British Royal Commentators Spent Eight Years Vilifying Meghan Sussex Over Her Father. Where Are Their Apologies?

For eight years, the British press subjected Meghan Sussex to a relentless campaign of condemnation for refusing to reconcile with her estranged father, Thomas Markle Sr.

They called her selfish, cruel and heartless. They accused her of abandoning an elderly parent. And for some sinister reason, they repeatedly demanded she allow him access to her children.

Piers Morgan led the charge. Richard Eden publicly urged her to take Prince Harry and their children to visit Thomas. Angela Levin called her a “nasty daughter.” And various media outlets gave Thomas a platform to criticise her, again and again.

Now Meghan has revealed that British authorities received disturbing allegations against her father in 2018 and assured her police were investigating.

And what has Piers Morgan done with this information? Rather than acknowledge the years he spent attacking Meghan for maintaining her distance, he has simply found another reason to question her conduct.

Piers Morgan Wanted Meghan to Reconcile. Now He Wants to Know Why She Didn’t Expose Her Father.

Morgan responded to reports that Philippine authorities were investigating allegations involving suspected child sexual abuse material attributed to Thomas Markle. Writing on X, Morgan described the allegations as shocking and said Thomas should face the law if found guilty.

I’m sorry, but is Piers Morgan serious?

This is the same man who spent years demanding that Meghan reconcile with her father. On July 5, 2018, Morgan promoted a Daily Mail column urging Meghan to visit Thomas, whom he described as sick, lonely and heartbroken. A month later, on August 13, Morgan went further: “Get on a plane & go see the poor man before it’s too late.” He accused Meghan of shutting her father and other relatives out of her life.

In January 2020, he blamed Meghan for abandoning Thomas, distancing herself from former friends and contributing to the breakdown of Harry’s relationships with his family. And in December 2025, following Thomas’s leg amputation, Morgan mocked Meghan using Archewell’s charitable slogan.

These were not isolated remarks. They formed part of a sustained campaign in which Morgan portrayed Meghan’s estrangement as evidence of her supposed lack of compassion. Now, in October 2026, he wants to know why she didn’t publicly expose allegations she says British authorities were already investigating.

So Meghan was wrong to cut contact with her father, but she’s also wrong for not publicly accusing him? Which version of Meghan’s behaviour would Morgan have approved?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Morgan spent years condemning Meghan’s decision to distance herself from Thomas, yet his latest response questions why she didn’t publicly expose allegations she says police were already investigating. He has changed his argument without reconsidering his treatment of her.

Meghan Wasn’t Responsible for Conducting a Police Investigation

In her statement, Meghan revealed that someone sent a letter containing disturbing allegations against Thomas Markle Sr. to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection in 2018.

However, the Met has not confirmed receiving the letter and reportedly never investigated Thomas. Officers are now conducting internal enquiries to establish whether their royal protection unit passed the letter to Meghan.

Thomas is an American citizen who lived outside the UK, so authorities in other countries may have had primary responsibility for investigating any alleged offences committed there.

The unanswered question is who assured Meghan that authorities were investigating the allegations, and which agency was responsible.

But it does establish something important about Meghan’s understanding of the situation: she believed the relevant authorities were handling the allegations.

Richard Eden, Angela Levin and the Other Family-Loyalty Lecturers

Morgan was hardly alone in his moralising. On July 18, 2022, Daily Mail royal commentator Richard Eden marked Thomas Markle’s birthday by publicly suggesting Meghan should take Harry and their children to meet him. Eden even criticised Harry for speaking at the United Nations rather than making that family visit.

Think about that. A journalist was publicly pressuring a mother to introduce her young children to an estranged relative without knowing why she had chosen to keep them apart.

Then there is Angela Levin. In December, 2025, Levin promoted her Sky News Australia column with a post describing Meghan as a “selfish nasty daughter.” This particular criticism came as Thomas’s medical emergency generated another round of headlines about Meghan’s supposed failure to reconcile.

And Daily Mail columnist Dr Max Pemberton used Meghan’s estrangement to discuss the potential regret of allowing family disputes to remain unresolved.

These commentators repeatedly treated reconciliation as a moral obligation, regardless of the circumstances. What makes them think they know more about Meghan’s relationship with her father than Meghan herself?

Being someone’s parent does not give you an automatic right to remain in their life. And being a grandparent does not entitle you to access their children. That should never have required an explanation.

But these commentators never asked for one. They simply assumed Meghan was in the wrong, and built years of coverage on that assumption.

The British Press Had No Problem Attacking Meghan’s Mother Either

The treatment of Meghan’s father forms part of a wider pattern in British commentary about her family. Consider what happened to her mother, Doria Ragland.

In December 2025, GB News commentator Carole Malone faced backlash after falsely claiming that Doria had spent time in prison. GB News subsequently corrected the claim on air.

We previously covered both the initial controversy and the broadcaster’s correction. Here was Meghan’s mother, a private citizen, facing a false and damaging allegation on national television.

At the same time, commentators continued demanding that Meghan show greater loyalty and compassion towards her father. The contrast is difficult to ignore. Why was the British commentariat so willing to condemn Meghan’s relationship with her father while showing so little care for the damage its own coverage could inflict on her mother?

And why does a biracial woman repeatedly face such hostile moral scrutiny from commentators who appear far more interested in judging her character than understanding her circumstances?

The racial dimension of the hostility directed at her cannot simply be dismissed, particularly when her black mother has also been subjected to damaging false claims and her white father has been pedestalised for years by the media.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Feminegra (@feminegra_)

The British Press Should Examine Its Own Conduct

The current investigation is not an opportunity to declare Thomas Markle guilty. His son has made serious allegations, Philippine authorities are investigating, and Thomas Sr. denies wrongdoing.

Philippine Justice Undersecretary Nicholas Ty confirmed that a specialist anti-trafficking and online child sexual abuse task force in Cebu is investigating the allegations. Investigators must establish what happened, and any children who may have suffered harm deserve protection and justice.

But the investigation has also exposed the arrogance of a section of the British commentariat. For years, these journalists confidently told Meghan she was wrong to keep her father at a distance. They gave Thomas interviews, promoted his grievances and portrayed his daughter as the problem.

Now Meghan has revealed information that helps explain her decisions, and at least one of her most vocal critics has responded by demanding to know why she didn’t do more. The goalposts have moved, but the target remains the same. And that is precisely the problem.

Where Are the Apologies?

Piers Morgan has never hesitated to demand accountability from Meghan Sussex. This is the same commentator who publicly questioned her account of experiencing suicidal thoughts during her 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, prompting widespread criticism and his eventual departure from Good Morning Britain. Richard Eden, Angela Levin, and the other commentators who repeatedly questioned her character over her estrangement have been no different.

Perhaps it is time they applied some of those standards to themselves. Did they investigate the circumstances behind the family dispute before condemning Meghan? Did they consider that she might have private reasons for refusing contact? And did their determination to portray her negatively influence how they covered Thomas Markle?

Those are questions about their reporting, not accusations that they knew about criminal wrongdoing. An apology would not require these commentators to abandon their opinions about Meghan. It would require them to acknowledge that they judged her without knowing the full story.

After eight years of criticism, that should not be too much to ask. But don’t hold your breath. The same commentators who spent years demanding Meghan answer for Thomas Markle have shown no interest in answering for their own conduct.

And if they cannot bring themselves to apologise, perhaps they could at least stop trying to make a woman responsible for allegations against her estranged father.

The British press spent years demanding that Meghan answer for Thomas Markle. Now it should answer for the way it treated Meghan.