Before anyone had time to recover from the sensation generated by the airing of the Tom Bradby interview, Holly Lynch, a 33 year old Labour MP gathered together a group of 71 other female MPs, mostly Labour like herself, to sign an open letter to Meghan on the 29th October 2019 showing solidarity. On House of Commons writing paper, it was addressed to Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex at Clarence House, which, ironically, was the first of many indications that the writers were neither as sophisticated nor as knowledgeable as the public might imagine. The Prince of Wales’s residence is Clarence House. The Sussexes’ office was then at Buckingham Palace, their home at Frogmore Cottage, so before the letter had even begun, it was setting the tone for the inaccuracies, misleading information and the genuine lack of insight into what was going on that would follow. It stated:
‘As women MPs of political persuasions, we wanted to express our solidarity with you in taking a stand against the often distasteful and misleading nature of the stories printed in our national newspapers concerning you, your character and your family.
On occasions, stories and headlines have represented an invasion of your privacy and have sought to cast aspersions about your character, without any good reason as far as we can see.
Even more concerning still, we are calling out what can only be described as outdated, colonial undertones to some of these stories. As women Members of Parliament from all backgrounds, we stand with you in saying it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
Although we find ourselves being women in public life in a very different way to you, we share an understanding of the abuse and intimidation which is now so often used as a means of disparaging women in the public office from getting on with very important work.
With this in mind we expect the national media to have the integrity to know when a story is in the national interest and when it is seeking to tear a woman down for no apparent reason.
You have our assurances that we stand with you in solidarity on this.
We will use the means at our disposal to ensure that our press accept your right to privacy and show respect, and that their stories reflect the truth.’
Meghan, of course, was delighted to receive such overt and unprecedented support. She got in touch with Ms Lynch and thanked her.
Nevertheless, there were several problems with that letter, chief of which was the accusation that the press stories were violating Meghan’s privacy, failing to show respect, and violating the truth. The press in fact had a much more accurate handle on what was going on behind the scenes that the MPs, were also confusing the more bizarre comments posted on the internet with the valid criticisms the press were making. Journalists cannot be held accountable for what takes place on the internet, but of course politicians of all complexions are always keen to muzzle the media and will leap on any bandwagon that helps to further their censoring agendas. This was therefore a classic case of politicians trying to make capital out of a situation with which, by rights, they should not have been involving themselves. The conflicts between a member of the Royal Family and the majority of the press should have been off limits to Parliamentarians, and would have been had any other member of the Royal Family been involved. Meghan Markle being an America mixed race feminist and left-wing political activist, her unique qualities were extrapolated by these MPs into giving them licence to interfere, when in fact they had neither the right nor the correct degree of information with which to intervene.
There was actually a strong case to be made that these politicians were exploiting Meghan’s identity for their own benefit and to further their own political interests. The fact that they were interposing themselves when there was a lawsuit between a member of the Royal Family and the Mail on Sunday made their actions even more indefensible. In a democracy, the right of the press to comment freely upon the actions of public figures, especially public figures who are either politicians or royals, is a fundament which needs to be protected by everyone who understands that a free press protects a free society and vice versa. Meghan had launched a lawsuit against a publication that had a valid right of response legally, and therefore the argument could be made that these politicians were abusing their positions by writing to Meghan in the terms they did.
The timing of the letter was also mischievous. Britain was a few short weeks away from a fiercely contested general election which, without exaggeration, represented the most important choice voters were required to make in a lifetime. The very soul and future of the country was at stake. Would Britain remain a centrist democracy under the sitting Prime Minister Boris Johnson, or would it become a Marxist state under the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn? Would it remain a part of the European Union or would it regain those elements of its national sovereignty that had been surrendered as a part of its membership of the European Union? Would Britain Brexit or would the voters opt for reversing their original vote to leave and remain one
