The Harkle Red Flags (not Red Balloons) Ignored, or Covered Up?

I began writing this back in February, but then more world chaos ensued in the Middle East, and the reality is that the Harkle mess is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t mean that the Harkle Red Flags don’t matter, because they do when we look at the York family fiasco, where the red flags were ignored and shielded by various parties of wealth and power over decades.

It then begs the question as to what has already been concealed and shielded in relation to the Harkles, for we know that dealings with them have been less than open and transparent. Take for example the Jason Knauf emails, the KP bullying report, the hidden Harkle companies (even when they were still working members of the RF), and the sudden restructure of their main entity, Archewell Foundation.

The most recent red flags has been the use of the faceless children, used as props for social media posts. In particular, the highly manipulated image of the girl child dressed in a ballet outfit with 10 red balloons anchored by her tiny 4 year old wrist that defies gravity, and where the image showed a partial glimpse of a face. No one actually knows who the girl is because she wasn’t named, and it could be any child, and as for the ballet outfit, that was a sad attempt to look like Diana, who loved ballet and was probably just a party outfit. In fact, I saw several little girls on their way to parties wearing similar outfits earlier this year so it’s quite a common outfit.

Yes, a it was a bit of an eye and a nose —enough for the sugar media to promote TW’s post, but in reality if you’ve ever held 10 balloons, you know you’d have to pull them down, and there is no way a tiny little wrist held horizontally could hold 10 balloons unless it was a robot, or the more likely option being that the photo was manipulated/fake/AI. Even TW, who was holding the same 10 red balloons had to use both hands and weigh it down with a jar of mass produced jam, so the likelihood of 10 balloons being held, tied to a tiny wrist is physically improbable.

Another red flag is the use of the titles…but that’s a whole essay by itself. The Harkles chose not to give their ‘children’ titles, ones they were entitled to at birth but why? They claimed it because they didn’t want them to have titles in order to be private and ‘normal’ but that contradicts TW’s whining at Oprah claiming the RF refused to give the child known as Archie a title. Or was it because they knew the children were not legitimately entitled to hold the titles because they were not born of body? If they had claimed the titles when the children were not eligible, then that would be considered an act of treason (mainly as the boy would inherit a dukedom at present).

Legitimate issue would have been entitled to use the titles Earl of Dumbarton or Lord for the boy, and Lady for the girl at birth. Was it a step to dupe Queen Elizabeth II, who may have issued Letters Patent to restrict the Prince and Princess titles as she did with her youngest grandchildren (with the belief that they would not carry out royal duties)? Hence, if the Harkles opted not to give titles to the children, then the late Queen would have no reason to issue LP. Yet, as soon as she died, they were quick to adopt the Prince and Princess titles, bypassing the birthright ones (Prince and Princess are not birthright ones because they were not born with them). Now it appears they want to assume HRH styles, but they do not come automatically with any title and are at the discretion of the reigning Monarch, and are generally only used when members of the RF carry out duties to represent the Crown, or are likely to do so (for example, George, Charlotte, and Louis will carry out duties and are already in training).

As we have seen from the York family, titles and statuses can be removed quickly when necessary, and Andrew himself had stopped using the HRH style years ago. While Andrew appears to have accepted his fate, as the consequences of his actions and poor decisions decades ago, can the same be said about his former wife and his daughters?

My own thoughts are that the line of succession should remain with those whose births have been verified by official and recognised medical staff, and Beatrice and Eugenie should step back from royal appearances if they wish to retain their titles and status. There is still a grey cloud over their possible involvement with Epstein, if they had participated in meetings willingly or were coerced by their mother. If they did accept money from Epstein in exchange for taking his ‘friends’ on tours of BP, then they should opt to voluntarily stop using their titles, but then we have the question as to whether they could be trusted as Counsellors of State if they can be ‘influenced’ with money from third parties. Currently, it seems that no one appears to trust any member of the York family after the Epstein files, but how does the RF and BP choose to deal with this situation? They made a mess of handling Andrew’s situation, are still failing to deal with the Harkle saga, and now the York girls.

Sunshine Sachs is back on the payroll, but why hasn’t anyone questioned who was paying their invoices back in 2018 and onwards since several members of the agency attended the wedding? A source has said that their invoices were paid for by C3 via KP expenses, and the same goes for a plastic ‘journalist’ on the payroll and TW’s then bestie, Mulroney as the ‘stylist’. These were all red flags back then that no one appeared to flag as a concern, or did they and they covered it up? The same source has claimed that the ‘questionable accounts’ were settled privately and any fines paid to cover up the discrepancies, thus the questionable financial transactions had been cleaned up and ‘sorted’, thus enabling the Harkles actions.

When you think back to another red flag of TW’s ANL trial where Harold, TW, and the plastic journalist all submitted witness statements that were nearly identical, claiming they had not collaborated with the plastic journalist, and where the plastic journalist and the co-author (the latter did not apparently submit a statement to the court) claimed they had never been in contact with the Harkles over the Finding Freedom book. The Knauf emails prove that all the witness statements were false and would have led to perjury charges if the judge had not decided on a Summary Judgment. The red flag here was why was the plastic journalist and Harold so confident in providing false statements, and was it because they knew the case would never go to trial? They both knew the emails detailing the collaboration exchange and using Knauf as the middle man existed, but assumed they would never be made public. As for TW’s shifting narrative and statements, they seemed to change each time a request for further information was made when her ‘facts’ simply didn’t add up and contradicted other statements.

Harold’s latest legal battle (ANL) has left him red faced, when he claimed he didn’t know Charlotte Griffiths, (then a Leeds University student and part of his crowd), and accused her of UIG (unlawful information gathering). Griffiths, also known as CG-String to Harold, released a number of private direct messages from Harold, proving that they were at various parties together as more than friends, and that Griffiths knew many of his friends already. Therefore, it is more than probable that Harold’s pals had discussed him with Griffiths (which is not unlawful) and is how she knew information for stories. Apparently, it was an open secret that Griffiths had been a notch on Harold’s belt, and for the rest of us, well, it’s not exactly a shocker is it?

While many are calling for Harold to be found guilty of perjury, the point of the case was to try and prove UIG, and Griffiths messages prove otherwise. The end result will be able financial compensation (if any) and who will be liable for the legal costs. Harold and Sherborne had expected ANL to settle like the other media outlets, but the Griffiths messages made a difference, and the fact that Gavin Burrows stated that the witness statement Harold’s team produced was fake, and that his signature had been forged, and forged badly as it didn’t even resemble his actual signature.

On the face of it, C3/BP were funding and paying for questionable services that the Harkles had invoiced for, I mean, why would they have needed to retain the services of a US PR agency when they were full time working members of the RF back in 2018/2019, and where C3 was paying the invoices for Sunshine Sachs?

Why did no one question the role of Sunshine Sachs in coercive PR measures, including the death knell interview in Vanity Fair, that forced Harold to take TW back and declare she was his girlfriend, leading to her moving herself into Nottingham Cottage only a few weeks later, complete with a dog? Will we be forced to wait 20 years before the RPOs and aides at the time to come forward to tell the truth of what really happened?

We know in part (due to the release of some of the Knauf emails) that there has been a cover-up, in particular over the ANL case and ‘lettergate’ involving the sad Thomas Markle. I once had sympathy for Thomas, but this farce is partly his own fault for failing to tell the whole truth, and also for concealing TW’s secrets and enabling her deceitful behaviour. He can’t deny the fact that she betrayed him and threw him to the wolves and then watched them tear him apart, yet he still defends her and hopes that she will speak to him because he holds some of her darkest secrets.

Some may ask why he just doesn’t spill, and that’s because if he does then people will ask why didn’t he come forward sooner, and the losses of the Markles will be all the greater. No one will pay for interviews with any of them. That’s why she never wanted her father in the UK or to attend the wedding, and why no family members (other than Doria) were allowed. The risk of them spilling the beans was far too great and the prize of Harold and a title was worth ghosting the entire family. That was a huge red flag, and it was one that was questioned but there was never any credible answer to this day. Some claim that TW paid them off to stay silent (Ragland side) and the niece Ashleigh, made a one -off appearance in the Netflix drama, defending TW, but has never been seen again since.

All of these red flags are waving, yet why are they being ignored? Will we have to wait until C3 passes before those in the know will be able to speak up? The late Queen may have protected her son Andrew, but C3 didn’t appear to hesitate to ‘bury’ his brother. Will history repeat itself, and will William be left to clear up the mess? It looks like it, but things are different this time with myself and others questioning, and documenting the Harkle dubious activities and associated anomalies, therefore ignorance is not a plausible excuse. NDAs can be revoked when a criminal act is involved, but those under the OSA may have to remain silent.

The latest red flags include video footage of the faceless Harkle children at Easter, running in the garden, yet the video ends with the boy pushing the girl. In real life if you ever had siblings, there would be a bit of fighting, crying and shouting. But why was the boy dressed in his best ‘jacket’ while the girl was running barefoot with a nightdress on back to front and the adults were all wearing t-shirts? To me it looked as if the boy was visiting ‘Papa Sussex’ and had just arrived from a journey, because in reality a 6 year old child doesn’t put on a jacket to run outside in their own garden when it is 22 degrees outside, but you would put on a jacket if you were going out to visit someone.

As ever, the images look rehearsed and contrived with poor video filming and editing. Is TW trying to brag about how perfect and wonderful her life is, and her ‘brand’ is for others to emulate it? Not everyone likes jam, honey or tea, and as for the hay fever sufferers, not everyone wants flowers dotted around the house either.

As for the girl, she must have the dirtiest feet ever, but TW obviously was upset that people noticed that girl’s hair was a mess and decided to film her walking for no reason to show that she can brush her hair. One must pity the poor child, being told to walk slowly, not talk, and not to turn around, and how many rehearsals did it take? No sign of them actually going to church, which is really what Easter is about.

The latest red flag is that Harold and his old pal Mark Dyer are being sued for defamation by Sentebale. Yes, the very charity that Harold had set up with Prince Sessiso of Lesotho. The claim was filed a few days before the one year deadline (27 March 2025 when Harold and Dyer made their statements) for initiating claims, and of course with the Easter break, the news dropped a couple of weeks later with Sentebale making a statement on the action. The adverse media campaign, aimed at harming the reputation of the charity and thus its ability to operate, includes actions by members of the cult who had attacked Sentebale, members of the former Board, the paid for sugar reporters who were tasked with spreading misinformation to destabilise the charity, and the PR agencies involved.

So, besides Harold and Mark Dyer being named as those behind the adverse media campaign, the case could out Sunshine Sachs and the previous PR agencies and communications staff as being responsible (writing the statements and then paying third parties to post and print them, even though most have resigned).

Reports claim that cult members are deleting associated social posts quite rapidly, with some disabling their accounts, while others claim that Sentebale will fail in this case, but defamation cases are usually about who has the money to keep the case going.

The key issue is that the legal case will be externally funded and no Sentebale charitable funds will be used. Where will Harold and Dyer get the money to fund their cases? Will they choose separate counsel (advisable), because the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they didn’t mount an adverse media campaign against Sentebale and that the statements were true. As this was played out in the public domain (a choice that Harold made and and was an action that he started), this was later criticised by the Charity Commission (they also criticised Sophie Chandauka for her television interview even though she did it to defend herself), it will permit details of emails to be revealed where Sophie Chandauka said she tried to keep the internal rifts private.

Those who should be concerned are the third parties (PR agencies who instructed and paid for people to posted negative comments about Sentebale), because with money, there is alway a paper trail. Sunshine Sachs was caught modifying Wikipedia entries for all of their clients several years ago, and so they have a reputation already for grey activities. Paying people to post negative comments in order to defame and destabilise a charity is definitely considered to be a grey activity, and there has been evidence of SS paying cult members for social media content, as several openly discuss details of their payments on social media.

Harold and Dyer released a brief statement via a spokesperson:

As Sentebale’s co-founder and a founding trustee, they categorically reject these offensive and damaging claims. It is extraordinary that charitable funds are now being used to pursue legal action against the very people who built and supported the organisation for nearly two decades, rather than being directed to the communities the charity was created to serve.

The defamation case is both tragic and ironic for this farcical saga, and it means that Harold most probably will never be part of Sentebale again. But how did it come to this? This is why in the past BP and KP issue guarded statements on behalf of working members of the RF, and why Harold’s PR team (the Harkles) are inexperienced in dealing with such matters. They were looking for positive PR at any cost, and failed to consider that anyone would challenge Harold (even if he lied or made a false statement) because his Pa is C3.

There were probably plenty of red flags being waved at Sentebale over the years, but everyone turned a blind eye to them. The fact that more money was spent on fundraising activities in some years than they generated in donations, indicated that the Sentebale polo events were just events for Harold and pals to horse around and look as if they were doing charitable deeds. Of course, the PR spin is that it created more awareness of the charity to encourage other donors, but did it? The accounts didn’t indicate that was the case.

Most people do not pursue a defamation claim unless they know they can win and have sufficient funds to keep the case going for a number of years. What does Sentebale hope to gain, and what do they want as settlement? Do they want the settlement to equal the lost donations? Is it about restoring the reputation of Sentebale? In a recent defamation case, Crispin Odey has dropped his libel case against the FT after conceding that their defence was likely to succeed, leaving him with a legal bill that is reported to be in at least seven figures (over £1 million). How much will it cost Harold and Dyer to defend themselves?

Most civil cases can last for years as parties are encouraged to settle out of court going back and forth with negotiations, but this time it is Harold who is the defendant and he doesn’t have the control to halt the case. The fact that Harold chose to make this public also means that this case is now in the public interest. Sophie Chandauka is a lawyer, thus is aware of the limitations of such an action and the consequences, and it is unlikely that she and the Board of Sentebale chose to pursue this course of action unless they had a watertight case and knew they would win.

Tom Bower’s latest book alleges that some donors to Sentebale were approached persuaded to donate to Travalyst and Archewell Foundation instead of Sentebale, in particular when Sophie Chandauka became the Chair of the Sentebale (July 2023) and was in the process of streamlining how funding was to be used. Obviously, if proven it suggests that comments made about Chandauka failing to get donors were false, and donations always have some kind of paper trail.

Needless to say, with the ANL case over and awaiting the court decision, and now with the defamation case, Harold is not exactly seeking a life of privacy, but instead seems to stir up the media to gain more attention. While cult members and Harold fans might still claim he wanted to escape from royal life, all he seems to do is try and mimic it, saying that service is much better when he chooses to do it (as in he gets paid to do it and he can choose what gigs he does) as opposed to being ‘told’ what to do.

Yes, the duo did ‘escape’ KP and BP for privacy, but that would be privacy over their finances because all KP expenses have to be recorded and are audited. There was no chance of any dodgy accountant cooking the books (and getting away with it) while they remained in the UK, but in the US it is a different matter. Once they were there, a host of Archewell companies sprung up in Delaware within a month (due to the favourable tax advantages and corporate privacy in the state), where transfers between the companies could merrily take place with little transparency. That’s the privacy they sought, and there are at least a dozen companies registered there, although I have been told there are probably closer to 20, used for various purposes.

The duo are set to arrive in Australia under a cloud of controversy. Harold is to speak at a conference in Melbourne where ticket sales have been that poor they’ve been reduced to selling virtual tickets at half the price of the cheapest ticket for the past week. TW’s gig isn’t faring much better with the weekend ‘best life retreat’ having such bad press (attendees must share a room with a stranger or pay for 2 tickets at $3,000 AUD each to get a room to themselves, that’s an expensive single room supplement!), and at one point they said they sold out of tickets, but last week, people were still reporting they had been offered the chance to buy a ticket and showed screenshots of the purchase page. As the agenda, it looks like a bit of meditation with the woman who owes the tax office more than $500k, a yoga session, and a couple of talks from some speakers from Friday evening to Sunday morning, so really not even 48 hours for $3k.

It’s a classic case of being ‘harkled’ but is this the Harkles playing out their half in/half out model, claiming it is a private visit/business trip, but are they behaving as if it is a royal tour and expecting to be treated as members of the royal family on an official visit? I expect the Harkles will be in Birmingham in July for the Invictus Games countdown, but will IG suffer the same fate as Sentebale, now that the latter has ceased as a funding and PR mechanism for the Harkles?

The red flags at the Invictus Games have been waving for years now, well, ever since TW showed up and used the event as a platform for her own PR, and the games have been tarnished with allegations that grants and funding for the event have been spent on expenses for the Harkles, including private planes. There really isn’t much hype here at all for the Birmingham event, which will be held at the soulless NEC and the swimming events at Sandwell ( a deprived and rough area) which is 22 miles away). Oh, I can see people queuing up to watch the games NOT, but then again it is during the summer holidays and the street kids who have nothing to do will show up for a bit of cash to make up the crowds.

The ultimate red flag was the announcement of the birth of the child known as Archie, where Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Jessica Fletcher, Miss Marple, and Columbo would have lingered around BP until the case was solved, for everything smelt fishy, odd, and nothing seemed to make any logical sense including the BP servers going down and that no one noticed for half a day!

‘Everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks’, is Harold’s most famous quote to date, said two days after the ‘birth of the child known as Archie’. Is that a red flag that the RF and BP have turned a blind eye to?