Meghan Markle Felt “Unprotected” By The Royals

July 2, 2020 / Posted by:

If The Brady Bunch has taught me anything, it’s that there’s a Jan in every family. If you ask Meghan Markle, she might say she was the Royal Family’s Jan. Meghan recently revealed in her ongoing lawsuit with The Mail on Sunday that she believes the Royal Family never had her back, despite being married to a high-ranking royal like Prince Harry and having his kid.

Meghan’s legal team continues to fight Associated Newspapers (publishers of The Mail on Sunday and The Daily Mail) on her behalf. Meghan is suing over The Mail on Sunday’s decision to publish a private letter she wrote to her father Thomas Markle. Back in May, a judge ruled that Meghan’s team didn’t have enough proof of “dishonesty,” as that is a subjective feeling. Everyone involved was told to focus on the invasion of privacy angle, which is what both sides are doing presently.

The Daily Beast says that Associated Newspapers accuse Meghan of breaking any privacy agreement when she allegedly asked five of her friends to speak to People Magazine on her behalf about her situation as a new royal. In February 2019, People Magazine published an exclusive cover story called, “Her Best Friends Break Their Silence: The Truth About Meghan.” Associated Newspapers claim that because Meghan couldn’t defend herself on social media against the haters, she summoned five of her friends, who ran to People to do the work for her. The identities of the five women were never revealed in People, but The Daily Beast says they have been named in court filings, and that they could all possibly be called to testify.

There is also a note that Friend A (as they’re referred to in court documents) mentioned the letter to People, but that they never had any knowledge about the letter and got the details all wrong. I can’t even begin to guess who those five women are, but I will say, based on Friend A getting unceremoniously thrown under the bus, that I did just picture Jessica Mulroney picking out her best courtroom blazer.

But, according to Meghan, she never asked her friends to speak about her, but they did so because no one with a crown was doing it for her. via The Daily Beast:

“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.”

AN argues that the People profile is proof she gave up her right to privacy. According to court documents, Meghan claims she told one friend she was writing a letter to her dad. By talking about the letter to a friend, they argue that she didn’t want to keep it as private as she let on.

But Team Meghan managed to get in a decent slapback, by way of Associated Newspapers’ attempt to make Meghan look like a spoiled, money-gobbling diva. Her lawyers fired back at The Mail on Sunday and The Daily Mail’s repeated claims that all Meghan did was drain bank accounts. Like the allegation that Harry and Meghan’s 2018 wedding cost taxpayers somewhere between $30 to $43 million (and pointing out that she was only the Duchess of Sussex for less than two years). Page Six says that her legal team did some math, and everyone can calm down, because they allegedly made back more cash than they spent. via Page Six:

[The wedding was] not, in fact, publicly funded, but rather personally financed by Prince Charles. “Any public costs incurred for the wedding were solely for security and crowd control to protect members of the public,” they add, “as deemed necessary by Thames Valley Police and the Metropolitan Police.”

However, Page Six says AN also consulted with a financial expert about how much tourism cash might have been made, and they claim the number is probably closer to £300 million (or $374 million). They accused Meghan’s lawyers of counting revenue that might have been generated by retail or fashion, which might not actually have much to do with the wedding. But how do they know that for sure? It’s bold of them to assume any retail or fashion purchases made that day had nothing to do with the royal wedding. I bet if you took a poll of some high street shops, they’d go on record as saying that about 90% of their sales made on May 19th, 2018, were people needing to replace their shirt after drooling too hard over Harry in his sexy An Officer and a Gentleprince outfit.


Our commenting rules: Don't be racist or bigoted, or post comments like "Who cares?", or have multiple accounts, or repost a comment that was deleted by a mod, or post NSFW pics/videos/GIFs, or go off topic when not in an Open Post, or post paparazzi/event/red carpet pics from photo agencies due to copyright infringement issues. Also, promoting adblockers, your website, or your forum is not allowed. Breaking a rule may result in your Disqus account getting permanently or temporarily banned. New commenters must go through a period of pre-moderation. And some posts may be pre-moderated so it could take a minute for your comment to appear if it's approved. If you have a question or an issue with comments, email: [email protected]

alt="drupal analytics" >