ShareThis Page
More Lifestyles

Meghan Markle's father in doubt for wedding as media frenzy mounts

| Tuesday, May 15, 2018, 10:36 a.m.
Union Jack flags fly across the main shopping street in Windsor, Tuesday, May 15, 2018. Preparations are being made in the town ahead of the wedding of Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan Markle that will take place in Windsor on Saturday May 19.
Union Jack flags fly across the main shopping street in Windsor, Tuesday, May 15, 2018. Preparations are being made in the town ahead of the wedding of Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan Markle that will take place in Windsor on Saturday May 19.

LONDON — Thomas Markle spent a career in Hollywood, but nothing prepared him for this.

The father of royal bride-to-be Meghan Markle has reportedly said he will not attend his daughter's wedding to Prince Harry this week after suffering a heart attack amid media frenzy around the nuptials.

The retired television cinematographer had been due to walk his daughter down the aisle at Windsor Castle's St. George's Chapel on Saturday. But celebrity news website TMZ reported Monday that the elder Markle has decided to stay away amid criticism over his decision to pose for mocked up wedding-preparation shots taken by a paparazzi agency.

Kensington Palace issued a statement calling for “understanding and respect to be extended to Mr. Markle in this difficult situation.”

Meghan Markle's half-sister said her father was under an “unbelievable” amount of stress because of media intrusion.

Samantha Markle told the TV show “Good Morning Britain” on Tuesday that journalists “rented the house next to him in Mexico, four or five of them. He can't open his blinds, he can't go anywhere without being followed.”

Thomas Markle is not the first person to be bruised in the collision between Britain's royal family and the media — a relationship that is deep, complex and sometimes toxic.

“It is a symbiotic and parasitic relationship which is harmful to both sides,” said Graham Smith of anti-monarchy group Republic, who is resolutely unaffected by royal wedding fever. “Certainly harmful to the British public in terms of the way in which we are fed this hype and nonsense ... and clearly harmful to the family.”

For centuries, Britain's royal dramas played out at a distance from the public, as a deferential media protected the secrets of the monarchy. In the 1930s, the romance between King Edward VIII and divorced American Wallis Simpson was headline news in the U.S. press, but barely mentioned in Britain until the king abdicated, forced to choose between the crown and the woman he loved.

That changed by the time Prince Charles married 20-year-old Lady Diana Spencer in 1981 in a ceremony watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world. The media charted every twist in the saga that followed: the births of sons William and Harry, Diana's glamour and charity work, and her evident and growing unhappiness in the marriage.

Charles and Diana both used the media as a weapon as their marriage foundered, giving TV interviews to present themselves in a sympathetic light. It was ratings gold, reaching a peak when Diana told an interviewer that “there were three of us” in the marriage — Diana, Charles and his paramour Camilla Parker-Bowles.

“Diana turned the royal family inside out,” said Ellis Cashmore, honorary professor of sociology at Aston University and author of books on celebrity culture. “All the dirty secrets had come into the public domain.”

Diana became the most famous woman on Earth, trailed by paparazzi wherever she went — including to her death. She was killed in a Paris car crash in 1997, while being pursued by photographers.

Diana's death provoked a crisis for the monarchy — portrayed as remote and cold at a time of national grief — and for the media, accused of hounding a vulnerable woman.

In the years that followed, palace and press reached an uneasy truce. The royal family made concessions to popular interest, including carefully staged interviews and photo opportunities with William and Harry as they grew up. That practice has continued with the three young children of William and his wife Kate.

But Diana's sons retain a deeply ingrained mistrust of the media.

“Harry's attitude towards the press is he doesn't like the press,” former Sun newspaper royal editor Duncan Larcombe, author of “Prince Harry: The Inside Story,” told Town & Country magazine. “In Harry's mind, it was the press that killed his mother.”

When Harry and Markle decided to make their relationship public, the prince fired a broadside at the media, saying that biracial Markle had faced “a wave of abuse and harassment,” including “racial undertones” in comment articles.

“This is not a game — it is her life and his,” said the statement from Harry's press secretary.

Still, Markle's media experience, gained during her career as an actress, has been evident from the start. At the couple's televised engagement interview she appeared relaxed, confident and happy. It was a far cry from a 1981 interview with shy Diana and awkward Charles, who replied “whatever love means” when asked if he was in love.

Saturday's wedding is expected to draw more than 5,000 media staff and 79 television networks from around the world to Windsor. American and international TV networks plan hours of live coverage.

“I don't think anything can quite prepare her,” Cashmore said — though as “an independent-minded woman, brimming with confidence” Markle is well equipped to deal with intense media interest that is unlikely to fade.

“The media are the public's proxy,” Cashmore said. “The reason they go for these stories that are ever more intrusive is that we want it.”

Jill Lawless is an Associated Press writer. Gregory Katz contributed to this story.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me