Author Topic: Meghan Markle's 14 explosive new court claims including feeling 'unprotected'  (Read 1389 times)

Pip

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 6575
    • Soul of Adoption
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markles-14-explosive-new-22288140?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_Mirror_Nletter_DailyNews_News_smallteaser_Image_Story6&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&ccid=2369561

Meghan Markle's 14 explosive new court claims including feeling 'unprotected'

Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, is taking legal action against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline over five articles it published on a letter she sent her father Thomas Markle

By Amber Hicks & Russell Myers

12:07, 2 JUL 2020Updated15:29, 2 JUL 2020

Meghan Markle felt "unprotected" while pregnant, claims her wedding to Prince Harry generated more than £1billion in tourism revenue, and was "distressed" by her friends' interview, new court documents reveal.  The papers form part of The Duchess of Sussex's legal action against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline over articles that featured parts of a "private and confidential" handwritten letter she sent to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.  The relationship between the pair broke down completely when, during the wedding week, he was embroiled in controversy after allegedly being caught staging photographs with the paparazzi.  In the documents, leaked last night and dated June 3, the former actress and humanitarian claims she spent her own money on hotels and flights to fly Mr. Markle to and from London for her wedding.  She also mentions Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie in the new submissions as she points out they "undertake paid work".  And she describes how her friends were concerned about her mental health while pregnant.  Meghan, 38, who married Harry, 35, in May 2018 and whom she shares one-year-old son Archie Harrison with, is suing Associated Newspapers over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline.  Here are the new court document claims:

1. 'Meghan had no idea about friends' People Magazine interview'

In February 2019, five of the Duchess's friends spoke anonymously to the US publication, People.  The interview described the bullying the royal said she faced and highlighted Mr Markle's letter.  The document states: "As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself."

However, Meghan has claimed she did not know her friends would be speaking to People and was not aware of the contents of the article until it was published.  The Duchess's five friends are not named in the documents but referred to as A-E, although they are identified in an undisclosed confidential schedule.  The magazine only referred to the pals as being in “Meghan's inner circle a longtime friend, a former co-star, a friend from LA, a one-time colleague and a close confidante”.

The friend said: "She's like, 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship'."

Meghan said she "did not know about the interview having been given, and only found out about it, and any reference to the Letter, after the People magazine article was published". 

She was "distressed" when she read it.  The documents state: "She learned that an article about her was due to appear shortly before it was published. The Claimant [Meghan] was not informed that the article would be in People magazine, or what its contents would be.  She was aware that her friends were deeply worried for her mental health as a result of her treatment by the UK tabloid media, particularly by the Defendant [Associated Newspapers]. The Claimant did not know that her Letter to her father would be referred to."     

Meghan’s lawyers also state in the court filings that the Duchess “discussed with Friend A that she was writing a letter to her father at the time of penning it", which was seven months before the article was published.  Friend A has been personally known to Mr. Markle, a retired lighting director, for more than 20 years.  Meghan phoned friend A after the article appeared to express "her distress" at its publication and contents, the court papers claimed.

2. 'Friends were worried about Meghan's mental health'

The court documents state how at the beginning of 2019, following visits by friends to see her in London, "some of her close circle of friends became extremely concerned at the aggressive attacks upon her in the media".

Meghan was told by one of her friends they were "extremely worried about her mental health".

It adds: "Especially as she was vulnerable as well as heavily pregnant at the time.

"As a result, one of her closest friends decided that they should help by arranging to give anonymous interviews to this American magazine..."

The papers continue: "As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself."

3. 'Didn't state in the letter she felt her father has "victimised" her'

Meghan has also claimed she did not state in her letter that she felt her father had “victimised” her, nor did she state that she had “only one father” as People reported.  Instead, the Duchess claims she raised concern that her father had consistently allowed himself to be "manipulated by the tabloid media".

The document reads: "The Claimant did not state in her Letter that she felt her father had “victimised” her, nor did she state that she had “only one father” as is reported in the interview.  "Instead, she raised concern that he had consistently allowed himself to be manipulated by the tabloid media, despite her trying to persuade him not to speak to them for his own good, and rightly so."

4. 'Meghan told friends and members of the Royal Family about the letter'

The legal papers also state that she had told friends and members of the Royal Family about the letter to her father.  However, she had only discussed the contents with Harry, her mother Doria Ragland, two friends, the Kensington Palace Communications Team, and her solicitor, she claims.  The papers read: "The Claimant requested the Letter to be sent via her trusted business manager (who was also known to her father), rather than from the UK address where the Claimant resided, in order to lessen the risk of the Letter being intercepted, and that a copy of the Letter be provided to her US lawyer for safekeeping (in case it was intercepted) on the understanding that he would not read its contents.  This illustrates the lengths to which the Claimant went to keep the Letter private, as it was meant to be."

5. Meghan 'unprotected by the Institution'

In one of the more explosive claims, Meghan claimed to have felt "unprotected by the institution" of the monarchy.  However, well placed Palace insider said last night: “It is clear Meghan is not pulling any punches in her pursuit of this trial.  The Royal Family will be absolutely dismayed at the assertion she was unprotected by the institution which is a bold claim.  The Queen, Prince Charles, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge all went out of their way to make her feel welcome and will be hugely disappointed these allegations are being made so forcefully.”

6. Kensington Palace's 'no comment'

When People Magazine approached Kensington Palace for a comment on the interview they were told 'no comment'.  Meghan claims she was not asked for comment by the KP Communications Team in relation to this media inquiry or its subsequent dealings with the media.  The documents state: "The stance of 'no comment' was taken by the KP Communications Team without any discussion with or approval by the Claimant, as is standard practice for Royal communications.  "Had the Claimant been asked or been given the opportunity to participate, she would have asked the KP Communications Team to say on the record that she had not been involved with the People magazine article, as she had not been."

It continues: "It was mandated by the KP Communications Team that all friends and family of the Claimant should say ‘no comment’ when approached by any media outlet, despite misinformation being provided to UK tabloids about the Claimant.  This shared frustration amongst the Claimant’s friends left everyone feeling silenced, as it appeared that other so-called sources were able to disseminate false statements about the Claimant, while the people who knew her best were told that they needed to remain silent.  The Claimant believes that 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."

7. Harry broke the news to Meghan about the People Magazine interview

Meghan was informed of the article by Prince Harry immediately after he had been told by the KP Communications Team.  Meghan initially did not know which of her friends had been involved and only found this information out some considerable time later, the court documents state.

8. Spotlight on Princesses Eugenie, Beatrice and Prince Michael of Kent

Princesses Eugenie, Beatrice, and Prince Michael of Kent have also been named in the court documents.  The Duchess was responding to a claim that Royal Family members don't work when she singled out the two sisters and Prince Michael of Kent.  The documents state: "It is this denial by the Defendant which was gratuitous and wrong, as several ‘member of the Royal Family’ do, in fact, ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent."

Meghan and Harry stepped down as senior members of the Royal Family earlier this year. At the time, the couple stated on their website they wanted to become "financially independent".

9. Wedding 'was not publicly funded' and generated £1b in tourism revenue
 
Meghan has stated that that at the time of the Articles being published "she was a working member of the Royal family and to some (relatively nominal) extent publicly funded."

The document states that any personal travel costs were always independently and privately funded by Meghan and Harry.  It also claims the Royal wedding in May 2018 at Windsor Castle was not publicly funded, but personally financed by Harry's father, Prince Charles.  The document adds: "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.  This contribution of public funds towards crowd security was far outweighed by the tourism revenue of over one billion pounds sterling that was generated from the Royal Wedding of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex which went directly into the public purse."

This figure has been previously refuted by consulting firm Brand Finance, MailOnline reports, with a figure of £300million closer to the mark.

10. Meghan's communication with her father
   
The legal filing states Meghan made "many calls to her father during the week of the wedding, from Nottingham Cottage, as well as from wedding rehearsals and pre-wedding events in Windsor and from Windsor Castle, all of which were ignored or declined."

It adds: "The facts remain that: the Claimant called her father multiple times during the week of the wedding (all of which were ignored), that she did not change her phone number, nor block his number from calling her, that Mr. Markle did not call or text the Claimant since the week of the wedding, and that he did suggest taking a photo in public with his daughter for the media."

She denies blocking Mr. Markle's phone calls after the wedding.

11. 'Five phone calls after Mr. Markle had cardiac issues'

Meghan claims once her father informed her via text message he was having cardiac issues, she phoned him on at least five occasions; on 15th May at 17.13 on 15th May at 18.32; on 17th May at 13.54; on 17th May at 13.57 and on 17th May at 13.59.  She also states in the court filings she sent numerous texts, used Harry's phone to call her father, as well as using the Buckingham Palace switchboard.  The court papers read: "When Mr. Markle publicly announced that he fell ill, the Claimant sent a security team to take him to the hospital (which he declined), and subsequently to go to his hospital to drive him home safely once he was discharged (which he again declined), as all her close friends and colleagues were already in transit to the UK for the wedding."

12. Why Meghan wrote the letter

The report highlighted Meghan's handwritten letter to her father, with a confidant telling the American publication about its content.  The court papers say: "The Letter was not an attack on her father or intended as such.  It was a private and deeply personal expression to him of her feelings and an attempt to remind him of some facts pertaining to their personal relationship."

It adds: "The stated intention of the Claimant in writing the letter to her father was not because she felt he had victimised her but to seek to convey to him how he had allowed himself to be manipulated by the tabloid media, including the Defendant, despite trying to persuade him not to do so (not least for his own good), and the impact which this had caused on their relationship, as well as on him, and, most importantly, how he should try to avoid it in the future.  The intention of the Letter was to make him stop his actions; it was not an attempt at reconciliation. This will be amplified in the Claimant’s witness statement."

13. Meghan paid for dad's flights and hotel accommodation for wedding

Meghan states in the court filings that made arrangements for and booked the flights to London and back for her father using her own money ahead of her wedding to Prince Harry.  It also states in the legal filings that she made arrangements for him to have "complete custom outfits for the wedding week including a morning suit and dinner suits."

It adds that it entailed arranging an appointment with a professional tailor in Los Angeles for her father’s measurements to be taken - which he attended - and then for professional tailors in London and Canada to make the suits (at her expense) so that they would be ready for him when he came over for the wedding.  It claims she used a "pseudonym so it would lessen the risk of media intrusion for him."

The papers read: "The Claimant took care to consider and to organise everything her father may need from all clothing items for each scheduled event to accommodations, all transports, and a dedicated assistant on the ground to be with him during his time in the UK."

Meghan also arranged for Mr. Markle to stay at an apartment suite in the town of Brentwood in Los Angeles County for three nights ahead of his flight for the wedding "but he would not get into the car” that had arrived to collect him.

14. Thomas Markle has never met Prince Harry or Archie

The court documents confirm Thomas Markle has never met Prince Harry or the couple's son, Archie Mr. Markle's grandson in person.  Mr. Markle has had communication with Harry over the phone.

Why is Meghan suing?

The duchess is suing Associated Newspapers over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday, and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019 and reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to Mr. Markle, 75, in August 2018.  Meghan claims her dad’s decision to make the letter public breached her privacy, copyright, and data protection rights.  She is seeking damages, which she has said will be donated to an anti-bullying charity, from Associated Newspapers for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the Data Protection Act.

What the Judge said in May

Following a preliminary hearing in May at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr. Justice Warby struck out parts of Meghan's claim against the publisher, including allegations that it acted "dishonestly" by leaving out certain passages of the letter.  The judge also struck out allegations that the publisher deliberately "stirred up" issues between Meghan and her father, and that it had an "agenda" of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her.

What Associated Newspapers says

Associated Newspapers wholly denies the allegations, particularly the claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning, and says it will hotly contest the case.