We probably don't need to tell you that Meghan Markle is not a huge fan of the British tabloid press.
The animosity between the Royals and the shadier members of the UK media goes back generations -- but it seems it took an an outsider to call attention to just how ridiculous and untenable the situation has become.
Yes, the Windsors have occasionally fought back against some of the more ridiculous rumors published by the press in recent years, but it took the tandem of Meghan and Harry to sustain a prolonged attack that could threaten the very existence of the offending outlets.
When Meghan filed suit against The Daily Mail back in October, Harry publicly commented on the matter in such a way as to send a clear message that the Sussexes will not be tolerating any libel going forward.
“Unfortunately, my wife has become one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year, throughout her pregnancy and while raising our newborn son,” Harry said in a public statement.
"As a couple, we believe in media freedom and objective, truthful reporting," continued Harry in this open letter.
"We regard it as a cornerstone of democracy and in the current state of the world – on every level – we have never needed responsible media more,"
So we've known for a while that the Sussexes aren't messing around.
But it was just this week that we learned the details of Meghan's suit against the Mail.
It was initially reported that she decided to sue in response to the editors' decision to publish a letter Meghan wrote to her father, Thomas Markle, which Thomas had sold to the Mail.
Now, court documents have revealed that Meghan took issue with the paper's coverage of two other matters, as well -- the controversy over Meghan's baby shower, and allegations of a costly, never-ending renovation insider the Sussexes' new home at Frogmore Cottage.
Additionally, lawyers for Meghan object not only to the publication of the letter, but also to the decision to omit portions that would have depicted the Duchess in a more flattering light:
“The omitted or suppressed parts of the letter amount to almost half of the actual contents,” says the court document 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 lawyers go on to refute the claim that Meghan never asked about her father’s health financial well-being, arguing that she “has a long history of looking after her father’s welfare and trying to find solutions to any health problems.”
The filing also disputes the claim that Meghan's mother was not invited to her baby shower.
“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," they write.
Additionally, they contest the reported price tag of the event, claiming that the shower "actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article.
The attorneys say the renovations at Frogmore have been similarly exaggerated, pointing to the Mail's claims about a $6,500 copper bathtub and a $650,000 of aircraft soundproofing, neither of which, the lawyers say, can be found inside Harry and Meghan's home.
The suit also pushes back against the claim that Meghan's shower was mostly attended by celebs Meghan had only recently met.
The truth, her lawyers say, is that the luminaries on hand were "close friends and included long-term friendships some of which had existed for over 20 years.”
You can peddle a lot of BS in the press these days, but don't try and tell us Meghan freakin' Markle is lacking in the famous friends department.