Lady Archer was given a kiss on the cheek by her husband yesterday after spending the morning at the Old Bailey where he is being tried for perjury.
She was not in court and left before the jury was told how she had been described as "fragrant" by a judge 14 years ago when her husband sued a newspaper for libel.
Now Lord Archer, the millionaire novelist and former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, is in the dock himself charged with dishonesty in connection with the case.
The prosecution allege he used a fake diary to win the case and asked a friend, Mr Ted Francis, to provide him with a false alibi.
Lord Archer's former secretary, Mrs Angela Peppiatt, has said he had a secret mistress, Ms Andrina Colquhoun, throughout the time of the trial and that the Archers led "separate lives".
Mr Michael Hill QC, who had represented the Daily Star in the High Court, told the jury Lord Archer was awarded £500,000 damages after the newspaper accused him of sleeping with a prostitute, the late Monica Coghlan. Asked how Lord Archer's marriage was portrayed in the libel hearing, Mr Hill said: "As a happy, mutually supportive, mutually trusting, good marriage."
Mr Roy Amlot QC provided the jury with transcripts from the libel case which made specific reference to the marriage.
He quoted from the couple, Lord Archer's lawyer, Lord Alexander, and from the trial judge, Mr Justice Caulfield.
In his summing up, the judge had told the jury: "Remember Mary Archer in the witness-box. Your vision of her probably will never disappear. Has she elegance? Has she fragrance?
"Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? How would she appeal? Has she had a happy married life? Has she been able to enjoy, rather than endure, her husband Jeffrey?"
Then the judge had said: "Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex in a seedy hotel round about quarter to one on a Tuesday morning after an evening at the Caprice?
"It is possible even for the most happy, successful and respected married man to seek adventure in physical contact with persons who will not tell.
"Of course, it is possible. But reflect, would you, upon the position."
Earlier, Mr Hill told the court he believed he would have been able to unravel Lord Archer's alibi for the early hours of Tuesday September 9th, 1986, when he was alleged to have been with the prostitute, if he had known about the fake diary.
He said: "It would be just like pulling wool out of a damaged sweater - you pull and pull and the sweater just unravels."
He was shown a small diary produced at the Old Bailey by Mrs Peppiatt and said it was not the same diary he was shown at the High Court. Mr Hill said he had been suspicious about the main office diary at the High Court. He said: "I certainly did not believe that the Mrs Peppiatt diary was genuine."
The trial was adjourned until today.