Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have had enough of false stories spread about them by certain British tabloids. Though royals don't tend to publicly comment on tabloid scandals, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex broke protocol and announced they'd be taking legal action against a number of those publications. They even opened up about their decision in an emotional TV interview, which is also super uncommon for royals.
If it wasn't clear yet that Meghan and Harry mean business, Meghan's lawyer just shut down a number of tabloid rumors about the Duchess. Her legal team filed new court documents that exhaustively explain why multiple stories printed in the Daily Mail about the Duchess are, in fact, libelous. Byline Investigates published a number of revealing excerpts from the court papers.
The main rumor Meghan's lawyer pointed to as libelous was the story alleging Meghan abandoned and ignored her father leading up to and following her wedding in May 2018. “The true position is that the Claimant [Meghan] has a long history of looking after her father’s welfare and trying to find solutions to any health problems… she did provide extensive financial support for him, as well as act as primary caregiver for her grandmother… her father did not telephone her to explain that he was not coming to her wedding… her team in Los Angeles did provide him with continued support for which he had expressed gratitude… she had reached out to him prior to the wedding and sought to protect him, as well as to ensure that he would be able to come to the wedding… she did not ignore him afterwards,” the except reads.
Meghan's lawyers addressed a number of other specific articles published about the Duchess over the past few years and allege the publication has been "waging a long campaign of lies and misinformation." One of the stories they addressed was titled "Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed—so will he be dropping by for tea?” Here's the response from Meghan's legal team:
"The statement that the Claimant lived or grew up in Compton (or anywhere near to it) is false. The fact that the Defendant chose to stereotype this entire community as being “plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs” and thereby suggest (in the first few days of her relationship being revealed) that the Claimant came from a crime- ridden neighborhood is completely untrue as well as intended to be divisive. The Claimant will also refer to the fact that the article cites her aunt as living in 'gang-afflicted Inglewood' in order to bolster this negative and damaging impression of where this (black) side of her family is said to come from. In fact, Ava Burrow (said to be 'the actress’' aunt”) is not her Aunt or any blood relation at all, a fact which if correctly stated would have undermined the narrative which the Defendant was intended to convey.”
Another frequent claim made about the Duchess over the past few years is that she's been "difficult" to get along with, allegedly according to palace aides. Her lawyers pointed to an article with the headline "How Meghan Markle’s Australian aide Samantha ‘the Panther’ Cohen rose from a Brisbane home to Buckingham Palace–before becoming the second aide to walk out on the ‘difficult Duchess," which states Cohen quit her position because of Meghan. Here's her legal team's rebuttal:
"The suggestion that Samantha Cohen (who was private secretary for both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex) walked out on the Claimant or that she did so because the Claimant was 'difficult' to work for (a word used six times in this article) is untrue, as well as damaging. Ms. Cohen, who was a highly respected and dedicated member of Her Majesty the Queen’s staff for sixteen years, personally chose to come out of retirement in order to work for the Claimant. Far from walking out on her, Ms Cohen even extended the original year which she had intended to work for as she wanted to carry on helping the Duke and Duchess with their office. Further, the Claimant’s 'personal assistant' was in fact assistant to both the Duke and Duchess, and, contrary to what the Defendant stated in the article, she did not 'quit'.”
Among a few other issues, Meghan's lawyers also shut down claims she and Harry built/installed a yoga studio, copper bath, orangery, tennis court, or guest wing in their Frogmore Cottage home. Her lawyers claim the outlet's coverage of Meghan and Harry's home renovations were intended "to portray the Claimant in a damaging light by suggesting that she had indulged in this series of absurdly lavish renovations, which were in fact false (as the Defendant was informed at the time) and entirely made up."