The Letter Case saga continues, and the staff of the Kensington Palace Communications Team have been dragged into this sorry mess. They have been named as witnesses, and will testify and give evidence if needed. While they may not wish to get involved, they have little choice when they hold the truth, and can provide evidence.
The People want to hear their versions of the events, because they want the truth from those who have nothing to gain or to lose.
Samantha Cohen ~ Left the Royal Household in October 2019.
Jason Knauf ~ Moved to the Royal Foundation in September 2019 (Worked for the Cambridges from March 2019, and KP Comms February 2014-March 2019).
Christian Jones ~KP Comms from December 2018 to April 2019/ Cambridges, April 2019 to present day, but has recently resigned.
Sara Latham ~ Worked for the Sussexes March 2019-March 2020. Apparently took up another role within the Royal Household after being made redundant.
I am wondering if the long delay in the issuance of the Court's ruling means something. It's always hard to second guess the Court, but the ruling was expected within two weeks and we are now well into week three. Of course, it could be due to anything, e.g., illness of the judge or his staff, or other pressing rulings that must come first.
Just the same, it seems odd. In jury cases, when the jury comes back in an hour, one side knows immediately that it is stuffed. It's when the jury is out for a long period of time that both sides become nervous.
It is clear that Meghan is now eager to avoid trial. SJ is occasionally granted if both sides have, behind the scenes, reached some settlement, and SJ simply signs off on that agreement and brings the case to a close quickly. It has always been my impression that ANL not only will not settle, but will likely appeal the ruling if Warby grants SJ.
Meghan's only other option to avoid trial if the Court does not grant SJ is to file a discontinuance, which would 1) make her liable for ANL's legal fees, and 2) leave the public with the suspicion that she has something to hide. I doubt that would appeal to Meghan, but if she is alarmed enough, she could certainly make the case that with a new baby, a new life in North America, and she and her husband realising their "dreams" they want to move on with their lives, leave negativity behind, and not expose their friends and family to the media circus they claim the press will make of a trial.
The other reason for the delay might be that both sides have the ruling already, and have asked for time to prepare public responses.
No one should assume anything about what the Court will do. Legal thresholds for what constitutes "contestable" and "winnable" tend to be more exacting than public opinion.
After reading some of the court documents, I wonder if the men in grey instructed some of the 'sources' to do the right thing? That way their hands are kept clean, and the source introduces the evidence that has been buried. This isn't about taking sides, but is in the pursuit of the truth, and from what we have seen, we are far from the real version of events that took place.
I'd like to thank the author of the Harry Markle blog for huge amount of time and effort they put into the content. It is a shining example of old-fashioned investigative journalism. Bravo!
Thank you for this blog. I've read all the articles on the Wordpress blog, but this is much better and we can find out what people all over the world are saying.
The SJ case has uncovered more of Markle's machinations, and there are obviously more to be revealed via the Palace 4 and other 'confidential' statements. Continuing to full trial is a great opportunity for all her schemes and deviousness to be laid bare for the world to see. Granting a SJ now will negate that opportunity and could give the impression that the evidence of others' is not worth considering. She will continue to deceive until she again snares herself in her vanity and self-importance. This could well be perceived as a cover up and an injustice, which would not reflect well on the Justice system nor the Palace. The people deserve to know what they have funded and continue to fund, and to question why and how they are being deceived. That will be public perception, not necessarily fact, but people deserve to know the truth.
If a SJ is granted in Murkle's favour, then this really will be a sad day for the freedom of the press, and indeed justice, as everything points to her meddling and manipulation. It could also be viewed (as she will view it) that she is above the law and above reproach, and that no-one is permitted to voice their opinion if it is in any way upsetting to her. An interesting erosion of people's rights to free speech.
If a SJ is granted in ANL's favour, this would obviously show that Markle was wrong to bring the case to court, and ANL would presumably begin work on further exposing the truth. That could be very illuminating indeed, but would always stink of a cover up, when we are now all aware that there is further evidence of her lies and deceit. It may also deter the awful pair from engaging in frivolous litigation, although I doubt that. If their feelings are hurt they will always lash out legally, because they are very privileged and can afford the costs, an action completely out of most people's reach.
The evidence I have seen thus far (and it's only a fraction of what has been submitted) indicates that there is a case to answer, and that not all the relevant evidence has been made available.
Her lawyers are having a tough time & being ‘dictated’ to...their client in this case is impossible to deal with. Hopeful it will come to trial although sure there will be another handy excuse from MM why she can’t appear. The High Court is used to dealing with narcissists & will take no brook. It is very distressing to all to witness
I’ve been following Harry Markle for a while now and love reading your articles. I’m from the United States and the Trillion dollar questions are: 1) Why Meghan Markle was allowed to marry into the Royal Family so quickly and 2) Why MI5/MI6 didn’t shield the family from someone with such a questionable past and crazy family history? As far the trial; why was this debacle allowed to happen and continue to defame the British Royal Family and the British public? If this doesn’t go to trail and summary judgement rules in favor of the MM; I truly have lost faith in the rule of law and the integrity of those who sit on the bench as judges. In today’s world it seems if there is one set of laws for the rich and elite and another for those of us who don’t fit in that category. The only hope I have is what my grandmother always told me; “if you do good, good will follow. If you do bad then bad will follow. You might get by but you won’t get away!” There is a Bible Scripture that says; be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.” I hope and pray that my grandmother and the Bible is right!
I have seen, in the various places that I post, numerous people asking why the marriage was allowed to happen, with many people also asking 'how did the Queen not realise what Markle was like'. I have absolutely no doubt that the Queen knew exactly what Markle was like. The investigations into her past would have been so thorough, that I think the Queen probably knows more about her than we do. What could she have done to stop the marriage though? Lock Hasbeen away somewhere? They were going to get married, with or without the Queen's blessing, and she therefore had the choice to support them or not. If she hadn't, at a time when the majority thought Markle was a wonderful addition to the RF and were so happy that Hasbeen had finally found 'love', she would have been condemned not just by us, but by many people from other countries and would, I believe, be in a worse position than she is now simply because there would have been no way back from that decision. She had no choice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but of no help at all at the start of a situation such as this.
You are right that they could not have stopped the marriage. I think the real question is why with all that information would she be given Royal titles without becoming a British citizen First? And why go along with such an expensive huge wedding considering she had been married before? Those are the things the royal family did that perplexes me.
Meghan was not "given" a title: Harry was - as Harry's wife, they could not possibly have prevented her from being given the same courtesy title that Kate got by virtue of marrying William. Kate doesn't have the Cambridge title: William does. Thus, by courtesy, Kate is Duchess of Cambridge.
The BRF were at pains to show the public that Harry's wife was not being treated as "less than" because she was American, divorced, and mixed race. That wedding, remember, may have been her second, but it was Harry's first. The decent thing was not to deprive Harry of a something like a "royal wedding". St. George's rather than Westminster Abbey, no crowned heads, no heads of state, etc., was as far as the BRF could go in quietly stating the difference between Harry's and William's weddings.
As it was, Meghan still managed to anger the Queen several times before the wedding. There is no mistaking the difference in expressions on the family faces between the two weddings.
But, here again, the Queen had little choice if she was not to start accusations about racialism. Harry merited something like a royal wedding, his wife was owed the courtesy of sharing the title the Queen gave him on his wedding day.
Remember, when Edward abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, everyone assumed that she would, as the custom is, share his title of HRH Duchess of Windsor. But the BRF cut that off by King George VI issuing Letters Patent creating his brother HRH Prince Edward Duke of Windsor, but withholding the HRH from h is wife, so that she was created a nonroyal duchess ("Your Grace" rather than "Your Royal Highness").
It's not feasible to think that at this point in history the Queen would have done that to what were supposed to be two senior working royals. The outcry would have been heard in Outer Space.
So, it's only a courtesy title for Meghan. Citizenship has nothing to do with the "courtesy". It might come into play if they divorced or if Harry passed away.
If they take the style and title away from Harry, Meghan loses it automatically.
Your comment makes the title business a lot to easier to understand, Tom, thank you. I agree about the difference in expressions, I think it must have been very hard for them all to sit and watch their son/grandson/cousin etc. marry someone who was not a good match for the type of person he is.
The wedding I can understand - the Markles would have kicked up a huge fuss if they didn't get a 'Royal' type wedding. However, don't forget the location of their wedding - Windsor, rather than a far more grand place such as Westminster Abbey. We were told at the time that this was the Markles choice - what we now know about Meghan makes me wonder whether it was, in fact, the Queen's choice. Would Meghan really have turned down Westminster Abbey if she had the choice? I don't think so. So possibly that was the Queen's way of at least making it a small circus.
As for the titles - Meghan did start her British Citizenship process, so I would hazard a guess that the titles were on the understanding that she did become a British Citizen. Her appalling behaviour aside, I see absolutely no reason that her title, at least, cannot be removed simply because she is not a British Citizen. How can an American have 'status' over the British public?
I agree about the Queen feeling like she had no choice but to allow the marriage because of the reasons you stated. What puzzles me, though, is why she allowed the huge celebrity/no bride family/big spectacular carriage ride wedding with the bride wearing white when Meghan had been married before. There seemed to be a power being help over the Queen’s head from my viewing place and Meghan continues to behave in a manner which hurts the Royal family. To plan on a personal letter to be shared publicly just to make herself look better without any regard to how that would impact the Queen and Royal family was despicable and reveals Meghan’s self-absorption. I fear the Judge may not rule for trial because of copyright even though she had help. In the court of public opinion Meghan has already lost huge but so has the Queen to some extent and that makes me sad. I wish the Queen would remove titles, remove Harry and his heirs from the line to the throne and tell these two to go shill to their hearts’ content. She needs to put these two in their place. Harry and Meghan should be utterly ashamed to have put the much respected Queen through all their selfish melodrama during the twilight years of her remarkable reign. I’m an American and the Queen is very respected here. Harry was loved by virtue of Diana but his behavior has erased the good will. It was insulting the spoiled two thought they’d swan into the States and be automatically adored. You do not treat your grandmother and family members on both sides like dirt and get respect in my neck of the woods. Here’s hoping for trial and that Meghan’s machinations will finally come to light. Thank you, Harry Markle, for your hard work.
I have thought a lot about why she gave Markle so much right at the very beginning, knowing what she would have known about her and, unusually for me, I really don't have a clue. I am quite a logical thinker, and can normally come up with possible reasons for why people do things (sometimes right, sometimes way off track), but I have yet to come up with anything in relation to this. It frustrates me immensely that I can't!
I agree with everything you have said, especially about hoping for a trial. That is, in my opinion, the only way to stop her. To have her real self blown out of the water for the world to see. I'm a pessimist though, so I'm expecting a SJ. I hope I'm wrong.
I think the Queen gave her so much so that she could not be accused of not treating her well later when things went wrong, which she knew was bound to happen. The Palace are much smarter than Meghan could ever hope to be.
I think you're right in terms of the 'special' way she was treated and the 'extras' she was given, but my sticking points are the titles and patronages. Those are things not to be given lightly and whilst yes, I agree the Palace are smart, I don't believe the Queen wasn't aware of the potential issues those two things could cause, so can offer no ideas at all of why she went ahead and gave them.
The 'extra' was the HRH as she would have assumed that automatically if she had become a British citizen, but The Queen chose to give it to her immediately as a gesture it seems. Others may say it was under pressure or coercion. She still would have had the duchess title, but would have to wait about 3 years for the HRH.
I think she had to give them the Dukedom because this is normal practice upon marriage, and Harry would know that. It is also usual to give patronages and if she had not done this, they would have had cause to complain of bad treatment. It would have looked as though she disapproved of the marriage! It must have been a bitter pill to swallow, but she had to do it, I think.
Forgive me for piggy backing on your thread, Lucia, but my thanks also go to Harry Markle for opening this site. I very, very rarely post on Facebook, for personal reasons, and it has been extremely frustrating to read all the comments and not be able to offer up my thoughts on both the situations being discussed and the comments that have arisen from them. I feel I have now been let out of a cage with the freedom to join in and post here. Thank you, Harry Markle. You have rescued me from silence, which isn't my forte!
I think the question on the minds of many would be, are the Palace's and royal family's best interests served by not hindering the case going to trial? Or, alternatively, is it more in their long-term interest to use their influence to "encourage" Summary Judgement?
It must be borne in mind that the Queen stopped the Burrell trial in its tracks to prevent Burrell from leaking more dismaying material about Charles and Diana and the royal family.
At a glance, it's my guess that the Palace Four wouldn't have lawyered up and issued that joint statement if they hadn't already discussed the matter with the Queen's advisors and staff. Latham still works for the Queen, and Knauf for the Cambridges. It would be as much as their careers are worth to come forward without prior discussion.
Just the same, and it is sad to say, the suspicion that now the royal family as well as Meghan would like this all to go away could sway the Court re Summary Judgement. It would look very much like a coverup, and I wonder if Warby J would wish to risk that?
At this point, it is clear that Meghan badly misjudged and overplayed her hand, and the warnings of hits to her public image wouldn't be worth the damages even if she won the case are being proved prescient. She is now desperate to avoid a trial.
It is to be hoped that the Court is impervious to any delicate "encouragement" from the Palace about ending this case, and that Summary Judgement is denied.
I believe you have misinterpreted the course of the Burrell trial, although admittedly it was years ago. When Burrell was unable to extricate himself from his legal difficulties, the Queen was required to divulge her knowledge of the case. She had been informed by Burrell, years earlier, of the arrangement Diana had made with him to protect her privacy with regard to certain belongings. Their close relationship had given Diana a reason to share belongings with him over the course of their relationship. But after her death, Burrell had been obliged to intervene in an additional and unexpected way to protect her, and that was from her own family. Adult family members had trooped into her apt and destroyed letters and documents and apparently taken other items. Burrell stepped in at that time also to protect Diana, in death, as he had during her life. He was fulfilling the request Diana had made of him years earlier. The Queen had knowledge of this arrangement and was compelled to share it with the court.
I find it interesting that we can easily find a phrase that supports our judgment of a situation, rather than try to shed light upon the circumstances.
Meghan can no longer withdraw the lawsuit. She can do it legally, until the sentencing hearing is called she can, even then she can seek an agreement from ANL. But she can't do it now, without sinking further. Because what would you think if it does? Which is because he has something to hide. Not that she seeks to protect the RF, but to hide her shady dirty laundry.
I think that is why now she is looking for the RF to get involved, even in a bad way, and it is not working. If it had been a simple copyright case, voila. But the duchess Meghan made it clear that what she wants is absolute control of the press, that things be published as she wants, when she wants, when it suits her. The Queen cannot come to her aid, not after Meghan's intentions are exposed.
If the Queen had wanted to use her influence to end this, she would have done so long ago. But she didn't. She did not do so in any of the other Markles lawsuits. She has let them sue everyone they come across, without lifting a finger for them, even when she sees that the lawsuits are ridiculous. Less she will in this case. The Queen will let Meghan sink, and she's not going to save her because she was warned not to do this and Meghan ignored it. And none of this will touch the RF, because nobody believes the Markles.
I also feel that the public affection for the RF is low, and they can't risk unpopularity right now. While there is no doubt that there are other coverups going on, this one is far less serious than ones that would be heard in the 'other' courts.
I agree that the palace 4 would have been authorised by BP to speak, there is no way they would have offered their comment without. It would seem however that their testimony can only be accessed through a trial so I do not believe this is evidence of BP suppressing the trial - more encouraging it to take place! I do believe that the airing of this information is most definitely in BPs favour, as it will show MM in a terrible light. It also shows to the judge that there is further evidence to consider, making a summary judgement less likely not more. The other thought is that it may lead to a summary judgement against Meghan as this is definitely not in her favour, bearing in mind it is presented by the Defence not Meghan herself - surely if it was positive to Meghan she would have them as witnesses herself. Just my two-pennorth! I do believe that BP want her exposed for what she is with little risk to themselves, and that is what this is!
Perhaps the source that gave the names to the defence was sanctioned by the men in grey? I don't think for a minute that the information was allowed to be 'leaked' without some thought in how it should be handled.
I believe that if this had been really calculated, MM would have filed the lawsuit from the beginning to be resolved in summary judgment. But just, almost a year after the lawsuit was filed, suddenly his team wanted to change the procedure, and not because they really can win, but because they fear that more evidence will emerge against them FF style. I don't see the calculation.
They must give evidence to show that justice is being served. British justice prides itself on being fair (possibly questionable at times) and it is important to see that occur. I'd also like to see Durand questioned because there is something odd about her being an invisible person. The only problem with a trial is that people don't always appreciate the black and whitnesses of court cases - Johnny Depp's being a good example - it was technically correct that he lost his case because it was based on the law of libel, not a moral judgment about whether his wife was appalling and provoked him to violence on one occasion. Similarly, we all know that morally MM should lose this but that might not be the legal technicality. I really want the Mail to win, they are doing a public service in pursuing this and exposing the entitlement and hypocrisy.
Sorry if my English is not very fluent, I am a Spanish speaker and I do not practice your language. I've been reading the blog for a while, because the Markle vs. ANL case seems very interesting to me. The use of public resources (such as the Palace Four) to be used in a personal dispute seems most unpleasant to me, because it is no longer only the fact that Meghan Markle believes that she is above all criticism, and that she believes that a title gives you authority to be above freedom of the press (which is what you want to censor) I want the aforementioned advisers to testify, I want trial. If Meghan Markle wins, it would allow other people, with questionable morals and conduct, who hold relevant positions, to act in the same way. She must not win.
Of course, I think the SJ can’t be allowed in view of the complexity of the ‘alterations’ in M’s evidence. I also consider that the so called ‘Palace 4’ must have been authorised and perhaps actively encouraged to come forward. And we wouldn’t expect them to do more than tell the plain, unbiased truth. If the case was closed down in some fudge - well, I think there would be an uproar and deservedly so. The more things come to light the more I feel that that M and PH should be held to account for the things they have done quite deliberately.
I would assume all these folks would have signed an NDA. How does that work when called to testify? Once their testimony is out in the open, does it mean they are free to talk about it or does the NDA slam their voices shut again?
I don't know how it works there but in my country in NDA does not usually cover such legal proceedings. In fact withholding such information could be seen as obstruction of justice for the defendant.
I believe that if asked in a court of law to answer this overrides any NDA that you have signed. So they could answer questions in court but even afterwards nowhere else.
Has anyone besides me considered the possibility that the Palace Four obtaining legal representation and making their willingness to testify known to the court and the public as Her Majesty lobbing a shot across the bow of the Claimant’s rapidly sinking ship?
The Queen does NOT want this case to go to trial. Perhaps she is putting her thumb on the scales of justice to force the Claimant to settle out of court or withdraw her claim altogether.
It would not be the first time The Queen played a blinder to resolve an untoward situation concerning her family.
It is not for the Claimant to settle out of court, that would be a decision by the Defence which they would have done by admitting her claim. they have chosen to either not admit or dispute this claim I’m not sure which it is in this stance. Disputing the claim means both sides are required to present evidence to set out their case. Not admitting the claim does not mean the defence disputes it but requires the claimant to prove it with their evidence. I suspect ANL have gone for disputing the claim. The only possibility for this not to come to trial is for the judge to find in favour for the Claimant in the Summary Judgement or the Claimant to withdraw the claim of breach of copyright & privacy laws. Equally he could find in favour of the defence in the Summary Judgment. My understanding is if she withdrew all or part of her claim (known as a Discontinuance) at this stage she would then be liable for defence legal fees as well as her own for all or the part of the claim that she withdrew. If she won at trial my understanding is she would have to prove her losses as in the financial cost to her breach of privacy & losses from breach copyright. Undoubtedly the letter would not have been for sale as in normal works of fiction (unless she admitted it was going to be the big reveal in FF & affected sales by that loss!!) so how she would put a price on it I don’t know perhaps she could claim ANL gained financially through newspaper sales from the article. For privacy I suppose she would have to claim a defamation of character🙄🙄. However she has to prove those costs & it must be shown that she has done everything to limit those costs. What price would she put on it all? It seems to me that this is a bonkers litigation attempt & will come at great cost because what is she trying to achieve? It won’t make us like her, it has brought her name & reputation to lower depths, it is completely risible but worse it could bring the monarchy into disrepute - was this her goal?
She has made a point of not claiming defamation in her particulars of claim. The reliance is on the breach of privacy, and failing that, misuse of personal data. However, many of these issues cross-over into CR law, and also the fact that if the data had been 'given' to a media outlet to use (People/FF) then that claim is also weakened.
Further to my thoughts on awarded costs should she win- she can’t claim loss of earnings due to breach of privacy/copyright after all they have those big contracts, do they not.
I thought they were not going to testify, that they were going to rely on their confidentiality contracts. But it turns out that the four of them are willing to testify. That would not have happened if KP had not given them authorization to make this decision. The time to reach an out-of-court settlement was over when FF was considered evidence. Now, seeing Meghan's contradictions, an agreement is an acknowledgment of guilt on her part, ANL would not reach an agreement without that condition.
Timing is everything. The Palace may have been laying a trap by waiting. I think they want a trial which will discredit her completely and prevent future problems with her.
She's treading a fine line though. It took a long period of time for her to weather the storm over not returning to London after Diana's death, and the Paul Burrell trial intervention was just odd. News and public opinion moves so much faster now and, sad to say, I don't know how much longer she has left. For someone who dedicated themselves to public service as HMTQ has, I think it would be really sad for her to lose it all now because her odious grandson can't keep it in his trousers.
The Queen will be well buffered against events in this case. This is not the same as the Burrell case: Charles is a future King - Harry is an irrelevant sixth in line. Charles' wife was a martyred and hugely popular future Queen. Meghan is much disliked in the UK.
The Queen doesn't have to do anything and won't lose anything, let alone "lose it all".
It's Meghan who has the most to lose. Cases like these are "cost of doing business" for ANL, they have far deeper pockets than Harry and Meghan. No one will be able to charge the Queen with anything.
Her grandson is a fool who has betrayed his country and his Sovereign, and he is already adjacent to the direct line.
Good points, also the ones you made on other comments that MM is increasingly being backed into a corner. Thank you. I meant "lose it all" in terms of respect, not anything material. The Queen is the same age as my father so I guess I take it a bit personally that Harry and Meghan have treated her and everything she stands for so poorly.
I wondered the complete opposite. Whether the Queen is supporting the Palace 4 to testify because she does want it to go to court. If it doesn't go to court they are still a problem that she has to somehow resolve. If it goes to court and full details of their lies, dirty dealings and manipulation comes out, then they are finished. No-one will touch them after that.
That does not help the Royal Family. People are looking at a year of this going on. And the royal family has been pretty silent. Even while they were political campaigning in America using their titles.
the Royal family's response to all this reminds me of what happened with them after Diana's death. The left wing Tony Blair had to intervene and save the monarchy! That was how out of touch the royal family was with their subjects. I think they still are despite being surrounded by administrative State advisors.
I agree. I think this is a clever strategy by the Queen and her advisors to shut the Markles down for good. She will always protect the monarchy and the country. The copyright issue seemed to be the one point Meghan could win on a technicality, so this is a move to scupper that.
I agree, as well. On its face, the sudden appearance of the Palace Four indicate that the Queen, in not discouraging them, is prepared to play hard ball with Meghan. Why should the Queen prefer the case not to go to trial, when as the trial goes on, Meghan will inevitably look increasingly more dishonest, manipulative, and willing to perjure herself if she can get away with it?
If the Palace Four pressure Meghan to try to settle, that will make her look worse, as well, as if she has something to hide.
And, ANL has refused to settle for the last 18 months. Why would they settle now? If Meghan withdraws unilaterally, she has to pay all ANL's legal costs - she would be out somewhere around $3-$4 million. It might in the end be worth it to her to stave off worse revelations of her hypocrisy, or not.
But if she tries to settle, or withdraws, or goes to trial, she is going to take real character hits. And I cannot imagine the Palace, behind the scenes, would be only too delighted.
Narcissists are dangerous indeed. I hope it goes to court...the judge will not put up with nonsense as has already been seen. The RF know a lot more about MM than we do...her father has been treated abominably. He deserves to have his say.
How will the public react if the Pace Four are not allowed to testify? I think the wheels of disgruntlement are already turning at a steady pace. If for some reason, The Four are prevented from testifying, I think the speed may indeed be accelerated to an alarming pace! People just want fair justice and the truth.
Would this indicate a cover-up, or preferential treatment? Who knows quite possibly? To be frank, the whole Sussex saga appears to be one big “cover-up.” The public are entitled to BETTER from the Royal Family of the nation.
If they are silenced, how can the court system be seen to be seen to fair, just, or impartial? Exactly, if they were silenced, it would prove to be a very dark day for British Justice and I don’t doubt the public would let it rest there. People will surely voice their disgust and contempt regarding such an action.
Harry Markle, thank you for all your hard work and diligence in bringing matters to light, it is much appreciated.
I doubt very much that they will be prevented from testifying by the Palace, or the Palace would have stopped them from unnecessarily obtaining expensive legal representation and issuing that joint statement. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag on that score. It is clear that Palace hasn't prevented them from coming forward - it is too late to stop them from testifying if called by the defence, who can issue summonses.
The really interesting question is, is the Palace allowing the four, two of whom are still in the employ of the Palace, to come forward because the more discredited Meghan becomes, the better for the Palace's wish to distance themselves from her, and to prevent her from further monetising her connection with them?
After all, after dragging the family and its employees into this mess of her own creation, would the Queen really be blamed for not having the Sussexes back on the balcony of Buck House for the Trooping the Colour, or at the Remembrance Day services? Would anyone else in the family willingly stand next to her, smiling?
One hopes that this ridiculous case ends up being a gift to the family, and gives them visible and reasonable cause to keep the Sussexes at arm's length.
I am wondering if the long delay in the issuance of the Court's ruling means something. It's always hard to second guess the Court, but the ruling was expected within two weeks and we are now well into week three. Of course, it could be due to anything, e.g., illness of the judge or his staff, or other pressing rulings that must come first.
Just the same, it seems odd. In jury cases, when the jury comes back in an hour, one side knows immediately that it is stuffed. It's when the jury is out for a long period of time that both sides become nervous.
It is clear that Meghan is now eager to avoid trial. SJ is occasionally granted if both sides have, behind the scenes, reached some settlement, and SJ simply signs off on that agreement and brings the case to a close quickly. It has always been my impression that ANL not only will not settle, but will likely appeal the ruling if Warby grants SJ.
Meghan's only other option to avoid trial if the Court does not grant SJ is to file a discontinuance, which would 1) make her liable for ANL's legal fees, and 2) leave the public with the suspicion that she has something to hide. I doubt that would appeal to Meghan, but if she is alarmed enough, she could certainly make the case that with a new baby, a new life in North America, and she and her husband realising their "dreams" they want to move on with their lives, leave negativity behind, and not expose their friends and family to the media circus they claim the press will make of a trial.
The other reason for the delay might be that both sides have the ruling already, and have asked for time to prepare public responses.
No one should assume anything about what the Court will do. Legal thresholds for what constitutes "contestable" and "winnable" tend to be more exacting than public opinion.
Still, the delay does beg some questions.
Therefore, I am somewhat intrigued by the delay.
Judge Warby should read Samantha Markles book. The last few chapters are relevant to the case
After reading some of the court documents, I wonder if the men in grey instructed some of the 'sources' to do the right thing? That way their hands are kept clean, and the source introduces the evidence that has been buried. This isn't about taking sides, but is in the pursuit of the truth, and from what we have seen, we are far from the real version of events that took place.
I'd like to thank the author of the Harry Markle blog for huge amount of time and effort they put into the content. It is a shining example of old-fashioned investigative journalism. Bravo!
Thank you for this blog. I've read all the articles on the Wordpress blog, but this is much better and we can find out what people all over the world are saying.
The SJ case has uncovered more of Markle's machinations, and there are obviously more to be revealed via the Palace 4 and other 'confidential' statements. Continuing to full trial is a great opportunity for all her schemes and deviousness to be laid bare for the world to see. Granting a SJ now will negate that opportunity and could give the impression that the evidence of others' is not worth considering. She will continue to deceive until she again snares herself in her vanity and self-importance. This could well be perceived as a cover up and an injustice, which would not reflect well on the Justice system nor the Palace. The people deserve to know what they have funded and continue to fund, and to question why and how they are being deceived. That will be public perception, not necessarily fact, but people deserve to know the truth.
If a SJ is granted in Murkle's favour, then this really will be a sad day for the freedom of the press, and indeed justice, as everything points to her meddling and manipulation. It could also be viewed (as she will view it) that she is above the law and above reproach, and that no-one is permitted to voice their opinion if it is in any way upsetting to her. An interesting erosion of people's rights to free speech.
If a SJ is granted in ANL's favour, this would obviously show that Markle was wrong to bring the case to court, and ANL would presumably begin work on further exposing the truth. That could be very illuminating indeed, but would always stink of a cover up, when we are now all aware that there is further evidence of her lies and deceit. It may also deter the awful pair from engaging in frivolous litigation, although I doubt that. If their feelings are hurt they will always lash out legally, because they are very privileged and can afford the costs, an action completely out of most people's reach.
I personally hope it goes to full trial.
The evidence I have seen thus far (and it's only a fraction of what has been submitted) indicates that there is a case to answer, and that not all the relevant evidence has been made available.
Her lawyers are having a tough time & being ‘dictated’ to...their client in this case is impossible to deal with. Hopeful it will come to trial although sure there will be another handy excuse from MM why she can’t appear. The High Court is used to dealing with narcissists & will take no brook. It is very distressing to all to witness
I’ve been following Harry Markle for a while now and love reading your articles. I’m from the United States and the Trillion dollar questions are: 1) Why Meghan Markle was allowed to marry into the Royal Family so quickly and 2) Why MI5/MI6 didn’t shield the family from someone with such a questionable past and crazy family history? As far the trial; why was this debacle allowed to happen and continue to defame the British Royal Family and the British public? If this doesn’t go to trail and summary judgement rules in favor of the MM; I truly have lost faith in the rule of law and the integrity of those who sit on the bench as judges. In today’s world it seems if there is one set of laws for the rich and elite and another for those of us who don’t fit in that category. The only hope I have is what my grandmother always told me; “if you do good, good will follow. If you do bad then bad will follow. You might get by but you won’t get away!” There is a Bible Scripture that says; be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.” I hope and pray that my grandmother and the Bible is right!
I have seen, in the various places that I post, numerous people asking why the marriage was allowed to happen, with many people also asking 'how did the Queen not realise what Markle was like'. I have absolutely no doubt that the Queen knew exactly what Markle was like. The investigations into her past would have been so thorough, that I think the Queen probably knows more about her than we do. What could she have done to stop the marriage though? Lock Hasbeen away somewhere? They were going to get married, with or without the Queen's blessing, and she therefore had the choice to support them or not. If she hadn't, at a time when the majority thought Markle was a wonderful addition to the RF and were so happy that Hasbeen had finally found 'love', she would have been condemned not just by us, but by many people from other countries and would, I believe, be in a worse position than she is now simply because there would have been no way back from that decision. She had no choice. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but of no help at all at the start of a situation such as this.
You are right that they could not have stopped the marriage. I think the real question is why with all that information would she be given Royal titles without becoming a British citizen First? And why go along with such an expensive huge wedding considering she had been married before? Those are the things the royal family did that perplexes me.
Meghan was not "given" a title: Harry was - as Harry's wife, they could not possibly have prevented her from being given the same courtesy title that Kate got by virtue of marrying William. Kate doesn't have the Cambridge title: William does. Thus, by courtesy, Kate is Duchess of Cambridge.
The BRF were at pains to show the public that Harry's wife was not being treated as "less than" because she was American, divorced, and mixed race. That wedding, remember, may have been her second, but it was Harry's first. The decent thing was not to deprive Harry of a something like a "royal wedding". St. George's rather than Westminster Abbey, no crowned heads, no heads of state, etc., was as far as the BRF could go in quietly stating the difference between Harry's and William's weddings.
As it was, Meghan still managed to anger the Queen several times before the wedding. There is no mistaking the difference in expressions on the family faces between the two weddings.
But, here again, the Queen had little choice if she was not to start accusations about racialism. Harry merited something like a royal wedding, his wife was owed the courtesy of sharing the title the Queen gave him on his wedding day.
Remember, when Edward abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, everyone assumed that she would, as the custom is, share his title of HRH Duchess of Windsor. But the BRF cut that off by King George VI issuing Letters Patent creating his brother HRH Prince Edward Duke of Windsor, but withholding the HRH from h is wife, so that she was created a nonroyal duchess ("Your Grace" rather than "Your Royal Highness").
It's not feasible to think that at this point in history the Queen would have done that to what were supposed to be two senior working royals. The outcry would have been heard in Outer Space.
So, it's only a courtesy title for Meghan. Citizenship has nothing to do with the "courtesy". It might come into play if they divorced or if Harry passed away.
If they take the style and title away from Harry, Meghan loses it automatically.
Your comment makes the title business a lot to easier to understand, Tom, thank you. I agree about the difference in expressions, I think it must have been very hard for them all to sit and watch their son/grandson/cousin etc. marry someone who was not a good match for the type of person he is.
The wedding I can understand - the Markles would have kicked up a huge fuss if they didn't get a 'Royal' type wedding. However, don't forget the location of their wedding - Windsor, rather than a far more grand place such as Westminster Abbey. We were told at the time that this was the Markles choice - what we now know about Meghan makes me wonder whether it was, in fact, the Queen's choice. Would Meghan really have turned down Westminster Abbey if she had the choice? I don't think so. So possibly that was the Queen's way of at least making it a small circus.
As for the titles - Meghan did start her British Citizenship process, so I would hazard a guess that the titles were on the understanding that she did become a British Citizen. Her appalling behaviour aside, I see absolutely no reason that her title, at least, cannot be removed simply because she is not a British Citizen. How can an American have 'status' over the British public?
I agree about the Queen feeling like she had no choice but to allow the marriage because of the reasons you stated. What puzzles me, though, is why she allowed the huge celebrity/no bride family/big spectacular carriage ride wedding with the bride wearing white when Meghan had been married before. There seemed to be a power being help over the Queen’s head from my viewing place and Meghan continues to behave in a manner which hurts the Royal family. To plan on a personal letter to be shared publicly just to make herself look better without any regard to how that would impact the Queen and Royal family was despicable and reveals Meghan’s self-absorption. I fear the Judge may not rule for trial because of copyright even though she had help. In the court of public opinion Meghan has already lost huge but so has the Queen to some extent and that makes me sad. I wish the Queen would remove titles, remove Harry and his heirs from the line to the throne and tell these two to go shill to their hearts’ content. She needs to put these two in their place. Harry and Meghan should be utterly ashamed to have put the much respected Queen through all their selfish melodrama during the twilight years of her remarkable reign. I’m an American and the Queen is very respected here. Harry was loved by virtue of Diana but his behavior has erased the good will. It was insulting the spoiled two thought they’d swan into the States and be automatically adored. You do not treat your grandmother and family members on both sides like dirt and get respect in my neck of the woods. Here’s hoping for trial and that Meghan’s machinations will finally come to light. Thank you, Harry Markle, for your hard work.
I have thought a lot about why she gave Markle so much right at the very beginning, knowing what she would have known about her and, unusually for me, I really don't have a clue. I am quite a logical thinker, and can normally come up with possible reasons for why people do things (sometimes right, sometimes way off track), but I have yet to come up with anything in relation to this. It frustrates me immensely that I can't!
I agree with everything you have said, especially about hoping for a trial. That is, in my opinion, the only way to stop her. To have her real self blown out of the water for the world to see. I'm a pessimist though, so I'm expecting a SJ. I hope I'm wrong.
I think the Queen gave her so much so that she could not be accused of not treating her well later when things went wrong, which she knew was bound to happen. The Palace are much smarter than Meghan could ever hope to be.
I think you're right in terms of the 'special' way she was treated and the 'extras' she was given, but my sticking points are the titles and patronages. Those are things not to be given lightly and whilst yes, I agree the Palace are smart, I don't believe the Queen wasn't aware of the potential issues those two things could cause, so can offer no ideas at all of why she went ahead and gave them.
The 'extra' was the HRH as she would have assumed that automatically if she had become a British citizen, but The Queen chose to give it to her immediately as a gesture it seems. Others may say it was under pressure or coercion. She still would have had the duchess title, but would have to wait about 3 years for the HRH.
I think she had to give them the Dukedom because this is normal practice upon marriage, and Harry would know that. It is also usual to give patronages and if she had not done this, they would have had cause to complain of bad treatment. It would have looked as though she disapproved of the marriage! It must have been a bitter pill to swallow, but she had to do it, I think.
Harry Markle, thank you for opening this site. Constructive and thought-provoking comments have been submitted.
Forgive me for piggy backing on your thread, Lucia, but my thanks also go to Harry Markle for opening this site. I very, very rarely post on Facebook, for personal reasons, and it has been extremely frustrating to read all the comments and not be able to offer up my thoughts on both the situations being discussed and the comments that have arisen from them. I feel I have now been let out of a cage with the freedom to join in and post here. Thank you, Harry Markle. You have rescued me from silence, which isn't my forte!
I think the question on the minds of many would be, are the Palace's and royal family's best interests served by not hindering the case going to trial? Or, alternatively, is it more in their long-term interest to use their influence to "encourage" Summary Judgement?
It must be borne in mind that the Queen stopped the Burrell trial in its tracks to prevent Burrell from leaking more dismaying material about Charles and Diana and the royal family.
At a glance, it's my guess that the Palace Four wouldn't have lawyered up and issued that joint statement if they hadn't already discussed the matter with the Queen's advisors and staff. Latham still works for the Queen, and Knauf for the Cambridges. It would be as much as their careers are worth to come forward without prior discussion.
Just the same, and it is sad to say, the suspicion that now the royal family as well as Meghan would like this all to go away could sway the Court re Summary Judgement. It would look very much like a coverup, and I wonder if Warby J would wish to risk that?
At this point, it is clear that Meghan badly misjudged and overplayed her hand, and the warnings of hits to her public image wouldn't be worth the damages even if she won the case are being proved prescient. She is now desperate to avoid a trial.
It is to be hoped that the Court is impervious to any delicate "encouragement" from the Palace about ending this case, and that Summary Judgement is denied.
I believe you have misinterpreted the course of the Burrell trial, although admittedly it was years ago. When Burrell was unable to extricate himself from his legal difficulties, the Queen was required to divulge her knowledge of the case. She had been informed by Burrell, years earlier, of the arrangement Diana had made with him to protect her privacy with regard to certain belongings. Their close relationship had given Diana a reason to share belongings with him over the course of their relationship. But after her death, Burrell had been obliged to intervene in an additional and unexpected way to protect her, and that was from her own family. Adult family members had trooped into her apt and destroyed letters and documents and apparently taken other items. Burrell stepped in at that time also to protect Diana, in death, as he had during her life. He was fulfilling the request Diana had made of him years earlier. The Queen had knowledge of this arrangement and was compelled to share it with the court.
I find it interesting that we can easily find a phrase that supports our judgment of a situation, rather than try to shed light upon the circumstances.
Meghan can no longer withdraw the lawsuit. She can do it legally, until the sentencing hearing is called she can, even then she can seek an agreement from ANL. But she can't do it now, without sinking further. Because what would you think if it does? Which is because he has something to hide. Not that she seeks to protect the RF, but to hide her shady dirty laundry.
I think that is why now she is looking for the RF to get involved, even in a bad way, and it is not working. If it had been a simple copyright case, voila. But the duchess Meghan made it clear that what she wants is absolute control of the press, that things be published as she wants, when she wants, when it suits her. The Queen cannot come to her aid, not after Meghan's intentions are exposed.
If the Queen had wanted to use her influence to end this, she would have done so long ago. But she didn't. She did not do so in any of the other Markles lawsuits. She has let them sue everyone they come across, without lifting a finger for them, even when she sees that the lawsuits are ridiculous. Less she will in this case. The Queen will let Meghan sink, and she's not going to save her because she was warned not to do this and Meghan ignored it. And none of this will touch the RF, because nobody believes the Markles.
I also feel that the public affection for the RF is low, and they can't risk unpopularity right now. While there is no doubt that there are other coverups going on, this one is far less serious than ones that would be heard in the 'other' courts.
I agree that the palace 4 would have been authorised by BP to speak, there is no way they would have offered their comment without. It would seem however that their testimony can only be accessed through a trial so I do not believe this is evidence of BP suppressing the trial - more encouraging it to take place! I do believe that the airing of this information is most definitely in BPs favour, as it will show MM in a terrible light. It also shows to the judge that there is further evidence to consider, making a summary judgement less likely not more. The other thought is that it may lead to a summary judgement against Meghan as this is definitely not in her favour, bearing in mind it is presented by the Defence not Meghan herself - surely if it was positive to Meghan she would have them as witnesses herself. Just my two-pennorth! I do believe that BP want her exposed for what she is with little risk to themselves, and that is what this is!
Agree with you. The 4 have the RF lawyers representing them...they are ready to appear for the defence.
Perhaps the source that gave the names to the defence was sanctioned by the men in grey? I don't think for a minute that the information was allowed to be 'leaked' without some thought in how it should be handled.
I believe that if this had been really calculated, MM would have filed the lawsuit from the beginning to be resolved in summary judgment. But just, almost a year after the lawsuit was filed, suddenly his team wanted to change the procedure, and not because they really can win, but because they fear that more evidence will emerge against them FF style. I don't see the calculation.
They must give evidence to show that justice is being served. British justice prides itself on being fair (possibly questionable at times) and it is important to see that occur. I'd also like to see Durand questioned because there is something odd about her being an invisible person. The only problem with a trial is that people don't always appreciate the black and whitnesses of court cases - Johnny Depp's being a good example - it was technically correct that he lost his case because it was based on the law of libel, not a moral judgment about whether his wife was appalling and provoked him to violence on one occasion. Similarly, we all know that morally MM should lose this but that might not be the legal technicality. I really want the Mail to win, they are doing a public service in pursuing this and exposing the entitlement and hypocrisy.
Sorry if my English is not very fluent, I am a Spanish speaker and I do not practice your language. I've been reading the blog for a while, because the Markle vs. ANL case seems very interesting to me. The use of public resources (such as the Palace Four) to be used in a personal dispute seems most unpleasant to me, because it is no longer only the fact that Meghan Markle believes that she is above all criticism, and that she believes that a title gives you authority to be above freedom of the press (which is what you want to censor) I want the aforementioned advisers to testify, I want trial. If Meghan Markle wins, it would allow other people, with questionable morals and conduct, who hold relevant positions, to act in the same way. She must not win.
I think you expressed yourself admirably for a person whose first language is not English!
Of course, I think the SJ can’t be allowed in view of the complexity of the ‘alterations’ in M’s evidence. I also consider that the so called ‘Palace 4’ must have been authorised and perhaps actively encouraged to come forward. And we wouldn’t expect them to do more than tell the plain, unbiased truth. If the case was closed down in some fudge - well, I think there would be an uproar and deservedly so. The more things come to light the more I feel that that M and PH should be held to account for the things they have done quite deliberately.
I would assume all these folks would have signed an NDA. How does that work when called to testify? Once their testimony is out in the open, does it mean they are free to talk about it or does the NDA slam their voices shut again?
I don't know how it works there but in my country in NDA does not usually cover such legal proceedings. In fact withholding such information could be seen as obstruction of justice for the defendant.
NDAs, so far as I know, cannot be used to avoid testifying in a legal case, as others have pointed out.
The fact that they have legal representation via BP indicates that they are allowed to discuss relevant issues.
I believe that if asked in a court of law to answer this overrides any NDA that you have signed. So they could answer questions in court but even afterwards nowhere else.
The palace staff have signed an NDA with the Queen, so she can authorise them to testify, and require them to stay silent afterwards.
Has anyone besides me considered the possibility that the Palace Four obtaining legal representation and making their willingness to testify known to the court and the public as Her Majesty lobbing a shot across the bow of the Claimant’s rapidly sinking ship?
The Queen does NOT want this case to go to trial. Perhaps she is putting her thumb on the scales of justice to force the Claimant to settle out of court or withdraw her claim altogether.
It would not be the first time The Queen played a blinder to resolve an untoward situation concerning her family.
It is not for the Claimant to settle out of court, that would be a decision by the Defence which they would have done by admitting her claim. they have chosen to either not admit or dispute this claim I’m not sure which it is in this stance. Disputing the claim means both sides are required to present evidence to set out their case. Not admitting the claim does not mean the defence disputes it but requires the claimant to prove it with their evidence. I suspect ANL have gone for disputing the claim. The only possibility for this not to come to trial is for the judge to find in favour for the Claimant in the Summary Judgement or the Claimant to withdraw the claim of breach of copyright & privacy laws. Equally he could find in favour of the defence in the Summary Judgment. My understanding is if she withdrew all or part of her claim (known as a Discontinuance) at this stage she would then be liable for defence legal fees as well as her own for all or the part of the claim that she withdrew. If she won at trial my understanding is she would have to prove her losses as in the financial cost to her breach of privacy & losses from breach copyright. Undoubtedly the letter would not have been for sale as in normal works of fiction (unless she admitted it was going to be the big reveal in FF & affected sales by that loss!!) so how she would put a price on it I don’t know perhaps she could claim ANL gained financially through newspaper sales from the article. For privacy I suppose she would have to claim a defamation of character🙄🙄. However she has to prove those costs & it must be shown that she has done everything to limit those costs. What price would she put on it all? It seems to me that this is a bonkers litigation attempt & will come at great cost because what is she trying to achieve? It won’t make us like her, it has brought her name & reputation to lower depths, it is completely risible but worse it could bring the monarchy into disrepute - was this her goal?
She has made a point of not claiming defamation in her particulars of claim. The reliance is on the breach of privacy, and failing that, misuse of personal data. However, many of these issues cross-over into CR law, and also the fact that if the data had been 'given' to a media outlet to use (People/FF) then that claim is also weakened.
Further to my thoughts on awarded costs should she win- she can’t claim loss of earnings due to breach of privacy/copyright after all they have those big contracts, do they not.
I thought they were not going to testify, that they were going to rely on their confidentiality contracts. But it turns out that the four of them are willing to testify. That would not have happened if KP had not given them authorization to make this decision. The time to reach an out-of-court settlement was over when FF was considered evidence. Now, seeing Meghan's contradictions, an agreement is an acknowledgment of guilt on her part, ANL would not reach an agreement without that condition.
What I find strange is we never heard about their help before.
Timing is everything. The Palace may have been laying a trap by waiting. I think they want a trial which will discredit her completely and prevent future problems with her.
She's treading a fine line though. It took a long period of time for her to weather the storm over not returning to London after Diana's death, and the Paul Burrell trial intervention was just odd. News and public opinion moves so much faster now and, sad to say, I don't know how much longer she has left. For someone who dedicated themselves to public service as HMTQ has, I think it would be really sad for her to lose it all now because her odious grandson can't keep it in his trousers.
Odious grandson is so apt!!! HMTQ deserves better treatment than she has been given by the Odious twat and his thingy wife (skankenstein).
The Queen will be well buffered against events in this case. This is not the same as the Burrell case: Charles is a future King - Harry is an irrelevant sixth in line. Charles' wife was a martyred and hugely popular future Queen. Meghan is much disliked in the UK.
The Queen doesn't have to do anything and won't lose anything, let alone "lose it all".
It's Meghan who has the most to lose. Cases like these are "cost of doing business" for ANL, they have far deeper pockets than Harry and Meghan. No one will be able to charge the Queen with anything.
Her grandson is a fool who has betrayed his country and his Sovereign, and he is already adjacent to the direct line.
This all works in the royal family's favour.
Good points, also the ones you made on other comments that MM is increasingly being backed into a corner. Thank you. I meant "lose it all" in terms of respect, not anything material. The Queen is the same age as my father so I guess I take it a bit personally that Harry and Meghan have treated her and everything she stands for so poorly.
like the return of her memory with Paul Burrell
I wondered the complete opposite. Whether the Queen is supporting the Palace 4 to testify because she does want it to go to court. If it doesn't go to court they are still a problem that she has to somehow resolve. If it goes to court and full details of their lies, dirty dealings and manipulation comes out, then they are finished. No-one will touch them after that.
That does not help the Royal Family. People are looking at a year of this going on. And the royal family has been pretty silent. Even while they were political campaigning in America using their titles.
the Royal family's response to all this reminds me of what happened with them after Diana's death. The left wing Tony Blair had to intervene and save the monarchy! That was how out of touch the royal family was with their subjects. I think they still are despite being surrounded by administrative State advisors.
I agree. I think this is a clever strategy by the Queen and her advisors to shut the Markles down for good. She will always protect the monarchy and the country. The copyright issue seemed to be the one point Meghan could win on a technicality, so this is a move to scupper that.
I agree, as well. On its face, the sudden appearance of the Palace Four indicate that the Queen, in not discouraging them, is prepared to play hard ball with Meghan. Why should the Queen prefer the case not to go to trial, when as the trial goes on, Meghan will inevitably look increasingly more dishonest, manipulative, and willing to perjure herself if she can get away with it?
If the Palace Four pressure Meghan to try to settle, that will make her look worse, as well, as if she has something to hide.
And, ANL has refused to settle for the last 18 months. Why would they settle now? If Meghan withdraws unilaterally, she has to pay all ANL's legal costs - she would be out somewhere around $3-$4 million. It might in the end be worth it to her to stave off worse revelations of her hypocrisy, or not.
But if she tries to settle, or withdraws, or goes to trial, she is going to take real character hits. And I cannot imagine the Palace, behind the scenes, would be only too delighted.
Narcissists are dangerous indeed. I hope it goes to court...the judge will not put up with nonsense as has already been seen. The RF know a lot more about MM than we do...her father has been treated abominably. He deserves to have his say.
How will the public react if the Pace Four are not allowed to testify? I think the wheels of disgruntlement are already turning at a steady pace. If for some reason, The Four are prevented from testifying, I think the speed may indeed be accelerated to an alarming pace! People just want fair justice and the truth.
Would this indicate a cover-up, or preferential treatment? Who knows quite possibly? To be frank, the whole Sussex saga appears to be one big “cover-up.” The public are entitled to BETTER from the Royal Family of the nation.
If they are silenced, how can the court system be seen to be seen to fair, just, or impartial? Exactly, if they were silenced, it would prove to be a very dark day for British Justice and I don’t doubt the public would let it rest there. People will surely voice their disgust and contempt regarding such an action.
Harry Markle, thank you for all your hard work and diligence in bringing matters to light, it is much appreciated.
I doubt very much that they will be prevented from testifying by the Palace, or the Palace would have stopped them from unnecessarily obtaining expensive legal representation and issuing that joint statement. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag on that score. It is clear that Palace hasn't prevented them from coming forward - it is too late to stop them from testifying if called by the defence, who can issue summonses.
The really interesting question is, is the Palace allowing the four, two of whom are still in the employ of the Palace, to come forward because the more discredited Meghan becomes, the better for the Palace's wish to distance themselves from her, and to prevent her from further monetising her connection with them?
After all, after dragging the family and its employees into this mess of her own creation, would the Queen really be blamed for not having the Sussexes back on the balcony of Buck House for the Trooping the Colour, or at the Remembrance Day services? Would anyone else in the family willingly stand next to her, smiling?
One hopes that this ridiculous case ends up being a gift to the family, and gives them visible and reasonable cause to keep the Sussexes at arm's length.
Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to say further up thread, but you have put it better!
If the four are not allowed to testify that would, to me, indicate very preferential treatment, thus protecting the toxic twosome.