Met Police Letter Date Twist Deepens Meghan Markle Father Mystery

Just when it seemed the story around Meghan Markle and her father could not take another turn, Scotland Yard has stepped in with a statement of its own, and it does not quite match the timeline the Duchess of Sussex gave only a day earlier. The Metropolitan Police has now confirmed, after a review of its own records, that the letter at the centre of this painful family story arrived in January 2019, not in the summer of 2018 as Meghan’s office had said. It is a difference of a few months, but in a case already full of emotion, denials and competing accounts, those few months have suddenly become the focus of everything.

The new statement, issued on Saturday, came after Meghan spoke publicly on Friday about the distressing reports concerning her estranged father, Thomas Markle. In that rare personal statement, she revealed that years ago she had been shown a letter sent to London’s police containing troubling allegations about her father, and that she had been given assurances the matter was being investigated. That revelation raised an obvious question: what exactly did the police receive, when did they receive it, and what did they do with it? The Metropolitan Police has now answered part of that question, and its answer has opened up a fresh round of scrutiny.

According to the force, a thorough review of its systems and records established that in January 2019 it received a letter containing a number of claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom. The letter was sent to the Metropolitan Police Service’s Protection Command, the unit responsible for the security of senior royals and other protected figures, because it raised concerns in relation to the security of the Duchess of Sussex. After it was reviewed, a decision was made to pass it to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for their awareness. Crucially, the force said the details of the allegations in the letter were not shared with other law enforcement agencies.

That last point matters a great deal. It means that, on the Met’s own account, the letter stayed within a narrow circle: it was read by the protection unit, and then handed to Harry and Meghan’s office so they knew about it. It was not, the force says, passed on to police forces elsewhere. For a family that has spent years insisting it trusted the authorities to act, that detail will be read very carefully, and it raises questions about whether anything more could, or should, have been done at the time.

The date is where the two accounts part ways. Meghan’s statement on Friday described a letter sent in 2018 to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection, which was subsequently shared with her. Reports on Saturday, including from Geo News, put the version given by Prince Harry and Meghan’s office more precisely: they had said the correspondence was received in the summer of 2018. The Met’s records say January 2019. Both sides cannot be right about the timing, and the gap between summer 2018 and January 2019 is roughly six months.

The Sussexes’ office moved quickly to address the gap. A spokesperson said on Saturday that it was understandable Meghan may have been mistaken about the date, and that if the Metropolitan Police holds a time-stamped record confirming the letter was reviewed in 2019, that record should be treated as the accurate reference point. The spokesperson added that it was reasonable to recognise that Meghan is doing her best to recall the precise timing of events that were not diarised at the time, and that a discrepancy of a few months is an understandable consequence of the passage of time. In other words, the Sussexes are not disputing the police record; they are saying a memory of an event from years ago, never written down in a diary, can easily be a few months out.

That response is striking for its tone. There is no accusation here, no claim that the police are wrong, and no attempt to turn a date into a dispute. Instead, the Sussexes have effectively accepted the Met’s version as the official one, while asking for understanding about how a person remembers something painful from eight years ago. It is a careful, human response, and it may help to keep the focus where Meghan herself wanted it: on the safety of children, and on whether justice is done.

But the Metropolitan Police is not finished with this matter. The force has said it is now examining its own handling of the letter, and is considering whether a referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the police watchdog, is warranted. That is a significant step. A referral would mean an independent body looking at whether the force handled the letter properly, including the decision to pass it only to the Sussexes’ office and not to other agencies. It does not mean any officer is accused of wrongdoing, but it does mean the force itself believes its actions deserve a second look.

To understand why this letter matters so much, it helps to remember how the story broke. Reports in The Sun, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph said that Thomas Markle Jr., Meghan’s half-brother, had found alleged child sexual abuse material among his father’s belongings while clearing out his former home in Cebu, in the Philippines. According to HELLO! magazine, Thomas Jr. submitted a sworn statement to authorities in Cebu on 22 October 2026. Philippine officials have since confirmed that an investigation is under way, with the country’s Anti-Trafficking and Anti-Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children task force in Cebu handling the case. The FBI has also said it is aware of the allegations, will provide support as appropriate to the Philippine authorities, and will investigate any related allegations of federal violations of United States law.

None of that means the allegations have been proven. No charges have been reported against Thomas Markle Sr., and the claims remain exactly that: claims, reported in newspapers and now the subject of investigations in two countries. Thomas Markle Sr., who is 82, has strongly denied them. He was quoted by the Daily Mail as calling the allegations “sick lies”, and saying he was shocked, hurt and very upset that his son was making such accusations against him. He has said he could never do what he is being accused of, calling it the worst thing anyone could accuse him of.

There is also disagreement inside the Markle family itself. Meghan’s half-sister, Samantha Markle, has strongly disputed her brother’s account, accusing him in the Daily Mail of fabricating the claims. Reports say she has also claimed that her father had not accessed the computers in question for about two years. So the public is now faced with sharply different versions of events from within one family: a son who says he found disturbing material and reported it, a father who denies everything, and a sister who says her brother invented it. That is precisely why the investigations matter, and why responsible reporting must keep repeating one line: nothing has been established as fact in a court of law.

Meghan’s own words on Friday explain why this story has hit her so hard, and why she chose to speak at all. She said she was deeply distressed at the news that had come to light in the last 24 hours, and that her thoughts were with any children who may have been harmed. She said that although the breadth of what has now been uncovered is more sickening than one could ever imagine, her sincerest hope is that justice will be fully served, and that the priority remains the safety and protection of innocent children. She also addressed something the public has wondered about for years: why she cut off contact with her father, and why she has not allowed him to have contact with her children.

Her answer was direct. She said that despite what she described as the distortion of the facts in some media coverage over the years, there was only one reason for the distance: to protect her children. She said she had believed the relevant authorities were making similar efforts to protect children in other families as well. It was, in effect, the explanation for an estrangement that began before her wedding in May 2018, an event her father did not attend, and that has lasted ever since. Meghan has been out of contact with her father since the run-up to that wedding, and the letter, whenever precisely it arrived, sits at the heart of that long silence.

ITV News, which has seen the letter, has confirmed that the claims in it concerned Thomas Markle. That detail connects the old letter to the new investigation, and it is part of why the date matters. If the letter arrived in the summer of 2018, it would mean the authorities knew about these concerns within weeks of the royal wedding. If it arrived in January 2019, the timeline shifts by months, and so do the questions about what happened next, and who knew what, and when. The Metropolitan Police’s own review has now settled the date as far as its records are concerned, and the Sussexes have accepted that record as the reference point.

What happens now is likely to unfold in stages. In the Philippines, the investigation continues, and the task force in Cebu will decide whether the material reported by Thomas Jr. supports any further action. In the United States, the FBI has left the door open to its own inquiry into any related federal violations. In London, the Metropolitan Police is reviewing how it handled a letter that, on its own account, it kept within a small circle. And if that review leads to a referral, the Independent Office for Police Conduct may examine the force’s decisions independently.

For Meghan, the human cost is already visible. She has spoken of living for years with deeply troubling concerns, guided by legal advice about what she could say publicly, and of the frustration of not being able to speak openly while trusting that the appropriate authorities would do their job. A friend speaking with her approval told The Sun that she felt relief that these matters are now being properly investigated, alongside devastation at the claims themselves. Whether the police watchdog becomes involved or not, that tension between silence and the need for answers is unlikely to go away soon.

There is one more thing worth saying plainly, because it can get lost in the noise of a royal story. The allegations at the centre of this case are about the possible abuse of children, and they are unproven. The people who may have been harmed, if anyone was, deserve far more attention than the arguments about dates and reputations. Meghan said it herself: her thoughts are with any children who may have been harmed, and the priority must remain their safety and protection. Whatever the Metropolitan Police’s review finds, and whatever the investigations in the Philippines and the United States conclude, that has to stay at the centre of this story.

For now, the confirmed facts are these: the Metropolitan Police says it received the letter in January 2019, passed it to the Sussexes’ office, and did not share it with other agencies. The Sussexes say the police record should be treated as accurate, and that any earlier date given by Meghan was an honest mistake of memory. The force is considering whether its handling of the matter should be referred to the police watchdog. And the investigations into the underlying allegations continue, with Thomas Markle Sr. denying them completely. Everything else, for now, remains reported, disputed, or still to be decided.

Read More: Meghan Markle Breaks Silence On Father Investigation In Rare Statement

Read More: Meghan Markle’s Father Thomas Investigated After Son’s Report To Police

Key Takeaways:

• The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it received a letter about Thomas Markle in January 2019, not in the summer of 2018 as previously stated by the Sussexes’ office.
• The letter, which raised concerns about the Duchess of Sussex’s security, was passed to Harry and Meghan’s office for their awareness and was not shared with other law enforcement agencies.
• The Sussexes’ office says Meghan may have been mistaken about the date and that the Met’s time-stamped record should be treated as the accurate reference point.
• The Met is reviewing its handling of the letter and considering whether to refer the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
• Thomas Markle Sr. strongly denies the allegations against him, calling them “sick lies”, and no charges have been reported; the claims remain unproven while investigations continue.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What did the Metropolitan Police say about the letter concerning Thomas Markle?
A: The Met said a review of its systems and records confirmed that in January 2019 it received a letter containing claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom. The letter was sent to its Protection Command because it raised concerns about the security of the Duchess of Sussex, and after review it was passed to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s office for their awareness. The force said the details were not shared with other law enforcement agencies.

Q: Why does the date of the letter matter?
A: Meghan’s office had previously said the letter was received in the summer of 2018, while the Met’s records say January 2019. The date affects the timeline of who knew what and when, and it matters because Meghan has said she was given assurances years ago that the allegations were being investigated. The Sussexes have now said the Met’s record should be treated as the accurate reference point.

Q: Has Thomas Markle responded to the allegations?
A: Yes. Thomas Markle Sr., who is 82, has strongly denied the allegations, describing them as “sick lies” in comments reported by the Daily Mail. He has said he is shocked, hurt and very upset, and that he could never do what he is accused of. His daughter Samantha has also disputed her brother’s account. No charges have been reported, and the allegations remain unproven.

Q: What happens next in this case?
A: Investigations are continuing in the Philippines, where a specialist task force in Cebu is handling the case, and the FBI has said it will support the Philippine authorities and investigate any related violations of United States law. In London, the Metropolitan Police is reviewing how it handled the letter and is considering whether to refer the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.