with the issue of isolationism today, goes nowhere. Spike, whose story is so central, is a bland character. A thread of the narrative about the boy and his mother strains for emotion and includes a twist about a pregnant infected woman that is ludicrous even for a horror film. And separated from the original in every way except its source story, for a long stretch the film lands as a more visually stunning, less emotionally rich variation on The Last of Us. But it takes on a quieter, more psychological tone and becomes infinitely better when Fiennes arrives. It's here that Boyle and Garland truly elevate and reimagine the genre. Fiennes's character, Kelton, lives on the mainland and was once a doctor. Spike believes he might be able to help his mother, although Jamie warns that everyone knows Kelton is insane. Fiennes plays him with a shaved head, a dash of wit, and skin that looks orange. "Excuse my appearance. I paint myself in iodine," he politely says when he first meets Spike and Isla. "The virus doesn't like iodine at all." (I did wonder how he got so much iodine after all those apocalyptic years, but let's not be pedantic about it.) And he shows them his lovingly designed temple, with tall columns made of bones elegantly laid out alongside a tower of skulls. It is, he explains, a Memento Mori, a reminder that we all die. Each skull reminds him that it was once part of a living person in the flesh, not a monster. Creepy, yes, but Fiennes also makes Kelton gentle, a man of deep compassion, who regrets that there are no longer hospitals where the sick like Isla can be treated. He is the most humane person on screen, which is largely down to Fiennes's vivid, layered performance. One of the film's strengths is that you can leave debating just how unhinged Kelton really is. 28 Years Later is the first in a projected new trilogy. The second part, written by Garland and directed by Nia DaCosta, has already been shot and is scheduled to be released in January. That one is called 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, an excellent sign considering how Fiennes's character runs away with this imaginative but uneven film. ★★★★☆ 28 Years Later is released in cinemas in the UK and US on 20 June. -- If you liked this story sign up for The Essential List newsletter, a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more Culture stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.
