Well, well, well.
The news is coming out that she might not be the most reliable of sources for information. (who would have thunk it?) And that she did, in fact, cooperate with the authors of the Finding Freedom book (really?). And that recollections may vary (with emails and texts to back things up).
Do you think the appeal will overturn the prior judgement?
If it doesn't, do you think her reputation of accuracy will be damaged long term? Sometimes wounds may not kill short term but do the damage long term enough to bring them down.
Could this damage her attempts for a trajectory of the new humanitarian shining star?
How do you think it will play out on Netflix? Or will it if it goes against her?
Comments
Wow!
@Sandie if that’s true
she’s well and truly
f*cked!!
@abbyh
Time and tide
halted madam 😉
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16690911/meghan-markle-dad-letter-heartstrings/
I was about to post the same article from the Express.
There's so much info coming out it's hard work keeping up with them.
Think after tomorrow is when the papers will have a field day.
Lost count of how many times I picked my jaw up from the floor..
Technically, she has a strong case for the breach of copyright, but ...
The more she tries to attack ANL on all three charges, and the more she uses her word salad and lies to defend herself (is she now on the back foot?), the more she will expose herself and drag down any reputation her and her fool husband have left. I also think her chances of a big pay day are dwindling. British folk ... does a jury decide on award of damages or would that be a judge?
I think the Queen has been fully briefed and there is far more than has been revealed. I doubt they will be any protection from there.
Lipstick Alley
https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/meghan-markle-unpopular-opinions-thread-pt-4.4703861/page-127
Scroll back through the pages as there is a lot of good stuff that was posted today and yesterday.
LOL!
In her arrogance and grandiosity and hubris, and ultimately stupidity, it looks very much as if she has Markled herself.
The royal family know how this all works, and those who refuse to ask for and listen to and follow advice end up in deep trouble.
Regarding the discussion on the previous post about possibly publishing your poems (wow...alliteration?!?!)....
Have you thought about Substack? It is an online platform where journalists/authors can earn money through subscriptions, so you wouldn't have publishing and marketing costs! Also, I wonder if it might be possible to continue to be the "Magatha Mistie" persona hidden through their online platform.
If you do...I will happily subscribe ;)
“Duchess of Sussex called her father 'Daddy' in letter believing it would 'pull at heartstrings' if leaked, court hears”
By Hannah Furness
Wed, November 10, 2021
https://news.yahoo.com/duchess-sussex-called-her-father-112349445.html
**************
My two cents on this development: It seems like Meghan just can’t get out of her own way. As Meghan’s battle with ANL and the Mail on Sunday about the publication of parts of her August 2018 pity party letter to her father Thomas winds it's way through the British courts, texts between Meghan and and American Jason Knauf, who worked in the palace communications department, who now works for William and Kate, have been published in today’s Telegraph.
The texts are from a statement Knauf submitted to the court hearing this case.
The texts were exchanged between Knauf and Meghan about the letter before she sent it to Thomas Markle in August 2018.
In my opinion the texts reveal Meghan specifically crafted the letter intending it to be made public after she sent it to her father.
Meghan’s attempt to manipulate her dad backfired when he sat on the August 2018 letter for months and did nothing. That must have frustrated her to no end. Narcissists tend to marinate in the juices of victimhood and the grudges the victimhood creates for the narcissist. I think Meghan didn't want that letter to go to waste if Thomas was just going to sit on it and Meghan was so determined to portray herself as a victim and simultaneously do a hatchet job on her dad that she apparently decided to FORCE the letter to Thomas out in public via the “Five Friends” article discussing the letter in People magazine, which people on this blog know has been a mouthpiece for her.
People made it their cover story the week of February 6, 2019, including photos of parts of the actual letter and excerpts from it with supportive quotes from five unnamed “friends”.
My belief is Meghan had a hand in setting up her dad to have the pre-wedding photos taken so she could portray herself as a victim.
As you know, narcissists can’t let go of any perceived slight, real or imagined.
She likely wrote the letter to Thomas figuring he would run out to the media, it would be published, and she could claim to be a victim again. Not wanting the letter to go to waste after months of Thomas sitting on it, she FORCED it into the public eye to do a hatchet job on Thomas via People magazine. The People headline was: “Meghan Markle's Best Friends Break Their Silence: 'We Want to Speak the Truth'”
QUESTION: WHO gave the photos of the letter and excerpts from the so-called private letter to People and why didn’t she sue them? At that time, Thomas had been sitting on the letter for months. Also: WHO are the five anonymous friends who agreed to participate in smearing Meghan’s elderly father?
If she was so upset, why didn’t she sue People magazine and the person who leaked the letter to People?
It looks like Meghan is being caught up in the web of deception she attempted to weave to portray herself as an innocent victim of her father.
Yes, eventually, she got her wish as Thomas tried to tell his side of the story in the MoS, but now that information such as this from Jason Knauf is coming to light, I believe writing this letter has backfired on her. Instead of fortifying the facade of being a victim, she is once again being revealed as a liar and a cunning, manipulative narcissist.
These texts also lead me to think Meghan may have lied to the court (perjury) in the original statements submitted for this legal action as she has been revising her statements throughout the duration of this case.
When everything is considered, the publication of these texts prior to sending the letter does tremendous damage to the public facade she tirelessly works to construct.
Where's the evidence that it wasn't said in retrospect?
The Express article had a little more information, so thank you.
The DM also has a few articles, (in the 'latest headlines' section) but none so far that one is able to comment on.
Yes, it'll be interesting to see what tomorrow brings!
@Sandie,
Thanks for the LSA link.
J Hanoi - yes the BRF have likely known of this a lot of other behaviour we dont even know about for a very long time. Makes you wonder what else they know and when will we know it. This one she is getting it of her own making - pursuing the law suit, to quote julia roberts in pretty woman, " Big Mistake, Big Mistake"
If somehow * wins her case, I will ever after believe that the monarchy is protecting her because she knows secrets about the royals which, if revealed, would genuinely once and for all bring down the whole royal system. Additionally, if JH is forgiven and welcomed back by the royal family after his ongoing perfidy, I will come to the same conclusion.
I hope justice is done.
He later added that Meghan had “deliberately ended each page part way through a sentence so that no page could be falsely presented as the end of the letter”.
*******
She really did think all this through, she is so twisted.
@OCGal: I’m not sure if Harry ever wants back into the royal fold that he would be “welcomed” back. I doubt he would ever be back on a permanent basis unless he and Meghan are divorced and he shows up with both children.
I think he would be “allowed” back, but never truly welcomed. As Meghan’s puppet, he has caused too much damage to the monarchy, insulted the good nature of the citizens of the UK, and caused irreparable harm within his family. He will NEVER be trusted by anyone in the royal family or those employed by the RF. He would be tolerated, but kept on a short leash and would never be privy to any information or acts that he can weaponize, so in effect he will be largely neutered.
If he ever returns to the royal fold in any form, I think he would be TOLD to spend at least part of his time in Africa.
One of the possible outcomes if Harry and Meghan stay together is that due to Meghan’s need to validate herself via a lavish lifestyle, when they cease to be the current shiny object in American pop culture and they are relegated to the dustbin of that same pop culture, the money and connections will dry up. Meghan will not be content living in her mother’s house in Windsor Hills neighborhood of metro Los Angeles.
Narcissists are notorious for matching on to their victim and bleeding them dry of every last cent before moving on to their next prey. I can easily see Harry and his wife getting into serious financial problems deeper than the Mariana Trench. They would suddenly decide to return to the UK to latch back on to the royal/public teat as working royals once again as if nothing ever happened.
Does anybody in their right mind think the royal family would EVER allow Harry or his wife to represent the reigning monarch as returned working royals? I sure don’t think so. It might happen if Charles is on the throne, but it certainly won’t happen if William is on the throne.
Thomas Markle Jr apologised to estranged half-sister Meghan Markle and Prince Harry on Monday night's episode of Big Brother VIP Australia.
Back in 2018, Thomas, 55, penned an open letter to Prince Harry where he warned him against marrying Meghan and described her as 'jaded, shallow and conceited'.
On Monday's show, Thomas penned another open letter where he revealed the harsh words 'came from a very dark and hurt part' of his heart, and insisted he's 'not a mean person at all'.
This was in a few papers (this excerpt is from the DM). What's that about? Why the change of heart? Does anybody know? Has he been paid off?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10186345/Meghan-drafted-letter-Thomas-Markle-understanding-leaked.html
RE: Thomas Jr.
I have the same questions. What a flip.
Maybe he realizes if he smoozes her he can still hop on the gravy train? I can't see her forgiving him though. He has nothing she can use.
I would love to see more on this as well. I saw it but then it left me. Lol. Not to hard to do that now I'm old. :D
The QC told the court that there had been a 'false narrative' about Thomas Markle in the People magazine article.
He said: '[The High Court judge] heard no live evidence from Mr Markle, Mr Markle's evidence in his witness statement was that he was shocked by what he read and it is not surprising. The effect on Mr Markle is surely a trialable issue.'
The barrister continued: 'If the letter makes a serious allegation against Mr Markle and he is entitled to reply, and we are entitled to carry the reply, the fact that the text has not hitherto been in the public domain has little to do with it.
'He is entitled to show that not only was it in People magazine, it was an allegation the claimant was making in the letter.'
OK, so I'm trying to remember what serious allegations were made in People magazine. Can anyone recall them?
Meghan says sorry for misleading judge: Duchess apologises for not disclosing how she helped her aide brief Finding Freedom authors.
Meghan Markle has apologised to the Court of Appeal for failing to disclose discussions helping Jason Knauf to brief the authors of Finding Freedom.
But in her latest witness statement, published today, the Duchess of Sussex insisted she couldn't remember the emails - or find them during her own searches.
The signed document also claims Mr Knauf's emails actually help her case.
She wrote: 'I did not have the benefit of seeing these emails and I apologise to the Court for the fact that I had not remembered these exchanges at the time.
'I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the Defendant or the Court. In fact, had I been aware of these exchanges at the time of serving the Re-Amended Reply, I would have been more than happy to refer to them as I feel they strongly support my case'.
She added: 'Not only do I refer to the background information shared with Mr Knauf as “reminders”, as much of it was information that he had already requested of me dating back to 2016 when he had asked me for a timeline relating to my family to enable him to engage with the media on enquiries, It is also a far cry from the very detailed personal information that the Defendant alleges that I wanted or permitted to put into the public domain'.
This Harry Markle post gives full details of the People article and the letter saga.
I think Thomas was hurt because the article showed him in a bad light and did not tell the full story. Even the Daily Mail coverage did not show the full extent of how nasty she was to him in that letter and how nasty Harry was in his texts to him when he was in hospital.
Harry's family must be bemused about all this! So much drama, so much attention, so much money spent, so much of the court's resources used for a petty personal issue! Very unbecoming of a royal!
It's a shame HarryMarkle doesn't have a copy of the entire People article.
I recall reading it at the time... but it disappeared from view pretty damn quick!
Expect TBW to go off the deep end and throw lots a chum out to the press to distract from her and JH’s hypocrisy & insanity
The Independent
Prince Harry pleads for people to stop saying ‘Megxit’
Tue, 9 November 2021, 11:19 pm
Prince Harry pleads for people to stop saying ‘Megxit’
Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit Megxit ...
her court statement said as new member of the family, she was ‘eager to please them’ in when they asked for her dad to stop ‘attacking’.
she never gave a rats ass about the BRF or wanted to “please” any of them. shes a grifter and in it for heself.
Is this the People article? It's dated Feb 2019.
https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/
Scriven said:
If she (ahem) 'forgot' about that email to JK, what else has she (ahem) 'forgotten' about in the evidence she submitted?
That’s why she should be cross-examined in court.
Interesting that both she and Scooby shared the exact same memory loss.. neither of them remembered the collaboration for Finding Freebies. What are the odds eh? LOL
Are Megsy and Scobie going to be tried for perjury? Scobie’s career as a reporter would be finished.
Also, posters are asking if * would lie about collaborating on Finding Freedom and that she knew the letter to her father might be leaked, then what else has she lied about.
Another astonishing and disgusting item I read I Jason Knauf’s emails was that Megsy had listed background info for Jason to tell Durand and Scoobie to include in FF, including that Samantha had 3 children from 3 different fathers. So much for kindness and empathy. She’s toxic.
I'm not absolutely sure... but it well might be! (especially if you read the links in the article too)
Thanks :)
The original verdict defies logic unless you can see a rather large elephant in the room which explains the rather baffling original decision.
I don't know exactly why the fix was in and why the RF (most likely) extended their helping hand, but what's changed?
The landscape maybe? Prince Philip is gone. The Oprah interview. And time to reflect that maybe voices pointing out how the current tactics do not appear to be working quite the way some may have hoped?
all of this is eclipsing the real news PH knew a january 6 was coming and warned jack dorsey. so a guy who does not go on social media (yeah right) who has clearly can’t read the room (cue nazi party get up and a host of other indiscretions) is smart enough to know a coup is coming. does he call the fbi? no he contacts jack dorsey probably via twitter private message (again with the social media thing). wow the ego is astounding. so he and the mrs just sit around and make up “their truths” while sipping chardonnay and eating cbd gummies? Netflix is thinking they want to see that footage!
I am not an attorney - I dod not know anything about British law. The one important thing I seem to remember it that the writer of the letter owns the copyright, not the recipient in England. So - TBW could win the case, but loose on awards because she was so causal with the truth, as it is coming out now on appeal. Best case scenario: she gets one pound.
I am guessing that perhaps the ANL legal representation may have asked for the comments to be turned off so as to avoid having negative comments about Meghan that get published that could be used as fodder against the ANL appeal by her legal team.
That’s the only reason I can think of. Does anyone else here have a theory why the comments on these articles have been turned off?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmqV6TiQwU
I thought the same re the comments, i.e. that the judge doesn't want (largely negative) comments to prejudice the outcome of the appeal. It's the right decision by the ANL. You can't be too careful.
--------
The Sun calls * 'Little Miss Forgetful' after the series by Roger Hargreaves, complete with a drawing of a Little Miss with *'s face in it 😁
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/16698052/meghan-markle-forget-court-influence-biography/
I am so confused!!
Also, I hope someone publishes a side by side of * in that tight red, uh, evening dress (?) juxtaposed with the red one Catherine wore -- I think in Canada? -- it has a squarish neckline yet is also a bit offset, like the straps are not equally at 90 degrees? Sorry but I guess I'm feeling mean and petty but tonight's dress of * is really "tragic" as my daughter would say.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/meghan-and-harrys-egos-keep-getting-bigger-but-its-all-about-to-pop/
Nice GatorGirl
I love the comment:
"... Who forgets cooperating on a book that's all about score-settling and agenda-setting?"
That is the nucleus of an internal problem which won't ever go away even if she does win on a technicality - this whiplash of no we didn't, we did and whoops I forgot (but is there an apology or just excuses?).
People read the NY Post especially for articles like this. I would not have been making bets on a negative article in a widely accessible news outlet two years ago. Nope. It was all she's wonderful, they have nothing to stop them and the sky is the limit for what they are worth.
The dam really is starting to break apart.
That red dress, Jezebel!
Thinks she’s channelling
Carrie/Sarah Jessica Parker
“Hex in the City”
In the meantime, as first shared with us by @WBBM:
Prince Harry pleads for people to stop saying ‘Megxit’
I don't even like the term "Megxit," but I'd be happy to use it! I'll maybe even consider writing "the Megxit woman" instead of sticking to the disdainful simplicity of an asterisk.
Can anyone access the whole article? All I can read is that Harry has called the Internet a "lies machine" and described "Megxit" as "misogynistic."
My theory is that * was thrilled to have her name attached to "Megxit" at the time it was happening. After all, it was her name and not his. It was great fuel while the fulfillment of her big dreams was still ahead of her (or so she thought). But now that it's still her "greatest achievement" and the main thing that comes up when someone searches her name, it's not as much fun any longer. Especially since it is potential business partners who may be informing her of this fact. "We can't do business with you because your popularity is sinking -- and we don't want our brand tainted by 'Megxit,' which is still the biggest 'achievement' of yours anyone thinks of when your name comes up . . . if it ever comes up."
Admission that she misled court increases chances that Duchess of Sussex’s former staff may be called to give evidence against her in trial
By
Gordon Rayner,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
10 November 2021 • 10:15pm
The Duchess of Sussex's admission that she misled a High Court judge could be a turning point in her two-year privacy battle with Associated Newspapers.
Not only does it potentially weaken the case against her, it also increases the chances that her former staff may be called to give evidence against her in a public trial – something she has no doubt been desperate to avoid.
A trial would almost certainly entail the Duchess and Prince Harry being called to give evidence – and being cross-examined – on oath, a possibility that has always been regarded as unconscionable by the Royal family.
And it will also be up to the court to decide whether, by misleading the court in the evidence she previously gave, the Duchess's conduct amounts to perjury – a criminal offence that carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment.
In her apology to the court, the Duchess said she had no wish or intention to mislead. The Duke and Duchess may now be starting to understand why the Royal family have always done everything they can to avoid bringing, or getting dragged into, court cases.
The Duchess has always maintained that a letter sent to her father, Thomas Markle, several weeks after her wedding to Prince Harry was entirely private and that the publishers of the Mail on Sunday had breached her privacy, as well as her copyright, by printing extracts of it.
Lord Justice Warby was so convinced by her argument that he saw no need for the case to go to trial, instead dealing with it via a summary judgment which meant none of the parties – including the Duchess's staff – had a chance to be heard. Their written statements were also kept out of the public domain as the judge found in the Duchess's favour.
Associated Newspapers has always argued that the Duchess effectively forfeited her right to privacy over the letter by using her staff and friends to give "misleading" briefings to the authors of a biography, Finding Freedom, and People magazine.
The Duchess, as we now know, asked the opinion of her then communications secretary, Jason Knauf, on the wording of the letter, and that she wanted to make sure it would "pull at the heartstrings" if leaked.
Associated argues that the Duchess's anticipation that the letter was likely to be leaked undermines her expectation of privacy. It also argues that it was in the public interest for the contents of the letter to be known because it says she was manipulating the media to her own ends.
Mr Justice Warby – who knew about Mr Knauf's role when he made his judgment – decided the Duchess's right to privacy, enshrined in Article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forms the bedrock of our own Human Rights Act, outweighed the media's right to free speech under Article 10 of the Act.
It was the latest in a long line of decisions that have helped to create a judge-made privacy law in the UK, to the delight of the wealthy and famous, which critics say has had a chilling effect on the media's ability to hold public figures to account.
Crucially, however, Mr Justice Warby did not know that the Duchess had told Mr Knauf to brief the authors of Finding Freedom with disparaging stories about her family.
Until now, the court had been told that the Duchess "does not know if, and to what extent, the communications team were involved in providing information for the book". The Duke and Duchess have always maintained that they did not directly or indirectly collaborate with it.
In a statement made public on Wednesday, however, the Duchess accepted that "Mr Knauf did provide some information to the authors for the book", something she had "not remembered".
According to his newly-released account, he and the Duchess discussed the book "multiple times" in person and via email. She even sent him a long list of "briefing points" including the fact that her half-sister Samantha "had lost custody of all three of her children from different fathers".
One leading privacy QC told The Telegraph: "It's unlikely the court will regard this as perjury, because judges bend over backwards not to call people liars. But if the judges looking at this case decide that what the Duchess has now admitted is a critical issue to the case, it's entirely possible that they will order a new hearing with a different judge."
I've just seen the new red dress. Oh, dear.
What a terrible mistake from *. Right now, if you search for "* red dress," you'll still get the gown she wore to the Mountbatten Festival (when she thought the standing ovation was for her). It was actually a polished, elegant look. I didn't care for the short cape, but I had to admit the overall effect was very nice.
The new dress absolutely dwarfs her and is unflattering in a myriad of other ways. (Are there no mirrors left in Montecito? Oh, wait. She must have smashed all of them.) There are some women who could wear that gown very well, but she isn't one of them.
I think she was inspired by the elegant photos of Prince William and Catherine at the Earthshot Awards. There were some really beautiful couple shots of the Cambridges. So now * is lovey-dovey with Harry again, even making him do a cheeky over-the-shoulder pose with her (like amateurs on Instagram #couplegoals!).
All this just confuses me, though. It's a genuinely unflattering dress for her and the hairstyle and accessories don't help at all. How did she not see that? Was this a parting shot by an angry stylist about to quit? Or is she back to her passive-aggressive tactic of looking terrible in public, so she can blame Harry along with the rest of his family, for all her mental health struggles?
It rankles me to see the two of them looking so self-satisfied. Harry is quoted as saying he is “living the American dream.”
The DM often turns off comments when to comes to ongoing and active court cases, it’s not unusual.
@Rebecca thank you for the Telegraph article most enlightening. 🤗
Thank you for the NY Post article. I can't remember ever reading this bit (italics):
"Your actions have broken my heart into a million little pieces — not simply because you have manufactured such unnecessary and unwarranted pain, but by making the choice to not tell the truth as you are puppeteered in this.”
'Puppeetered'? If anyone is it's H.
Also is this the same NY Post that wrote that bleeding heart op-ed about *'s mythcarriage (as some called it)?
~~~~~~
As for the red dress 💃🏽, it's not flattering. The back view looks hideous, her back is too fat and wide for that sort of dress. She doesn't look very slim in it around the waist. And why is she wearing a poppy? Firstly, it's red on a red dress and secondly it's mainly a British/Commonwealth thing - are poppies worn in the US? I forgot, the 6s are still President and Vice President of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust 🙄
"Also Meghan does not work with a stylist, is her close friend"
Oh sweetie, it shows!
She could have worn something appropriate for the occasion but noooooo. She just had to dazzle all the beholders with that inappropriate display of (unappetizing) flesh so that William could see what he was missing.
Estimates of HM height at the time vary around the 5'4 mark but she was able to carry it off because she was well-proportioned, the dress fitted and was worn with appropriate foundation garments, none of which can be said of the horror in red.
HM occasionally wears red, as far as I've noticed. It caused something of a sensation when she did so in China as a mark of respect. I wonder if there's any significance like that with * ?
I never wore red (or pink come to that) for anything where husband wore mess kit - too great a chance of a hideous colour clash.
Anyway, by age 40, she really should know what styles look good on her body type, pregnancy weight or not. I always thought she looked good in a tailored sheath dress or a dress with a column line and a slit to show off her slim calves. She really needs a good stylist and not just yes people around her.
My intuition tells me behind all the smiles and happy couple performances, they are both miserable. Their brand is so tarnished that I doubt Netflix or Spotify want to continue an association in 2022.
But perhaps Harry’s handler is trying to position him as someone who will show up at US military events to keep him in the news and promote his military service to another country. There are numerous famous American veterans and non-veterans who have supported our troops for years. Frankly, I’d rather see photos of Jon Bon Jovi, who was at this event, than a turncoat Brit who lobs bombs at his home country.
I think the red dress is Meghan’s reply to Kate’s gold dress at the James Bond film premiere. She obviously wanted a “wow” look, but the dress does not fit her very well. It doesn’t fit well in her chest area where it looks liie she can’t fill it and at the waist, it looks tight due to a roll of fat in her middle.
Also this is not a glamour event. It is for the military. I do not think the dress is appropriate. I think she is overdressed for the event. It is not the red carpet at the Oscars or the Emmys, or the Met Gala, but they are feebly attempting to make themselves look like it is a red-carpet event.
Also, the photos in the DM note they were provided by Archewell, so they brought their own photographer and I’d bet a videographer with them. I guess this will serve as filker video for Netflix, but they just aren’t that interesting. Even before tye Netflix deal they were bringing photographers with them.
Even without a Netflix deal, to make herself seem more important than she actually is, Meghan would bring a photographer with in order to be sure that flattering photos are released to the press. I am sure there was some press coverage there, but it likely wasn’t a mob of photographers. Of course, narcissists like Meghan must feed their overblown sense of grandiosity while also being obsessive controllers.
I think eventually the Sussexes will be the type of celebrities who will show up at an envelope opening, but they will still have a photo team in tow to cultivate the image that they are far more important than they truly are.
I wonder who paid for their private jet, hotel, security, ground transportation and other expenses to use US military veterans to promote themselves and get footage for Netflix.
You can bet that none of the expenses came out of their own pockets.
I wonder what Harry replies when she asks, "Daaahling, how do I look?" 👀
agree it was not very flattering from the waist up. too tight from the waist rib area which pushed the back fat up and over. she couldnt fill out the bus area well, looks like she removed her implants? shes thick around the torso - square pants and has skinny arms/ legs. she needs to listen to her stylist or hire one.
she has lost some weight from her last appearance, but not tons, it’s only been a few weeks .
JH—
I’m disliking him mre and more, what a slimeball, snake, self centered boob.
His family and staff strongly encouraged him to go meet Thomas Markle, even after the wedding, which is the honorable thing to do. PH and TBW should have made a trip PRIOR to the wedding to visit TM! i still don’t understand why they never went to see him. JH only spoke on the phone to him, and JH has the gall to call Thomas Markle a “puppeteer” like TM is a mastermind plotting who knows what. The only thing TM did was bring up his daughter to be a ‘puppeteer’ with all her bizarre machinations, plots, and schemes.
JH is living in his own bizarro word just like his kookoo wife!
And all PH had to do was look at PW and how well he gets along with the Middletons and her dad as an example. PH didnt have to become BFF’s with TM but he should have met him and acknowledged him. Did PH learn nothing from all the expensive upbringing, seems like he just learned the ‘bad behaviour’ aspects kinda like PA.
The first time I "saw" it, I thought it was a lapel microphone. Only the black part stood out; the red was completely swallowed by the dress. As was * herself.
Speaking of firsts . . . A few hours ago, my first impression was that * was trying to compete with Catherine again by having an "oh, wow" moment of her own (see: James Bond premiere) and some power couple shots with her own prince/duke (see: Earthshot Awards). But the red dress was such a belly flop that I could barely process it. Heck, all of us wonder who let her walk out the door in that. A disgruntled stylist? A passive-aggressive Harry? A stoned Doria? Who???
Now I wonder if this is just another case of a narc being a narc. She knew she could never compete with Catherine directly, so she decided to get some fuel a totally different way. The only thing guaranteed to get more people talking than a perfectly executed look is a perfectly terrible one. We all love watching the Fashion Police, don't we? (Gosh, don't we all miss Joan Rivers at a time like this?) Toss in a badly-positioned poppy -- as an insult to veterans of the UK and the Commonwealth -- and you'd definitely have people ranting about you for days.
I think it is pushing it a bit to have a non-royal royal veteran from another country show up at an event honoring veterans in the United States, but then Harry and Meghan would not be invited to a similar event in the UK, where he blew off a memorial service for deceased military people to attend the more useful Lion King premiere.
Ha! I was just thinking: Where have I seen that back fat before? . . . And sure enough, it was at the Lion King premiere, in that dress from a 1999 high school dance.
I think they're pushing the military + mental health connection for Netflix. It's the only salvageable part of Harry's brand. (Well, he's reportedly genuinely good with children, but they're not doing another school after the Harlem disaster.) And for some reason the US Salute to Freedom gala was the only thing they could finagle their way into. I can't wait to hear whose toes got stepped on for them to get an invitation.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1519846/Meghan-Markle-news-court-case-apology-court-Duchess-of-Sussex-latest-VN
Not read it, just noticed the headline.
Dang. She used to look proper on Suits. Lack of funds so no stylist? I mean, much older women in LaLa land look fab but the Duch looks like a cheap, aging prom date. What the heck?
Who even notices Haz with that walking billboard by his side? She eclipses him yet again.
@Magatha,
Hex in the City! 😂😂😂
Our posts crossed in the mail. Great minds think alike lol!
My thoughts too. I think the whole night out with the bright red dress is set up as a distraction from the stinking saga over her court case. 🥺🤨
Maybe the poppy did have a microphone in it. With the cameras following them around, maybe they had a netflix cameraman too. And I agree, the dress so over the top for the event was to take attention away from the court case. Do we know when the appeal verdict comes in?
Yes! @Enbre, great comment. The red tent takes the focus off her "recollections" lol.
I'm amazed you could tear your eyes away from the dress long enough to notice the shoes! You're right, though, that they're very nice.
But am I the only one who thinks that they also clash with the dress? Kind of like her that one time she paired a red lambskin skirt with a burgundy top?
https://neurosciencenews.com/thinner-illusion-brain-8293/
My guesses are:
She does not use a stylist and probably has not done so since she left Suits (JM followed her instructions and was her buyer more than her stylist?).
She uses online channels to buy her outfits so never has a fitting. (Ironic from someone who touted herself as a style expert on a TV show and spoke about how fit/tailoring was the most important thing ... does she ever speak the truth about anything?)
She sees fabulous when she looks in the mirror, even though the opposite is true. She sees the model from the pictures she saw online, and not herself, or an idealised version of herself.
Like any sensible husband, H will tell her she looks fabulous.
If the media and fashion folk spoke the truth, instead of getting a wake-up up call and fixing the problem, she would go into full victim narc rage. The riduculous fawning in the media feeds her delusions, but to challenge those delusions is to arouse narc rage. Besides, most of the woman who wear these expensive clothes look ridiculous but without them there would be no market so the fiction and ridiculous headlines are an essential part of the fashion industry.
The York girls were hammered for their fashion choices, but to speak the truth about Meghan would be labelled as fat shaming. Surely there is a middle ground? The dress is fabulous, but she did not look fabulous in it. Truth without fat shaming:
Meghan steps out in a fabulous red Carolyn Herrerra dress ...
The first thing I noticed was the poppy pinned on. I thought: why not put the stem on her navel and the whole dress would be a poppy?
And then other things like the top edge of the back - just like Lion King. I remembered that someone had pointed out that she appeared to have lost some of her bust. Boy, that did not fill in well. And if there was ever a dress to wear with those earrings, it would have been that one without the poppy.
I hadn't realized it wasn't some big deal red carpet in a building event.
It must really bug her that Catherine gets to borrow jewelry while she has what she had when she walked out the door. Nothing really new that we would see again.
This whole insistence of wearing things which don't make her look good reminds me that I don't look good in a particular color of rosy mauve. I love it though. I can remember holding up a shirt and the woman next to me did a micro flinch, smiled, shook her head and told me that there were others which would make me look better. I listened. Maybe part of it is that she was under more control when she was on the show? Now, no one can tell her what she can and cannot wear?
Just not the right person to carry off this one.
She also wore that blue floral mumo number when pregnant (Morocco) from CH.
You are spot on, the shoe color and the dress color are off! They don't match. Two shades of red in one outfit clashes IMO. Maroon and red looks nice but only a true maroon/wine color with a deeper red ♥️
Also, the photo where she and the duke are photographed from the rear view (stale as well), the draping of the dress looks like a giant butt crack or vajayjay. Lol. Excuse my coarseness. 😂
As well . . . it's not a senior prom; it's a somber occasion, no need to bring out the festive, look-at-me glad rags with the toilet roll cover skirt on the bottom and the skimpy top that's a combination of a bikini and a child's pinafore. Adds another layer of disrespect and offensiveness to the whole ill thought-out occasion.
Thanks for the reminder that this is a somber event. I failed to think of that. My focus was lazered in on the ridiculous costume she wore 👍😔
If the media and fashion folk spoke the truth, instead of getting a wake-up up call and fixing the problem, she would go into full victim narc rage. The riduculous fawning in the media feeds her delusions, but to challenge those delusions is to arouse narc rage.
___
This! Maybe the goal of the media IS the false fanning of her delusions; much like when the DM post pics of some actress looking older, heavy, or not toned and say they look "stunning" or "youthful". The goal is to get the snark started in the comments. And to really make fun of the person in front of the entire globe. Kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes, which has been mentioned here several times before.
Seems to me she falls into the false praise yet she knows within herself it's not genuine but her narcisscim fuels her to try even harder and as someone said upthread she Markles herself.
She is Lucy who contantly pulls the football away from Charlie Brown (also herself).
Pathetic really.
Perhaps the media is winding her up to just the right moment when they CAN dump the critiques on her lack of fashion sense so she CAN go into a narc rage. Then they get all the moneymaker photos.
The key thing to remember about TBW is she has NO sense of self awareness...
This is really good. The Body Launguage Guy analyzes her recent interview on paid maternity lead.
Still no spell check and still blind as an old bat. Just in case...sigh.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1519846/Meghan-Markle-news-court-case-apology-court-Duchess-of-Sussex-latest-VN
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/11/11/the-sussexes-money-for-old-rope-and-word-salad-misinformation/
Thanks for the info on tarot cards! I shall indeed look into which cards "call" me. I already know that it will not be the dark-looking cards; I like brightness and color.
Sorry about the delay. We were at the late in-laws' place again that is @ 4 hours' driving time north of us. We've been moving our stuff that SwampMan moved up there like the tools, television, computers, air fryer, etc. back to our house in Florida. Funny thing is whenever we've been planning on moving things, rain pops up out of nowhere and we can't. The in-laws *really* wanted us to move there.
As someone who has worked in TV and described herself as a supermodel and who is obssessed with image, Meghan should know this. Does she seem like the sort of person who is not vain and wears a dress because she likes it and does not care about 'bulging out of it' and it 'scrunching up akwardly in all the wrong places' and so on? Kind of like a little girl playing dress-up princess in lace curtains and posing happily for the camera?
Question: Do you think Meghan thought she was protected from testimony from Palace staff because of NDAs/custom?
Question: Why does she lie when evidence of her lies can so easily be found, and people can expose her lies? Will the court give her a free pass on her perjury? (I suspect her 23-page statement also contains lies.)
Question: To overturn the summary jdgement ruling, is it enough for ANL to show that Warby made that rulng based on false evidence presented to him by the litigant?
I started looking at the 45 photos in the DM. If you start at the top of the article as number 1, you know a lot of them are almost repeats as filler.
But when you get to the high 20's and 31 or so, you can see her tan line (especially on the left side. And more normal skin color. That's the kind of thing you think about if you are going to be spray tanned (you go naked so there are none). It is very obvious in the profile (and the scalp).
You know, there is makeup to cover those lines but it is messy and something more to worry at you while you are meeting people (staining fabric is the least of it). Far more calming to have spray tan the whole body or sit out in the sun in a private place.
Apologies, I did scroll down to the end to check if anyone had posted anything re the new Harry Markle. I just saw your link in bold.
A: Yes but that was before she turned on them. And because she thinks the rules (and Royal protocol) are not for her.
Question: Why does she lie when evidence of her lies can so easily be found, and people can expose her lies? Will the court give her a free pass on her perjury? (I suspect her 23-page statement also contains lies.)
A: Because she's a narcissist and if their lips are moving they are lying. It is in them to lie without blinking an eye (just like they always talk about themselves and their lives, ad nauseum***And not only in an introduction phase***, but ALL OF THE TIME as the BLGUY points out in link upthread). In her deluded mind she more than likely believes she can always talk her way out of her lies. Typical people can aplogize, admit they are wrong, etc. Narcs cannot. And when they do, it's false and with an agenda.
Question: To overturn the summary jdgement ruling, is it enough for ANL to show that Warby made that rulng based on false evidence presented to him by the litigant?
A: this should typically be a yes, but with the BRF in her pocket, who really knows how this will go. Many do believe she has the BRF over a barrel with some info she has and is willing to use. She uses her title as her ace in the hole.
Question: Why does she lie when evidence of her lies can so easily be found, and people can expose her lies?
------
Because she's so arrogant and over confident as to believe that anyone will swallow her lies. She's a duchess, you know (in name only) and a member of the BRF. So what she says is gospel. She seems the think she's invincible. I personally believe she can never remember her own lies and therefore she keeps contradicting herself eventually.
Think that's where she keeps H's balls?
Only Mm can have a camel toe in a dress
___
Lol! Spit out my tea with that one. Hilarious!
Well most of the time, the staff don't exit to write a book about what they witnessed. There is some interest in the States (limited long ago to Diana) but the fallout of what happens to those authors isn't going to be a big story in the US. The places where there could be the most interest in such a book (UK) is where the strongest laws are to protect the BRF and the fallout is well/widely published - if you knew to look for it. So she started in an area where she wouldn't know why people don't speak out beyond an NDA (my thought).
Maybe (when she started) the thinking was more of a I'm important, in the BRF and didn't understand ins and outs of rules and protocols so I can say stuff and the servants can't say anything back (reverting to more of a time of King Henry VIII). Their job is to stay quiet and do what they are told. As she started making mistakes, people were covering for her initially and then began telling her to get her act together which didn't go down well. So push back evolved from a who are you to tell me what to do (those men in gray suits/oh the history) into more of a I'll show you what what happens when you make me mad/don't agree with me.
I don't underestimate the power of anger driving behavior which may not make sense. which leads to:
Question: Why does she lie when evidence of her lies can so easily be found, and people can expose her lies?
Maybe she doesn't thinking of it as lying? Maybe more of a this is the way I want to think my world works (and you cannot make me think to the contrary or fake it until you make it so). No one says this is very mature thinking but we all know someone we think of as still acting like they are in first grade but they are in their 40's.
We have a narc in the family. They lie for no reason but I notice it mostly to deflect any and all perceived criticism. Maybe in their case it was a self protective mechanism they learned to ward off any time someone came down with a you made a mistake as a kid. They once told me that they had a certain amount of respect for me for willing to admit I made a mistake. They were adamant they never could admit a mistake.
Enbrethiliel - thank you.
You're welcome! I realize now that I should have checked the post properly, read your name as the author, and acknowledged you by name earlier.
New details emerge from the Meghan/MoS Court of Appeal case today - revealing just how Jason Knauf came to break ranks to provide his witness statement. At first he adopted a 'strictly neutral' position, court papers show, and declined to help the MoS (cont'd)...
That position remained the same in April 2021, after Meghan had already won summary judgment in the High Court. But at the end of July, the MoS received 'information from a confidential source' indicating Knauf 'regretted not providing a witness statement' (cont'd)...
Knauf by now had changed solicitors from the firm that had previously represented him and three others known as 'the Palace Four'. The MoS then approached him directly. This time he agreed to provide a witness statement - the one that revealed so much yesterday (cont'd)...
Why is this significant? First, because Knauf's change in position didn't just follow Meghan's High Court victory. It also followed Harry and Meghan's devastating Oprah interview and allegations of bullying made against Meghan. Knauf's departure was announced in May (cont'd)...
Secondly, it raises questions over the identity of the 'confidential source' - the well-informed intermediary - who told the MoS in July that Knauf's 'strict neutrality' was now effectively at an end, and that he 'regretted' his earlier decision not to talk.
The evidence from the Court of Appeal has indicated the Duchess of Sussex to be a shrewd operator, who will spin events to her own advantage
ELIOT WILSON
Since her elevation to and then abrupt departure from the royal family, the Duchess of Sussex has been busy by anyone’s standards. She and her husband have signed up with a speaking agency, concluded a deal with Netflix and launched a production company, Archewell Audio, to supply Spotify with content. As a couple they have certainly leveraged their star power to attract blue-chip partnerships.
Rumbling alongside this arc of success has been a long-running legal dispute with Associated Newspapers. The case is relatively straightforward: the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline published a letter from the duchess to her father, Thomas Markle, and she claimed this was an infringement of copyright and an invasion of her privacy. The High Court found in her favour but in June the case was cleared to go to the Court of Appeal and is currently being heard.
Only the most slavish and starry-eyed devotee of the duchess would dispute that she seeks, understandably, to control her image very carefully. It is hardly a reasonable or unexpected desire: she is an actress, of limited range but considerable commercial success, and she is quite aware that such success has been built not merely on her dramatic skills but on her overall persona.
The duchess’s suit against Associated Newspapers fell on sympathetic ears in many quarters. More than 70 female MPs wrote an open letter condemning her harsh treatment in the media, especially the undoubted and unpleasant racial undertones to some commentary, and even the Sun was compelled to say that one of its reporters had been carefully instructed to “act lawfully” in reporting on the Sussexes.
Now, however, the case has reflected a rather different duchess. The Sussexes’ former communications secretary, Jason Knauf, has revealed that the letter the duchess wrote to her father was crafted painstakingly with a view to its probable leaking. She texted Knauf “Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked, so I have been meticulous in my word choice.”
That is no crime: the duchess knows her father, knows his desperate craving for attention and will have known that he was likely to divulge the contents of the letter to the media. But a queasiness remains at the idea of her wondering whether to open with “Daddy” and pondering the likely effect on the “heartstrings” of public opinion.
More troubling is the issue of the recent biography of the couple, a sickly and soapy affair entitled Finding Freedom. It was written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, regulars on the gossipy yet fawning royal circuit. Despite its intimate details, the Sussexes initially denied that they had had any involvement with the book. Now, the duchess has had her memory “jogged” by further courtroom revelations.
Does any of this matter? Constitutionally and politically, no. As far as the working members of the royal family are concerned, Meghan and Harry are a sideshow: annoying and embarrassing, perhaps, but of limited influence. But their activities do speak to the creeping commodification of public life. The couple withdrew from active royal duties because they disliked press intrusion and the glare of publicity. Yet since that withdrawal they have embarked on a number of very public (and often commercial) engagements.
One comes rather to the conclusion that the Sussexes objected to the nature of the public scrutiny to which they were subjected. They wanted—want—to control the narrative and portray themselves in the best possible light. This is hardly a capital crime. What unsettles some, however, is the sour whiff of sanctimony with which it is being done.
The evidence from the Court of Appeal has confirmed what many already believed to be true: that the Duchess of Sussex might be a shrewd and determined media operator who will take any available opportunity to spin events to her own advantage. Hard-nosed determination is not a vice, but in Britain, at least, many prefer it not to come illuminated by a do-it-yourself halo.
Duchess of Sussex aide came forward in privacy case after ‘regretting’ not speaking out sooner
Jason Knauf's decision to provide written statement to the court detailing text and emails followed year-long campaign to persuade him
By
Hannah Furness,
ROYAL CORRESPONDENT
The Duchess of Sussex’s most trusted aide came forward to give evidence in a Court of Appeal case after a one-year campaign to persuade him having “regretted” failing to speak out sooner, the court heard on Thursday.
Jason Knauf, the Sussexes’ former communications secretary, provided a written statement to the court detailing emails and text message exchanges which showed the Duchess had authorised collaboration with the authors of her biography.
They also revealed that the Duchess had written a letter to her estranged father “meticulously”, saying that “obviously everything I’ve drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked”.
The emails provided by Mr Knauf led the Duchess to apologise to the Court of Appeal for failing to remember the exchange, in which she gave written authorisation for him to brief the authors of Finding Freedom.
They have been the key part of the Mail on Sunday’s campaign to overturn a summary judgment that it unlawfully breached the Duchess’s privacy, copyright and data protection by publishing extracts from the letter to her father.
The Court of Appeal is hearing arguments that the case should instead be heard at trial. The Mail on Sunday argues that Mr Knauf’s new evidence should be admitted.
A witness statement from Keith Mathieson, the Mail on Sunday’s lawyer, has revealed how Mr Knauf resisted having any part in the legal proceedings for a year before “regretting” his decision.
Saying he first approached Mr Knauf in September last year, and tried again without success on numerous occasions, it was not until July this year that he eventually provided a written statement, insisting it was from a “position of neutrality” and covering only the relevant facts.
“It was only in July 2021 that the Appellant [Associated Newspapers Limited] received information from a confidential source to the effect that Mr Knauf now regretted not providing a witness statement to us,” said Mr Mathieson. “As soon as the Appellant got that information it got in touch with Mr Knauf directly.
“It did indeed turn out that, since the summary judgment had deprived Mr Knauf of the opportunity to provide evidence at a trial, he now wished to provide a witness statement to the parties so that his evidence could be considered as part of the appeal.”
He went on to explain that it had been impossible to convince Mr Knauf, through his lawyers, to provide testimony before then.
ANL’s legal team first approached Mr Knauf, who was by then working as the chief executive of the Royal Foundation, in September last year, “having been given information by a source who indicated that Mr Knauf had relevant evidence to give on important aspects of the case”.
In October, Mr Mathieson asked to meet Mr Knauf via his solicitor, who later told him “that’s not going to happen”.
Various phone calls and emails received no response, and in December the solicitor wrote to say that neither Mr Knauf nor other members of the Royal Household were “willing to assist either party with actual evidence prior to the summary judgment hearing”.
Instead, the Duchess successfully applied for a summary judgment and, in February this year, Lord Justice Warby ruled that the Mail on Sunday was unlawful in its actions. The decision meant that no arguments were heard at full trial, and no witnesses were heard in the High Court.
A month later, a bullying complaint made against the Duchess, filed by Mr Knauf during his time at Kensington Palace and concerning two different members of staff, came to light in a newspaper.
In March, the Duchess took part in a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which she made revelations about her own suicidal thoughts, and serious claims about racism from a member of the Royal Family.
In July, Prince Harry announced he would be writing his own version of the events of his life in an autobiography.
In a statement dated Sep 21 2021, Mr Knauf said: “I consider it the right thing to do to set out information that I am advised may be relevant to the court’s considerations.
“I have adopted a position of neutrality throughout, offering to provide information that I am advised is relevant to both parties. This has been a difficult and time-consuming process that I have not sought a role in.”
The Duchess of Sussex described Mr Knauf as a trusted adviser, and used elements from their email and text exchanges in her own witness statement.
Do you think Knauf is speaking now because he was unleashed by BP or that he decided to do it on his own accord?
If this is a move by BP, then couldn't we consider the leak from the "confidential source" as a warning shot to the Harkles? "Cease and desist or else we'll reveal something that will really hurt you!" In that case, though, what have the Harkles done since July that was so bad that Knauf is now free to spill these beans?
Thanks for posting the articles!
I am not sure why Jason changed his mind, but the following happened in those months, which I thinknk are relevant:
Bullying revealed in the press and investigation set up by Palace. (Jason seems to have leaked to the press so maybe this was also a consequence rather than a cause.)
Oprah interview, with its attack on the family, while Prince Phillip was dying.
Jason's husband got a new job and relocated overseas, so Jason, who was now heading the Royal Foundation for the Cambridges, resigned and started working a long notice period.
If and how the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William influenced him would be a matter of speculation.
There may be other relevant factors that I have missed.
I am not sure why Jason changed his mind,…
I think he changed his mind due to the fact that if he had given a statement sooner, the nasty Duo may not have spun so many lies about the royal family, they may have been shown up much sooner for being pathological liars and so much more. 😖🤨
https://www.gbnews.uk/
@Miggy I’ll try and catch that interview. 😀
Poor Thomas... he didn't look healthy.
I'm a little annoyed at Wootten for asking him some leading questions that he must have known Thomas couldn't answer. Thomas handled it well though.
********************************************
Lady C was excellent today... she was really riled up! lol
Unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, it appears to me from an article I read, that Jason thought that TBW's case would go to trial and he would give evidence. It was only after she asked for the summary judgment and it was granted... that he changed his mind.
Thomas Markle on Prince Harry: 'Maybe he was dropped on his head as a baby. Everything that comes out of his mouth is stupid.'
@Raspberry Ruffle and @Miggy
Did Lady C let slip in her video today that the person who passed on the 'information' to her about Thomas abusing Meghan was Harry? A year ago I would not have believed it; now I would.
I think she said it was an emissary.
I didn’t hear any name, I heard an extremely reputable source ( I’m paraphrasing). I’d have to go back to hear it again.
Miggy has picked up more, I was part listening and doing other things, typical of me.🥴
Jason was trying to stay neutral but had it gone to trial he would have given evidence. When she was granted the summary judgment he regretted not making a statement earlier.
By Jove, I think this is it! He had never changed his mind about revealing the truth; he had just bet on being able to tell it one way instead of another.
Listened again. "In January last year when she was writing her book an emissary of theirs, very reliable source".... etc etc. (approx 3.26 normal speed)
Meghan Markle's top aide said to have 'regretted' not giving evidence in Duchess of Sussex's first legal battle with Mail on Sunday and decided to give a statement about letter to her father after she won privacy case without trial, court hears.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10191033/Why-Meghan-Markles-aide-released-bombshell-messages-letter-father-Finding-Freedom.html
Mr Knauf, who now works for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, was said to have changed his mind because he had been ‘deprived’ of the chance to give evidence at a trial after she won a summary judgment earlier this year.
Hangars On
Wearing all red
and too much self tanner
She made her approach
down the aircraft hangar
Wide of berth, Insipid mother ship
Directing all traffic
to her landing strip…
Oh my! You are so very clever. One of your finest!
https://www.amny.com/news/veterans-receive-a-royal-welcome-at-2021-salute-to-freedom-gala/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10191033/Why-Meghan-Markles-aide-released-bombshell-messages-letter-father-Finding-Freedom.html
Mr Knauf, who now works for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, was said to have changed his mind because he had been ‘deprived’ of the chance to give evidence at a trial after she won a summary judgment earlier this year.
**************
What do you fellow nutties think about this theory?
The summary judgment was issued in February 2021. The Oprah interview was March 7.
My guess is that that prior to the summary judgment in February, that William, and perhaps even Charles and The Queen, may have been against anyone in the royal family or anyone employed by the royal family wading into the legal goo of Meghan’s lawsuit against against ANL and the Mail on Sunday.
But after the scorching Oprah
lie-a-thon and the Sussexes general behavior since February and March, William and the rest of the royal family changed their minds and decided to turn the faucet on at a drip, drip, drip rate to start leaking unflattering but verifiable info about Meghan and Harry because they have had their fill of the Sussexes and their royal court in California.
Because he is still thoroughly blinded by his emotional thinking, Harry is still her obedient puppet. That makes him as toxic to his family and the monarchy as Meghan is, so they may view him as unfortunate collateral damage who must be taken down along with Meghan.
I think that Mr. Knauf wouldn’t have submitted his statement to the court without first at least running it by William, and perhaps Charles and The Queen too. After all, he is a key employee of the Cambridges, so by that association, I would think there were at least some discussions on the side of the royal family before he submitted his statement to the court.
Because the communications in Knauf’s statement to the court are in the form of verifiable electronic messages, they have Meghan dead to rights as a bald-faced liar. She didn’t forget anything. She lied. Period.
This is a way for William to put Meghan and Harry on notice that he and the family aren’t going to mess with them anymore.
This could especially true if The Queen’s recent health issues have been exacerbated by the continual stress, drama, and uproar caused by Meghan and Harry since she wormed her way into Harry’s life and the family.
The type of never-ending background stress caused by having to deal with a profound narcissist like Meghan can manifest itself as many different physical problems, especially for a 95 year-old woman who recently lost he husband of nearly 74 years.
Meghan and Harry are punctuating the last years of Elizabeth’s reign with nothing but a blighted ending filled with strife, lies and poison. She shouldn’t have to put up with that kind of behavior and disrespect. Nobody should.
HMTQ, Charles, and William have put up with Meghan only because of Harry. But most people who are affected by the toxicity of a narcissist eventually get fed up and say “No more,” even if it negatively affects a family member.
They still have the unresolved issue of Meghan reportedly bullying two staff members so much that they quit and who knows what else they may have on her, especially regarding the conceptions, pregnancies, and births of Archie and Lilibucks.
@DesignDoctor - Cheers
Jason and the Jargonaughts
Thinking her title,
NDA’s were enough
To muffle and bind her aide,
Jason Knauf
Blinded by malice
she failed to see
The strength of the ties
to Royal hierarchy
Her despicable actions
attacking the Crown
Have enabled the Firm
to finally put her down
Thanks for taking the time to point that out. I guess I skimmed the articles too quickly the first time around and missed it.
Outstanding! .... and so true
How much bronzer does one need?
That last photo is damning! She must have really turned off someone at amNY for them to have published it!
All her photos on that article are pretty bad, to be honest. In the first one, Harry is standing right in front of her, blocking our view. (It's the best one!) In the second, she has manic eyes and her makeup looks terrible. And in the third, the tan line which @Elsbeth1847 is embarrassingly visible. If anyone else missed it the first time, well, they know all about it now!
Meghan’s half-sister accuses Duchess of false briefings
Samantha Markle hits back at ‘PR smears’ and attacks ‘grandiose’ image the Duchess has created
By
Victoria Ward
On Thursday, the Duchess of Sussex’s half-sister accused her of falsely briefing that she had lost custody of her three children.
Samantha Markle, from whom the Duchess has been estranged for several years, hit back at the “PR smears” and attacked the “grandiose” image she had created of herself.
It emerged on Wednesday that the Duchess had authorised a senior aide to speak to the authors of a biography about her family.
She apologised to the Court of Appeal after a series of emails were disclosed which appeared to contradict her previous claim that she had not collaborated with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, co-authors of Finding Freedom.
Amid the notes she sent to Jason Knauf, her former communications secretary, were several details about Miss Markle and her half-brother Thomas Markle Jr, as the Duchess sought to distance herself from her biological family.
She urged Mr Knauf to disclose that her siblings had “dropped out of high school” and that she had “never had a relationship with either of them,” or even known their birthdays or middle names.
Of Samantha, she said: “She had lost custody of all three of her three children from different fathers.”
Miss Markle said the use of Finding Freedom to “take pot shots” was “hurtful and revealing”.
She told The Telegraph: “To see Jason Knauf’s evidence was shocking. I never lost custody of my kids... no court record on the planet would confirm that.
“To take personal matters and then spin them in an ugly way to discredit me is pretty tacky.
“Everyone, even Trevor (Engelson, the Duchess’s first husband), who has been good to her – she has a disgusting way of disposing, stepping on and then silencing.
“The public will form an appropriate opinion of her based on her own actions. People do not like to be lied to and manipulated.
“She’s going to have to live with that. She’s so grandiose, she self sabotaged.”
Miss Markle claimed that the Duchess had constructed an image of herself in order to fit in with the Royal family and that she had distanced herself from her father and siblings in order to maintain the facade.
She said that she and her father, Thomas Markle, who has also been shut out by the Duchess, had wanted to give the Duchess “the benefit of the doubt” but were now having to come to terms with the fact that she had actively briefed against them.
In her emails to Mr Knauf, the Duchess said she had supported her father “in spite of his reclusiveness” but that media pressure had “crumbled him”.
She added: “Despite countless efforts to support him through the past two years, they now no longer have a relationship.”
“To see her nonchalantly say that she wants to see this added and that added, like items on a lunch menu was astonishing,” she said.
“She’s got an appetite for her own sense of empowerment by doing damage to others.
“My father didn’t want to believe that this smear campaign was all against him, designed to take away his credibility.
“We are victims of a narcissist and narcissists are manipulators who are into domination and control. We are both coming to terms that the denial is over, we have reached acceptance,” she said.
In a series of tweets about the court revelations, Miss Markle suggested that their father should sue the Duchess for “entrapment, elder abuse, defamation” and added that “she doesn’t deserve to have a father”.
She claimed that her sister was “just devoid of a soul,” adding: “Spiders don’t foresee getting caught in their own webs.”
The Duchess’s contact with the authors of Finding Freedom became pertinent when she sued The Mail on Sunday, which had published a letter she wrote in 2018 to her estranged father.
The High Court ruled in February that her privacy had been breached but the newspaper is appealing the decision.
Should the appeal prove successful, the case will go to trial, potentially pitting father against daughter in the witness stand.
Court of Appeal could make public more exchanges between Duchess of Sussex and her former press secretary in privacy case appeal
By
Hannah Furness
Further details of text messages between the Duchess of Sussex and her former press secretary, Jason Knauf, about the letter at the centre of her privacy case could be made public, the Court of Appeal has heard.
The messages are understood to shed further light on how the Duchess came to compose a five-page letter to her father, Thomas Markle, and the circumstances of how it came to be sent.
The letter, which the High Court has previously ruled was published in part unlawfully by the Mail on Sunday, is at the centre of an appeal by the newspaper publisher, which believes the case should be heard at trial.
The Duchess and Mr Knauf have each submitted a witness statement, in which parts of text messages between them were included.
The Duchess, who has said she no longer has access to the messages herself, stated she was “puzzled” that extracts from the texts had been quoted by her former aide, rather than seeing them included “in their full context” in a confidential schedule of court papers to speak for themselves.
Her solicitors had requested a full copy of their written correspondence, which was provided.
On Thursday, following representations from the media in the Court of Appeal, it was agreed that the messages could be made public, subject to redacting any parts quoting previously-unpublished parts of the Duchess’s letter.
The text messages were sent between the Duchess and her then-press secretary between Aug 22-24, 2018.
In her written submission to court, the Duchess said: “These are private texts regarding deeply personal family matters that I exchanged with him in the context of his providing to me what he himself has described as ‘close personal support’ as a ‘trusted adviser’.
“I am therefore puzzled as to why he has quoted extracts from those texts in his statement rather than exhibiting them, in full, in a confidential schedule to his statement and allowing them to speak for themselves, set in their full context.
“Be that as it may, I believe that they in fact support my pleaded case and undermine the defendant’s case.”
She added: “Subsequent to receipt of Mr Knauf’s witness statement my solicitors asked his legal team to provide them with a complete copy of the text and email communications from which he quoted; I had no access to any of my texts with Mr Knauf as set out below.
“In addition to those identified above there are a number of further passages in these communications which Mr Knauf makes no mention of in his statement, and which I wish to draw to the attention of the court.”
She went on to list a message in which she explained how she “toiled over every detail” of the letter, fearing it could be misleadingly edited.
Mr Knauf, she said, replied with an encouraging: “Left nothing to chance! That’s the only way through this”.
In a second message, quoted in the Duchess’s witness statement, he told her: “It’s such a strong and clear letter – with just the right amount of emotion. Hope you’re ok after writing it.”
Saying no, the Duchess wrote: “Also I would prefer if this was not shared in any way with Sam Cohen as I initially said.”
In her submission to court, she explained: “That is important because, as the private secretary, Ms Cohen was our most trusted and closest confidant next to Mr Knauf.
“Even so, this letter was so private that I did not want its contents shared with anyone in my work environment despite feeling obliged to make Mr Knauf aware of it.”
On Friday, Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting at the Court of Appeal, heard there were no objections from either the Duchess’s solicitors or representatives for Associated Newspapers Limited to the schedule of text messages being put into the public domain, subject to redactions of the letter to Thomas Markle.
Thanks Midge
Having trouble with fonts!!
Ruining me rhythm 🥴
Does Meghan actually know what misogyny is?
Let’s hope the Duchess learns to separate the personal from the political and stop using her brand of weaponised feminism to settle scores
JUDITH WOODS
Here are three little words that you probably thought you’d never hear regarding the querulous pity party being thrown over in Montecito: Meghan is right.
You heard. Now get to it. We must tackle misogyny. And the causes of misogyny. Everywhere.
But specifically where that misogyny pertains to the Duchess of Sussex, because it doesn’t matter what New Age nonsense she spouts about pretty much anything, we must understand – be made to understand – that What Meghan Wants, Meghan Gets.
Oops, sorry, wrong slogan. I meant to say she is just a girl, standing in front of a boy telling him his family are a bunch of uptight, institutionally sexist cold fish. With a side order of racism. But she’d like to keep the title, thanks.
And so they had to stuff their aristocratic trappings into a carpet bag and leave for Canada. But not really. It just sounded more, y’know, classy than California, where she’s now a full-time practising feminist.
As is Harry. Although that doesn’t make him any less masculine, she recently assured Gloria Steinem in an unnecessary, toe-curling sort of way.
Stop rolling your eyes at the back. It’s her feminist truth, folks. She’s told it to ITN’s Tom Bradby. And Oprah. And she forgot she told it other people, too, but the ongoing legal ding-dong with the British press has felicitously jogged her memory.
But it has also nudged ours; buried deep within reports of the ongoing court case is the reminder that when the writers of Finding Freedom were carrying out their research, feminist firebrand Meghan asked her personal assistant to tell the authors that her half-sister Samantha had lost custody of all three of her children by different fathers.
Now there’s a blatant betrayal of the sisterhood, as well as the sister. I must have missed the “dobbing in your blood relatives” chapter from the feminism handbook. My bad.
Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d say it was more of a self-serving character smear than an expression of female solidarity. But that probably makes me a part of the problem.
And you know who’s to blame? Naming no names, but I can’t help thinking if only Kate had taken one for the realm, become Meghan’s bestie and hung out over matcha lattes a bit more, the rest of us might not be in Meghan’s firing line. Instead, Meghan jettisoned her feminist credentials (again) to sniffily let it be known Kate wasn’t as friendly as she’d hoped. Nothing to do with a culture gap, a personality clash or a wilful refusal to adapt to the arcane traditions of royal life; Kate’s fault.
In the Meghan multiverse, everyone else is to blame. Frankly, the Duchess of Cambridge got off lightly being reduced to tears (rather than rubble) over flower girl hosiery on Meghan and Harry’s Big Day.
Incidentally, I was in the ecstatic crowd, wildly cheering and waving, as she swept by in her horse-drawn carriage on a sun-drenched May afternoon back in 2018. From everything she has said subsequently, it wasn’t enough. We weren’t enough.
It’s a far cry from 1993, when 11-year-old Meghan wrote a letter to toiletries giant Procter & Gamble asking them to change the wording of a sexist advertisement that had the tagline: “Women all over America are fighting greasy pots and pans.”
A month after she wrote to them – she also judiciously sent copies to Hillary Clinton and civil rights lawyer Gloria Allred – Procter & Gamble changed the tagline to “People all over America...”. Now, she and Harry’s Archewell Foundation is working with the company to promote gender equality, inclusive online spaces and “resilience and impact through sport”.
Incontrovertibly laudable, but there’s a disconnect between Meghan the passionate advocate and Meghan the rather thin-skinned feminist, hitting back at every perceived slight. Maybe a little more of the aforementioned resilience would come in handy?
Still, we are where we are. So let’s try to make amends with a rebrand to show willing and strike Megxit from the record! It is no more.
Hithertohenceforth, the departure of the Duke and Duchess from the old country with its fusty ancient chapels (can we get an ylang ylang diffuser in here, just over by the tomb of Henry VIII?) and the incomprehensible insistence on stiff-upper-lip decorum (whaddayamean “never complain”? Nobody shuts me down, Harry…) shall be known as Hexit. Job done. Happy now?
As if. What’s that, Meghan? It sounds like we are blaming you for casting a spell? Placing a hex on Prince Harry?
Crikey. That’s the thing about Wokefinder Generals: they find reason to take offence where none was intended.
The truth is that none of us will ever be good enough for Meghan, whose earnest pleas for mutual respect and understanding are so relentlessly La La Land that I’m genuinely flummoxed she stuck it out in Britain as long as she did.
I don’t doubt her sincerity, however grating some others may find it. I do wince at her lack of self-consciousness, her inability to shrug off criticism and move on. Feminism still has a great many battles yet to fight. Let us hope Meghan can learn to separate the personal from the political and use her voice to effect global change, rather than settle old scores.
The Lies that Bind
She’s able to look you
straight in the eye
Whilst spinning her truth
lie after lie
All this fibbing
with a bronzed bold face
She’ll deny and deflect
blaming all on race
Any disapproval
left, right, or other
Is all because of
the colour of her mother
@Rebecca
Thank you, much to savour
and relish!
Especially Judith Woods
“Hexit” hahaha love it!!
Thanks for sharing the articles!
I guess her race card has officially been cancelled. She has been trying to play the woman card by calling only women senators (and related stunts). Unfortunately, her history as a feminist is even worse than her history as a black woman. She may pay lip service to causes like paid maternity leave, but she'll treat her sister and sister-in-law like dirt. And that's not counting female staffers whom she bullied.
@Enbrethiliel
She treated/treats
the Queen like dirt
Feminagista
Which is that you can slag off someone in the press using indirect sources with inside access to the issue being discussed (the friends in People magazine). You can then suppress the testimony of the subject of who is being slagged off by suppressing the evidence under the guise that it was private correspondence. Everything else for me is frivolous detail, and here's why.
This new interpretation of law not only helps out the RF, it is also of great use to the rich and powerful who use UK law courts to start cases against their accusers/opponents. There is a term for this where they ship around different legal jurisdictions to find one most sympathetic to their case. And the UK is number one.
That's why I think the original baffling decision was made. And that's why I don't think it will change now despite all the very accurate reasons why it should be that have been given on here, and also by the legal team of the Daily Mail.
In summary....it stinks. And continues to stink.
Friday Singalong 🎤
Apologies: David Bowie
Let’s Dance
Sole of Aggression
Let’s prance
Put on your red hooves
forget your boobs
Let’s glance
At the veterans, not at you
Let’s lay
Slap on the bronzer
just on your face
Let’s pray
You realise you’re a
waste of space
If you say left
We’ll turn to right
If you say dark
We’ll know it’s light
All the lies from you
Is what makes up you two
When you fall
Losing it all
Crumbling with no power
Let’s dance
Kick of those hooves
You’ve lost your moves…
Nice earrings, though.
@Rebecca - `Wokefinder General' -thanks! A brilliant term.
I’m not holding my breath of her getting her due comeuppance. However, with the worst scenario in mind, at least we’ve got get hear damning evidence against her which won’t do her any favours. Yes, the whole thing stinks, stinks to high heaven! 🤨
P.S. Glad to see you back!
@Miggy
You’re a darling 😘
I agree completely. The privileged entitled wealthy elite are gaming the system to work for them, at so many levels in society. That is not what the justice system is supposed to be about.
History shows that they always get their come-uppance, and it is not pretty when it happens.
I think the BRF are acutely aware of this and the Queen and her late husband took care not to 'trample on the masses', but took it as their duty to recognize and celebrate and praise the people. Not only did Meghan never understand this, but it seems that Harry does not either. So, they are outside the royal fold, still acting as royals but on their terms, and with no one to protect them from crossing lines and getting into a huge amount of trouble.
Thank you for your kind words, it's good to be back!
You make some good points as usual-if Markle keeps getting exposed as a liar then this can only be a good thing as she will continue to make claims (legal or otherwise). So the more of her lies that are discovered (that Oprah interview-oh dear!) then the less people will trust her. Let's see how this case pans out:)
In her most recent video, Lady Colin Campbell for the first time and correctly calls MM "evil". Indeed, in his seminal book on narcissism, People of the Lie, the late psychiatrist M Scott Peck, M.D., identified malignant narcissists as evil, and urged the psychological profession (and therefore the American Psychological Association's Diagnostic Statistical Manual) to create a new personality order -- the evil personality disorder.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to copy & paste all the articles about TBW. They're very informative.
@Magatha
Thank you for giving us a smile and a chuckle in the midst of this unedifying and tawdry saga. I love Hangars On (Directing all traffic
to her landing strip… 🤣🤣🤣). Jason and the Jargonaughts sums up the situation and I do hope the Firm can finally put her down. It would appear the pendulum is swinging the other way for her 🙏
Neil Sean is hinting that Jason Knauf will be writing a book after he finally leaves his current employment and suggests that he may spill more beans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as2I1NRvZq0
She urged Mr Knauf to disclose that her siblings had “dropped out of high school” and that she had “never had a relationship with either of them,” or even known their birthdays or middle names.
Of Samantha, she said: “She had lost custody of all three of her three children from different fathers.”
Miss Markle said the use of Finding Freedom to “take pot shots” was “hurtful and revealing”.
She told The Telegraph: “To see Jason Knauf’s evidence was shocking. I never lost custody of my kids... no court record on the planet would confirm that.
****************************************
COMPASSION IN ACTION. Archewell Foundation’s overarching mission.
Wow, just wow. I now believe Megsy told Harry some whoppers of a lie about her father and half- siblings to claw at Harry’s protective heartstrings. I really wonder what Harry wrote in the email to Thomas Markle SR that was so pejorative it could not be read in court. Was that email a reaction to a whopper that Megsy told Harry?
Defamation lawsuits by Samantha Markle? Markle Sr?
I read last night that Samantha Markle is searching for a lawyer in London. (on her Twitter feed)
Wasn't there some kind of trouble with her side not turning over documents like emails, texts and so on? And now she's saying she couldn't find these kinds of things in her searches?
If I were her lawyer and this was coming out of nowhere, this would be a problem. A big problem.
@Eowyn
Glad you enjoyed ☺️
@Maneki
I’m happy you got
all the layers?😜
And do you know what her excuse was?
She claims that she searched her emails under the subject 'Finding Freedom' and came up blank. She now says that she realises this was because the book hadn't been given a title yet!
@Miggy
Yes, I read somewhere?
Sam is looking to press
charges, defamation etc.
Asking for a UK lawyer.
I hope she does! If money is tight for her, I'm sure her followers will crowd fund to help.
Mr Myers [the Mirror’s royal editor] said the sheer number of photographs had left him “shocked” and suggested that they could have just taken a picture of their backs, and another of the wreath they laid.' Quite, but this wasn't about Remembrance Day for her. If you want to make sure everybody knows about it, you bring your own photographer.
When you're in a hole, stop digging. Maybe she's never heard this quote??
I think/hope that the RF
have given the go to
hammer the horror.
Gloves are finally off.
God Save the Queen
COLD FURY
Mr Knauf also set out how Harry and Meghan had authorised cooperation with the authors of the couple’s biography Finding Freedom.
But Meghan barely concealed her cold fury at her former aide in a 22-page witness statement filed into court yesterday in response.
In it she told how she was “puzzled” by Mr Knauf’s decision to include “private texts regarding deeply personal family matters”.
She also cast doubt on Mr Knauf’s evidence, adding “there are certain matters that I would not have shared with him.”
But Mr Mathieson’s five-page statement praised Mr Knauf in response, saying his “credibility and honesty seems to be common ground between the parties”.
And he added: “I believe the evidence of Mr Knauf is entirely honest and credible.
“It is entirely in Mr Knauf’s own words…
“Mr Knauf was plainly a central figure in the events he describes.
“He was a senior and trusted member of the royal household staff and he continues to occupy an important position as Chief Executive Officer of The Royal Foundation.
“His witness statement is measured in tone and he has been careful not to include evidence of matters beyond his own personal knowledge.
“Given the high profile nature of this litigation and the likelihood of his evidence (if admitted) being widely reported, as well as the position he holds, it is hardly conceivable that he would say anything he did not believe to be true and I know of nothing in his evidence which is subject to any reasonable challenge.”
LOL - I'm pretty sure she has... but we all know TBW thinks she is above us mere mortals and will survive through her life unscathed!
I thought the case kept getting delayed because she or her side had not turned over all kinds of documentation repeatedly requested for by the MOS team. And they never did receive it, judgement happened and then that was to end the quest for any documentation backing up the defense from her team.
So ... things like his documents of she said to tell them that Samantha had 3 different fathers for the kids and the kids were removed had not been submitted to the MOS team, right? It might have been mentioned in his deposition so they would have technically known something existed (hence the requests) but not been able to do anything about it without the back up.
Wonder what else is out there that he knows which hasn't dropped yet?
And whom ever made the comment about we don't know the terms of the Megxit, how they may have failed to follow the terms and that we probably only know 10% - I think you are correct. And the 10 or 20% still to come out will jaw dropping to us.
Thanks for the info on Samantha. What was Megsy’s gain in slurring her family in print? Did Harry think this was a good idea, the airing of her family’s dirty laundry, now shown to be a lie? Harry at the time was 33/34. By that age he should be able to discern that negative , contemptuous people are destructive and only bring woe and depression. What a $.hitshow!
Saw some photos posted on yahoo, they were not flattering either. It looked like she had terrible back fat bursting out of the dress. Guess she made too many enemies to get a touch up on her photos. Lol
So ... things like his documents of she said to tell them that Samantha had 3 different fathers for the kids and the kids were removed had not been submitted to the MOS team, right? It might have been mentioned in his deposition so they would have technically known something existed (hence the requests) but not been able to do anything about it without the back up.
That's pretty much how I'm reading it.
Wonder what else is out there that he knows which hasn't dropped yet?
Well apart from the bullying claims and the recent hint by Neil Sean that Jason Knauf may be writing a book and spilling more beans... we are unfortunately left to wonder!
But, but but... H doesn't view TBW through that lens. To him she is this wonderful person who saved him from his trapped and truly dreadful life.
He believes every bit of poison that she has dripped in his ear... cause basically, he's a sh!t human being much like his sh1tty wife!
AMEN 🙏
(sorry for typing your name incorrectly before)
@Miggy
“He’s a s*it human being
much like his sh*tty wife”
Exactly, say no more!!
Thanks for the Sun article. It sounds to me as they're showing subtle shade, i.e.:
- “I believe the evidence of Mr Knauf is entirely honest and credible.
“It is entirely in Mr Knauf’s own words…
- “He was a senior and trusted member of the royal household staff and he continues to occupy an important position as Chief Executive Officer of The Royal Foundation.
- “His witness statement is measured in tone and he has been careful not to include evidence of matters beyond his own personal knowledge.
In other words, he sounds very trustworthy and a very reliable witness, unlike *.
@Magatha
Yes, I think the gloves are finally off. God save the Queen.
https://pagesix.com/2021/11/12/prince-harry-meghan-markle-stayed-at-un-building-in-nyc/?_ga=2.13879927.1587390485.1636673673-611631116.1621909878
Vomit.
Thanks so much for the articles. I can't often go all in since I stay busy in real time so having all the tid bits on the case explained here is very helpful!
---
I'm especially over the moon with the items on Samantha Markle. I wait like a kid for anything she has to spill. I love her zestiness; she's a corker. Fingers crossed it all comes out once and for all.
On Jason Knauf, well what he had to contribute is dy-no-mite!
Lol. Looks as if she's finally getting put up against the wall by the firing squad, metaphorically. A guillotine would be a better comparison for the let them eat cake duchess. What a serious burn! Ha ha.
I'm loving it :D :D
Duchess tells court automatic deletion system installed by Kensington Palace meant she could not find messages about letter to her father
https://archive.ph/UBo9U
Hahaha
She really does think people are stupid.
Here comes the 'pity' card that she played to perfection!
The Duchess also told the court of the stress she was under at the time.
“I was in the first trimester of my third pregnancy at the time (having suffered a miscarriage a few months prior) and was feeling very unwell,” she said of the period in October 2020.
“My doctor advised me to avoid stress, particularly given the recent miscarriage days after the defendant threatened to break the confidentiality of the original ‘sources’ for the People magazine article, which resulted in my having to make an urgent application for an anonymity order.
“This was granted by Mr Justice Warby, but I found the process extremely stressful, and it took its toll physically and emotionally.”
She does! Anyone with even one working brain cell can see what a diabolical liar she is.
Says a lot about her sugars... 😏
If she falls from grace, I don't know how they will handle that on a personal basis because they all seem to be so proud of that - just like the comments of some one like me is up there.
Meghan Markle accused royals of "berating" Prince Harry over Thomas Markle's criticisms. Names Harry's father... ie... Prince Charles, who they were staying with at the time.
https://tinyurl.com/2298dbn7
GB interview with Thomas Sr.
Mr. Markle states at :38 "Finally the truth is coming out. Thank God for Jason Knauf. I'd be happy to bring him over here and take him to Sizzler and enjoy a steak together".
:D :D :D
Wow at 1:46 when her own parent says his daughter is a deceiving liar...