A woman who has been cheated on has a complex social role to play – she must be devastated, dignified and instantly unforgiving (banishing the sexual miscreant), as though she’s been given Gloria Gaynor’s I Will Survive to act out in some ghastly, very public round of emotional charades. No one knows this more than Hillary Clinton, who, in some eyes, committed a heinous feminist faux pas by forgiving her husband, Bill, for his multiple infidelities.

Instead of the “Go on now, go – walk out the door!” narrative that is practically the cheatee-national anthem, Hillary “stood by her man”, even as she denied becoming a Tammy Wynette caricature. She has been relentlessly questioned, mocked and distrusted on account of this decision, arguably suffering more for her husband’s betrayals than he ever did. Now, interviewed with her daughter, Chelsea, about their new The Book of Gutsy Women, she cited “the decision to stay in my marriage” as the gutsiest personal thing she ever did. Just the gutsiest, Hillary – or also the smartest, the only outcome that made any kind of sense?

Over the years, there has been a lot of musing on the scorching humiliation that Hillary must have felt, the strength she needed to stay. All of which sounds true. Then there’s why she stayed: love, respect, their daughter, their shared history – all great reasons. However, in common with her many detractors, I always thought that she also stayed (big time!) for her career – because, why would that be such a bad thing?

Hillary wouldn’t just have been leaving Bill, she’d have been leaving a political super-brand, a brand that she’d worked tirelessly to build, that was supposed to turn into a dynasty, culminating in her becoming the first female president of the US. If you’re going to suck up global degradation, then it might as well be for that, right? However much Bill put it about, she wasn’t going to allow it to wreck what they’d built together. Certainly not at the point when he’d had his turn, but her turn was still to come. This was the plan, anyway.

If all this sounds cold and clinical, what of it? As with many relationships, it was “complicated”. Hillary’s critics tend to point to this as evidence of a sinister business “arrangement” between the Clintons, when in truth it was only what they’d presented as all along – a marriage of equals on every level. Detractors also point to it as “proof” of everything that’s wrong with robotic, over-ambitious Hillary. Personally, it made me like and trust this strong, cool-headed, preternaturally rational woman even more. Hillary never made any bones about being a high-functioning political alpha and there she was – staying true to type. Hard as it must have been, as much as it ripped her heart out, her decision to stay was partly a focused career move. Staying with her cheating husband wasn’t Hillary Clinton’s tragedy – though not getting the result she wanted might be ours.

Please don’t let Meghan’s strong spirit be extinguished

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: fighting back. Photograph: REX/Shutterstock

Meghan Markle is a beautiful, accomplished woman, very much in love with her husband and their baby. So why do I often feel so sorry for her? Perhaps it’s because she’s in an abusive relationship… with the UK.

Hacking allegations aside, press freedom has rarely felt so crucial. However, whatever you think of the Sussexes’ media complaints, Markle’s treatment has been generally atrocious. She has been slammed as everything from an outsider to a hypocrite to a gold-digger. All that corrosive ugliness about her racial heritage (let’s not pretend that isn’t happening). She even gets stick for being American, as though she’s some woke-reincarnated Wallis Simpson putting the crown in peril.

Markle has made some mistakes, mainly in thinking that US-style celebrity could translate easily to British royalty. But, really, big deal. She’s not even the first royal to make that mistake – look at Prince Andrew, who has spent his entire aimless life swanning around (and worse?) by royal appointment.

If Markle initially overplayed her hand at being our first Insta-ready royal, then some in the UK made the mistake of routinely debasing her as if she were some trashy reality TV celebrity. No judgment here (I love trashy reality TV celebrities), but they’d be the first to acknowledge that their business model can be heavily reliant on negative attention. At least they get to fight back, unlike Markle. Until now.

No wonder Harry feels the urge to protect her, like he couldn’t his own mother. I imagine this isn’t even about them – that the key is their son and the atmosphere they want him to grow up in.

As for Markle, she arrived with a bounce but these days, even when she’s smiling, there’s anxiety in her eyes. Like a giant candlesnuffer has clanked down and a flame has gone out.

Leadsom’s coat of many colours? It must be panto season

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Andrea Leadsom: pantomime dame? Photograph: Mark Thomas/REX/Shutterstock

I have a rule about not commenting on female MPs’ clothes. Male MPs all seem to wear the exact same cheap, depressing suit and no one ever comments. Yet female politicians endure relentless scrutiny for their sartorial choices, with every skirt, shoe and handbag criticised and analysed.

The practice is reductive, patronising and… sorry, but I’m going to have to make an exception. What was Andrea Leadsom wearing on a recent visit to No 10 – or was it wearing her? Her outfit was impossible to ignore and in a way that’s beyond gender. She sported a Burberry “coat of many colours” that admittedly may one day come in useful for an am-dram production of Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, teamed with a short skirt, sheer tights and knee boots.

Full disclosure: I once dressed similarly to go to a festival, but at least I had the excuse that it was at the peak of acid house. To employ the vernacular of the era, dare I inquire if Leadsom is “on one”? As I say, I would not stoop to analysing her clothes – wear what you like, girl! Let’s just hope for her sake that this obvious bid to be considered for roles in the forthcoming panto season will be heeded.

• Barbara Ellen is an Observer columnist