It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when royalty’s whacking perk was stopped. Certainly, the barons’ Magna Carta didn’t stop royals from whacking people. Parliament did eventually redirect the whacking perk to itself, in sorts. But now, it looks like royal whacking may have made something of a comeback.
The threat to harm Thomas Markle, Senior, has now been made.
Why? Because Thomas has given independent opinions to media about his daughter, Meghan Markle’s, marriage to Prince Harry. And the opinions aren’t favorable. Thomas made it clear that, although he fibbed a bit about giving interviews, posing for some pretty harmless pics, and getting paid for all of that, he’d still wanted to attend the wedding, give a speech about his daughter, and participate in what he calls “history.” But then, Prince Harry became bossy and obnoxious, and Meghan became self-absorbed, disrespectful, and so unkind that she refused to even give out wedding invitations to family members who would never come—just so they could have paper souvenirs to hang on their walls.
Thomas wanted one, too; but Meghan refused. And Thomas noticed that his ex-wife, Doria Ragland, received a fancy “herald”-style royal visit and a fancy, “herald”-style proclamation of the impending nuptials. Thomas then noticed that no royal representative was similarly sent to him.
Thomas Markle is a self-made man with something like eight Emmy nominations and one Emmy award for Hollywood lighting—his profession, which is one more than actress Meghan has, and one more than anyone in the royal family has for anything. He worked to get his daughter bit roles in movies and television, and paid her way for years and years, until Hollywood producer Trevor Engelson came along, and paid her way for years and years. And then, Meghan got a role in a cable television show, got some fans, put up a boozy blog, and now, Prince Harry will pay her way for years and years.
At least, that seems to have been Meghan’s plan.
But now, Thomas Markle started griping, and the Daily Mail says that the royal family is now planning….uhm, ahem…to do something.
The threat goes like this, reports the Daily Mail: “Palace aides are now considering a ‘more aggressive’ strategy towards Thomas Markle following his latest public outbursts, sources say.”
What the heck does “more aggressive” mean?
Until now, Thomas Markle’s been pointedly ignored by Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, and by those menacing “Grey Men” that the late Princess Diana used to point to as those threatening to ruin her. Later, she would write memos to herself stating that these same shadowy figures, acting for her estranged husband, would try to kill or disable her in a car crash to clear the way for Prince Charles to marry someone else. Diana’s memos were exceptionally detailed and exceptionally damning and exceptionally prophetic, given the manner of her death.
But some hypothesized that the “Grey Men” were motivated to whack Princess Diana because the blonde beauty had endlessly blabbed to the press about Prince Charles’s shortcomings—not just as her cheating husband, but as being mentally and emotionally and morally unfit to reign when his turn came. Indeed, Diana had journalists and photographers on her phone’s speed dial, and even surreptitiously wrote and published “Her True Story” under gossipy Andrew Morton’s tutelage. In “Her True Story,” Diana talked about her misery due to Charles’s adultery, the Queen’s coldness, Prince Philip’s menacing threats, and her own attempts at suicide.
The royal family was rocked by Diana’s “Her True Story.” It was then rocked again when Diana followed up her publishing debut by going on BBC’s “Panorama” news show and unequivocally told the world how unhappy she was, what a lousy husband Prince Charles was, what a bad king he would make, and that she nevertheless still wanted to stay in her torturous, loveless marriage. Why? Why, for the good of her children, of course! Growing up with divorced parents was very painful, Diana said. She planned to stay in place, and in line for the role of King Charles’s Queen consort, forever.
Buckingham Palace was aghast.
The Queen immediately wrote a letter basically ordering the bickering couple to divorce immediately.
And so, it went, right up until just past midnight in latest August 1997, when Diana went into a tunnel with her lover, Dodi Al Fayed, and came out in the throes of death.
Now, over twenty years later, Daily Mail readers, many of whom are British subjects, are warning Thomas Markle that “the Palace” may have a similar fate in store for him.
Is the royal family going to whack Thomas Markle?
And will his daughter, Meghan, just stand by and let her dad get whacked?
Is that what a “more aggressive strategy” against Thomas Markle by the royal family means?
Readers have some thoughts, and many are along the lines of this: “Bump him off?”
One writer pointed out that the royals could not likely sue Thomas in the United States because of our freedom of speech, which brought forth the reply: “No but if he ever stepped foot in Paris....”
Clearly, the memory of Princess Diana dying from just such a questionable car crash in the Paris Alma Tunnel, as the ambulance earmarked to speed her to a hospital less than three miles away was obscenely delayed for almost two hours, as she slowly bled to death internally from a damaged pulmonary vein, is still fresh in the minds of many Daily Mail readers. “He should probably avoid tunnels for a while...” one commenter suggested. Others are more direct: “Don’t drive in a tunnel!” and “I'm sure sooner or later something very bad gonna happen to him; watch your shoulder and shut up.”
What is serious and, frankly, treasonous, is posed as being in jest—but it is a serious question. Here, the joke hides what the common folk really believe did happen to their beloved princess when she dared to pull the curtain back and let in daylight upon the royal family’s private life.
Readers joke that Kensington Palace’s “more aggressive strategy” may involve Thomas Markle being similarly killed in a car crash, or perhaps even a fatal heart attack sinisterly brought on by ulterior means. After all, Thomas Markle’s reason for missing Meghan and Prince Harry’s wedding of the year was because he had developed heart problems. “Some fiddling with his heart meds, and some$$$s to the local medical examiner, and problem solved,” wrote one. Another reader suggested that “polonium,” the deadly neurotoxin used to allegedly assassinate Putin’s political foes, would be used to silence Thomas Markle. But overall, Diana’s fatal “tunnel” scenario gets the most comments. “So, an ‘aggressive strategy’ won't involve any tunnels, will it?” asks one commentator. “Take him to Paris for a drive around the Periferique,” an accident-prone ring road with no safe shoulder, suggests a writer. Another warns: “A ‘more aggressive strategy,’ huh? I think we all know what that means, don't we? He is a goner!”
And there’s more. Much, much more.
Britons and many others think the royals have plans to whack Thomas Markle.
“I don’t see any of his interviews as being ‘explosive’ - just a Dad feeling left out maybe hoping his daughter notices his hurt. Are the ‘Palace’ going to be aggressive in the same way as Diana was affected?” Which evoked the response: “No kidding…. When I hear of an ‘aggressive’ strategy out of Buckingham Palace, then that means cut brake lines or a car wreck in a Mexican tunnel.”
But Mexico doesn’t have many tunnels where Thomas Markle lives, and some muse that the royals may decide to use a less repetitive mechanism because whacking Thomas inside a tunnel may be too obvious. So, new theories are being posited.
Alluding to Thomas’s penchant for McDonald’s dining and the alleged recent poisoning of two Russian emigres (and then two Brits who happened upon the neurotoxin’s atomizer), one Daily Mail reader wrote: “His next Big Mac may be slathered with Novichok special sauce.” Another chimed in: “What about a nice bottle of aftershave from [British chemical warfare experimental station] Porton Down?” Another said the same, but suggested that “Prince Charles” would be sending it.
Others lump together more localized possibilities. Because Thomas lives in Rosarito, Mexico, faked kidnappings and bogus gang shoot ‘em ups are proposed: “Uh oh, looks like someone's brakes are gonna fail, or another fatal ‘heart attack,’ or gonna be caught up in a narco gun battle. He’s doomed.” “He lives on a cliff in a dangerous town and has a heart condition,” another observed. “I would worry if I were him when I hear ‘aggressive position,’ fretted one. “Oh dear, I bet he wishes he hadn’t advertised his heart condition now....”
And then, there’s the Michael Corleone suggestion: “And if the ‘aggressive’ action doesn’t work, what’s next? The really, really, bad, hush, hush aggressive action. Mr. Markle better check over and under his car before he starts the ignition.”
So, for all of Meghan Markle’s carefully-laid strategy to become “the new Princess Diana,” it looks like many British and no few Americans instead firmly believe that her father will meet the Princess’s presumed fate—he’s gonna get whacked. “’'More aggressive’ means a long drive down a short road at night!” one Daily Mail reader prophesized. This is perhaps the most damaging news to come out of the whole debacle of Meghan and Prince Harry cutting Thomas Markle out of their lives.
Want to be among the first to receive via Facebook messenger, Sarah Whalen's columns? Simply click on the link and check your messenger box for our acknowledgement.
” If he turns up dead,” ominously warned one Thomas Markle fan, “we will know who did it.”
Even U.S. President Trump’s been invoked, if only obliquely: “So the British are hoping to silence an American citizen who is not living in their country,” mused an American about Thomas Markle. “Go ahead, give it a try. Your mayor can make some more balloons.”
Thomas Markle may survive Meghan Markle’s marital mayhem—but will the royal family?