Michael Gove's son reveals ‘emotional baggage' after his parents' divorce
Michael Gove's son has revealed the 'emotional baggage' he faced after his parents divorced.
Will Gove, 20, discussed the breakdown of his parents' marriage with his former Cabinet minister father in the Daily Mail's The Apple & The Tree podcast, where a parent and their adult child speak about shared family history.
Mr Gove, who has held a number of Cabinet positions under four prime ministers and is now editor of The Spectator, asked his son to name a moment in their relationship that came close to breaking his heart.
Will quipped that apart from his father not supporting Chelsea FC, it had been the separation from his mother, Mail columnist Sarah Vine, in January 2022 after the pair had shared 20 years of marriage.
'The closest you've ever come was splitting up with mum,' Will told his father, adding: 'It was upsetting at the time. At first you think 'no, this is good'. But there was a certain amount of emotional baggage there that got me in the end.'
Will revealed that of all the high-profile political campaigns his family endured during Mr Gove's career, the pandemic became the most challenging time in his parents' relationship.
He told his father: 'For you and mum, lockdown didn't seem the best. Me and Bea [sister Beatrice] knew something was happening because mum had been sleeping in the guest bedroom for years by that point.
'It was early 2021 that you broke the news of your separation to us both. Then lockdown happened, and you were forced to spend loads of time together.'
He added: 'Mum said it was hard because she wanted time to herself, to explore after 20 years of being married to you.
'It was made harder still by all the criticism the Tories were getting – I think mum had just had too much of it by that point. Lockdown caused the water to come to boil, to steal a phrase.'
Mr Gove told his son the two moments of political upheaval that interfered with his home life the most was the 'furore over expenses' where he said 'every MP was in the firing line' and the lead-up to the Brexit referendum.
'There were many ups and downs, that's inevitable in politics,' he added, but explained there were times he worried that he was 'absent' as a father.
He said: 'You do worry about the fact you're preoccupied: that even though you're physically at home, you look absent. You ask yourself, does that mean you're doing a good job as a parent?'
Elsewhere, Will reflected on the challenges he faced having a high-profile parent, revealing that he had been turned down for three jobs because of his surname.
He said: 'I've been rejected from three pubs because of my surname… My friend gave me the opportunity to work there. I did a trial shift, and the worker said, 'Yeah, fine'.
'And then when they put my name on the pay scale, the owner of the pub came into the group chat and said, 'No Gove is working in a pub of mine'.'
He also told the podcast that when Brexit came about, friends of the family 'stopped talking to us'.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What Washington can learn from a legendary London meltdown
In a city where allegiance and proximity to power is everything, the leader's closest adviser portrayed himself as an outsider. He began the year by hiring a bunch of 'weirdos and misfits' and ordering them to rip up the entire 'rotten' system of government. The adviser loved to put noses out of joint and 'own the libs,' while building up his profile in the media as the real power behind the throne. Then, having realized that his easily-distracted and impulsive politician boss wasn't actually committed to building a tech-heavy, libertarian future, the disillusioned adviser quit — dedicating himself to publicly destroying his former employer. If you're British, watching the collapse of Donald Trump and Elon Musk's uncomfortable marriage has echoes of the end of the relationship between Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Chief Adviser Dominic Cummings in 2020. How that psychodrama played out in the UK could have lessons for the US — not least because Cummings eventually succeeded in undermining Johnson's political career, ultimately defenestrating the prime minister through relentless briefings and leaks. When someone who was inside the room and was perceived to be central to a political project says it's all a sham, the damage can be significant. For those who don't know, Cummings was the chief strategist of the successful Brexit campaign in 2016 but then largely disappeared from view when it came to actually defining what Brexit should look like. Unlike Musk, Cummings was a lifelong political operative, albeit one who cultivated a reputation for actually reading books. Three years later, with his political standing inflated by a film in which he was portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch as an insane genius, Cummings returned to maneuver Johnson into Downing Street. Once inside government, Cummings broke all the standard operating procedures of the British state to finally 'get Brexit done' and sever the UK's relationship with the EU in January 2020. When I look back at my occasional text exchanges with Cummings from that era, usually while trying to check stories about the funding of the Brexit campaign or his desire to defund the BBC, they mirror what he said in public. He held a seemingly sincere belief that most of the British media was fake news, that the British state was not fit for purpose, and that the political party he was nominally working for, the Conservatives, was little more than a helpful vehicle for an insurrection. One ally approvingly described the chief of staff of a Conservative government to the BBC as a 'Leninist.' Ultimately, both Musk and Cummings believed that you can run the government as a high-performance start-up and that the defining failure of past civil service reforms was that they hadn't smashed enough things quickly enough. Both also have the fatal flaws of being undisciplined, delighting in picking public fights and getting bored easily. Their independent means also meant they were not as beholden to their political masters as other advisers. Cummings might not have Musk levels of money but he was wealthy in British terms (his father-in-law Sir Humphry Tyrrell Wakefield, owner of a 13th century castle, would write letters in support of his proto-DOGE policies) and connected (his wife was deputy editor of the right-wing Spectator magazine). The overwhelming impression Cummings gave was that politicians were the useful idiots who should give him the runway to remake the state. Iconoclasm was the point. When Cummings quit he took to publishing lengthy Substack posts portraying Johnson as a broken supermarket 'trolley' who veered all over the place based on the last thing someone said to him. Even more effectively, Cummings helped to leak stories about Johnson's pandemic lockdown-busting in a scandal known as Partygate. In an echo of what's happened with Musk, left-wingers who previously thought Cummings was the devil incarnate began cheering him on as he stuck the knife into Johnson. The attacks rang true among Tory MPs and Johnson's ratings never recovered, ultimately leading to his early departure from politics. Many people leaked against Johnson and his circle, but when Cummings did, the pair's previous closeness gave it the ring of truth. Musk and Cummings got opportunities because they went in to bat for fundamentally untrustworthy but opportunistic politicians, in the hope that they would be given the freedom to enact policies with limited scrutiny. The two men have even exchanged notes and acknowledged the similarity of their programs. Ultimately, these were political shotgun marriages — the very thing that made the attachments so powerful at a particular moment in time was ultimately their undoing: In each case, the leader learned that there was no real love there. As Cummings and Musk found, if you hitch yourself to an anti-establishment hero who eschews patronage and loyalty then it's only a matter of time before you find yourself the target. There is a case that a less bellicose, less in-your-face flavour of DOGE could work better — and that such changes are easier when they're not associated with a controversial figure. In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government, elected last year, is pinning its hopes on widespread use of AI technology to improve productivity, for person. And there are even people in Downing Street who quite envies the idea of taking a Musk-style wrecking ball to parts of the state; Health Secretary Wes Streeting recently abolished one of the main administrative levels of the National Health Service in an overnight raid. Attempts by the insurgent, right-wing populist Reform party — headed by Nigel Farage, who has courted Musk's funds — to launch a 'British DOGE' and find excess spending in local government have hit the rocks. Announced on Monday, the program's first leader had quit by Thursday. Cummings said in November that he was hopeful Musk could make the US government operate like Silicon Valley. Cummings was long on diagnosis but short on prescription, the London-based Institute for Government think tank wrote in November 2021. It sought to fill the gap with ideas of its own for civil service reform.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Daily Mail Reporter Subpoenaed by Blake Lively's Publicist Says He Mistakenly Used the Phrase ‘Sexually Assaulted'
A Daily Mail reporter admitted to wrongfully characterizing Blake Lively's claims of sexual harassment as sexual assault on the set of 'It Ends With Us' in a declaration filed Thursday. As the Lively-Baldoni legal plot thickens, reporter James Vituscka was subpoenaed by lawyers for Lively's publicist Leslie Sloane to turn over text messages in which he incorrectly framed the 'Gossip Girl' star's sexual harassment claims as assault. 'In those text messages, my use of the phrase 'sexually assaulted' was a mistake. I meant to say, 'sexually harassed.' I regret this error,' Vituscka's declaration read. 'Ms. Sloane never told me that Ms. Lively was sexually harassed or sexually assaulted by Justin Baldoni or anyone else.' Representatives for Sloane said that after being 'wrongfully dragged into this litigation' the Daily Mail reporter's statement fully vindicates the publicist. 'Leslie Sloane has repeatedly stated that she never used the phrase 'sexually assaulted' which formed the basis of Baldoni's meritless defamation claim against her and today she is fully vindicated by the declaration of James Vituscka that admits she never said those words,' Sigrid McCawley, managing partner of Boies Schiller Flexner, said in a statement obtained by TheWrap. 'The declaration also makes clear that the Wayfarer Parties never even bothered to attempt to confirm whether the outrageous allegations they were launching at Ms. Sloane were true and they were not,' the statement continued. Sloane's representatives continued to characterize the text messages as the Wayfarer team's attempts to 'ruin Ms. Sloane's reputation with this vicious and wrongful attack and she has consistently told the truth and justice has prevailed.' On Tuesday, a judge granted Lively's request to remove claims of emotional distress from her legal action against her 'It Ends With Us' co-star and director Justin Baldoni. Judge Lewis Liman denied Baldoni's motion to compel because 'the parties have agreed to dismiss Ms. Lively's 10th and 11th causes of action' without prejudice, meaning the court 'will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress' in the future. The post Daily Mail Reporter Subpoenaed by Blake Lively's Publicist Says He Mistakenly Used the Phrase 'Sexually Assaulted' appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cheerleaders for Violence: The Troubling Defense of Terror in Boulder
It was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration. Instead, it ended in flames. But what came after the attack in Boulder may be even more incendiary, especially online, where some users in their teens and 20s were not condemning the violence. They were endorsing it. On a clear afternoon in late May, a pro-Israel demonstration on Boulder, Colorados iconic Pearl Street Mall turned into a scene of terror. An Egyptian citizen, wielding improvised firebombs, attacked the crowd, injuring 15 people and igniting panic in a city more often associated with peaceful protests and college town calm. Authorities swiftly arrested the suspect, now charged with multiple felonies including attempted murder and arson. Law enforcement has labeled the incident an act of terrorism. But while the violence rattled the city and the Jewish community in particular, a very different response was unfolding online. Videos posted by major outlets such as ABC News, Daily Mail, and MSNBC quickly amassed thousands of views on TikTok and Instagram. In the comment sections, a disturbing trend emerged: Rather than denouncing the attack, many young users applauded it. "He just wanted freedom for Palestine." "Keep up the good work brother! Hero." "Free him, he did no wrong. He did what we all wanted." "I was about to comment about how terrible this is and then I realized it was a pro-Israel rally and I suddenly didnt feel bad anymore." Some expressed outright Jew-hatred, writing things like, "Reduce their population" and "We owe Germany an apology." Others painted the attacker as a martyr or revolutionary. Several claimed the incident was staged entirely, a so-called "false flag" to build sympathy for Israel. This chorus of justification, denial, and celebration is jarring but not entirely surprising given the current climate. Recent polling shows a dramatic shift in how young Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to Pew Research Center, 53% of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of Israel. Support for the Palestinian cause has grown, particularly among Democrats and younger voters. In one RealClearPolling analysis,respondentsunder 28 years old were more likely than any other age group to sympathize with Palestinians over Israelis and to view Israels military actions in Gaza as unjustified. As someone from this generation, and from Boulder, Ive watched these sentiments evolve online, where politics blur with memes and moral lines often collapse under the weight of outrage or irony. Seeing this unfold in my own hometown made it feel less like an aberration and more like a wake-up call. Whats chilling isnt just the cruelty of the comments. Its how natural they seem to the people posting them, many of whom are my peers. Layered atop this political shift is a deepening distrust of institutions. A significant share of younger Americans express skepticism toward government narratives, traditional news media, and even the legitimacy of domestic law enforcement. According to the spring 2025 Harvard Youth Poll, fewer than one in three express trust in major institutions. But when that skepticism is applied to something as clear and violent as the Boulder attack, is it truly thoughtful or is it reflexive, corrosive doubt - the kind that opens the door to conspiracism and moral disengagement? That mindset helps explain the abundance of conspiracy-laden responses: "Yeah they set this up. Dont believe it at all," read one comment. Another called it a "planned distraction," while others insisted it was staged with actors. Though many of these reactions remain anonymous and ephemeral, they point to a generational divide not just in foreign policy, but in the moral frameworks through which violence is interpreted. Zoe Mardiks, a recent graduate of the University of Colorado Boulder and a Jewish student leader, was at her apartment when she learned of the attack. "My first reaction was to text some of my other Jewish friends to check in and ensure that everyone was okay and safe," she said. "I felt very scared that this had happened in my community." What disturbed her just as much as the attack itself was the flood of online comments defending it. "The ongoing justification for violence significantly downplays the rights of Jews and Israel to exist," Mardiks said. In her view, social media has warpedher generations sense of moral clarity. "Because of how the war has been broadcast on social media, everyone feels they have a say in the issue and believes they possess all the knowledge," she said. Mardiks said her response to those defending the attacker is simple: "If you truly care about saving or freeing anyone, we can only do that by educating each other in a non-attacking way … the line is drawn when you praise violence." The Boulder attack marks a grim milestone: a foreign conflict spilling onto American soil in the form of violence, and met, in some corners of the Internet, with tacit approval. That many of those corners are populated by Americans under 30 raises hard questions about what this generation, my generation, believes, whom they stand with, and what they consider justifiable resistance. For us, the line between protest and terrorism used to feel clear. Now, for too many, that line seems negotiable. "He did what we all wanted." If thats true, we may need to start asking what "we" really means now. Adair Teuton is a 2025 intern with RealClearPolitics.
