Tabloids that cultivated Thomas Markle against Meghan cannot reflect without admitting a vendetta
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/zoewilliams. "The tabloids that used Thomas Markle to attack Meghan should now reflect. I bet they won’t | Zoe Williams | The Guardian." October 29, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that the Mail papers spent years using Meghan's estranged father to attack her, and now that he faces grave allegations they'll just drop him and act outraged. They won't honestly examine what they did, because that would mean admitting they had a grudge against Meghan.
Conclusion
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, having used Thomas Markle as a weapon against his daughter, will not genuinely reflect on or take responsibility for that relationship now that he faces serious allegations, because doing so would be institutionally impossible without admitting a vindictive grudge against Meghan.
Premises
- The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday cultivated Thomas Markle Sr and used him as a source for attacks on Meghan from her entry into the royal family onward, including publishing her private letter and building a close relationship with him.
- Serious allegations have now emerged against Markle Sr, and he is accused of possessing child sexual abuse material, although he denies them.
- Having trusted and stood in solidarity with Markle Sr without question until now, the papers will likely distance themselves and report the charges with conventional outrage.
- Honestly examining their prior relationship with Markle would require admitting that they pursued a long-range, vindictive grudge against Meghan.
- Grooming an estranged parent or former intimate to undermine a public figure is sadistic and goes beyond what a free press is for, a tactic the public instinctively recoils from, as in the Ramaswamy ad case.
Assumptions
- The papers' motive for using Markle was a vendetta or desire for clicks rather than legitimate public-interest journalism.
- Institutions like newspapers generally avoid admitting wrongdoing when it would implicate their core editorial stance or business model.
- Cutting loose from Markle without reflection is evidence of lack of accountability rather than a reasonable editorial response to new facts.
- The allegations against Markle are credible enough to ground the argument, despite his denial and their being unproven.
- The Ramaswamy/Acton case is a fair analogy for the tabloids' conduct.