'Untrue and offensive': Meghan Markle sets record straight on 'lavish' baby shower

By Bronte Coy

news.com.au·

18 Nov, 2019 09:13 PM2 mins to read

New court documents reveal what really happened at the Duchess's baby shower. Photo / Getty Images

Meghan Markle has set the record straight about her highly publicised baby shower in New York, which at the time was reported to have cost £232,000 (NZ$469,000).

According to Hello magazine, the Duchess of Sussex filed new court papers in which her lawyers clarified details about the controversial event.

It was reported at the time that the new royal had snubbed her own mother, Doria Ragland, from the guest list in favour of her new A-list friends – a claim she has now denied.

Meghan's mates are the same as when she met Harry, including her former stylist Jessica Mulroney. Photo / Getty Images

In the documents, her lawyers wrote: "The suggestion that the Claimant (Meghan) deliberately left out her mother from her baby shower and ditched her in favour of her famous friends is untrue and offensive to her.

"The Claimant's mother was of course invited, and the Claimant also offered to buy her airline tickets. However, her mother was unable to attend due to work commitments. It was also untrue and offensive to suggest, as the article does, that "not a single guest had known (the Claimant) for more than a decade".

Markle was surrounded by no fewer than five bodyguards. Photo / Getty Images

"In fact, the true position was that the baby shower (which actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article) was organised and hosted by one of her best friends from university; the fifteen guests who attended the shower were close friends and included long-term friendships some of which had existed for over 20 years."

In early October – and in the midst of their tour of Africa – Prince Harry and his wife announced they were taking legal action against British tabloid the Daily Mail over its publication of a private letter by Meghan, which the couple alleges was published illegally and selectively edited to hide "lies" reported about her.