Meghan Wanted to Expose Thomas Markle Allegations, but The Sunday Times Says Senior Royals Knew Nothing. Where’s the Evidence?

Remember when Prince Harry described his security battle as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up”? The latest revelations concerning Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, bring those words to mind.

According to The Sunday Times, Meghan wanted to expose disturbing allegations against her father, Thomas Markle, in 2019, but a royal protection officer advised her to remain silent and promised an investigation. Seven years later, the Met cannot locate its original letter and is reportedly struggling to identify the officer.

Meanwhile, journalists Dipesh Gadher, Roya Nikkhah and Izzy Lyons report that senior aides to King Charles, Prince William and Kate Middleton knew nothing. How convenient.

Thomas Markle Sr. denies the allegations against him and has not been charged.

What The Sunday Times Claims

The October 31 investigation also makes a striking claim: senior Kensington Palace officials and Metropolitan Police chiefs were unaware of Roslyn Loveless’s warning letter. But the newspaper’s own account reveals uncertainty about precisely who knew what.

It can also be revealed that Meghan, the duchess, was minded to go public about the allegations against her father after being handed the letter, but was advised by the police not to do so…

Despite the seriousness of the claims — and the possible reputational risk they could pose to the royal family — several key players at Kensington Palace have indicated that they were kept out of the loop.

They include Samantha Cohen, a former aide to Queen Elizabeth II who was Meghan and Harry’s private secretary at the time.
Jason Knauf, who was joint communications secretary to the Sussexes and Cambridges, is also thought to have been unaware of the Loveless letter; as was Simon Case, William and Catherine’s private secretary, who later served as cabinet secretary to four prime ministers.

One source said of Meghan and Harry: “They were very private and tended not to share stuff with others.”

The Sunday Times, Dipesh Gadher, Roya Nikkhah and Izzy Lyons, October 31, 2026.

Notice the contradiction in the newspaper’s certainty. The newspaper confidently declares that senior officials knew nothing, but later admits it only believes certain individuals were unaware. The article also acknowledges that Harry and Meghan shared an office and staff with William and Kate in January 2019.

But what evidence allows The Sunday Times to declare that senior officials knew nothing when its own reporting describes several of them as merely thought to have been unaware?

The Met Cannot Identify the Officer Who Advised Meghan

Also, how does the newspaper know Meghan wanted to go public? Did Meghan tell its reporters? Did someone working at Kensington Palace disclose this information? Or did it come from the unidentified protection officer whom the Met is reportedly struggling to trace? And who authorised the advice that Meghan should remain silent?

These are important questions because the newspaper does not identify the source of its information about Meghan’s intentions or explain how the officer’s advice came about.

If the Met is still struggling to identify the officer, how did The Sunday Times establish the details of Meghan’s conversations with them, and who provided that information? The IOPC must establish who authorised the officer’s actions and determine whether police ever followed through on the assurances they gave Meghan.

Why Is The Sunday Times Distancing Kensington Palace From the Warning Letter?

There is one historical detail The Sunday Times cannot overlook: Harry and Meghan did not announce the creation of a separate royal household until March 2019, two months after police received Roslyn Loveless’s letter.

Although Harry had his own private office, the couple still shared Kensington Palace’s household arrangements with William and Kate. The Sunday Times acknowledges those shared arrangements but offers no clear explanation of how the warning letter passed through that office without the senior officials it identifies being informed.

There is another uncomfortable detail. In her 2021 Oprah interview, Meghan revealed that she experienced suicidal thoughts while pregnant and had informed senior palace officials. She said they refused her request for mental health support because of how it might reflect on the institution.

During that same period, Meghan reportedly received disturbing allegations concerning her father and advice from a royal protection officer.

How much did Kensington Palace know about the pressures Meghan faced, and who was responsible for making decisions affecting her? The Sunday Times has not established whether the officials Meghan approached for help also knew about Roslyn Loveless’s letter.

In our opinion, The Sunday Times appears more concerned with explaining why senior royal officials supposedly knew nothing than establishing who actually handled the warning.

The Palace cannot expect anonymous assurances to settle questions about what its staff and senior royals knew, especially when Meghan has previously described how closely the institution controlled her ability to seek help.

Why Is Meghan’s Privacy Being Used as an Explanation?

Perhaps the most revealing contribution comes from an unnamed source who describes Harry and Meghan as private people reluctant to share information. What exactly does their privacy have to do with police failing to alert overseas authorities?

Meghan reportedly wanted to speak but followed the advice of an officer who assured her that police would investigate. The responsibility for handling allegations of serious criminal offences belonged to law enforcement, not Meghan.

Introducing the Sussexes’ supposed reluctance to share information risks shifting attention away from the institutions whose decisions are now under investigation.

Who Is Actually Being Held Accountable?

The Sunday Times wants readers to believe that senior royal aides and police chiefs knew nothing about Roslyn Loveless’s warning letter. Yet the newspaper offers no named sources or documentary evidence to support its sweeping claims about who was kept in the dark.

Instead, readers are told that senior officials were thought to have been unaware. Thought by whom? On what evidence? Since when did anonymous assurances become enough to establish that powerful institutions knew nothing?

The newspaper also suggests that Charles’s aides would have warned the media to exercise caution had they known about the allegations. But why would managing press coverage be the priority? Surely the first concern should have been ensuring that police referred allegations of serious crimes against children to the appropriate authorities.

And why should it have taken such disturbing allegations for the Royal Household to consider protecting Meghan from hostile press coverage in the first place?

The Sunday Times has offered explanations that appear to protect senior royal figures without establishing the facts needed to support them.

This is not simply a matter of palace reputations. It concerns allegations of child sexual abuse, police failures and serious questions about how Kensington Palace handled a warning delivered through its shared household.

The public deserves evidence, not anonymous reassurances. Investigators must establish who received the letter, who knew about its contents and why police failed to alert overseas authorities. Until then, both Kensington Palace and the Metropolitan Police must face continued scrutiny.