Jason Knauf, the former communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
Meghan Markle's former communications chief at Kensington Palace came forward with her texts and emails in her privacy case against the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline after he was said to have 'regretted' not giving evidence when she won at the High Court without a trial, the Court of Appeal has been told.
Jason Knauf disclosed bombshell messages that contradict her 'false' claims that a letter sent to her father after the royal wedding was private and that she never co-operated with the writing of the Sussexes' Finding Freedom biography, it was said in court.
Mr Knauf, who now works for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, was said to have changed his mind because he had been ‘deprived’ of the chance to give evidence at a trial after she won a summary judgment earlier this year.
The royal aide’s decision to intervene emerged at the appeal by the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline against a ruling earlier this year that it unlawfully breached Meghan’s privacy by publishing extracts from her letter to Thomas Markle.
Meghan told Mr Knauf in texts that she had been ‘meticulous’ about every word of the letter sent to her estranged father with the 'understanding it could be leaked' and chose to call him 'daddy' to 'pull at the heart strings' if it became public.
Emails from the Duchess of Sussex also raised questions about her 'credibility' and exposed her 'hypocrisy' including briefing two journalists about her half-sister and a private meeting with the Queen before her wedding to Prince Harry about the tiara she wanted to wear, the Court of Appeal was told.
After Mr Knauf's statement was filed to the court, the Duchess of Sussex was forced to apologise, claiming she had 'forgot' her correspondence with Mr Knauf over three months in 2018 and telling judges in a written statement: 'I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead'.
A written statement by a solicitor representing Associated Newspapers [ANL], released today, said Mr Knauf and other Kensington Palace staff who worked for Meghan had decided to remain 'neutral' during the initial High Court case - but he had then changed his stance after her High Court wins in February and then May.
Keith Mathieson, a partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, said a 'confidential source' told ANL in July that 'Mr Knauf now regretted not providing a witness statement to us'.
He said: 'It did indeed turn out that, since the summary judgment had deprived Mr Knauf of the opportunity to provide evidence at a trial, he now wished to provide a witness statement to the parties so that his evidence could be considered as part of the appeal'.
ANL have appealed and claim the former actress wrote it with 'public consumption in mind'. ANL has also said that new evidence from the Duchess of Sussex's former royal communications chief Jason Knauf (pictured left behind the couple) who now works for Harry's brother Prince William, 'contradicts' the pleadings before the judge when he ruled in her favour earlier this year
Meghan Markle sued Associated Newspapers Limited [ANL] over a series of articles which reproduced parts of the letter she sent to Thomas Markle (pictured together) in August 2018
Andrew Caldecott QC, representing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), said Meghan's father Thomas Markle faced 'nasty and untrue' allegations in an article published by People magazine in the US and there was a public interest in correcting them.
The publisher argues that Meghan co-operated with the authors of the book 'Finding Freedom', citing evidence from her former aide Jason Knauf
The Duchess of Sussex briefed the authors of Finding Freedom about a private meeting with the Queen and when she started dating Prince Harry, the court heard yesterday.
Texts and emails disclosed by Jason Knauf have raised questions about Meghan's 'credibility', Andrew Caldecott QC has said.
Mr Caldecott says Mr Knauf claims the Duchess of Sussex emailed him with a 'number of headings she evidently wants to be discussed at the meeting between Mr Knauf and the authors', he said.
Her email, which is said to run to two pages, said: 'Please let me know if you want me to fill in any other blanks'.
'Mr Knauf says he had multiple conversations with her about this book at the time', Mr Caldecott said, saying the evidence showed Meghan was 'not shy about giving private information to the authors' and referring to information she gave about her relationship with her half-sister Samantha, which he declined to read aloud.
'There is an element of hypocrisy here', Mr Caldecott said, adding that Meghan also gave details of a private meeting with the Queen about the 'tiara incident', a reference to claims in the media that Meghan reportedly wanted to wear an emerald tiara, but the Queen had selected a diamond tiara that had been worn by her grandmother, Queen Mary, in 1932.
The Duchess of Sussex was said to have had her 'heart set' on a tiara containing emeralds but was told she couldn't wear it because the green stones might have come from Russia.
A royal insider told the newspaper that the Queen stepped in and told Harry: 'She gets what tiara she's given by me.'
Advertisement
Describing the allegations, he said: 'In the teeth of his daughter being always dutiful and supporting him throughout with incredible generosity, first he cold-shouldered her at the wedding, in one of the most important parts of her life.
'He gave a cynical and self-interested response ignoring her pleas for reconciliation in a loving letter.'
He added that the letter to Mr Markle from Meghan was 'not a loving letter, not a generous letter', contrary to how it was presented in the People article.
The barrister continued: 'When we come to the very first allegation about cold-shouldering her at the wedding... this allegation is demonstrably false, we say.'
Mr Caldecott QC said the People magazine article about the Duchess of Sussex 'presents a wholly misleading gloss on the letter' she sent to her father.
He continued: 'Either we believe in freedom of expression or we don't. Thomas Markle has been royally attacked in the People magazine... and this is his reply.
'If you read the People article we don't know to what extent the allegations were authorised by the claimant or not.
'It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Markle to assume that the claimant was responsible'.
It came after the former Suits star's QC claimed that the bombshell messages she sent to Jason Knauf actually helped her case and called on the judges to throw the appeal out.
Her lawyer, Justin Rushbrooke QC, told the court that Meghan's letter was 'private' and had become public without her consent. He said the contents of the texts and emails to Mr Knauf didn't change this.
He said of her texts: 'They show that she regards the letter as confidential. There is no real prospect that the evidence the defendant now relies on show anything other than that she regarded it as a possibility [it would be released]. It can't transform their case. All it shows that is that she acknowledges that it was a possibility that her father could leak the letter. This strengthens her case because it undermines any claim she wanted it released'.
Meghan, who previously insisted she and Prince Harry did not cooperate with the writers of the gushing biography, said she had 'forgotten' providing the aide details of what to reveal 'when you sit down with them' in a series of emails over three months.
It emerged she had emailed Mr Knauf, her then communications secretary who now works for William and Kate, a detailed briefing note on December 10, 2018, including some 'helpful' background 'reminders' about her estranged family and her version of events of a tiara incident involving the Queen.
Mr Rushbrooke said: 'A great song and dance was made of this, but what is striking is how little information information she was willing to give about her father - and there's nothing about the letter. She's simply not prepared to go there. Every single aspect of those points provided were anodyne and already in the public domain.
'The entire case about her working with the authors falls flat. Mr Knauf was paid to deal with media inquiries. They [the Sussexes] were happy to provide him with background information. But nothing at all on the letter. This was the perfect opportunity to share detail - but they didn't'.
Meghan Markle texted a senior royal aide to say she wrote every word of a letter to her father Thomas with the 'understanding it could be leaked' and chose to call him 'daddy' to 'pull at the heart strings' if it became public, the Court of Appeal heard yesterday.
Jason Knauf's bombshell texts and emails with the Duchess of Sussex raise questions about her 'credibility' and expose her 'hypocrisy' including briefing two journalists about her half-sister and a private meeting with the Queen before her wedding to Prince Harry about the tiara she wanted to wear, her privacy trial with the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline was told.
But in her written evidence to the Court of Appeal, also published yesterday, Meghan denied she thought it likely that Thomas Markle would leak the document, but had prepared for the possibility. She said: 'To be clear, I did not want any of it to be published'.
The Sussexes' former Kensington Palace spokesman, who now works for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, also shared emails Prince Harry he sent to him saying his former actress wife was '100% supportive' of briefing the authors of the book Finding Freedom.
Five friends had decided to 'help' by giving interviews anonymously to People magazine, which has 35million readers worldwide. Meghan insists she knew nothing about it
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have repeatedly denied contributing to the book - but emails revealed that Harry told Mr Knauf that briefing the authors would 'help to get some truths out there... especially around the Markle wedding stuff'.
The Duchess of Sussex had shared a draft of the letter with senior aides at Kensington Palace before it was sent shortly after she and Prince Harry got married in May 2018, the court heard.
In one text to Mr Knauf in August 2018, Meghan told him: 'Everything I have drafted is with the understanding it could be leaked, so I have been meticulous in my word choice. But please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability'.
She
