Prince Harry’s uncle’s girlfriend denies affair allegations | Royal | News

girlfriend Prince HarryHer uncle, Earl Spencer, denied allegations that their relationship began while they were married. In one case, Charles, Earl SpencerEarl Spencer was accused by his ex-wife, Countess Karen Spencer, of having an affair with Catrine Jarman before saying their marriage was over in a text message sent in March 2024, a claim Earl Spencer denies.

Ms Jarman denied claims that her affair with Earl Spencer began while they were married. She said both her and the Count’s marriages were over when their affair began. The Norwegian archaeologist said it was “hurtful” to put the accusations in legal documents where they could be reported without risk of libel.

He told the Mail on Sunday: “I think I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it’s very hurtful that there isn’t even the slightest element of reality in it. It feels really unnecessary and it’s very sad that it’s so public.”

Countess Karen Spencer was sued by Ms Jarman in 2024 for allegedly misusing the archaeologist’s private information by revealing details of her multiple sclerosis (MS) diagnosis to others.

In an ex parte statement read in open court last Thursday, Ms Jarman’s lawyers said Countess Spencer agreed to settle the claim in August last year but did not admit any liability or wrongdoing.

The terms of the agreement were not disclosed at the hearing, which Countess Spencer did not attend and was not represented.

Earl Spencer, 61, and Miss Jarman, 43, met in 2021 while working for a Channel 4 documentary at their ancestral home of Althorp.

Mrs Jarman said she had been estranged from her husband Tom Jarman for “years” but had kept it to themselves so as not to upset their children.

The archaeologist said he and Princess Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, were long-time friends before their relationship developed.

After the High Court ruled on her claim, Ms Jarman said: “I’m so happy I can now move on with my life.”

He continued: “Your medical information is yours and people are not allowed to speculate or share it.”

Ms Jarman’s lawyer, Dina Shiloh, told the court her client had previously shared her diagnosis only with a “very small and trusted circle of people”.

Ms Shiloh said Countess Spencer was told of Ms Jarman’s diagnosis during a conversation with her husband, Mr Jarman, in April 2024. Mrs Jarman had broken up with him at that time.

He stated that Countess Spencer then disclosed this information to others “in giving her own interpretation” and was unable to list the people she described, which caused “immense tension and anxiety” in Mrs Jarman.

A spokesman for the countess said after the hearing that she had been “threatened with multiple legal claims” that she believed were “co-ordinated” by Mrs Jarman and Earl Spencer.

They continued that Countess Spencer accepted the settlement offer “without admitting any liability or wrongdoing” as “Earl Spencer would be required to indemnify himself for the costs associated with accepting the settlement.”

They said: “Countess Spencer exercised restraint throughout and limited what she said to the public.

“At this time, he does not intend to discuss these matters beyond a few points he feels are important to highlight in this statement for context and accuracy. He considers the matter closed.”

Earl Spencer said after the hearing: “Cat handled every aspect of this matter with grace, honesty and quiet courage. She sought only what was rightfully hers: the same right to privacy that everyone else deserves.”

“Multiple sclerosis is a serious condition; its course is uncertain and its demands are significant. Those living with this condition deserve full control over when, how and to whom they disclose it.”

On his ex-wife’s claim that he ended their relationship via text message, Earl Spencer said: “The idea that I would end my marriage via text message is a ridiculous attempt to tarnish my name. Karen ended her marriage in early March after years of endless threats.”

“He asked me to confirm the end of the marriage in a message dated March 18, and my response that day was a simple acceptance of his decision. I still have these messages and will share them in court once I clear my name.”

Mr Jarman said after the hearing that he “did not envisage” the information disclosed to Countess Spencer “could be made public”.

He said: “Their disclosure was distressing and had a significantly detrimental impact on everyone involved and Cat in particular. It is a source of great personal regret… Any private speculation about Cat’s situation was just that: private.”