Meghan Markle’s Half-Sister Won’t Back Down in Defamation Lawsuit

Meghan Markle’s half-sister, Samantha Markle, is refusing to back down after a judge dismissed her defamation lawsuit against the duchess earlier this year over statements made in her 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey and her 2022 Netflix docuseries.

On August 2, two days before Meghan’s 43rd birthday, Samantha’s lawyers filed their brief to appeal the judge’s March ruling. They claim that the court did not take into account the context in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made and that this significantly affects their interpretation.

In their submission to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was seen by Newsweek, Samantha Markle’s lawyers accuse the duchess of having “set out” to “harm her half-sister” with comments made to Winfrey and Netflix about their relationship.

Meghan Markle is seen during her interview with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021. The duchess’s half-sister, Samantha, has taken her defamation lawsuit, which concerns comments Meghan made to Winfrey, to a federal appeals court.

Samantha and Meghan’s father is Thomas Markle Sr. They also have a brother, Thomas Markle Jr.

Since Meghan’s marriage to Prince Harry in 2018, Samantha has given numerous interviews criticizing the duchess and has authored a memoir, The Diary of Princess Pushy’s Sister.

Asked by Winfrey about her relationship with Samantha in a bonus clip from the March 2021 interview, Meghan said: “I grew up as an only child, which everyone who grew up around me knows, and I wished I had siblings.”

This, Samantha’s lawyers have argued, was defamatory as it could lead viewers to interpret her claims to be Meghan’s sister as a lie, impacting her ability to earn an income from her memoir.

Meghan also told Winfrey that Samantha “changed her last name back to Markle” only after it became public that she was dating Harry, which her half-sister has denied.

Samantha’s lawyers also raised issues with comments, made by Meghan in the Netflix series, about her early childhood with her now-estranged father: “I don’t remember seeing her [Samantha] when I was a kid at my dad’s house.”

This, the lawyers say, was an attempt to discredit Samantha’s claims that she was regularly in her younger half-sister’s life in her early years.

In March, U.S. District Judge Charlene Honeywell in Florida threw out the case, noting that it was Samantha’s third attempt at amending her claim to prove defamation.

The claim, Honeywell said, was “dismissed with prejudice, as she [Samantha] has failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation.”

Now, her lawyers have taken the claim to the federal appeals court, saying that Honeywell addressed the contested statements in isolation and failed to consider them within their wider contexts.

“The District Court erred by analyzing the defamatory statements from the Series and the Interview individually. It is the impact of the statements, read in order, and in context, that creates the defamatory implication,” they said in their court filing.

“The juxtaposition of truthful statements, and the implied defamation created by omitting facts from statements, [implies that Samantha] is a lying, racist, fame-seeker who is out to harm Meghan and capitalize on that harm caused,” they said.

The filing went on: “Meghan is responsible for the statements. Meghan either said the defamatory statements, or she published the statements said by others. Meghan intentionally chose the order and structure of the statements, as well as the orator of the statements.

“It cannot be disputed that Meghan, at all times, knew the truth, could have easily discovered the truth, or in spite of knowing the falsity, said or published the statements at action. Meghan set out to, and did, harm her half-sister, Samantha,” the lawyers said.

Newsweek reached out by email to Meghan’s representatives for comment.

Samantha’s lawyers have requested an oral hearing in the case, stating that “Oral Argument is desired as the issues can be a bit confusing and may require some clarification.”

No further information about the case’s progression has yet been announced.