Meghan Admits She Instructed Aide to Brief Unauthorised Biographers

LONDON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 20: Meghan, Duchess of Sussex speaks to guests during an event
Ben Stansall - WPA Pool/Getty Images
Victoria Friedman

Meghan Markle has apologised for misleading a British court after claiming to have forgotten she had instructed her senior aide to brief the authors of an unofficial biography about her and Prince Harry.

The UK’s Court of Appeal heard this week that Prince Harry and Meghan’s former communications secretary Jason Knauf had been provided with briefing points from the Duchess of Sussex to share with the Finding Freedom authors Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie, whom Mr Knauf had met with to provide background information for the book.

Lawyers for the Duchess of Sussex have previously denied that she or her husband had collaborated with Ms Durand and Mr Scobie. But Mr Knauf alleged in a witness statement that the unauthorised biography had been “discussed directly with the duchess multiple times in person and over email”.

The former aide to the Sussexes alleged that he had also emailed Prince Harry about the meeting, with the duke replying, according to The Guardian: “I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn’t have anything to do with it [the book]. Equally, you giving the right context and background to them would help get some truths out there.”

The Duchess of Sussex admitted in a written statement on Wednesday that she had “not remembered” these communications with Knauf, acknowledging that she had given him leave to brief the authors and apologised for misleading the court.

The former TV actress wrote: “I accept that Mr Knauf did provide some information to the authors for the book and that he did so with my knowledge, for a meeting that he planned for with the authors in his capacity as communications secretary. The extent of the information he shared is unknown to me.

“When I approved the passage … I did not have the benefit of seeing these emails and I apologise to the court for the fact that I had not remembered these exchanges at the time. I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court.”

Copies of the email correspondence between Meghan and Jason Knauf published by Sky News revealed the Duchess had sent her aide “background reminders” for when he was due to meet with Mr Scobie and Ms Durand — whom Knauf referred to on a first-name basis, “Omid and Carolyn” — including how she had “minimal” contact with her older half-siblings.

Meghan had written to her aide: “… for when you sit down with them it may be helpful to have some background reminders so I’ve included them below just in case. I know you are better versed at this than most but assisting where I can. I appreciate your support — please let me know if you need me to fill in any other blanks.”

The details were revealed during an appeals case brought by the Mail on Sunday‘s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), in relation to a February High Court ruling that it was unlawful for the tabloid to publish a letter sent by the Duchess to her father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018 when Meghan and Harry were still active members of the royal family.

The High Court ruling meant that there was no need for the issue to go to trial, but the ANL is challenging the decision, wanting the case to go to court on grounds of Meghan’s claims that the letter being published in a breach of copyright and privacy.

The lawyer for the Mail publisher is arguing that the Duchess of Sussex had written the letter to her father with the knowledge that it might be published and that she had intentionally made private information public with her dealing with the Finding Freedom authors via Mr Knauf, and that the former aide’s evidence undermines Meghan’s claims she did not want her letter to be published.

Knauf said in the statement this week that the Duchess of Sussex “asked me to review the text of the letter, saying ‘obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked’.”

Meghan maintains: “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 minimised, were it to be exploited.”

The hearing is set to continue until Tuesday, with the ruling due at a later date.

COMMENTS

Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.