Story AnalysisNews report

U.K. police say they received letter with claims against Meghan's father, wasn't shared with other law enforcement

On Friday, it was reported that Meghan's father, Thomas Markle, is under investigation by authorities in the Philippines for alleged possession of child sexual abuse materials.

cbsnews.comPublished Oct 24, 1:03 PMAnalyzed on October 24, 2026

This page is Both News's AI analysis of the article, not the article itself. Read the full story on the publisher's site.

Read the original articlecbsnews.com · cbsnews.com

Our verdict

Political lean

Center

◀ Left 10Center10 Right ▶

0 = center. The further from 0, the stronger the lean (max 10).

Reporting balance

Somewhat one-sided

59 / 100

How complete and even-handed the reporting is — separate from which side it leans.

The article is broadly even in tone, with careful attribution and a lean of 0 because the story has no political axis, but its sourcing favours the royal side: the Duchess and her spokesman are the main direct voices, while Thomas Markle, his son and the Philippine authorities are heard only second-hand or not at all. The most important weakness is that the child-abuse allegations rest on tabloid reporting and the 2018/2019 date discrepancy is accepted as 'a few months' without being tested. Readers should keep in mind that the letter's contents remain undisclosed and that all allegations against Thomas Markle are unproven.

Why this lean: The story has no left/right political axis; it concerns a family dispute, a police letter and a child-abuse investigation. Judged on its own framing, it is broadly even in attribution, but its sourcing tilts toward the Duchess: her statement receives the longest direct quote, her spokesman's explanation of the date discrepancy is repeated without test, and no direct response from Thomas Markle appears. This is a slant toward the royal side, not a political lean, so the score stays at 0 and the tilt is described in the findings.
Framing: Told from the police-and-Duchess angle as an accountability question: whether the Metropolitan Police handled a 2019 (or 2018) letter about Thomas Markle properly, with the Duchess's account as the main direct voice.

Key Findings

1The two dates conflict: Meghan says the letter was sent in 2018, while the Met says it received it in 2019. The article quotes both sides and places the dates side by side, which is a fair presentation. However, the explanation that the gap is 'a few months' comes only from the Duchess's spokesman and is not checked; 2018 and 2019 are different calendar years, and the article never states the exact dates.
2The sourcing is asymmetric. The people heard directly are the Met, Meghan and her spokesman, all on the official or royal side. Thomas Markle's denial is reported only through the Daily Mail, without content, and Thomas Markle Jr. and the Philippine authorities are not quoted. The most serious allegations therefore rest on tabloid reporting, though the article does attribute them clearly.
3Unresolved tension is left in place: the Met says the letter's details were 'not shared with other law enforcement agencies', while Meghan says she was 'given assurances that these were being investigated'. The article prints both without noting the conflict or asking whether any investigation followed.
4The article uses careful attribution and hedging: 'allegedly discovered', 'it was reported', and the Met's review is reported as a pending decision rather than a finding. It also distinguishes what the Met confirmed (receipt of a letter) from what it did not (the letter's contents), which avoids overstating the allegations.
5The Duchess's criticism of 'certain media publications' is included in her quote and not tested or contextualised by the reporters, which tilts the story's closing emphasis toward her account.

Who gets a voice

Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard) spokesperson
Confirmed the 2019 letter, said it was passed to the Duke and Duchess's office, and announced a review of the handling
Police / officialMain voice
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
Gave a statement saying the letter was sent in 2018, that she was given assurances it was being investigated, and that her distance from her father was to protect her children
Royal family / the DuchessMain voice
Spokesman for the Duchess of Sussex
Told the BBC that 'any discrepancy of a few months' was 'an understandable consequence of that passage of time'
Royal family / the DuchessMinor voice
Thomas Markle
Father of the Duchess; reported by the Daily Mail to have denied the allegations, with no direct quote or detail
Accused family memberMinor voice
Thomas Markle Jr.
Son of Thomas Markle; per The Sun, reported his father to Philippine authorities after allegedly finding material in storage boxes; not quoted
Accuser (second-hand)Minor voice
The Sun and Daily Mail
British tabloids whose reports on the allegations and the denial are cited
Press reportingMinor voice

Dimension Breakdown

Source Diversity5/10

Direct voices are the Met spokesperson, Meghan and her spokesman, all on the royal/official side. Thomas Markle's denial and Thomas Markle Jr.'s account appear only second-hand via The Sun and Daily Mail, and no Philippine authority is quoted.

Language Neutrality8/10

Claims are attributed and hedged ('allegedly discovered', 'it was reported', 'the Met will review'), and the body avoids emotive labels; the only charged phrasing ('distortion', 'deeply distressed') sits inside direct quotes.

Data Balance7/10

The story contains few numbers, mainly the 2018 and 2019 dates, which are both given in the article. The dating gap is characterised by the duchess's spokesman as 'a few months' without the exact date or any independent check, so the key figure is not tested.

Perspective Completeness5/10

The Met and the Duchess are clearly heard, but the father, his son and the Philippine authorities are not heard directly, and there is no palace or Prince Harry response, even though the story is about allegations against a family member and the Duchess's conduct.

Headline Accuracy7/10

The URL slug points to a police letter containing claims against Thomas Markle, which the body confirms: the Met confirmed receipt of a letter with 'a number of claims' but did not disclose the claims. The headline is not in the supplied text, so this score is provisional.

Context Sufficiency6/10

The article gives the basic timeline, but it does not explain how Met referrals of this kind normally proceed, does not say whether the Met's 2019 handling was ever investigated, and does not explain the Duchess's earlier criticism of the media beyond a link to an estrangement story.

Missing Perspectives

Thomas Markle: no direct response appears, only a Daily Mail summary that he denied the allegations, with no detail of what he denied. This matters because the allegations concern him directly.
Thomas Markle Jr. and the Philippine authorities: the child-abuse claims rest on The Sun's account of Markle Jr.'s actions, and no authority confirms the investigation on the record in this text. Their accounts are needed to judge the most serious claim.
Royalty and Specialist Protection, which Meghan names as a recipient of the 2018 letter, and Prince Harry or the palace: no response is reported on whether the letter was received, handled or passed on, which bears on the Duchess's claim of assurances.
Context on how such referrals and police watchdog reviews normally work, and whether the Met's 2019 handling has been investigated before: this would help readers judge whether the 'few months' explanation matters.

Highlighted Passages

“any discrepancy of a few months”

This characterisation of the 2018/2019 date gap comes from the Duchess's spokesman and is not checked against the exact dates. The article repeats it without noting that the two years differ.

“despite certain media publications' distortion over the years”

The Duchess's attack on the media is printed without response or context from the reporters, giving her criticism the last word on the press coverage that the story itself relies on.

“allegedly discovered child abuse materials in storage boxes”

The most serious claim rests on a single tabloid's account of what the son allegedly found; the article hedges correctly but does not state that no authority has confirmed the discovery in this text, and the son is not quoted.

“the details of the allegations made in the letter were not shared with other law enforcement agencies”

This police statement is in tension with Meghan's claim that she was given assurances the allegations were being investigated, but the article does not highlight the conflict or ask the Met whether an investigation took place.

Key Facts

A Scotland Yard spokesperson confirmed to CBS News that the Metropolitan Police received a letter making a 'number of claims' against Thomas Markle in 2019.
According to the police statement, the Met passed the letter to the office of the Duke and Duchess 'for their awareness' and did not share the details of the allegations with other law enforcement agencies.
Scotland Yard said the Met will review how the matter was handled in 2019 and decide whether to refer itself to the police watchdog.
The Sun reported that Thomas Markle was reported to Philippine authorities by his son, Thomas Markle Jr., after the son allegedly found child abuse materials in storage boxes at the father's home.
According to earlier reporting cited by CBS, Thomas Markle is under investigation by Philippine authorities for alleged possession of child sexual abuse materials.
In a statement, Meghan said a letter was sent to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection in 2018, that it was later shared with her, and that she was given assurances the allegations were being investigated.
The Daily Mail reported that Thomas Markle denied the allegations against him.
A spokesman for the Duchess told the BBC that 'any discrepancy of a few months' was 'an understandable consequence of that passage of time'.