BP Finally Rewrites The Biographies Of The Harkles
TW's new gaudy website is launched on the day of the Diana Award event
Has there been some mad potion added in the water at Buckingham Palace, or are the men in grey so incredibly out of touch with reality to think it was a good idea to add a link to the Harkles new Sussex website— especially after they finally updated the official Royal Family website, nearly 3 years too late ( on 18 March 2024, when they had finally ceased to be working members of the RF by the end of March 2021 after the grace period of a year)? I don’t think I’ve seen anything so stupid in my entire life, besides the fact after the ‘photogate’ saga, they chose to include images of TW that appeared to have been retouched by a blow torch. What on earth possessed any sane person to include a link to an unverified website that harvests data and tracks all users, when they are allegedly a trusted and official site?
There may have been a deal done, with the duo wanting the link added in return for keeping away from the UK or to stop the Camilla bashing, but the duo don’t exactly have a good track record of keeping to any agreements. If so, then BP or C3 seem to have made another poor decision unless they had it in writing, for a gentleman’s agreement is worthless with the Harkles…
Some would say it is BP approving the website (where they are using the titles for personal and monetary gain) and giving them free advertising, despite the vague disclaimer that you have to search for on the website. What the Royal Household fails to understand, and have failed to see during this whole saga are the optics of their actions. Normal people don’t read disclaimers hidden in the small print, and don’t read the statements stating that Harold doesn’t speak for the RF, but as a private citizen will be misled by BP’s actions. A royal or aristocratic title can bedazzle people who presume there is trust and integrity based on that alone, but in reality we know that there are many swindlers and baddies who have titles whether they were gifted, inherited, purchased, or acquired by some nefarious means.
I’ve always been critical of the men in grey/the staff at BP for failing to act (because there has been little to applaud them for), and now that they finally have updated the biographies of the Harkles to a brief joint section at the bottom of the pile, why on earth did they feel the need to include a link to their website? They are operating as private citizens and have nothing to do with the RF, and the work they are carrying out are vanity projects or are for financial gain and not the public service associated with the Crown.
The ‘photogate’ saga continues, and it appears to have been a targeted campaign aimed at discrediting William and Kate. While not one for conspiracy theories, the simple fact is you’d be hard pressed to find any images on social media and in the media that has not been edited. Everyone edits, even the photographers who take photos for the members of the RF—they are just better at editing images because that’s their job. Why else would an agency choose to dissect all images that Kate has taken, because they haven’t done that with the highly dubious Harkle images that have obviously been edited or manipulated?
Edited is not the same as doctored or manipulated, where special effects or elements have been added to the photo, as opposed to retouching a spot of red eye or airbrushing a pimple out. Agency photos do permit editing to a degree, so it is incorrect to state that they ‘kill’ any images that have been edited as they would have to practically kill the bulk of their stock images. Basically, the photo was a handout for agencies to use if they wanted to or not, and the general consensus is that the People (those that matter) like the amateur photos and don’t care if there was some editing.
Members of the Royal Family and other public figures all take their own photos and from time to time share private photos with the public, and that is what the Mother’s day photo was—a gesture to share with the public. It wasn’t meant to be a perfect work of art, yet the cult and others have failed to accept the image for what it was which was a private image shared in good faith. At least we know all the people in the photo actually exist!
This has meant that other images have come under scrutiny, and includes the Misan Harriman (tree of life) images, and the Chris Allerton christening photos. Both images appeared to have had an editor’s note added, ‘Image has been digitally enhanced at source’, only for that note to have been removed hours later, perhaps after protests or some arm twisting from the Harkle camp?
Other images that Kate has taken are being scrutinised, but aren’t the agencies picking on the wrong people? Airbrushing a stray hair or a stain off an old sofa is hardly altering the essence of an image, especially the one with the late Queen and her great grandchildren and youngest grandchildren.
Samantha Markle’s defamation case against her half-sister was dismissed with prejudice (12 March 2024), as the motion to dismiss was granted. To be frank, it wasn’t a surprise because she failed to mount a credible case within the legal parameters of defamation. Was it a win for TW? Not necessarily, because while TW has seemed to have defamed her sister in some instances, legally did it cause harm to her reputation, or her job where she made financial losses directly due to any defamatory statements made? If it didn’t and if Samantha couldn’t prove that was the case, then any claim made would be weak in a court of law. In the end, it was reduced to claiming one count of defamation and one count of defamation by implication, but neither had much substance.
However, Samantha’s legal team are going to appeal, and I listened to the Dan Wootton interview she and her lawyer gave to see on what basis they would appeal. Around 20 minutes of the interview was a political rant, blaming the woke liberalism and left wing politics because the judge was an Obama appointed judge whom they felt was biased. In the end, the lawyer declared the appeal judges would be ‘better’ than the judge who had presided over the case, who it was claimed didn’t put together the bits of evidence together (which was actually the job of the legal team to present a credible claim). Samantha would have been better off suing the authors of ‘Finding Freedom’ if she believed they had defamed her because they never approached her for clarification of the statements made.
The Diana Award event took place on 14 March 2024, where William attended in person, and afterwards once William had left, Harold spoke to some of the winners via video link. Apparently, it was reported they had to wait several hours to speak to him! This was the day that TW decided to announce her new venture called ‘American Riviera Orchard’, quite how it was announced is unknown, but it was probably via People magazine and the cult. How tacky, crass and deplorable, to use the dead Diana card for some PR for herself! Not only is it rude, it is disrespectful, but then again this is someone who appears to have no manners or decorum…
An Instagram account was revealed with a grainy promotional video advertising the website. The cult members obviously followed the account (and as most have half. dozen accounts, it’s safe to say that they made up most of the followers). In the first 5 hours there were 154k followers, and after 24 hours there were 388k followers, yet it took 4 days before half a million followers were achieved, where the X/Twitter account appeared to only have a few hundred followers. Is this how popular or unpopular TW is, given that each cult member probably followed in the first hour and has at least 3-4 accounts, and it took the Harkle PR to rustle up funds to pay for some more followers later on?
There isn’t much to say about the ARO venture except that TW appears to copied Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop website in format, and Martha Stewart’s business plan of a home and hospitality lifestyle retail store, and tagline ‘Mama (Martha) Knows Best’ as the name of the new company. As ever, there are the trademark applications that have been submitted, but all this was done using the ducal title—surely this is monetising the title and using it for personal financial gain which is an abuse of the title?
Does this matter, aside from the fact it breaches the agreement not to use the titles for business purposes? Who will buy the overpriced licensed tat? Is there a target audience because most successful influencers have some kind of skill that makes them stand out—all TW only has the title from her marriage.
Meanwhile, the DHS have requested an extension to provide the documents regarding Harold’s visa application to the court which is rather odd since they have cited various exemption declarations as to why the information should not be released. How can you make such declarations if you didn’t have the documents in the first place? His work visa seems to be valid as he is still working for BetterUp as an other conference is scheduled in April. A chance for Harold to look as if he is working while on a jolly in San Francisco.
While the popularity of the Harkles continues to decline, they are still profiting from the royal ducal titles, and that is in poor taste and people find it reprehensible. It also gives the false impression that the work they carry out are the same kind as members of the RF, but they are not because it is for PR. More people are demanding that the titles be removed, and see Harold as a danger to the monarchy unless his status as a CoS and his position in the LoS are removed too. The Texas photos were a flop as no one was interested in them, and it is interesting to see who has or hasn’t followed TW’s new venture on social media as several ghosted former pals don’t appear to be interested.
I recently saw ‘SPARE’ in a charity shop in the 3 books for £1 section, and no doubt TW’s tat will end up in the dollar stores bargain bins eventually or an online surplus outlet. Perhaps her agents are trying to drum up sponsors for her venture, but who will be foolhardy enough to invest as more companies and charities get ‘harkled’ or ‘markled’?