ReutersA wall of photographers waits for Meghan Markle and Prince Harry at a public appearance in Edinburgh in February 2018
- Meghan Markle's father, Thomas Markle, reportedly won't go to the royal wedding because of the fallout from a paparazzi scandal.
- The incident is another episode in the fierce battle between the royals and the press.
- At its lowest ebb, the media pursued Princess Diana literally to her death, and there have been scandals since.
- Though legacy media is weaker than it used to be, this proves that it is still capable of stopping the royals from controlling their own narrative.
Meghan Markle's father has dropped out of his starring role in the Royal Wedding, according to a report from TMZ, citing a heart attack and, more tellingly, a paparazzi scandal.
Thomas Markle said he would no longer fly to London, meet the Queen, and walk his daughter down the aisle because of the embarrassment he felt at having been caught staging pictures for tabloid photographers.
The debacle is a scalp for the press, who have long been foes of the royal family, and a reminder that the media still wields power over the royals, despite several decades of setbacks.
Provided the reports are true, and Markle stays out of the wedding, the media will have deprived the couple - and the meticulous organisational machine that is the Royal Household - of a fairytale moment at the centre of the wedding.
If the ceremony goes on without him, Markle Sr.'s absence will inevitably hang over the ceremony at Windsor Castle, and permeate the perception of anyone reading about or watching the proceedings.
It is an insight into the pitched war that powerful publications wage with the royals, as well as each other, in pursuit of the next big story.
That conflict reached its most bitter, brutal, and tragic low in 1997, when Princess Diana died in a car crash while trying to flee photographers who were chasing her through Paris.
APThe wreckage of the car Princess Diana was riding in when she died after being chase by paparazzi.
It edged on in the UK media through the 2000s, when the royals were targeted by phone hackers, who illegally listened to voicemail messages of those close to the royals to source scoops, especially about Harry and his brother William, who were then still growing up.
In September 2012, long-lens photographs of a topless Kate Middleton were published in the European media. No British publication touched them, but, because of the rise of the internet, anybody with five minutes to research the images was capable of seeing them.
The magazine behind the pictures was later prosecuted and fined more than $100,000 - but the damage was done.
(AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)An Italian magazine containing revealing pictures of Kate Middleton.
Royal press officers, private secretaries and other staff have tried to draw boundaries to give breathing space to members of the royal family, but it can never work completely.
The sheer level of interest in the royal cast of characters means that vast amounts of money are available for those with access to secret information, or even just pictures of them going about their daily lives.
As an example, a home video of Kate Middleton starring in a musical while at grade school made tens of thousands of dollars in a matter of days for the journalists who managed to find it and sell it on to the media.
Staged photos like the ones starring Markle senior, showing vignettes like him getting measured for a suit, working out ahead of the big day, or boning up on royal history, would similarly attract large fees.
Competition between publications drives up the prices, and also compels them to try to ruin each other's stories. The article which undid Markle senior this weekend was published by The Mail on Sunday.
Ironically, its sister publication, MailOnline, had touted some of the original photos as its exclusive material.
Media watchers have noted a tendency for The Mail on Sunday to go to unusual lengths to contradict, expose, or otherwise chip away at the credibility of stories published by its own stablemates - a phenomenon which may have manifested again here.
Though the royal establishment has done their best to keep the press at bay by issuing repeated, public warnings to media pursuing Markle or her family, it clearly wasn't enough. (Even in the latest scandal, they are still pushing for reporters to go easy on Markle Sr.)
Markle Sr. claims that he didn't take the photographs for the money. Whatever it was that persuaded him to cooperate, it soured the happy-families narrative of the wedding, and proved that the royals cannot control their own story.
Though many of the trends which trouble legacy publications - falling circulations, competition online, declining trust in the media - are doubtless taking their toll, this incident proves that their power to influence events is by no means extinguished.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
MAIL P8 PHOTO EXCLUSIVE: He's really a party shop boy! #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/zYwQrrbF2r
- Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) May 12, 2018MAIL ON SUNDAY EXCLUSIVE: Meghan's dad staged photos with the paparazzi #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/xT0CxBnE6M
- Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) May 12, 2018