Have the editors of the Daily Telegraph and Victoria Ward been living in an isolated cave for the past few years, because what sane person would agree to be a platform for a ‘leaked’ private letter from TW? Had they not followed the ANL case where Thomas Markle’s privacy was breached when TW’s alleged famous five friends ganged up on him and divulged the content of his private correspondence to People magazine? In fact, who would be stupid enough to write a letter to TW knowing that it might end up in the public domain?
TW may have ‘leaked’ the contents of the letter to her father that she even admitted was written to be in the public domain for some sympathy, but this time the victim was her current father-in-law. Unlike Thomas Markle, C3 does have lawyers at his disposal and when details of private correspondence between TW and C3 was shared in a Daily Telegraph article (on the late Queen’s birthday) surely someone in the DT office could have figured out that the ‘exclusive’ was a bad idea, because criticising the Sovereign a couple of weeks before his Coronation and breaching his privacy without his prior consent isn’t exactly a clever thing to do.
The main purpose of the article/leak was to state TW’s victim narrative again, and to remind people of the alleged unconscious bias/racism in the RF that hadn’t been dealt with in a manner that she was satisfied with, and that the investigation into bullying allegations made against her was not handled satisfactorily either (although several made formal complaints and either resigned or requested a transfer attributed to her alone).
As usual, articles on the Sussexes that are critical and that do not follow their narrative get amended and edited. The aim again seemed to be gain some public sympathy, but when it was clear it was not forthcoming, the Sussex PR initiated no less than 8 amendments to date. A source allegedly said that the exclusive was provided by the Sussex camp on the proviso that all comments would be disabled. That doesn’t stop people having an opinion.
We then find out from Valentine Low that the BP lawyers had written to the DT, and the Sussex PR also had their lawyers contact the DT to make amendments. They even issued a strange statement via Scobie and Durand who still seem to be on a retainer. The statement didn’t deny that TW provided the ‘leak’ but that they objected to the interpretation of the content. This seems to be because TW didn’t get the response she expected from the public, — an invitation to her own pity party. If you recall, the leaked letter that she had sent her father didn’t elicit the anticipated response either where the public considered her ungrateful, rude, spoilt, and entitled. She then claimed that people misunderstood the contents because they were incomplete and out of context. However, even after reading the entire letter, people had a far worse opinion of her.
How foolish of C3 to believe his private letter to TW would remain private if he bothered to follow the ANL case, where it was clear that the ‘leaked’ letters had been written for a public audience for a specific purpose. Was he so arrogant to believe that because he has wealth and a title that he was immune to TW’s ‘coercive’ tactics?
Some doubt the authenticity of the letters, and claim that C3 must have leaked the letters because it was TW’s response. Use your brains people—TW keeps copies of all letters that she has written as evidenced by the Thomas Markle/ANL Lettergate case, where she admitted that several copies had been drafted and then made and shared with other parties. Simply because C3 was the intended recipient doesn’t mean he was the only one with a copy of the said letter. What would be different in this case? The judge in the ANL case didn’t appear to question why someone would keep several copies of a private letter that they were sending, for one only tends to do that when they intend to use it for blackmail purposes.
The Sussex sympathisers claim that because it was TW’s response it must have been BP leaking, but they failed to look at the obvious—what motive would BP or C3 have? They are busy with the Coronation, a day that C3 has been waiting for his entire life and only the dim and daft folk would think he has any interest or time for TW or her antics. The only party to benefit from the article was TW for some ‘pity me PR’, and that backfired.
However, C3, BP and the late Queen are partly to blame for failing to address TW’s behaviour earlier and these are the consequences of their inactions. Would TW dared to have leaked any private correspondence that the late Queen may have sent her? She knew the Queen was popular and that she wouldn’t have been able to turn people against her, but C3 is a different matter for she was aware that he is not as popular. Is this an attempt to undermine her current father-in-law’s stature as a Sovereign, and to use this to damage what credibility he has by accusing him of failing to address matters for her own advantage?
The amendments appear to have be written in Montecito and inserted randomly to claim that TW has ‘moved on’ and holds no grudges (implying that she was not satisfied with how she believed she was treated). As someone asked on GB News, who is she, with the reply, ’the chick from Suits that everyone hates.’ Isn’t this a case of another attempt to breach the privacy of someone who did not give in to TW’s demands? This appears to be the start of another fortnight of Sussex PR to promote their victim narrative, but we should also blame the tabloids for giving the duo oxygen. Shame on the DT, a once respected broadsheet who have been well and truly ‘markled’ in pursuit of an exclusive that have made them a laughing stock.