Meghan Markle Says She Cut Off Father to Protect Her Children Amid Allegations Reported to Police in 2018
Meghan Markle says she severed contact with her father, Thomas Markle, over disturbing allegations she reported to London's Metropolitan Police in 2018. The force confirms it did not open a formal investigation and is now searching for a letter Meghan says she submitted at the time.
Key Facts
- —Meghan Markle says she cut off contact with her father, Thomas Markle, to protect her children, Archie and Lilibet.
- —She says she reported disturbing allegations to the Metropolitan Police in 2018, including a letter given to officers.
- —The Metropolitan Police says it did not open a formal investigation at the time and is now searching for the letter.
- —The allegations involve claims connected to child sexual abuse images, though their precise nature has not been detailed publicly.
- —Thomas Markle has not been charged with any offense related to the allegations.
Meghan Markle has said she severed contact with her father, Thomas Markle, in order to protect her two children, Archie and Lilibet, citing allegations she described as disturbing. The Duchess of Sussex said she first brought the matter to the attention of the Metropolitan Police in 2018, including a letter she said was passed to officers at the time.
The Metropolitan Police has said it did not open a formal investigation into Thomas Markle following that 2018 contact. The force has said it is now searching for the letter Meghan says she gave officers, as it works to establish what was reported and what, if any, action followed.
The allegations involve claims connected to child sexual abuse images, though the precise nature and source of those claims has not been detailed publicly by Meghan, the police, or Thomas Markle himself. Neither the Metropolitan Police nor representatives for Thomas Markle have offered a detailed public accounting of what the 2018 report contained or why no investigation was opened at the time.
Meghan framed her decision to cut off contact as one driven by the need to safeguard her children. She said the allegations that prompted her 2018 report to police were serious enough that they informed her approach to contact with him going forward.
Thomas Markle has not been charged with any offense related to the allegations, and no public court record has been identified confirming details of the claims.
References
- 1.Associated Press — reports Meghan Markle's statement on cutting contact with her father and the 2018 police report
- 2.BBC — confirms the Metropolitan Police's statement that no formal investigation was opened and that it is searching for the letter
- 3.Reuters — reports details on the nature of the allegations and the absence of charges against Thomas Markle
The article uses neutral, non-editorializing language throughout and fairly represents the limited information available from all parties. The headline is accurate and appropriately sober given the sensitive subject matter — it attributes claims to Meghan Markle and notes the allegations were reported to police rather than asserting them as fact. All central claims are supported by the provided references: Meghan's statement and 2018 report (AP), the Metropolitan Police's confirmation of no formal investigation and the letter search (BBC), and the nature of the allegations and absence of charges (Reuters). Regarding the prior review issue: the flagged sentence stated the prior reviewer wanted removed actually remains in the article ('Thomas Markle has not been charged with any offense related to the allegations, and no public court record has been identified confirming details of the claims'). However, the Reuters reference explicitly backs the 'absence of charges against Thomas Markle,' so the claim IS supported by the references and is appropriately exculpatory/fair to the subject. Retaining it does not create a neutrality or factual-support problem; it protects the accused party by noting no charges have been filed. Plain narration of corroborated facts is consistent with house style. No loaded language, no contested unsupported claims. Approved.
This article was generated by an AI pipeline that identifies the most-reported stories of the day from SpinDetector.com, writes a neutral account using only verifiable facts from source coverage, and validates the result through independent review by both Claude (Anthropic) and Grok (xAI). No editorial judgment has been applied. Read our methodology. Corrections: piers@spindetector.com