- As Meghan Markle is hit by $87,000 in legal fees, things seem to be going from bad to worse for the Duchess of Difficult.
- Unfortunately for her, the risk of her “special sisterhood” of friends being publicly named is still very real.
- There’s one name rumored to be among that group that could spell the kiss of death for Meghan’s lawsuit.
Usually, when a celebrity takes a media outlet to court, the result is an out of court settlement in favor of said celebrity, or indeed a victory in court. It’s still early days, but already Meghan Markle is seeing bills for her current battle against Associated Newspapers Limited start to pile up.
While $87,000 may not sound like much to you or me when we think of millionaire celebrities, for a couple who have no real discernible income at the moment, it’s money they won’t want to be paying out.
The worst part? This may just be the beginning. Has Meghan Markle rushed into a situation without thinking of the consequences?
Such an approach seems like a bit of a theme for both her and her husband, Prince Harry.
The five female friends who could make or break the Meghan Markle court case
Much has been made in the media and on social platforms of the “special sisterhood” of five friends that spoke to People in the US about the contents of the letter Meghan Markle sent to her father, Thomas.
While it’s just conjecture on my part, I have no reason to believe that this is the first time Meghan’s “special sisterhood” looked to influence media coverage on behalf of the Duchess of Difficult.
It’s common knowledge that Meghan’s former best friend, Jessica Mulroney, attempted to intervene on Meghan’s part when Meghan’s former adviser Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne granted the Daily Mail an interview.
This court case is threatening to expose Meghan Markle and her underhanded tactics when it comes to dealings with the media.
Meghan Markle is many things, but stupid isn’t one of them
I’ve accused Meghan Markle of being many things, but she’s certainly not stupid.
This game she plays when it comes to media coverage isn’t just effective, it’s also incredibly intricate, and just like an old school mob boss, she makes sure to insulate herself from any direct links to wrongdoing.
Meghan insisted more than a dozen times in last week’s legal document that she had no prior knowledge of her friends’ interview with People. She added that she was so uninvolved in ‘the process of the People article’ that she only found out about it on the day it was published.’
I don’t know about any of you, but I find that incredibly hard to believe.
Someone like Meghan Markle, who is so controlling over her public persona, has friends who took it upon themselves to go to People and give the outlet information on Meghan without her knowing?
They’d have been cut off and Markle’d quicker than Jessica Mulroney.
But what this approach allows Meghan to do is distance herself from any situation that goes awry. Like a movie mob boss, she can plead ignorance and innocence, as she wasn’t directly involved.
This court case could blow Meghan’s media game right out the water
One wildcard that Meghan Markle most likely did not account for when she launched this action against ANL was her former best friend, Jessica Mulroney.
It’s widely believed that the disgraced Canadian is part of the “special sisterhood” and someone Meghan believed would be a trusted lieutenant for many years to come.
Now Meghan has a potential wildcard with nothing to lose potentially turning rogue instead of a trusted inner circle confidant.
Of the five friends that Meghan Markle is desperately trying to prevent being named, Mulroney could be the most damaging name of all.
If and when her name is released to the media, it will likely result in a frenzy, pushing Jessica right back into the spotlight, at which point Meghan may regret being so quick to ostracise her.
If you’re Meghan Markle, you don’t want a scorned friend who knows where the bodies are buried, figuratively speaking, holding your future in their hands.
Disclaimer: The opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.