Secret Justice: The Truth Behind Super-Injunctions and Royal Speculation

According to a freelance journalist closely associated with a renowned national newspaper, the wealthy, the famous, A-list celebrities, and even members of the royal family have the power to enforce super-injunctions.

These legal measures provide extensive protection against defamation and the disclosure of private information.

However, what sets super-injunctions apart is their ability to prevent media outlets from even acknowledging their existence.

The cost of obtaining such an injunction is estimated to be a staggering £200,000 or more.

Typically, it is celebrities who are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to utilize this legal tool and shield themselves from unwanted publicity.

Nevertheless, it is essential to distinguish between matters of public interest and the public's mere curiosity.

While juicy gossip may pique our intrigue, we must question whether it truly benefits those eager to hear it.

Super-injunctions epitomize a form of secret justice accessible exclusively to the affluent.

Shielded from public scrutiny, these individuals can effectively control the narrative surrounding their lives.

This sheds light on why newspapers refrained from reporting on the subject of Markle's suspected surrogate children and why Charles has not bestowed royal titles upon Archie and Lilibet.

The prevailing theory suggests that either the children do not exist or they were born via a surrogate.

In either case, they would have no place in the line of succession, and the public has a right to know the truth.

The palace should put an end to the tiresome speculation and provide clarity.

If indeed the children were born through surrogacy, it seems regrettable that this was not disclosed from the beginning.

Many parents have navigated similar circumstances, and it would not have caused a scandal.

It appears as though the palace assumed Harry's chances of ascending the throne were slim, leading them to leave the matter unaddressed.

However, if the unthinkable were to occur, a significant predicament would arise.

This situation exemplifies the consequences of fabricating lies instead of embracing transparency from the outset.

In an era characterized by social media and unfettered access to information, it is illogical to perpetuate such charades.

Drawing parallels to the scandal involving King Edward and Wallis Simpson, it is worth noting that the British press refrained from reporting on their affair until months later when the king announced his intention to abdicate.

Returning to the case of Harry and Meghan, the prevalence of a super-injunction would explain the silence observed among journalists and the swift deletion of Kensington Palace's surrogacy announcement.

Critics often argue that the royal family is oblivious to Meghan Markle's background.

However, the reality contradicts this belief.

It is rumored that the royals possess comprehensive knowledge about Meghan.

They may have chosen to feign ignorance as a means of letting the matter rest.

After all, is it plausible to assume that someone could marry into the royal family without MI6 conducting thorough background checks?

These investigations would include assessments of nationality, familial connections, and interviews with acquaintances to verify the veracity of her stories.

Ultimately, their findings would be presented to the queen.

The truth, as they say, will eventually emerge.

It is likely that King Charles is biding his time, waiting for an opportune moment to distance himself from the queen's passing before addressing the issue of the alleged phantom children in the line of succession.