This week, during one of her quasi-inspirational online interviews, Meghan Markle relayed a Georgia O’Keeffe quote to Fortune magazine’s virtual audience, telling them that “I have already settled it for myself so flattery and criticism go down the same drain and I am quite free.”
However, some criticism is harder to rinse down the drain than others. When it comes from the High Court, for example, and is immediately followed by a $230,000 legal bill, then not even O’Keeffe could rise above it.
But such is the position that Markle finds herself in this week. As part of her endless, grinding pre-trial process ahead of January’s court battle with Associated Newspapers Ltd., Meghan had attempted to get Finding Freedom, the recently published account of her and Harry’s break with the royal family, struck from the defense material. The fact that the judge rejected her request is not only costly; it’s also potentially hugely embarrassing for Markle.
The publication of Finding Freedom appears to have boxed her into a corner somewhat. Although not a fully authorized biography, the book was written with such an intense level of fawning-insider detail that one could be forgiven for thinking it had been published with the explicit cooperation of both her and Prince Harry. (Markle has denied that she and her husband collaborated with the authors.)
The fact that the judge rejected her request is not only costly; it’s also potentially hugely embarrassing for Markle.
There were certainly signs that this was the case. As far back as May, a friend of Markle’s stated to the Daily Mail: “If Meghan had it her way, the book would be released tomorrow. She said the book will finally set the record straight,” which suggests that, at the very least, she was aware that the contents would be favorable. And, indeed, authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand mention in the authors’ note that they spoke “when appropriate” with “the couple themselves.”
And if it’s the case that the book was written with the help of Harry and Meghan, much in the style of Andrew Morton’s Diana: Her True Story, then that rips a whopping great hole in the side of her argument. She claims that her privacy is sacred, but you can’t have it both ways. It’s hard to sue a newspaper for printing a letter to your father if you willingly contributed to a book that contains the contents of your phone messages with him.
That isn’t to say that Markle didn’t put up a fight. Upon learning that Associated Newspapers planned to use Finding Freedom in its defense, she quickly claimed that it was actually a very bad book whose authors didn’t know the first thing about her. It was full of inaccuracies, she argued.
Among the inaccuracies? The section describing her first date with Harry included false details of what they drank and discussed. It said that Harry texted Prince Charles about the birth of his son even though Prince Charles doesn’t own a mobile phone. Most importantly of all, it said Harry told Meghan, “You look amazing. I missed you,” at the altar during their wedding, when this was not the case. Exactly what he did say remains unknown; some lip-readers have claimed that he said, “You look amazing. I’m so lucky,” although we cannot discount the possibility that his words were in fact “Let’s ditch these losers and get a Netflix deal.”
It’s hard to sue a newspaper for printing a letter to your father if you willingly contributed to a book that contains the contents of your phone messages with him.
Nevertheless, the court sided against Markle. On Tuesday, Judge Francesca Kaye determined that the book simply represented “further particulars” as opposed to “new defences.” She added that Meghan “knows the case she has to meet” and that “there is no suggestion that she is in fact unable to do so.”
And, as a result, she has been lumbered with a new six-figure legal bill. Nor is this the first time that she has stumbled at a preliminary hearing. Five months ago, several parts of Markle’s initial claim were thrown out as “irrelevant,” and she agreed to pay $87,000 as a result. The trial is still three months away, and it has already become staggeringly expensive. Her legal fees alone are expected to be in the region of $2.3 million. That’s not small change. It’s three-quarters of a Frogmore Cottage renovation.
On Wednesday, emboldened by its victory, The Mail on Sunday filed more court papers, claiming that Meghan had passed “information to the media and to [Finding Freedom’s] authors herself, using her friends as her de facto media relations agents,” according to The Sun. It went on to provide a list of 49 instances in the book that it alleges came either from Markle or her friends, including her university routine, her birth plan, and her feelings about a 2008 sex scene of hers that was subsequently uploaded to Pornhub.
Markle’s losses may also explain her recent decision to switch lawyers. Previously she had been represented by David Sherborne, whose other big job involves the almost impossible task of making Johnny Depp seem marginally less awful than Amber Heard claims. Now her case is being fought by Justin Rushbrooke, a man who, perhaps dramatically, has been referred to as Sherborne’s rival at the firm.
It has been suggested by sources at The Sun that this about-face in legal representation was meant to demonstrate solidarity with Heard. But given Markle’s punishing journey so far, it could simply be a sign of abject desperation. At this rate, it will be a miracle if she doesn’t settle before her day in court.
Stuart Heritage is a Writer at Large for AIR MAIL based in Kent, U.K.
