Meghan Markle’s texts to royal aide that could reveal truth about bombshell letter have been deleted, admit h – The Sun

The Duchess of Sussex, 39, is suing the Mail on Sunday for personal privacy copyright and data defense over 5 articles released in February 2019.

MEGHAN Markles texts to a royal aide that could reveal the reality about her “painful” letter to her father have been deleted, her attorney confessed today.

⚠ Read our Meghan Markle and Prince Harry live blog for the current news on the Royal couple

Meghan is fighting to prevent a public showdown with her dad

Her lawyer Ian Mill today told the High Court that any texts between Meghan and Knauf would have been deleted after 30 days.

Among them is Jason Knauf, who at the time was interactions secretary to both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

The Duchess has admitted Mr Knauf “offered feedback” in the form of “basic ideas”.

However Mr Mill branded the suggestion a “farce” and stated the final draft of the letter is the just one still to exist since it was made on Meghans iPhone.

He is stated to have helped Meghan work on the letter to her father Thomas Markle.

This led Adrian Speck, for Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), to claim the paper might have published areas of the letter Meghan did not have “complete copyright over”.

He added: “She may have a revised copyright which may be specific to a particular paragraph. Mr Knauf sent out another one back with additional modifications, you would require to know what has actually come in term of actual text from those two individuals.”

The High Court heard today how the Palace Four, who utilized to work for Meghan, may be asked to offer proof if the trial goes ahead.

This would consist of whether they aided with the draft of Meghans letter to her separated papa Thomas Markle, which is at the centre of the case.


In the letter sent on their behalf, their attorneys said they did not “dream to take sides in the dispute” and remain “strictly neutral”.

They might likewise expose whether Meghan “directly or indirectly offered private details, normally and in relation to the letter specifically, to the authors of Finding Freedom”.

ANLs lawyer Anthony White QC today told the court a letter from attorneys representing the Palace Four said they would have the ability to “shed some light” on the drafting of Meghans letter to her daddy, which forms part of the personal privacy case.

He informed the court it was also “most likely” there was more evidence about whether Meghan “straight or indirectly supplied private details” to the Finding Freedom authors.

It stated they may be able to clarify “whether or not the claimant anticipated that the letter might come into the public domain”.

It has actually been declared Meghans team helped fact-check Finding Freedom

Meghan has actually dealt with claims she and Prince Harry co-operated with Scobie and Durand on the favourable bio, which she rejects.

Among those named is Sara Latham, who is said to have actually “assisted” Finding Freedom authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand to “make sure they got absolutely nothing incorrect”.

He likewise claims the Palace source told him “a female called Keleigh” at Sunshine Sachs had been accountable for “making calls to open doors” to the authors.

Samantha Cohen, previous private secretary to the Sussexes, and Christian Jones, previous deputy interactions secretary to the couple, has also been called as one of the Palace Four.

Scobie claimed in his own witness statement it was “incorrect” to recommend the couple teamed up on the book and insists the info originates from sources and friends.

Mail on Sunday editor Ted Verity declares in his witness declaration a senior Royal source informed him Ms Latham, who at the time was the Sussexes director of interactions, “helped the authors of Finding Freedom by performing a function that was basically fact-checking”.

Keleigh Thomas Morgan represented Meghan through the US-based PR company before she married Prince Harry.

Thomas Markle declares his daughter never ever stated she loved him in her explosive letter

Ian Mill QC, also representing the Duchess, argued “she and she alone” produced a draft of the letter to her dad “which she then transcribed by hand” in concerns to her copyright claim.


” That tip was incorrect. The letter was not an effort at a reconciliation. It was a criticism of me.

The papers include: “It is a genuine plea from an anguished daughter to her dad (the word pain or painful appears no fewer than 5 times), asking him to stop speaking with the press.”.

Thomas stated: “The post had given an unreliable image of the contents of the letter and my reply and had actually vilified me by constructing out that I was unethical, exploitative, publicity-seeking, cold-hearted and unconcerned, leaving a faithful and dutiful daughter ravaged.

ANL say the facts of the case can only be figured out by a trial.

In an astonishing witness declaration, Thomas Markle claimed the letter was a “criticism” of him.

MOST DANGEROUS DAYCoronavirus deaths rise by 1,820 in worst toll of pandemic so far.

Meghan has actually introduced a bid to swerve a high-profile trial.


ANL declared the Duchess had actually “compromised” any expectation of personal privacy in relation to the letter by enabling details of her personal life to be published in the biography.

He also said it was “crucial” to release it so readers would understand they were “getting the fact”.

He stated: “It was wrong for People publication to say I had actually lied about Meg shutting me out – she had actually shut me out, as the letter from her showed.”.

Meghan is battling for a “summary judgment” which would ditch the requirement for a high-profile trial and witnesses – including her estranged daddy.

The smash hit case – among several brought just recently by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex against media organisations – was filed by Meghans lawyers in September 2019.

In his statement, Thomas Markle also stated he selected not to permit the whole letter to be published in the Mail on Sunday as it made “Meg look horrible”.


Thomas Markle declares he “never ever meant” to openly speak out about the letter once he saw the short article, he wished to “set the record directly”.

This crux of her personal privacy row centres around extracts from the handwritten letter she sent to her papa Thomas, 76, in August 2018.

CAPITAL BLASTHunt for missing repairman after 3 killed in blast in Madrid.

SEEING REDSore, itchy eyes might be early coronavirus alerting sign, professionals state.

And her attorney Justin Rushbrooke QC yesterday explained the 1,250-word letter as “a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father”.


” I had to safeguard myself versus that attack.”.



” The letter didnt state she enjoyed me. It did not even ask how I was. It revealed no concern about the fact I had suffered a cardiac arrest and asked no concerns about my health.

” Shes like, Dad, Im so sad. I enjoy you. I have one father. Please stop victimizing me through the media so we can fix our relationship.”.

Mr Rushbrooke stated: “It was composed, simply put, by a child who felt she had actually reached a breaking point with her daddy.”.

A string of pre-trial skirmishes have actually appeared in the accumulation – consisting of Meghans claims ANL had an “agenda” of releasing intrusive or offensive stories about her being started out as “irrelevant” last May.

The papa also slammed People for recommending he was “to blame for completion of the relationship” as he had “overlooked her”.

DRIVEWAY ROMP Married instructor, 35, carried out sex act on student, 15, on her own driveway.

Meghans legal representatives have looked for a “summary judgment” to be handed down, which would swerve the requirement for a trial and witnesses.

Thomas Markle branded this a “overall lie” and claims the post was “specifically authorised by Meg or she had at the really least known about and approved of its publication”.

TERRIFIC SCOT!Brits must avoid reserving foreign holidays up until 2022, states Scottish NHS chief.

” The faster this case happens the much better.”.

However in a marvelous relocation, the MoS was allowed to depend on the unauthorised biography of Harry and Meghan, Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, in its defence.

Attorneys for the Duchess told the High Court the publication of the “inherently personal, sensitive and individual” letter was a “triple-barrelled intrusion of her personal privacy rights”.

This was disputed by ANL, who state Jason Knauf – ex-communications secretary to Harry and Meghan – had “involvement” in composing it.

LIFES A B ** CHHusband claims other half romped with hotel masseuse in TripAdvisor evaluation.

Legal representatives for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) declare it was composed “to safeguard her against charges of being a disinterested or unloving daughter”.

In a witness statement formerly read before the court, Thomas stated: “I am a realist and I might die tomorrow.

Mr Markle also stated the post in People magazine incorrectly accused him of informing “mistruths” and “contained other inaccuracies about me”.

The last line – included in court documents – read: “I ask for nothing besides peace and I want the very same for you.”.

She is said to have felt forced to write the “agonizing” letter after they reached “breaking point”.

It was because of be heard at the High Court this month but was adjourned for nine months due to a “private” reason.

Composing in his witness statement, he said:” [Individuals price estimate] suggested to individuals that Meg had actually connected to me with the letter, saying in the letter that she loved me which she desired to repair our relationship.

The lawyer informed the court Meghan had sent it to Thomas Markle “at his house in Mexico by means of a trusted contact … to decrease the threat of interception”.

He also referred to a short article 5 anonymous buddies provided to People publication in which the letter was pointed out.

The barrister included: “No really private letter from daughter to father would require any input from the Kensington Palace interactions group.”.

In return, a bid to call 5 of Meghans pals who offered a confidential interview to People publication were dismissed in August.

Mr White said Meghan having a “fear” her letter might be intercepted revealed she “must, at the really least, have actually valued that her father might select to reveal it”.

Leading judges at the High Court in London will now decide whether to press on or select Meghans claims now.

” It really signalled completion of our relationship, not a reconciliation.”.

He added: “I do not wish to attack or hurt her.”.

The article consisted of a quote from a pal, saying: “After the wedding event she wrote him a letter.

Mr White claimed there is a “real possibility” the Duchess “will stop working to develop she was the sole author in the copyright sense”.

He added: “That was incorrect. I had actually repeatedly attempted to reach her after the wedding however I couldnt discover a method of getting her to talk with me.”.

He described its subsequent publication as a “plain and severe intrusion” of privacy.

He argued the letter was “an original literary work in which copyright subsists and is owned by the claimant” and asked the court to “grasp the nettle and decide the issue at this hearing”.


Mr Rushbrooke stated the letter was not “a baseless or vicious attack” on her father but was instead “a message of peace”.

Mr Justice Warby has actually booked his judgment, which he stated he would provide “as soon as possible”.

Both Thomas Markle and Meghan might take to the stand in the high-profile trial if the case goes ahead.

Meghan and Harry are living in LA

Mr Knauf sent out another one back with more changes, you would require to know what has come in term of real text from those 2 individuals.”

. Harry and Meghan in an excellent place one year after shock Megxit declaration.

” Shes like, Dad, Im so sad. I have one daddy. The letter was not an effort at a reconciliation.” The letter didnt say she loved me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *