Meghan Markle seeks to prevent friends in her defense from coming to light | AP
It transpired that Meghan Markle, the duchess of Sussex Last Thursday she asked a British court not to publish the names of the five friends who in her defense spoke for an American magazine under anonymity.
It was recently learned that the duchess of sussex She asked a British court for a newspaper to publish the names of her five friends, who spoke in her defense.
Apparently Markle She tries to prevent her friends from being exposed to public scrutiny, so through a request in which she appears as a witness for her lawsuit against the British tabloid Daily Mail and its parent company for fragments of « a private and confidential letter » that she wrote to her father and that was published by the newspaper last year.
It may interest you Prince Harry and Meghan Markle seek more collaborators for their future away from royalty
Follow us on Google News, and click on our star
Through his statement, which was presented to the High Court of Great Britain, the wife of the Prince harry She claims to have received threats to reveal the identity of her five friends.
The women in question offered an interview to People Magazine so « anonymous « But they are named in confidential court documents as part of their lawsuit.
For Mail on Sunday to expose them in the public domain for no other reason than to get clicks and commercial benefits is malicious and represents a threat to their emotional and mental well-being, ”Meghan said in the statement. « Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives. »
Meghan with her father Thomas Markle. .
The documents that were drafted by the defense of the newspaper indicate that the publication of the letter sent to the Duchess’s father, Thomas Markle They were in response to a « partial » article in People magazine in February 2019 that would include an interview with those « close friends. » This article refers to said letter in which the meaning dictates that it is in the public domain, the lawyers said.
Regarding the diary, apparently she would have every intention of publishing the names this weekend, however the court should decide on the right of the friends of Meghan to confidentiality.
Their evidence is at the heart of the case and we do not see why their identities should be kept secret, « the newspaper said in a statement. « So we indicated to the duchess’s attorneys last week that the issue of confidentiality must be properly considered by the court. »
For his part, Meghan In her fight to prevent the newspaper from getting away with it, she said in her statement last Thursday that her friends decided of their own free will to speak to People and accused the newspaper of trying to create a distraction.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and get more from Show News!
Meghan appeals for privacy and respect for her friends
« These five women are not on trial, and neither am I, » the statement said. “The editor of the Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. This publisher is the one who acted illegally and seeks to evade responsibility, create a circus and distract us from the point in this case that the Mail on Sunday illegally published my private letter. Each of these women She is a private citizen, a young mother, and everyone has the basic right to privacy. «
The civil lawsuit of the duchess He accused the newspaper and its publisher, Associated Newspapers, of copyright infringement, misuse of private information and of violating Britain’s data protection law by publishing the letter.
Follow us on our Facebook and get more from Show!
Regarding the newspaper’s arguments, they point out that there is an “enormous and legitimate public interest in the Royal family and the activities, conduct and standards of behavior of its members ”.
You can also read Harry and Meghan, they would abandon altruistic work after closing charity
Likewise, he specified that this not only extends to his public conduct, but to « his personal and family relationships since they are an integral part of the proper functioning of the monarchy. »