The Duchess is fond of portraying herself as the victim of an oppressive Press. She delighted her critics yesterday by performing like never before.
Meghan announced that after Sunday’s victory at The Mail’s Court of Appeal, Meghan said she was ‘patient’ in the face of intimidation, deception and calculated attacks.
Of course, she didn’t specify when, whereabouts, or how the terrible attacks occurred.
Her statement, if she meant to refer to the events in court is yet another illustration of her hyperactive imagination.
On Sunday, Meghan filed a civil lawsuit against The Mail after the publication of excerpts from her long-form letter to Thomas Markle. Markle believes that his father was misrepresented later by Meghan’s friends in an article published at People.
People can see most people are aware that Meghan and Harry seek only favorable coverage in their campaign against the Press. They only want positive media coverage.
If we are not all familiar with English law’s intricate workings, then it is possible to assume that the newspaper will be allowed to defend itself at a trial where witnesses would be called or documents produced.
This hasn’t been the case. Because Meghan does not want one, there has never been a similar trial. She has sought — and twice got, the second occasion being yesterday — what is called a summary judgment. It is rare, but not unheard of, for privacy cases to use this procedure.
A Court of Appeal panel of three judges led by the Master of the Rolls has ruled there’s no need to trial. They have decided, without having heard any evidence, Meghan Markle is right, and The Times is wrong.
A few questions. Would these judges, if she was Meghan Markle, 2 Acacia Avenue, instead of HRH The Dukes of Sussex, be as indulgent and denialist of her?
Are they being influenced by her distain from the Royal Family which she has criticized and impugned but she still remains part of the royal family and must therefore be avoided in a court or law?
These learned judges might be showing a bias against the Popular Press, in favor of celebs who are jealous of every detail of their privacy, while trying to get the best media coverage.
Because Meghan Markle was questioned during the three-day Court of Appeal Hearing earlier in March, I asked these questions.
After failing to recall that she told a royal aide about the Finding Freedom biography to inform them, the Duchess of Sussex had to apologize to the court. This was embarrassingly flattering of Prince Harry and her.
After failing to recall that she told a royal aide about briefing the authors of Finding Freedom, the Duchess of Sussex had to apologize to the court. This was embarrassingly praiseworthy of Prince Harry and her.
Through her attorneys, she had once insisted that neither her nor her husband had co-operated to create this book. Staff had not done it without her knowledge.
Yet, according to Jason Knauf —then her communications secretary, now working on Prince William’s staff — there were ‘multiple’ discussions and email exchanges about the book between its authors and Meghan, and between Knauf and its authors. Meghan approved these last communications.
What on Earth could she possibly have done to forget that? This is beyond belief. You can recall a few exchanges or even more, but it’s impossible to believe that she could have forgotten a complete sequence.
It is an infuriating word. I will not use the term ‘lie’. I will settle for falsehood, but not insist on the word ‘deliberate’. However, it was a falsehood by definition, so I think judges would be skeptical if Meghan Markle from Acacia Avenue had been convicted of such an offense.
However, HRH the Duchess was forgiven by the Appeal Court judges in her case. It could have been an “unfortunate memory lapse” (is that what they call it?). It didn’t matter if the father received the private correspondence.
I’d say — and I think most reasonable people would — that her misleading testimony calls into question her credibility. As a judge I’d want Meghan Markle to be cross-examined for her veracity.
In the interest of justice, I also would like documents to be exchanging and witnesses to be allowed to give their sides. It has never been possible.
Jason Knauf, as mentioned above, didn’t make his statement during the hearing. There are three other former palace officials — members of the so-called Palace Four — who could also be willing to come forward with evidence. This hasn’t been done and it may never happen again.
It is possible to discover what previously unreleased documents Meghan and her legal team might have revealed if they were required to give them up prior to a trial.
Thomas Markle is another example. He wanted the letter of his daughter to become public. People magazine made untruthful accusations about him. He shouldn’t have a say.
You can imagine what Lord Denning, the most distinguished and respected of judges might have done with such an instance. He would have believed that justice was natural and that each side should be heard in such disputes.
If a newspaper has been accused of publishing the same story as Meghan Markle, The Mail on Sunday was accused, it is fair to allow that paper to present its defense and justification in court. Let the court, properly formed, decide on the evidence.
The Mail on Saturday’s good reputation isn’t the only thing at stake. In a massive attack Meghan Markle intends to discredit all of the tabloid Press and possibly the entire Press.
Think about what she said yesterday, when she attempted to paint herself as being a victim of media harassment. “The court has held the defendant accountable and it is my hope that everyone will follow suit. This is because, despite how far it might seem to be from your life personally, it really doesn’t matter. It could happen to you tomorrow.
Unbalanced in another way, she hopes “we collectively are now brave enough to reform a tabloid sector that conditions people be cruel and profits from their lies and pain”
Of course newspapers are sometimes guilty of excesses, but the idea that they work against the interests of ordinary people — which is what this multi-millionaire, highly privileged Duchess suggests — is absurd.
Many people will see that Meghan and Harry have a purely self-serving agenda in their fight against the Press. They only want positive media coverage.
However, I am afraid that some fans will not think twice about their portrayal of the Press being destructive and malign. Harry and Meghan are fighting to change public opinion and have a grim goal of destroying the Press.
The attack on Press freedom is made in this way by the Sussexes, who make a number of damaging and outrageous claims without any evidence. The Mail on Sunday is also denied by English judges the chance to defend its rights.
Meghan would go to court if she really wanted to stand up for truth. A land of liberty is one where judges are not overly impressed by Royalty, and who believe in a free press, would be open to a full trial.