The Metropolitan Police has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over how it handled a 2019 letter containing allegations about Thomas Markle Sr, the father of Meghan Markle. Source: independent.co.uk.
What Happened
In January 2019, the Metropolitan Police received a letter addressed to its Protection Command.
The letter was written by Roslyn Loveless, Thomas Markle Sr’s first ex-wife, who has since died.
It raised concerns about alleged misconduct occurring outside the United Kingdom.
The letter did not mention security threats. It included claims about inappropriate behaviour abroad.
After review, the Met passed the letter to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for awareness.
It did not share the letter’s contents with any other law enforcement agencies.
Recently, the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards launched an internal review.
As a result, the force has voluntarily referred the matter to the IOPC.
The Met says it plans to formally refer the allegations to relevant overseas agencies.
Key Facts
- The letter was written by Thomas Markle Sr’s first ex-wife, Roslyn Loveless.
- It was delivered to the Met in January 2019 and sent to the Sussex family office.
- The letter did not include any security concerns.
- The contents were not shared with any other law enforcement agencies.
- The original letter was misplaced in the Met’s files.
- Meghan Markle kept a copy and provided it to police when asked.
- Philippine authorities obtained a warrant to examine devices from Thomas Markle Sr’s home after finding hundreds of images of child sexual abuse.
- Thomas Markle Jr, Meghan’s half-brother, reported the discovery to local police and the FBI.
Responses and Reactions
Meghan Markle said she is ‘upset and really frustrated’ by the Met’s handling.
She told the Sun she knows her father is an abuser and that he will never see her grandchildren, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.
Thomas Markle Sr denies all allegations. He says he has never had sex with anyone under 18.
He claims he travelled to the Philippines at least twice as a single man and ‘slept with prostitutes’.
He said: ‘I like Asian women, but that is not a crime.’
He is now learning to walk again at a nursing facility in Florida after a leg amputation in 2025.
He welcomed a forensic examination of his devices, saying: ‘If there is anything bad on there, it was put there by someone else.’
Background: How the Allegations Developed
The letter was not an official report or investigation.
It was a personal message from an ex-wife, not a verified or legally binding document.
The Met did not launch a formal inquiry into the claims at the time.
This triggered a new investigation and a warrant for device examination.
Why It Matters
This case raises questions about how UK police handle personal allegations from private correspondence.
It shows a gap in inter-agency coordination and transparency.
It deeply affects Meghan Markle, who has been estranged from her father since 2018.
Limitations and Open Questions
There is no public evidence that the letter contained verified criminal claims.
It is unclear if the images found in the Philippines were linked to the letter.
It is unknown whether the allegations were real or fabricated.
No independent investigation has confirmed any of the claims.
The Met has not confirmed if the letter was the source of the child abuse images.
What to Watch Next
A forensic examination of Thomas Markle Sr’s devices could reveal new evidence.
Such a process would require legal authorization and oversight.
Further developments in the Philippine investigation may clarify the origin of the images.
The IOPC’s review may lead to formal findings on the Met’s decision not to share the letter.
Meghan Markle’s public statements may shape future discussions on accountability.
No formal prosecution has occurred. Legal action would require verified evidence.
The case remains under active review with no official conclusions yet.
Sources & further reading
Featured image: original publisher image. Via original publisher. Image source
