Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, said women can look up to PM Jacinda Ardern in the way she “brought New Zealand together to swiftly and boldly tackle Covid-19". Video / Girl Up
The Duchess of Sussex has laid bare her financial dealings with her estranged father in the latest round of court documents, as she blames the deterioration of their "very close relationship" on the tabloid media.
The Duchess, in new court papers filed by her lawyers, said she and Thomas Markle "had a very close father/daughter relationship throughout her childhood and remained close until he was targeted three years ago by intrusive UK tabloid media".
She is now suing the Mail on Sunday over publication of part of her handwritten letter to him, following the Royal Wedding he did not attend.
In paperwork submitted to the High Court, the Duchess answers new questions about an "imputation" that she "failed to provide any or any real financial support for her father", which she has said is false.
It includes revelations previously included only in a private letter, claiming Mr Markle's medical bills were offset by the "significant payments" he received for media interviews, which "would appear to exceed and offset the excess medical cost of roughly $2,500".
The disclosures are intended to counter claims that the Duchess has not provided financial support for her father.
Instead, she said, she has offered "voluntary financial contributions" since she got a job, noting: "The Claimant's father gave occasional financial support to the Claimant, just as she provided reciprocal financial support to him once she began earning."
The details of the Markle family finances are the latest in an ongoing series of legal disclosures relating to the High Court case. Thomas Markle is said to be willing to testify. Photo / via AP
The details of the Markle family finances are the latest in an ongoing series of legal disclosures relating to the High Court case, which will rule on whether the Mail on Sunday breached the Duchess's privacy, copyright or data protection.
The existence of the letter, given to the newspaper by Mr Markle, first came to public attention in US celebrity magazine People, after five friends of the Duchess gave an interview intended to tell her side of the story.
The Duchess has claimed she knew nothing of the article ahead of publication.
In papers made public today, she said: "The Claimant realised Friends A, B and C had given anonymous interviews to People magazine upon learning that the article had been published.
"Her belief that they had been involved was confirmed during phone calls via FaceTime on the day of publication and the following day.
"The Claimant learnt Friend D was one of the anonymous sources for the People magazine article on or around 19 February 2019 when the two of them met in person.
"She subsequently learnt of Friend E's involvement a few days later during a celebration with friends to mark the forthcoming birth of her son. This discussion also took place in person.
"All of these conversations took place post publication."
A source close to the Sussexes said the paperwork was a response to a fourth request for further information from Associated Newspapers.
Meghan Markle appeared for 'The Time Is Now' Women in Leadership Plenary this week.
In reply to questions about the financial support provided by the Duchess to her father, lawyers said "the requests are gratuitous and a further violation and intrusion of privacy of both the Claimant and her father".
They go on to expand on the father-daughter relationship, admitting it has "never been denied that the Claimant's father supported her throughout her childhood and as a young adult".
While the young Meghan Markle was at college, they said, her father did not "pay for all" tuition fees, with her mother also contributing, along with a scholarship and "work-study programme whereby income she made from working on campus after class was applied directly to supplement and lower her tuition costs".
While Mr Markle took out a loan from Northwestern University for tuition costs for his daughter, his daughter "began making voluntary financial contributions to her father" once she started earning to given "personal financial support".
As she started out as an actress, it is claimed, the Duchess "always maintained full-time jobs while auditioning, both as a professional calligrapher as well as working in a restaurant".
"The Claimant's father gave occasional financial support to the Claimant, just as she provided reciprocal financial support to him once she began earning," say her lawyers.
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex at the Smart Works launch in September 2019. She claims she had a very close bond with her father. Photo / AP
Mr Markle made a "personal offer to contribute financially to her first wedding", but "no request for any such contribution was made by the Claimant - not for $20,000 or any other amount".
Adding the Duchess had provided "substantial financial support to her father from January 2014", lawyers confirm she has not offered any further funding since May 2018, when father and daughter ceased contact.
After he received medical treatment ahead of the Royal Wedding, when he was admitted to hospital with heart problems, Mr Markle could have paid his costs with the fees he received for his media interview, papers suggest.
"Medical documents within the Defendant's possession, which were shared in the private reply from Mr Markle to the Claimant, clearly state the medical costs covered by insurance (exceeding six figures) and the nominal co-payment Mr Markle paid of roughly $2,500," they state.
"Within the correspondence Mr Markle notes the significant payments he received for interviews and quotes provided to UK tabloids and commentators, which would appear to exceed and offset the excess medical cost of roughly $2,500."
The Duchess is suing for undisclosed damages on the grounds of breach of privacy, copyright and data protection.
No date has yet been set for the trial, which is expected to go ahead in 2021.
Earlier this year, she lost the first strike-out hearing, in which Mr Justice Warby ruled her lawyers would not be allowed to argue in court that the newspaper acted dishonestly, "stirred up" issues with her father, and had an "agenda" against her.
