The Case for Meghan Markle

Once again, Meghan Markle is under fire. This time, she's being accused of a "direct contradiction" between her court statements and private messages to one of her former aides.

In 2019, the Duchess of Sussex filed a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers, the parent company of Mail on Sunday, which had published a letter she sent to her father following her marriage to Prince Harry in 2018. In it, she implored Thomas Markle Sr. to stop talking to the media. Meghan alleges that the publication of this correspondence constituted invasion of privacy and copyright infringement.

To be clear, Meghan already won this lawsuit. In February, in what was described as "a resounding victory" for the Duchess, Judge Mark Warby of the London High Court, Chancery Division, issued a summary judgment in her favor, meaning that she emerged victorious with no need for a trial.

In England, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial." In other words, the judge found that Associated Newspapers had no case and therefore saw no reason to draw the lawsuit out any further.

The newspaper appealed this ruling, which has thrust the Duchess of Sussex back into court. This time, Associated Newspapers comes armed with messages between the Duchess and her former communications secretary, Jason Knauf. The publisher's lawyers argue that these exchanges directly contradict Meghan's claim to the court that she intended the contents of the letter to her father to remain private.

In these messages, Meghan consults with Knauf about the contents of the letter, asking for her aide's advice about its wording. In one message, sent in 2018, she wrote: "Obviously everything I've drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice but please do let me know if anything stands out to you as a liability."

She continued: "Honestly Jason, I feel fantastic, cathartic and real and honest and factual," adding: "If he leaks it then that's on his conscience but at least the world will know the truth, words I could never voice publicly."

Translation: 'This isn't meant to be seen by the public, but we should be prepared for that possibility, and if it happens, at least people will hear my side of the story, which I'm not allowed to tell as a member of the royal family.'

Meghan's critics will overlook the bit about these words feeling "cathartic and real and honest and factual." The way they're talking about these messages, you'd think she said 'Let's lie to the public and make me queen of the world.' She said the opposite; she expressed that these words are what she truly believes and what she wishes she could openly tell the world, while understanding that she can't.

Associated Newspapers is using these messages to argue that Meghan's right to privacy was diluted by the fact that she expressed a willingness for the world to know the contents of the letter. Their lawyers claim that Meghan's acknowledgment that the correspondence might be shared with the public indicates that she intended it to be.

This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off.

Because there is literally nothing contradictory about Meghan's statements. She can simultaneously have intended her words to remain private while recognizing that her notoriously attention-seeking father might end up sharing them with the world. Understanding that something could be leaked is in no way the same as intending it to be. And preparing for that possibility isn't wrong—it's smart, and what any public relations manager or attorney would advise.

In a witness statement, Meghan said: "To be clear, I did not want any of it to be published, and wanted to ensure that the risk of it being manipulated or misleadingly edited was minimized, were it to be exploited." Recognizing the threat that her father posed, Meghan framed her wording accordingly in an effort to mitigate the damage he might inflict should he share her letter with the public. She says this explicitly in her messages to Knauf.

The Duchess' critics will call her "meticulous" wording devious and proof of a larger agenda. This is a common criticism of assertive women; a woman who understands how to maneuver the terrain of public perception is condemned as 'calculating.' A woman who knows how to wield the power of her words is decried as 'manipulative.' But what Meghan did here wasn't deceptive or conniving—it was basic common sense. This situation is a prime example of 'hope for the best, plan for the worst.'

And as a law school graduate, let me give everyone a solid piece of advice: You should be writing everything as if it could be leaked.

Write your emails as if they're going to be read in front of a courtroom tomorrow. Write your texts as if the tabloids are going to pick them up and splash them on the front page. Write your tweets as if you're an up-and-coming celebrity whose past words will be picked over by thousands of supersleuths on the Internet looking to end your career after you've made it big.

Always write with the understanding that in our modern world, where anything can be shared with literally everyone in a split second, your words could be leaked and wielded against you.

Especially if you're a public figure. And double especially if you're a member of a prominent family that prioritizes its public image above all else. And triple especially if you're dealing with a toxic parent who has repeatedly exhibited erratic and uncouth behavior. Oh, and that parent also has a history of conspiring with the tabloids? Let's add on another especially.

Meghan did everything right here, which is why, if I had to guess, this "direct contradiction" argument simply won't fly in court. Being careful and strategic about one's public image isn't underhanded. Planning for the worst-case scenario doesn't mean that you want that scenario to happen. Having a contingency plan isn't dishonest; it's just smart.

In her messages to Knauf, Meghan expressed a desire for her letter to remain secret, saying: "Given I've only ever called him 'Daddy' it may make sense to open as such (despite him being less than paternal), and in the unfortunate event that it leaked it would pull at the heartstrings."

The unfortunate event.

Of course, Meghan's critics have grabbed onto that "pull at the heartstrings" line while ignoring the larger context of her words. She starts off by saying that because she has only ever called her father 'Daddy,' it makes the most sense for her letter to lead that way. In other words, this is how she'd address him anyway; she's just pointing out another benefit of doing so should he betray her. Which he did.

Meghan is not stating here that she has chosen this word in an attempt to manipulate the public; she's just saying that it's the natural term to use and that there's an additional upside to doing so. To her communications secretary. If you can't talk openly about the ways in which something will be publicly perceived with your communications secretary, with whom can you?

Meghan's father was always a liability to the royal family, a loose cannon with a personal agenda who showed no respect for the institution. This unfortunate reality placed the Duchess in the difficult position of attempting to reconcile with a beloved parent while maintaining the code of silence and privacy that surrounds the monarchy. Not an easy feat.

And after Thomas Markle's opportunistic stunt with the tabloids in 2018, Meghan would have been entirely justified in not contacting her father at all; of course, then her critics would have denounced her as heartless. If she'd been careless about the contents of her letter, they'd have accused her of wanting to embarrass the royal family. She just can't win with these people.

The thing is, there has been an inconsistency between Meghan's account of things and her messages with Knauf; just this week, she apologized to the court for forgetting to disclose emails regarding the unauthorized biography Finding Freedom, stating that she had "absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court."

I have no issue with people calling Meghan out for untruths she's actually told. She a human being who makes mistakes just like the rest of us. But if you're going to criticize her, at least get the facts right. Because when it comes to the issue in question here, there is not a direct contradiction to be found, and I find it likely that the court will see things the same way.

Check out another great article on the subject here: