Thomas Markle, the father of the Duchess of Sussex, shocked many by keeping an explosive letter from his daughter private for six months before releasing extracts in response to criticism from Meghan’s friends in a U.S. magazine.
Last week, the Court of Appeal heard that Thomas was allegedly provoked into sharing details of the letter, a crucial aspect of a privacy case unfolding in court.
The proceedings unveiled a series of revelations, including fresh evidence presented by one of Meghan’s former aides, Jason Knauf.
Knauf, who served as Meghan’s press secretary at the time, provided the court with emails and text messages demonstrating Meghan seeking his advice during the composition of the letter to her father.
This legal battle stems from Meghan’s previous victory in a high court privacy case against the Mail on Sunday for publishing excerpts of the letter.
Associated Newspapers is now appealing this decision, pushing for a full trial instead of the summary judgment.
During the appeal hearing last week, Meghan disclosed that she intentionally addressed the letter to “Daddy” to evoke public sympathy in case it was leaked by her father.
She described the draft as emotionally charged yet restrained, aiming to prevent any misinterpretation if it fell into the wrong hands.
Knauf suggested adjustments to make the letter more impactful, emphasizing the importance of addressing her father’s potential manipulation tactics.
Meghan emphasized in her court statement that she took extensive measures to ensure the letter reached only her father and couldn’t be tampered with if intercepted or leaked.
The messages shared in court underscored the tensions within the family, with Meghan expressing frustration over Harry being constantly criticized by his relatives.
She detailed her efforts to shield her husband from ongoing scrutiny by strategically communicating with her father.
The defense argued that the letter’s collaboration with Meghan’s press secretary and its subsequent leak to a U.S. magazine transformed it into a public document rather than a strictly private correspondence.
The legal team representing Associated Newspapers contended that Thomas Markle respected the letter’s privacy until its contents were disclosed in the People magazine article.
In a surprising turn of events, Meghan was compelled to apologize to the court after new evidence contradicted a previous statement regarding her collaboration on a book.
Written evidence revealed that both Meghan and Harry had authorized their press secretary to engage with the book authors, challenging earlier denials.
The appeal court judges are now deliberating whether to overturn the initial summary judgment and proceed with a full trial.
Advocates for Meghan assert that a trial is unnecessary as the existing judgment adequately upholds her right to privacy.
They argue against allowing a newspaper editor to dictate the fate of a private letter, emphasizing the importance of respecting the writer’s privacy rights.
The legal battle continues to raise questions about the boundaries of privacy and the implications of publishing personal correspondence without consent.
