Thomas Markle has risked everything the royals worked for by colluding with the paparazzi

It seems likely that both the palace and Ipso will be forced to think twice before circulating concerns on Thomas Markle’s behalf again

The incident with Meghan Markle's father has created a headache for the royals (Getty Images)

The royal household’s press team had quite the weekend.

On Saturday evening, it circulated a note to the media via the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) on behalf of Thomas Markle, Meghan’s father, expressing concern at the behaviour of paparazzi photographers.

A few hours later, the Mail on Sunday’s front page story implicated Markle in an alleged collaboration with a paparazzo to stage a series of images that have been sold to publishers around the world.

Today, Kensington Palace is reported to be offering Thomas Markle “support”, which is one way of putting it. The timing, a week before Harry and Meghan’s wedding, is less than ideal.

Of course, it remains to be seen what Thomas Markle was hoping to achieve – and we may never know for sure. It has been pointedly noted that the images could have been brought in over £100,000 for the photographer who took them (some appeared in The Sun earlier this month). Was Markle paid for being a willing subject?

An alternative theory is that he thought that by co-operating with a photographer on one occasion, he would satisfy the demand for pictures and ensure that he would subsequently be left alone. It’s clear that he had already communicated to the palace his concerns about press harassment and he would not be the first person to think he could give snappers an inch and not have them take a mile.

Whatever lies behind the incident, it plainly creates a headache for the royals, who have worked hard both to maintain their privacy and to ensure a sensible and proactive relationship with the media, especially in this country, over the last two decades.

Inevitably, the death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997 has provided the backdrop to almost all interactions between the media and the Royal Family in the years since. The role of the paparazzi in that incident, and in previous instances of harassment, led to a renewed determination among senior royals to protect the family’s privacy – and there is no doubt that the relationship between the Windsors and the press has improved markedly since those dark days.

That is partly because editors accepted (to a greater or lesser degree) that they were creating a market for the kind of pursuit which had been taking place on the night Diana died. Few wanted to see a repeat – or, heaven forfend, be blamed for it. Indeed, while the death of Diana led to public anger being expressed towards the rest of the royal family, it was also directed in bucketloads at the tabloid press. The Press Complaints Commission (the forerunner of Ipso) was deluged with rage-filled letters as that hot summer drew to a close.

As public attitudes towards the royal family have softened – and particularly as the popularity of its younger generation has soared – the attentions of the UK media have largely been kept in check: in part because of that old fear that angering the royals will anger the public; but in part too by virtue of a sophisticated media operation based at Kensington Palace, which has balanced the legitimate public interest in the lives of Princes William and Harry with a reasoned position that the men and their families are not ‘fair game’ for journalists.

By releasing occasional photographs and other information – and by using Ipso and other channels to make clear when there are particular concerns about intrusion – all sides have been kept, if not happy, then broadly content.

The notable exception, when Kate Middleton – as she was then – was on the receiving end of a 2007 paparazzi frenzy amid rumours of an impending engagement to Prince William, was a reminder of how easily the truce can break down. It served too to bolster the royals’ determination to keep a lid on unwarranted invasions of their privacy. The decision of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to sue over topless pictures of the latter published in France in 2012 was indicative of their resolve.

The row over Thomas Markle threatens to undermine the integrity of this well-developed operation, which relies to a considerable degree on mutual trust. If it turns out that he did collaborate over staged “pap” shots (as remarks by his son appear to confirm), then he has evidently caused the palace to make a plea on his behalf that is, at best, based on incomplete information.

This isn’t to say he has not been subject to harassment by the way: even putting this incident aside, it appears clear that he has been. But the attempt by his son, Thomas Jr, to explain the incident by highlighting the level of scrutiny the Markles are living under isn’t likely to cut the mustard when set against the experience of the most scrutinised family in the world.

Ultimately, it seems likely that both the palace and Ipso will be forced to think twice before circulating concerns on Thomas Sr’s behalf again.

Worse though is the potential for editors – who are not legally bound by the advisory notices that Ipso sends round – to question the reliability of the royals’ communication more broadly. If that happens, then Markle may find his welcome into the family even more fraught than he might have anticipated.