This is an important step for the 40-year-old American actress who, with her husband, sixth in the order of succession to the British crown, regularly decries the methods of the tabloids, often without mercy against her.

The publisher of the Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), challenged a February court ruling in the Court of Appeal that the publication of Meghan's letter to her father was "patently excessive and therefore illegal ", and therefore violated his privacy.

The tabloid criticized in particular that the decision was taken at first instance, without going through a due process.

"This appeal will be dismissed," Judge Geoffrey Vos ruled on Thursday.

"The Court of Appeal upholds the judge's ruling that the Duchess could reasonably expect respect for her privacy," he added, stressing that the content of the letter was "personal, private and did not present not a legitimate interest for the public interest ".

“What matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that pushes people to be cruel and takes advantage of the lies and the pain they create,” said Ms. Markle after the London Court of Appeal decision proving him right.

Denouncing on multiple occasions the pressure of the media on his couple, Harry, 37, has also made it the main reason for his withdrawal from the royal family, effective since April 2020, and his exile in California with his wife, where they live with their two children.

In this letter to her father published in 2018, shortly after her marriage to Prince Harry, the Duchess of Sussex asked her father Thomas Markle, 77, to stop talking and lying in the media about their broken relationship.

The Mail on Sunday was ordered to report on the front page of its legal defeat, and its publisher to pay Meghan 450,000 pounds (530,000 euros) for her legal costs.

But the mass-circulation tabloid argued in its appeal reviewed in November that she wrote the letter knowing it might be disclosed.

"Chaos" rather than "truth"

Meghan Markle denounced the publication's "rule-less" practices, which she said made "a simple, extremely convoluted business to generate even more headlines and sell more newspapers - a model that rewards chaos rather than truth".

In order to substantiate his claims, the Mail on Sunday highlighted during the appeal hearings the testimony of Jason Knauf, the couple's former communications secretary who said the draft letter had been written with in mind " that she could flee ".

In written testimony, Meghan had refuted this claim, saying it was only a "possibility".

Bringing water to the mill of the tabloid which wanted to demonstrate that Meghan Markle regularly sought to influence public opinion, Mr. Knauf had also said to have provided on behalf of Meghan and Harry private information to the authors of the unofficial biography of the royal couple, "Finding Freedom" ("Harry and Meghan, free").

According to him, the book project was "discussed routinely" and "directly with the Duchess, in person and by email".

Ms Markle acknowledged the latter information and apologized for misleading the court by not clarifying it at first instance.

She argued, however, that the information shared with the authors was "a far cry from the very detailed personal information" published by the Mail on Sunday.

But this backpedaling had earned her the mockery of the tabloids, the Sun nicknamed her "Madam Stunned", in reference to the series of children's books "Monsieur, Madame".

© 2021 AFP