Meghan Markle’s legal team criticized her half-sister for “erroneously” failing to use her royal title when suing for defamation.

Samantha Markle has been fighting a years-long libel battle that has repeatedly faltered and is now at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The saga revolves around to Orpah Winfrey and the content of her series Harry & Meghan.

However, one notable oddity surrounding the case is that it has been waged from the first moment to last with Meghan’s name written using the technically incorrect style common in the media.

On paper, the royal is Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, rather than . News organizations, including Regalrumination.com, refer to her using her pre-marriage name because that is how she is known to the public. , formally Catherine, Princess of Wales, .

For years, her legal team has done little more than describe her as the Duchess of Sussex while noting that she was “sued as Meghan Markle.”

The error has been so widespread in the filings that even the original judge in the case, Charlene Edwards Honeywell, sitting in the Middle District of Florida, has at points referred to the royal as “Meghan Markle.”

Now, though, more than two years after the case was first filed, Meghan’s lawyers have finally taken a swipe at how she was described, adding the word “erroneously.”

A filing seen by Regalrumination.com read: “The Duchess of Sussex (erroneously sued as ‘Meghan Markle’), discloses the following individuals and entities who may have an interest in the outcome of this appeal.”

The statement is signed by Michael J. Kump, Meghan’s lawyer.

It is not clear exactly why Samantha Markle’s team filed the case using an incorrect form of her name, and it is possible they simply used the version seen in news articles. She has also changed her legal counsel since she first filed the case.

However, her lawyers have continued to describe the royal as “Meghan Markle” despite repeated filing by Meghan’s side describing her as “The Duchess of Sussex.”

As recently as August 2, their own court filing read: “The Appellant, SAMANTHA MARKLE (hereinafter referred to as ‘Samantha’) was the Plaintiff below, and the Appellee, MEGHAN MARKLE (hereinafter referred to as ‘Meghan’), was the Defendant below.”

Only time will tell whether Meghan’s lawyer’s latest effort affects how she is described in the case.

Needless to say, Meghan’s team has issued a broad brush denial of the allegations, describing many of the statements complained of as opinions that cannot give rise to a defamation claim.

They argue that Samantha has proven no malice and had no reason to doubt an interview given by Christopher Bouzy, founder of Bot Sentinel, for her Netflix series.

Samantha’s team argues that Bouzy painted her as a “racist troll,” though Meghan’s team has shrugged off the allegation.

The court filing read: “Even assuming that the Series did imply [Samantha] was a ‘racist troll’, that is a protected opinion because the terms ‘racist,’ ‘troll,’ and ‘racist troll’ are ‘not readily capable of being proven true or false’.”

“The District Court was correct that actual malice was absolutely lacking here,” Meghan’s lawyers continued. “There is no claim Meghan harbored serious doubts about the basis for Bouzy’s on-camera statements, as required for her to be liable for the statements of a source.”

The case continues.

Williams Brown is Regalrumination.com‘s chief royal correspondent, based in London. You can find him on at and read his stories on Regalrumination.com’s

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email Support@regalrumination.com. We’d love to hear from you.