Coleen Rooney v Rebekah Vardy case lawyers genuinely had to explain the definition of 'WAG' to the judge

Catriona Harvey-Jenner
·3-min read
Photo credit: Getty Images
Photo credit: Getty Images

From Cosmopolitan

The Wagatha Christie drama (aka the most exciting thing to happen in October 2019) is the gift that keeps giving. Not only was there the OG jaw dropping moment that Coleen Rooney took to Twitter and publicly accused a then-pregnant Rebekah Vardy's Instagram account of leaking multiple stories about her personal life to the press, but now there's a court case to comb through exactly what happened in molecular detail.

Today (19 November 2020) Rebekah Vardy's high-profile libel battle against Coleen Rooney kicked off at the High Court, and will determine whether any wrongdoing occurred. But before all that could be cleared up, it seems the lawyers involved had to clarify one particular thing for the judge... what on earth the term 'WAG' means.

Channel 4 news reporter Minnie Stephenson is in court reporting on the case, and live tweeted this morning: "Lawyers inside the High Court now explaining the definition & origin of the word 'WAG'."

I don't know about you, but the thought of smartly dressed lawyers attempting to formally explain to the judge what this incredible pop culture reference - dating back to the 2006 World Cup - means, has really tickled me. I've got images of them presenting photographs of Victoria Beckham and Cheryl (then) Cole in their tank tops, baker boy caps and oversized sunnies as official court documents. "Please see exhibit A for an example of a WAG, your honour."

Photo credit: Ross Kinnaird - Getty Images
Photo credit: Ross Kinnaird - Getty Images

If you need a reminder of the social media post that launched a thousand headlines, please see below and allow it all to come flooding back:

To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings.
Please click here to do so.

The now infamous showdown, which was immortalised as Wagatha Christie, left Vardy's reputation looking somewhat questionable in the eyes of some, despite her strenuous denial that she'd leaked any stories about the Rooney family. In a further bid to prove her innocence, Vardy, 38 (who has been married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy since 2016) filed paperwork, claiming Rooney defamed her on social media by pointing the finger. And here we are, with the court case launching today.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, on behalf of Rebekah Vardy, insisted that the leaks did not originate from her, and told the court the dubbing of the events as "Wag Wars" had "trivialised" a serious issue that "continues to have an adverse impact" on his client.

Of the legal proceedings, Coleen Rooney's lawyers previously commented: "It is disappointing that Mrs Vardy has chosen to issue court proceedings. Coleen feels that the time and money involved could be put to better use; her offer to meet face to face still stands. Mrs Vardy's decision to issue court proceedings does at least mean that Coleen's evidence can be made public when the time is right."

Neither Rooney or Vardy are believed to be in attendance at the High Court today. We look forward to seeing how the rest of it unfolds...

The latest issue of Cosmopolitan UK is out now and you can SUBSCRIBE HERE.

Like this article? Sign up to our newsletter to get more articles like this delivered straight to your inbox.

You Might Also Like