MEGHAN’S DAD: WHY I SHARED ‘HURTFUL’ LETTER
He kept it private for six months. Then her friends told US mag about it – and ‘misrepresented’ contents
THE DUCHESS of Sussex’s estranged father has told how he kept her controversial letter secret for six months, never intending to make it public.
But he felt he was forced to release
some of its details when her friends ‘misrepresented’ its contents to an American magazine.
Thomas Markle received the handwritten five- page missive via FedEx from Meghan’s Los Angeles business manager Andrew Meyer in August 2018. Deeply hurt, he vowed to keep it private.
It would have remained a secret had its existence not been revealed by an unnamed ‘long-time friend’ of Meghan’s in a glowing article i n America’s People magazine about the Duchess in February.
Meghan’s friend portrayed the letter as loving and conciliatory, saying: ‘ After the wedding she wrote him a letter. She’s like, “Dad. I’m so heartbroken. I love you, I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship.” ’
At the time it was widely speculated that Meghan had, perhaps, authorised her friends to brief the magazine – something neither she nor the Palace have denied. What is certain is that Mr Markle viewed the letter very differently, saying it made no attempt to heal their rift and felt more like ‘a final farewell’.
Last night, retired Hollywood lighting director Mr Markle, 75, spoke for the first time since his daughter issued her writ against this newspaper for publishing parts of the letter. He said: ‘I decided to release parts of the letter because of the article from Meghan’s friends in People magazine. I have to defend myself. I only released parts of the letter because other parts were so painful. The letter didn’t seem loving to me. I found it hurtful.’
He previously told this newspaper: ‘The letter was presented in a way that vilified me and wasn’t true. It was presented as her reaching out and writing a loving letter in the hope of healing the rift, but the letter isn’t like that at all. I have the right to defend myself.’
Mr Markle, who lives in Rosarito, Mexico, said he was ‘devastated’ when the existence of the letter was made public. He is also angered by false claims that he asked for and received payment for releasing parts of the letter.
Furthermore, Mr Markle only learned through People magazine that his daughter had received a letter he had sent in response to hers. Until then, he was left wondering if she had read it.
Prince Harry last week issued a searing statement announcing his wife was suing this newspaper and launched a withering attack on the British press, describing coverage of Meghan as ‘bullying’.
He claimed the couple had been hit by ‘relentless propaganda’, adding: ‘I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.’
The announcement of the lawsuit on Tuesday overshadowed the end of the Sussexes’ highly successful ten- day tour of Africa. Harry was criticised for the timing of the statement and it was reported advisers had warned it would push the tour off the front pages.
Neither Sara Latham, the couple’s communications secretary, nor Samantha Cohen, their private secretary, is believed to have had any input into the statement and there was speculation Harry had not consulted Buckingham Palace, Prince Charles nor Prince William beforehand. There was reportedly puzzlement among officials that the statement was released before the end of the Government-funded tour. Engagements such as the couple’s meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa received far less coverage because of it.
Ken Wharfe, who served as Princess Diana’s bodyguard, called the statement ‘a monumental misjudgment’ while Good Morning Britain’s Piers Morgan, a columnist for this newspaper, called the rant ‘hysterically over-the-top’, saying Harry had ‘petrol bombed’ positive press coverage of the tour.
Mr Markle is particularly upset Meghan’s friends used the People magazine article to misinterpret something he wrote in his letter of response to his daughter, in which he suggested he and Meghan should pose for a press photo together.
Meghan’s anonymous friend is quoted in the magazine saying: ‘He writes her a really long letter in return, and he closes it by requesting a photo op with her. And she feels like, “That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m telling you I don’t want to communicate through the media and you’re asking me to communicate through the media. Did you hear anything I said?” It’s almost like they’re ships passing. He knows how to get in touch with her. Her telephone number hasn’t changed. He’s never called, he’s never texted.’
Mr Markle insists he suggested the photo as a way of showing the world they could be friends again and described his daughter’s interpretation as a ‘tragic misunderstanding’.
‘When Doria [Meghan’s mother] was photographed with Meghan and Harry for the first time it showed she was part of the family. I don’t want a picture for any other reason than if we show harmony then the press will back off.’
It was also falsely stated that he never tried to contact Meghan after her wedding. Mr Markle showed this newspaper texts proving he had subsequently attempted to contact his daughter multiple times on the only number he has for her; a number from which both she and Prince Harry texted him in the runup to the wedding.
He called that number in the presence of a reporter from the MoS but an automatic voice recording said the line was ‘restricted or unavailable’.
Mr Markle was deeply hurt his daughter did not use her letter to enquire how he was doing after his heart attacks. ‘There was no loving message in there, nothing asking about my health, nothing from her saying, “Let’s get together and heal our differences.”
‘When I opened the letter I was hoping it was the olive branch I’d longed for. I was expecting something that would be a pathway to reconciliation. Instead it was deeply hurtful. I was so devastated I couldn’t show it to anyone – and never would have, had it not been for the People magazine piece which meant I had to release portions to defend myself.’
Mr Markle still hopes a reconciliation with his daughter is possible: ‘I don’t recognise the person who wrote the letter but I still love my daughter. All it would take is one phone call and most of this craziness would stop.’
No payment was requested or given for this article.
THE other day I was reminded of the bizarre occasion when Prince Andrew asked a lunch party of glossy magazine editors, which included me: ‘ Now, if you were steering a 8,000-ton Daring-class destroyer, how far in advance of port would you shut down the engine?’ Cripes!
I was the first to answer, only to break the stunned silence. Naturally I was way out. This prime example of male absorption in their job came up when I was interviewing my old boss, magazine supremo Nicholas Coleridge, at a talk to promote his hugely entertaining memoir, The Glossy Years.
I’ve always liked Nick. After all, I have him to thank for 25 years at Vogue, so I didn’t pull the full Paxman, i nstead encouraging him to let rip with a stream of amusing anecdotes, including the one above. The one time Nicholas was hesitant was when I asked whether he had ever thought about the difference between his position as a male executive and that of the senior females in the company, Condé Nast.
Had he ever considered that, as well as getting on with our big jobs, we had a constant ticker tape of domestic family concerns running t hrough our brains. Were there enough eggs in the fridge? Was the cat food about to run out? What to do about finding a new boiler?
After a pause he conceded t hat, no, he hadn’t ever thought about that – any more than I expect most mal e CEOs d o , though they’ll all claim to change a nappy nowadays.
Nicholas was a good boss but this exchange highlighted a fascinating truth. Despite all feminism’s many successes, men still have the privilege of being able to park the majority of their domestic concerns on their wife/partner whether she works or not. It’s not true in all cases. Obviously not. But in the vast majority where both halves of a couple are employed, it is still the women who are most often the keepers of the home and chief carers of the children and, increasingly, elderly parents.
Of course, this isn’t news. But this week’s High Court defeat for women battling to reverse pension age increases underlines the fact that our hefty domestic role can be as penalising an inequality as lack of equal pay or opportunity.
And it’s surely a reason why there are still so few of us who reach the dizzy heights of CEO.
TV’s hot new star... My mum’s curtains
I’VE already written here about enjoying the TV drama The Capture, so imagine how exciting it was to see the exterior of the block of flats I grew up in, and where my mother still lives, starring in the series. There it was, positioned opposite the big stucco-fronted property meant to be housing the evil Yanks. Gripping as the show was, I kept looking out for a glimpse of our sitting-room curtains. Location- spotting is a fun game. It was revealed this week that, for the new series of The Crown, Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s famous visit to Ayers Rock in Australia was, in reality, filmed in the less costly and more convenient Almeria, Spain. Where I now live the streets are constantly, and inconveniently, jammed with Winnebagos stuffed with TV crews as we’re frequently used to exemplify a generic middle- class area. But that’s nothing compared to the popularity of Liverpool’s Water Street, where the massive Victorian buildings are the cut-price go-to for film-makers wanting to replicate historical New York.
This handshake’s all double- clutch to me
I’VE been considering the double clutch. No ordinary hand-hold or handshake, the double clutch (when you emotionally place your second hand over your first as you clasp someone’s palm) suddenly seems to be everywhere. When Carrie Symonds joined Boris Johnson as he left the stage after his speech at the Tory Party Conference, she adoringly double-clutched him as they walked through the throng of admirers (below). Meghan has been seen adopting it on walkabouts and also with her Prince.
The double clutch isn’t new. It’s long been used by American politicians to emphasise their sincerity and commitment – Bill Clinton was a grand master on his meetand- greets ( and we know what happened then). Even so it’s far less common over here. In fact, I’ve never seen anyone double clutch in everyday life. But sure as chips are French fries, it’ll be catching on now.
Will today’s art pass the Botticelli test?
AT THIS year’s Frieze Masters art fair, the major attraction was a Botticelli. Among the 130 galleries t aking part with t heir Lucian Freuds, Jeff Koons and 17th Century elephant bird eggs, it was the Botticelli alone that had queues waiting to enter the small enclosure where it hung.
It’s a curious fact that the more art is produced in the world, the higher prices have grown. In 1497, when the Botticelli was painted, today’s huge and lucrative art market would have been completely unimaginable.
It would be wonderful to know, out of all the countless fabulous artworks currently on display at the Frieze, whether there’s a single one that in another 500 years will be able to command the same admiration as the Botticelli.
Unisex loos are such an inconvenience
S OME things never change. There’s always a furore over loos. For years the provision, or not, of female loos was used as an argument to keep women out of the military.
Now The Old Vic is the latest institution to come under fire on the loo front – this time for the installation of its new gender-neutral additions, which won’t solve the perennial problem of the lengthy women’s queue in the interval. Sharing the facilities won’t help.
In the stampede to tear down gender walls, it seems to be forgotten that some people can use urinals and some can’t. It’s a fact.
Can’t we just accept that and make sure there’s enough provision for all? And allow those of us who are old-fashioned enough to still enjoy a distinction between the sexes to get on with their business in the company of those they feel most comfortable with…
It’s not all bad news – f lares are back
THERE’S a lot going on in the world but let’s not overlook the return of flared jeans.
Sometimes small things count and for any woman who has struggled with skinnies and shapeless boyfriend cuts, the coming revival of the flare – even if we have to deal with a high-waist, if we don’t want to look Topshop circa 1998 – is a cheery glimmer of light.