MEGHAN’S BATTLE
New royal secrets revealed
Months before Prince Harry and Meghan Markle shocked the world with their decision to step down as senior royals, the couple made another bold move. While on the tail-end of a successful tour of Africa with son Archie, they declared their intent to launch legal action against the
Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers. “They are suing over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex,” said their lawyers in October 2019, calling the privacy breach “part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband”.
Associated Newspapers claimed it published the five-page personal letter that Meghan wrote to her now-estranged father, Thomas Markle, 75, in the lead-up to her May 2018 wedding, only after five of Meghan’s pals gave interviews for a People magazine cover story which referred to the contents of the letter.
The Sussexes have since fled to Los Angeles in attempt to, among other things, escape the cycle of damaging stories. Still, widely cited court documents and hearings pertaining to the case have seen a series of new revelations made about what really went on behind palace walls.
‘Unprotected’ by the royal family
According to the latest court documents, filed in response to a request from defendant Associated Newspapers, Meghan Markle felt under attack and opposed the Kensington Palace press team’s “no comment” directive regarding the reports about her strained family relationships. “It was mandated by the [Kensington Palace Communications Team] that all friends and family of [Meghan] should say ‘no comment’ when approached by any media outlet, despite misinformation being provided to UK tabloids about [her],” read the documents. “This shared frustration amongst friends left everyone feeling silenced, as it appeared that other so-called sources were able to disseminate false statements, while the people who knew her best were told that they needed to remain silent.” It is further stated
that the stories “caused tremendous emotional distress and damage to her mental health” and several of Meghan’s friends “had never seen her in this state before” and that they “were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself.”
Her Inner Circle Speaks
In February 2019, Meghan’s friends gave quotes to People magazine, which is the US sister publication of WHO. The story described the sources at the time as “Meghan’s inner circle – a long-time friend, a former co-star, a friend from LA, a one-time colleague and a close confidante”. In the new court documents, the friends are only referred to as A, B, C, D and E, but they could be called to testify at a trial. Meghan has denied authorising her friends to speak out on her behalf, saying she learned an article about her was due to appear shortly before it was published, but did not know it would be in People magazine and she asserts that she was distressed that one had mentioned the letter. “It is further stated that Markle believes the palace’s position of silence may have been the impetus for her friends to seek out People,” reads the filing. “It is probably because of this reason, as well as concerns about the press intrusion by the UK tabloids, that a few friends chose to participate, and they did so anonymously.”
Working Women
The documents do name-check Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, the first cousins of Prince Harry, singling them out in response to a claim that royal family members are not permitted to undertake paid work. The princesses are referenced after it was stated in legal papers that Meghan is “a member of the royal family and does not undertake paid work”. She rebuffs the claim by responding that “several member[s]” of the royal family do “undertake paid work”, before naming the sisters and Prince Michael of Kent. Beatrice works in finance and consulting, while Eugenie is a director at a London art gallery, however The Sun points out that they are not official working royals and are therefore not obligated to attend royal events.
Money Maker
Meghan’s royal wedding to Prince Harry cost an estimated $57 million, but in a submission made by her legal team, it is argued that “any public costs incurred for the wedding were solely for security and crowd control to protect members of the public, as deemed necessary by Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police”. The filing goes on to claim that the event made Britain $1.8 billion in tourism cash, arguing this boom “far outweighed” the contribution stumped up by the taxpayer towards security. Meghan’s legal team also points out that the royal wedding was “not, in fact, publicly funded, but rather personally financed by HRH The Prince of Wales.”