Met refers itself to watchdog over letter about Meghan's father

The Metropolitan Police has referred itself to the police complaints watchdog over its handling of a letter with allegations against Thomas Markle, which was handed to his daughter, the Duchess of Sussex, in 2019.

The letter, written by Markle's first wife Roslyn Loveless, is believed to have contained claims about Meghan's father and child sexual abuse.

Markle has strongly denied recent allegations that he had possessed images of child abuse.

The force said it had voluntarily referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) "in respect of the decision not to inform other law enforcement agencies, and the decision to pass the letter to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex."

The Met added it intended to to make further referrals to "relevant overseas law enforcement agencies", a process which it expected to be completed "in the coming days".

The letter that will be considered by the IOPC was sent to the Met's royal protection team by Roslyn Loveless, who divorced Thomas Markle in 1975 and died in 2024.

The handwritten letter was then passed to Meghan in January 2019, with the duchess saying last week that it had "made troubling and disturbing allegations against my father".

Meghan did not provide any details but said it had given her sufficient reason for not visiting Thomas Markle and not allowing him to meet his grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet.

Scotland Yard said the letter contained claims about offending outside the UK and that it had been forwarded to "the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for their awareness".

Confirming that it had referred itself to the IPOC, the Metropolitan Police said it was aware of media reports that it had try to obtain a copy of the letter.

"While the letter did not actually contain any information specifically related to security matters, it did contain a number of claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom," it said.

It added that the Met has carried out an initial review in recent days which has led to the voluntary referral to IOPC.

The watchdog will consider why the Met did not share the contents of the letter with other law enforcement agencies, in the UK or overseas, when it appeared to contain serious allegations.

There are also reports that the Met did not keep a copy of the letter and had to get a copy from the Sussexes.

Meghan, in a statement last week, said she believed the allegations in the letter "were being investigated".

But the watchdog will have to consider what happened to the warnings.

There are also likely to be questions about what royal officials knew about the letter, which was sent when Meghan was still a working royal, and which was forwarded to the Sussexes' office rather than to her personally.

Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, previously told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he would have expected the police to have shared warnings.

"If you get information that comes to you about someone from a foreign jurisdiction who represents a threat to children, there's a well-worn path and generally you'd expect a UK police force to share that information," said Gamble.

"I would have expected the Metropolitan Police to have gone to the FBI to say, 'Look, this isn't proven, it's an allegation, you might want to look at it'. Because in America, they may have more information that could corroborate it," he said.

The letter emerged as Thomas Markle's son had told the police in the Philippines about material which was alleged to contain sexual images of children, which he had claimed to have found in possessions belonging to Meghan's father.

Thomas Markle had been in the Philippines in December 2025, undergoing hospital treatment, when Meghan wrote to him to end all contact.

Authorities in the Philippines have begun investigating the claims. Thomas Markle has strongly denied all the allegations against him. He has been backed by his daughter Samantha who has dismissed the claims against her father as "fake".