Us Weekly: The Queen has been ‘supportive’ of Meghan during her family drama

2017 LACMA Art and Film Gala

Even though I complain a lot about the British tabloids, I trust a lot of their “palace sources,” because those sources are really just palace communications people who want to get some information out without putting their name on it. Palace sources have been claiming for a few months that the palace doesn’t really know what to do about Thomas Markle and the Duchess of Sussex’s trashy relations. I think you can look it one of two ways. Option #1: the royals were somewhat prepared for the Markles to be absolute trash and they decided to take the long view and allow the Markles to basically punch themselves out. Option #2: the royals were caught flat-footed and they haven’t done anything about the Markles because they still don’t know what they should do. Something else I’ve been wondering about is the sympathy, within the family, for Meghan and what she’s going through. Well, Us Weekly’s sources – who? – claim that the Queen has a good deal of sympathy for Meg.

When it comes to her estranged family members blabbing to the press, Duchess Meghan would do nearly anything for a reprieve. Yet as each week seemingly brings a new sensational headline, thanks to her dad Thomas Markle Sr., she can only fret.

“Meghan is absolutely broken by the drama with her father,” a source close to the former Suits star reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly. “There’s no way she can have a relationship with him or even reach out to him to stop him from speaking. She knows he’ll record the conversation and sell it. She has high anxiety wondering if this will go on forever.”

Puzzling over the problem has brought one bright spot, however — an unlikely allegiance with Queen Elizabeth II. “What may surprise some is just how supportive Her Majesty has been during the problems Meghan has faced with her family,” a Buckingham Palace insider shares. “Meghan is in a tough place, and the queen knows it’s completely out of Meghan’s hands. She has only sympathy for what’s been a difficult and distressing situation for her.”

[From Us Weekly]

I hope this is the case. I think the Queen herself likes Meghan a lot and probably does have sympathy for her. But I wonder if the Queen’s courtiers feel the same way. My guess is that the communications teams of Clarence House, Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace had some meetings about “the Markle problem” and how to deal with it. And is this answer? Letting the world know that Meghan still has the Queen’s support, so it doesn’t matter what Thomas Markle says?



Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

57 Responses to “Us Weekly: The Queen has been ‘supportive’ of Meghan during her family drama”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Belluga says:

    She sat Meghan down, handed her a big glass of gin and said, “You want my advice? Fuck ‘em.”

    That’s how it happened and no one can convince me differently.

    • Annie says:


    • Kitty says:

      Yes! I hppe thats what happened

    • jessamine says:

      And then they clinked martini glasses and played with their dogs :)

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      It was Dubonnet and gin – its well known that TQ’s favourite tipple.

      • jessamine says:

        Ooh, good point. What kind of glass do you serve that in?

      • Tina says:

        You’d usually serve it in an old-fashioned glass (double rocks glass). Sometimes I’ve seen it in a highball glass, but that’s a loooooot of booze.

    • Astrid says:


    • Suki says:

      Why do you all think the queen is some enlightened and open minded cool woman? I think she is the ultimate snob, an entitled rich old white woman who hid her money from taxation offshore and who likes her dogs and horses more than she likes most humans.

      • InquisitiveNewt says:

        I’ve spoken to plenty of people who have known/worked with HM over the years and the general consensus is – wonderful sense of humour, wry and dry; always looking for the positive; willing to overlook gaffes (as in the case of the desperately hungover midshipman on the Royal Yacht). So no.
        -Must we go down the identity politics lane and colour-label? It’s getting pretty tiresome.

      • Tina says:

        She has approved without question the relevant marriages. Freddie Windsor to Sophie Winkleman (Jewish). Davina Windsor to Gary Lewis (Maori). Everyone who has met HM has spoken positively about her. She got on like a house on fire with the Obamas. Why should you dislike her?

    • hqoiuewroi says:

      I really hope this is how it went down!

      But honestly, what CAN they do but try to ignore it? Anything else would just keep fueling the drama. The royals are kind of forced to take the “high road” of ignoring the Markles.

  2. minx says:

    I imagine they get do get along well, but that US cover is exceptionally cheesy, even for them.

  3. wisdomheaven says:

    Call my a cynic, but I think there is some PR crafting with ALL of these stories of just HOW much the Queen loves and accepts Meghan. I DO think she generally likes her, mostly because it is clear she has a big soft spot for Harry.

    But…there is also a renewed push by the Palace to portray the Queen as a “modern woman” who is happy to embrace all kinds of diversity and folks. Meghan is the perfect example they can now use for that. LOOK! Her majesty just ADORES her black grand-daughter in law. Isn’t she so modern? So forward? So hip to the new Britain?

    Again, I think they personally have a great rapport. I just side-eye the crusty courtiers who IMO care very little about Meghan (and I think actually are not fans of her’s given some of the “sources” comments over the past couple of years), but do see a PR opportunity with her

    • Ardnamurchan says:

      Well, maybe.
      Then again there’s HM’s beaming face and body language when she and Megs had their girls day out. Can’t fake that.

      • wisdomheaven says:

        I pretty clearly said that QE2 obviously likes her.

        I am just saying the overall media narrative to me is driven by a strong desire by the palace to capitalize on that.

      • Lilly says:

        I agree. TQ doesn’t do fake smiles imo. She’ll do all sorts of duties that she may abhor (orange toddler for one) and even ones she enjoys, but she’s just not smiley unless she feels it.

    • Erinn says:

      I like to think this is the sort of thing that any grandma worth their pearls would do. Mine is about the Queen’s age, and she’s constantly giving my husband a hard time for his tattoos. But she adores him. She’s 100% adopted him as another grandkid. She isn’t aware that he got a huge one on his bicep three weeks ago yet, because he’s been wearing long sleeves around her. But she’ll be like “HEY, you’re out of the will if you get more!” every single time he gets more. His reaction the first time was just “I didn’t think I was in it at all?” but she’s completely joking, and she actually thinks that if someone HAS to have tattoos, his are at least very nice non-offensive ones.

      But I’m with you on the PR. I think she genuinely does like her grandkids and their spouses, and probably feels extra protective of Meghan with all the crap that’s happened. I think big embarrassing displays are exactly the kind of thing from the Queen’s nightmares, so she’s super sensitive to that. It’s probably a similar “That’s MY granddaughter they’re talking about!” kind of reaction that my grandmother feels towards my husband. But let’s not pretend it doesn’t ALSO benefit her. She’s not a dumb lady, and her entire life has been about putting a good face forward and marketing herself and her family. It’s definitely a bonus that she’s not naive to.

    • Suki says:

      I agreee…this is all PR. I think Meghan is likable but I doubt the Queen, married to an old racist, gives much thought to Meghan except as her beloved Harry’s wife whose family is causing lots and lots of unnecessary bad PR. I think people on this site give QE2 way too much credit for being a cool
      old lasy. Does anyone really think she would have picked an older, divorced, C list actress who is American and biracial for her grandson? I have a bridge for you to buy if you believe that.
      I think the queen wants to be seen as not racist and I have always thought Harry gave them an ultimatum – love Meghan, accept her or I’m gone. I can’t see this stodgy old white entitled lady being loving toward Meghan. Again, no reflection on Meghan at all.
      Cause palace sources also said Philip calls Meghan “Wallis II” and those sources are as credible as any other on the royals.

      • Tina says:

        The Queen has expressed her anti-racist views for decades. She danced with the president of Ghana at its independence celebrations in the 1960s, shocking white South Africans. She’s not supposed to be political, but the one and only time she was political was when she let it be known that she opposed Thatcher’s apartheid appeasement in the 1980s. Say what you want about Philip, but the Queen is not prejudiced. And I do not buy for a second that Philip calls anyone “Wallis II.” No one talks about the abdication in front of the Queen. She considers that becoming king killed her father (it was really the unfiltered cigarettes, but we’ll let her have that).

  4. Becks1 says:

    I think she does support Meghan. As we have discussed on here before, the royal family is no stranger to messy relatives, scandal, tabloid reporting, etc.

    • Muffy says:

      THe Queen lived through abdication and her uncle getting cozy with Nazis, and Philips family were actual Nazis. Trashy people have always been Firm-adjacent.

      • Tina says:

        Not all of them were Nazis. Philip’s mother hid a Jewish family in Athens and is recognised as one of Yad Vashem’s Righteous Among the Nations.

    • Bettyrose says:

      This plus Meghan has done nothing scandalous. Her family has zero information to share and if Meg has ever engaged in drug-fueled orgies, no one has pics.

  5. boredblond says:

    I get the feeling ‘the problem’ is topic of concern far more with certain press outlets than it is with the royals.

  6. Rebecca says:

    I don’t believe a “palace source” has given anything to a rag like Us Weekly. If and when M has anything to say about her smarmy relatives, she will do it on her own terms. So far, she has handled herself with a lot of grace.

  7. Digital Unicorn says:

    What has been obvious to me in the past few months is that the RF has embraced her (as they should) and has circled the wagons around her with the whole Daddy Sell Out drama. The BRF for all their faults close ranks around each other when the going gets tough.

    Meghan will be fine, her father and his family probably not as at some point the press will turn on them and it will be nasty, the palace will not and should not protect him.

  8. Guest says:

    Megs, if you’re reading this, write a letter. Doesn’t have to be a conversation. Write a letter. Mail it the ordinary way (if you can). Photocopy your handwritten letter before you mail it. Take the copy to a notary public and get it certified as a true copy. If he attempts to misrepresent in any way BOOM. Done like dinner. If he holds it together, remains classy and quiet, take step two. There are still times when a heartfelt, handwritten letter tells the truth best and most clearly. IMHO it’s the only way forward. Or, everyone just stays stuck where they are right now – excommunicated.

    • lanne says:

      The problem is, ANY contact continues the story! What’s to stop Bad Markles from claiming she’s “brainwashed,” or that she was forced to write the letter, and some shysty “handwriting analyzer” claims her handwriting indicates she’s under duress? The Nasty Markles will feed off of any scrap they get. Incidentally, I wonder if Thomas Markle Jewelers in Houston is getting any blowback from this garbage. It would be great if people who happen to be named Markle speak out against being lumped in with these fools.

    • Ardnamurchan says:

      Sorry, Guest, lanne is right. Any letter she sends, her Dad will sell and her sister will twist into a new weapon to hurt her with.
      Also, a letter isn’t going to help with Thomas. He’s a blind narcissist who will only be nice if he gets exactly what he wants … and a letter won’t cut it for him. He wants an invitation to the Palace to meet the Queen. He has said so. He will be offended by anything less because in his mind, it’s his due.
      Don’t be fooled by his pleas that he just wants to make contact. That’s just a tool to reel her in. It’s NOT what he wants. If it was, he would just shut up and play nicely and wait. Or write her a private letter, apologising and saying he doesn’t care how long he has to wait, if only she will forgive him.
      Your advice might work with a normal humane person who means well but Thomas Markle is none of those things.

      • Heather says:

        If only Thomas wanted only to meet with queen. He wants to be “taken care of” by Meghan in her new position. He wants to move right down the hall from the queen, get a coat of arms and preferably a title and be “taken care of” for the rest of his life. If not, and he dies, it’s Meghan’s fault (because no 74 year old can ever die for any other reason than an “ungrateful uppity” daughter). No, Meghan should continue radio silence.

      • Leigh-Klein says:

        He had his chance, more than one. He turned them down and refused them, and instead of taking Meghan’s calls he spoke to TMZ. Taboo, the thing he KNEW not to do and was told NEVER to do, he did. A father has never, ever given a “cute little speech” at a royal wedding. Get over your emotionally immature, narcissistic self, Thomas. She’s doing the right thing. She has always done the right thing, and she should continue to do the right thing. Never complain, never explain. Ahh, regrets are a bitch, aren’t they?

        “If I cut you off, chances are you handed me the scissors.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        Perfect quote, Leigh-Klein!

      • Montréalaise says:

        This reminds me of advice I once read about how to deal with a stalker – the author (Gavin De Becker) recommended that the victim not have any contact with him at all, because any contact will just exacerbate the problem. De Becker said that if you ignore 20 telephone calls but pick up on the 21st, all you’ve done is teach him that he needs to call you 21 times to get you to respond. In this case, sending a letter to Daddy Dearest would be teaching him that he has to give the media multiple interviews to get his daughter to respond.

      • Leigh-Klein says:

        @ notasugarhere, from a friend on Facebook cutting contact with a toxic family member (her heinous mother-in-law) ;) I liked it. Much truth in it.

    • Mego says:

      Yeah write a letter and just be hurt and dissapointed all over again with a fresh cycle of abuse. Tom Markle isn’t classy and therefore will not “remain” classy. Done like dinner is right now and henceforth.

    • InquisitiveNewt says:

      @Guest Why on earth would she write a letter to a narcissist who’d be straight on the blower to TMZ the moment he received it? Good God, he would make an absolute fortune from exploiting such a form of communication – and sticky voiced Samantha would throw in her tuppence-worth for good measure. No. He’s the one who hijacked her wedding and made the first months of her marriage fraught with tension and sadness. He should be on his knees trying to make amends – IN PRIVATE.

  9. hershey says:

    She probably has been welcomed and supported by the family itself.

    The hope is this dies a natural death by boredom setting in. If dad falls to back pages, they will move past and do nothing.

    If he is still able to get himself on front pages and interferes with coverage of expensive foreign tours or opening of parliament, the guys that run the offices at BP will step in.

    Wont be a Meghan and royal family conflict. Just something for the courtiers to deal with.

    Samantha has not tweeted her sisters name for days and days.

    She called out the tv dad. No mention of Meghan herself.

    She tweeted about royal fans being like ants.

    Again she stays away from direct reference to Meghan ,Harry, and royal family.

    She may be restraining herself because dad has asked her to.

    But her statements were carefully worded to throw shade without saying anything that comes close to defamation.

    Will be interesting to see if she keeps her mouth shut.

    There are actions the palace offices can take to quietly curb the Markles behavior. Any organization will eventually protect its brand if necessary.

    Hopefully the real family trauma for Meghan will heal quickly so she can get on with her new marriage and family without distractions.

    • Citresse says:

      Your comment strongly suggests the BRF got US lawyers involved.

      • hershey says:

        I am not a lawyer. But her tweets were carefully worded to reply to the tv dad. They stayed miles away from Meghan and royal family.

        Yesterday, she threw out a couple more that put out her feelings about royal fans and the other side of the story.

        If she wrote these herself, I am amazed. Not something I would have thought her capable of.

        Yes, I think she has received some sort of warning from an attorney, or from Twitter.

        And she may have sought out some advice on what she can safely say without getting sued or booted off Twitter.

      • Leigh-Klein says:

        @ Hershey, whatever has happened, it’s safe to say she continues to stew in her own juices and is completely obsessed. Let her remain so; she’s only hurting herself, not Meghan.

      • Citresse says:

        Markle’s family of original can still be criminally charged with Harassment etc by indirect means. Then subsequent civil lawsuit. It wouldn’t be fun.

  10. Peg says:

    Vonnie was looking for an Entertaiment lawyer on Twitter to sue the Tabloids, LOL.
    Sold two of her children.
    Abused the third.
    Deadbeat about child support.
    Faked an accident.
    Will lie for money.
    Just a few of the things that are easily proven.
    Now if the tabloids, can find out if she is paying taxes on the extra money she is making by running her mouth,

    • hershey says:

      She probably needed a lawyer because she opened herself up to liability with her statements to the tabloids.

      She seems like the embodiment of self inflicted human suffering. No close ties to her mom or children, always angry, jealous of her baby sister.

      Honestly, if one could come up with a way to experience hell day in day out, she has done it.

      Her life looks pretty miserable any way you look at it.

  11. aquarius64 says:

    Sammy is shopping for a lawyer? If she’s going on Twitter she’s realized the respectable law won’t represent her AND under U.S. law Sam has the burden of proof. She has to prove in court what the tabloids wrote is not true.

    • hershey says:

      Her Twitter habits changed significantly recently.

      I think she has seen some sort of attorney.

    • InquisitiveNewt says:

      Shouldn’t she be charged with wasting police time, falsifying statements etc? That paparazzo-chase-nonsense was undeniably false, and the police themselves said so – she needs some sort of retribution, methinks.

      • hershey says:

        Had anyone else made claims like she did, they may well have received a citation.

        They police chief did issue a statement that failure to report a traffic incident is a crime.

        She may have been quietly warned. But no charges were reported.

        My guess is her local police department had no desire to get involved with Samantha hours before the wedding.

        Dealing with media circus would have cost local taxpayers if their police unit had chosen to enforce its code on false statements or failure to report an accident.

        For the sake of that community, I am glad they ignored her and let it go.

        Have no idea how things like defamation or bullying on social media are treated in Britain.

        But here, in states, Samantha has stepped over the line. Action successfully taken may include a gag order that stops defendant from talking about the legal action itself.

        Which allows someone like Meghan to put a stop to the defamation, without additional publicity.

        If Meghan hasn’t taken legal action here, she can in future.

  12. hershey says:

    Forgot to add, Meghan would probably not try to sue for damages. It would make publicity more likely.

    Meghan doesn’t need the money. She just needs to make her sister shut it.

    And if course her sister is likely to blow through her media winnings fast, she’s going to be broke again sooner rather than later.

  13. Feeshalori says:

    Loose lips sink ships and hopefully in Samantha’s case, her ship has run irrevocably aground!

  14. aquarius64 says:

    Sam is mad that she, Dad and Jr lost in the court of public opinion. The legitimate press has been putting the three of them in a bad light in its articles. The comments sections of tabloids are full with stop giving them a platform, go away, and all around blowback that the Markles were bad for business so the gossip press stopped calling them (and paying them). That’s why Sam is crying on Twitter, calling the public gullible for believing the tabloids (actually for not believing her lies).