MEGHAN Markle did not help her ailing dad with medical bills before her wedding – because he already had enough cash from selling stories about her, court papers claim.
The Duchess of Sussex provided “substantial financial support to her father from January 2014” that stopped in 2018 when they cut contact.
The Royal has now submitted court documents showing her previously “very close” dad had earned more than enough to cover bills for his heart treatment.
The papers show Mr Markle himself recognised his story payments covered the £1,996 insurance excess he needed as his daughter was preparing to marry Prince Harry.
The court papers reportedly say Mr Markle’s medical bills “would appear to exceed and offset the excess medical cost of roughly $2,500.”
According to The Telegraph, the papers detail the dad and daughter’s financial dealings, showing that Mr Markle helped fund her college place with a loan.
She then “began making voluntary financial contributions to her father” when she started earning to give him “personal financial support”.
The papers reportedly state: “The Claimant’s father gave occasional financial support to the Claimant, just as she provided reciprocal financial support to him once she began earning.”
As she started out as an actress, it is claimed, the Duchess “always maintained full-time jobs while auditioning, both as a professional calligrapher as well as working in a restaurant”.
The papers reportedly state that Mr Markle made a voluntary offer to pay for Meghan’s first wedding to Trevor Engelson – but she made no request for money.
He made a “personal offer to contribute financially to her first wedding”, but “no request for any such contribution was made by the Claimant – not for $20,000 or any other amount,” papers show.
The High Court revelations are designed to counter suggestions Meghan “failed to provide any or any real financial support for her father”.
‘VERY CLOSE RELATIONSHIP’
In papers, submitted as part of the Duchess’ court battle with the Mail on Sunday, Meghan also blames the collapse of her “very close relationship” with her dad on the UK media.
Her lawyers write they “had a very close father/daughter relationship throughout her childhood and remained close until he was targeted three years ago by intrusive UK tabloid media”.
The existence of the letter, given to the newspaper by Mr Markle, first came to public attention in US celebrity magazine People, after five friends of the Duchess told her side of the story.
The Duchess claimed she knew nothing of the article ahead of publication.
In papers made public today, she said: “The Claimant realised Friends A, B and C had given anonymous interviews to People magazine upon learning that the article had been published.
“Her belief that they had been involved was confirmed during phone calls via FaceTime on the day of publication and the following day.
“The Claimant learnt Friend D was one of the anonymous sources for the People magazine article on or around 19 February 2019 when the two of them met in person.
“She subsequently learnt of Friend E’s involvement a few days later during a celebration with friends to mark the forthcoming birth of her son. This discussion also took place in person.
“All of these conversations took place post publication.”
The latest paperwork is said to be a response to a fourth request for further information from Associated Newspapers, which owns the Mail on Sunday.
In reply to questions about the financial support provided by the Duchess to her father, lawyers said “the requests are gratuitous and a further violation and intrusion of privacy of both the Claimant and her father”.
They go on to expand on the father-daughter relationship, admitting it has “never been denied that the Claimant’s father supported her throughout her childhood and as a young adult”.
The Duchess is suing the Mail on Sunday over publication of part of her handwritten letter to him, following the Royal Wedding he did not attend.
She is claiming undisclosed damages on the grounds of breach of privacy, copyright and data protection.
No date has yet been set for the trial, which is expected to go ahead in 2021.
Earlier this year, she lost the first strike-out hearing, in which Mr Justice Warby ruled her lawyers would not be allowed to argue in court that the newspaper acted dishonestly, “stirred up” issues with her father, and had an “agenda” against her.
Associated Newspapers have wholly denied all claims against them, particularly the suggestion that the letter was edited in any meaningful way.