CULTURE

Meghan Markle Has Every Right to Forget Her Father

Between claims that he wants to reconcile and reconnect, Thomas Markle has stirred up endless controversy for his own benefit.

Thomas Markle was making headlines again Monday, following an interview with Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid for Good Morning Britain.

He is the estranged father of Meghan Markle, AKA the Duchess of Sussex. He's also the source of endless tabloid drama. In the interview, he expressed his wish to be cared for and to make peace with his daughter and his dubious frustration that the only way he has to communicate with his daughter is through the press. Despite his persistence in exactly the behavior that will prevent him from ever making peace, it's easy to feel bad for him. He is old, ailing, lonely, and incurably pathetic. But there is no need for pity, because no one on Earth can possibly pity Thomas Markle as much as he pities himself.

Meghan Markle with Doria Ragland Getty Images

Markle won $750,000 in the lottery in 1990, two years after his divorce from Doria Ragland—Meghan's mother. Meghan was eight at the time, and her father chose to spend a portion of his winnings to send her to a private school. Perhaps he saw that as an investment. He was pouring money into his daughter's education so that she could make something of herself and eventually pay him back. If so, it seems to have been his smartest investment—he went bankrupt in 2016—and despite his daughter cutting ties, he has found a novel way to get a return on the money he put in: He has made himself her perennial tabloid nemesis.

This is the advantage of sharing a last name and some genetics with one of the most famous women on Earth. While she may not love the intense scrutiny that is applied to her every post on social media, to every outfit she wears, and to her family's recent efforts to achieve some privacy and independence, the glow of that spotlight offers some warmth and attention for a lonely, pathetic man who seems to struggle with the concept that he is not the center of other people's lives. In the recently televised "documentary," Thomas Markle: My Story—little more than an extended airing of his imagined grievances—Thomas Markle said that Meghan, Prince Harry, and the royals owe him. "For what I've been through, I should be rewarded… it's time to look after daddy."

Thomas Markle: My Story Channel 5

But what has he been through? Is his daughter responsible for his financial woes because he paid for her schooling when she was a child? Is that the extent of her debt, or does she also owe him for the cruelty he was subjected to by British tabloids that inevitably portrayed him as a drunken slob in the lead up to the royal wedding? That experience apparently made him so insecure and tapped into his insecurities so much that he ended up working with a photographer to stage his own paparazzi photos in an effort to improve his image—a plan that backfired dramatically. Is that why he has turned that same tabloid cruelty so potently against his daughter? Is that why he shared the private letter that she sent him—a letter in which she begged him to stay out of the tabloids—with the Daily Mail?

Despite his best efforts to harass them into compliance, his daughter and her husband continue to make choices for their own lives without first consulting Thomas Markle. Stepping back from their positions as senior members of the royal family, perhaps hoping to avoid some of the ire of the British media, was—in the opinion of a man who has been cut off from all contact—very disappointing. Because marrying a prince is "every girl's dream," and taking a step back is apparently the equivalent of "destroying" or cheapening" the royal family. He went on to say, "I think it's a misunderstanding that should be worked out not in front of cameras or the world." A fascinating take from a man who is building his life around occupying as much media attention as possible.

As things stand, many white Britons who resent Meghan Markle's ascension to royalty while still being a woman of color have found their standard bearer in Thomas Markle—the abandoned white father who doesn't see any racism in media coverage that has referred to Meghan's "exotic DNA" and claimed that she is "(Almost) Straight Outta Compton." After all, as Markle put it, "I think England is even more liberal in some ways than the United States," therefore racism is impossible. Likewise, anyone looking for a reason to believe that an American actress must necessarily lack the refinement to be a proper member of the royal family can find all the evidence they need in the messy, greedy drama that her father deals in. Love him or hate him, critics will find a way to turn it against Meghan Markle. Why?

Daily Mail Racism

By his own admission, Thomas and Meghan haven't been close since her college years. That was two decades ago. She hasn't spoken openly about how they grew distant, but she must have had her reasons. Nonetheless, she didn't fully cut him out of her life until he started inflicting media scandals on her already over-scrutinized family. She tried to be there for him in the limited way that she felt comfortable with, but he seemingly wasn't interested in anything less than as much as he wanted. If he won't be lavishly cared for by his daughter, then he'll see to it that he's lavishly cared for by the British press. They continue to pay him for his name and for the wild sense of self-importance that leads him to think that his opinions must be shared, and that he is in some way royalty himself: "I can use the British name as well now, because I'm tied in with that, and I have a grandson who's a royal."

That was his claim on Good Morning Britain, but it's not clear what he means. Is he going to change his name to Thomas of Windsor or Thomas, father of the Duchess of Sussex? Who knows. Whatever he does, it seems certain that he will continue placing his own interest above his daughter's. When Piers Morgan asked him if he was concerned, given his age and his multiple heart attacks, "that this may not get resolved before it's too late," Thomas removed any lingering doubts about his narcissism. Unable to contemplate the reality of his own looming death, he simply said, "It's possible," before redirecting to other hypotheticals. "Kobe was only 42, so anything can happen to anyone." Presumably the thought of Meghan and Harry dying in a similarly tragic accident was less upsetting to him than the thought of his own passing from heart problems in his mid-70s. Markle went on to opine, "I just think that this is kind of silly. It's gone on too long."

He's absolutely right. It's gone on far too long. People have been paying him to express his vulgar, asinine opinions on broad public platforms for too long. His insistence that he's "apologized several times" flies in the face of his continued thoughtless cruelty—his assertion, moments later, that Harry should "man up" and reconcile with him. An apology implies an acknowledgment of fault and an intention not to repeat the behavior that, according to your daughter's private letter, broke her heart "into a million pieces." A man so concerned with perceived sins against him that he would share that letter with the world is incapable of a true apology—of recognizing his own sins.

Thomas Markle Staged One of Markle's staged paparazzi pictures

In connection with that letter's publication, Meghan Markle is in the middle of suing The Daily Mail. In turn, they have arranged to use her own father as a witness against her. If that happens, it could be the first time since this drama began that Meghan and Thomas will be in the same room together. His strange role as her adversary will be official. Legal. Surely he knows that he will be throwing away any possibility of reconnecting or being her father again. It's time for the British media to recognize it too. They need to stop treating his complaints seriously—keep him away from their cameras and out of their headlines. Let him be truly estranged. Let him be just another stranger with vile opinions that aren't worth the paper to print them.

Included in the latest interview, Thomas Markle made a blatant threat to continue the drama: "After this interview, if I don't hear from someone in 30 days then I will try again. I don't want to sit in silence in my living room for the rest of my life waiting for someone to get back to me." It's a threat that only holds weight if the British media continue to give him a platform. They have a choice to leave him in that silence. They have 30 days to grow a conscience… Don't hold your breath.

The most recent Alec Baldwin paparazzi anger explosion is pretty damn crazy—can anyone say anger management issues?

Another day, another epic Alec Baldwin paparazzi anger explosion.

You would think by now—given his track record—that any pap who doesn’t have a death wish, would give Baldwin a wide berth.

The 58-year-old is well known for his anger management issues—and loves to direct his seemingly ever-bubbling rage at photographers.

Something that was on full display yesterday, after the actor got all up in one unfortunate paparazzo's grill.

Baldwin took offense at the photographer snapping pics of him and wife Hilaria as they were out and about in Beverly Hills—and he UNLEASHED his fury in classic Baldwin style.

He kicks off by claiming his wife is off-limits to the paparazzi—presumably because she’s a “private figure” even though she habitually chronicles every minutiae of her life on social media.

Oh, and works as an on-air correspondent for the celebrity gossip show, Extra.

Baldwin goes on to tell the pap that he’s “trash” a “fucking piece of trash” before yelling in his face, “YOU GOT THAT?!!”

The photographer tries to state his case, but Baldwin’s having none of it—screaming, “SHUT UP!”

He warns the pap a couple of times again, “you stay away from my wife” unleashes a fresh spate of expletives, tells the photographer “you’re garbage” then storms off.

Just another day in angry Baldwin land.

Poor Alec is always being tormented into losing his cool by some supposed asshole or other.

There was his ex-wife, Kim Bassinger.

Baldwin blamed her for the insane screaming rant he unleashed on his then 11-year-old “rude, thoughtless little pig” daughter, Ireland.

Following the incident going public, Baldwin explained via his website:

I'm sorry, as everyone who knows me is aware, for losing my temper with my child.

I have been driven to the edge by parental alienation for many years now.

You have to go through this to understand. (Although I hope you never do.)

I am sorry for what happened.

Then there was the French-Canadian stalker woman

Baldwin blamed the stress she caused him for an obscene homophobic rant he directed at the “cock sucking fag” New York Post photographer he chased down a street.

Then there was the flight attendant Baldwin branded a “retired Catholic school gym teacher from the 1950s”

He blamed her for the “violent, abusive and aggressive” tantrum he threw that got him kicked off an American Airlines flight back in 2011.

Then there was his pregnant wife.

It was his protective feelings towards her apparently that made him embark on an insane rage-filled and threatening homophobic Twitter tirade against a "toxic little queen" Daily Mail reporter.

Poor Alec! If only everyone would just stop forcing him to be so angry.

For more entertainment, music and pop culture updates and news, follow Max Page on Twitter

You Had Us At Thoughtless Little Pig! Alec Baldwin’s Many Meltdowns…

Alec Baldwin Uses Media To Inform The Media He Is Retiring From Media

Kim Basinger Tells How Bitter Alec Baldwin Divorce Affected Her Parenting

Watch the latest Alec Baldwin paparazzi anger explosion

Shia LaBeouf On ‘Existential Crisis’, Becoming A Christian, Alec Baldwin

Judge Tells Alec Baldwin ‘Be A Good Boy’ After Actor Refuses To Apologize

Ireland Baldwin—So Much More Than A Rude Little Pig!

 

alec baldwin paparazzi anger explosion

CNN continues to slip down the news pole into the murky depths of Fox News.

Since Jeff Zucker took over the struggling network back in 2013, it's become progressively dumber and dumber in a desperate bid to claw back ratings.

CNN has come under fire time and time again for its sensationalism when it comes to its coverage of news events—most recently, its often laughable week-long coverage of the missing Malaysian flight 370—which included model airplanes, black holes, conspiracy theories and non-stop speculation....24-7.

As usual, Jon Stewart led the charge, with an epic rant against the network, mocking them over their obvious and desperate ratings ploy.

“Why don’t we just strap some wings to Wolf Blitzer and let him loose?” Stewart quipped, going on to claim, “the only thing less likely than an airplane falling out of the sky is CNN’s ratings doubling."

Well, the desperation continues, resulting in CNN airing a photo, Tuesday, allegedly of Bruce Jenner wearing a dress and smoking a cigarette outside of his home in Malibu.

The New York Daily News went nuts, claiming the photo was sold exclusively to them, and that CNN had no right to air it—but the paper soon found itself in hot water, as it is pretty evident that the photo was very likely obtained using illegal methods. (They have since removed it from their website.)

The pic was clearly taken on a long lens camera, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has launched an investigation after, according to TMZ, the 65-year-old former Olympian lodged a complaint claiming the intrusive pics were obtained illegally.

Don Lemon, who appears to be becoming more and more of a professional troll every day, rather than a news anchor, used the alleged photo of Jenner to lead a Caught on Camera: Bruce Jenner's New Look? CNN panel discussion.

Lemon quizzed the panel about what Jenner’s transition means for the transgender community, and if he should be doing it publicly.

In case you were wondering, the general consensus was that, Jenner is a public figure—being a reality TV star and all—so yeah, he SHOULD be doing it publicly.

Good to know.

The Washington Post wrote a great article, pointing out why this was wrong on so many different levels.

Starting with the consensus that yes, Jenner IS a public figure, so the story is newsworthy, they go on to lay out the "journalistic, legal and maybe ethical issues of showing just any old photos that surface of someone purported to be Bruce Jenner in a dress."

Pointing out that Jenner hasn't confirmed the photo actually is of him, so CNN is setting itself up for potential libel, they go on to state it's made doubly risky by the fact that the NY Daily Post (America's first tabloid) was the only paper to purchase the photo.

They then go into the fact that the photo was very likely taken illegally, broaching California's 1998 celeb friendly anti-paparazzi law that allows “photographers to be found liable for invasion of privacy if it is proved that they trespassed or used telephoto lenses to capture images of people engaging in personal or familial activity, and provides for hefty damage awards against both photographers and their organizations."

The Washington Post then quotes a Yahoo article, claiming, “CNN, which did not have the right to broadcast the dress photograph, has received flak for airing the controversial shot in what seems a thinly veiled effort to scoop rival ABC."

They conclude:

Bruce Jenner is a public figure. But he is not President Obama or Edward Snowden or — perhaps a more relevant example — Chelsea Manning. And, since nothing about Bruce Jenner (or the Kardashians, for that matter) is vital to national security, it’s hard to claim questionably obtained, possibly embarrassing images of him are vital to the public interest. No matter how much anyone wants to see that dress.

tina knowles paparazzi blue ivy

Tina Knowles isn't exactly known for being all warm and cuddly, so it's no surprise that the failed fashion designer went all protective mama bear on a member of the paparazzi who was trying to snap pictures of baby Blue Ivy.

Class and consideration tina knowles paparazzi blue ivy

Miss Tina confronted the paparazzo during a shopping trip with Beyonce on Melrose Avenue... and, in typical Tina Knowles style, she did NOT hold back!

North West Vs Blue Ivy In Toddler Cuteness Smackdown

The Knowles family matriarch was caught on camera sternly telling the offending paparazzo not to take photos and to have some "class and consideration—you can watch the video right here on Popdust.

"You can't film a baybee," lectured Tina. "How would you like for somebody to take a picture of your baybee? You would care! DATS A BAYBEE!"

"Have some class about you," she added before sauntering off. "Have a little class and a little consideration."

Legally right tina knowles paparazzi blue ivy

As Fox News reports, legally, paparazzi in the state of California aren't even supposed to be filming celebrity children, so Miss Tina had every right to drag this stalker like she did.

She's just a kid folks! She didn't chose to be in the spotlight, and, or, to be followed twenty-four-seven, and have a camera stuck in her face at her every move.

Woman Sues Beyonce And Jay-Z—You Were Never Really Pregnant, Blue Ivy Is Mine!

Now, despite the meltdown, when you think about it, this dude is just lucky that it was Tina who confronted him and not Solange.

As we all know only too well by now—elevator smack down anyone?!!—Solange would've whooped his ass worse than Jay-Z's!

Hell knows no fury like a Knowles woman scorned!

Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow have dinner together in a moment of conscious re-coupling! Chris mows down a paparazzi! Mayhem ensues! Details are murky!

On the night of Sunday January 25, the Coldplay frontman and Hollywood’s most annoying-woman-turned-professional troll, reunited briefly for dinner at Giorgio Baldi in Santa Monica, CA.

The kids were there, everyone was smiling and laughing. Everything was wonderful in their pretentious little world. That is until they left. The family loaded into Chris’ jeep just as a lurking paparazzi ran up to take their picture, and he is now claiming Chris hit him with his car.

An ambulance was called and the snapper was rushed to the emergency room.

According to TMZ however, another paparazzi, who took photos of the alleged incident, was standing way away from the restaurant, across the street—and no-one can understand why he would just happen to be waiting there in that particular spot, passing up the prime opportunity to get a money shot of the Martin/Paltrow family.

So, why would a pap position themselves across the street when they could have gotten a great close up? Is it just a huge coincidence that it enabled him to get the perfect shot of his fellow snapper allegedly getting mowed down? Is it yet another huge coincidence that pap and the alleged victim pap have worked together in the past?

Hmmmm.... something's rotten in the state of Denmark California...

Suspicious....

That's right, Kim Kardashian, the one who wanted to have her wedding at The Palace of Versailles, has aligned herself with the proletarian workers at The Beverly Hills Hotel, which has been boycotted by most of Hollywood since it was learned that its owner, the sultan of Brunei, has begun to impose sharia law back in his homeland.

Some of Hollywood's biggest players have joined in protest rallies at the hotel, including Jay Leno and the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Kathy Spillar and Eleanor Smeal. The Motion Picture & Television Fund has cancelled events at the hotel, as has Richard Branson. Ellen DeGeneres and Sharon Osbourne have expressed moral outrage over sharia law, and urged others to show their solidarity by boycotting the hotel.

But today, Kim has taken a noble stand. She misses hanging out at the hotel with her BFF and their babies. She enjoyed the protection from the paps that the hotel has famously provided for its A-list clientele.

Okay but that's not really what motivated Kim to denounce the boycott. That would be self-serving. No. Kim took to her blog today to explain that boycotting the hotel won't really bother the wealthy sultan. It will only hurt the hotel staff! Listen, Kim cares. Here is an excerpt from her post.

There must be other ways to express our views without punishing the workers, some who I know personally have families at home and depend on the city’s business and tips to survive.

I for one am tremendously moved by this compassion for the little people who serve the food and change the sheets and clean the toilets.

I salute Kim for going back to the Beverly Hills Hotel to support the workers, while others bother themselves with politics and sharia law. I will even meet her there for brunch, if she'll pay of course.

What do you think about this controversy?