Royal reporters are a decent bunch trying their best to cover stories where the protagonists refuse to ever say much. But royal *stories* have a life of their own, and here's why /1
The Royals never confirm or deny anything, beyond engagements and birth. So anyone wanting to spin a line or make a buck can do pretty much as they please /2
Friends can tell you Harry was born a girl, courtiers can reveal William has taken up kick-boxing, an insider can say the Queen has stopped going upstairs. All might be true, and all might not. You'll never know /3
A reporter trying to stand up or knock down a story they think is either true or total bollocks MIGHT get a steer from a press officer. But more often than not they don't. /4
As a result, stuff makes it in because a) it sounds about right considering past history b) there's several people saying it c) they always say no comment so fuck it, we've got pictures
That's not to say those stories are bollocks - it's just that, with about 80% of Royal stories, you're going by smell. And then we come to the Markles. /6
Some of the rellies who weren't invited have turned up anyway. Presumably, for work. Because they're that pathetic, it impugns closer family too /7
Thomas Markle should have had close palace advice from day one, as Meghan's mum Doria did. He didn't. He either refused or it wasn't offered. /8
Perhaps he was a proud man who thought he could handle the pressure. Either way, the palace should have stayed in close contact precisely because they should know the pressure is worse than he expected /9
Because of all the above, SOME of the stories that made it into print here and in the US will have been utter shite. Some entirely true. I couldn't tell you which. /10
The Royals are not only used to that, they use it. They rely on it to ensure some of their true scandals don't get traction. Tom Markle will probably have been aghast and obviously wanted to correct the record /11
Which is fair enough. I would too. At that point, if palace were on hand, they'd have advised him how or if to do it. Instead they sat and watched as pic after pic appeared that was obviously staged. /12
Anyone with 5mins' experience of the media could have spotted they were staged. Most of Fleet St knew, the palace media advisors should have known, and the princes themselves may well have had a fair suspicion. /13
That being likely, why no intervention from the palace? Why not get the dad over here sooner, behind the castle gates? Why not show some concern for a vulnerable man with an apparent heart problem? /14
Instead palace spokesman wrote to editors and IPSO, twice, urging them not to print the photos. The letters included what must be untruths about how Markle did not want his photo taken. Either he lied to the palace, or the palace lied to IPSO. /15
The only possible reason to demand the photos not be used, while failing to protect Tom Markle himself, is to deny him any possible earnings. /16
Which is rather nasty and snide if that decision came, in any respect, via the two sons of Britain's first billionaire prince. /17
It's awful people are actually blaming Tom Markle - a man with little money and no experience of this situation - when the palace should, and could, have done so much better. /18
And yes, normal stuff applies about paps, snappers, tabloids and editors all being keen on it too. But a) they don't have the same duty of care and b) you read all the way this far, even though you say 'god, who CARES?' and that's why the media goes for the story. Everyone cares.
So who at the palace knew those pictures were set up, and when did they know? Why didn't they help Tom Markle? Did they dismiss him as just another scumbag relative, and hang him out to dry? mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/w… 
Oh and PS: is there a Royal press officer devoted to helping Tom Markle NOW? Because there damned well should be one on a plane to Tijuana right now.
