"What riles me is Meghan's sense of superiority. She'd be nothing without me. I made her the Duchess she is today. Everything that Meghan is, I made her. I tell you, I’ve just about reached my limit with Meghan and the Royal family. I’m about to unload on them."
Following months of tabloid interviews, collusion with the paparazzi, a woeful stint on Good Morning Britain (and let's not forget those car crash late night chats with TMZ), these are the words which finally tipped the balance, prompting even those most sympathetic to Thomas Markle to pause for thought and say enough is enough. Are these the words of a loving, caring father with the best interests of his daughter at heart? In a series of dyspeptic outbursts one could argue Markle seems hellbent on causing as much aggravation, humiliation and public embarrassment to his daughter as he can possibly muster.
In the days before the Royal Wedding, a time which should have been among the most joyous in Harry and Meghan's lives, the worst-kept secret in the media came to public attention - the bride's father had been colluding with a photographer with the goal of improving his image and receiving financial compensation for his troubles. In case you're in need of a memory refresher on how it all unfolded, here's the brief version: on 14 May he made a global splash when he informed none other than TMZ - because of course they should be the first to know - he would not be attending the wedding. He admitted the staged pics looked "stupid and hammy". He said he was just going along with the paparazzi agency, which he now deeply regretted. And, Thomas said, he suffered a heart attack six days before the TMZ interview, but checked himself out of the hospital so he could attend the wedding. He then decided not to go the wedding because he didn't want to embarrass the Royal family or his daughter. A blindsided Kensington Palace reacted with the following: "This is a deeply personal moment for Ms Markle in the days before her wedding. She and Prince Harry ask again for understanding and respect to be extended to Mr Markle in this difficult situation." At the time, both Harry and Meghan still desperately wanted Thomas there and I presumed his reaction was one of panic and it would all blow over. It was very much thought he was led astray by Samantha Markle. It would have been understandable and forgivable too, however, that turned out not to be the case. Little did we know then, this was merely the beginning of a media storm.
I've been blogging for over seven years and those who have followed my posts here on Mad About Meghan and Duchess Kate know my goal has always been to report on the engagements, work, life and style of the Duchesses of Sussex and Cambridge with an emphasis on facts. Focusing either site on my own personal opinions has never held appeal for me; rather presenting information in as fair and timely a manner as possible. On a handful of occasions I have felt compelled to share my views. The irresponsible and reckless platform given to Thomas and Samantha Markle has been absolutely shocking to me. Their contradictory statements, rants and insults have been published and regurgitated on a global scale for all to consume often times without question of the veracity and motivation behind their claims. It is my firm belief the real story is being overlooked here.
Robert Crampton wrote in The Times: "It was Markle’s shoddy self-pitying emotional blackmail 'maybe it’d be better if I was dead, you could pretend to be sad' that tipped the balance for me. Anger and confusion are one thing, thinly veiled suicide threats quite another. Shame on him. This is his daughter he’s talking about." Any reader on this blog can only imagine how they would feel if their father uttered those words. And in a nutshell we come to one of the key points I am keen to make today. How does Meghan feel? It's a question not readily asked by most outlets reporting the story. There appears to be a ferocious appetite to paint her as the cold-hearted daughter who has callously dropped her well-meaning father from her life without a thought. I believe the actual reality of the past three months couldn't be more different. I believe it has been a searingly painful introduction to a new life which has catapulted Meghan firmly into the public eye. As if embracing a new country, a new career, and the complexities of becoming a member of the Firm weren't enough, Meghan has been made to endure weekly blistering take-downs at the hands of people she's supposed to be able to trust.
I return to the post's opening quote: "What riles me is Meghan's sense of superiority. She'd be nothing without me. I made her the Duchess she is today. Everything that Meghan is, I made her. I tell you, I’ve just about reached my limit with Meghan and the Royal Family. I’m about to unload on them."
That statement is utterly chilling to me on so many levels. Before going further, take a look at the Crown Prosecution Services guidelines for defining controlling and coercive behaviour: repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless (she would be "nothing without me") and threats to reveal or publish private information ("I'm about to unload on them").
Zoe Beaty wrote an excellent article for The Pool: "More to the point, we should be asking: when will the media stop facilitating this behaviour? If Markle’s actions were that of an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband, we’d regard them as coercive control (which, as a reminder, is a criminal act in Britain). Yet, instead, Thomas Markle is afforded platforms and sympathies; described as 'heartbroken' and defiant that he 'WON’T let the palace silence him'. The topspin on his actions is almost as despicable as the act itself."
Reporter Omid Scobie discussed the motivation for Meghan's mercurial father to continue to speak to the media on his podcast On Heir: "There's ego at play. I think he's quite enojying having this stage. His name is everywhere right now. People around Doria have said in the past he can be quite a manipulative character and I think what he's doing now which is basically saying "I will continue to talk to the press to get a reaction from you". Thomas had the opportunity to come to the UK to walk his daughter down the aisle. For whatever reason he chose to sabotage that. There is very little evidence to support he was receiving as much medical treatment as he claimed." The monetary aspect also has to be considered with venomous Samantha Markle openly admitting on cashing in: "Let's face it, we all have to survive, money makes the world go round, so if you want to call that cashing in, that's fine. But no one in media would refuse a paycheck for talking about the royals." The Times reported: "There are suspicions in royal circles that Markle’s recent outbursts may have been triggered not by anything Harry and Meghan did or didn’t do, but by the warm British reception accorded his ex-wife, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland." Thomas Markle recently said "I’m enjoying the fact that I can make the entire Royal family not speak and maybe I can get a laugh out of the Duchess."
I don't think the Duchess is laughing about any of this.
Of course the Markles cannot be stopped from talking; it is their right to do so and papers never refuse ink. They can and, I'm confident to say, will continue to do so for as long as it's profitable and headline making. Last week Sky's Rhiannon Mills wrote: "Thomas Markle has been telling the newspapers how upset he is. He feels shut out and ignored by Meghan, says he isn't able to contact her, that she's not been to see him and he's not been very complimentary about members of the Royal family either. He's been criticised for it, with people asking is it right that he speaks publicly about his personal relationship with his daughter. I think he has every right to talk about how he feels. But, what Thomas Markle gives us is a unique insight into the girl he watched grow up, and as someone who reports on her, I want to know more about Meghan; and that's not easy when the royal press pack is kept at a distance." Rhiannon is an excellent correspondent and I've very much enjoyed her coverage over the years. Her personal piece on the 'Markle Debacle' was intriguing for a number of reasons...
The press wants to get to know Meghan more, but if we look at the most widely covered women in the British Royal family, the Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge, how much do we know about either of them personally? Very, very little indeed. Frankly, it's none of our business. They are not obligated to provide us with juicy tell-alls and insights, and that has long been accepted. Why do the media expect to know more about the Duchess of Sussex? Repeating the bitter musings of the Markles is not journalism. It's feeding into their narrative - a narrative they have been controlling from day one. The Royal family has long held true to the mantra "never complain, never explain". Meghan cannot retaliate; it's a one-sided mud-slinging match that's gone on far too long.
It's been clear to me form the day Harry and Meghan announced their engagement she was facing an uphill battle. Meghan was not afforded a transitional period, a honeymoon period or a time to settle in. There was quite simply no allowance made by most for error or for learning the ropes. I kid you not, even Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, was afforded such a period. Meghan has had every criticism imaginable levelled at her from day one. When it emerged she carried out an unprecedented number of engagements for any royal fiancée in recent history, articles on the fact were not exactly forthcoming. It speaks to a larger problem with the coverage of Meghan that goes far beyond her relatives. There's no shortage of substantive topics to cover, but how often have you read about the hundred meetings she's carried out with charitable organisations this year? If it were not for reporter Omid Scobie I wouldn't have known. It's been astounding to me to witness how committed she is to her new role and to receive none of the credit she's due. With a busy autumn set to include a two and a half weeks long Commonwealth tour, a slew of solo engagements, patronage announcements and the launch of a project, why is the 'Markle Debacle' dominating Meghan coverage week after week?
This is a history-making time for the Royal family. Last year Georgina Lawton wrote a stirring piece filled with salient points: "A union between her and Prince Harry would be socially momentous for the country, and especially so for us brown-skinned Brits who never saw ourselves reflected in the all-white Palace lineage. I never understood the hype surrounding Diana or Kate. I remember being confused, aged four, when I got up to find my mum sobbing in front of the television as reports of Diana's death flashed across the screen. But Meghan’s presence within the palace feels different: she is initiating real change when it comes to UK race relations. If Meghan does marry Harry, it will destroy the long-held notion that being regal means being white, or that the main link between Africa and Buckingham Palace is one of colonial importance." During Harry and Meghan's pre-wedding engagements, a Sky TV producer on the ground noted the diverse crowds showing up.
Historian Marlene Koenig elaborates on a point I very much agree with: "There is no doubt in my mind that racism is playing a role in this tabloid's pathetic saga. Would they have run similar stories about Cressida Bonas, whose parents have seven marriages between them? Cressida has half and step-siblings. But -- gasp -- Cressida's mother, Lady Mary-Gaye is the daughter of the 6th of Howe. No, they would not have run similar stories. Cressida is an English rose, a granddaughter of an earl, unlike the Duchess of Sussex, who happens to be a bi-racial American."
Where does the story go from here and how does it come to a conclusion? This is the most difficult question of all. The Palace has reportedly held several meetings and weighed up options. One cannot help but wonder if the princes had fostered some sort of strictly professional relationship with a handful of trusted newspapers if the impact of this could be lessened. Call in a few editors before the wedding, explain the situation with the Markle family, the fact Meghan has had no contact with her half-siblings for years and they in no way know anything about her today. Lifelong royalists who witnessed the catastrophic 'War of the Waleses' have pondered the notion Meghan is paying the full price with interest for years of zero access and difficult relationships with Kensington Palace. If some sort of access or source cannot be gained "officially", the media - with rapidly declining newspaper sales in tow - turn to tabloid fodder and call it royal coverage. In what could be a sign of 'Markle fatigue' setting in, leading publication Hello! has decided to take their coverage in another direction. In response to Thomas Markle's most recent interview, the royal favourite announced: "HELLO! will not be reporting on the details of this new interview in recognition of the sensitive nature of the story. Editor-in-Chief Rosie Nixon said: "HELLO! has made a decision not to report the full story out of respect for the Duke and Duchess."
Despite reports to the contrary, it seems Meghan has no intention of meeting with her father in the near future and one cannot blame her. Having experienced such immense betrayal, trust is likely broken beyond measure. We know now he lied to Harry on the phone about the paparazzi photos and by his own admission hung up abruptly ending the phone call. If she did meet him, could she rely on him not to go to a tabloid the following day? Meghan loves her father and her father loves her, this fact makes his actions all the more disturbing. It is evident though, he is not thinking of her in all this, and he's more concerned with how he's been portrayed "buying beer and eating McDonald's", and how terribly he feels he's been treated. His behaviour has been nothing short of shameful. He has remarked Meghan looks unhappy and her smile forced. Surely he knows he is the primary cause of this painful time. Markle told The Daily Mail once again last weekend it would be his final interview. I hope he will put his daughter's well-being first and stay true to that because at the end of the day, all he's achieved so far is hurting her and widening the distance between them. It's a desperately sad turn of events.
Meghan once said: "I can't think of anything less becoming than a man who talks about people behind their backs." If Thomas Markle wants to salvage his relationship with his daughter he needs to stop talking behind her back, and the media needs to stop listening without questioning the bigger picture here.
Following months of tabloid interviews, collusion with the paparazzi, a woeful stint on Good Morning Britain (and let's not forget those car crash late night chats with TMZ), these are the words which finally tipped the balance, prompting even those most sympathetic to Thomas Markle to pause for thought and say enough is enough. Are these the words of a loving, caring father with the best interests of his daughter at heart? In a series of dyspeptic outbursts one could argue Markle seems hellbent on causing as much aggravation, humiliation and public embarrassment to his daughter as he can possibly muster.
In the days before the Royal Wedding, a time which should have been among the most joyous in Harry and Meghan's lives, the worst-kept secret in the media came to public attention - the bride's father had been colluding with a photographer with the goal of improving his image and receiving financial compensation for his troubles. In case you're in need of a memory refresher on how it all unfolded, here's the brief version: on 14 May he made a global splash when he informed none other than TMZ - because of course they should be the first to know - he would not be attending the wedding. He admitted the staged pics looked "stupid and hammy". He said he was just going along with the paparazzi agency, which he now deeply regretted. And, Thomas said, he suffered a heart attack six days before the TMZ interview, but checked himself out of the hospital so he could attend the wedding. He then decided not to go the wedding because he didn't want to embarrass the Royal family or his daughter. A blindsided Kensington Palace reacted with the following: "This is a deeply personal moment for Ms Markle in the days before her wedding. She and Prince Harry ask again for understanding and respect to be extended to Mr Markle in this difficult situation." At the time, both Harry and Meghan still desperately wanted Thomas there and I presumed his reaction was one of panic and it would all blow over. It was very much thought he was led astray by Samantha Markle. It would have been understandable and forgivable too, however, that turned out not to be the case. Little did we know then, this was merely the beginning of a media storm.
I've been blogging for over seven years and those who have followed my posts here on Mad About Meghan and Duchess Kate know my goal has always been to report on the engagements, work, life and style of the Duchesses of Sussex and Cambridge with an emphasis on facts. Focusing either site on my own personal opinions has never held appeal for me; rather presenting information in as fair and timely a manner as possible. On a handful of occasions I have felt compelled to share my views. The irresponsible and reckless platform given to Thomas and Samantha Markle has been absolutely shocking to me. Their contradictory statements, rants and insults have been published and regurgitated on a global scale for all to consume often times without question of the veracity and motivation behind their claims. It is my firm belief the real story is being overlooked here.
Robert Crampton wrote in The Times: "It was Markle’s shoddy self-pitying emotional blackmail 'maybe it’d be better if I was dead, you could pretend to be sad' that tipped the balance for me. Anger and confusion are one thing, thinly veiled suicide threats quite another. Shame on him. This is his daughter he’s talking about." Any reader on this blog can only imagine how they would feel if their father uttered those words. And in a nutshell we come to one of the key points I am keen to make today. How does Meghan feel? It's a question not readily asked by most outlets reporting the story. There appears to be a ferocious appetite to paint her as the cold-hearted daughter who has callously dropped her well-meaning father from her life without a thought. I believe the actual reality of the past three months couldn't be more different. I believe it has been a searingly painful introduction to a new life which has catapulted Meghan firmly into the public eye. As if embracing a new country, a new career, and the complexities of becoming a member of the Firm weren't enough, Meghan has been made to endure weekly blistering take-downs at the hands of people she's supposed to be able to trust.
I return to the post's opening quote: "What riles me is Meghan's sense of superiority. She'd be nothing without me. I made her the Duchess she is today. Everything that Meghan is, I made her. I tell you, I’ve just about reached my limit with Meghan and the Royal Family. I’m about to unload on them."
That statement is utterly chilling to me on so many levels. Before going further, take a look at the Crown Prosecution Services guidelines for defining controlling and coercive behaviour: repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless (she would be "nothing without me") and threats to reveal or publish private information ("I'm about to unload on them").
Zoe Beaty wrote an excellent article for The Pool: "More to the point, we should be asking: when will the media stop facilitating this behaviour? If Markle’s actions were that of an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband, we’d regard them as coercive control (which, as a reminder, is a criminal act in Britain). Yet, instead, Thomas Markle is afforded platforms and sympathies; described as 'heartbroken' and defiant that he 'WON’T let the palace silence him'. The topspin on his actions is almost as despicable as the act itself."
Reporter Omid Scobie discussed the motivation for Meghan's mercurial father to continue to speak to the media on his podcast On Heir: "There's ego at play. I think he's quite enojying having this stage. His name is everywhere right now. People around Doria have said in the past he can be quite a manipulative character and I think what he's doing now which is basically saying "I will continue to talk to the press to get a reaction from you". Thomas had the opportunity to come to the UK to walk his daughter down the aisle. For whatever reason he chose to sabotage that. There is very little evidence to support he was receiving as much medical treatment as he claimed." The monetary aspect also has to be considered with venomous Samantha Markle openly admitting on cashing in: "Let's face it, we all have to survive, money makes the world go round, so if you want to call that cashing in, that's fine. But no one in media would refuse a paycheck for talking about the royals." The Times reported: "There are suspicions in royal circles that Markle’s recent outbursts may have been triggered not by anything Harry and Meghan did or didn’t do, but by the warm British reception accorded his ex-wife, Meghan’s mother Doria Ragland." Thomas Markle recently said "I’m enjoying the fact that I can make the entire Royal family not speak and maybe I can get a laugh out of the Duchess."
I don't think the Duchess is laughing about any of this.
Of course the Markles cannot be stopped from talking; it is their right to do so and papers never refuse ink. They can and, I'm confident to say, will continue to do so for as long as it's profitable and headline making. Last week Sky's Rhiannon Mills wrote: "Thomas Markle has been telling the newspapers how upset he is. He feels shut out and ignored by Meghan, says he isn't able to contact her, that she's not been to see him and he's not been very complimentary about members of the Royal family either. He's been criticised for it, with people asking is it right that he speaks publicly about his personal relationship with his daughter. I think he has every right to talk about how he feels. But, what Thomas Markle gives us is a unique insight into the girl he watched grow up, and as someone who reports on her, I want to know more about Meghan; and that's not easy when the royal press pack is kept at a distance." Rhiannon is an excellent correspondent and I've very much enjoyed her coverage over the years. Her personal piece on the 'Markle Debacle' was intriguing for a number of reasons...
The press wants to get to know Meghan more, but if we look at the most widely covered women in the British Royal family, the Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge, how much do we know about either of them personally? Very, very little indeed. Frankly, it's none of our business. They are not obligated to provide us with juicy tell-alls and insights, and that has long been accepted. Why do the media expect to know more about the Duchess of Sussex? Repeating the bitter musings of the Markles is not journalism. It's feeding into their narrative - a narrative they have been controlling from day one. The Royal family has long held true to the mantra "never complain, never explain". Meghan cannot retaliate; it's a one-sided mud-slinging match that's gone on far too long.
It's been clear to me form the day Harry and Meghan announced their engagement she was facing an uphill battle. Meghan was not afforded a transitional period, a honeymoon period or a time to settle in. There was quite simply no allowance made by most for error or for learning the ropes. I kid you not, even Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, was afforded such a period. Meghan has had every criticism imaginable levelled at her from day one. When it emerged she carried out an unprecedented number of engagements for any royal fiancée in recent history, articles on the fact were not exactly forthcoming. It speaks to a larger problem with the coverage of Meghan that goes far beyond her relatives. There's no shortage of substantive topics to cover, but how often have you read about the hundred meetings she's carried out with charitable organisations this year? If it were not for reporter Omid Scobie I wouldn't have known. It's been astounding to me to witness how committed she is to her new role and to receive none of the credit she's due. With a busy autumn set to include a two and a half weeks long Commonwealth tour, a slew of solo engagements, patronage announcements and the launch of a project, why is the 'Markle Debacle' dominating Meghan coverage week after week?
This is a history-making time for the Royal family. Last year Georgina Lawton wrote a stirring piece filled with salient points: "A union between her and Prince Harry would be socially momentous for the country, and especially so for us brown-skinned Brits who never saw ourselves reflected in the all-white Palace lineage. I never understood the hype surrounding Diana or Kate. I remember being confused, aged four, when I got up to find my mum sobbing in front of the television as reports of Diana's death flashed across the screen. But Meghan’s presence within the palace feels different: she is initiating real change when it comes to UK race relations. If Meghan does marry Harry, it will destroy the long-held notion that being regal means being white, or that the main link between Africa and Buckingham Palace is one of colonial importance." During Harry and Meghan's pre-wedding engagements, a Sky TV producer on the ground noted the diverse crowds showing up.
Historian Marlene Koenig elaborates on a point I very much agree with: "There is no doubt in my mind that racism is playing a role in this tabloid's pathetic saga. Would they have run similar stories about Cressida Bonas, whose parents have seven marriages between them? Cressida has half and step-siblings. But -- gasp -- Cressida's mother, Lady Mary-Gaye is the daughter of the 6th of Howe. No, they would not have run similar stories. Cressida is an English rose, a granddaughter of an earl, unlike the Duchess of Sussex, who happens to be a bi-racial American."
Where does the story go from here and how does it come to a conclusion? This is the most difficult question of all. The Palace has reportedly held several meetings and weighed up options. One cannot help but wonder if the princes had fostered some sort of strictly professional relationship with a handful of trusted newspapers if the impact of this could be lessened. Call in a few editors before the wedding, explain the situation with the Markle family, the fact Meghan has had no contact with her half-siblings for years and they in no way know anything about her today. Lifelong royalists who witnessed the catastrophic 'War of the Waleses' have pondered the notion Meghan is paying the full price with interest for years of zero access and difficult relationships with Kensington Palace. If some sort of access or source cannot be gained "officially", the media - with rapidly declining newspaper sales in tow - turn to tabloid fodder and call it royal coverage. In what could be a sign of 'Markle fatigue' setting in, leading publication Hello! has decided to take their coverage in another direction. In response to Thomas Markle's most recent interview, the royal favourite announced: "HELLO! will not be reporting on the details of this new interview in recognition of the sensitive nature of the story. Editor-in-Chief Rosie Nixon said: "HELLO! has made a decision not to report the full story out of respect for the Duke and Duchess."
Meghan once said: "I can't think of anything less becoming than a man who talks about people behind their backs." If Thomas Markle wants to salvage his relationship with his daughter he needs to stop talking behind her back, and the media needs to stop listening without questioning the bigger picture here.
The 'Markle Debacle' is not the defining story of Meghan's first year as a royal. She deserves better.