Royal insiders were ‘shocked’ by Duchess Meghan’s summary judgment victory

Britain's Prince Harry and his fiancee Meghan Markle commemorate Anzac Day in London

The Sunday Times had an interesting (paywalled) article about the Duchess of Sussex’s summary judgment victory last week, just about one full week ago. Justice Warby handed down his judgment that the Mail absolutely violated Meghan’s copyright and they did so without good reason. Not only that, they wildly misrepresented the actual text and context of Meghan’s letter to her father. While the Mail has made some noise about appealing the judgment, there’s definitely a strange vibe around all of this since the summary judgment went Meghan’s way. Personally, I believe Buckingham Palace leaned on some powerful people to ensure that the lawsuit would just go away, because they see the whole thing as embarrassing. Plus, Prince Charles and Prince William’s staff were getting dragged into it and we can’t have that! Which is what makes this Sunday Times story so bizarre. According to their unnamed sources, “royal insiders” are “shocked” by the judgment and there were people in the palace looking forward to testifying… or something. It’s very odd.

Royal insiders were “shocked” by Meghan Markle’s court win, it is claimed – with four key palace aides prevented from “shedding light” on the case. The Duchess of Sussex found out on Thursday that her court action against the publishers of The Mail on Sunday had been successful, and would not proceed to a trial. It meant key aides to Harry and Meghan, known as the “palace four” were denied their day in court.

The newspaper published extracts from a letter she sent to her dad Thomas, with Lord Justice Warby ruling it was a breach of her privacy and copyright. If a trial had gone ahead, Meghan could have been cross-examined and might have had to face off with her estranged dad, who has not met Harry or son Archie. Associated Newspapers had been set to argue that the Duchess knew her letter would end up in the public domain – but this will not be tested in court.

Jason Knauf, Harry and Meghan’s former communications secretary, who reportedly “contributed” to a draft of her letter to Thomas, 76, was among those likely to have testified. The couple’s former private secretary Samantha Cohen, their ex-communications secretary Sara Latham and Christian Jones, who was their deputy communications secretary, were also poised to shed light on the case.

After Thursday’s ruling, an insider told the Sunday Times : “It’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant.” The source said the four aides were not “duty-bound to sit here and be silent”.

Another said they were “shocked” by the ruling as a letter from the palace four’s legal team described them as “credible” and said they could “shed some light” on the creation of the letter. It is claimed they could give insight into whether Meghan expected the letter to become public, and whether she helped the authors of biography Finding Freedom, which gave a favourable impression of the Sussexes.

An Associated Newspapers source said: “We are astonished that the judge doesn’t want to hear evidence from the palace four when they say they are willing to give evidence and can shed light on the creation of the letter and whether she anticipated it would become public.” The newspaper group is reportedly “carefully considering” an appeal.

[From The Daily Mirror]

The wording is so curious, right? This sh-t originated in the Sunday Times, a legit news outlet which breaks stories about the royals all the time, but the wording in the original story was bizarre too. The basic claim is that “royal sources” think the Palace Four are mad that they don’t get to testify AGAINST Meghan and “shed some light” on the writing of the letter and whether or not Meghan… knew her father would eventually sell the letter to the Mail. From where I sit, none of the Palace Four wanted to testify at all. It was the Mail and their lawyers who were eager to draw this out. So why are “royal sources” taking the position of the Mail? Also: as Justice Warby wrote in his decision, if there are still questions about who owns the copyright for the letter, there’s still room to adjudicate that in March. It will be up to Jason Knauf and the rest of the Palace Four to testify if they want to claim that the copyright belongs to them as well.

Sussex Morocco Asni school

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN and Backgrid.

Related stories

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

76 Responses to “Royal insiders were ‘shocked’ by Duchess Meghan’s summary judgment victory”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elizabeth says:

    “It’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant.” — Huh???? It seems he had plenty of evidence to look at! Not everything is pertinent.

    • Myra says:

      The problem was that they did not present the judge with any evidence to review. A vague statement about a willingness to answer questions or provide clarity does not an evidence make. Their statement should have stated clearly either that a. they contributed directly to the writing of the letter and/or b. the intent at the time of the writing was not only for the letter to be published, but a Machiavellian effort to bait the father into getting the newspaper to publish substantial extracts of the letter. Since that’s not what their lawyers typed out, then they can kindly f* off.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      IMHO, I think what the judge is saying is that it makes no difference in the privacy case who wrote the letter because publishing the letter violated Meghan’s privacy regardless of authorship.

      However, if you think you deserve a portion of the copyright because you wrote or helped to write part of the letter and want a share of the damages from copyright infringement then come to court in March and I will listen to what you have to say.

      • Jay says:

        Exactly – let’s see if any of these brave douls are willing to actually claim they deserve a piece of the copyright for Meghan’s personal letter to her father. Somehow I think they are more comfortable throwing muck from the sidelines.

        Frankly, this all reads as a wistful fan fiction from the paper about how Meghan would have had to face her father in court, what drama they could have exploited, and what these “palace four” (lol) would have said, but didn’t. I imagine some disappointed reporter has had this article outline sitting in the drafts folder for months, and now has to publish it in this pitiful form.

        Also, this article sort of makes it seem like they are being asked for silence from the palace (the source said the four aides were not “duty-bound to sit here and be silent”) but that it’s still somehow Meghan’s fault?

    • anotherlily says:

      Yes. From his Judgement it’s clear that the Palace Four have no standing with the Court except as part of the Defendant’s case or part of the Claimant’s case. They can’t stand in the middle as ‘impartial witnesses’. This is why he directed the Defendant to write to the Palace Four explaining this and inviting them to join as co-claimant or co-defendant.

    • Nic919 says:

      Some of the palace four weren’t even working for them when the letter was sent. Only Jason Knauf would have been there and possibly consulted. Discussing the letter after it was sent to other staff is pretty irrelevant.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      The Sunday Times is not a respected newspaper any more. It is part of Murdoch’s empire and is a sister paper to The Sun. Since the demise of a terrible Sunday rag called the News of the World – the Sunday Times has become ever more dumbed down
      They have spin and grift as Harry has a hacking claim in motion with the Sun and Mirror newspapers.
      This entire story has been fabricated by the Times at the behest of Murdoch

  2. HeatherC says:

    Obviously these royal insiders are from Edward’s team. You know he’s not let in on anything.

    • Becks1 says:

      LOLOL this is hilarious. Poor Edward.

    • Xoxo says:

      HAHAHA!!! Too funny.

      I think the judge is saying whether Meghan thought the letter would be made public or not, it’s irrelevant as long as she didn’t give permission. And just because you worry something may be made public, doesn’t mean it’s still isn’t private.

    • Christine says:

      I have a soft spot for Edward, likely because my brother has the same name. Can you imagine being the youngest of this cacophony of awful? He legitimately had no chance to be anything that would mean anything to this horrible family. I want to give him tea and rock him to sleep. He must have never felt useful, and that is so awful.

  3. Case says:

    Well I mean…don’t the Royal sources hate Meghan and want to embarrass her, though? I have no trouble believing they wanted the opportunity to paint her as conniving and attention-hungry and are sad that the judge ruled in her favor so quickly.

    • Sunday says:

      Agreed. I also think that this entire article reads like a paid advertorial that seeks to drum up support for the Daily Mail to appeal. ‘See, racists and royal lovers? We could have had even more juicy Meghan coverage, and still can! Won’t that be fun?!’

      Very shady, all of it.

    • Yvette says:

      These ‘Royal Insiders’ are just royal reporters who write for Associated Newspapers because I’ve read all of the very same ‘sourced’ comments from actual royal reporters over the past week. And I don’t know why there would be surprise. There is precedent for the summary judgement on copyright from Prince Charles’s copyright suit in 2005? against the Mail on Sunday after they printed excerpts from his private travel diary. Prince Charles won the case by summary judgement.

      This ‘shocked surprise’ is sour grapes, not because they didn’t win the case, but because there won’t be a trial and thereby extended opportunities to milk this for more money. The payoff for Thomas Markle’s testimony was going to be the ‘documentary about his life’ he’s been crowing about this past year.

      I think Associated Newspapers tried to get around the copyright angle by not printing the entire letter and by printing different excerpts from the letter over several weeks. But the letter is Meghan’s creative work. If someone else helped her create it, her copyright isn’t invalidated, it just means she and whoever helped her write the letter co-own the copyright. The Judge is holding an additional trial to figure out if anyone else holds a piece of the copyright so he can assign a money figure on damages owed by Associated Newspapers.

  4. JT says:

    I don’t think the RF applied pressure on Warby to end the case. Just a few months ago a palace official (probably KP) was giving the DM evidence for their case against Meghan. The case ended because it was a simple copyright case from the beginning. The mail violated the law, and they lost.

    • anotherlily says:

      The Judiciary has to be above any such pressure, otherwise it is corrupt.

    • Nic919 says:

      Warby was following the precedent set years before which includes a similar situation with Charles. There was never any question that Meghan owned the copyright and all these attempts to state otherwise was just the DM trying to muddy the waters. If they are astonished then they are stupid and forget not so distant history.

      The friends talking about the existence of the letter was never going to remove her copyright. I know many of us here said that but it took a judge to shoot that nonsense down for people to listen.

      The privacy issue was less certain, but based on the way it was present by the Mail, they had given the judge enough to work with.

      Warby didn’t need any of the palaces to tell him to toss this out. There were many legal precedents to apply to justify his decision.

    • Yvette says:

      Sorry to all that I didn’t read whether down the stream before posting above as it is basically what you all have eloquently said here. :)

  5. Kkat says:

    Yeah that’s weird, what’s the angle.
    Are the “four” just trying to claim more rights to the letter so they get a big chunk of the damages?
    Were they going to try to claim so much authorship of the letter so they could say it wasn’t Meghan’s private letter and therefore she doesn’t get privacy/copyright?

    • Nic919 says:

      Christian Jones didn’t even work for them until after the letter was sent…. so once again the media is being very sloppy here. How can a staff member hired after the letter is dispatched get a share of ownership?

  6. Kalana says:

    The Sunday Times is *supposed* to be a respectable newssource but instead just prints whatever the Palace says no matter what. That is a huge problem. That to me is unethical and corrupt.

    I think the Times story and Thomas Markle giving his interview is linked. We know the Palace was helping the DM in their court case. To save their own skin with the press and bury their own unfavorable stories, the BRF is just continuing on with throwing the Sussexes under the bus. The press wants the Sussexes punished and the BRF is happy to help.

    This might be old news and strategy now because of the pregnancy, interview and removal of patronage announcements.

    • Belli says:

      Let’s not forget that even though the Times is still Murdoch paper.

    • Lorelei says:

      Kalana, agreed. I used to think the same thing but for the past year or two it really seems to have gone downhill.

    • Isabella says:

      The Times of London is
      owned by Rupert Murdoch via News Corps UK

      It is the current publisher of The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun newspapers and its former publications include the Today, News of the World and The London Paper newspapers.May 6, 2015

  7. SarahCS says:

    Is this the press banding together against the Sussexes? Or yet another totally inept attempt by the courtiers and BRF to make the Sussexes the bad guys? We know they will happily push two completely opposing arguments in the same news cycle after all.

  8. Kai says:

    BP want the case to be gone and they hate how clearance house and kp playing games. Surely bp shut down the case that’s why ch and kp are mad and shocked bp played both of them and its embarrassing for the queen and if Meghan testify all people will ask for prince andrew to do the same in usa which they cant allow. BP blind slides both ch and kp

    • Snuffles says:

      That’s what I’m going with. Kensington Palace wanted this dragged out but the Queen and Charles squashed it.

      • Lorelei says:

        These people are such idiots. They may think they wanted it to go through, with it never occurring to them how horrendously bad the info revealed in court (the truth) would make them look.
        It’s like “Choose Your Own Adventure” and each day they wake up and pick a completely different narrative to run with. Incredible gold standard advisors.

    • Yoyo says:

      There was no reason for this case, Meghan owned the copyright to the letter.
      The judge let this case drag on too long, I think he was overly cautious, but he knew darn well the MOS had no case, and they knew it also, just wanted to dig in Meghan’s business.

    • Yoyo says:

      If the Queen have so much power, why is pedo Andy not traveling.
      He will not even give a statement to NY Attorney General, it’s not like they are going to lock him up.

  9. Becks1 says:

    I dont know what to think about this at this point. I think there is a clear vibe coming from somewhere that the palace four wanted to testify, but why? to further disparage Meghan? The palace wants to be that blatant about their role in the smear campaign?

    Also, from the palace perspective, I would think that they would NOT want this argument made about the copyright not belonging to Meghan – does anyone think that the Queen actually writes her own Christmas speech? So now are we going to say she no longer owns that copyright, and if someone wants to leak it early, they can? (and yes I know the palace did sue over this before.) Or any correspondence from the queen – she no longer owns the copyright if she had help writing it?

    It just seems a bad precedent which would make me circle back to the “palace four” NOT wanting to testify, but why is this narrative being pushed that they REALLY REALLY DO and in a reputable newspaper?

    • Nic919 says:

      Well we know Kate doesn’t write her own letter because they are properly spelled.

      I think KP was behind the palace four nonsense. But I don’t see BP wanting them involved at this point. And of course look at how some of the four have already started working elsewhere.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    I think Jason Knauf wanted to testify. He’s the one who’s disappointed and shocked at the verdict.

  11. Millennial says:

    I’d love to start a thread of “Things that Shocked and Blindsided the Palace”

    AKA, The sky is blue. Grass is green. Water is wet.

    • BabsORIG says:

      Can’t touch the sky, space is a vacuum, air is a gas, humans have 2 legs and 2 arms, sun is hot…. feel free to add to the list

  12. Cee says:

    These people are in such a perpetual state of shock I wonder how they manage to function at a basic level.

    • Kalana says:

      They’re either shocked or crying or about to cry.

    • Couch potato says:

      They don’t! That’s pretty clear from the hot mess they’re creating on a daily basis. I don’t know who’s most dysfunctional the Windsors or their courtiers.

    • molly says:

      To me, THIS is the kind of crap Meghan wanted to flee. The judgement was eight days ago, and palace people are still leaking info and generating stories in the papers. Stop! Why are we still talking about it?? I mean, I know why the papers are still talking about it, but there’s no reason any of these comms folks or courtiers should still be giving quotes on background and fuel to this story.

  13. Harper says:

    “It’s like the judge decided the evidence was irrelevant.” Yup. Exactly. The Times writer forgot to add the part from the judgment where Warby states that the Palace Four’s info wouldn’t have any material influence on his decision to rule for Meghan. Ooops! That doesn’t help their sneaky narrative that Meghan won unlawfully and there is still important evidence left unsaid. If the Palace Four, who were “denied their day in court” want that day in court, then they are perfectly free to file their own lawsuit to make it happen or join the Fail’s case. For some reason, I used to think The Times was a legitimate news source, but these kinds of articles are journalistically dishonest and they are no better than the Fail in their reporting.

    • MsIam says:

      That is the part I don’t understand. Why would the Four need their “day in court”? Nobody is suing them. And basically what would they testify to? That Meghan wanted the letter published? If so she could have gone to People Mag herself and had them publish it. If I were Cohen and Latham I would tell the Mail to keep my name out of your mouth with a cease and desist. Jones and Knauf are trash anyway.

  14. Cecilia says:

    Jokes on them because the palace 4 will still have to testify on the letter come march 2nd

    • anotherlily says:

      They don’t have to. The Defendant has been ordered to write to them inviting them to apply to the Court to join the case as co-Claimant or co-Defendant. If any of them do so, he will consider their application.

  15. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Camilla Tominey posted a screenshot of a headline that says Meghan has ‘gone rogue’ and now she’s fair game for the tabloids. And from where I’m sitting, it looks like Penis with Teeth is the one stirring this up and actively using the Press against her. Armchair diagnosis: PWT is furious that he didn’t get his way with Harry re: Meghan and is trying to punish him with the help of the tabs. It’s all about William’s ego. A possible narcissist? His outbursts of uncontrollable rage, endless leaks disparaging Harry’s character and self-aggrandisement, not to mention lobbying to take over Harry’s military patronages, may suggest so.
    All this could have been avoided if Old Brenda had put out one statement: ‘leave my grandson and his wife alone’. But of course she didn’t: she’s in on it too.

    • Yoyo says:

      Camilla better watch out, because the Sussexes will sue, and I would not be surprise if they start suing individual Royal reporters.
      Freedom from the Island, I can’t believe they were actually waiting for Harry to come back, military tittles don’t keep you warm.

    • Nic919 says:

      The tabloids haven’t restrained themselves with her in anyway so are they going to hack her phone and threaten her physical safety? Because that’s about all they haven’t done to this point.

  16. Izzy says:

    I mean, maybe at least one of the four wanted to testify, but that would just be another example of their stupidity. If a judge ruled that any or all of the Palace Four were in a substantial way responsible for the contents of the letter and the advice to send it, then what does that do to the narrative that Harry and Meghan rejected their “gold standard advice”? If that was their gold standard, it was an epic fail.

    These people think they are the super secret spy agents engaged in high level palace intrigue, but what they really are, are dunces who keep showing their whole asses to the world.

  17. MsIam says:

    I thought Samantha Cohen and Sara Latham were close to Meghan and Harry, especially because they actually hired Sara. Samantha chose to stay on longer with then than she was required. Plus Christian Jones would hardly want to testify after it came out that his ex lover was selling secrets. This story is just a load of bull.

  18. Lemons says:

    I suppose these royal insiders can set the record straight in an exclusive interview with Oprah. Let me know when they’ve set a date!

  19. Sofia says:

    This goes against and is the opposite of The Times writing a story saying that the palace wanted the case to go away. So which is it? Did they want it to go away or did they want to testify in court?

    And as someone said above, I can see BP wanting to end the case but KP/CH wanting to continue it hence the two different narratives.

  20. aquarius64 says:

    I think the disappointment is not Meghan winning the case but Bad Dad LOSING the case. Remember the judge’s detailed ruling stated TT bears responsibility in this; if he didn’t like what People wrote he should have taken it up with People. Markle had no right to use the letter because, as the judge saw it, the letter was private. TT also testified he gave the letter to the Fail and instructed them to use excerpts. If the judge rules Bad Dad bears responsibility and has to pay up he becomes a loose cannon and spill LOTS of tea.

  21. Amelie says:

    Honestly I don’t think they wanted the case to go away. I don’t think BP pressured anyone. I think Warby followed the law but the Palaces didn’t expect that. They wanted a huge production of the Palace Four testifying against MM to continue to feed the media beast.

  22. A Guest says:

    Several months ago, the editor of the DM, was said to have stated that he knew the paper would lose the case on the merits. The only reason the DM didn’t settle was that they wanted Meghan on the stand and have their lawyers “rip her apart” on cross.

    Even with trial postponed, the BM as a whole and certain “incandescent” members of the RF, figured this would be a win/win. Pictures and nasty stories galore to humiliate Meghan even more. And $$$ to go with. Even that old fool Arthur Edwards has admitted that nobody wants any of his pictures and he’s lost $$$.

    No one thought the judge would rule this way, especially since he’d agreed to allow FF in as evidence. The DM couldn’t even print speculation about Meghan being pregnant because the judge put the hammer down.

    There was a bounty on pictures of Meghan’s baby bump and nothing came of it since the Sussexes announced themselves. I don’t think it’s the RF that have to worry about the interview as much as the BM. Harry already hated them and he’s probably ready to name names.

    The BM is scared to death and the hits just keep on coming.

  23. Louise177 says:

    I’m baffled why this site keeps saying BP fixed the case. If they actually had the capability they would have done it months ago. They’re standing by Andrew so embarrassment doesn’t seem like a reason. They never wanted to protect Meghan before so they wouldn’t start now. Not a lawyer but based on information and rulings Meghan won based on merit.

    • Kai says:

      Queen has already done stuff like these. Its embarrassing tot the queen and uk as nation to allow meghan to testify. Because all the court in the uk it’s her majesty court and allowing their biracial member to drag when they hide andrew it’s a disaster. Queen previous shut down diana butler case where he was about to testify .

      • anotherlily says:

        The Queen shut down the case against Burrell the butler by suddenly ‘remembering’ a conversation with the butler which supported his defence. She couldn’t be brought to court to testify and be cross-examined because she is the one person in the UK who can’t be sued or prosecuted. The claimed conversation was enough to support Burrell’s defence and settle the case out of court.

    • Becks1 says:

      So, I’m not sure the Queen fixed this case, because I do think Meghan had the law on her side, and I think she would have won even if it went to trial. But I do think if the situation was a little bit more grey, the palace absolutely would have placed a phone call or two. That’s one of the perks of being the queen. And I think it goes to what @Kaw1204 says right below – if this went to trial, it would have outed the Cambridges and Middletons as sources against the Sussexes and the royal family does not want that information to be public.

    • Nic919 says:

      The law supported Meghan’s position from day one. All else was misdirection by the DM. No one told the judge how to decide the case because the evidence was clear that she always owned the copyright.

  24. Kaw1204 says:

    If this case would’ve gone to trial, I believe it would’ve outed the Cambridges and Middletons as sources for the tabloids against the Sussexes. It’s the only way to explain Kate’s saltiness the last time they were together.

    • Becks1 says:

      It explains their saltiness and it explains the Queen making them stand down from the procession, and it explains the Queen flat out ignoring Kate at Windsor in December. I think Harry knew what was going on, and I think he told the Queen, and she was pissed at the Cambridges.

      I think the Queen knows why the Sussexes left but doesnt understand it, because to her, you dont walk away no matter what (if that makes sense.) I think Harry absolutely had receipts for some of the worst offenses and I dont think it made Will and Kate look good.

      • windyriver says:

        “…because to her, you don’t walk away, no matter what…”

        @Becks1 – this occurred to me a while ago. It’s hard to gauge exactly how angry TQ is with Harry, particularly if she’s also aware the Cambridges are behind a lot of what’s gone on the past few years that contributed to driving Harry out. Certainly things like yanking the patronages and the wreath fiasco indicate she’s seriously PO’d. But if she is, I do agree it’s because family members are supposed to stay and do their duty, no matter what, as she had to. She didn’t anticipate her father dying so young, and having to step up as queen in her mid 20′s, and maybe on some level, she’s still carrying anger about that.

        I don’t think someone her age, in the bubble she’s always lived in, is capable of truly understanding what Meghan especially was subject to, the existing racism and xenophobia, how it’s intensified in recent years with the political climate in the UK and US, and what a huge factor social media is in magnifying everything that’s said. And as part of a dysfunctional family constellation, the concept of real mental health, of “thriving, not just surviving”, is likely foreign to her, and certainly doesn’t override doing your duty.

      • kelleybelle says:

        Agree completely!

  25. Yoyo says:

    Thomas is mental, after saying he is ready to testify against Meghan, he is complaining about not seeing his Royal grandchild(ren).
    Scammy was bitching that he found out the same time as the public, she is also writing favorable reviews on her poorly written book.
    I hope when Meghan does her interview, she never mentions the markles and the royal family.

  26. L4frimaire says:

    Based on the reaction, they wanted her to lose the case. Never mind her losing would have set a bad precedent of public figures having their private documents and copyright open for exploitation in the so- called public interest, I’m glad it was decided do quickly and decisively.

  27. Nic919 says:

    There is a reason why the palace four never specifically described what each of them did regarding the letter to Thomas. Because it was nothing of value. Any counsel knows that vague allusions are meaningless as evidence in an affidavit and if Jason Knauf can’t specifically outline what he contributed to the letter, the adverse inference is that he didn’t do much of anything. Warby was being generous in pretending there is even an argument for co ownership to make, especially in a situation where the four are employees.

  28. Ania says:

    I want to laugh, they are Always shocked or blindsided, are those people so stupid they cannot predict anything? Not even a slight suspicion? I’d be embarassed to always be shocked.

  29. You Know Me says:

    I do not understand the hate for Megs, it seems The Crown cannot hide the racism if they tried.

    • anotherlily says:

      It has a lot to do with Meghan’s accomplishments. She outshines Kate on every level. She had few advantages in life compared to Kate but she has worked hard and made the most of her opportunities. The contrast with Kate is seen as damaging to the monarchy. Meghan is in the same position to Kate as Sarah Ferguson was to Diana but there was no possibility of Sarah outshining Diana in any way. So the hierarchy was maintained.

      Meghan being biracial is a supporting factor to the hatred. This isn’t just any woman with superior skills and accomplishments, this is a woman with a black heritage. So these two ‘offences’ go together. A third offence is Meghan’s beauty. She is the same age as Kate but looks a decade younger and she is strikingly beautiful.

      Meghan and Harry are seen as a threat to William and Kate’s position. The Palace wanted them sidelined in some way but they no longer have control. So they are trying to destroy the Sussexes’ reputation through the gutter press and social media trolls.

  30. Julia K says:

    I read this as the palace four were enjoying the thought of throwing her under the bus. Why else would they be upset at being denied this privilege?

  31. Merricat says:

    I am neither surprised nor shocked. She won the case because to rule otherwise would be an obvious corruption of the law.

  32. Christine says:

    “Royal insiders were “shocked” by Meghan Markle’s court win, it is claimed – with four key palace aides prevented from “shedding light” on the case.”

    I cannot with this ridiculous family anymore. Stop acting like the “key palace aides” had any information remotely useful to shedding light, and just admit that you all hate Meghan. Sincerely, this is just stupid.

    Or, framed differently, if you have information that could shed a light, bring it. I am certain that you have none, because there IS NONE. Stop trying to poison the world against the Duchess, and admit that you really messed up, not embracing Meghan, and not defending her, like her husband did. The fallout is ALL ON YOU, “royal insiders”.

  33. Christine says:

    My ire is boundless. “DENIED THEIR DAY IN COURT”???

    To Harry and Meghan, just be happy, as often as you can, and as endlessly as you can. Anyone who thinks the media isn’t biased against you is a moron. Live your best lives.

  34. anotherlily says:

    The final part of the Judgement deals with the Palace Four and concludes with this direction to the defendant:

    ” I shall direct that the defendant promptly serve formal notice of its case as to ownership on each person it maintains is or might be entitled to copyright in the Electronic Draft, the Letter, or any part of either work, notifying that person that he or she is entitled to apply to be joined as a claimant or defendant to these proceedings, and setting a period of time within which they may do so. Any application for joinder will be determined on its merits. Absent any such application the claimant may proceed without joining any such person.”

    So, unless Knauf or any of the others makes an application to join the case as a claimant or defendant they cannot give evidence.