That's where the theory falls down then - because she isn't!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It's definitely the legs
Attachments
It's the law of the land, not a decision by the RF. Was recently taken to court by the Marquis of Bath and they lost.Anyone can request a super injunction, according to Wikipedia. If you read the grounds for super injunction, it's clear to see that it could have been requested by the Stoats - not saying that it did, but it could.
From the Wikipedia:
"The Neuberger Committee notes that the terminology surrounding privacy injunctions has been used imprecisely and the term "super-injunction" has been used to refer to:[3]
The committee adopt the definition that a super-injunction is
- Injunctions that provide anonymity for one or both parties.
- Injunctions that prohibit reporting of the substantive facts and proceedings of a case.
- Injunctions that provide anonymity for one or both parties, prohibit reporting of the substantive facts and proceedings of a case and prohibit access to court files.
You can read the whole article here:
Super-injunctions in English law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
My opinion is: there is a reason the ILBW retained her team, her legal and her publicity teams, even when she pretended she was playing by the book. Her legal team could have either activated it or push it the Palace team.
The Wikipedia article notes that this is mechanism that usually protects the rich and famous - which makes sense as you need a legal team, probably a good one, to put one in place. But it is not an exclusive mechanism of TRF - so, lets say the likes of Elton John would be pretty familiar with the mechanism.
ETA: I have always said that reporting in the birth and origins of the Harkle's children was a legal nightmare. Both Medical Information and Children's right to privacy are the most protected kind of information and the one's Media can get into trouble about. I didn't even think there was a super injunction of sorts, just the awareness that if taken to court - and Hazno and the ILBW have shown that they take anyone to court - they would most likely loose and loose big (money). Also, I do think that the report and citizen's conscience that TRF excludes alternative birth options from the LoS will open a can of worms with an enormously woke public opinion and put TRF in very hot waters. And of course we would have the ILBW under all the spotlights claiming that they are racists and ancient in their costumes and that is why she had to go away.
This is exactly why Royal births were witnessed in the past, to prevent issues like this. Not even an attending doctors signature, they may as well have smuggled a baby into the birthing chamber in a warming pan. Been done before, allegedly.
I used to carry my children a lot in a baby carrier and never ever did they look this odd.... There is zero structure and weight to what MM is carrying and from the moment I saw it, before I learned of Tattle and Moonbumps it struck as the strangest photo.
A thought occurred to me.
If the Sussex duo did take out a superinjunction for anything surrounding the pregnancy and birth, including surrogacy, wouldn't the wider royal family also be legally bound by the superinjunction the same way the mainstream media are?
I'm increasingly more convinced that this is what they did prior to the birth, and in the months that followed the RF were trying to work out a legally sound way of dealing with it. And in the end the easiest solution for an ageing queen and her dying husband was to banish them, hoping that they would be sufficiently enamoured with a glitzy celeb lifestyle that they wouldn't seek titles or LoS for their son. But aggrieved and vengeful at being banished, they doubled down. The miscarriage. Getting "pregnant" again. And lining up the interview, book and documentary. Naming their baby girl. It was all deliberate and calculated to show their hold over the royals.
And when the queen died, they updated the kids titles on their websites, forcing the RFs hand. The Palace probably thought they wouldn't dare. But they did.
If the Sussex duo did take out a superinjunction for anything surrounding the pregnancy and birth, including surrogacy, wouldn't the wider royal family also be legally bound by the superinjunction the same way the mainstream media are?
I'm increasingly more convinced that this is what they did prior to the birth, and in the months that followed the RF were trying to work out a legally sound way of dealing with it. And in the end the easiest solution for an ageing queen and her dying husband was to banish them, hoping that they would be sufficiently enamoured with a glitzy celeb lifestyle that they wouldn't seek titles or LoS for their son. But aggrieved and vengeful at being banished, they doubled down. The miscarriage. Getting "pregnant" again. And lining up the interview, book and documentary. Naming their baby girl. It was all deliberate and calculated to show their hold over the royals.
And when the queen died, they updated the kids titles on their websites, forcing the RFs hand. The Palace probably thought they wouldn't dare. But they did.
Quite apart from the stupidity on display here, why on earth are they so desperate for meghan to be Queen of a racist nation? Salty Island isn't safe for her to visit, so why would you want your leader sent here among us?
They're so dim - don't understand how succession works, don't understand property laws - Lady C's home was purchased by her as a private citizen, do they think the monarch can just kick people out of the homes they own?
What age was the sprog supposed to be in this picture, because the legs are a hell of a length for a wee one. I can see one idiot mitten cord but what is the other down on the right? Has she invented idiot bootees too? There are so many cords and straps, leads and tethers in that picture that I’m sure it’s a danger to the child’s wellbeing……except it wasn’t a child as there was no weight to keep the shoulder straps in place.
Spiderwebs... Anna Torv's uncle is Rupert Murdoch.
Interesting vid about The Portland
And shes correct
And shes correct
Once my little monkey's legs were that long, they'd have a death grip round my body. My ribs still hurt thinking about it
Live link. Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh at the French entente cordial at BP
Good point about if it was the Gruesomes who took out the super injunction then wouldn’t the RF also be bound by it. Perhaps one of our legal eagles on here could tell us if this is correct.
If so, then surely this would be the RF’s ‘get out of jail’ card pleading they knew but could do nothing because of the super injunction.
Yeah poor quality for the festering little C. Can you believe they wouldn’t take it? Should have gotten it in under Christina’s name. It’s clear enough of Ms. Applegate.
Good point
Attachments
Exactly, no pushing just a tit ton of panting while a strangers hands get right up inside you and try and free the cord from around the neck. Not pleasant and certainly not a time for pushing.
I still think the RF were blindsided and Minges plans were to revolutionise the monarchy by bringing surrogates into the LOS without giving them a choice. The dates for conception don’t add up. The gestation periods don’t add up and the way she presented don’t add up. I don’t believe for a single minute we will ever find out but this weren’t your simple births - she looked more pregnant than at any other time when they introduced Archie to CBS! And any ‘birth tales’ are debunked very easily and quickly by people with actual knowledge.
or my other line of thought is that Ginge won’t allow the kids to be seen because he is bonkers!
or my other line of thought is that Ginge won’t allow the kids to be seen because he is bonkers!
- Status