1) Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.
That is a matter of perspective. I would say that about my father. My brother, however, would say different.
More importantly, within your family you might hold certain views, but once an outsider start criticising, y'all rally round and tell them they're wrong.
2) Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model.
Did she miss the exam because of a modeling appointment?
I was more reminded of the time I ran into a thug with an AK-47; according to reports I ran away, but I maintain I had just remembered an urgent appointment at the dentist.
3) Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.
From the "modeling" gigs we have seen her in, I think it is safe to assume that he found her and that she was not having any trouble at all.
I've seen some soft-porn shoots, but I can't imagine she was going to be able to retire on the proceeds from them. On the other hand, Donald didn't need to lift a finger; merely being associated with him would get her some higher profile assignments. That's not direct assistance; that's just windfall.
The Telegraph would have been better claiming merely that she had profited from her connection to Trump.
Maybe that's exactly what they said; I wouldn't know. Just as with Orwell's 1984, the internet seems to have been re-written to delete any link to the original article. All I can find is pages of apologies. If you know how to track down the original text, I would be grateful.
Nothing to see here; move along please.