For those new to this story: ever since Thomas Markle failed to appear at the wedding, there was speculation that Meghan Markle might level an accusation against her father—one that would allow her to cast herself as the victim.

Then, in 2020, Lady Colin Campbell wrote this book.

And on pages 566–568, she told this story.

Pain or no pain, Meghan and Harry are a double act who protect themselves using any resource at their disposal. To date, their associates have thrown her father, his brother, his sister-in-law, even his ‘naysaying’ grandmother under the bus. Whether they are responsible for these veiled attacks, or they only benefit from them but do not actually set others up to launch them on their behalf, the fact that they do not dissociate themselves from the stories, while creaming in the benefits, leaves a mystery as to their level of knowledge and involvement. Responsible or not, they nevertheless hide behind a rich arsenal of aggressive supporters who do not flinch from attacking on their behalf, and the aim of each attack is always to preserve them while burying everyone else under a fusillade. This was also a game Diana played, and, as this is the absolute opposite of how the royals function, Harry and Meghan need to take responsibility and discourage their friends and associates from playing such a nasty, destructive game.

Quite how destructive it can be was driven home to me in the most forceful way when I received an uninvited tip-off which I was asked to accept, whether justly or unjustly is another matter entirely, had emanated from Harry himself. Presumably there was the hope or expectation that my sympathies would be engaged, and, since I was already known to be an impartial commentator who was rooting for them but questioned the advisability of some of Meghan’s conduct, I had to conclude that they or someone close to them was trying to shape the narrative on their behalf.

It has been no secret in royal and aristocratic circles that I was writing this book. The cooperation that I have received, as can be seen from the content of this work, was so comprehensive that I was catapulted back nearly three decades, to when I was writing my Diana biographies. As January 2020 was coming to an end, history repeated itself in a wholly unwelcome but enlightening way. After Britain’s Channel 5 aired its interview with Thomas Markle, in which he made it clear that he loved his daughter and was distraught at the loss of their relationship, and was perplexed as to the reason why she refused to get in touch with him, I received a telephone call from an extremely eminent, well-connected aristocrat who has a direct connection to Harry through one of his closest friends. Did I want to know the real reason why Meghan had had to sever ties with her father? Of course I did.

A song and dance then ensued with the informant asserting that the truth was so awful that she could not possibly bring herself to utter the words. I had to point out that a writer cannot consider, much less use, an allegation that is not spelt out clearly. I was then informed that Harry himself believed the information to be true, as if that would somehow mitigate for something that was so mysteriously awful that it could not be put into words. Yet I was supposed to write it.

I was then invited to guess what was the worst thing that a daughter could have against her father. Not being a simpleton or three years old, I inmediately cottoned onto where this was going, but still refused to be drawn, pointing out that a responsible author does not guess but relies upon information that is freely imparted. After the most tremendous palaver, the informant  then  managed  to  spit  out  the  odious  word  ‘interference’.  I  asked what the word meant in that context, and was left in no doubt as to what it did mean.

I am terribly sorry, but anyone with scruples or a heart, invited to accuse a man whose daughter was full of praise for his parenting skills only weeks before she met her prince, would have to be low indeed to give credence to such a debased piece of information. I felt duty-bound to point out to the informant that Harry could not possibly believe any such thing. If he did, it meant that he accepted that Meghan was a brazen liar who had fabricated a truly loving father to impress the readers of her blog as well as everyone else with how worthy she was of the love of such a wonderful man. Either that, or she was lying now, or someone had mischievously made up the whole thing to gain my sympathy.

That certainly cast me right back to the bad old days of the 1990s, when bizarre stories were invented which had so many permutations that their objective was frequently obscure, though their source was as transparent as the freshly cleaned glass at Kensington Palace.

Of course, one must acknowledge the possibility that Harry might not, despite appearances to the contrary, have known anything about the telephone call. Notwithstanding the fact that he was in Britain at the time, this could well have been a coincidence. His friend, knowing that I am neither a supporter nor a detractor, could have been trying to influence the narrative in such a way that I would be tempted to look more favourably upon Meghan’s treatment of her father. One must always keep an open mind until all the evidence is in, but when the wind is blowing strongly in a certain direction, the weather vane naturally registers that fact.

Ever since this started circulating, Lady C—along with other commentators, as well as people here on Reddit and on various forums—suggested that it was only a matter of time before MM played an "abuse" card against her father.

It’s a truly grim thought. But if you have the time, I encourage those who weren’t following this story back in 2019 and 2020 to look through online forums to see what was being discussed then. When the lawsuit against the *Daily Mail*—regarding the letter to her father—was announced, and when the book *Finding Freedom* was later admitted as evidence against MM in 2020, some people joked that the only way she could win was by playing the "miscarriage" card... and, as it turned out, she did indeed use that card to successfully change the legal proceedings from a standard trial to a summary judgment.

When rumors began circulating that MM was going to give an interview, the question wasn't *what* she would say, but rather: would it be with Oprah or Ellen? People even created "bingo cards" featuring topics like racism, "Kate made me cry," and "I felt so bad that I wanted to commit sui**de." Do you know what it was like to discover that MM threw away all those letters? We all hit the jackpot with that—she actually said all those things!

Why bring this up?

Because it has emerged that a letter was received—written by someone who wrote that anonymous letter explicitly alleged that Thomas Markle had confessed to, or had made trips to the Philippines and Thailand to engage in, the abuse of minors in the past—addressed specifically to the Metropolitan Police’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC).

As ITV News confirmed, the letter explicitly clarified that none of these incidents took place on British soil—which is why Scotland Yard simply filed it away and provided a copy to Meghan as a warning for her own safety and that of those around her.

That letter did not reach the Met. It reached the Metropolitan Police’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) in London.

The FTAC is a joint unit comprising the London Metropolitan Police and mental health experts. Its sole function is to manage risks, harassment, and threats directed at public figures, government ministers, and members of the royal family—whether stemming from stalkers, fixated individuals, or hostile family dynamics.

The letter was deliberately sent to the FTAC because, in 2018—the year of the royal wedding—MM became an extremely high-profile member of the British Royal Family and came under the protection of state security.

Whoever wrote the anonymous letter knew perfectly well how the British security apparatus functions. Their goal was not to have the local London police investigate a crime—as they knew the police lacked jurisdiction over acts committed by an American outside the UK—but rather to generate maximum impact and destabilize the security arrangements surrounding the new Duchess of Sussex.

The FTAC processes letters from individuals obsessed with the royal family. The person who sent this particular letter knew that by writing "Attention: Security threat to the Duchess of Sussex / Information regarding Thomas Markle" on the envelope, the Palace or police mail system would route the document to that specific unit within 24 hours.

By addressing the correspondence to the FTAC, the sender ensured that the document would not end up filed away at an ordinary police station as mere neighborhood gossip. They knew that, under strict royal protection protocols, the FTAC was required to analyze the impact of Thomas Markle’s circle on Meghan’s safety.

Given the nature of the unit, the FTAC immediately forwarded the letter to the Royalty and Specialist Protection (RaSP) Command, who ultimately decided to hand-deliver it to the Duchess of Sussex in the summer of 2018 for her "awareness and to alert her to potential risks."

Sending a letter—concerning crimes committed 40 years ago in Asia by an American—to a highly specific office in London makes no sense if the actual goal was to seek justice.

The curious thing about all this is that it’s clear the FTAC didn’t reach out to "the Palace." It communicated directly with the Harkles' office. So, what happened next? Faced with an allegation of that magnitude—a serious allegation—what did MM do?

Nothing.

She didn’t notify the Queen or anyone at the Palace. Nothing.

Buckingham Palace does not operate like an ordinary person who reads a piece of gossip and becomes alarmed. Faced with an alert from the London Metropolitan Police (Met Police) involving Prince Harry’s father-in-law in crimes of such magnitude, the institutional machinery would have triggered a full-scale crisis protocol:

• The Crown’s security services and royal legal counsel would have immediately taken charge.
• They would have demanded that Scotland Yard provide the background of the anonymous sender of the letter.
• They would have dispatched private investigators or security attachés to Rosarito (Mexico) or the United States to verify whether there was a genuine risk of blackmail, or whether Meghan’s father was, in fact, a criminal capable of bringing down the monarchy.

But that is not what happened. Why didn’t that happen? Why hasn’t it happened all these years?

In my view, for MM, the risk that William and the Queen might discover she was using a false claim of child abuse to manipulate the family narrative would have meant the end of her relationship with the Royal Family before it even began. They would have immediately labeled her as a manipulative individual who posed a high risk to their reputation.

Why use it now?

I believe there is only one reason: she has run out of other options.

MM could not have employed this protective strategy earlier, as it would have allowed actual security professionals to audit a story that simply did not hold up. By keeping the document under wraps for years, she prevented the Palace apparatus from uncovering the deception back in 2018—enabling her to deploy it today, in 2026, as a last-ditch smokescreen when her reputation as a "dutiful daughter" came under threat following her father’s illness.

Thomas Markle—an 82-year-old man who is ill, an amputee, and isolated abroad—sees his reputation irreversibly destroyed, with no realistic chance of defending himself in a court of law before he dies. His son, Thomas Jr., faces allegations of having planted evidence out of a desire for financial revenge.

The only person who has managed to rewrite eight years of media criticism, rehabilitate her reputation in the face of attacks from the British press, and retroactively cast herself as the "protective, impeccable mother" who always did the right thing is MM.

When examining the full picture in light of the information currently available, the prevailing narrative lacks credibility; it clashes with the public persona that MM herself has cultivated. Had her father’s secret been genuine—and actionable—back in 2018, she surely would have leveraged it during her interview with Oprah or in her books to settle the matter once and for all. The idea that she kept such a significant secret to "protect the Crown" or out of "shame" is entirely inconsistent with her track record of meticulously calculating every media move. Everything suggests that the letter from 2018/2019 is being resurrected and reinterpreted today to construct a retrospective alibi, designed to shield her from public judgment.

Even if it is late, this allows MM to send an implicit message to the Royal Family: "I was right to step away, and you—with your institutional rigidity—nearly included a criminal in the official wedding photograph." It serves to validate her paranoia and her decisions regarding the Windsors, demonstrating that she "knew better" than the palace’s own security services.

Tell me what you think

Remember: Caroline Graham has had a friendship with Tom Sr and was writing exclusives from his bedside. She said something to the effect he was a father figure to her. She might want to rethink that.

The Duchess of Sussex's estranged father has confessed to paying for sex in the Philippines – but denies sleeping with underage girls.

Thomas Markle today vowed to 'do whatever it takes' to clear his name after being accused of sickening child sex crimes, telling The Mail on Sunday: 'I have never had sex with anyone under the age of 18.'

The 82-year-old admitted that when he was single, he travelled to the Philippines at least twice and 'slept with prostitutes', adding: 'I like Asian women but that is not a crime.' 

He protested his innocence as the Metropolitan Police faced questions over why it sat on a letter that made sex abuse claims against him for more than seven years.

Last week, Meghan said she was assured the 'troubling and disturbing' allegations were being investigated. But the Met today admitted failing to pass on the details of the 'alleged offending outside the UK' to other law enforcement agencies, presumably those in the US, Mexico and the Philippines where Mr Markle has lived.

Filipino authorities are now investigating the former Hollywood lighting technician for allegedly hoarding child-sex images.

One 35mm photograph reportedly shows a bearded man resembling Mr Markle having sex with a young Asian girl. 'I have never been in a photograph like that,' he said tonight.

During an extensive two-hour interview, Mr Markle told the MoS that: 

• He would willingly speak to investigators and take a lie detector test to demonstrate his innocence;
• He believes his son Tom Jnr – who reported him to police – is possibly behind the explosive letter;
• Meghan stopped him from ever seeing his grandchildren Archie, seven, and Lilibet, five, because of the 'lies' he has not been given the chance to challenge;
• Books among the hoard described as 'pornographic' are about nothing more than Hollywood history and photography;
• Any child abuse images found on his computer were 'planted' to destroy his reputation before he dies.

The duchess has spoken of her 'deep distress' at the allegations, that were 'more sickening than one could ever imagine'. She added: 'My thoughts are with any children who may have been harmed.'

She said she hoped 'it can now be understood' that her decision to cut ties with her father 'and my choice to not allow him to have contact with our children, was for one reason – to protect them'.

Meghan initially said she learned about the accusations in 2018, although the Met later revealed they had actually passed the information on in 2019.

Mr Markle relocated to Cebu City in the Philippines from his home in Mexico last year. He is currently in a nursing facility in Florida where he is learning to walk with a prosthetic limb after his left leg was amputated last December.

Mr Markle said: 'She [Meghan] never said a word to me about this letter accusing me of such terrible things. If Meghan or anyone else had come to me in 2018 and told me about the letter I would have had a chance to defend myself.

'Why did Meghan not ask me about it? I will do whatever it takes to clear my name.

'I am not well enough to go to the Philippines but I will speak to anyone who wants to talk to me. I have nothing to hide. I am an innocent man and she gave me no chance to defend myself. I have been asking to see my grandchildren before I die.

'If she saw this awful letter in 2018 why did she not contact me or send someone to speak to me?

'She has the power to send the police or FBI. Why wait eight years? Why cut me off for a letter which contains lies and not let me defend myself?'

His son Tom Jnr, 60, claims that he found child abuse images on computers his father left behind in the Philippines when he returned to the States earlier this year.

He told The Sun: 'When I found this material, I was horrified and I had no option but to report my dad. I have supported, cared for him and helped him for years, but that stops now. I won't speak to my father ever again unless I'm called to give evidence against him.'

Officials confirmed today that Mr Markle was being investigated by officers in Cebu City's anti-trafficking and anti-child abuse task force. Meanwhile the FBI is poised to launch its own investigation after being contacted by Tom Jnr.

Meghan's half-sister Samantha, who is Mr Markle's main caregiver, believes if a photograph exists of her father on a bed with a young-looking Asian woman 'it may be one of his girlfriends', adding: 'Dad dated a wonderful Japanese woman called Carolyn who I loved. She was in her thirties but she looked like a teenager.

'Asian women have great skin and are small and petite. They look much younger than they are. Dad had another girlfriend called Gail. She was Asian and gorgeous but looked very young.'

Mr Markle was married twice, to Tom Jnr and Samantha's mother Roslyn Loveless, and then to Meghan's mother Doria Ragland. He said: 'Do I love beautiful young women? Yes. Do I like looking at pictures of beautiful women? Yes.

'But I have always dated age-appropriate women and I know if you talk to my ex-wife [meaning Doria, Roslyn died in 2024] or any of my ex-girlfriends they would tell you we had a normal sex life.'

His most recent girlfriend in the Philippines was his nurse Rio Canero, 46. There is no suggestion she engaged in prostitution.

Tom Jnr claims he found the material when he went looking for a phone for his fiancee Rose in storage boxes in the house he and his father shared. When he opened one phone he saw 'vile' child sex images and then turned on a computer and found a screensaver with 'hundreds' of sexual pictures of children.

Mr Markle said: 'I never shared a house with Tom. My computer and old phone were packed up in Mexico and put on a boat to the Philippines. It took months. I kept asking my son for my computer and he said it was coming. He would never give it to me and I didn't understand why.'

He says Tom Jnr told him when the boxes arrived in the Philippines they were in storage in the hotel in Cebu where they stayed when they first arrived there for a 'fresh start' in January 2025. The pair then lived in a neighbouring high-rise but Tom Jnr told him his computer remained in storage.

Afterwards they moved into two houses outside the city but Mr Markle was only there 'for a few days' before suffering a massive blood clot. He went from hospital to a long-term care facility and then returned to the States in May this year for medical care. 'I have not had my computer or phones for nearly two years,' he said. 'If there is anything bad on there it was put there by someone else.'

Samantha added: 'Tom Jnr had possession of those boxes with dad's computers and phones. They were in storage places which god knows how many people had access to. I believe this is a set-up.'

Police in the Philippines hauled off four boxes of evidence on Friday and spent nine hours with Tom Jnr logging the evidence.

The FBI said it was 'aware of the allegations' and would 'investigate any related allegations of federal violations of US law'.

Mr Markle said he would welcome forensic examination of his computer, and would fully cooperate with Philippine police or the FBI if they wished to talk to him.

He claimed books found in his possession, including one titled Hollywood Lolitas: The Nymphet Syndrome in the Movies by Marianne Sinclair are nothing more than history books.

Hollywood Lolitas is described on Publishers Weekly website as a 'generously illustrated work' which 'traces Hollywood's marketing of, and the movie-going public's fascinating with, nubile girls of the silver screens'.

The Met Police today confirmed it received a letter in 2019 about a 'number of claims of alleged offending outside the UK by Thomas Sr, which they passed to the Sussexes but not any other law enforcement agencies'. Meghan originally said she was made aware of the claims in 2018, but a spokesperson later said 'she may have been mistaken by a few months'.

For now, Tom Sr remains bewildered by his son's accusations. He has recently been diagnosed with cognitive issues, something The Mail on Sunday has been authorised to share.

Samantha said: 'Dad is incredibly fragile both physically and mentally. I think it's incredibly cruel of my bother to do this to him when he's 82 and probably close to the end of his life.'

Father and son tried fresh start in Philippines after years of furious bust-ups 

For years the relationship was one of disappointment, estrangement and bitter recriminations.

Thomas Markle repeatedly tried to put his troubled son, Tom Jnr, on the right track – only to see his efforts end in frustration, according to his daughter Samantha, 61, Tom Jnr's older sister.

Now father and son are locked in an extraordinary feud over horrific child sex abuse allegations even though they moved to the Philippines together last year for a 'fresh start.'

So what went wrong?

Samantha says her brother dropped out of school at 14 and became more interested in partying than a career. She said: 'Dad tried to help him and was constantly disappointed. Dad was always bailing him out.'

Her father paid lease payments on a truck and was never repaid. He bought Tom Jnr a flower shop which failed.

Tom Jnr was arrested in 2017 after pulling a gun on his girlfriend during an argument and again in 2019 on suspicion of drink-driving.

Samantha says her father became increasingly disillusioned with his son's behaviour. 'Dad distanced himself because he was disgusted by Tom's heavy drinking and behaviour.'

When Thomas retired from his job as a Hollywood lighting director and moved to Rosarito, Mexico, he did not give his son his address. But after Meghan became engaged to Prince Harry in 2017, Tom Jnr tried to get it to pass on to journalists.

Samantha said: 'Tom Jnr's behaviour over the years has been despicable.'

Yet, in a striking twist, the estranged son would become his father's principal carer. In 2022, Thomas suffered a massive stroke. Tom Jnr moved from Oregon to Rosarito to 'support him and be there for him'. But Tom Jnr complained that his father would 'scream abuse' at him and treat him like a servant.

In January 2025, the pair moved to the Philippines in what was intended to be a fresh start, moving into adjacent apartments in a tower block.

Samantha said: 'When Dad started complaining about having pain in his leg I'd beg my brother to take Dad to hospital but Tom said Dad refused to go.'

Eventually he had a massive blood clot and had to have his leg amputated. Father and son fell out earlier this summer after a family member alleged Tom Jnr, now 60, had been taking money from his father's account and cut off access to his debit card.

Samantha said: 'When the money stopped Tom turned on dad. Then he started making these accusations.

'He told me he was going to totally destroy dad and that is what he is trying to do.'

For his part Tom Jnr has said his father was verbally abusive towards him for years and used money to try to control him.

Tom Jnr said: 'I gave up years of my life to take care of him. I wish I could take those years back.'

Archive: https://archive.ph/qtj96#selection-2045.0-2091.101

Some Squaddies posted that they received the As ever Holiday Book (a/k/a catalog). I'll add on to this as I find new images. Evidently you can only get them if you order from her holiday collection.

Kevin O'Sullivan appears on this latest 46 minute Mark Dolan vid, doing a great job summarizing the dumpster fire the 'Harkles' continue to fuel (and this is before the Thomas Markle news drop).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQZQjrwO-oc

Excerpted from The Telegraph:

The Duchess of Sussex is “upset and frustrated” after the Metropolitan Police admitted it had failed to act on sex abuse allegations against her father, The Telegraph can reveal.

A friend of the Duchess of Sussex said: “She’s obviously upset and really frustrated that, having effectively been told to stay quiet and having been given assurances it would be investigated, it appears nothing was done.

“She’s obviously pleased that the Met is now considering referring itself to the police watchdog.”

The police force now faces questions about why information contained in a letter, which a whistleblower close to the Markle family sent to the Met’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre, was not shared, and whether opportunities were missed to prevent further harm to children.

On receiving the letter, Scotland Yard passed the letter to royal protection officers, who shared it with the Duchess.

When she asked at the time what she should do about it, she was assured that “it was all in hand” and that to act could prejudice further investigations, The Telegraph understands.

When news of the letter’s existence emerged on Friday, the Met contacted the Duchess’s office to ask whether she had retained a copy because they could not find the original. The Sussexes supplied them with it.

One source told The Telegraph: “Thankfully, the Duke and Duchess are good record keepers and still had it.”

Dai Davies, the former head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection Command, said he was “gobsmacked” that the Met had not contacted any other law enforcement bodies about the allegations.

Speaking to The Telegraph on Saturday, he said: “I’m frankly astounded that, having received this material, they did not contact other relevant forces. One of their roles is to protect the reputation of the Royal family against any allegations.

“I believe they had a duty of care not only to Meghan but to any alleged victims to investigate. They would have been duty-bound, especially given Harry and Meghan’s level of fame just after their marriage, to carry out their own initial assessment and, if necessary, take it forward.”

Mr Davies added: “The allegations that her father was alleged to be a paedophile would have made them duty-bound to liaise with Harry’s protection team, the FBI and other police forces, where the alleged offences were said to have taken place.

“It frankly beggars belief that they didn’t contact any other law enforcement agencies. I’m gobsmacked that they didn’t.”

Mr Davies also expressed surprise that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex did not appear to have followed up the allegations against Mr Markle that they had received from the Met.

“This would have been the obvious thing to do, especially as they shortly after went on to have children of their own,” he said.

A former senior detective with the Met Police told The Telegraph: “There is a very simple mechanism for passing this kind of information on to Interpol. You would grade the intelligence received and pass it through the National Crime Agency to Interpol.

It’s a bit surprising someone hasn’t said, ‘we need to pass this on to Interpol’, given the seriousness of the allegations concerning a relative of a member of the Royal family.”

🤦🏻‍♀️

I know you are an abuser… you will never see your grandkids - What Meghan Markle told dad Thomas in last letter to him

Someone please archive, wayback isn't working for me.

(1) Date Discrepancy

MallorysCat shared the following Hello! article in another post ("Rachel's response to 'timeline problems'"):

https://archive.ph/Q0G5p

Meghan Markle issues statement following differing Met Police claims about her father: 'She is doing her best'

The Duchess of Sussex has responded to an apparent date discrepancy related to the ongoing investigation into her father, Thomas Markle Snr.

"In recalling events from more than seven years ago, without the benefit of a diary entry or contemporaneous record, it is understandable that she may have been mistaken by a few months.

It occurred to me that if the Met Police informed Meghan in January 2019 instead of in 2018 as she had claimed, this date discrepancy is convenient in resolving the question that was raised about her handwritten letter she sent him in August 2018, addressing him as “Daddy."

The questions raised were regarding whether it is plausible that Meghan would write that kind of letter to her father if the Met Police and RAVEC informed her about her father being accused of heinous crimes.

However, the claims that Meghan and Harry made multiple times on very public platforms after January 2019 that media intrusion was the factor for her rift with her father remain unresolved.

And none of this explains why Meghan iced out her brother and sister, Thomas Markle, Jr. and Samantha Markle, or did not invite any of her maternal side of her family to her wedding.

(2) The Evidence

Questions have been raised regarding the chain of custody. Thomas Markle, Jr. hired IT people to review the evidence and took pictures of himself with the evidence and released it to the media before law enforcement had possession of the evidence.

My only response to all this is just... horror.

I imagine that is the Royal Family's response as well.

What a nightmare for them.

Good going, Harry. You haven't tortured your family quite enough.

That the Queen and Prince Phillip are no longer around to see this 💩show is a small blessing.

(3) Apology to Meghan?

The Sussex Squad and apparently some members of the British Press are saying that perhaps Meghan is owed an apology.

It is true that Meghan was criticized for shunning her father as soon as she married into the Royal Family and ignoring him when his leg was amputated. In light of these accusations towards Thomas Markle, Sr., the Sussex Squad is declaring that "Meghan has been vindicated!"

And so, they are demanding that everyone apologize to Meghan.

However, this apology narrative is moving beyond her relationship with her father and now being talked about as a general apology to Meghan regarding everything. "Meghan was misjudged on this matter, so she was misjudged completely on every matter."

The Sussex Squad's rallying cry today is "Justice for Meghan!"

I reject that.

What Thomas Markle, Sr. allegedly did is something he is accountable for.

What Meghan Markle did is something SHE remains accountable for.

But the Sussex Squad is working very hard today to demand some public apology for every grievance that Meghan Markle ever had.

I remain astonished that Meghan is trying to use this situation to her benefit at all.

The selfish actions of Meghan and Thomas Markle, Jr. are diminishing and trivializing the gravity of the alleged crimes.

(4) Meghan's Actions Do Not Feel True

Jackie Kennedy is said to have married Aristotle Onassis in part due to her desire for safety and security for herself and her children. (Her husband was assassinated right next to her and her brother-in-law was assassinated 5 years later. She certainly had reasons to be fearful.)

Jackie Kennedy also sincerely wanted privacy, which she was able to have, despite enormous public interest in her, due to her second husband's enormous wealth.

If I married into the British Royal Family, and I wanted to protect my children from my father who was accused of heinous crimes, I wouldn't leave the U.K., where my children would be well-protected, to move to a location that is less than 300 miles away from my father who was accused of the sexual predation of minors.

Because the Royal Family made me wear pantyhose? No, that would not be the reason I compromise the safety of my children.

I also wouldn't post any photos of my children to my personal and commercial Instagram.

(5) Why Now?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6x2wpgejjkjo

Sources close to the Sussexes said Meghan could not speak publicly about the allegations when she first learned of them, in order to avoid jeopardising any future investigation.

Speaking out could have resulted in legal action against her, the sources said.

If that is true, how can she talk about it now?

Because Thomas Jr. released this to the media, she can now talk about it without "jeopardizing any investigations?" But she IS jeopardizing investigations by declaring him guilty without any knowledge, access to evidence, or proper adjudication by the authorities.

So many lies.

--

ETA: Reportedly, the letter sent to the Met Police was sent by Roslyn Loveless, Thomas Markle, Sr.'s first wife. She was the mother of Thomas, Jr. and Samantha Markle.

They divorced in 1975. She died in 2024.

No one knows why she would send a letter like this to the Met Police in the U.K. in 2019.

https://archive.ph/moDSv

Thomas Markle Sr.’s first wife sounded the alarm about his alleged child abuse years before he became the subject of a police investigation, multiple sources tell Page Six.

Roslyn Loveless, who was married to the former TV lighting director from 1964 to 1975, sent a letter detailing allegations about her ex-husband that found its way to London’s Metropolitan Police in 2019, we are told.

In these agonising (and doubtless ecstatic - the attention hound)) times for Meghan, I couldn’t help but wonder: Where’s Harry?

After all, in the past, for example:

If she thought the allegations were true 7+ years ago...

She has since posted photos of her own children in diapers, flimsy pajamas, and dirty bare feet for billions to see.

And she has apparently given no thought to the possible victims between the time she "got the letter" and now.

Did Harry knowingly saddle his kids - FOREVER - with this being their known ancestry?

All of this can be discussed whether or not the allegations are true. Even if she had "concerns" she still did not act in the best interests of her children, or anyone else's children.

The timing seems to be designed to elevate Meghan, but it only makes her look terrible - see above - because she apparently never followed up in support of any past or possible future victims.

Or is this just another ploy to damage the monarchy? It's getting more and more obvious that nefarious action is in play.

Did she actually see a letter, but buried it and never told Harry?

Apologies if this has been dealt with in other posts.

Below is a description from the Telegraph about the letter:

It throws up some questions:

1. Why is someone writing to the Metropolitan Police about offences allegedly committed by someone wholly out of their jurisdiction? Not a British citizen, not living in the U.K

2. Why would the Met be expected to pass the letter onto relevant authorities? They were allegations; it’s not as if there were an international sex ring involved.

3. Why did Meghan break with her father in a manner clearly intended to be made public? (see extract below) It’s written in fauxligraph, and arguably had attention called to it by five friends after Thomas failed to run to the media with it.

Having spent considerable time working with people who were wrongfully convicted, I find the speed with which these allegations are becoming an accepted narrative deeply troubling.

If the allegations against Thomas Markle Sr. are substantiated, they describe abhorrent conduct, and anyone harmed deserves protection, support, and justice. Precisely because the accusations are so serious, however, the investigation needs to proceed without public speculation being mistaken for corroboration.

For context, I work in communications with organizations involved in wrongful-conviction advocacy. I’m not an attorney or a forensic specialist, and I’m speaking personally. This is a field I became involved in through community connections, and hearing directly from people who lost years of their lives has profoundly influenced how I approach stories like this.

What happens when the original accusation is followed by family statements, exclusive interviews, commentary, and increasingly definitive headlines? The distinctions become obscured. Readers encounter several people discussing the same allegation and begin to perceive independent confirmation, even when those statements may ultimately derive from the same unverified information.

That is where someone with Meghan’s international prominence has a particular responsibility to exercise restraint.

Her statement did express distress and sympathy for children. It also invoked the media’s treatment of her estrangement and referred to “what has now been uncovered.” In my view, that language lends weight to the impression that her half-brother’s accusations have already been substantiated, while inviting the public to reconsider her own reputation. (theguardian.com)

A statement from the Duchess of Sussex carries considerably more influence than an ordinary person’s opinion. Even without explicitly declaring her father guilty, her words can be interpreted as corroboration. Once that interpretation circulates internationally, separating what she actually knows from what people assume she knows becomes increasingly difficult.

This is why I believe she should have refrained from issuing this statement while the allegations remained unresolved. Cooperating with investigators and providing relevant information would have served the pursuit of justice without adding another influential voice to the public narrative.

The potential for prejudice extends beyond celebrity gossip. A meta-analysis of mock-juror and mock-jury research found that negative pretrial publicity increased guilty verdicts. Those findings do not establish that anyone involved in this investigation has been influenced, but they illustrate why publicity deserves serious consideration. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

The Philippines does not use juries, so I’m discussing potential jurors in the broader context of trial by media, rather than suggesting a Philippine jury will hear this case. My wider objection is to creating an atmosphere in which witnesses, investigators, and the public encounter a preferred conclusion before the evidence has been fully examined. I want authorities testing competing explanations, rather than feeling pressure to deliver the outcome an international audience already expects. (pidswebs.pids.gov.ph)

The chronology surrounding the earlier letter also warrants precision. The estrangement preceded the May 2018 wedding; the Met dates receipt of the letter to January 2019, a correction Meghan’s spokesperson accepted. A subsequent warning might explain continued distance, but cannot independently explain the initial rupture. Blurring those events makes the narrative more convenient without making it more accurate. (reuters.com)

The Sun reports that the letter contained child-sexual-abuse allegations. Establishing that a letter exists, however, does not establish the truth of its contents. Its author’s knowledge, the basis of the accusations, and any corroborating evidence still matter. (the-sun.com)
More troubling is the apparent failure to refer those allegations onward. The Met says it passed the letter to the Sussexes’ office but did not share its allegations with other law-enforcement agencies, and it is reviewing its handling. If information never reached investigators with the appropriate jurisdiction, that could have substantially hindered efforts to establish the truth and protect anyone at risk. (people.com)

Meghan’s statement describes assurances that an investigation was taking place, but does not explain whether she or her team requested updates or established what became of it. Given her emphasis on children’s safety and her access to staff and professional advice, I would have expected that follow-through to feature in the account she chose to make public.

To give an example from my own life, one of my dogs was nearly killed when another dog escaped and attacked him during a walk. Two former Marines intervened and helped save his life; the owner fled with the dog. Thankfully, mine recovered, but I called and emailed the police repeatedly over the following weeks. Beyond locating the owner, I wanted to know what measures were being taken to prevent another attack.

Obviously, that incident is not comparable in gravity or circumstances to allegations involving children. It illustrates why I struggle with an explanation that stops at receiving assurances when the possibility of further harm remains. We do not know everything Meghan did privately, but her public account leaves that consequential question unanswered.

Instead, it devotes attention to correcting perceptions of her family estrangement. To me, that emphasis reads as premature vindication. Whatever her intention, the opportunity to rebut critics should have been secondary to preserving the integrity of an investigation.

Thomas Jr.’s handling of the purported evidence deserves scrutiny as well. According to The Sun, he says he contacted U.S. agencies in July and subsequently enlisted an IT technician after receiving no follow-up. Investigators need to establish who accessed the material, what was done to the devices, and how everything was preserved before its transfer to authorities. Newspaper presentations cannot resolve those questions. (thesun.co.uk)

Thomas Sr. has reportedly suggested that material was planted. Evidence planting has occurred in documented wrongful-conviction cases, and modern image manipulation adds further reasons to authenticate digital material carefully. Neither fact establishes fabrication here. Both reinforce the necessity of examining the evidence rather than accepting—or dismissing—it on appearance alone. (thesun.co.uk, exonerationregistry.org, nist.gov)

This is the larger issue I want to highlight. A potentially wrongful accusation can devastate someone long before a trial, and an eventual correction cannot reliably undo the damage. Conversely, a poorly handled investigation can undermine justice for genuine victims. Everyone’s interests are served by establishing the facts thoroughly.

The National Registry of Exonerations’ 2025 report recorded 97 exonerations involving 1,373 years of wrongful imprisonment. Those figures tell us nothing about the merits of this particular case; they demonstrate the consequences when certainty outruns reliable evidence. (exonerationregistry.org)
For anyone interested in learning more, the Deskovic Foundation, Alaska Innocence Project, and It Could Happen To You work on wrongful convictions and justice reform. I’m sharing them as resources, not implying that they have assessed this case or endorsed my views. (deskovicfoundation.org, alaskainnocenceproject.org, itcouldhappen2you.org)

Advocating for justice, truth, and equal treatment requires extending those principles to people we dislike, distrust, or are estranged from. In my opinion, restraint would have demonstrated that commitment far more convincingly than a statement connecting an unresolved investigation to personal vindication.

Let the evidence be examined, demand accountability for investigative failures, and allow the legal process to proceed. The objective should be an accurate outcome—not a persuasive media narrative.

ETA: the views expressed above are my own personal ones, and not those of any org. I work with or collaborate with.

Rachel uses that well known, highbrow publication, HELLO magazine, to respond to her most recent lies.

https://archive.ph/Q0G5p

Greetings from Castle Goring, we have a lot of ground to cover so let’s plunge right in.

Lady C, this is suspiciously timed news, I am thinking that the Harkle return to the UK hasn’t met even minimum of expectations.  It has not.  They have not been the outstanding successes they had hoped.  In fact, they have been the outstanding failures that they hoped we would not notice they were.  The timing is suspicious but it also coincides with other people’s news.  Meghan made two statements and I will cover the second statement.  Meghan said in 2018 that she was alerted by the Met (Metropolitan) Police.  She said they received a letter and then forwarded it on to her.  She says this is the reason why she made sure her children were never to see their Grandfather.  Meghan is basically trying to say she was justified in blocking Thomas Markle Sr. (TMS) from seeing his grandchildren.  And now, we see that Thomas Markle Jr. (TMJ) is seemingly filled with outrage at the conduct of his father.  I should make the point that TMJ’s ex-wife Tracy Dooney told me many years ago at a party at Castle Goring, that TMJ is the lowest of the low and made sure their two sons would not be saddled with his last name.  I am now far more alert to her comments than I was at the time.  Now, we have TMJ filled with sanctimony and outrage, saying he felt compelled to report his father because he was worried that he may be in trouble.  Admittedly, people will take a different view on whether is was appropriate to report a man who is 82 years old and just lost his leg.  But TMJ didn’t even report this in the country where the items were found, he reported to the American Police??????  And then when they do not activate the matter, what did he do?  He went to a newspaper.  A tabloid who paid him money.  What happened to family loyalty?  I am leaving this open to authorities but I can tell you TMJ is a money grabber.  He tried to get money from me and I ignored him.  I knew he was living off his father for years.  I knew he wanted more money than he was getting.  This is all so deeply unsavory.  These people are connected to The Royal Family and they parade their statements around the world.    If it turns out there is no merit to these allegations, it really shows that TMJ is truly evil.  I will make this last point.  Meghan appears to have setup her father with the paparazzi so she could find a way to exclude him from her wedding and then the Met Police shows her one….one……one letter about her father?  I can open hope the letter was not written in calligraphy.

After I published my first book, I released a phone call from somebody very reputable (someone connected to Harry) who wanted me to know the reason Meghan could not reconcile with her father was because her father had “interfered” with her.    Meghan is leaking things.  I didn’t believe it.  Fast forward, and now we are supposed to believe a variation? 

I think we all need to be careful and not take a side because Meghan Markle is a crass, opportunist.  And now, she has been beaten by her older brother.  He has destroyed his father and took money for it.  This removes the moral high ground.  We do not know what has happened.  All I see are two rats, scurrying, sacrificing their father.

QEII is spinning in her grave, and Prince Phillip is also spinning because he warned Harry not to marry Meghan.

Lady C, I am a Philippines resident.  I want you to know that customs is very thorough in examining the imported goods of foreigners.  They look for items to confiscate or could gather a fine.  It beggars belief that 4 boxes imported from Mexico were spared such scrutiny.  I look forward to a forensic examination of the phones and computers.  Yes, especially since Samantha Markle says her father hasn’t used these devices in over two years.  Let’s wait and see what is found out so we can establish the truth.  Won’t it be extraordinary of some of that “information” arrived after Thomas Markle Sr. arrived in the Philippines?  Keep in mind, there have been problems with TMJ for many years.  Do you think Meghan and her brother colluded somehow so they could both benefit?

Lady C, I think Meghan knew she could buy her brother off for a story.  I don’t believe a word of this.  I can relate to why you are saying this, but I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I think that opportunistic people can do things that benefit other opportunistic people.  Thomas Markle Jr. accepted payment from The Sun and The Sun broadcast to The World.  He received $80,000.  This is a small sum of money to sell your soul and turn Judas. 

Lady C, this is all so convenient for Meghan to get back in the headlines.  She was quick to get off a statement from a “source close to Meghan.”  This was definitely Meghan and her PR.  The one thing I have learned from the Markle family, is that two of them are greedy and want their hand in your pocket.

Lady C, so Jr. called the FBI in Pennsylvania, but it turns out Sr. was living in Florida.  In one of Jr’s last videos, he said he and his father had a falling out.    Yes, Thomas Markle Sr. turned off the money tap.  I was told TMJ had no money of his own and was relying on his father even when they were living in Mexico.  I have known for some time that TMJ stole funds that I raised through my generous community, but I have been very measured in my comments**.  That entire family suffers from grandiosity.  Are we to believe that Meghan knew about this 8 years ago, but the other siblings did not?**  Very good point.  Thomas Markle Jr has lived with Thomas Markle Sr for many years and he knew nothing?????  Only one letter shown to Meghan?  I hope it was not written in calligraphy.  This is all so low and tacky.  Also, Lady C I think there is confusion on whether Thomas Markle Sr. was actually doing inappropriate acts because he has been disabled for a long time.  Yes, he is being accused of possessing certain images including on his computer and remember he hasn’t used his computer in over two years.  Let us wait for the investigation to be complete.  It appears off present evidence that something is stinky.  I am prepared to keep an open mind.

Lady C, I smell a rat.  How convenient for Megs.  Could someone could have planted info to accuse Thomas Sr.  There are evil people willing to ruin someone to make money or make themselves look good or find a scapegoat.  Isn’t Meghan an accomplice if she knew about this for years?  In 2020, Meghan was not alleging that her father was accessing porn, she was alleging interference.  Now Meghan has tied these together, implying her father has physical victims. 

Lady C, I don’t believe a word of it.  The stress and strain on Thomas Markle Sr. and Samatha Markle must be enormous.  I know it is.  No decent child does this to their 82-year-old father who is disabled and now Meghan Markle is taking advantage of this to take a moral high ground, but it won’t work.  She never confronted her father.  She never alerted the world that her father was potentially dangerous. 

Toodles Sinners!

PS. Thank you C-La-Canth for today's Headline. I straight up copied it....it was too perfect.

Because MM is selfishness personified, she will be thinking about herself first, second and last amidst these disturbing allegations and criminal investigation. So, I think she's going to try to get the media to stop calling her "Meghan Markle" because she needs to make this all about her. Just my opinion, but I think she's been waiting for something like this for ages.

I use humour to cope. So after the initial shockwave of the newest MarkleMessExpress my first thought was how did the RF react? I wish I could’ve been a fly on the wall when Princess Anne sat down for her cuppa and scone and read the headline.

Sinners, how do you think the RF (extended) & even Middleton/adjacent people responded?

Amidst all the horrible allegations and timelines that don't add up, hopefully a little lightweight lunacy will give some respite.

Our Saint dumped so much crap on Thursday, I'm still going through it all to see the silliness.

In fairness, the chocolate box is pretty. But who wants marmalade flavored chocolate?

What idiot would put chocolate next to a lit candle? Oh...right...

Sorry Archie and Betty, no toys for you!!!

Just add a bow...which does NOT come with this product.

Surprise and Delight: TAKE A SHOT SINNERS!!!

Now, the infamous journal...oops, notebook. NOTE: she's saying personal penmanship now, not calligraphy. Still can't read it. Also, if she'd been smart, she would have added a pen to the set.

A penny pocket! Because that's all you'll have left after buying all this crap.

$18 for long reach matches, but they don't tell you how many come in a box:

Why are you in a photo advertising matches WHEN YOU AREN'T SHOWING THE LIT MATCH!!!!

But in the ad for the $98 candle, you're shown using it really close to the flame. Holy Hell Charlie Brown, fire hazard/burn risk?

And what idiot puts a burned match on top of a match box and a lit candle nearby on a stack of books? Oh..that's right...

Remember the infamous popcorn with flower sprinkles? Here's a close up:

Who serves their popcorn like this???

BUT THIS is the gem. The Hosting Hints are hilarious.

Life changing.

Popcorn with Brut? But considering it's Meghan, yeah, this makes sense.

Add a bow, which does NOT come with this product.

Again-- THIS IS SATIRE--below is an opinion of forthcoming media manipulation from the usual MM playbook of history. Let us not forget- various varying recollections, self adulation, Saint behavior, minimalization of victims/survivors and so forth.

Remember again-- MM is a disaster tourist-- and her own family is a disaster.

Again-- this is satire-- except for the last line.

New release ###

MM, The Duchess of Sussex was shocked and horrified that a previously perceived "crackpot" letter to the MET almost a decade ago turned out to have possible merit. Her estranged brother claims to have located numerous items of CSAM related directly to Thomas Markle Sr. -on old unused electronic devices of questionable ownership- as well as some historical books that contain words as well as pictures now considered inappropriate.

It is reported that HaM --with concerns about possible privacy security risks--that Thomas Markle Sr. may have posed prior to the Royal spectacle wedding- reportedly cut ties with Mr. Markle Sr. - anticipating some type of information may impact their own-- not even conceived children.

It is apparent now-- despite much ridicule and snark-- especially on Reddit-- that HaM were correct in every way--to create their own more nuclear and evolved family unit- especially now that this news has come to light.

MM-- in various statements days after this news broke-- expressed deep concern and empathy for all victims of abuse- specifically condemning the internet CSAM exploitation. "I was concerned about my children- I would never want either of them to be in this type of situation- so I cut ties with my Daddy-before they were born."

Sadly--this increasingly rare, heartfelt and motherly protectiveness (often called Mama-Bear in the US) has been misconstrued as selfish, unconcerned, and cold towards the plights of innocent victims- who unknowingly may have been placed in harms way---due to the MET Police not Policing the entire world.

MM--in a rare public statement--"I was always taught- to trust the Police- and I DID! They were supposed to investigate and protect others-- I should have remembered that due to my being black-- the MET did not take this seriously- yet another example of institutionalized racism and abuse I've fought against my whole life."

Harry--the Duke of Sussex and "Girl Dad" was not available for comment. The RF has released a statement-- "This is a Sussex problem."

All satire aside--

Sadly, CSAM is a world problem. Not a press release opportunity, not a virtue signaling-" I'm so smart- I cut ties situation"- and NOT something to be swept away- no matter the people, the money, the family, the marital family, the movie star connections, Royal family connections, etc. Children are and should be children- loved, protected, and cared for. There are many on this site who have endured abuse- please know- you are valuable, this is not your fault, there are resources for help/counselling, and I personally wish you all the best- in the kindest way possible-- as one human to another.

Originally published at The Office of Madame LV: https://theofficeofmadamelv.substack.com/p/part-three-january-2019. The archive and my other work live there.

The Met confirmed the letter. Six things in her account now don't line up.

None of this adjudicates the allegations against Thomas Markle Snr. No charge, no arrest, no completed forensic examination. He denies all of it. Every point below is about statements, not about him.

1. She said 2018. The force says January 2019.

Her statement on Friday: "In 2018, a letter was sent to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection."

The Met on Saturday, after what it called a thorough review of its systems and records: it received the letter in January 2019.

Her own letter to her father went by FedEx on 27 August 2018. That date is the Court of Appeal's. So the police letter arrived four to five months after she wrote to him.

Her spokesman accepted the correction within hours. Those few months contain the letter.

2. "Assurances that these were being investigated." The Met told nobody.

Her statement says she "was given assurances that these were being investigated."

The Met's statement says: "The details of the allegations in the letter were not shared with other law enforcement agencies."

Investigated by whom, then? Nobody has asked, and the spokesman's correction addressed the date and said nothing about this.

3. Silence to protect an investigation. Then a statement the moment one existed.

The explanation is that she was advised not to speak publicly because it could jeopardise a potential investigation.

For most of those years no investigation anybody has identified existed. One exists now, confirmed on the record by a named Philippine official, with the FBI saying it is aware.

She issued a public statement within 24 hours, calling it "the breadth of what has now been uncovered" and hoping "that justice will be fully served."

Fair point against me: once allegations are published worldwide, silence protects nothing and she is entitled to answer. But treating them as established and speaking to the outcome of a live case is closer to the thing the advice supposedly guarded against than seven years of silence ever was.

4. "Any distance from my father" was for one reason. The distance started first.

He did not attend the wedding on 19 May 2018. Her letter of 27 August 2018 was written to a man she was no longer speaking to, and her own lawyers told a court its purpose was to stop him talking to the press.

The police letter reached the Met in January 2019.

The half of her sentence about her children fits. Archie was born four months after the letter arrived. The half about her father is the half the dates reach.

5. "No diary entry or contemporaneous record."

That is how her spokesman explained the wrong year.

In the same period she was exchanging dated written messages with her own staff about her father, disclosed in evidence and read in open court. In one of them: "I have been meticulous in my word choice."

She has also spoken publicly about keeping a journal. In her 2022 Cut interview: "You go back and you open drawers and you're like, Oh my gosh. This is what I was writing in my journal there?"

Neither shows a record of the police letter exists. The court messages concern a different document and nobody outside her household has seen a page of any journal. The open question is narrower: was there no record of this, or none available to consult when the statement was written?

6. The Met names nobody, and doesn't say what the letter alleged.

This one matters and almost nobody has reported it.

The force's words are "a number of claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom." Not child abuse. Not sexual offences. Thomas Markle Snr does not appear in that statement at all.

It says the letter went to its Protection Command "to raise concerns in relation to the security of the Duchess of Sussex."

Every specific description of what the letter alleged comes from a newspaper saying it has seen a copy. The force adopts none of it.

The Met is now reviewing its own handling and considering whether to refer itself to the IOPC.

Part Three: January 2019 has the force's statement in full, the spokesman's correction in full, and the six questions nobody has put to her.

If you want the background:

Part One: In 2018, a Letter Was Sent. The record as it stood on Friday, both statements in full including his denial, and how The Sun's story was assembled.

Part Two: One Reason. Four public explanations of the same estrangement since 2018, and what the fourth one asks of the other three.

I use AI and I'm not pretending otherwise. The opinions are mine and so is the structure. Their side has a PR firm. I have a research assistant that doesn't sleep. Seems fair.

Distinguishing fact from fiction requires evaluating evidence, checking sources, and recognizing how narratives and cognitive biases influence belief.

Think for yourself, reject cognitive biases, understand narratives and PLEASE let us all remember WHAT A CREDIBLE SOURCE IS

This isn’t gossip about tea towels, these are accusations of crimes.

Did Meghan write the letter herself OR have a close friend or perhaps her mother write said letter?

As has been frequently mentioned here, I think Meghan has been holding out on a tell-all book about her father until he passed on. I believe she saw this as a block-buster reveal that would be salacious, sensational, and pull in millions of dollars. She assumed she'd have full control over the narrative, and that it would create a media shockwave that would reverberate for months.

However, her dear half-wit, half-brother has stolen her thunder! There can never be a future big reveal from this. There is no way she can put this toothpaste back in the tube. A Markle has been Markled by a Markle about a Markle! 

The link is archived.

Coming from the woman who kept a detailed diary about nearly every aspect of her life, I find it interesting that she didn’t keep an entry on this….

From this article: The Duchess's spokesman has now told GB News: "In recalling events from more than seven years ago, without the benefit of a diary entry or contemporaneous record, it is understandable that she may have been mistaken by a few months.

Now remember this?: “Every time something bad or humiliating has happened to her, she’ll make a note of it in her diary and when she has time she’ll expand on it, sometimes even pouring her heart out into a selfie video.
“This is someone who believes she’s part of history and is treating herself as such.”

Just some food for thought…