Duchess Meghan’s lawsuit against the Daily Mail is getting more detailed

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and HRH The Countess of Wessex attends the National Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph on Sunday 10 November 2019

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are officially on their “break,” whether it will be for a solid six weeks, I really don’t know. But it looks like Harry and Meghan’s lawyers are doing the work while they’re away. Meghan’s lawsuit against the Daily Mail is mainly about their publication of her letter to her father, but there’s more to it than that. Meghan’s legal team has filed new paperwork detailing all of the Daily Mail’s falsehoods over the past few years, including all of those crazy-as-f–k stories about Meghan’s New York baby shower and the renovations to Frogmore Cottage:

Meghan Markle is fighting back against several tabloid rumors concerning her N.Y.C. baby shower, her relationship with her dad and her newly renovated home in Windsor, according to new court documents filed by her legal team. Meghan and Prince Harry have invested a lot of time, love and money renovating Frogmore Cottage into a beautiful family home for 6-month-old Archie to flourish. While this includes landscaped gardens, a green-energy center and a custom kitchen, legal papers submitted to the High Court in London show the home doesn’t include a reported $6,500 copper bathtub, $650,000 of aircraft soundproofing, self-contained yoga studio, orangery or tennis court. According to the documents — submitted by Meghan’s lawyers in her legal case against Associated Newspapers (owner of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday) — Frogmore Cottage also doesn’t have a “guest wing” for her mother, Doria Ragland, to stay in either.

Filed on November 11, the legal papers detail the finer points of Meghan’s suit against the publisher, which accuses the Mail on Sunday and its parent company of printing “untrue” stories in an attempt to portray her “negatively.”

In addition to debunking the Mail’s claims about Frogmore, the legal action also centers around the newspaper‘s decision to print extracts from a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex to her dad, Thomas Markle, 75. The royal mom, 38, claims the letter was printed without her consent and was carefully edited to paint a deliberately inaccurate picture of her relationship with her father.

“The omitted or suppressed parts of the letter amount to almost half of the actual contents,” says the court paper submitted by Schillings solicitors. “The omitted parts demonstrate the claimant’s care for her father and others, as well as her concern about the UK tabloid media exploiting her father.” The legal draft goes onto refute claims that Meghan didn’t inquire about her father’s health or attempt to help him medically or financially. Instead, it states that she “has a long history of looking after her father’s welfare and trying to find solutions to any health problems.”

The documents add that — contrary to reporting — Thomas did not telephone the royal ahead of her May 2018 wedding to explain that he would not be able to attend. Instead, it says Meghan reached out to her dad before the wedding in order to “protect him, as well as to ensure that he would be able to come.” She also “did not ignore” her dad afterward or argue with him about his decision to not attend, says the text.

Turning to claims that Meghan didn’t include her mom at her April baby shower in New York, the legal papers describe the suggestion as “untrue and offensive” to the duchess. It continues, “The claimant’s mother was of course invited, and the claimant also offered to buy her airline tickets. However, her mother was unable to attend due to work commitments.” It adds that it was also “untrue and offensive” to suggest that the guests — which included Amal Clooney, Gayle King, and designer Misha Nonoo — were entirely drawn from a relatively new circle of celebrity friends. “The baby shower (which actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article) was organized and hosted by one of her best friends from university,” says the court papers. “The fifteen guests who attended the shower were close friends and included long-term friendships some of which had existed for over 20 years.”

[From People]

I find all of this very interesting. Meghan is using the lawsuit to deny stories peddled by the Daily Mail for months, and I wonder if the DM will say “well, why didn’t you deny the stories at the time?” That’s basically the only defense the DM has with most of these stories – they can say that they were only reporting what “sources” told them and they contacted the Sussexes’ communications people for a confirmation or denial. It becomes trickier if the DM never contacted the Sussexes for a confirmation or denial though. Hm. As for the stuff about Thomas Markle… like, that’s a CLEAR issue where Thomas Markle was telling outright lies to the tabloids. He was the one sitting down the Mail and the Sun and Good Morning Britain and spewing lies about how Meghan never contacted him, etc.


Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the WellChild Awards Ceremony in London

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

179 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s lawsuit against the Daily Mail is getting more detailed”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    As I said yesterday the Fail and Fail on Sunday will be made to reveal their sources in court and that’s why this has set the cat amongst the hens in the Palace. And I think we all know which Palace the leaks came from, someone has sold their souls to the tabloid press to get them to cover up their own skeletons. We might also get the see the whole letter, she might decided to release it herself once the case is over.

    Either way the tabloids and Evil Papa Smurf are going to be exposed as the liars they are.

    • LadyLaw says:

      I had the same thought. I actually wonder if some of the recent Cambridge firings are to at least try and create plausible deniability. Can’t wait for this to blow up in Big Willie’s face.

      That said…can she still recover against the tabs if the source is another royal court?

    • Betsy says:

      “And I think we all know which Palace the leaks came from, someone has sold their souls to the tabloid press to get them to cover up their own skeletons.”

      This is what I’m waiting for. I’m very curious about this stuff.

    • Becklu says:

      Personally I think people will be disappointed when the sources are lured- I think 99% is Andrew and the Yorks. I think the news of Archie coming out during that wedding set them off in ways we can never understand. I also think a lot is Charles. Do I think William probably didn’t defend his brother and let a lot of things go and probably even said stuff that was like what can you do that fueled it to protect himself yep. (Sorry that was a long sentence) however, I don’t think KP is the primary source. I just don’t and I know everyone will disagree but that’s where I’m at.

      But on the topic of the post- good for Meghan! I mean some of this stuff I do think she should just ignore as the whole public figure thing (thinking the breaking protocol stuff), but Not all of it and honestly just because you’re a public figure doesn’t mean you have to endure lies

      • EveV says:

        “I mean some of this stuff I do think she should just ignore as the whole public figure thing (thinking the breaking protocol stuff), but Not all of it and honestly just because you’re a public figure doesn’t mean you have to endure lies”
        But she did ignore the “breaking protocol” stuff, that’s not mentioned in her lawsuit. The BM has hammered over nothing for over a year now and she is finally hitting back, with receipts to back up everything. It annoys me so much when people say that she should just ignore stuff. She has been very smart with the way she has handled all of this, I support her 100% and wish her nothing but the best.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        @Becklu, what wil be Charles’s motivation for smearing Meghan. It’s is not in his interest, his focus is on the crown, if he is going to do it at all, it would be against William, because there was a time when we all wanted the crown to go straight to William, and frankly at 71, too old for all this shenanighans. Why is the press promoting William as being the next King, when Charles is clearly alive? I maintain the leaks came from KP, and Buckingham Palace, Courtiers, the BP houses everyone’s Office, apart from The Cambridges. The jealousy of Kate and mother Carole, and their chumming with the press, make me suspect that, they are the prime suspect.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah, I think that some royal courtiers are scrambling now to cover their tracks.

      @Becklu -I can believe that the initial round of stories was from a variety of sources, including Andrew, but I think the smear campaign kept going with the encouragement of KP, especially once the Rose Hanbury story started to break.

      • Becklu says:

        Totally get what you’re saying and I think William didn’t stop it, and maybe even said off handed not confirming not denying stories. Stuff like it’s been trying time in the family.

        I just can’t get to the majority of it being KP because Harry still seems quite fond and close to Kate and honestly from what I’ve seen Kate and Meghan seem to really like each other so I just can’t square that. Unless they know Kate has nothing to do with it. You know?

        I could be completely wrong but it’s my thinking.

      • Sarah says:

        Harry being cool with Kate is what I keep coming back everytime I think about KP leaking or rather making stuff about Meg. If H knows that the smears are coming from his brother & sister-in-law, why is he acting so warm towards her (at least in public)? He’s not making any effort to show the public that things are OK between Will and him, but he does it with Kate.
        It’s strange, isn’it? Or does H think the smears are only coming from William – after all, he’s the one who’s alleged to have things to hide.
        On the other hand, I am absolutely convinced that it all started with Fergie and Prince Pedo. They have an ungodly amount of stuff to hide, a lot of them criminal; they are angry that Bea’s wedding did not get enough attention before, because of the comparaisons with M&H and after, because of MM’s pregnancy announcement and tour performance.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Try videos instead of still photos selected by Kate stans. Harry is his usual gentlemanly self, but he isn’t going out of his way to cozy up to Kate.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota – yup! the videos are telling when compared to the photos. I still think Harry seems okay with Kate in public, but their relationship def seems to have shifted a bit. And I think if Kate is in any way involved, we would still see Harry being pleasant to Kate in public. If he was even a fraction as cold to her as he is to his brother, the press would destroy him, and he knows that. But basically I don’t think that how Harry treats Kate in public means that KP is or isn’t involved. Harry doesn’t have a choice but to be nice and smiling towards Kate in public.

        And he has been friendly in public with his father, so going by that theory re: Kate and Harry in public, it cant be Charles either.

        We do know that William has been meeting with reporters/the press and we do know that the bit about the Sussexes moving out of the UK was from William’s camp – those are things from Tim Shipman, so they carry more weight than something from English/Andrews/Palmer/etc.

        Again, I don’t think its entirely KP, but the notion that William and Kate are innocent here is pretty laughable.

      • Becklu says:

        @sarah that is where I’m at. Harry isn’t trying to hide his anger or distain for his brother heck when all four of them are together none of them hide there annoyance with William but Kate, Meghan and Harry all talk laugh and have fun. I can’t square that at all.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Yes, Harry is good at putting on the ‘be pleasant in public’ face, which is what he’s doing with Kate. The videos vs. the still make it clear. Get it done, go through the motions, don’t draw attention by acting stoney faced. There’s never been closeness there and there isn’t now. He may feel sorry for Kate because of Rose Hanbury et. al, but he won’t excuse her for her role in all of this. She is getting the best press of her life at the expense of Meghan, and Harry knows Kate isn’t innocent.

      • Nic919 says:

        Harry was noticeably less friendly at the last appearance that he and Kate did on their own. He wasn’t rude, but it was definitely cooler than in the past.

      • Mego says:

        It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that for some of these stories there were no sources and they made it up. The Frogmore renovation stories always struck me as pure speculation on the part of the rr’s. The point about those stories painting a narrative of lavish spending of the taxpayers money is where the slander comes in.

        The tiara and making Kate cry stories not named in the law suit were leaked by Kensington Palace or Carole Middleton friend of the DM, to tear down Meghan and prop up Kate. Despite the pregnancy announcement being made at Eug’s wedding, the Yorks had no dog in that fight. Andrew and Sarah are entitled assholes and dumb as a box of rocks but not conniving like the Cambridges imo.

      • Nic919 says:

        The pregnancy was never announced at the wedding. Mike Tindall confirmed that they knew well before and that the wedding was the first time many had seen her since the announcement. Besides she can’t help that she was starting to show at that point.

      • Becklu says:

        @becks1 based on your suggestion I looked at the video and they seemed no different but I guess we will find out. To me there seems to be no issues with Kate.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nic919, they cannot let that one go, even after Mike outed the facts.

      • Mego says:

        I wasn’t aware of Mike Tindall’s comments but then I was never upset about the pregnancy reveal anyway. It’s often drummed up as a motive for York revenge on Meghan which I don’t believe.

  2. 10KTurtle says:

    Doesn’t Meghan put herself in an impossible position here, though? She is determined to keep certain parts of her life private, but to prove DM was lying about the renovations, shower, etc., she’ll have to provide the true details, right? And then DM will publish them just like they wanted to do all along? I can’t see what she might “win” here.

    Edited to add: Oooh I just saw the comment from Digital Unicorn- forcing the DM to reveal their sources! But what if they don’t even have sources- what if their source is just flinging poo into the wind and seeing where it lands?

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      If they don’t have any sources then its slander and she can sue them into oblivion.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      The whole point of this is to attack the credibility of these papers. To make it clear how deliberately disingenuous and spiteful they are.l in their reporting of her in particular.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “what if their source is just flinging poo into the wind and seeing where it lands?”

      Then we will see schitt flying all over a courtroom.

    • VS says:

      No source means outright lies which means slander!!!!!! Meghan is a smart woman, I thought most would have known that by now!!!

      By the way, public figures are allowed to have privacy. You pay for firefighters, policemen and policewomen, the PM and plenty of others, I have never seen the public asking to know who are the godparents of their kids……Meghan & Harry have said NO. Their public life and work yes, what they do in their bedroom or with their kid(s) is none of your business

    • MsIam says:

      Keeping your life private doesn’t mean you have to put up with lies. It’s not Meghan’s job to fill space for the press or help them pad their bottom line.

    • Rhys says:

      “Doesn’t Meghan put herself in an impossible position here, though?” – was it an option for her to decline the HRH title and, jut like Princess Madeleine’s husband, not be a royal? Wouldn’t she have more freedom that way to work on her projects and charities. She is so good at it. It is a shame that as a member of the royal family in her official capacity she has to be choose to either do the work and be smeared by the courtiers, or abstain from work and keep much better relationship with her new family. The family that Prince Harry said, she never had – and no kidding!

      • Fabuleuse says:

        Archie is not an HRH or even a title so that he can have privacy. How’s that working out? Princess Diana lost her HRH with her divorce and was thrown out of the Royal Family. Did the press stop chasing her? They were chasing Pippa Middleton who’s not even a member of the Royal Family. If people are interested in their lives, that makes them the press’s meal ticket.

        Furthermore, Meghan’s work ethic and competence would still highlight the Cambridge’s laziness, imcompetence and mediocrity. KP would still launch a smear campaign against her.

        They only way to avoid any of this is if the public had no interest in her or Archie the same way they have no interest in Anne’s and Sophie’s children. Let Lady Louise grow up into a thin and glamorous young woman and see what happens.

  3. Annie .. says:

    The thing with specifying which stories they are complaining about is that it leaves the room open for the stories they are not negating to be considered as valid?

    I mean, what about the tiara story, the “what Meghan wants Meghan gets”, the Meghan making Kate cry because of Charlotte, telling the family she was pregnant at Eugenie’s wedding, etc.?

    I am not sure how wise this is

    • Lara says:

      I was thinking that as well but I wonder if it is because there is actual physical proof for the stories they are contradicting? They can easily prove how much the baby shower cost, what work was done on Frogmore Cottage. It’s a lot more difficult to prove a ‘she said they said’ type of story.

    • Cara says:

      Because the ones listed are the ones that can be disproven. They got a huge ass copper tub? Well, that tub doesn’t exist in their home so it’s lie. But you can’t prove someone didn’t cry unless there were cameras up there recording every single moment.

    • RedRoyal says:

      The tiara story and the Meghan making Kate crying” were from the Telegraph, I believe. Meghan is suing the DM and MOS.

    • Sofia says:

      I think they’ve chosen the stories which they think “caused the most damage” and will involve family members least.

      It’s possible they may challenge other stories but they’ve chosen to start with these

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m not sure if all of those stories were printed in the DM or the Mail on Sunday though.

      But also, this is about very specific claims the paper has made about Meghan. Its one thing to print “Meghan is so busy renovating Frogmore she cant be bothered to visit the Queen at Balmoral” (as an example of something they might print), but its another thing to say “Meghan is wasting taxpayer dollars by building a yoga studio that cost X amount of money.” The second is a specific claim that can be more easily refuted and proven to be false, which is why I think she is going after those stories.

      But I also think this all ties back to the letter, and she’s citing these other stories as general evidence of the Mail having an agenda against her.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        She’s also targeted the rags that gave her father and step sister the most press time and money. The Fail and Fail on Sunday were relentless in their negative coverage, more so than the others.

      • VS says:

        @Becks1 —— I thought the reason of why she decided to sue for those specific stories were clear but apparently it isn’t for some
        Thx for laying it out so simply………

      • Mignionette says:

        Agreed Becks. It also directly goes to the heart of her role as a member of the monarchy. Whilst some will argue that tabloids are trash, they are still subject to IPCC rules and media regulation and given that they sell on/ syndicate their stories and those lies are repeated by other publications the level of defamation is greater.

        Also I suspect that she has gone for the Fail and and its sister publication as they generate the most clicks of any of the publications and therefore the greatest degree of dissemination and correspondingly defamation.

        The Fail have to keep figures of circulation for their advertisers so it’s the easiest barometer by which to judge the levels of defamation.

    • Britt says:

      These stories were picked because the Sussexes can show documents about these stories in regards to Frogmore, letter, Baby shower etc. The Daily Mail can’t because they make up prices and quotes on the drop of a dime to incite outrage. We all know those tiara and Kate cry stories are false but that would get Kate involved.

      • VS says:

        I don’t know how people don’t understand that!!! There are things that can be easily proven false………how can she prove the “Meghan made Kate cry” BS? which is just another version of a black woman making a white woman cry? the only way to prove that is to have Kate said that was false or to have the moment referred to in the crying video taped.

      • Queen1937 says:

        We might not get to hear objections to the “making Kate cry” BS at all. There are witnesses that can be deposed (Kate and Meghan were not alone) but the main witness, Kate, is the wife of the heir to the throne. I don’t think Harry nor Meghan would want to have her deposed – because of their loyalty to the throne. Plus, I am wondering about Kate’s state of mind. It is obvious that Mama Carole has been doing the actual legwork the KP arm of Meghan’s smear campaign (all of these claptrap stories “not a foot wrong” and “beautiful legs” and “most prepared future Queen” propping up Katiekins). Carole has a 19 year history of cultivating the yellow press to ease Kate’s capture and hog tying of Wills. Kate has been looking anxiety ridden since the Rose stories. Actually, since Meghan appeared. Could William be looking at the two wives and finally realizing his consort can be seen as coming up short? That would make many wives anxiety ridden.

      • VS says:

        @Queen1937 ——- Kate is coming up short; Look at her vs Meghan, you just realize how mediocre she is. She is has so many shortcomings that it is impossible to compare the two

        Look at her ‘accomplishment after more than 8 years’ vs the newcomer after less than 2 years!!!! No wonder there is a smear campaign! The weird thing is if KP had played nice, they could have benefited from having someone like Meghan around.

        Let’s be honest here, Kate needs help. She can barely put two complete sentences together, Meghan excelled at that. Kate could have help Meghan with the family, living in the UK, rules of the RF while Meghan could have help with confidence/public speaking. [Not my idea, saw that on Twitter but I thought it was a pretty good idea]……wouldn’t that have been better?

        Instead, all we have now is petty jealousy. KP is copying SR and no one says anything even though when Meghan and Harry did it, it was deemed unroyal………

    • VS says:

      People have already answered your “not sure it is wise”. Meghan is just too smart ……………

    • Becklu says:

      So here the thing those stories you mentioned are probably all true- but not the way they were portrayed.

      Tiara- Meghan probably saw their green one and liked it. Then asked to wear it- they said no and she asked why. All of this is normal especially when no one outside the family would know what this stuff means.

      Kate crying- probably happened. I have no doubt Meghan made Kate cry, I don’t think it was intentional but it did happen. Now here is what anyone reasonable would think- Meghan is planning a wedding which is stressful and it isn’t a normal wedding it’s an international event, Kate is post pardem what 3 weeks? I bet she cried at anything. So two women who are in intense emotional situations had a brief moment that had it happened on any other time the outcome would have been different.

      She probably did mention being pregnant at the wedding- and again to be fair in any normal family this would not have mattered so why would she think not to say something. I mean it’s not like she stood up and announced it she just told the family.

      Again all of these things are highly normal and when taken in non royal family situation no one would think anything about it.

      • RedRoyal says:

        Camilla Tominey changed the Meghan making Kate cry story. She said she thinks Kate was crying because of Rose.

      • notasugarhere says:

        HM would have selected the ones from which Meghan could choose and that’s it. She wouldn’t put a tiara option out here and then take it back.

        No proof whatever about Kate crying. If it had happened, someone from the atelier would have squealed by now.

        Mike Tindall said the news of the baby was announced on their family WhatsApp group a couple weeks before the wedding. The wedding reception was the first time some family members were able to congratulate them in public. When she stepped off the plane three days later in Australia, there was no way to hide that pregnancy. We’d been guessing it for a month with the way her clothes were hiding her shape (burgundy peplum top, ruffled sky blue dress, green leather skirt).

      • Onlyashes85 says:

        I always figured – Meghans wedding was happening first. So did she choose Eugenie’s tiara and Andrew got in a snit because he wanted it for Eugenie and pulled rank? I mean. The emerald tiara is absolutely gorgeous. I’d probably choose it as well, even though Meghan looked gorgeous in hers. Could Andrew have been pissed that Eugenie wasn’t allowed first choice and demanded a switch? And do I think the queen would side with Andrew and make Meghan choose another? Yep I sure do. And do I think Andrew would leak that story but somehow twist it into Meg being a diva or uppity? Yep. It’s odd that a tiara with emeralds was mentioned, and Eugenie showed up in an emerald tiara less than six months or so after Meghan was married. And the shapes of both tiaras are somewhat similar. I think Meghan got the short end of the stick because Andrew is literally the worst. I don’t think she had a diva attitude about it. She’s incredibly gracious. She may have had hurt feelings. She may have allowed her displeasure to show. I would too most likely.

        That’s my tinfoil tiara theory for the day.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @RedRoyal, where did Camilla Tominey say she thinks Kate was crying because of Rose?

    • morrigan01 says:

      The tiara storey and Kate crying stories were from The Sun. This lawsuite only deals with the Daily Mail and MOS.

      I’m sure Meghan and her team will get around to suing The Sun once they have a full case built. Right now, The Sun can continue to just worry over the lawsuit Harry brought to them wrt phone hacking.

    • MsIam says:

      Those stories you mentioned were all denied several times. The press and the Meghan haters keep repeating them.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      She can’t tackle every lie, what she has listed are significant enough, to tell us that the media is trying to invent a phoney narrative to the British Public, so as to solicit so much hate from The Public, which the press has not succeeded. More lies would be revealed in the course of the trial.

    • PrincessK says:

      Also do let us remember that Frogmore was long overdue for renovation, Sussexes or no Sussexes. For all we know the Sussexes may have been persuaded to move there to provide a good reason for the renovations to proceed as planned.

      Other dreadful stories were the one about the Sussexes issuing an edict ordering that nobody on the Windsor estate should talk to them or approach them. Another story that Meghan ordered that the seats around her at Wimbledon should be vacated and no one take pictures ….the list of lies is endless.

  4. Britt says:

    The tabloids did not expect for them to sue and I’m happy they are. I think they wanted to see how far they could push them in a bid to get back at them for perceived slights and access. They took advantage of the never complain, explain mantra that this must’ve really shocked them because they are going for the jugular with these lawsuits. Even now, you still have morons still trying to link Meghan and Harry to Andrew’s backlash…at this point, they just need to bury those papers and I believe they will because that will open a floodgate of lawsuits

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “link Meghan and Harry to Andrew’s backlash”

      Believe it or not, the commentariat of The Daily Fail and DataLounge are actually taking up for the Sussexes in the backlash of Andrew’s stupid and unfortunate interview.

  5. SequinedHeart says:

    The girl has chutzpah..
    good for her for sticking up for herself and her family. I think she’s sending a message for the future of any attempt to write this kind of bs, as in “stop smearing me as if I’m new money and spending all your tax payer dollars(pounds) to make me look bad”. I get it and I’m with her but do we think the tabloids will ever stop? I think not

    • VS says:

      They won’t stop but she will set a precedent………..they will think twice before lying in her name again!!!!
      They won’t stop but outright lies will be sued so they will have to find the balance between making money out of lies vs payments from lawsuits.

      • Sequinedheart says:

        Yes, I hope this sets a precedent and the British tabloids lay off a bit. They are brutal. One would think after the Leveson inquiry they would calm the eff down with their efforts to destroy people, but no.

  6. Jen says:

    I think they’re being smart about it – the centerpiece and probably strongest legal piece is the letter. But by as part of issuing denials about the other ridiculousness, they are getting their refutals on the public record. And assuming they win the part about the letter, those denials will also be tied to their “win” even if they ultimately aren’t decided on in court.

  7. Kebbie says:

    The legal papers say the DM was informed at the time that the renovation claims were untrue. I’m not sure if they were told that before or after they were printed, but they’ve reprinted the yoga studio claims multiple times since.

    • Britt says:

      Meghan said in the interview that when they told newspapers that stories were untrue and they still printed and lied anyway. That’s insidious and no one can’t tell me that they weren’t motivated by greed, racism, xenophobia and not having access to the Sussexes and wanted to exploit them, so they could run get their abusers for good coverage.

  8. Aa says:

    The media was playing there usual blackmail game. Any of them haven’t hid it. Openly talking about how if Harry and Meghan want positive coverage then they need to make archie available. The idea is that eventually in the face of negative coverage Meghan would I’m despair run to the very same British media that’s abusing her to get her side of the story out. It worked on Diana and so many others. Underestimating Meghan again.

    • VS says:

      They truly did underestimate her………..I think they forgot she was a hard working woman who was able to take care of herself for 35 years!!!!
      Diana imo took the wrong approach; by bringing them in, they start asking for more. It is like a blackmailer; never pays one because it never stops!

      • Sarah says:

        Yes, I think that is one of the main reasons why Harry stood firm in his defense of his and his family’s privacy. He saw what happened with his mother when she tried to tip, accomodate and/or control the press. How did they repaid her? By photographing her as she was dying in a car crash in which they were not totally blameless, to say the least.
        You don’t invite these people in. EVER

      • VS says:

        @Sarah —- I 10000000% agree with you

  9. Guest2.0 says:

    Also, the Sussexes are drawing a line in the sand and trying to get this media bullying under control because of Archie and another future child. Can you imagine the attacks on their children if they don’t check the media?

    • Hermione says:

      For the sake of their own children, you’d think the Cambridge’s would support the Sussexes in trying to “break the wheel.”

      • PrincessK says:

        For the sake of the Monarchy you would think that the Cambridges would support the Sussexes because one way or another it will damage them all.

  10. Cidy says:

    I’m just so F’n proud of her for doing this. Sending so many gokd vibes to her and hers, stand up for yourself queen!

  11. Kristina says:

    One thing that I noticed from that quote was that Doria chose not to attend her only child’s first baby’s shower. I would think she could absolutely make that happen if she wanted to. I admit I never knew of Meghan until she dated Harry. But it seems like she wasn’t close to her mom, and she mentioned her dad a lot on her blog but not her mom? Is that true? I don’t have an opinion on it- my own mother moved away from us kids and cut off contact for years- of HER choice. So it happens. I’m just wondering about the narrative of she and her mom being so close.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Yes you are wrong.

      • Kristina says:

        @VV OK that makes sense. I didn’t know about the more intimate baby shower. That would be sweet.

      • C. Luces says:

        I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Meghan wasn’t close to her Mother! There were lots of pictures of her mom on Tig! She always talked about her mom and father! I never knew she had siblings or was married before!

        I think it’s a shame to mistreat someone spouse because you disagree of the chose! Her pregnancy, maternity leave and editing Vogue was a disgrace! As a woman of color England has no class! I shouldn’t be surprise their history toward melanin people has always been one of jealousy, hate and harm! To attempt to whitewash us from the history of this planet speaks volume! The non melanin people have never liked us! I can’t wait for them to be expose for who and what they are!

        These beings think their entitled to say and do whatever they want! The monarchy is a ship sinking! How dare you come into someone’s home and flip the script! I feel absolutely nothing for these beings! Their BS is coming to an end like it are not! Don’t blame Meghan! A lie can only last for so long and non melanin people are the kings n queens of lies, hatred deception, lies and murder! The Old Testament is nothing short of warmongers invading and killing innocent people!

    • heygingersnaps says:

      From what I can recall, Doria came to the UK for a small/intimate baby shower a few weeks after the baby shower in New York. They don’t need to be connected to the hip you know to have a great relationship.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        Yup. She had two showers: one with friends in NYC and one in the UK with her Mom and Im presuming some members of the royal family.

      • Sarah says:

        @ Valiantly Varnished : I have heard of a second baby shower in the UK, but it’s the first time I really think about other members of the BRF being invited. I am kind of surprised by this, it’s not as if they’ve been very supportive of her. Which one do you think were invited?

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Sarah I have no idea hun, hence why I said “presume”. 🤷🏽‍♀️

      • Sarah says:

        @Valiantly Varnished: Err…OK.

      • PrincessK says:

        Wasn’t Kate supposed to be involved in the second baby shower?

    • VS says:

      “I’m just wondering about the narrative of she and her mom being so close.” —— really??
      continue to wonder; I am sure Meghan will address this to make sure you stop wondering about it!

    • Britt says:

      She’s very close to her mother and was the only parent at her wedding. She has put up pictures and her blog. You can tell that they love each other dearly. Her father on the other hand is more obsessed about himself and his faux friendship with the tabloids than anything else. Those two always seem to have an up and down relationship. Despite the fact that she took care of his ungrateful ass.

      • VS says:

        I think if there is anything that might have hurt Meghan, it was her father betrayal? despite him be a deadbeat father as she most likely took care of him, he still had the audacity to complain to the press and people slandering his daughter………my goodness, I hope she never let him back into her life, never!!!

      • Kristina says:

        @britt ok, that makes sense! That’s good that she has her mom to trust and confide in.

    • morrigan01 says:

      As said you are 100% wrong. Her mom was all over her IG and Meghan wrote about her life with her mom and her mom’s influence on her life and outlook on life on The Tig (her Blog) often as well.

      There could be a myriad of reasons that Doria wasn’t at the baby shower, not least of which could be because she had to work (yes, she has a real life normal job) and couldn’t get time off/was already taking time off to fly to London for some time before and after Archie was born. (Because we actually have a picture showing her, the Queen and Philip all with newborn Archie).

      I really wish people would understand that it’s a damn 12+ hour flight from London to LA (where Doria lives) and vise versa. And it’s a 4+ hour flight from LA to NYC, as well as 4+ hours from London to NYC. It’s not like Doria could just drive to NYC for the shower in a few hours. She’d have to hop a plane to NYC and then, a few weeks later, turn around and hop a plane to London. It’s obvious the Baby Shower was in NYC because most of Meghan’s close friends live either in LA, London or Toronto . . . and NYC was the halfway point between LA and London and a pretty quick flight to get to from Toronto (since they are on the same coast). Given all of that, plus the fact that Americans do NOT get all THAT much time off wrt work and such, Doria NOT being at the show doesn’t really mean much IMO, especially since she WAS there for the birth and christening.

      • Kristina says:

        @morgan good point that she and her mom probably have tons of contact but she’s more private. I was just reading the above quote at face value and not diving in. Poor Meghan to have such a bizarre dad.

      • windyriver says:

        Doria was also in England to attend the launch of Meghan’s first significant project as a royal – the Hubb cookbook.

        It’s more like 6 hours each way to fly between LA and NY, which means adding at least one and likely two travel days (depending on what flights you take) to whatever time you use for the actual visit. Plus there’s a three hour time difference, which can throw you off. Can see why Doria may have decided it wasn’t the best use of her time to fly out for the shower weekend, especially if she was planning a trip to England not long afterwards.

      • I also think Doria is shy and because her life is in LA and the friends of Meghan’s attending event are from other parts of the world; i.e., East Coast, Canada, England (Clooney), Doria might not know them all that well. Also, given time involved and her obvious commitment to her own work responsibilities, Doria may have decided to wait and spend her time with Meghan when they could have more one-on-one time. Why anyone needs to make a drama out of her lack of attendance is beyond me. I personally hate this kind of “traditional” function. Maybe she does too.

      • morrigan01 says:

        @windyriver I’ve always done the flight from LA to the east coast in 4 1/2-5 hours, never six (unless I have a delay or something). But then, I’ve never actually flown in directly to NYC actually, only driven there from either Philly or DC where I’ve usually flown in to, so maybe there is a bit of extra time.

      • windyriver says:

        @morrigan01 – my brother often flies from SF to NYC so I knew that was over 5 hours. But I also double checked the United website. Going east looks like the LA flights are a little over 5 hours, but returning west it’s a little over 6.

        I think we’re both agreeing on the basic premise, getting to NYC from LA takes time!

      • Mo says:

        Also, it is very usual for your mother not to attend your “girlfriends” shower. Depending on the friends, there can be a level of humor and advice that you don’t necessarily want your mom around for. I’ve been to ones where lube and male sex sleeves were among the gifts.

    • kerwood says:

      @Kristina, that’s an interesting assumption; I’m not sure what it’s based on. You say you knew nothing about Meghan but you claim to know the contents of her blog?

      Doria is a working woman. Unlike other royal in-laws who will drop everything for the chance to be royal-adjacent, Ms. Ragland has to earn her living. She and Meghan were probably disappointed that she couldn’t attend but it’s a fucking baby shower, not the actual birth, which she WAS there for.

      Nice try though.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @kerwood. Exactly. You said what I didnt have the energy too lol. She tried it.

      • VS says:

        @kerwood ——- I can only say thank you. Sometimes, I do not have a lot of patience to deal with nonsense and can sometimes come off as harsh; I cannot stand BS or gaslighting or outright lies………thanks for answering the obvious nonsense with so much calmness…..as you said, it was a f***king baby shower

      • Kristina says:

        Settle down, kerwood. I couldn’t have been more careful in my wording- I wasn’t being rude. I’ve only read what is easily available to read- again, I’ve never heard of her prior and never saw her blog or IG. The stories have only focused on her dad- they never talk about her mom being on her blog. Thats exactly what I said- I’ve only read about her recently.

      • kerwood says:

        @Kristina, I’m perfectly settled. However, you claim to have never seen her blog or IG but you seem to know that she only talks about her father in her blog. Which is it? Perhaps YOU should settle down so you can get your story straight.

        Nice try though.

        @Valiantly Varnished and @VS, I’m probably much older than you and have seen this gaslighting of Black women for decades. I used to get angry but now I have nothing but contempt.

      • Kristina says:

        @kerwood I don’t know if there’s a comprehension problem here, but again- I’ve read what has been written about her. I’ve read a lot about her blog here and elsewhere when she was first gaining an international profile. The stories from her blog talked about her dad and were brought up within articles of her and her dads relationship. I really cannot make that clearer.

        I have been polite and not condescending or name calling. Seriously- stop.

      • kerwood says:

        @Kristina Where I come from polite people don’t tell other people they have comprehension issues.

        I understand EXACTLY what you’re trying to do. You said you knew nothing about the duchess but you had no problem claiming that she wasn’t close to her mother based on what you read about her blog. That’s a big assumption to make about someone you say you know nothing about.

        What you’re doing isn’t original or very clever. But some of us have had enough with the sad attempts to gaslight Black women.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Kerwood…sorry to butt in but where I come from polite people don’t use the F word as freely as you did.

    • kelleybelle says:

      She mentioned her dad only when she had to and just gave credit where credit was due. Mostly she talked about her mom. The bloody Markles would have you believe that Sr. gave birth to her if they could get away with it. Mother and daughter are as close as they can be. Dad? That relationship has been strained on and off since her late teens, and undoubtedly because of HIM. He’s a drinker, a drugger, a gambler, a pedo and a tax dodger. The man is garbage. What he did for Meghan was mostly court-ordered.

  12. Toot says:

    Meghan’s denial of stories highlights what she didn’t

    Remember that dumbass story about making Kate cry? Yeah, Meghan didn’t include that because Kate could have been called as a witness, at the trial. But who was the source for that? KP will deny stupid botox and hair stories , but let that fester so the royal reporters could use it to tear Meghan down.

    That story, I believe started the riff between the brothers because William never had KP deny it.

    • Becklu says:

      She probably didn’t include it because it was a different paper. And also probably true- and any reasonable person could see why it happens and think nothing of it.

      Meghan planning a wedding that the world will watch (highly stressful) and Kate has a baby what 2 weeks prior to it so I imagine a cat food commercial made her cry. It was a nothing story and people have tried to make it a huge story to push a side.

    • morrigan01 says:

      The lawsuite only addresses articles published in the Daily Mail and MOS. Things like the tiara story and making Kate cry were in The Sun. I’m sure The Sun will get it’s turn to be sued whenever Meghan and her team are ready. 😉

      • Toot says:

        That story was covered in the DM too.


        So like I said, KP let that lie run. Meghan is sticking to stories that won’t force other royal members to possibly testify, but but who was the source?

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Toot, but the DM link you shared says this right at the top of the story:
        “The Telegraph’s Camilla Tominey reported that two sources have told the newspaper that Kate was ‘in tears’ following three-year-old Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress fitting earlier this year. An insider told the publication: ‘Kate had only just given birth to Prince Louis and was feeling quite emotional’. ”

        The DM story is referring to a Telegraph story for the Made Kate Cry thing, not claiming they have their own sources for it. DM does this often. That is why this story would not be part of the lawsuit, they are focusing on DM/MOS reporting, not instances where DM/MOS prints stories that reference other newspaper’s stories.

      • Toot says:

        @ Tourmaline

        That Camilla heffa was also the one to write the story linking the hub kitchen to terrorist that DM did their spin on, and Meghan’s lawyers mention in the filing.

        Like I said, and still believe, that story concerning Kate could have easily been denied, like KP had done for silly stories, but they stayed mute on the Kate cry knowing Meghan was being raked over the coals, over a stupid story.

      • Lowrider says:

        Camilla Tominey stated she has Kate’s phone number. It is certainly possible Kate or her mother provided the story to Camilla.

      • morrigan01 says:

        @Tourmaline thanks for correcting about the Kate Cry story being from the Telegraph because yes @Lowrider Camilla Tominey DID let it be known that she has Kate’s phone number. She let that info slip out on TV when she was begging for Meghan’s phone number, which she does NOT have. So yeah, if THAT specific story is ever looked over in court and Camilla is asked to provide her source for it . . .

  13. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I read the details about the lawsuit on ByLine last week and boy…the DM and MOS are in TROUBLE. Im glad Meghan is standing up for herself while also creating boundaries to protect her own emotional and mental well being.

    • Maria says:

      I read the byline article and I side eye people magazine for not including the racist straight out of Compton story. Meghan mentioned it as well as the avocado one for a reason. But it could have shown their readers the non stop blatant racism Meghan has been facing for the last 3 years. But the media like to pretend they are going after her for frivolous things and it’s not race related.

  14. Lulu says:

    This seems so petty? Tabloids lie about public figures all the time and it’s not ok but also no reason to give it life by responding. It’s part of the job no?

    • Toot says:

      Not blatant lies that some in the public lap up that can destroy a person’s character.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Huh. So it’s petty for someone to sue for blatant lies that tarnish their reputations but NOT petty for publications to knowingly lie and tarnish said reputations??. That’s an interesting way to look at life.
      Also – in the UK it is against the law to knowingly publish lies. So the DM and MOS broke the law if they cannot provide evidence and sources to back up their stories.

    • VS says:

      @Valiantly Varnished has already well addressed your BS comment

      It is part of the job to have people lie about? if only British tabloids were treated as such but those tabloids and obvious liars are on TV talking about their obvious lies……….this tells me something about some part of the British society!

    • morrigan01 says:

      No having blatant LIES told about you is NOT part of the job. It’s character assassination. In fact, Britain apparently has some of the strictest libel and slander laws against this kind of stuff in the world FWIU. SO if the Daily Mail and MOS knowingly printed lies, then they knowing broke the law. Anyone, where a private or public figure as the right to sue in that regard.

    • kerwood says:

      @Lulu, but writing about Keen Katie is a human rights violation?

    • windyriver says:

      70+ female MPs wrote an open letter of support for Meghan. “…we share an understanding of the abuse and intimidation which is now so often used as a means of disparaging women in public office from getting on with very important work.”

      They end by calling on the national media to clean up their act, or strongly hint they will take steps to do it for them.

      So no, not petty, not part of the job, and not okay.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Are you serious. No one should be subject to libel. Firms can go bankrupt for doing that ish and I Hope Meghan and Harry will be the ones to bring them down.

  15. Sarah says:

    Excellent! My only complaint is that they are only going after the DM. The Sun is an even bigger piece of trash. I’ve been watching a lot of documentaries and reading about the Hillsborough tragedy. They deserve to be DESTROYED for what they did back then, the smearing of people who died in a horrifying manner, the relentless lies for DECADES and DECADES. I loathe them.

    • VS says:

      look at @Lulu’c comment above? it is because of people like him or her that tabloids continue to publish their made up stories

      • Sarah says:

        Exactly!! And it’s something that took me so long to understand and I am finally understanding now, in light of the Hillsborough tragedy. People absolutely believe the lies printed in tabloids, especially if the same angle is constantly being shoved down their throat – Meghan is an ungrateful diva, the Hillsborough 96 were just a bunch of drunken thugs, etc. It’s character assassination, it’s relentless and it absolutely works.

      • VS says:

        @Sarah — it is so perverse in the UK. I am American, we do have tabloids but I have never seen anyone invite a gossiper from the national enquirer to CNN or ABC or NBC or the NYTimes or WashingPost or any of our reputable channels or newspapers to publish or talk about their Bullshit stories

        In the UK, I only know of the FT, the Economist and now the Guardian as reputable news, the rest still invite the same liars to talk about the people they slander.

        Royal reporting is imo useless as they only focus on their private lives (important for Prince Andrew’s type behavior) but for the rest, why don’t they focus on the impact of their work? effectiveness of their actions?

    • morrigan01 says:

      If I had to guess, I bet Meghan and her team are building up a lawsuit against The Sun too. Hell, The Sun was the paper that more or less said she was a porn actress because a love scene from Suites was posted on a porn site, only a day or two after the news of her and Harry dating broke. I’m sure Meghan remembers that vividly given that she and her PR team were threatening to sue The Sun back then for that.

  16. Lummy dee says:

    Does it mean the stories not listed in the suit are true?

    • morrigan01 says:

      If they were published in the Daily Mail or MOS and they aren’t listed here? Maybe.

      If they were published in another newspaper/tabloid first, then no it doesn’t. Because this lawsuit focuses only and specially on the Daily Mail and MOS.

    • kerwood says:

      No, it just means there is no SOLID proof that they are false. The story about Meghan making Kate cry is probably as big a lie as any of the ones in the suit but there’s no way of proving it to be a lie. Any lawyer on earth would advise their client to stick to what they can prove.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      No. It means they are only going after the stories that they can demonstrably PROVe are false. This is a court of law. A story about Kate crying cant really be proven one way or the other. But a story about a tub that doesnt actually exist CAN be proven.

      • Mego says:

        What if Kate were to deny it too? What if BP denied the tara story ever happened?

      • VS says:

        @Mego ——— do you really see Kate denying it while she is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the smear campaign against Meghan?
        That’s funny! thanks for the joke

      • Mego says:

        VS 🙄 it was a very hypothetical legal question – ofc she won’t. The fact that KP didn’t refute that story but one about Kate wearing wigs only adds weight to my hunch that it came from KP or Carole via Kate.

      • Nic919 says:

        Very important point. There was a quick response to baby botox from KP, but not with the Kate crying story. That could have easily been shut down but it was left out there to fester. Charles and his courtiers aren’t behind that story. It could only come from KP. No one else would know.

      • VS says:

        @Mego ——– we are in agreement; I thought it was pretty clear from my comment that there was no Kate could ever denied that story. It is so the typical black woman made a white woman cry……the white woman always benefits from such stories…..

  17. Cosmo says:

    I don’t understand why anyone connected to the family would want to source lies about Harry and Meghan. All of the lies have created a lot of hate towards them. I’m sure they are concerned about their safety with all the crazies out there.

    • lanne says:

      This is a family of pitbulls and vipers. This is a family that routinely throws its own members under the bus. Look at all of the times that Harry had to take the heat for William’s misdeeds. William was at the party where Harry was dressed as a Nazi (the costume seller says the Nazi costume was Will’s idea) and Will was dressed as a Zulu. No pictures anywhere. Charles made Harry go to drug rehab so that he could have a good story about being a “responsible parent”

      This is not a family that cares about each other as people.

      • Your cousin Vinny says:

        @lanne, this is finer point but I see the comments about the offensive costumes being will’s idea every now and again on this board. Does that really wash with everyone? Even if it was william’s idea does that absolve Harry? I just feel like he didn’t have to wear it and we are giving him a huge pass instead of holding them both responsible for their own actions.

      • lanne says:

        Harry made his own choices. But why didn’t Will face any punishment for an equally offensive costume? That’s the problem! Harry had to be thrown under the bus to protect Will’s reputation and Will skates clean. That’s what’s been implied about the Rose Hanbury situation: the tabloids were given permission to slander Meghan so that Will wouldn’t face any scrutiny of his own

      • Your cousin Vinny says:

        @lanne, I don’t disagree with you on those points. I’m not talking about what the press or the palace do.

        My point is that I often see the defence or statement that Harry’s offensive costume was his brother’s idea. The frequency of this disclaimer suggests to me that people think it somehow absolves Harry and makes William look even worse.

        I think they both wore offensive costumes and that should reflect equally on both of them, regardless of who’s idea it was.

        I got up to all sorts of trouble with my siblings as a child but we generally got punished based on our personal actions rather than who came up with the idea.

    • Mego says:

      All the lies damaged their reputation and generated a wonderful year of press for the Duchess of Cambridge and a decent one for William – preparing to be king etc. How serendipitous…

  18. TheOriginalMia says:

    I thought Meghan already stated her office wasn’t contracted for confirmation or denial about any of the stores before they were published. They knew they were false and just didn’t care. All in the name of creating this narrative and stroking animosity and racist hatred towards her.

  19. S808 says:

    I applaud her for standing up for herself and her family and I’m forever confused at people who have a problem with this. Holding the press accountable could change things for the royal children as they grow up in front of the public eye. I think it’s one of the reason the tabloids hate her and Harry so much. Setting boundaries (and firmly sticking to them) is taking money off the table for these already dying publications.

  20. aquarius64 says:

    Bad Dad and the demon siblings contributed to the stories on Meghan. Betting the Fail will throw them under the bus, claimed they lied to its reporters and have an “internal investigation” showing all of their dirt, the same way they re doing Andrew now. The owners of the papers may have given the order to destroy her father and siblings because they are now liabilities.

    • kelleybelle says:

      I hope the whole Toxic Trinity are thrown under the bus and squashed … and silenced. There IS no family feud because there is NO family. It’s been broken for years. Sr.’s fault, too.

  21. kerwood says:

    I am so proud of Meghan and Harry.

    I have to admit that there was a time when I was really worried for them. It seemed like the attacks on them were coming from all sides. And it wasn’t just the attacks but the pleasure so many people got out of trying to tear them down. So many people were trying to get them to disappear, to leave England and go hide in the United States. People gleefully predicted that their marriage wouldn’t last. The joy people took out of trying to destroy a young family was sickening.

    What a difference a day makes. Meghan and Harry are the ones who are ‘going from strength to strength’. They’ve always had the support from people like me but influential people are making it known that they support the Sussex family too. Harry and Meghan have forced other, more work-shy royals to GET OFF THEIR ASSES and earn their keep and it’s a wonder to see.

    The Sussexes were criticized for passing on Christmas with the Queen a week ago but now it seems that they’re the smartest and most ethical people in that whole fucking family. THEY won’t be sharing roast beast with an arrogant, racist monster involved in human trafficking. The annual royal family pap-walk is going to be a walk of shame this year.

    Meghan and Harry have shown the world to fight back against bullying. It took it’s toll; we all saw that. But I think they’re going to come out even stronger than they were before. I don’t see any rose bushes in their future.

    • lanne says:

      Preach the word, kerwood! I can’t get over the fact that the worst of the bullying happened when Meghan was pregnant. I truly believe they were actively trying to inflict a miscarriage on her. I don’t think the family would have particularly minded if she had miscarried either. The way they used her father against her was unforgivable. Imagine if all of this had happened before the age of social media. I hate a lot of things about social media, but it’s our only protection against the bane of corporate media with its agenda-driven messaging. Social media is the only true 4th estate now, and the Sussexes have leveraged that brilliantly.

    • Olenna says:

      Agree, kerwood. Some people would rather ignore the filth and rot in the BRF and praise the mediocre than just give the biracial duchess her due for being a hard worker or, if nothing else, just leave her the hell alone. But, it seems hateful, envious and bigoted people know only hate, envy and bigotry. Unfortunately, the anonymity of SM and even sites like this one give these types good cover and an outlet for their psychoses.

      • VS says:

        @Olenna — you are right. I would love for someone to really explain what Meghan has done to get some of her haters to hate her?

        1) her being in a place expected for a white woman?
        2) American?
        3) divorced?
        4) biracial?
        5) hard worker?
        6) Not constantly being grateful to have been chosen by Harry? (he is the one who should be grateful she agreed to marry him. He is punching way above his weight)
        7) Not wearing tights? (I have seen everything)
        8) being self confident?
        9) being a feminist?
        10) being way too pretty?

        the killer: her outshining them all????

  22. Marie says:

    @Kerwood I agree with you 100%! They are the only two people in that family that have my respect and support.

  23. milly says:

    This seems like a very shortsighted move. Most publicists don’t respond to tabloid stories because issuing denials often leads to the Streissand Effect—the story spreads wider and people tend to believe the original tale over the denial. Additionally, when you deny some stories people then often believe that any other story that you don’t publicly comment on is true.

    I understand the desire to defend herself, but it will likely backfire long term. Tabloids will just dig further into her future, current and past life to find dirt that is more damaging and more difficult to deny. 40% of gossip is usually the “truth” twisted to the point that it barely resembles what happened but is difficult to defend.

    The Royals are little more than celebrities who provide tabloid fodder and distract from political scandals and issues. Unlike Diana, the tabloids aren’t following her around, tapping her phones, bugging her therapists office. She would be best served by not reading the tabloids. She has a husband and child who love her and lives in extravagant luxury. The best revenge is a life happily lead.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The tabloids broke into her house and her mother’s. They tapped Harry’s phone. They’re advertising a tip line for anyone who can identify their nanny. There is talk there may be another set of charges coming about more recent phone tapping. They’ve falsely claimed charity work Meghan did funded Islamic terrorists.

      Harry and Meghan are absolutely doing the right thing. The tabloids have gone full-bore on lies about her for three years. They will never let up, so each lie that can be legally challenged should be. The tabloids and the lying RRs need to be shown for what they are, once and for all. Harry and Meghan have already won at least one legal payout, plus a printed retraction for another set of lies. They need to keep up the legal pressure on the tabloids.

    • If someone like Meghan who has the resources most of us can only dream of can’t defend herself, what chance do others have? This isn’t just about Meghan it’s the principle too. Also, she is innocent unlike Andrew and yet we barely heard anything about him from these same outlets until he did that interview last weekend. This needs to be called out and H&M are brave to do it.

      ETA: Agreed @nota!

    • kerwood says:

      @milly So she should just be grateful for the nice houses and jewelry and swallow the abuse? Even when she’s pregnant?

      Diana never had to deal with the ugly racism the press and people who can’t stand the idea of a Black woman in the royal family have thrown at the Duchess of Sussex since the second it was announced she and Harry were dating.

      The British people do not OWN the Duchess of Sussex; the marriage license was not a bill of sale. Her duty to them is to work to promote British interests at home and abroad. Her private life is nobody’s business but hers. It’s interesting that the ‘British taxpayers own you missy’ argument always comes up in reference to the Duchess of Sussex but NOT to other members of the royal family. It’s possible that Prince William has an aristocratic side-piece but nobody thinks the British taxpayer has the right to know about it. Quite the opposite in fact.

      No matter what ‘right’ the British tabloids have, they don’t have the right to lie about the Duchess of Sussex. And she’s going to prove that in court.

      • VS says:

        @kerwood………….BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO……have you noticed those same people don’t ask for pictures of Louis? but Archie has to be SEEN because of taxpayers whatever crap story of the day!!!!

      • lanne says:

        Can I get an Amen, Kerwood! Milly, that “shut up and be GRATEFUL” ship has sailed. Wealth does not excuse abuse of any kind. Would you say to a woman married to an abusive spouse to just “be grateful you have money?” The tabloids aren’t just printing shitty stories. They are making claims that could endanger her life and the lives of her family. They commit fraud. They break into homes and tap phone lines. They incite violence against her. There was a woman who tried to get near her at the baby shower and “rip away her fake belly.” If you really believe that Meghan should just ‘shut up and take it” then I either a) question your own values and judgement or b) believe you actively hate her and want to see her come to harm or c) aren’t taking the threats against her seriously. Remember that Diana tried to play their game. She invited the tabloids in, fed them stories, and they only wanted more and more and more. It’s not always possible to fight against the tabloids, nor is it always wise. But this isn’t typical tabloid garbage. This could be life and death.

      • Nic919 says:

        Excellent comment. There are other taxpayer supported people in the UK and no one asks them to endure this insane level of invasion of privacy.

    • MsIam says:

      @milly unless you have personally experienced this type of unrelenting assault from the press, then I suggest you have a seat with your “just ignore it” advice. Most people will not put up with false gossip about them in their workplace or neighborhoods without confronting it, let alone having blasted on the internet and in papers.

    • Elena says:

      I agree with Milly…

    • Jaded says:

      Milly, the Sussex’s are under constant siege from the gutter press. They can’t have a quiet afternoon lunch at a pub without someone snapping an unguarded photo, selling it to the DM or Sun, and having them create a whole fallacy around it. “Meghan and Harry drinking at lunch!” “Meghan lies about being a vegetarian and eats beef!” “Meghan and Harry charging taxpayers for their boozy lunch!” “Meghan drinking while breast-feeding!” It never stops. It invades every aspect of your life from brushing your teeth to dropping in at Tesco to pick up nappies. Would you like to live that way? So far they have done NOTHING to warrant that kind of ILLEGAL intrusiveness. They have worked hard, allowed some access from the press into their lives, but the only thing the press should have access to is their work, NOT their private lives, no matter how well they live. Don’t even get me started on the blatant racism against Meghan. It doesn’t matter how much money they have or how well they live, NOTHING warrants that kind of mendacious and illegal behaviour.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      I am sorry, where have you been? The Press has done their worst on Meghan, they have nothing to dig up, Meghan’s life is on Youtube, for all to see. By the way, what are they waiting for, they have been sued, but still they can’t bring up a single scandalous thing about Meghan. Her exboyfriend’s ,(The Chef)mum is defending her, and has nothing but glowing things to say about Meghan. This law suit has sent shivers , and a warning about libellous press. They under estimated a woman brought up by a black mother, she tried the stiff upperlip, and ‘don’t complain, don’t explain’ nonsense for a while, (and that is what the press was banking on) it did not work, so she and Harry said, sod it, we’ve had enough of this crap, let’s sue. Happy Thanksgiving and Merry Christmas. Home meal food of mama; yum yum!

  24. Marie says:

    There was one month when Meghan was on maternity leave that the British press wrote over 400 stories on her. They can’t deny every single story. Asking for the source is a great move. Lainey Gossip has a great theory on the tiara story. Robert Jobson sold it to the press because Charles’s staff wouldn’t let him put it in the book he wrote on Charles turning 70.

    • Mego says:

      The huge problem with that theory is that it infers that it is true and I don’t believe that it is.

      • Marie says:

        @Mego. Lainey said that it was more than likely not true and that is why it wasn’t in the book. But, this was a theory and she didn’t know 100%.

      • Mego says:

        Ah gotcha! I read it but forgot some of the details.

  25. Bea says:

    As someone who had to disconnect from my toxic bio-mother, Meghan has shown how to deal with this in the limelight. I have learned from other family (whom have also had to cut my bio-mother out of their lives) she had spread false rumors about myself and my spouse. Even after 5+ years of no contact she continues this to gain favor and play a victim. I don’t feed the flames and I don’t even live in the same state as her!

  26. Miriam says:

    Those saying “not sure it is wise” are forgetting who Rachel is!!The dutchess is a very Very smart lady.Her years of playing a lawyer paid off.We dont know if this is the only articles she’s suing for. She’s cleverly started with those that are provable wrong and the documents stated that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the paper or heads must roll! Mind you they have yet to make ANY move to counter these claims.

  27. Rogue says:

    The Fail will either have to prove their stories were verified or it just proves the case of lying about her as part of an agenda. In terms of smoking out sources- what’s interesting is some current Sun executives are named in hacking case against the paper including the editor and Dan Wooten. So his recent tweet about his phone being stolen on a night out in London (didn’t stop him tweeting though) seems hella suspect.

    They have gone the route of complaining to the press regulator and have obtained apologies but problem is the false stories are disseminated widely& lead to debates etc way before corrections. Meghan was called uppity on a daytime show by a popular tv host because of the neighbour rules story which was actually a spoof so people do believe them& it damages reputation.

    Systemic change is needed& perhaps this is an aim of their cases- to push for Levenson 2. that’s why press are calling these lawsuits a war against them. Funding for victims of press abuse has changed so there is less recourse for people with less resources& think the press will take advantage of that.

  28. Abby says:

    I kind of feel like the DM would totally perjure themselves to protect whichever Royal family member is creating fictional stories. They can blame anyone else. The royal can certainly offer rewards (future info) and protection for never revealing true sources and instead selecting a few minor fall guys. There is just no way they’re going to sit up there and say the future King of England (thru close personal staff) revealed these rumors.

    • lanne says:

      they don’t owe the Royals jack. They won’t fall on their own sword to protect anybody. This is all about money and greed. Whatever actions they take will be the ones deemed least expensive for them, which is why they will likely pay a settlement to make the case go away. That way they protect their sources for the future. But don’t doubt that they will turn on William if it’s profitable. That didn’t hold them back against Charles in the worst of the Charles and Diana drama.

      • Guest2.0 says:

        I hope they don’t settle. Let them have a day in court and out everyone who’s been involved in smearing them. Let the chips fall where they may.

      • morrigan01 says:

        I don’t think I’m wrong in thinking they won’t settle. This isn’t about the money, for either Harry or Meghan. Even more so for Harry.

        Harry HATES the British Press. *Lothes* them for what they did to his mother. He said before, before he met Meghan, that he DOES read everything they say and write and keeps a LIST of what was said/written and who said it. Again, he was doing this BEFORE he first met Meghan. Harry’s been keeping an Arya Stark-like list wrt the press and what they say for a long time now.

        IMO Harry has been waiting for the right time and moment to act and start suing them, bringing them down as much as he can. The way they’ve treated his wife over the past 3 years probably only helped to escalate his desire to do so. And even though the above is about Meghan’s lawsuit against them, I’ve noticed a slight shift in press talk that has started to blame *Harry* for all of this, particularly Dickie Arbiter and a new recent article from The Sun which is now saying that *Harry* is the one who squandered the goodwill he and Meghan had in the beginning and isn’t playing by the “contract between the Royals and the Paying Public.” No surprise this little turn has come from The Sun whom Harry is suing for phone hacking.

        So yeah, they aren’t going to settle. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if settlement offers have already been made and rejected.

  29. A says:

    I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know anything about any of this. But, I can’t imagine that Meghan’s lawyers would choose these stories in particular if they didn’t have some type of proof at hand that clearly indicates that these headlines from the Daily Mail were completely untrue. If the Daily Mail were to try and defend themselves saying, “We heard this from so-and-so so we thought it must be true since said source is impeccable,” they’d have to expose the individuals who are leaking in the palace, which could be the intention here. Otherwise, they’d have to swallow their pride and state up front that they KNEW these headlines to be false, but printed them anyway. Either of the two scenarios is beneficial for H&M. Either they find out who’s leaking what and figure out what to do about it, or they get the Fail to eat crow and publicly admit that this was a co-ordinated smear campaign against Meghan.

    • Mego says:

      I’m pretty certain a couple of them came from Katie Nicoll’s rear end. Same for several other reporters.

  30. VS says:

    wrong place

  31. Rogue says:

    Ultimately her main claim is breach of copyright for publishing the letter without her consent& that the Fail edited the letter to portray in a bad light as part of their agenda against her. So the stories picked are those to support her claim about Fail’s reasons for editing the letter- aim was maximum damage. So they are relying on stories where Meghan’s team has solid proof it’s a lie eg copper bath or avocado story- linking her to murder etc even though it’s absurd to show extent the Fail was being offensive.

    The court papers also suggest some shadiness to groom Markle snr. I can definitely see an ‘explosive full story behind the Markles betrayal’ front page story in the Fail in the future where they will throw him under the bus and expose his fake heart attack and his nefarious dealings with them to betray her. It’s what he deserves but it will be to act innocent& like they were just publishing what he gave them and to embarrass/punish her. Even if they lose the case they will definitely want to get mileage from drama around it.

    I think she’s won 3 apologies/corrections from the Sun including on the no parking near Frogmore story so perhaps that’s why she is not looking at action against them yet.

    I also think they are avoiding stories where a member of the family or palace courier would have to give direct witness statements eg making Kate dry, the tiara story.