Dove Cameron overcomes her nudity fears

Dove Cameron has overcome her fear of shooting nude scenes.
The 29-year-old actress is dating Italian singer Damiano David, and he's encouraged Dove to overcome her fear of filming nude scenes.
Speaking to NYLON, Dove explained: "My partner is European and has way less hang-ups on the purity complex than Americans do.
"I went to the beach with him during a break while filming, and all the girls were taking their tops off. He was like, 'Nobody's going to be staring at you. You're totally safe. If you want to, then you're free to do that.' Not that he was giving me permission, but he was like, 'You've never done this before. It's normal.'"
Dove also credits directors and intimacy coordinators for helping her to overcome her anxieties.
The movie star said: "I think it actually helped me fast-forward in my evolution."
Dove actually finds love to be "inspiring", and the actress - who has battled depression in the past - has admitted to feeling "very safe" with Damiano.
She shared: "The thing about love is it's just, like, f****** inspiring.
"I was enjoying this campy feminine moment that I was in, where I was suddenly someone's girlfriend. I was very healed, very in love, feeling very safe."
Dove has actually recently returned to listening to some of her favourite artists from her young years.
She said: "I was suddenly listening to what I grew up listening to: Marina, Robyn, Gaga, Lana. And I was like, 'Wait a minute. What happened to all that music that I rejected, that I grew up with, that I was formed by?' I was listening to that music again going, 'This would slap today. This would absolutely rule the radio. It's all I want to consume.''
Dove starred in Liv and Maddie, the Disney sitcom, between 2013 and 2017. But she recently confessed that it would be "f****** hard" to be on the Disney Channel these days.
The actress - who also played the leading role in Disney's Descendants film franchise - told People: "I think even as an adult now, I would go back and be like, wow, this is f****** hard."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Advertiser

2 hours ago

• The Advertiser

Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point

Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?

The Advertiser

2 hours ago

• The Advertiser

Selfie-taking tourist damages Baroque artwork in Italy

A visitor to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence has damaged a priceless oil painting while trying to take a selfie, the museum says. The unidentified tourist leaned against the Baroque artwork, Portrait of Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, by Anton Domenico Gabbiani, to take a photo - until the canvas gave way. Italian broadcaster TG1 posted a video on X, which shows the painting's canvas tearing under the man's weight. The painting is considered one of the highlights of the current exhibition. The man was identified by museum staff and reported to police. A photo in the local newspaper Corriere Fiorentino shows a tear in the canvas. The museum management said the damage was minor, however, and could be repaired. The painting was immediately removed for restoration. Museum director Simone Verde expressed his outrage to the Italian news agency ANSA. He said the problem of visitors coming to museums to take selfies or memes for social networks was getting out of hand. "We will establish clear rules to prevent behaviour that is incompatible with the purpose of our institutions and respect for cultural heritage," Verde said. This is not the first time that art has fallen victim to selfies. Two visitors to the Palazzo Maffei in Verona recently destroyed a Van Gogh chair by artist Nicola Bolla, which was encrusted with Swarovski crystals. The couple had discovered the perfect photo opportunity - they sat down on the glittering sculpture, which then broke, as seen on a surveillance video from the museum. A visitor to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence has damaged a priceless oil painting while trying to take a selfie, the museum says. The unidentified tourist leaned against the Baroque artwork, Portrait of Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, by Anton Domenico Gabbiani, to take a photo - until the canvas gave way. Italian broadcaster TG1 posted a video on X, which shows the painting's canvas tearing under the man's weight. The painting is considered one of the highlights of the current exhibition. The man was identified by museum staff and reported to police. A photo in the local newspaper Corriere Fiorentino shows a tear in the canvas. The museum management said the damage was minor, however, and could be repaired. The painting was immediately removed for restoration. Museum director Simone Verde expressed his outrage to the Italian news agency ANSA. He said the problem of visitors coming to museums to take selfies or memes for social networks was getting out of hand. "We will establish clear rules to prevent behaviour that is incompatible with the purpose of our institutions and respect for cultural heritage," Verde said. This is not the first time that art has fallen victim to selfies. Two visitors to the Palazzo Maffei in Verona recently destroyed a Van Gogh chair by artist Nicola Bolla, which was encrusted with Swarovski crystals. The couple had discovered the perfect photo opportunity - they sat down on the glittering sculpture, which then broke, as seen on a surveillance video from the museum. A visitor to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence has damaged a priceless oil painting while trying to take a selfie, the museum says. The unidentified tourist leaned against the Baroque artwork, Portrait of Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, by Anton Domenico Gabbiani, to take a photo - until the canvas gave way. Italian broadcaster TG1 posted a video on X, which shows the painting's canvas tearing under the man's weight. The painting is considered one of the highlights of the current exhibition. The man was identified by museum staff and reported to police. A photo in the local newspaper Corriere Fiorentino shows a tear in the canvas. The museum management said the damage was minor, however, and could be repaired. The painting was immediately removed for restoration. Museum director Simone Verde expressed his outrage to the Italian news agency ANSA. He said the problem of visitors coming to museums to take selfies or memes for social networks was getting out of hand. "We will establish clear rules to prevent behaviour that is incompatible with the purpose of our institutions and respect for cultural heritage," Verde said. This is not the first time that art has fallen victim to selfies. Two visitors to the Palazzo Maffei in Verona recently destroyed a Van Gogh chair by artist Nicola Bolla, which was encrusted with Swarovski crystals. The couple had discovered the perfect photo opportunity - they sat down on the glittering sculpture, which then broke, as seen on a surveillance video from the museum. A visitor to the Uffizi Gallery in Florence has damaged a priceless oil painting while trying to take a selfie, the museum says. The unidentified tourist leaned against the Baroque artwork, Portrait of Ferdinando de' Medici, Grand Prince of Tuscany, by Anton Domenico Gabbiani, to take a photo - until the canvas gave way. Italian broadcaster TG1 posted a video on X, which shows the painting's canvas tearing under the man's weight. The painting is considered one of the highlights of the current exhibition. The man was identified by museum staff and reported to police. A photo in the local newspaper Corriere Fiorentino shows a tear in the canvas. The museum management said the damage was minor, however, and could be repaired. The painting was immediately removed for restoration. Museum director Simone Verde expressed his outrage to the Italian news agency ANSA. He said the problem of visitors coming to museums to take selfies or memes for social networks was getting out of hand. "We will establish clear rules to prevent behaviour that is incompatible with the purpose of our institutions and respect for cultural heritage," Verde said. This is not the first time that art has fallen victim to selfies. Two visitors to the Palazzo Maffei in Verona recently destroyed a Van Gogh chair by artist Nicola Bolla, which was encrusted with Swarovski crystals. The couple had discovered the perfect photo opportunity - they sat down on the glittering sculpture, which then broke, as seen on a surveillance video from the museum.

Courier-Mail

4 hours ago

• Courier-Mail

Channel 9 reporter Hannah Sinclair weds partner in lavish Bali wedding

Don't miss out on the headlines from Entertainment. Followed categories will be added to My News. Nine reporter Hannah Sinclair has married her longtime partner in a lavish Bali wedding. The network's European correspondent exchanged vows with Mitch Burke on a clifftop with panoramic ocean views on Friday, with guests sharing photos of the celebrations on social media. Sinclair, who moved to London from Sydney late last year, wore an elegant spaghetti strap silk gown, and opted for a broadbrimmed hat over a traditional veil. Nine reporter Hannah Sinclair married her partner Mitch Burke in Bali. The couple said 'I do' at a stunning venue on a cliff. Burke, for his part, wore a white tuxedo jacket with a black bow tie. The aisle, which Sinclair walked down with her mother, was set atop a pool of water and lined with bouquets of flowers. The aisle was adorned with flowers. The couple said 'I do' under an archway of flowers with the sweeping ocean view in the background. Changing into a bubble hem mini dress for the reception, Sinclair's guests shared videos of the fairy-light covered dance floor and fireworks display. Among guests included Sinclair's Nine colleagues Gabrielle Boyle, Lizzie Pearl, Ashley Carter and Tim Davies. An outfit change for the reception. The pair danced the night away. It comes after Sinclair held her hen's party in Canggu the night before her wedding day, sharing wild photos and videos as she danced the night away with a group of friends who were all dressed in pink. 'I have the best family and friends in the world,' Sinclair wrote. Sinclair's hen's party was held the night before the wedding. The journalist, who started her career with Southern Cross Austereo in Tasmania, first joined Nine's Perth bureau in 2016, before moving to Sydney two years later. Sinclair took up a role with A Current Affair in 2021, and was later promoted to her current correspondent gig which she started in September last year. Hannah is the European correspondent for Nine. Sharing the news on Instagram at the time, Sinclair said working in London was her 'dream job'. ''She was unstoppable, not because she did not have failures or doubts, but because she continued on despite them.' This quote really resonates with me as I reflect on how far I've come in my 10 year career as a journalist,' she wrote. 'Today's my last day for a white with the amazing team at (A Current Affair). Next week I start my dream job in London as Europe Correspondent for Nine, and boy, am I excited.' Originally published as Channel 9 reporter Hannah Sinclair weds partner in lavish Bali wedding