Pregnant Meghan Markle left ‘undefended by institution’ while in Royal family, legal papers claim

The extraordinary submissions confirm the conflict between the Palace and the Duchess’s approach to the press on record for the first time, stating the institution’s policy of “no comment” to media stories was deployed “without any discussion with or approval by the Claimant”.

In one section, about the level of “wealth and privilege” the couple enjoyed in Britain, the Duchess’s team say their public funding was “relatively nominal”, with costs for the May 2018 wedding met by the Prince of Wales and security paid only for the protection of crowds. “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… which went directly into the public purse,” they say.

They did not quote a source for the £1 billion figure.

The documents also detail the precise plans for bringing the Duchess’s father to the UK for the wedding.

Future court submissions will share even more personal detail, papers promise, saying: “The intention of the Letter was to make him [Mr Markle] stop his actions; it was not an attempt at reconciliation. This will be amplified in the Claimant’s witness statement.”

The court case, in which The Mail on Sunday is accused of breaching the Duchess’s privacy, copyright and data protection, sees her deny that she authorised her friends to speak to People magazine or reveal the existence of the letter she wrote to Thomas Markle.

Associated Newspapers wholly denies the allegations, particularly a claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.

Claiming the Duchess had endured “hundreds of thousands of inaccurate articles about her”, her legal team say she was left with “tremendous emotional distress and damage to her mental health”.

At the time of the article in 2019, papers state, there was a “shared frustration” among her friends at Kensington Palace’s “no comment” response.

Loading

As a result, they say, five friends – named in confidential paperwork and referred to only as “A, B, C, D and E” – gave details of the Duchess’s life, feelings and letter to her father to the American celebrity magazine without her knowledge. The Mail on Sunday subsequently printed parts of the letter, given to them by Thomas Markle.

The Duchess said she did not know about the People article until the Duke told her – having heard from the Palace press team – on the day of publication, and only found out which friends participated later.

“However, 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 they needed to remain silent.

Loading

“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.”

In further criticism of the Royal Family’s approach to communications, they state that following the article: “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.”

Loading

Two friends had been aware of the letter, the Duchess admits.

The Duchess filed a claim against The Mail on Sunday in October.

She lost the first strike-out hearing, in which Mr Justice Warby ruled she would not be allowed to argue in court that the newspaper acted dishonestly, “stirred up” issues with her father, and had an “agenda” against her. No date has been set for the full trial yet.

The Telegraph, London