The British Royal Family play a part in society, and we expect a certain amount from them for the purposes of optics, and that has been an unspoken agreement between the People and the Monarchy for centuries. So long as they turn up clean, smile, shake hands, say nice things that aren’t controversial, pose for some photos and then wave goodbye when they visit somewhere, we don’t mind what they do or say behind closed doors as long as it isn’t illegal. That’s why we shrug it off when there is an affair, divorce, or if someone is caught speeding in a car because these things happen, but we don’t expect them to embarrass the nation, to falsely accuse others to make themselves look like victims, we do not expect them to lie (but in recent times we have found that to be the case) and we do not expect them to do break the law either. These are the optics versus the facts of reality.
Most of the Harkle articles are exaggerated reports of staged visits, usually accompanied by some posed photos. During the most recent staged visits, apparently recordings were prohibited so that no one could hear what they were saying. Actually, no one was bothered because there was no interest anyway. Contrast those ‘articles’ with media reports when a court issues a judgment in a Harkle case that is critical of either the claims they make (grievances without evidence), or that the witness statements appear to be amended and re-amended numerous times, thus wasting court time. These are actual facts versus the perceived optics of stories with the Harkles parading themselves as humanitarians. Usually there is an attempt to bury such news with an obscure ‘unseen’ photo, or a random paid for pap stroll in a car park. Again, no is interested and it seems it has been harder to get any media outlet to pay for the useless photos that don’t generate much interest, and therefore aren’t profitable.
Each Harkle story is a mere 15 seconds of an attempt for some publicity to advertise themselves as global humanitarians, yet no one (that is sane) who hasn’t been paid for in one way or another is buying into the narrative. For those who don’t ‘read’ People, Hello! or Vanity Fair, then they will be none the wiser. This is all about the optics than the reality or facts of the matter. When we read legal judgments on the numerous cases that involve a Harkle petty grievance, they have stated on many occasions that the claims made have no evidence and are dismissed. The Harkles merely use the witness statements for optics—to get into the public domain their accusations and petty gripes, where the courts are being used and abused as their speech box.
The most recent case involving Harold, states that his claims have produced no evidence other than hearsay accounts (he/she said and had heard…), and have been dismissed as wasting court time. Neither seem to care about the outcome of the cases, as they appear to use the witness statements (that they can’t be sued for) as makeshift public statements and PR releases. While they sign them as being truthful, it must be remembered that a witness statement is not necessarily factual, but is an account of what that person believes is their truth.
Take the above ‘paid for’ Girls Inc promotional video which is basically promoting TW as a donor, where Archewell has probably made a considerable donation in exchange for the said video. I mean, TW invested money in the visit by paying for a private Harkle photographer (Eric Charbonneau ) to capture video footage and images for her own use and where a donation seems to have come with strings attached. That is not in the true spirit of giving or humanitarianism, but is effectively buying PR by exploiting vulnerable charitable entities. Add to the fact that the visit took place on 2 October 2024, and that the footage wasn’t released until 8 days later which coincided with a PR plan for some coverage to compete with William and Kate.
Perhaps some Harkle faux pals are tired of being used, and TW seems to have a new set of faux pals to replace the ones that either she has ghosted, or perhaps the old pals have ghosted her? Recent new besties include Kelly McKee Zajfen, Jamie Kern Lima, and Tracy Robbins (none were at the wedding or the baby shower, and how long will they last until they have no use?), but what happened to the ‘famous five’ of the People article (February 2019) that was key in the ANL case? Just on the cusp of the five being named at trial, a summary judgment was granted and the identities have remained sealed.
The SJ was granted in part due to the failure of BP’s legal team who ‘played’ with the legal rules—a brief recap if you haven’t read all the documents is that ANL requested witness statements from some members of the Royal Household based on information from a confidential witness (an aide from the RH) who gave specific and detailed information to ANL back in October 2020 on what to request. The BP legal team failed to respond to ANL’s communications a number of times, whether it was deliberate or not who can say, but for a large firm one cannot say that they were short staffed.
Then, about 48-72 hours (December 2020) before the deadline for ANL to submit evidence to the court, the BP lawyers replied, stating that the requested witness statements would only be produced if the case went to trial. This is a normal legal ‘trick’ to work within the grey lines and limits of the law, by giving the other side little to no time to respond or to take other action, and co-operating as a bare minimum within the guidelines of the law— so really not co-operating at all but replying because they had to or they would have to explain why they failed to respond in a court of law.
Thus, the SJ was granted in February 2021, and the optics were that BP was protecting TW as the 1 year grace period was still in force. Little did BP or the RF know that the Harkles had planned the Oprah Winfrey interview, aired in March 2021 that would accuse aides of spreading lies about them, where members of the RF would be accused of racism, and a claim that the RF kept TW a prisoner. This was after Harold was told he could not retain any patronages or his three honorary military titles if he was no longer a working member of the RF, and the half in and half out model the Harkles wanted was not acceptable to the late Queen.
Then, in November 2021, the Jason Knauf emails and texts were revealed in a court of appeal—alas, they were a year late and was the information that ANL had requested in October 2020, proving that the witness statements the Harkles had submitted to the court were factually inaccurate (also known as fibs or perjury). Therefore, BP knew that TW’s witness statements were not factual and were inaccurate, and had the evidence but did not reveal it to protect her. That is the reality of the matter, and by choosing the optics route, BP has looked foolish as they enabled false statements to be submitted to the court. If the Knauf emails had been submitted back in October-December 2020 as requested, it is possible that a SJ would not have been granted. Lies always get found out eventually, even though the courts claim it must have been an unfortunate lapse of memory.
Only when the OW interview was released it seems the green light was given to reveal the evidence, but also to try and salvage the RF’s reputation. One could say that BP ‘messed up’ and by doing so theoretically enabled acts of perjury from a number of people involved in the case including Harold. Their failure to act in accordance with the law to the best of their ability has led to the Harkles using the courts as a playground for them to air public spats and their own perceived grievances. A failure to act has consequences for the many, and that is why many are critical and disappointed with the mechanics of BP and how they have chosen to handle the Harkle situation. One could say, ‘they need to improve and do better’.
Back to the ‘famous five’, who many believe were Abigail Spencer, Lindsay Roth, Jessica Mulroney, Silver Tree, and Heather Dorak as all were mothers as noted in the court documents. Well, Jessica Mulroney seems to have been ghosted, and the women kept up appearances for a while back in June 2020 when Mulroney cancelled herself after threatening another influencer. Both had cashed in on the friendship at one point, and now neither need each other and don’t even seem to bother to try and keep up with the optics.
As for Silver Tree (former colleague, a director on Suits), she seems to have been ghosted after posting an image of the child known as Archie back in March 2021, which was then hastily removed but not before others had taken screenshots of it. No more huggy photos or gushing social media posts (no comments allowed) from this pal recently, and surely if she had received a jar of jam she would have shouted about it?
There was the staged visit to the Children’s Hospital in Los Angeles where she clung to pal Kelly, yet she wasn’t seen inside sitting at a table with Kelly or in fact anyone. Again, did she show up on the red carpet for the optics, and then tried to gatecrash the event as People reported she was escorted out via a side door? The question should be, why didn’t Archewell purchase a table if she really wanted to support the cause?
The staged visit to Girls Inc attracted practically nil attention because it really isn’t of any interest to anyone with the US election campaign, the wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine, and climate change leaving the world with hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes. The same goes for the jam making scam, also known as American Riviera Orchard, and after the images of the dodgy dog (photoshopped) biscuits, who can take the venture seriously? Another letter of protest to USPTO has been refused, so who would invest in a poorly constructed business, offering goods that aren’t unique or where there is a demand? Investors don’t waste money on vanity projects, perhaps TW can get a slot on Shark Tank? I think people would pay good money to see TW deliver a pitch!
No one blinked an eye when Harold showed up at the One805Live! fundraiser (September), and no one missed TW’s non appearance either. Again, it was about the optics and trying to well, seem relevant and to fit in with the community. Did they donate to the first responders cause? I hope so since Harold insulted them during the recent interview with Jane Pauley, saying they wouldn’t recognise the signs if someone wanted to take their own life.
Harold has shown his face at a NATO briefing, where it seems Invictus Games was pitching for some funding from NATO. Perhaps with a NATO connection, Invictus Games is trying for some global credibility, but NATO has its own issues of looking weak and failing its members? For those who aren’t following, NATO didn’t officially comment on the Russian invasion of Ukraine until 6 weeks after it had happened. It has also failed as a cohesive alliance with Hungary refusing to allow weapons from other countries to be transported through its territory (a big issue as NATO members are supposed to aid each other, as the equipment does not arrive at another NATO country, Ukraine). Hungary and Slovakia are both NATO members, yet refuse to provide any military aid to Ukraine, despite the official NATO position of aiding Ukraine with whatever weapons it needs to defend itself. Like the UN, NATO needs to address its charter and how it enforces its guidelines given that both alliances have been revealed as weak and ineffective since Russia invaded Ukraine.
The meeting came the day after NATO confirmed that North Korean military troops had entered Kursk, and 10,000 soldiers North Korean were being trained in eastern Russia to be sent to the frontline in Ukraine. Methinks that NATO has more pressing issues than funding for the IG, mainly how to prepare for a potential world war, and how to protect its member states that share borders with Ukraine and Russia. What the presence of North Korean soldiers means is that another country is joining with Russia to attack Ukraine, and that means that NATO no longer has the excuse that it can’t send troops as it would be an act of escalation when Russia has already escalated matters with the presence of the North Korean soldiers fighting and using Russian equipment.
However, it’s about the optics for Harold and I guess he didn’t make a personal appearance at NATO headquarters because no one would pay the airfare, and had to make do with a video link. He seems to have moved from the faux Tuscan office to a room with IKEA furniture, but at least he looked decent for NATO. Besides the fact he’s just the show pony for IG, but does his title carry any weight these days after the hatchet job he has done on his family and the British monarchy? His title is the only thing that is valuable and even that seems to have been devalued by his own hand.
Will things get so desperate that they will have to market the invisible children and cash in on them? Again, the optics are that the ‘children’ are hidden for privacy reasons, yet they are whipped out when there is a need for some PR. Perhaps there are no paparazzi photos because there is no interest in them? Should Netflix fail to renew their contract, is TW pinning her hopes on ARO to keep up with the payments on the Montecito mansion? Perhaps Harold is hoping that the royalties on the paperback version of SPARE will pay his legal bills and for his security even though it’s half price already?
The PR seems to have stalled— have the Harkles paid their invoices or is this a repeat of what happened with Sunshine Sachs? Looks like the Harkles will be giving out copies of SPARE as Christmas gifts all round, or more jars of jam and dog biscuits.
