Meghan Markle says she felt ‘unprotected’ by the Royal Family during her pregnancy

The Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, reportedly felt "unprotected by the institution" of the monarchy when "false" media reports emerged when she was pregnant, according to court documents, per The Independent.

The publication reports that the papers come as part of Markle's legal action against the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online in regards to the publication of extracts of a letter that she sent to her father, Thomas Markle, back in 2018.

The erstwhile actor is suing Associated Newspapers for copyright infringement and a breach of privacy.

Associated Newspapers has vehemently denied the allegations.

[[instagramwidget||https://www.instagram.com/p/B9kS7YjJ_kI/]]

The court documents, which were seen by the BBC, detail that the duchess suffered "tremendous emotional distress" over the publication of the letter.

"The Claimant had become the subject of a large number of false and damaging articles by the UK tabloid media, specifically by the Defendant, which caused tremendous emotional distress and damage to her mental health," the papers read.

Referencing interviews that five of Markle's friends gave to a US magazine in February of 2019, the documents continue: "As her friends had never seen her in this state before, they were rightly concerned for her welfare, specifically, as she was pregnant, unprotected by the Institution, and prohibited from defending herself."

A preliminary hearing regarding the case was held in May, where the judge dismissed claims that Associated Newspapers deliberately "stirred up" issues between Markle and her father, and that they had an "agenda" against her.

Watch as Meghan Markle reads to Archie on his first birthday:

[[jwplayerwidget||https://content.jwplatform.com/videos/05I2LHOv-izxriqNH.mp4||05I2LHOv]]

Justice Mark Warby also denounced the Suits star's accusation that the publisher had acted "dishonestly".

Warby stated that those claims should not form part of the duchess's case at this stage as they were "irrelevant" to her claim for damages over purported misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the Data Protection Act.

"Some are struck out on the further or alternative ground that they are inadequately detailed,” Warby clarified, noting that he attempted to limit the case to what is "reasonably necessary and proportionate for the purpose of doing justice between these parties".

[[instagramwidget||https://www.instagram.com/p/B7EaGS_Jpb9/]]

"I do not consider that the allegations struck out on that basis go to the ‘heart’ of the case, which at its core concerns the publication of five articles disclosing the words of, and information drawn from, the letter written by the claimant to her father in August 2018," he continued.

In a statement published since the ruling - a spokesperson for Schillings, the law firm representing Markle - said that the core elements of her case had not wavered.