Meghan Markle is fighting back against several tabloid rumors concerning her N.Y.C. baby shower, her relationship with her dad and her newly renovated home in Windsor, according to new court documents filed by her legal team.
Meghan and Prince Harry have invested a lot of time, love and money renovating Frogmore Cottage into a beautiful family home for 6-month-old Archie to flourish. While this includes landscaped gardens, a green-energy center and a custom kitchen, legal papers submitted to the High Court in London show the home doesn’t include a reported $6,500 copper bathtub, $650,000 of aircraft soundproofing, self-contained yoga studio, orangery or tennis court.
According to the documents — submitted by Meghan’s lawyers in her legal case against Associated Newspapers (owner of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday) — Frogmore Cottage also doesn’t have a “guest wing” for her mother, Doria Ragland, to stay in either.
Filed on November 11, the legal papers detail the finer points of Meghan’s suit against the publisher, which accuses the Mail on Sunday and its parent company of printing “untrue” stories in an attempt to portray her “negatively.”
In addition to debunking the Mail’s claims about Frogmore, the legal action also centers around the newspaper‘s decision to print extracts from a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex to her dad, Thomas Markle, 75.
The royal mom, 38, — who recently welcomed Hillary Clinton to Frogmore — claims the letter was printed without her consent and was carefully edited to paint a deliberately inaccurate picture of her relationship with her father.
“The omitted or suppressed parts of the letter amount to almost half of the actual contents,” says the court paper submitted by Schillings solicitors.
“The omitted parts demonstrate the claimant’s care for her father and others, as well as her concern about the UK tabloid media exploiting her father.”
The legal draft goes onto refute claims that Meghan didn’t inquire about her father’s health or attempt to help him medically or financially. Instead, it states that she “has a long history of looking after her father’s welfare and trying to find solutions to any health problems.”
The documents add that — contrary to reporting — Thomas did not telephone the royal ahead of her May 2018 wedding to explain that he would not be able to attend. Instead, it says Meghan reached out to her dad before the wedding in order to “protect him, as well as to ensure that he would be able to come.” She also “did not ignore” her dad afterward or argue with him about his decision to not attend, says the text.
Turning to claims that Meghan didn’t include her mom at her April baby shower in New York, the legal papers describe the suggestion as “untrue and offensive” to the duchess.
It continues, “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 adds that it was also “untrue and offensive” to suggest that the guests — which included Amal Clooney, Gayle King, and designer Misha Nonoo — were entirely drawn from a relatively new circle of celebrity friends.
“The baby shower (which actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article) was organized and hosted by one of her best friends from university,” says the court papers. “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 response to the new legal documents, The Mail on Sunday repeated its intention to defend the case “with vigor.”
“There is nothing in this document which changes that position,” a spokesman told the BBC.
Can’t get enough of PEOPLE‘s Royals coverage? Sign up for our free Royals newsletter to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!
Prince Harry — who accompanied Archie and Meghan at a playgroup session in Windsor for the first time this week — is also pursuing legal cases against News UK (owner of The Sun) and MGN (former owner of The Mirror) at the High Court regarding alleged illegal interception of voicemail messages.