Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Daily Mirror
Daily Mirror
National
Zoe Forsey

Meghan Markle's 'unprotected' claims against royals labelled 'total rubbish'

Meghan Markle's claims that she felt "unprotected" by the royal family while pregnant with Archie have been labelled "rubbish" and "disappointing" by senior sources.

In court papers released as part of the duchess' court case against the owner of MailOnline and the Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Limited, a lawyer writing on her behalf said "false and damaging" articles caused "tremendous emotional distress and damage to her mental health".

The documents added: "As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself."

However senior sources disagreed with this statement, claiming they are "total rubbish", reports the Sunday Times.

The court papers claims Meghan Markle's friends were concerned about her (SplashNews.com)

One told the newspaper: "It's a ridiculous claim. It's so bloody disappointing.

"The institution was doing everything in its power to support her. Everyone was trying to help."

Another described it as "fiction and galling", saying the palace "rebutted every unfounded story they possibly could within reason".

They also said they "stretched their relationship with the media to breaking point" in doing so.

Meghan, Harry and Archie are now living in LA (Getty)

Meghan is taking legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited over its publication of a "private and confidential" letter to her estranged father Thomas Markle.

The court documents also claim that the couple's royal wedding in 2018 raised £1billion in tourist revenue.

This figure has been previously refuted by consulting firm Brand Finance, MailOnline reports, with a figure of £300million closer to the mark.

She also shone the spotlight on Harry's cousins Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Responding to claims made in documents that she was "a member of the royal family and does not undertake paid work”, she gave them as examples as royal who retain their HRH titles while still working.

The documents state: "It is this denial by the Defendant which was gratuitous and wrong, as several ‘member[s] of the Royal Family’ do, in fact, ‘undertake paid work’ including, for example, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York and Prince Michael of Kent."

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.