Byline Investigates has since obtained court documents that were filed in Meghan’s High Court action against the Associated Newspapers, which reveal the full extent of the mother-of-ones outrage.
The first issue raised by Meghan's lawyers is the Mail on Sunday's publication of a personal letter Meghan wrote to her father, Thomas Markle.
Meghan's lawyer states that the paper claimed to publish the letter "in full", but the Mail on Sunday actually only published little more than half of the five page note.
According to court docs: "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, and the fact that she addresses untruths previously published by the Defendant.
"Those elements did not fit the Defendant’s narrative within the Articles.'
The court docs also contest the notion that Meghan never asked after her father's wellbeing when Thomas Markle called her to say he couldn't attend the Royal wedding in May 2018.
"The true position is that the Claimant has a long history of looking after her father’s welfare and trying to find solutions to any health problem … She had reached out to him prior to the wedding and sought to protect him, as well as to ensure that he would be able to come to the wedding."
Meghan goes on to slam reports that she left her mother, Doria Ragland, out of her lavish New York baby shower.
"The suggestion that the Claimant deliberately left out her mother from her baby shower and ditched her in favour of her famous friends is untrue and offensive to her," the docs state.
"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.”"
The lawyers also state the shower "actually cost a tiny fraction of the $300k falsely stated in the article."
Next, Meghan's lawyer refuted claims that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex added a yoga studio, tennis court and guest wing to their Frogmore cottage, and that the controversial renovations were done at a fraction of the eye-watering reported costs.
"The clear intention was to portray the Claimant in a damaging light by suggesting that she had indulged in this series of absurdly lavish renovations, which were in fact false (as the Defendant was informed at the time) and entirely made up," the lawyers state.
"Furthermore, the Defendant sought to portray these renovations as being done at ‘the taxpayer’s expense,’ costing ‘£2.4m [$3.1 million] of YOUR cash.’ This was also false and misleading."
The lawyers continue: "In fact, the Cottage is a grade 2-listed 17th century residence, which was already undergoing much-needed renovation for safety, and its refurbishment back to its original state as a single-family home was funded by Her Majesty the Queen, as part of her obligation and responsibility to maintain or refurbish the upkeep of buildings of historical significance through a portion of the sovereign grant, made in exchange for the revenue from her Crown Estate (which is several times the amount of the sovereign grant)."
According to Byline Investigates, Associated Newspapers is yet to file a defence to the claims leveled against them, but is denying any misuse of private information, breach of copyright or data protection infringement.