That's where the theory falls down then - because she isn't!
That's where the theory falls down then - because she isn't!I think that could be right, but it wouldn’t necessarily get her fired. Anna Torv had a thing with the actor who played John Scott and the ended up getting married. It lasted one year. JJ was married to a black actress, then separated and now is with Lupita. He likes WOC.
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:
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.From my pov, nothing's laid to rest when you say, "The Palace was complicit in doing this." That's a monumentally huge can of worms on several levels - most of them involving legal issues.
Plus TRG doesn't show the clip of smeg arriving at the town hall and the bump suddenly inflating as she takes two steps out of the car.
Plus, as a very healthy and agile young woman c.15 yrs younger than smeg in these clips, there was absolutely no way I could coupy down on my haunches like that and hotch myself up in 5in heels with a 6 month baby aboard!!
(That moonbump looked far too big for a 4 1/2 mth baby - but then, all the dates were fudged and, of course, Aldi had changed so much in 2 wks, said Hazno supposedly 2 days after his birth...).
About bloody time the Palace comes clean about all this deception!
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.It's definitely the legs
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?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?
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.It's definitely the legs
Spiderwebs... Anna Torv's uncle is Rupert Murdoch.I think that could be right, but it wouldn’t necessarily get her fired. Anna Torv had a thing with the actor who played John Scott and the ended up getting married. It lasted one year. JJ was married to a black actress, then separated and now is with Lupita. He likes WOC.
Once my little monkey's legs were that long, they'd have a death grip round my body. My ribs still hurt thinking about itI 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.
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.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.
Exactly, no pushing just a shit 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.Good point
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?