The investigation into Thomas Markle Sr. has taken another significant turn, and this time, the Metropolitan Police and Kensington Palace face questions about their handling of serious allegations involving Meghan Sussex’s estranged father.
On Thursday, Philippine police obtained a warrant to examine digital devices allegedly belonging to Thomas, while the Metropolitan Police referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over its handling of a warning letter received in January 2019.
But the most significant development comes from The Telegraph, which reports that royal protection officers passed the letter to the joint Kensington Palace office supporting Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex.
Thomas Markle, 82, strongly denies the allegations involving child sexual abuse material. He has not been charged.
Philippine Police Obtain Warrant to Examine Thomas Markle’s Devices
According to Sky News, Philippine authorities have obtained judicial authorisation to examine digital devices and hard drives handed over by Thomas Markle Jr.
The material reportedly includes four boxes containing mobile phones, dismantled computers and other personal belongings allegedly left at his father’s former residence in Cebu.
Thomas Jr. claims he discovered child sexual abuse images among the material and reported his findings to authorities. Investigators can now examine the devices to determine whether they contain evidence of criminal offences.
Metropolitan Police Refers Itself to Watchdog Over 2019 Warning Letter
The Metropolitan Police has voluntarily referred itself to the IOPC after acknowledging that it received serious allegations against Thomas Markle in January 2019 but failed to share them with other law enforcement agencies.
The letter came from Roslyn Loveless, Thomas’s first wife and the mother of Samantha and Thomas Markle Jr. According to The Telegraph, Roslyn explicitly offered to speak with investigators by telephone or in person to provide additional information.
The Met never took her up on that offer. Roslyn died in 2024, taking with her the opportunity for investigators to question her directly about allegations she raised seven years earlier.
Commander Adam Slonecki confirmed that the watchdog referral concerns the decision not to inform other law enforcement agencies and the decision to pass the letter to what he described as “the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.” That wording is a red flag, and The Telegraph’s latest reporting reveals why.
Seven years after receiving the allegations, the Met finally intends to alert relevant overseas authorities. Its failure to act sooner is a damning indictment of a police force entrusted with protecting vulnerable people, including children.
The Telegraph Reveals the Letter Went Through Kensington Palace’s Joint Office
This is where the story becomes particularly interesting. The Telegraph’s Victoria Ward and Will Bolton reported that royal protection officers passed Roslyn’s letter to the joint office supporting the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at Kensington Palace.
The letter was passed from royal protection officers to what at the time was the joint office of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at Kensington Palace, The Telegraph understands, which suggests that the wider royal household was aware of its contents.
The Telegraph
That detail is damning because the Metropolitan Police and much of the British media have repeatedly described the letter as having been sent to Harry and Meghan’s office, conveniently leaving William and Kate out of the picture. In January 2019, all four royals still shared Kensington Palace’s household arrangements. Harry and Meghan’s separate household was not announced until March 15, 2019.
By omitting that crucial detail, the reporting creates the misleading impression that the Sussexes alone received the warning, allowing the wider Royal Household to escape equally legitimate scrutiny over who knew what.
The Telegraph’s reporting confirms that the letter passed through the joint Kensington Palace office supporting both royal couples, although it does not establish that William or Kate personally read it. But that does not place Kensington Palace beyond scrutiny. Meghan reportedly received assurances that police were handling the allegations, yet the public still does not know which palace officials received the warning, who else they informed or whether senior members of the Royal Household knew about its contents.
There is also contemporaneous reporting from 2019 that deserves another look.
William’s Media Outreach Was Already Under Scrutiny in 2019
On April 21, 2019, just weeks after Harry and Meghan’s separate household was announced, The Sunday Times reported that tensions between the Sussexes and Cambridges were already growing and linked that atmosphere to William’s developing relationship with senior figures in the media.
The newspaper wrote:
“This sense of embattlement has been entrenched by William’s decision to reach out to senior figures in the media as he prepares for kingship and by the apparent decision of those same newspapers to side with the palace over Meghan and Harry by peddling the most negative coverage of the duchess’s relationship with her father, Thomas Markle.”
The Sunday Times
That passage is significant because it was written while the split between the two households was happening, not years later with the benefit of hindsight.
It does not prove that William, Kate or Kensington Palace directed newspapers to platform Thomas Markle. There is no evidence establishing that.
But it does show that a major British newspaper was already reporting in April 2019 that William was cultivating relationships with senior media figures while newspapers were taking a more hostile line towards Harry and Meghan, including through coverage of Meghan’s relationship with her father.
That matters now because Thomas Markle went on to receive extensive coverage across British television and newspapers. The question is not whether Kensington Palace secretly ordered that coverage. The question is whether William and the palace’s growing media relationships encouraged newspapers and broadcasters to amplify Thomas Markle’s grievances while portraying Meghan as the problem.
Given what we now know about the warning letter passing through the joint Kensington Palace office, that contemporaneous reporting deserves fresh scrutiny.
Even Daily Mail Commentators Are Questioning the Palace
Even Daily Mail commentators are now questioning whether the Metropolitan Police and Royal Household failed to act on the allegations. A.N. Wilson raised the possibility that officials suppressed the warning to avoid a royal scandal, while Richard Eden cited a royal source who considered it “unthinkable” that the wider Royal Household had not been informed. Neither has produced evidence of a cover-up.
However, The Telegraph’s reporting about the joint Kensington Palace office makes scrutiny of both institutions unavoidable. Who knew about the allegations, what action did they take, and why did the Met fail to alert overseas authorities?
Who Handled the Letter, and Where Is the Original?
The Metropolitan Police’s handling of this letter becomes even more troubling when we examine its changing account. Meghan initially recalled receiving the warning in 2018, after her marriage to Harry. The Met subsequently identified January 2019 as the date it received the letter, a timeline Meghan’s spokesperson accepted.
But why should the Met’s records automatically settle the matter when the force cannot even locate its original letter?
ITV News reported that police appeared not to have entered the letter into their usual database. Yet the Met subsequently maintained that its records established receipt in January 2019.
Given the force’s inability to locate its original copy, what records support that date, and when did officers actually register the correspondence?
We cannot rule out the possibility that police received the letter earlier than their records indicate, but no evidence currently establishes that sequence. The IOPC should examine the complete timeline.
The Met Lost the Letter and Had to Ask Meghan for Her Copy
And the story gets worse. According to The Telegraph, police subsequently asked Meghan to provide a copy of the very letter they had received seven years earlier. Fortunately, she had retained hers.
So Meghan remembered the warning, accepted the Met’s correction of the date and then provided the same police force with a copy of correspondence whose original it could no longer locate.
The Met’s handling of this case is an embarrassment. It failed to alert overseas authorities, never followed up with Roslyn Loveless and now cannot produce its original letter. The IOPC must establish when police first received the warning, who handled it, when officers recorded it and why they failed to act.
Why Are Some Commentators Questioning Meghan Instead of the Police?
Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of this story is the attempt to shift responsibility towards Meghan. A.N. Wilson questioned why she did not publicise the allegations or urge police to investigate.
But Meghan received assurances that authorities were handling the allegations and that she should avoid interfering with any potential investigation.
What exactly was Meghan supposed to do? She had no authority to launch an international criminal investigation, examine digital evidence or compel police to contact overseas agencies. And we are talking about investigating her own father, no less. Has anyone demanding that Meghan take responsibility ever heard of a conflict of interest? This is precisely why independent law enforcement agencies exist.
There is a glaring double standard here. Some of the same commentators demanding that Meghan answer for allegations against her father have spent years defending or minimising the Royal Family’s support for Prince Andrew despite his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Emails suggest Sarah Ferguson took Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie to meet Epstein just days after his release from prison in 2009. Beatrice also attended preparations for Andrew’s disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, which he used to defend himself against the allegations.
Yet Meghan, who has been estranged from her father since 2018, is expected to answer for his alleged conduct and the Metropolitan Police’s failures. Why does the Royal Family’s continued association with Andrew attract a different standard of accountability from Meghan’s decision to distance herself from Thomas Markle?
Related Stories
The Met and Kensington Palace Must Answer
Roslyn Loveless offered to help investigators, yet the Metropolitan Police failed to follow up with her or share the allegations with overseas authorities.
Now the Met faces watchdog scrutiny, while The Telegraph has identified Kensington Palace’s joint office as part of the letter’s route.
The Met must explain its failures, and Kensington Palace must clarify who handled the warning and what happened next. Meghan was reportedly assured that the authorities were investigating. Seven years later, those institutions must explain whether their actions justified that trust.
Discover more from Feminegra
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The tabloids that used Thomas Markle to attack Meghan should now reflect. I bet they won’t | Zoe Williams | The Guardian
Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday via reporter and so proclaimed long term T Markle confidante also should be accountable for their ugly and false campaign directed at his daughter, Meghan.
Zoe William s states that “A free press is essential and sometimes it is scabrous. But is this what a free press is for? To groom an estranged parent or other former intimate of someone in public life in order to undermine the latter person’s credibility and standing, seems sadistic. That’s a large word, particularly in the context of the allegations against Thomas Markle, and I use it advisedly. One of the hideous things about family estrangement is the feeling that everyone involved has had their character besmirched. The accused fight back with counter-claims. Nobody’s probity survives unscathed (although most of us could tell that Meghan’s father was exploiting her lovelessly for attention, and probably cash, long before these charges surfaced).”
I’m so sick and tired of people who are intelligent enough to know how the law works keep saying ‘why didn’t Meghan do more’?? Pray tell what!!! If she had taken it upon herself to gather evidence would the same MP acknowledge her findings when they hadn’t thought what was in the letter was worth an investigation??? As for the media they would have called her a liar and deemed her worse than satan himself for smearing and defaming her poor old DAD because without a TRIAL IN A COURT of LAW where he would have been proven innocent or guilty whatever proof she gave over to the media would have given DEAR OLD DAD ammunition to have sued HER for defamation . I KNOW THE DAILY FAIL would have been the first in line along with other racist billionaires to finance his case. After ALL ,the truth was never an option, was it, otherwise when they were all vilifying Meghan for not letting her kids have contact with DEAR OLD DAD , no one was interested in why he had no CONTACT WITH HIS OTHER GRANDCHILDREN.