Why Was Bold & Beautiful Preempted on May 8?
fans were surprised to see the May 8, 2025, episode of the soap opera being preempted by CBS. Thus, the schedule of the daily soap for the week was altered. The Bold and the Beautiful episodes air on the CBS network on weekdays. It is also one of TV's most regularly watched soaps.
So, here's everything viewers need to know regarding why the episode of B&B on May 8 was preempted.
The May 8 episode of The Bold and the Beautiful was preempted by CBS to telecast the news of the election of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the Pope.
Cardinal Prevost was appointed as the new Pope on Thursday. He took up the papal name Leo XIV after being selected. Thus, CBS postponed the airing of the May 8 episode of B&B to play news regarding the same. This has led to episodes of the popular daily soap being pushed one day further.
Pope Leo XIV became the new head of the Catholic Church after Pope Francis passed away on April 21. While addressing the crowd after getting elected, he said, 'Peace be with you. It is the peace of the risen Christ. A peace that is unarmed and disarming, humble and persevering. A peace that comes from God, the God who loves us all, unconditionally. We can still hear the faint yet ever courageous voice of Pope Francis as he blessed Rome, the Pope who blessed Rome, who gave his blessing to the world, the whole world, on the morning of Easter. Allow me to extend that same blessing. God loves us, God loves you all, and evil will not prevail! All of us are in God's hands.' (via Vatican News)
Meanwhile, the episode of B&B, which was supposed to air on May 8, will now air on May 9, 2025. Moreover, the regular schedule will continue.
The post Why Was Bold & Beautiful Preempted on May 8? appeared first on ComingSoon.net - Movie Trailers, TV & Streaming News, and More.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Slimmed Down Monarchy? Not Anymore, Thanks to This Surprising Move from King Charles
It was a recent royal sighting that caught me off-guard: King Charles and Queen Camilla were spotted in attendance at a mid-May gala in Kew Gardens to help raise money for The Elephant Family, a charity set up by Mark Shand, Camilla's brother, before his death in 2014. The occasion was poignant; it was meaningful—but it also included a surprising (and typically less prominent royal): Princess the eldest daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson attends her fair share of royal occasions, but usually they're limited to ones where the entire royal clan steps out. Royal Ascot, Easter, even the Christmas walk at Sandringham are all examples. But the Elephant Family event felt different and provided a moment for Charles's niece—who has long supported Elephant Family—to take center stage in a position typically reserved for more senior royals like Kate Middleton or Duchess Sophie. My take? It's about monarch, Charles has long been an advocate of a slimmed-down monarchy—or, at the very least, the idea of keeping a core group of working royals in sight vs. past visuals of a Queen Elizabeth II-era Buckingham Palace balcony overflowing with extended family such as aunts and uncles and random royal relations that have less of an impact on the royal brand. While the king has never officially brought his framework into public view, that working model took a major hit when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle walked away from the monarchy in January 2020. Questions—and constructive criticisms, like the comments made by Charles's sister Princess Anne—began to swirl about the lack of main characters left to represent the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie off the bench was a refrain I began to hear over and over again during my years co-hosting the Royally Obsessed podcast. That also brings me to my next point: Not only did Beatrice step out for the Elephant Family gala, we've been seeing a lot more of another lesser-known royal lately: Her sister, Princess Eugenie. Eugenie was recently announced as a mentor for the King's Foundation's 35 Under 35 initiative and the sisters, together, have been more vocal—and frankly, formal—about promoting royal patronages (like their joint role as honorary patrons of Teenage Cancer Trust). Heck, they've even been making more regular appearances at what I think of as signature events in the royal diary (everything from the Chelsea Flower Show to Buckingham Palace garden parties). Bottom line: Someone seems to have given King Charles a note that looping in Beatrice and Eugenie, who are 9th and 12th in line to the throne, more is good for royal business—and I'm thrilled to see it. After all, anything that has the potential to humanize the royal family makes sense. Beatrice opening up about the premature birth of her daughter Athena; Eugenie helping others and bringing attention to anyone navigating a scoliolis diagnosis—it's authentic and vulnerable, but most importantly, it brings people in. It was a major loss when Harry and Meghan left for Canada first, then Montecito. And, regardless of your feelings about the monarchy they left behind, their royal shoes can't be filled by William and Kate alone—there's simply too much royal work to go around. The move to include more of Beatrice and Eugenie not only lightens that load, it extends the glamour of the monarchy and lifts the spirits of royal supporters, too. While I thought this would be a decision relegated to when Prince William—who is close with his cousins and likely sees their potential—becomes king, it seems like Charles caught wind of it sooner. Next stop, the royal balcony? Time will tell. King Charles Wanted a Slimmed Down Monarchy—But Without Kate & Will, Is It Actually Time to Panic?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bill Belichick keeps relitigating his disastrous CBS interview
Bill Belichick is one of the greatest football coaches of all time. His P.R. instincts leave much to be desired. Beyond entrusting his personal brand to his 24-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson, Belichick has a bad habit of not letting sleeping dogs lie and/or dead horses go unbeaten. Case in point, now reports that Belichick's book publicist assured Belichick that the disastrous CBS interview would be only about Belichick's book. Advertisement The report emerged today, more than a month after the CBS interview aired. And it has reanimated a dormant issue. The article cites an April 9 email from Simon & Schuster's senior director of publicity David Kass to Belichick. Wrote Kass: "I can assure you that the conversation [will be] about the book." Kass also reportedly told Belichick the CBS interview would be a "puff piece . . . designed to make everyone look good and sell books." (Somewhat surprisingly, the new report doesn't blame Kass for suggesting that Belichick wear an old football jersey with a giant hole in the neck to the CBS interview.) Per Belichick was "furious" when the CBS interview strayed beyond book topics. Then there's this: "Sources say Belichick had actually shot down several interview opportunities Kass had put in front of him over concerns the media outlets would use his book promotion as a way to pry into subjects not related to the actual book." Advertisement It's a fascinating development, for several reasons. First, the story is smeared with Belichick's (or Hudson's) fingerprints. Which means that one or both decided to dredge up a dead story, weeks after the fact. Which also means that one or both believed the new story would cause people to say, "Well, now we understand why she weirdly refused to let him answer the basic question of how they met." Second, one or both decided to throw Kass under the bus, both directly and by potentially instigating a stray, conspiracy theory-inducing remark that Kass "once helped Jeff Benedict's Robert Kraft-themed book, The Dynasty, reach the New York Times' bestseller list." Kass is painted as the villain in this, the one who lied to Belichick about what the CBS interview was going to be. Third, Belichick did other interviews in which questions unrelated to the book were asked — after the CBS sit-down. Michael Strahan asked a few personal questions on Good Morning America. Ryan Clark asked questions about Hudson on The Pivot Podcast. (Then again, those questions apparently were scripted to help Belichick undo the CBS-related P.R. damage.) Advertisement Fourth, Belichick and/or Hudson apparently have decided to try to get on their side by spoon-feeding information to the outlet. Given the extent to which had been hammering all things Belichick and Hudson, a subtle quid pro quo that gets to play nice in exchange for current and future information would be a smart move by Belichick. Make no mistake about it. The issue is back on the front burner because Belichick and/or Hudson decided it would be a smart move to point a finger at Kass, weeks after the fact. And it's just the latest time Belichick and/or Hudson have blamed others for their own blunders. He/she/they have blamed CBS for editing the interview to create a "false narrative." He/she/they have blamed North Carolina for not having a sufficient P.R. function in place when he arrived. He/she/they now blame Kass for failing to (wait for it) "do his job" properly. It's always someone else's fault. It's never their fault. And they presumably think people will buy the idea that they're the victims of widespread incompetence and malfeasance.
NBC Sports
an hour ago
- NBC Sports
Bill Belichick keeps relitigating his disastrous CBS interview
Bill Belichick is one of the greatest football coaches of all time. His P.R. instincts leave much to be desired. Beyond entrusting his personal brand to his 24-year-old girlfriend, Jordon Hudson, Belichick has a bad habit of not letting sleeping dogs lie and/or dead horses go unbeaten. Case in point, now reports that Belichick's book publicist assured Belichick that the disastrous CBS interview would be only about Belichick's book. The report emerged today, more than a month after the CBS interview aired. And it has reanimated a dormant issue. The article cites an April 9 email from Simon & Schuster's senior director of publicity David Kass to Belichick. Wrote Kass: 'I can assure you that the conversation [will be] about the book.' Kass also reportedly told Belichick the CBS interview would be a 'puff piece . . . designed to make everyone look good and sell books.' (Somewhat surprisingly, the new report doesn't blame Kass for suggesting that Belichick wear an old football jersey with a giant hole in the neck to the CBS interview.) Per Belichick was 'furious' when the CBS interview strayed beyond book topics. Then there's this: 'Sources say Belichick had actually shot down several interview opportunities Kass had put in front of him over concerns the media outlets would use his book promotion as a way to pry into subjects not related to the actual book.' It's a fascinating development, for several reasons. First, the story is smeared with Belichick's (or Hudson's) fingerprints. Which means that one or both decided to dredge up a dead story, weeks after the fact. Which also means that one or both believed the new story would cause people to say, 'Well, now we understand why she weirdly refused to let him answer the basic question of how they met.' Second, one or both decided to throw Kass under the bus, both directly and by potentially instigating a stray, conspiracy theory-inducing remark that Kass 'once helped Jeff Benedict's Robert Kraft-themed book, The Dynasty, reach the New York Times' bestseller list.' Kass is painted as the villain in this, the one who lied to Belichick about what the CBS interview was going to be. Third, Belichick did other interviews in which questions unrelated to the book were asked — after the CBS sit-down. Michael Strahan asked a few personal questions on Good Morning America. Ryan Clark asked questions about Hudson on The Pivot Podcast. (Then again, those questions apparently were scripted to help Belichick undo the CBS-related P.R. damage.) Fourth, Belichick and/or Hudson apparently have decided to try to get on their side by spoon-feeding information to the outlet. Given the extent to which had been hammering all things Belichick and Hudson, a subtle quid pro quo that gets to play nice in exchange for current and future information would be a smart move by Belichick. Make no mistake about it. The issue is back on the front burner because Belichick and/or Hudson decided it would be a smart move to point a finger at Kass, weeks after the fact. And it's just the latest time Belichick and/or Hudson have blamed others for their own blunders. He/she/they have blamed CBS for editing the interview to create a 'false narrative.' He/she/they have blamed North Carolina for not having a sufficient P.R. function in place when he arrived. He/she/they now blame Kass for failing to (wait for it) 'do his job' properly. It's always someone else's fault. It's never their fault. And they presumably think people will buy the idea that they're the victims of widespread incompetence and malfeasance.
