Duchess Meghan called MP Holly Lynch to thank her for the letter of solidarity

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attends the Royal Academy of Arts to view Oceania

I don’t have an ear for regional British accents yet, but the few times I’ve heard a Yorkshire accent, I’ve fallen in love with it. So sing-songy, everything sounds so lyrical. MP Holly Lynch has a Yorkshire accent, and we know that because she gave an interview a day after the open letter in support of the Duchess of Sussex was published. The letter of solidarity was organized by MP Holly Lynch and signed by 72 female MPs, all of whom expressed concern that the British media has been acting like a bunch of neocolonialist chucklef–ks who hate women, hate Americans and especially hate divorced biracial American women. Here’s what MP Holly Lynch had to say:

So the Duchess of Sussex called Holly Lynch personally Wednesday morning. The way Lynch says the call came from Buckingham Palace… I mean, Meghan and Harry’s office is in BP now. Was Meghan in her palace office? Did all of the Queen’s courtiers hiss at her when she walked down the hall? Anyway, here’s what Lynch said:

“Here in Westminster, I got a phone call. It was Buckingham Palace asking me was I available to speak to the Duchess of Sussex. She was calling to thank myself and other women MPs for standing with her, sending the open letter to say we as women in public office absolutely understand what she’s going through, although in very different public roles.”

“We stand with her in solidarity to say we shouldn’t be tearing down women in public life through the press or otherwise. Yes, she was pleased to have seen that letter…. As a fairly new mom myself, the challenges of both being in the public eye, managing childcare, managing public responsibilities can all be a challenge, so we did discuss that.”

“We were quite happy to stand with her and recognize that what she’s going through has on occasion had xenophobic undertones, we’re not happy about that at all. We stand with her in challenging that and we will look to do everything we can at this end if some of our national press do not have a healthier, shall we say, interest in her life,” Lynch said. When asked whether she thinks there have been colonial racist undertones in the treatment of Meghan in the press, Lynch replied: “I do. I’ve been really concerned about some of the narratives — some of the articles that have been incredibly sexist. I’m afraid that’s unacceptable in this day in age.

“She’s here, she’s married our prince, they’ve got a young son, we really want to welcome her to our society and I’m afraid not all of the articles in our national press reflect that and it’s time that stopped.”

[From People]

“She’s here, she’s married our prince, they’ve got a young son, we really want to welcome her to our society.” Hey now, don’t steal Canada’s thunder. Canada is the one known for being welcoming. We expect Britain to be snooty and judgy and pearl-clutching. But even judgy pearl-clutchers are like “whoa, maybe you shouldn’t trash this poor gauche American over every single f–king thing she does.” Anyway, what do we think about Meghan calling Holly Lynch to personally thank her? I think it’s sweet. It shows that Meghan was very aware of the letter and the conversations around the letter.

Meghan Markle launches the Smart Works capsule collection

Photos courtesy of WENN and Backgrid.

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

85 Responses to “Duchess Meghan called MP Holly Lynch to thank her for the letter of solidarity”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kittycat says:

    Honestly this is such a good step in the right direction.

    I really pray 2020 is a peaceful year for the Sussexes.

    • Monette says:

      I hope it’s a peaceful year fo ALL of us. For Syria, the UK, for the US, for my beautiful country that also has elections next year.
      We deserve it!

    • VS says:

      I am American, we respect freedom of the press……I am amazed that people in the UK seems to read trashy tabloids so much when they have options like the Economist, the FT and the Guardian. In the US, no one believes the tabloids like I see ‘some’ do in the UK.
      Meghan is not asking for lack of scrutiny but for FAIRNESS…………..why is that so hard?

      You know what the smear campaign has done? It has turned Meghan into a ‘figure’. She has eclipsed everyone in the family. The RF never learns!!! they tried the same thing with Diana and look how much bigger she became. They are doing the same thing with Meghan and now Meghan has an army of people who are rooting for her, even people who don’t care for the RF.

      There is one thing I don’t get: why can’t they all share the spotlight? why the smear campaign which escalated after the Oceania tour? why? because she is too accomplished? Black? why can’t they all be popular? or if Meghan is too popular, then other people could have benefited from that popularity. A lot of people in the RF are idiots!!!

      • heygingersnaps says:

        I don’t know why people still consume trash like sun, daily fail, even the telegraph is going on in that direction but as long as companies do business with the tabloids they will still be regurgitating trash for the might £££.
        My partner’s sister’s company where she worked for, recently launched their first paid advert in the daily fail and she was so proud about it because of how many people will see it which will hopefully translate into sales. =((

        I hope that this will make people more aware about what the tabloids and most of the mainstream media are really pushing about Meghan.

      • Erinn says:

        “In the US, no one believes the tabloids like I see ‘some’ do in the UK.”

        I mean, if that was true you wouldn’t have SO MANY of them in your news stands. The difference, I’m guessing, is that you’re not spending time with people who are super into tabloids in the US – but you’re seeing a lot of the smear campaign against Meghan and equating that with more people in the UK believing tabloids.

        That said – tons of US posters that comment on this site read the Fail. They’ll pour through the articles and the comments, and get angry about it, but they still read it. So I don’t think it’s a case of the UK being more into tabloids than the US at all – if that were true you wouldn’t have all the TMZ and National Enquirer types.

      • Guest2.0 says:

        The tabloids in the U.S. are just gossip rags that no one takes seriously. They don’t carry the same weight as the New York Times or Washington Post. Though I could be wrong, It just seems like the Sun and the Daily Mail have more significance in the U.K. I don’t know what their circulation numbers are but it just seems like they sell more than the legitimate U.K. newspapers.

      • VS says:

        @Erinn —– I understand your point but who would ever quote the Dailymail?

        Have you ever seen CNN or NYTimes or Washington Post or WSJ or any top reputable news agency quote the National Enquirer or TMZ as a source of News? those are tabloids!

        In our stands, you would find those trashs but does that mean people believe them? quote them? As I don’t understand why anyone would buy a tabloid paper, I would never get why people read stuffs like the Dailymail………To each their own I guess. yeah you can say people read those tabloids to forget about crap in their own life or to gossip but perhaps in my little bubble of the world, people don’t quote them as holder of the truth!

      • @ hey ginger snaps
        The vast majority of the articles we comment on here daily, hundreds of comments, are cited from DM, the Sun, In Touch, People etc.

        Every article is followed by comments purporting to know motivations, reactions, emotions etc. We ARE those people (myself included as I visit here several times a day).

        And yes, people in the US believe tabloid BS as much as the UK, if we didn’t it would t be such huge industry.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think part of the problem is that when it comes to royal news, the line seems blurred. Obviously there is still some serious royal reporting with concrete sources and the like. And obviously some royal stories are complete tabloid BS. But when the reporters from the Sun, Mail, Express, etc are the ones who go on the royal tours, attend the royal events, etc – I think its harder to separate them from the pure tabloid stories.

      • Nic919 says:

        Many of the royal reporters work for these tabloids and certainly act like they are putting out real stories. That’s the difference. Whereas People and national Enquirer always put out anonymous articles, people like Dan Wootton, Emily Andrews and Phil Dampier act like they are at the same level as Woodward and Bernstein.

      • Erinn says:

        VS

        I mean, if people didn’t believe it, would they buy it? I know what you’re saying, but there’s a reason that the tabloid industry thrives in the US. People DO believe it. No, it might not be considered the same as a higher caliber magazine… but the people buying them are probably not also buying those ‘better’ news sources. And like AllKindsofSugar said – people quote the fail all the time. Between the articles themselves and the comments on them, people are absolutely quoting them as fact (at least when it’s insulting someone they don’t like). Sometimes they’re quoting them to disprove them, but there are a lot of people who do take it to heart. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t think there’s this huge divide between the US and the UK when it comes to tabloids. I will agree with Becks in that there is a weird overlap between the journalists in the UK and the kind of stories that are being put out which does put a weird spin on it- but I’m going to say for the layman, there just isn’t that kind of big divide between nations.

      • bamaborn says:

        You are so correct, VS. I’m still shaking my head at the myopic view of this family. You want to be relevant, I assume; over a billion POC make up your Commonwealth, yet you spend your time trying to tear down the most innovative member that family has seen years? *smh*

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        The Telegragh, hired Camilla Tominey from the tabloid, Daily Express as their Royal reporter, hence the trash you read in some of the broadsheets.

      • Nahema says:

        I don’t know much about the tabloid presence in the US vs UK but I do know that it’s only a relatively small percentage of people in the UK who consume and believe what they read but there is enough of them to have an impact. Tabloids are basically entertainment. They’re shocking and dramatic and that’s what sells.

        It does genuinely surprise me that so many people on here seem to read them and then come straight to the comments section to report what they’e read over and over again. If you don’t like it, why read it?

        Also it’s quite clear that sites like the Daily Mail cater to a fairly strong US audience base too. I’ve spent time living in the US, so I’m familiar with certain public figures that Brits are not. For example I saw an article about Seth Meyers the other day and frequently read things about SNL. The average Brit has no idea what SNL is or who Seth Meyers is. Certainly not the typical British audience who would be reading and buying into the narratives that the Daily Mail sell. That can only mean that the DM is viewing the US audience as important

  2. Sofia says:

    I think it’s sweet. I’m sure the courtiers would have liked her to ignore it but if she did then she would have been accused of being ungrateful

    She’s continuously been stuck between a rock and a hard place as whatever she does is criticised

    • Mignionette says:

      I had this same thought. However conventions or protocols aside the right think to do was be grateful regardless. I am glad she called Holly up because the main crux of her hurt during that interview was that no one had asked how she was and that letter was indeed an answer to that haunting interview.

      That interview will forever be a stain on the RF. Ignoring the press in one thing but not supporting your newest member and then actively throwing them under the bus to protect a pedophile is another.
      I think that is why that letter was sent by female MPS as (1) an act of female solidarity for a fellow new mother in the public eye and (2) to acknowledge that they know why Meg has become collateral damage (references to disparaging her character despite Andrew’s behavior).

  3. LahdidahBaby says:

    Such a welcome voice in the midst of the recent hateful tabloid commentary about Meghan, and the conspicuous silence of members of the BRF who might have offered her a bit of comfort and support, even if indirectly. I hope this gives her some sense of being welcomed there, if only by some.

  4. Bella DuPont says:

    The haters are aghast at the level of support they’ve managed to drum up for Meghan. Ma Middleton, FFK William, Piss Morgan et al, it’s probably time to go back to the drawing board and re-strategise

    • Mignionette says:

      They won’t win this one. They may have their loyal rabid following at the Heil which according to leading internet sleuths is 80% troll farm comments but they are still struggling to convince the majority of the British public who care to be inquisitive that this is anything other than a carefully orchestrated smear.

      They will rue the day they came for Meg.

      Also for a long time now I’ve had the theory that the only reason Sh*t Stain Morgan does Murdoch’s bidding is because Murdoch has so much dirt on him. And I’m not talking about hacking dead school girls phones or Abu Grade schtick, I’m talking Epstein level dirt.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      @ Mignionette

      So many great points here.

      - 20 computers are generating 80% of the hateful comments. Literally the real life, 80/20 rule at work. Also, did you know that the Daily Fail repeat whole chunks of their comments to inflate the numbers? Yes, they do.

      - “They will rue the day they came for Meg”. Christ, I can’t tell you how desperately I want this to be true. Especially for Piss Morgan. Here’s a little schadenfreude treat for you, if you’re in a bitchy mood (tee hee):

      (Wear your tin foil hat please, as I have mine on)
      - I have the same conspiracy theory as you Ie Piers is being weaponised against Meghan by specific forces behind the scenes. Piers was initially firmly behind Meghan, praising her and even defended her rigorously against her sister.

      And then there was the *abrupt* shift where he suddenly started abusing her. Viciously. And it’s only escalated since then. It reminds me of how Trump was initially a fan of Obama’s and even praised him lavishly. Until the very abrupt, inexplicable, never ending attacks started. (My theory is that he was instructed and directed by Russia in retaliation for calling Russia a regional power.)

      I also believe in this case, that some of these royal reporters have been weaponised against Meghan in the same way. The viciousness of the attacks, how incredibly personal they are, the way they continuously escalate in aggression and finally how inexplicable they are……..it’s all starting to feel very familiar Ie, the way the powers that be (Russia, the human Mr Burns, Rupert Murdoch etc) use compromat to weaponise loud mouth Celebrities against their enemies.

      It’s not organic. It’s very carefully orchestrated AND very well funded.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Bella DuPoint agree with everything you said. But, I will add that Sh*t Stain’s tactics changed after he realised the ratings he was getting. I think he wanted to humiliate Meghan and break her early.

        Harry made a very poignant comment about not playing media games that lead to his mother’s death and that comment is very accurate. The background to that story is that PM had hounded Diana for YEARS and accelerated that hounding after the split with Charles. Eventually Diana invited Sh*t Stain to KP after which he wrote a few ‘nicer’ articles about her and then went back to his old tricks (presumably to keep the pipe line open).

        Edited to add she was dead within 2 (maybe 3) months of that initial meeting with PM.

        Back to the present day and PM was still smarting from the loss of his show in the US . He had also recently joined GMTV but was still to hit his stride ratings wise and was struggling with his following on SM.

        Then along came Meghan…

        Also just to add that prior to Meghan and Harry going public Camilla Too-Many Gin and Tonics broke the story about Harry and Meghan. Yet BIZARRELY … Shit Stain also claims to have met Meg on the night of her fateful date with Prince Harry….(*TIN FOIL HAT SCREAMING*)…

        My guess is that Harry’s phone was being tapped again (as recently confirmed by the lawsuit) and Camilla contacted a journo with ‘existing’ links to Meg to arrange a pre-date meet up which would appear natural under the guise of establishing a media relationship (which Meg had been canvassing for at the time)…

        Instead she later got the tea from Harry about what a POS Mr Shit Stain Morgan really was and cut him off. Or maybe even at that point Meg and Harry were already dating and he put 2+2 together and realised he was being hacked….

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Mignionette:

        Wow…..your conspiracy theory is much better than mine and even ties in quite nicely with a very recent event – the lawsuit.

        So do you think Harry will have to spell out this sequence of events in his lawsuit for it to count?

        Follow up question: Given the fact that shit stain has written upwards of 50 abusive articles about Meghan, would she be entitled to sue him for harassment? Because if he were an ex boyfriend for example, or a colleague, reacting this way in retaliation over being rejected, surely the police would be investigating for harassment? If yes, then why can’t Meghan sue his ass?

        (All genuine questions I’ve been asking and no one seems to know the answer)

      • Mignionette says:

        @Bella – I think yes there will be some ground laying which will be supported by the evidence that Harry and other victims have been provided with. A good forensic media analyst will interview (depose) Harry and the hacker and from that it’ll be easy peasy to build up a timeline of events. I have ALWAYS found it odd that Piers ‘CLAIMS’ he met Meg at that time despite keeping her on the backburner on social media for months. I suspect he thought she was just another US starlet on the make and he only realised he was onto a scoop when alerted by Camilla. Problem is he can’t tell that story as it implicates him so he goes with the ghosting one instead
        Printing Meg’s letter was a litmus test to see how far they could go in revealing hacking details hence why Meg is suing to put a marker in the sand.
        Re harassment shyt stain will ague that is a public persona and that she is a very high profile public person. Bar defaming her he’s free to borderline harass with impunity.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Mignionette

        Harry’s suing the Sun and the Mirror; Camilla “🙄broke🙄” the story while at The Express….wouldn’t he be suing the Express for the hacking in that case? Or do they use outside agents for their more nefarious activities?

      • Mignionette says:

        @Bella DuPont – I have no idea why he is suing some papers over others. Maybe Schillings feel that particular actions have a greater prospect of success. For example in the case of the Sun, the Sussexes have already won a substantial amount of damages earlier this year under a privacy action relating to their Great Tew House in Oxforshire.
        They may also be targeting specific figures i.e. Shyt Stain Morgan.

      • And here’s another sad twist; Mick Jaggers’ former wife, Jerry Hall, is married to Murdoch. She obviously doesn’t have a problem with his ethics Makes me sick to see Jagger and his kids all smiley-faced with Murdoch and Hall. I never really cared for Jagger or Hall, but her marrying Murdoch puts a whole other take on how ‘cool’ she is and how liberal she has always insisted she is.

      • indiesr says:

        I totally agree with all that you have stated.

    • bamaborn says:

      Yes, Bella! Karma usually catch up with small my minded people. Hope this case is no exception.

  5. Lorelei says:

    Meghan is a class act!

  6. Becks1 says:

    Of course she called, because that’s what Meghan does. In the midst of all this criticism and nastiness, she is proving that she is gracious, considerate, and appreciative. How anyone can think she pitched a fit over a tiara at this point is beyond me.

    • Mignionette says:

      That story has always been and always will be nonsensical.

      The level of petty of these smears bears a direct correlation to the boneheads making up/ selling the smears. It’s also insulting to women in this day and age that they believe we still care of give a shyte about these cat fights.

      • Becks1 says:

        It’s nonsensical but its also interesting to me to think about. Like, do we think it was completely made up? If I wanted to make Meghan seem as spoiled and diva-like as possible, having her pitch a fit over a tiara seems like it fits the bill.

        but it was such an oddly specific story released after Eugenie’s wedding about how Meghan wanted an emerald tiara and was told no – after Eugenie wore an emerald tiara. That makes me think that the story, while not entirely true, was leaked by someone (Andrew?) to emphasize Eugenie’s place above Meghan’s.

      • Mego says:

        Becks1, I maintain that lie originated from KP because it was quickly followed by the Meghan made Kate cry lie. Not that Andrew isn’t above that sort of thing but rather he really didn’t have much to gain from doing it. The Yorks aren’t popular and will never be popular.

        The Cambridges however? So much going on there with jealousy, competitiveness and needing a distraction from rosebushes.

      • Nic919 says:

        Dan Wootton was the one who brought us tiara gate. It was his exclusive. His links to Simon Case, press secretary to the Cambridges, have been confirmed. And this story came out right at the tail end of the Oceania tour, when popularity for Harry and Meghan was very high.

      • MsIam says:

        Agree, I can’t see her pitching a fit over a tiara when the queen has a plethora of tiaras available. I mean diamonds, come on, it would be like being a kid in a candy store. The only thing I can think of is that they told her it was ok to have that tiara and then at the last minute said nope, you can’t have it without giving her a good reason. The story put out that the tiara had an unknown or shady history would have been known before she picked it. That whole thing just seems like a trumped up excuse to bash Meghan.

      • Becks1 says:

        @mego – that’s a good point. The only reason I think Andrew is plausible is because he was so invested in Eugenie’s wedding as a “real” royal wedding and her status as a blood princess. But, you could be right too because it did come out as part of the onslaught of stories about how demanding and mean Meghan is, and most of those were pretty obviously from KP (like the whole made-Kate-cry thing.)

        @MsIam – that’s the ONLY thing I can think, if we want to believe the story is even 1% true. And I don’t mean I think she pitched a fit, but I could see her picking out that tiara, and then being told later that Eugenie wanted to wear it so she couldn’t wear it. It would be easy to spin that into the story that became “Tiara-gate.”

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Becks

        Following on from your theory (which I think is very plausible), of Meghan’s emerald choice being turned down at the last minute over Eugenie’s emerald choice… a thought just occurred to me…..remember Meghan matched Diana’s sapphire ring with the soles of her custom Aquazurra shoes as well as to the baby blue classic convertible car? Clearly a lot of thought and effort had gone into those details.

        What if Meghan had chosen an Emerald tiara and had a similar *theme* built around it, only to be thwarted at the last minute? Surely, that would have elicited *some* sort of reaction, which would have then been dialed up to *TANTRUM!!!*

    • Beli says:

      That story has always been ridiculous.

      It also completely contradicts the narrative that Meghan is cold, calculating and ruthless. Someone like that wouldn’t be stupid enough to throw a tantrum over a tiara when there was a longer term play.

      Instead, Meghan has shown herself to be gracious and classy.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        The silly tiara story was started by, Rob Jobson, to promote his Charles at 70 book, which sold poorly, even though it is not in his book. Think folks, the Queen invites Meghan, accompanied by Harry, to pick up a tiara, the queen is not going to let you choose one, only to say no. It’s like a friend inviting you to come and take a pick of a handbag from her collection, she would only bring out the collection, she wants you to choose from, so why would she say no, when she was the one who invited you to choose. The other theory is that, Eugene and her dad must have eyed the emerald for Eugene’s upcoming Wedding, and so the courtiers, went in and straight away told Meghan you can’t have this, and that infuriated Harry, who found it ridiculous, hence; what Meghan wants is what Meghan gets. Knowing Meghan now, and her simplicity of her clothes and even jewelleries, I doubt, she would have chosen the emerald. Harry said, The Queen Mary Bandeau, was the perfect fit, infact The Queen wore the matching earings on that day. The story is petty and BS. It was an orchestrated smear from KP, including the one about Kate’s Staff around Christmas.

    • Rogue says:

      I definitely think Andrew/Fergie were behind the tiara story. I think it was in the Times originally& I remember Low admitting some of it didn’t make sense when challenged on Twitter& then blocking people.

      And it’s interesting that they claimed Meghan threw the diva strop but no quotes from her but that one from Harry. A quote that is very similar to one allegedly used by William during his wedding prep and used to describe Kate’s prep to have George so could be fan fiction. Was interesting it emerged after Eugenie’s wedding where she had that gorgeous green tiara and after Harry&Meghan had recorded their version of getting the tiara. So could have been part of putting Meghan ‘ in her place’ showing a blood princess got tiara she wanted.

      Reminds me Harry said he wasnt meant to be at tiara meeting but he was. I wonder if that points to some in the palace being off with her from the start& him being present to ensure she’d be treated respectfully.

      @mignionette&Becks interesting theory on Morgan. I read in a Marie Claire article on royal reporting that it was a freelancer that sold the story of the harry&meghan relationship to Camilla. I think Camilla said she had stumbled on it. I wonder if the freelancer came across it via illegal means.

      • Mignionette says:

        @Rogue – yes that makes sense now. My guess is that ‘freelancer’ is also code for ‘hacking’. After-all why would ANY freelancer no matter how inconsequential give up a career making story like that ?

  7. Becks1 says:

    Also it was obvious how much that letter meant to Meghan, Jessica Mulroney tweeted it pretty much immediately.

  8. (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

    What I find telling, and frankly surprising, is that MALE MPs are keeping their mouths shut! Where is THEIR support? Is it pure misogyny? More than a dash of xenophobia? What about the LIBERAL (male) MPs? Why aren’t they speaking up, too?

    • VS says:

      That’s actually not entirely accurate. I have seen some of them support the letter; not many you would say but I think I saw maybe 2-3 so you are right it is not enough but a very select few did

    • Silas says:

      I saw on Twitter that at least one did. I don’t remember who it was.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Thanks for the info, VS and Silas. And you’re right: 2-3 out of ALL those male MPs is nothing. It’s insulting and incredulous to ALL of their female constituents.

    • Jegede says:

      Actually Holly gave an interview to Sky, where she stated male MPs have very much calling her with support.

      But she preferred the focus to be on women.

      It should be noted that only 4 Tory Female MPs signed this.

      Something to think about here.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        There are more Labour female MPs, than any other Party. Not signing does not mean they don’t support, I have heard some who support the letter, but are not on the list. Mind you, all those on the list will bare the brunt of these tabloids, so I don’t blame those who did not sign. 72 is a good decent number, we will take even 1 support.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      One of the MPs who signed said, some of the male MPs were saying why weren’t they asked, they would have put in their support . It was an oversight. All the same brilliant !

  9. Lara says:

    As more female MPs are standing down because of the abuse they receive online, I think this letter was very timely.

    Also last night I searched for this interview on twitter and… people really need to get a grip on their hatred for Meg. Racism and internal misogyny much.

  10. Pineapple says:

    Yay Meghan support!!!! I honestly wonder what the narrative would look like without all the far right bots and such. How many actual humans are responding to these articles versus hired or paid bots? I suspect the narrative would look much different without the right and its control or influence of the media. True journalism is fact based. This is not that. This is propaganda to further certain interests. Propaganda pure and simple. They need to be taken to court, this is so unethical and immoral.

  11. Ladiabla says:

    Wow MP Holly Lynch looks really young to me, is there no age requirement for MPs? If not, that’s really cool, and I love what she says here, it’s incredibly to the point. It’s heartening to see that Meghan is finally getting a show of support from her new fellow countrywomen, and I’m sure she appreciates that some of the smart, mentally tough women of the UK have her back.

  12. bub244 says:

    Meghan always seems to take the classiest possible option. Very cool.

  13. Keira says:

    How about a 1-day or 1-week boycott of the publications in question, including no quotes, links, etc.??

  14. Mignionette says:

    Becks here is my take on the tiara story (which I suspect was engineered by Paedo Andy based on his Narc projections);

    Eugenie and Jack were asked to hang back and allow Meg and Harry to get engaged and marry first. In the run up to the wedding Meg is offered a selection of tiaras including the Emerald Tiara. She either chooses the Emerald Tiara or has it on her shortlist (judging from her wedding colour scheme). Andrew is still smarting from Eugenie being relegated a la Princess Margaret, so goes to Mummy and demands some sort of quid pro quo. Andy also later makes a meal of having the Emerald Tiara and Mummy backs down to keep Andy Happy.

    Harry loses his royal shyt and wants to know why the colour scheme of his wedding is being wrecked, tells a few courtier to fux right off (Whatever Meg wants she gets….). The whole shyt show leads to Waity being caught in the cross fire and she weaponises her pregnant white woman who’s husband is playing in other Rose bush tears. But Meghan gets blamed bc that sells copy and Hazza is the nation’s sweetheart who is loveable for being a bit of lad, so lets hang Meg out to dry…

    The rest is RR make believe to shift copy and smear Meg to she sits up and starts attending the RR coffee mornings a La Waity to give them exclusives…

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes that makes the most sense to me. I think Meghan may have picked that tiara, and then was told she couldn’t use it, Eugenie was going to use it – and I think that might have been what happened bc the two tiaras are REALLY similar.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I doubt Eugenie and Jack were asked not to announced their engagement because of Harry and Meghan. I think out of deference to her newly-single/dumped sister, Eugenie and Jack decided in 2016 they wouldn’t marry anytime soon. If Beatrice hadn’t broken up with Dave in summer 2016, we would have seen Eugenie and Jack marry in spring 2017. Or we’d have seen both Beatrice and Eugenie marry in 2017, one spring and one fall.

      • Mignionette says:

        Notasugar that is exactly my point. Eugenie and Jack were due to marry around the same time-frame as Meg and Harry and Royal weddings are traditionally in the spring. Also BP likely wanted to monetize the fanfare from Meg & Harry over the summer of 2018 so it made sense to push Meg and Harry’s wedding forward. I also remember reading something to this effect at the time. The announcements were LITERALLY weeks apart when you take into account the RF xmas break period (Harry – 27th November and Eugenie – 22nd January).
        Eugenie could not announce any later that year as the RF then took their break after the Prince Harry announcement so instead it was made as soon as the RF were back from their xmas break.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think they were planning to marry in late 2016 or early 2017. They would have chosen to push it back themselves because of Beatrice, not Harry and Meghan. It was obvious to many that Harry and Meghan would be announcing their engagement the second her contract with Suits was up. With her visa situation, she may have had six months from the issuing of that visa to get married. I remember her popping in to Chicago at some point after their announcement, something to do with her visa.

        Not all of their weddings are spring. They’ve done spring, summer, and fall. Even a couple of winter ones (Victoria and Albert). Since Eugenie is not a working royal, when royals take their breaks from work doesn’t apply to her engagement announcement or her wedding. Andrew’s office could issue an announcement at any time, he’s not required to stop working for 6 weeks in winter. It would have been better for the royals if Eugenie got married during one of those breaks, since she is not a working royal. August/Sept in Scotland, winter at Sandringham or Windsor. Fewer public complaints, but Andy had to have whatever he wanted.

        Eugenie could have announced any time in 2016 and had a spring, summer, fall 2017 wedding. She could have married at Windsor for Christmas 2016 or 2017, nothing stopping her except Beatrice’s situation. No matter what Andrew wanted, Eugenie’s was never going to be a wedding as big or important as Harry’s, no matter which married first.

        Since Harry just did a video bit with Ed Sheeran at Eugenie’s house, I don’t see her having problems with Harry and Meghan, wedding timing, etc.

    • Mego says:

      A motive that is plausible to me would be that Andrew was deluded enough to think that Eugenie’s wedding was going to somehow make the York brand great similar to when the Yorks enjoyed a surge in popularity over30 years ago. Then Meghan comes along and totally upstages them with the pregnancy announcement. Boom Andrew goes into a narcissistic rage and gets his revenge. Plausible certainly but still connecting the dots to KP. At the end of the day it’s William and Kate’s toes that the Sussexes are stepping on.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Andrew is known to be pompous, self-important and stupid. Not a good combo. I’ve always thought that the silly tiara story came of his camp because his ego was bruised.

  15. BC says:

    I love the support very much. Its dignified yet delivers the point. I love that they said theyll give her the necessary support from where they stand. I hope a law is passed. Only thing i cant understand is the absence of (or is it fear of using ) the word “racism”. Meghans attacks were racist and no one is daring to say it, not even the Sussexes themselves. Its weird to me.

    • What. . .now? says:

      Their nod to “racism” was the use of “Colonialism” — which is essentially the lofty way of saying “racism.”

  16. Marie says:

    I have a hard time believing Meghan would want an Emerald Tiara because she never wears colored jewelry. The tiara she wore was very fitting for her.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think it was an option considering the colour scheme of her wedding. Her mother was wearing green and so was the Queen.
      The pictures were also taken in the green room.

    • Becks1 says:

      The only reason I give that story ANY credence (and when I say that, I don’t mean I think Meghan threw a tantrum, but I could see that she had picked Eugenie’s tiara first) is bc the tiaras are so similar. Meghan’s dress was so simple, and while that tiara was gorgeous on her, I think of how that emerald tiara Eugenie wore would have POPPED against Meghan’s entire ensemble that day while still being classic and chic.

      Another possibility is that Andrew (or someone) heard talk that Eugenie’s tiara was similar to Meghans, and wanted it known that EUGENIE had first pick, not Meghan.

      I dunno. The tiara story sticks in my craw because it seems so oddly specific and so easily proven wrong. that’s the kind of story where KP (bc they were under KP at the time) could have easily offered a statement saying “The Duchess wore the tiara of her choice and was happy to be offered so many options” or something. KP has denied plenty of unfavorable Kate stories, so denying that one would have been normal IMO. The fact that they didn’t tells me there must be some truth somewhere, but I don’t think any of us think Meghan threw a fit over a tiara (especially considering that we rarely see her in big jewels like that. She seems to prefer smaller, more layered looks.) So, its interesting to me.

      • Mego says:

        Let’s parse it some more then 😀

        This was really the first post marriage smear so perhaps it wasn’t a great concern to anyone. Just an annoying tabloid story so keep your chin up etc. I’m certain Harry and Meghan never imagined a smear campaign to plant the narrative that Meghan was an uppity diva duchess would ensue.

        Also if the smear came from the Cambridges KP isn’t going to lift a finger to counter the story just like no effort was made to refute any negative Meghan story unless it made Kate look bad.

        In light of the many horrible things that have been said about her and the fact her family were even brought in to pile on her, I have no difficulty dismissing the entire story as bollocks. Bullies are very good at coming up with weirdly specific stories to turn public opinion against their victims. That’s part of the reason bullying is such a powerful force for evil. Meghan wore the tiara she wanted period.

        Just an aside but I’m betting there will be no fab four pap stroll at Sandringham this Christmas. Meghan and Harry publicly stated they refuse to play games with the press. In private they are going to refuse to keep up appearances with the firm as well.

      • A says:

        IF this is true, and I’m honestly inclined to believe that it isn’t, then I think the likely issue was that Meghan probably expressed disappointment over not getting first dibs over the emerald tiara, and someone took that and ran with it. However, I refuse to believe that the emerald tiara was ever on option for Meghan. If Eugenie had first dibs, then it would have been Eugenie’s to begin with, and Meghan would never have even gotten wind of it being a possibility for her to wear. I don’t think the Queen, who is always so conscious of things like this, would permit something like this to happen. If Meghan had chosen the emerald tiara first, then it would have been hers alone, and there’s no way anyone could have made her give it back without seeming like a bunch of children. I think Meghan chose the diamonds because it was ultimately a cleaner, simpler look of the type she preferred.

    • Mary says:

      I do remember it being reported that Meghan’s favourite coloured stone is the emerald. This was said well before the engagement (when there was speculation thereon and what kind of ring Harry would get). I also see the emerald tiara that Eugenie wore falling nicely within Meghan’s preferences for simplicity of line in design. It is a gorgeous tiara that would have gone very well with her wedding dress.

      As for the veracity of tiara-gate….I believe that she chose the emerald tiara, Eugenie wanted it and Meghan had to defer to Eugenie’s wishes. The bit about the tantrum, I am sure, was made up to make Meghan look bad.

      Also, it was not Wootton I thought that started the story, as someone has said, but rather Valentine Low of the Times (usually a royal family source and not one for gossip). He was emphatic in stating that it was true and he is the one that said he had a source very close to the Queen (which leads me to think it was Angela Kelly). The tiara story was then later confirmed by others including Wootton and Tatler.

  17. Beech says:

    The tiara story puzzled me. I didn’t believe she gained entrance to the tiara room, whatever, and had free rein to choose. But that she was presented with a preselected number of tiaras from which to choose. Coming ino the British royal family can only be many levels of daunting and that she would throw a tantrum over a tiara “You can’t wear the emerald tiara, you’ll have to make do with the damond,” Meghan, “Ok.”) is beggars belief.

    • A says:

      I agree. I don’t think that Meghan had any access to all of what was in “the vault” so to speak. Even the Queen herself doesn’t know the depths of what’s in there, and she’s never bothered to find out. I think the Queen has people who take stock of this stuff for her, and they present her with a list, and she directs them to dispense items and provide options as necessary.

  18. Digital Unicorn says:

    Holly’s veiled threats to the press was everything and something am sure she will follow through on – things have NOT changed with them since the Leveson Inquiry, they are still as vile as always.

    Something needs to be done about Morgan and the Fail, who have been leading on the attacks of Meghan and female MP’s.

    And I would not be surprised to find that they (the tabloids) were hacking phones again!!

  19. Tourmaline says:

    Tiara story: If it is has any validity my theory has been that the source is Angela Kelly the Queen’s personal assistant, dressmaker, and jewelry keeper.

    See the other post today about Angela Kelly breaking in new shoes for the Queen, per Angela’s new book, yes she is an employee of the palace but allowed to make money and publish books about the Queen. She’s clearly in a very special position with Her Maj and could be one of those more-royal-than-the-royals type senior courtiers who would like to put Meghan down.

    • Abena Asantewaa says:

      Please let’s not aquire more enemies for Meghan, The Queen wears The Royal Crown. Jewells. Meghan nor any of the royals cannot wear The Queen’s jewells. This is the sort of speculation the tabloid exploits against Meghan. Leave Angela Kelly alone, she is writing about the Queen’s fashion, vetted by the queen. Don’t let us muddy the waters.

    • Mary says:

      If Angela Kelly did not want “to put Meghan down” then how would we know about her having implied to Meghan to wear a hat on her engagement with the Queen (by telling her that the Queen would wear one, huh??!) and that Meghan broke protocol by not doing so? This came out at the same time that there was an article about tiara-gate that was attributed to Angela Kelly (that was later edited to omit her name). Also, as I noted above, the tiara story started with Valentine Low of the Times who said that he had a source at Buckingham palace that is very close to the Queen.

      Who is one person at BP that would be involved in any tiara choice and is very close to the Queen? Angela Kelly.

  20. Rogue says:

    Yeah @mignionette when I read that article it didn’t make sense to me why this freelancer would sell that exclusive.

    Not sure of sales for tabloids in US press& if politicians give interviews in them but in Britain the Sun and the Mail are the top sellers. They are included in news reviews& politicians launch their election manifestos etc in these papers so despite being trashy& liberal with facts, they are given undue credibility and prominence.

  21. A says:

    This is such a tremendously good thing, and it’s actually a big deal, a bigger deal than maybe people realize. It says a lot that a whole bunch of these elected representatives are standing up and saying that they see the discrimination and will not tolerate it. It means that there are definitely parts of the establishment that actually care about this stuff, which means that the sputtering pearl clutchers over at the palace can’t continue to act like Meghan and Harry are stepping out of line and going rogue anymore.

    Also, speaking of pearl clutchers, Holly Lynch is a Labour MP. From Yorkshire. She worked in a fast food joint to put herself through school. She is a great deal of remarkable things, but she is most definitely not a snooty pearl-clutching posh aristocrat. There are a lot of reasons why what Holly Lynch did is a big deal, but the biggest reason is the fact that she’s a working class white woman from the north of the country, standing firmly in solidarity with a biracial American. That matters a lot.

    Finally, “Canada is the one known for being welcoming.” PFFFFFFFFT Yeah okay. Tell that to Jason Kenney/Francois Legault/Andrew Scheer/Doug Ford/Faith Goldy/Lynn Beyak/[insert idiotic politician of the day from Canada here]. “Welcoming.” Sure Jan.

  22. Abby says:

    I bet Meghan wrote some thank-you cards as well. That’s her style.

    I’m so happy these women stood up for her!

  23. Sass says:

    I’m just over here rolling my eyes at how the BRF is treating Meghan. As previous posters pointed out, did they forget what happened when they allowed/ordered the British press to smear Diana uncontrollably? She eclipsed them all and became a modern day living Saint. It took them decades to recover from that and here they are allowing it to happen all over again. They didn’t learn.

    • A says:

      I firmly believe that for Diana, it wasn’t so much the cheating that her husband engaged in, but the lack of overall respect that she received from the royal family that motivated her to take the actions that she did. They had no compassion for her. They called her crazy, told her that her mental illness issues were simply attention seeking behaviour, and treated her with very little kindness. The cheating and the disrespect was the icing on that cake for Diana, and I think she really did make a lot of effort to expose their cruelty and lack of care in that regard, and succeeded remarkably.