I’ve been reading the coverage of Thomas Markle’s reported arrest, and I keep coming back to how much his daughter is being expected to explain.
Whatever anyone thinks of Meghan, being publicly connected to allegations this serious through your father would be awful. Having strangers assess your reaction, question your decisions and discuss the implications for your business adds another layer of distress. Before getting into the communications strategy, I think it is worth remembering that there is a person experiencing this.
On 6 November, the Associated Press reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that Thomas Markle had been arrested by federal agents in Florida on charges relating to child sexual abuse material. He has previously denied the allegations. The legal process must establish the facts; an arrest is not a finding of guilt. Associated Press, Sky News
For Meghan, however, public judgement does not wait for that process.
What I told the i Paper
I spoke to the i Paper on 23 October, following Meghan’s initial statement. My concern was that people would question why she had not spoken sooner without appreciating the position she described being in.
As I said in the article, some people “won’t necessarily appreciate the incredibly difficult position she was in, or the fact that she says she was assured the allegations were being investigated”.
That distinction matters. Being informed of allegations is different from knowing whether they are true. Being assured that authorities are investigating does not mean having access to their findings. Being related to someone accused does not make you responsible for conducting an investigation yourself.
The newspaper also reported that Meghan had been advised that speaking publicly about the earlier allegations could have jeopardised a subsequent investigation. That context deserves consideration before anyone confidently declares what she should have done. It’s easy to judge someone’s decisions retrospectively when you have none of their uncertainty and bear none of the consequences.
When every response becomes another criticism
Unfortunately, people who already dislike Meghan may use this against her. That is particularly cruel because it places her in a situation where she is expected to answer for allegations concerning someone else.
Someone determined to interpret her negatively can make almost any response fit. If she speaks, she is seeking attention. If she remains quiet, she is hiding something. Continuing to work becomes evidence of insensitivity; stepping back becomes an invitation to accuse her of wanting sympathy. From a communications perspective, this creates a problem. Her team could exhaust themselves responding to criticism without addressing any legitimate information gap. Each explanation could simply become the starting point for another accusation.
I would distinguish between people asking reasonable questions and those whose opinion is already fixed. Clear information can help the first group. Increasingly personal disclosures are unlikely to satisfy the second.
She should not have to keep revealing painful details to prove that she is sufficiently distressed.
What Meghan has already done
Meghan’s statement expressed concern for children who may have been harmed and explained that protecting her children informed her decision to keep her father away from them. She also described receiving earlier allegations through the police and being assured they were being investigated. The i Paper
That was a substantive response. Further developments may require an update, but they do not automatically require her to explain her entire family history again. Accuracy will matter. Her original account referred to 2018; the Met subsequently confirmed receiving the letter in January 2019, and her spokesperson acknowledged that she may have been mistaken about the date. Her advisers should check any future chronology against available records. PA reporting via AOL
There are also questions for the authorities. The police watchdog confirmed an investigation into the Met’s failure to pass the earlier allegations to relevant overseas agencies. Meghan cannot answer for those institutional decisions. Sky News
What I would advise now
Following the reported arrest, I would assess whether a brief statement is necessary once the details have been verified. It should acknowledge the seriousness of the development, express concern for anyone harmed and avoid speculation about the ongoing case.
I would be cautious about a major interview. Explaining everything might feel appealing after years of being misunderstood, but it would generate more material for public analysis while the facts are still developing. She deserves time to decide what she wants to share.
Behind the scenes, I would keep communications coordinated through one authorised spokesperson. Friends offering supportive comments can inadvertently create conflicting accounts of her feelings. Her team should correct meaningful inaccuracies without responding to every unkind opinion. Her established work also deserves context. The Archewell Foundation’s Parents’ Network launched publicly in 2024 to support families affected by online harm. That work predates these allegations and should continue with participating families’ needs at its centre. 5Rights Foundation
I would strongly discourage presenting this situation as an opportunity to improve her reputation. Even sympathetic talk of “vindication” risks turning allegations involving children into a contest over who was right about Meghan.
Compassion should not depend on popularity
In the i Paper, I also noted that the Royal Family has established “the principle that one family member shouldn’t be judged by the actions or alleged actions of another”, referencing the controversies surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
That principle must apply consistently. Allegations against her father cannot reasonably become evidence against Meghan’s character because someone already dislikes her.
There can be compassion for her alongside concern for anyone who may have been harmed. Neither requires abandoning scrutiny or prejudging the investigation. Perhaps this should also encourage more humility about estranged families. We rarely know what maintaining contact costs someone, what information they hold or why a boundary exists. People should not have to publish their most painful experiences to make their decisions acceptable to strangers.
Good crisis management should protect the person experiencing the crisis. For Meghan, that means communicating carefully, allowing her advisers to handle enquiries and recognising that she does not owe the public unlimited access to her distress.