Duchess Meghan files an injunction to keep the Mail from publishing her friends’ names

Sussex Morocco Asni school

A week ago, the Duchess of Sussex filed a legal response to a request made by the Daily Mail as part of her ongoing lawsuit against the media outlet. The part of Meghan’s response which got the most attention was where she said, on the record, that her friends spoke anonymously to People Magazine because they were “rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself.” This was regarding the now-infamous February 2019 People Mag cover story where, among other revelations, the news about Meghan’s letter to her father was revealed.

As I said in my coverage, the Daily Mail’s lawyers seem to want to make all of this into a referendum about whether Meghan authorized her friends to speak to People Mag. When really, Meghan’s lawsuit is about how the Mail – with the implicit and explicit help of the “institution” i.e. the palace – bullied her, smeared her and published her handwritten letter to her father. Anyway, a detail was buried last week, which is that Meghan somehow had to reveal, to the Daily Mail, the names of her friends who went to People Mag. Now the Mail wants to publish those names and Meghan is seeking a court order to prevent that.

The Duchess of Sussex is seeking a court order to prevent the publisher of the Mail on Sunday from publicising the names of five friends who could be witnesses in an ongoing legal dispute, according to a court filing. In the latest twist in the high-profile dispute, the Duchess is seeking a High Court injunction stopping the newspaper from publishing the names of the five women who spoke anonymously to the US media in her defence last year. The women’s names are on unpublished court papers in the legal battle, which Meghan insists are “confidential” and should not be made public.

“Associated Newspapers, the owner of The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, is threatening to publish the names of five women – five private citizens – who made a choice on their own to speak anonymously with a U.S. media outlet more than a year ago, to defend me from the bullying behaviour of Britain’s tabloid media”, she wrote in the legal submission disclosed this morning.

“These five women are not on trial and nor am I. The publisher of the Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. It is this publisher that acted unlawfully and is attempting to evade accountability; to create a circus and distract from the point of this case – that the Mail on Sunday unlawfully published my private letter.”

“Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy. Both the Mail on Sunday and the court system have their names on a confidential schedule, but for the Mail on Sunday to expose them in the public domain for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain is vicious and poses a threat to their emotional and mental wellbeing.

“The Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives. “I respectfully ask the court to treat this legal matter with the sensitivity it deserves, and to prevent the publisher of the Mail on Sunday from breaking precedent and abusing the legal process by identifying these anonymous individuals – a privilege that these newspapers in fact rely upon to protect their own unnamed sources.”

[From The Guardian & The Evening Standard]

What I find hard to understand is why Meghan had to reveal the names in the first place? If her argument is that her friends did this without her knowledge and without her explicit permission, and she only knew about it after the fact, then why are their identities relevant to the case? That’s what I don’t get – it’s not like People Magazine would have revealed the names of their sources, so why did Meghan? I’m not blaming her, I just don’t get the legal argument for why Meghan had to name them at all. Maybe this is all some next-level strategy at play, who knows – the fact that she cites the fact that the Mail relies on “their own unnamed sources” leads me to believe that there is something else at play as well. Meghan has long tried to protect her friends too – I believe that was one of the reasons why she and Harry didn’t reveal the name of Archie’s godparents, because they were trying to protect their friends from tabloid harassment.

(BTW, I’ve always believed that Serena Williams was one of the friends who spoke to People Magazine, and if Serena gets “outed” by the Daily Mail, it will be funny as hell to see the British tabloids try to come for the GOAT. Serena will NOT play.)

Prince Harry and Meghan, Duke and Duchess of Sussex in Bristol

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

121 Responses to “Duchess Meghan files an injunction to keep the Mail from publishing her friends’ names”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Priscila Bezerra-Fischer says:

    Having tasted Brit tabloids, I can understand why Meghan is reluctant in allowing them to continue profit from her name and to go after five other women too- I can only imagine how many articles they would be writing about her friends, and the investigations they would be doing to find dirty on them.

    • PrincessK says:

      The Fail will never leave Meghan alone they are making too much money off her. Sometimes there are up to five Meghan articles daily, that get ten times as many comments as the Cambridge’s, and all the comments are the same. They must be written by robots or maniacs

  2. Belli says:

    The Mail are disgusting. I still think they’re not actually bothered about winning the court case, they’re trying to fight a different publicity battle about their Evil Meghan fictional creation.

    It’s amazing they’re legally allowed to publish information about (and therefore profit from) the court case at all.

    • Noodle says:

      @Belli, I agree with you. I think this is more of a fishing expedition on their part. They aren’t simply observers now; they’re participants and stand to benefit financially from this situation.

    • grey says:

      Anyone can report on what is happening in open court.

      • Mary says:

        @Grey, the names were not divulged in open court .

        Meghan was required to submit the names and it was done in a confidential document. The Fail is now saying that it wants to be able to publish, knowing that the documents were to have remained confidential. Among other wrongs, I could see the Fail trying to intimidate people who could be called as witnesses.

        But then you knew all of this didn’t you?!

    • BCity says:

      All of this because two nice people found each other and the racists couldn’t deal with it. It’s just so heartbreaking.

    • NoWords says:

      This is where I’m confused. Is it not a conflict of interest for the newspaper that’s being sued to publish articles about the suit and claimant?

  3. AGreatDane says:

    Sadly, the Daily Mail has been able to completely change what this case is about. It’s a copyright case, not a referendum on whether or not Meghan knew her friends went to People Magazine. Them mentioning a letter is not the same as the DM publishing a letter without the writer’s consent. But the justice system works one way for White people and another way for POC, so I sadly don’t see this going Meghan’s way.

  4. Belig says:

    > I just don’t get the legal argument for why Meghan had to name them at all.

    Because the Mail is trying to prove that part or all of the five friends don’t exist, or are on Meghan’s payroll, would be my guess.

    > the fact that she cites the fact that the Mail relies on “their own unnamed sources” leads me to believe that there is something else at play as well.

    This indicates to me that my guess is also Meghan’s, she knows what they’re getting at…

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Belig – I agree with you. I think it is a case of Meghan saying “If I have to reveal the names of my friends then you, Mail On Sunday dirt-bags, have to release the names of all your unnamed sources dishing false dirt on me.

      This could work to Meghan’s advantage if comes out that The Mail On Sunday and Daily Fail really has no sources and just made up all this BS as click-bait to generate revenue.

    • Em says:

      The names are mentioned in a confidential part of the courts document. The mail lawyers know this. They were seeking permission from the courts for them to publish the names

    • Jordan says:

      The crux of the the DM’s argument is that Meghan authorized the friends to discuss the letter in People magazine, thus negating any expectation of privacy in relation to the letter and giving her father a supposed justification to refute the assertion that it was a loving letter.

      Whether this argument will be accepted or not is a matter for the court but her denial that she knew about the friends talking to People and her proclamation that the first she knew of the article was the day before its publication is an important point in the case and therefore needs to be tested, hence the potential need to identify the friends as they will likely be called as witnesses.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Nope, it cannot be twisted that way. The crux of the lawsuit is, the Fail violated copyright of a private letter. Whether or not anyone else knew the letter existed is moot. Charles won his case against violation of copyright when his private letters were published. Another tabloid didn’t publish Anne’s letters because they knew it was copyright infringement.

      • Olivia says:

        Regardless of what her friends said, it doesn’t give mail on Sunday the right to publish the letter. The letter is not in the public interest in anyway.

      • NoWords says:

        Nota,

        I don’t think Jordan is saying that. It seems like she’s pointing out that the Mail is going for “The Chewbacca Defense” to win. I think that’s what the Mail is doing. They want to manipulate the case and confuse everyone so much with irrelevant crap that the courts rule against Meghan. It’s unbelievably scummy. Fingers crossed for Meghan that the Mail fails!

        *For those that don’t know what “The Chewbacca Defense” is: it’s a legal argument that gets its name from a South Park episode. In the episode the lawyer, instead of refuting the arguments presented, attempts to confuse and distract the jury by talking about Chewbacca and Endor rather than the actual case.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

    • Jordan says:

      @nota You’ve missed the point.

      Yes, the crux of the lawsuit is whether the Mail violated copyright by publishing the letter; the crux of the Mail’s argument is not about others knowing of its existence but rather whether by authorising the friends to discuss the letter in People (a fact which is contested) Meghan put the letter in the public domain willingly and therefore cannot argue her privacy was violated.

      Argue with me all you want but that’s the case they are making, it’s not me twisting it. Whether that is accepted by the court is another matter but a lot of people here don’t seem to understand the legal argument.

      • Sid says:

        I am one who doesn’t understand the legal argument. If I write an unpublished book, but allow a magazine to mention its existence even though I have no intention of publishing it, does that therefore mean that if another magazine somehow gets a hold of my book and then publishes large parts of it without my permission, that is permissible legally? Is there any sort of precedent for that? And no, I don’t buy the idea of fair use or public domain with regard to the letter.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again, you can keep taking the Fail’s side in this but it doesn’t make it legal. The press knew it was illegal to print the letter, whether or not anyone else knew of the existence of the letter. They had legal precedent with Charles and Anne, so they knew it. Chose to do it anyway. Trying to get the right to publish the names of her friends is one of their many fishing expeditions in this. This is the third round of the Fail playing these fishing games in court.

      • GuestWho says:

        Mentioning to her friends that she wrote a letter to her father BEGGING him to stop selling her out is NOT putting that letter in the public domain. Nor did she authorize her friends to discuss it with People magazine.

    • Jordan says:

      @sid I agree, I think it is a weak argument. I was just pointing out that that is one of the Mail’s defences (their main one it seems) and that is why the need for the friends names to be disclosed in the court documents which many comments and the article’s author were questioning.

      The author states “If her argument is that her friends did this without her knowledge and without her explicit permission, and she only knew about it after the fact, then why are their identities relevant to the case?”- the answer to this is that her assertion that they did it without her authorization and knowledge now needs to be tested in court by questioning the friends because it forms an important part of the Mail’s argument.

      Again, the Mail’s justifications for publications may ultimately be completely rejected but they are central to the issues at play.

      • Sid says:

        Thank you Jordan. I feel that the Mail is really muddying the waters here (big surprise) by mixing the issue of the names being released to the court and the names being released to the public. The former makes sense, the latter is just another trash move my the trash Mail.

      • Montrealaise says:

        Thank you for explaining it so well. In any event, the identities of the five friends will be revealed eventually, when they testify in court. And to anyone wondering why they couldn’t be kept confidential: it’s a basic tenet of our justice system that witnesses testify in open court with their identities revealed. There are a a few exceptions to that rule: cases where minor children are involved, especially those where there are allegations of child abuse, and in cases where revealing a witness’ identity would put his or her life at risk (e.g. an informant testifying against an organized crime boss). And no, potential harassment by the media does not give rise to an exception.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think we all understand that if the friends are called to testify, their identities would then be known.

        THIS is purely a power play by the MoS to try to get ahead of the testimony and be able to spend the next few months bashing them in the papers and destroying their credibility.

      • Nic919 says:

        There is no guarantee that all five women would need to be called as witnesses and so publishing their names at this time when there isn’t even a trial scheduled is just a paper looking for clicks. I have never had to present a witness list until a pre trial conference and even then it was only a list of potential witnesses and not who ends up being called. Putting out the five women right now would just be a publicity stunt to muddy the waters and sell papers.

        There is also the potential for a publication ban on certain information which can be given for a variety of reasons. I mean look at what William was able to do regarding his affair and that wasn’t even a court case.

    • ODIE says:

      As I understand it, she did not have to reveal the names. They requested it and she complied. Asserting that she knows exactly who cooperated with People is what I don’t understand. It suggests that she WAS in the loop. I’m sure there’s a legal strategy there, but I don’t know what it is. They’ll definitely be brought as witnesses. Maybe this request for making the names secret is just a gesture. I agree though, the thing that would most discredit her case against the DMS would be if the sources are people she’s hired in some capacity. Strains credulity that they all went rogue independently.

      • Ginger says:

        Her providing the names doesn’t mean she was in the loop. They could have told her afterwards. She is saying she didn’t know beforehand, which I believe. I don’t think Meghan is going to risk perjury.

      • GuestWho says:

        It only strains credulity if you are inclined to think negatively of Meghan. I can absolutely envision a scenario where 4 or 5 friends see their good friend being lambasted constantly (while pregnant) in the press would want to defend her. The main beef at that time was that she “ghosted” her fat, malignant father. Her friends KNOW that isn’t true because Meghan has mentioned, to at least one of them, that she actually wrote him a letter and he responded with a request for a photo op. That’s absolutely something I would mention in a conversation with a close friend.

        So day after day, her revolting father, Piers Morgan and the DM go on and on and on about how she’s ghosted her father. The disgusting Meg–it racist-hags on twitter (and other social media) are constantly screeching about how evil she is to have just ghosted her father. She’s pregnant, vulnerable, and under constant mental bombardment. Her friends KNOW she didn’t ghost him and that Tom is a disgusting liar. Her friends have never seen her so distraught. Her friends KNOW she is being held back by KP from defending herself. So they have a conversation together and defend her. That seems pretty credulous – its not even a stretch.

      • ODIE says:

        My point is that she’d be in no position to assert that she knows who the sources were after the fact. I feel a lot of empathy for Meghan, but there are definitely people inclined to think negatively of her and the tabloid just wants clicks. If they profit off of the information gained during discovery, that mitigates the loss of a settlement, not to mention, keeps her name circulating in the tabloid press. I’m going to assume she has an incredibly strong legal team and every move is strategic, I’m just saying that the strategy isn’t clear to me (which means nothing, I’m not a lawyer). She’s not the one on trial. She wasn’t obligated to give up any names. She chose to, then said she wants it to be private which I have to hope has a strategic purpose in the long run.

      • crbnftprnt says:

        so you missed the part where under oath she said she learned the names after the fact. I

      • Nic919 says:

        Lawyers do this thing called preparation prior to issuing a claim and that includes talking to potential witnesses and getting a sense of their evidence and their credibility as witnesses. Knowing who the five are now does not mean she knew they went to people prior to the story.

      • Sid says:

        Odie I don’t understand your point. Like Ginger and Guest I find it very believable that Meghan did not know until after the fact. It’s as simple as her friends doing the article, then her seeing the article (I would not be surprised if KP clowns brought it up) and questioning her circle about who was involved. It has already been revealed that she was told by KP that she and her friends could not respond to any of the tabloid trash. If my friend were stuck in a situation like that, my hackles would be up and I would absolutely try to help without getting her involved.

  5. Lisa says:

    All they want to do is fight dirty and harass Meghan’s friends with impunity. I hope the court does not allow it.

  6. Becks1 says:

    It seems so shady to me that the MoS could ask for the names as part of court proceedings, and those names are confidential but the Mail can print them. Can you imagine the harassment they would receive???

    Maybe there’s a legal point I’m missing, but I don’t see how they would be allowed to do that.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If the Fail is allowed to see those names, even if they aren’t allowed to publish them? They will attack those five people constantly from now on.

      • Becks1 says:

        Agreed, watch for lots of shady stories about Serena from now on. I also think they will assume that those five friends are the godparents.

      • NoWords says:

        Yeah. I think that’s how they would “name” the friends. “Oh hahaha look! We keep specifically harassing 5 of Meghan’s friends. Oh, look there were 5 friends that spoke to people! What a coinkeydink!”

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Because thats what the Mail wants – to release those names to continue the harassment and demonisation of Meghan, they are obsessed with bringing her down. If they release the names of the sources then no-one will talk to them off record for fear of being exposed – that includes Willileaks and the overworked top CEO of Zooming. Its already being dripped fed to the public that William has been ‘talking’ to the press about his brother and SIL.

  7. truthSF says:

    I want to know why she had to reveal their names as well! I wouldn’t have done it…even if it caused me to lose the case! Because I know revealing their names is exactly the weapon the BM would want, much, much more than winning that case!

    • ola says:

      It’s simple: DM was trying to prove that the five friends were fictional and that it was Meghan who talked to People. So she had to reveal their names to prove it wasn’t her. She had no choice but to clear her name.
      Also, let’s not forget it’s a copyright case, so the friends may be called to testify and confirm in what way they learnt about the letter (whether they SAW and READ it themselves or just were told by Meghan that it existed). Mentioning that the letter exists is not the same as printing parts of it. That will be crucial during trial.
      Sooner or later they will testify and we can predict that DM will make it as loud as they can dragging Meghan’s people through dirt.

      • Montrealaise says:

        Actually, the People article did print parts of the letter verbatim, so the friends did more than just say the letter existed – they quoted parts of it. What the DM is trying to prove is either that the five friends are fictitious (which seems very unlikely since Meghan did name them, even if she did so in a confidential document) OR that they gave People the interview with Meghan’s knowledge and blessing or even at her request. If they take the stand and say that Meghan knew they were going to the magazine, or were asked to do so, it makes her case much weaker and also delivers a serious blow to her credibility, since she has always insisted they went behind her back.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Montrealaise – People magazine printing and/or quoting the letter is a lie.

      • Ginger says:

        @ MONTREALAISE No, they didn’t. I still have that People Magazine and they talk about it and say some of what is in it but they didn’t publish it. At all.

      • crbnftprnt says:

        @Montrealaise you blatantly lie about people printing parts of the letter. tryign to decide if you’re lying or gullible

  8. VS says:

    Someone would have to explain this to me, how exactly does knowing name of Archie’s godparents important to any human being? people have nothing better to worry about?

    I am happy Meghan is leading this fight; the tabloids are just trying to deflect from the actual lawsuit! yes they will get content and content to publish but at the end, they will pay…..I do hope others learn that they have to stand up for themselves or those who are weaker than them! Johnny Depp should take the trashy sun down too

    • Priscila Bezerra-Fischer says:

      Well, for once, they could smear Meghan and Harry by proxy if they knew who Archie´s godparents were. imagine if said godparents got a speeding ticket? It would be all over DM, how Meghan and Harry are awfull parents for choosing such a person…

  9. GuestWho says:

    This is so heartbreakingly frustrating. Is it true that the judge in this case once represented Associated in a different law suit? She’s absolutely right to sue, but she never stood a chance in this system. The tactics and intentions of the MOS and DF are just as low down you would expect.

  10. Jay says:

    Serena would be formidable, and has the resources to put up a fight. But I’m worried the DM wants nothing more than to be in another public fight with another Black American woman. That kind of stuff sells.

    Jessica Mulroney, if she was part of it,might be problematic, insofar that it would allow the mail to bring up her racist attack on Sasha Exeter.

    Who would the other friends be? Abigail Spencer? Misha Nonoo?

  11. ABritGuest says:

    Maybe named them on confidential basis in court docs because they are being asked to verify that they weren’t authorised to disclose details of the letter. That’s part of Fail’s defence on the privacy issue. Fail want their names for more content, eg speculation as to godparents, more people to harass etc.

    As mentioned on here before, Fail are more interested in content for clicks etc from this case which will more than make up any damages they would pay if they lose.

    • Golly Gee says:

      Exactly. It’s all for clicks. They really cannot lose. By asking to print the names, they have a story. Meghan asking for an injunction gives them another story. Whether their request is approved or denied is a story. They will drag this out and keep bringing up unrelated issues to create even more stories for their paper. They’re going to make a sh#tload of money off of this lawsuit, even if they lose.

      • NoWords says:

        I saw they wrote up an ENTIRE article on how there was a typo on a website that accidentally put the title Dr in front of Duchess of Sussex. It was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. They’ll literally write about ANYTHING for the clicks and comments.

    • VS says:

      They make money because people read their trash! if people stop clicking on their stories, they will stop printing them!

      • ravynrobyn says:

        @ VS-YAAASSSSS!!!!! I haven’t clicked on the Daily Fail in quite some time. I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m still shocked at the length & depth they’re going through to torture a truly sweet, decent & honorable HUMAN BEING.

        NEVER EVER EVERRRRR CLICKING AGAIN.

      • VS says:

        @ravynrobyn — I dont click on their stuffs but we have a similar problem in the US with Fox News. Some reporting done by Fox News is just trash! I do not understand why Chris Wallace, who is an actual journalist, works there!!!! I hope whatever they are paying him is worth it!

    • Dinah says:

      The AN (be it the DF and MoS) is already profiting from this case, and the weak British legal system and uncreative judge, are allowing this and other publishers to profit even more each and every day.

      They asks Mehgan lots of questions (3 times already) and are using the answers to make headline stories, without any repercussions/punishment. I don’t know of any modern Western court system, which allows a trial party to profit from a case the way the Fail/MOS are profiting from this one, even if the lawsuit is not on trial yet.
      England for sure is a country with a very strange judicial system. Good for Meghan to have left that backward island, were it looks like it will be very difficult to let justice prevail.

  12. Aurora says:

    This case is becoming confusing. I don’t understand why Meghan needs to prove anything more than that the Fail published her letter without permission.

    Also do gag orders not exist in the U.K? why is the paper that’s a defendant in the lawsuit allowed to write about that lawsuit and the plaintiff? That’s beyond unfair to Meghan.

    • Ginger says:

      I agree. This case seems pretty open and shut to me. They illegally published a letter. The Sun didn’t print Princess Anne’s letters because it was illegal. The Mail know they will lost but are going to milk this case for all it’s worth and make money off of it. I really hope the don’t publish the friends names. I feel like the Mail is going to make Meghan regret ever going after them.

  13. Marivic says:

    The Daily Mail would publish the names of Meghan’s friends just in time as Ghislaine Maxwell’s case closes in on Andrew. The evil DM doesn’t understand the law. The DM ( and all the British Media) and the Royal Family need a scapegoat. Crossing my fingers that Meghan beats them.

    • NoWords says:

      Oh my god. I bet that’s the plan. Stall this thing, make it big news, bury the stories about the child rapist. I’ve noticed the more that comes out about the child rapist the more sh*t gets thrown at Meghan, and very shortly after the child rapist is in the news as well. I bet many nasty stories came because of that.

  14. Zen says:

    I don’t know how Meghan is getting through all this. She must be so mentally strong. When I think about all the huge life events she’s been thru in only a few years:
    2016 – begins dating a prince
    2017 – gets engaged to the prince
    2018 – marries the prince
    2019 – gives birth to a son
    2020 – leaves the Royal Family
    I’m hoping 2021 is: wins lawsuit, gives birth to a daughter and with hubby enjoys a successful life as a philanthropist.

  15. Brit says:

    I believe they threatened her but I think they were bluffing to not only get more Information but to also get more headlines to distract again for the Queen, who has a letter being released and Andrew, with Ghislaine. They are absolutely obsessed with this woman even moreso than Harry because she’s not backing down. They’ll get their headlines and royal family get their distractions but the obsession with Meghan continues. The more she and Harry ignore and continue fighting against them, they’ll never stop harassing and pursuing them. This about the media wanting control and wearing them.
    That Media and Government, have complete and total control over that family and they’re angry because these two haven’t no towing the line and escaped them. Harry and Meghan were so so smart to get away because that family is a sinking ship. That family is nothing but puppets and it hasn’t been more obvious until these past few months. The media is Losing money and jobs and they have become completely dependent on this woman and Harry. She is literally their need to live, it’s sickening.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Yes Brit according to the Times on Monday they essentially dared her to seek legal action or they would publish the names& gave her three days to respond.

      I agree we are seeing some of these reporters/experts go even more nuts& lashing out because covid has hit profits& publishers behind the Sun, Mirror& Express are having to cut costs& have had big hacking settlements to pay (and will continue to) hitting bottom line more. some RRs have possibly been discredited through the no engagement stance, likely hitting international commentary bookings too. And being away from the palace means less leaks

      • Brit says:

        Oh absolutely. Meghan was supposed to be Diana 2.0 and give them access and I think they thought that since she was an actress, she would do it anyway. They did not expect her and Harry to continue to fight them every step of the way and harassing and bullying them into getting what they wanted didn’t help either. Meghan, Harry and especially Archie were supposed to be their moneymakers for years to come. From the international gigs,podcasts, books etc. Having them leave, be publicity humiliated and seen as the racist losers they are, seeing other media houses benefit, they’re stuck with royals who don’t sell and been blocked by said royals into not talking about their dirty laundry and are losing profits galore to lawsuits and Covid has sent them over the edge.

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s kind of ironic because Meghan may have given them access. She doesn’t have the same hatred of the press that Harry does. She understands it can be useful, especially in charity work. But she wasn’t giving access to news outlets that abused her on a daily basis just for living. The british press (specifically the royal rota) shot themselves in the foot.

        I’m not saying Meghan was going to give them tours of Frogmore, but I think she would have been more open with the press had they not abused her so much.

      • Brit says:

        @Becks I think the media knew Meghan wasn’t the one being Anti media as much as Harry was. This was a way to hurt him by targeting her. Some reporters even said that Meghan should bypass Harry and speak to the press.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The RRs were demanding Meghan speak to them privately, give them the same private access W&K did when they were trying to shut up their tabloid critics. That they’d be nice to her in the press *if only she would give them tidbits in private*.

        The result would have been the same – the RRs attacking her. Claiming they were being shut out, once they were all ‘friends’, now they’re being unfairly refused access after negative stories, etc.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota – right, but I mean from the get-go. If the press had been even just fair to Meghan, and not sensationally anti-Meghan, I think there would have been a better relationship. Being mean to her and then demanding access before they’ll stop being mean to her is blackmail and that was NEVER going to get them access.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Very true. They also weren’t prepared for a pair of royals who wouldn’t cave to their abuse.

  16. Sofia says:

    I don’t blame her for wanting the courts to stop the Fail from saying who the friends were. They’ll be harassed to no end. As for why Meghan gave their names, I’m guessing it was to prove that Meghan didn’t pretend to be 5 friends of hers or that she gave them permission

  17. Emily says:

    The Mail is using the court proceedings to generate content for their website. The court should prevent them from profiting off of a possible crime they committed.

  18. Jen says:

    In the US system, she would have had to release the names during the discovery process. The MOS would have to have the right to compel them for testimony if they chose to do so or take a deposition.

    • Humbugged says:

      But we don’t live in the US so that does not work

      And she could also claim discovery for a lot of there stuff and where it came from

    • Dinah says:

      Not true. As Meghan (her lawyer) said: her friends are not on trial. The case is the unlawful publication of a private letter (breach of privacy and data protection) by the MoS. The friends didn’t break any laws; not in the UK not in the USA. They are no party in this case: the judge is not even obliged to label them as witness – he could, e.g. only ask them to make a written statement – or not allow the other party to bring them in as witnesses in this case.

    • Nic919 says:

      Discovery only means providing information to the other parties in the action. It is not the same as making it public.

  19. Lily says:

    The problem will be if jessica mulroney is part of the group who spoke. Can you imagine the disaster of your bff supporting you anonymously and then you not supporting them and trying to keep it secret. The british press is drooling for a story like that. The haters will florish. Piers morgan is going to yap again.

    • MsIam says:

      Not the same at all. Jessica acted stupidly and was a racist. Why is Meghan supposed to support or defend that? Plus what has Meghan done that needs defending? The whole point of the People article was that she wasn’t this “diva” like the British tabloids were portraying. There is no denying what Jessica did, it was all played out in public.

    • Sid says:

      Why would you support your friend if they did something like what Mulroney did?

      • Olivia says:

        Jessica has supported Meghan throughout all media nonsense. Regardless of what Jessica did, it doesn’t mean Meghan shouldn’t support her. We all make mistakes and she’s a godmother to Jessica’s kids. This shouldn’t break their friendship

      • Sid says:

        Olivia, if my friend does something bad and continues to double down on the bad behavior until they have no other option, I am not going to support that. It will be a lesson they have to learn. None of the media nonsense about Meghan involved her doing anything like what Jessica did (and continued to do even after being called out). Breaking a friendship and not being interested in publicly supporting your friend’s idiocy are not the same thing.

    • Dinah says:

      I don’t think that Jessica is part of the group. To me it looks like her America/n (based) friends took the lead in organizing and giving the People interview.

    • GuestWho says:

      The public doesn’t know whether or not Meghan is supporting Jessica privately (because it’s not really anybody’s business). Just because the Sun says it’s so, doesn’t mean it’s so.

    • crbnftprnt says:

      And how do you know if Meghan’s supporting Jessica? Because the Daily Fail said so

  20. VS says:

    TROLL alert……………..

  21. MsIam says:

    You have no idea what you are talking about so stop calling people names. All you have is speculation. Plus who the friends are is not relevant to the case, they just want more gossip fodder.

    ETA: original comment was deleted, feel free to delete mine.

    • Mina_Esq says:

      Unfortunately, their names are relevant because they are witnesses. Meghan said in her response that her friends were concerned for her welfare because of what was going on at the time. That’s a relevant fact, and her friends are witnesses to it. Without them, what Meghan said is hearsay and speculation, and it’s not admissible as evidence. She can’t speak to what others were feeling or thinking. It’s just how the law of evidence work.

      • blue36 says:

        Yeah, but do they have the right to publish those names? Like Meghan said in her witness statement, if the MOS is allowed to publish the sources of the people magazine story, then why are the MoS allowed to protect their unnamed sources for their stories?

      • GuestWho says:

        They are relevant to the case (maybe), and have been provided to the appropriate parties. There is no reason to release the names to the general public, especially when it is only to get the DM more clicks and will only serve to have them mentally tortured like they have Meghan. Just because the public have a creepy, prurient interest, and want a chance to drag her friends through the mud is not enough reason to release the names publicly. That’s not what “public interest” means.

      • Olivia says:

        Because mail had already said they published her letter because her friends made them aware, meghan just responded to that claim.

  22. MsIam says:

    If the names were part of a confidential filing then why would they be allowed to be released? Wouldn’t the Mail be in contempt? Not a lawyer, maybe someone knows?

    • GuestWho says:

      The DM asked for permission from the courts to release the names that were given to them. This is an injunction to stop them from doing so.

      They, and their defenders, are revolting.

  23. rawiya says:

    She should ask the DM to name all their sources then. Let’s see how many live/work in KP. Who was the ‘source’ who said she made Kate cry? Who was the source who said she sent texts at 5 a.m. Considering Meghan’s suing over the negative stories, force them to disclose all of them—if the stories are true then the source can back the DM.

  24. Olivia says:

    I hope Doria is ok through all this. must be taking toll on her too.

  25. S808 says:

    Don’t understand how their names are in any way important to this case. Also, don’t understand how MoS is allowed to report on the very lawsuit they are in. Her friends were well within their right to go to people anonymously and making their identities known doesn’t add anything except possible stories for the tabloids. If they’re allowed to make these people’s identities known, I’ll be side eyeing the court.

  26. Gina says:

    The Mail has a legitimate legal defense in that it is claiming that Meghan put the letter in the public domain through this People article so their publishing of it was not wrong. Meghan claim she did not have any part in the People article and that her friends did this without her knowledge. The Mail has a right to the names to develop its legal theory and I would assume question these friends with respect to Meghan’s involvement if any with the People article. I am sure my the court ordered the confidential disclosure of the names.

    • Harla says:

      The Mail has the names, Meghan is only asking that they not be publicly revealed.

    • Humbugged says:

      Even if she had given permission it was still illegal of The Mail to post the contents

    • Olivia says:

      The names have already been provided to the court. The mail is asking to publish the names which is absurd. The case is not about whether they have a legit defence, why print someone’s letter without their permission.? That’s the arguments here and both queen and Charles have won cases involving printing of their private letters. If my son tells you to look after my contents in my garage, does the fact that my son mentioned my contents give you the permission to go in and take stuff from the garage as you want? The mere fact someone is mentioned is not “permission” .

    • crbnftprnt says:

      THe mail doesn’t have a legitimate defense . They mail could have talked about the letter but they did not have permission to print it.

  27. Harla says:

    Why do we, as humans, have such a need to abuse, harass, torture and even kill the best souls? Why are we unable to allow them to be of service, to help others and possibly even help us grow and change?

    • VS says:

      There are a lot of miserable people out there; a lot of “losers” who enjoy nothing more than bring other people to their level. Michelle O, HRC, Serena W, Meghan, etc…it is worst if it is a POC because life is not supposed to be like that; some still think POC are supposed to be below white people, how can they be successful while some are struggling or don’t have the same level of success? if you look at it, people who support those women or men (let’s not forget how BO was treated as well) are usually secure and educated people as well…..

      Do you know the saying “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” — It is reflective of what we see today. Meghan was supposed to be less than Kate, instead she exposed her mediocrity so publicly, it was embarrassing!

      I am one of those who thought Kate would have benefited immesely by being friend with Meghan because M has what she needs but anyway after FlyBe, Meghan should never talk to that woman! She has women like her mom, Michelle O, Amal Clooney, Serena, etc…..to talk to; she will be more than fine

  28. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    I couldn’t do it. This shit is over-the-top disgusting, cruel and I’d be filing a million lawsuits. One for every word. One for every comment following every article. I’d have to make it my life’s mission to bury the company with paperwork and judicial red tape. And then I’d research everyone within the top tiers of the company and begin my own assault, publishing itineraries, addresses, car makes and licenses, everything I could find. I’d have them followed for months so I could exploit their daily lives through exaggerated half-truths and lies. I’d hit back. And I’d hit them all. Clearly I’d go insane with rage so yeah… Meghan is taking an impressive road in all this.

    And regarding that whole racial vid with Harry speaking, I noticed quite a bit of negativity surrounding Harry doing the talking. He has to. It’s his demographic that needs smelling salts, and they’re sure as shit not going to smell on Meghan’s encouragement.

  29. Mina_Esq says:

    Meghan unfortunately made them witnesses by bringing them up in her response. She made their evidence relevant. The other side has the right to know their names and summons them for cross examination if they want. Otherwise, what Meghan said is just hearsay. Re: injunction – I’d be surprised if she succeeds. If they will be witnesses in open court anyway, then publishing their names can’t really be said to cause irreparable harm, unless she can somehow show that the timing of the release of names would be significant. Overall, from a strategic perspective, DM likely just found a major bargaining chip. It makes me sick that they are stopping to this, but…

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      That’s not the crux of the case at all. Her friends have no evidential value. They didn’t reveal the contents of her letter to Thomas. The Mail spliced her letter and printed excerpts from it to smear Meghan. All her friends did was defend her in the People article & mentioned that Meghan had written her father. They didn’t print parts of her letter to give to the reporter to rebut Thomas’ lies that he hadn’t been contacted by Meghan. The only reason the Mail wants to reveal the names is to generate clicks and stories.

    • Nic919 says:

      There is no need to name potential witnesses prior to trial to the general public. It is one thing to name a witness when they testify in open court, but until that witness is called, they are only a potential witness and it is not in the public interest to have their identities broadcast For scrutiny and possible harassment. With the media frenzy in the UK it more likely than not that they would harass the potential witnesses.

      This is a copyright case and not a criminal case so it’s not like there is a huge miscarriage of justice in not knowing the names of the five friends prior to when they are called to give evidence. Especially since this defence by the Mail is weak and tangential.

  30. Suzanne Hurley says:

    To me, the case is black and white. Meghan is the author of the letter, and legally it cannot be printed without her permission. Period. Her friends mentioned the letter, but that’s a far cry from printing it. The MOS figured Meghan wouldn’t go after them – so they used the letter as mega clickbait. I admire Meghan and Harry so much for walking away from toxicity and standing up to bullies. But I’m hoping the ruling is simple – the MOS broke the law. But I am stunned at how the Brits treated Meghan and floored at how the tabloids use her for clickbait. Wow – I could see the headlines if she discovered the cure for covid – “Meghan Markle singlehandedly discovered a cure for covid while living in Tyler Perry’s $18 million dollar mansion with 26 bathrooms and while wearing an incredibly expensive dress living off Prince Charles money. Shame on her.” LOL. They pick on everything she does and I truly hope she holds her head up high and continues to do all the good work she is already doing.

  31. aquarius64 says:

    This is another tactic for the Fail to get Meghan to drop the lawsuit. The paper has the names as required. And if the friends are private citizens it’s not Serena Williams or Jessica Mulroney. DM may get clicks but the judge could see this as witness intimidation.

  32. AMM says:

    The mail already hinted at who they are, and I don’t think it’s Serena. I believe they said it’s believed to be like one high profile person, and the rest are friends. So I’m assuming the girls from the wedding party. I believe she had some college friends there? Or the college friends she went to a tennis match with.

  33. L4frimaire says:

    The Mail really is a vicious tabloid, whose sole aim at this point is to destroy and discredit everything about Meghan Markle. This is all because she wouldn’t allow them unfettered access to her life while they continued to smear her. They really should impose a gag order on this trial. What I want to know is how long did they think they could continue with this. 5years, 10, indefinitely, and what did they expect out of it besides profit and hatred? They wanted to continue to milk this woman as a cash cow and will try to destroy anyone associated with her. I hope she wins and wins big.

  34. Vanessa says:

    I believe the daily mail just wants those names to how materials to further abuses Meghan more what their doing is disgusting. If the daily mail wants her friends names then Meghan lawyer need to subpoena the daily mail and all their sources for the Meghan stories over the years I can guarantee you the daily mail wouldn’t want to reveal their palace sources.

  35. Abena Asantewaa says:

    This is bullying, intimidation and a very dishonest way to earn a living by The MOS. I admire Meghan for fighting back., and standing up to bullies, with just the support of her husband in the familu.. Forget about this disloyal family

  36. Osty says:

    All these is the sperm donor’s fault, if only he has behaved like a loving n sane dad. He is awful and doesn’t deserve anything from his daughter. I can’t wait for the tabloids to chew him up

  37. Becky says:

    This is a shit show. Meghan has little control going forward. It’s not going to end up well. That is all.

  38. Mariane says:

    This is clear blackmail. I cant believe this is allowed! The mail is clearly not bothered about winning the case,the just use the lawsuit to fish for more info. I’ll wait for the judge’s decision because his ruling is now crucial to see if British courts are neutral as they say or if the squad suspicions of him being loyal to his ex tabloids job will be proven true.

  39. Korra says:

    I speculate these names will get out, regardless of Meghan’s injunction. Associated Papers really wants to harm Meghan and will sink to incredible lows to continue their ongoing attacks on her.

    And other media outlets are already stirring the pot by writing articles that speculate the identities of these friends. Even if untrue, it does nothing but put a target on the backs of the names being thrown around.

  40. Ennie says:

    If they have the names, does that mean that tabloids could harass and print about them even without actually naming them as the ffiwnds?

  41. Marivic says:

    The British Media is just trying to deflect from the REAL TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: Prince Andrew, the Pedophile Prince. Poor Meghan dragged by the British Media to cover up for the pedophilic disorder of Andrew, the most shameful member of the Royal Family whose sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children are epic. But the British Media is protective of the Pedo Prince. Hardly any news about him in British press. They are gagged.

  42. Consey says:

    I would hope the BM comes after Andrew and Fergie. They want to destroy DDOS. The trolls have attacked Meghan’s friends and supporters (Sussex Squad, Meghanpedia, Jessica) Twitter n IG accounts. They attacked Archbishop of Canterbury. I find these people to be unstable. That Colin being lied in her book. Yet her lies are ignored. When Camilla Tominey has linked Meghan to Terrorist group and to a Russia Megbot. Camilla was allowed to slander Meghan and as never held accountable. I’m 60 years old, melanin I know who all races view the melanated kinky hair woman. The agenda of the European “DESTROY THE MELANATED WOMAN!” I have to admit our oppressors has been successful? The the abuse Meghan, Doria and now Archie have endured so s proof enough!

    I don’t know if the DDOS has our best interest at heart. I hope for Meghan and Archie sake they do! The most hated people in the world have been fooled by their own people.

  43. PrincessK says:

    They Fail wants to publish the names so that they can write sensational articles about each and everyone of her friends and make money. The fail is still livid about not knowing who the godparents are.

  44. Callister says:

    Because they are to be questioned as to whether Megan asked them to go to the tabloids, which is likely.