On Sunday, Meghan Markle sued the British tabloid Mail for releasing and publishing her personal letter to her father.

Meghan Markle, the British Duchess of Sussex, secured the majority of her legal fight against the tabloid newspaper on Thursday when a jury decided that publishing portions of a personal letter she wrote to her father were "manifestly excessive and therefore unlawful." Ms Meghan, 39 years old, the wife of Queen Elizabeth's grandson Prince Harry, sued publisher Associated Newspapers after its Mail on Sunday tabloid posted some portions of her personal handwritten letter which she wrote for her father Thomas Markle in 2018.

Judge Mark Warby confirmed that the papers violated her privacy, but also said that certain questions relevant to her ownership of the letter would have to be settled at the trial."The applicant had a fair belief that the details of the letter would remain confidential. Mail articles clashed with the fair expectation," said Judge Warby.

Ms Meghan submitted a five-page letter to Mr Markle since their relationship has ended in the run-up to her sparkling wedding with Prince Harry in May 2018, which her father skipped as a result of health problems and after admitting to posing for paparazzi photos.In two days of proceedings last month, her attorneys said that publishing a "personal and sensitive" letter was really a "triple-barrel" attack on "her private life, her family life and correspondence" and the tabloidhad clearly violated her privacy.

The paper argued that the Duchess has often expected the writings of the original letter to become known to the public and that it was pretty much a part of a publicity plan, pointing out that it had been admitted in court papers to discuss it with its communications secretary.

The Mail, which released her portion of the letters in February 2019, said it did in order to allow Ms Markle to react to remarks made by anonymous friends of Ms Meghan in interviews with the U.S. magazine People."For the most part they did not serve that purpose at all," Judge Warby said. "The reports, taken as a whole, were manifestly excessive and thus unlawful. There is no prospect that a different decision will be made after the verdict."