Watchdog to investigate Met over 2019 Thomas Markle letter

What happened

Decisions taken by the Metropolitan Police after receiving allegations about Thomas Markle in 2019 will be examined in an independent investigation by the police watchdog. Officers gave the letter containing the allegations to the Sussexes’ office, but did not alert other law enforcement agencies.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) opened its investigation on Friday, following a voluntary referral by the force on Thursday. Its inquiry will establish who was responsible for handling the information and whether the decisions complied with police procedures.

At the centre of the case is a handwritten letter from Roslyn Loveless, Markle’s former wife. It concerned alleged conduct outside Britain and reached the Met in January 2019 through the specialist command responsible for protection duties.

The watchdog considers the allegations potentially serious enough to require an independent examination of the police response. Its remit includes the failure to share information with agencies elsewhere in the UK or with authorities in the countries concerned.

Markle, 82, is separately under investigation in the Philippines following allegations involving child sexual abuse images. He denies the allegations against him, including claims that he possessed illegal material. That criminal investigation is distinct from the watchdog’s scrutiny of British police conduct.

The Met also asked the IOPC to consider whether giving the letter to the Sussexes’ office breached rules governing sensitive personal information. The watchdog has returned that issue to the force rather than including it in its independent investigation.

The background

Loveless addressed her correspondence to the Met’s Protection Command, specifically its Fixated Threat Assessment Centre. According to Commander Adam Slonecki, who leads the command, she presented her concerns as relating to the security of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex.

Slonecki said the contents did not, however, identify a specific security issue. Instead, they concerned alleged offending abroad. The distinction between the reason given for writing and the substance of the allegations formed part of the force’s account of its initial assessment.

The allegations concerned Markle’s activities in the United States, the Philippines and Thailand. The Met’s explanation for not beginning its own criminal investigation was that the possible offences had taken place overseas. For seven years, it also did not forward the information to those countries.

Officers sent the correspondence to the office serving Meghan and Prince Harry, rather than delivering it to the duchess personally. The purpose, as described by the force, was to make the couple’s staff aware of its contents.

Loveless and Markle divorced in 1975, and she died in 2024. Meghan’s estrangement from her father began in 2018, the year she married Harry, before the letter reached the police. The correspondence subsequently influenced her decisions about contact with him.

In December 2025, while her father was receiving hospital treatment in the Philippines, Meghan wrote to him ending contact. He had moved to the country earlier that year after living in Mexico. He remained in the Philippines until May and is now in the United States.

The investigation in the Philippines

The current Philippine inquiry followed a complaint from Meghan’s half-brother, Thomas Markle Jr. He told authorities last week that he had found suspected child sexual abuse material among possessions belonging to his father at his former home.

Markle Jr said he encountered the material in July while searching through boxes for a phone for his fiancée. His father had already returned to the United States for medical treatment. The allegation about that discovery is now being examined by Philippine investigators.

Police received four boxes from Markle Jr containing computers, mobile phones, hard drives and old videotapes. The range of equipment means the examination concerns both digital devices and older recording formats, rather than a single phone or computer.

Officers in Cebu required judicial permission before inspecting the contents of the devices. A court has now granted a warrant authorising that work. Footage recorded on Thursday showed Markle Jr alongside Philippine officials as they began collecting material for examination.

What people are saying

Meghan said last week that the allegations in the 2019 letter had caused her serious concern. She explained that they had been sufficient reason for her not to visit her father or permit him to meet her children, Archie and Lilibet.

Noel Rasmussen, Markle’s granddaughter and Meghan’s niece, has questioned the police response. She expressed concern about how the Met treated the information and argued that allegations of such seriousness warranted scrutiny of both the action taken and the failure to involve other agencies.

Philippine interior minister Jonvic Remulla has described Markle as a possible serious sexual offender. He said a full forensic examination would establish a more definitive account. His comments concerned the ongoing inquiry, whose investigators are assessing the material alleged to belong to Markle.

Markle has emphatically rejected the recent accusations. His daughter Samantha has also defended him, dismissing the claims as fabricated. Their denials concern the allegations being investigated, rather than the separate question of how the Metropolitan Police dealt with the earlier correspondence.

What happens next

The Met is now referring the letter’s allegations to the FBI in the United States and to law enforcement authorities in the Philippines and Thailand. On Thursday, the force said that process had begun and was expected to finish within days.

Before referring itself to the watchdog, the force commissioned an initial examination by its Directorate of Professional Standards. That review covered its actions after receiving the letter and led to the referral of both the information-sharing decision and the possible data breach.

The IOPC’s investigators will examine the treatment of the correspondence within the force, including the responsibility for deciding against notifying other agencies. This places the focus on individual decisions as well as compliance with the policies and procedures that applied to handling the allegations.

Responsibility for the separate data issue rests with the Met, which must deal with it through the appropriate internal arrangements, including its data-breach procedures where necessary. The concern relates to disclosure of sensitive information to a third party: the Sussexes’ office.

In the Philippines, the warrant allows officers to move from securing equipment to examining its contents. Their forensic work will assess the material underlying the recent accusations, while the British watchdog examines the earlier police response to Loveless’s letter.

Why this matters

For people in Britain who give police information about alleged offences abroad, the case highlights the importance of decisions about onward referral. Choosing not to open a domestic criminal inquiry and deciding whether another country’s authorities should receive allegations are separate questions; the latter is central to this investigation.

The case also brings together two responsibilities that can pull in different directions: sharing information about possible serious offending and protecting sensitive personal data. The watchdog and the Met will address those issues through separate processes, with consequences for accountability over the handling of the 2019 letter.