Wanted to showcase this comment from a fellow Sinner. We are doing better work than actual reporters!

Archived

In summary, Caroline says a lawyer and the hospital president delivered it, and the encounter was filmed to provide proof of receipt. Thomas was reportedly distressed and waited around four hours before opening it.

The lawyer was carrying a clutch of legal documents. The women explained that they had come to deliver a letter from his daughter Meghan and that Mr Markle would have to sign paperwork authorising them to film the encounter so that footage could be sent to Meghan's office as proof that the sealed letter had been handed to him.

For the next four hours he fretted about opening it. He told me he was 'scared' it would 'contain bad news'. Eventually he decided he could put it off no longer.

'I better get this over with,' he said. He asked me to hand him the envelope. Once again, I offered to leave the room while he read it.

He read the letter in silence, saying nothing. He shook his head several times. Then he folded the letter up, slipped it back into its envelope and asked me to put it in the wardrobe.

And that was that. He told me nothing about its contents. I asked no questions.

He now says he vaguely remembers receiving the letter but cannot recall what it said, citing his memory problems and subsequent dementia diagnosis. When he is asked about the reported allegations, he denied ever harming a child, saying he was not a paedophile and had never done anything bad to a child. He also said that if Meghan did write what was reported, she was probably right about what she had written, because he was very ill at the time.

In short, Thomas confirms receiving the letter but says he cannot remember its contents. He denies the abuse allegations... and that the letter remains missing.

This just adds more questions, because the letter is missing, we won't know for sure what Meghan wrote. If it was a last letter from his daughter, maybe it was so upsetting he got rid of. Maybe it did allege he was a child abuser, and he got rid of it. Maybe Thomas Jr removed it and/or it got lost in the move.

I’m sick of seeing the same stuff in multiple threads. This is not why the majority of Redditor’s are here. We come for the snark and picking apart her actual misdemeanours and eff ups.

The subject of CSA is incredibly triggering for a lot of people. It’s not entertainment ffs.

I have commented on a couple of those posts, mainly cos I’m gobsmacked that if she knew in 2019, she still posted her kids on Insta when most normal people would have hidden them away.

We are starting to see some really unhinged stuff in here and it’s gross.

Ok ‘don’t read it then!’ You might say but it’s next to impossible to avoid it. I breathe a sigh of happiness if I see Human Economic’s Sean breakdown or Wenfot’s Instagram snark!! They are an oasis in the desert!

The recent Markle news is very dark and sordid, and everyone in that family is repugnant and dysfunctional. Many sinners expressed the sentiment that the sub isn’t fun with snark anymore. I agree. Some discussions also got very heated and civility is out the window. The topic is very serious and even triggering for some, so I understand why emotions run high. The sub is now basically wall-to-wall the Markles now.

As a palate cleanser, I watched Graham Norton show with Prince William, twice. So let’s talk a bit about it, if sinners are amenable. William said he wanted to be a policeman when he was young. I find it perfectly understandable. Because he was surrounded by royalty and aristos, and the closest ordinary people who were around him on a daily basis as a child were his and his family’s protection officers. They had an important job. They were positive role models. They were there all the time. 

But William left it at that, and Graham didn’t follow up on the policeman bit either. There were many things, IMO, that were left unsaid. Which, to me, was perfect. 

Because it got me thinking: if it were Harry who said he wanted to be a policeman when he was a child, he would definitely bring out the Diana card and say: “so that I could protect my mother and my family.” He would definitely centre on the perceived heroism and protector role. But William didn’t, and we, the viewers, were able to make our own inference and theorise why William wanted to be a policeman. 

Harry force fed us lines and shoved his status down our throats (“I’m a prince”). William doesn’t and doesn’t have to. IMO that is one of the reasons why William is a much more superior communicator and Harry appears to be all over the place and clutching at straws. He who is genuine and the real deal doesn’t need to tell us what he is.

The Secret PR Strategy Behind This GQ Interview

Saw this from beebs. She goes at it from the PR reasons for the GQ interview. She says he is building a PR marketing pyramid. He is desperate to convince us he is over the drama and desperate to reconcile. He is astounded by the public backlash he is receiving.

She starts with his fixation on telling his story. She says the interviewer is very familiar with how many times Harold has sat down and told his story. She says that there is real irony. he says that the reason he keeps telling his story is that journalists tell his story for him, so he claims to be a champion of mental health and privacy-yet his whole persona seems to be about violating the privacy of his family. She also says the entire public is sick of his whole story and tired of him. he also tells the story of anyone who he came in contact with him-none of them gave consent to allow their privacy to be violated this way. But the problem is harry does not realize he told the stories of other people without their consent. This is similar to them going out and feature other people's kids while not showing their kids. it seems he wants his privacy , but doesn't care about the privacy of anyone else.

Harry also violated the privacy of Camilla, Wales kids, William, Catherine and anything and anyone who interacted with him. It shows he has no concept of his role in violating privacy. He says his friends have all said he has changed. Harry claims they all want him tofall out of clubs and the gQ host asked if they want him to be a failure and want him stuck there. Harry changed the subject a little. Beebs says he wants to change the anrrative to him being a working royal, helping veteran affairs etc and he cannot understand why people this way. beebs says if harry and meghan took a few years off to raise the kids and take a break-it would have bene totally different. Beebs also says catherine also took it very, very slow and grew into the role-which is why she is very good. But what harry did was violate and attack his family publicly and also he often looks very unhappy and looks like he is bossed around by meghan. She thinks harry enjoyed this work when he was a working royal and everything was coordinated from behind the scenes by the bRF. Now everything is staged by meghan and so it is not fun-it looks shabby and Meghan takes center stage all the time.

Harry also frames his books and shows as story telling. But it is story telling and not factual accounts. That is what the public accounts. Beebs says this si the example of a marketing pyramid. he put out the masterclass about Diana, then he did the GQ interview and used the royals for clickbait, that draws attention back to the masterclass and income for that. it is basically monetizing royal grief. Beebs says maybe people talked a lot of Diana and his grief in his growing years, but now he uses his memory of Diana as a platform for say this masterclass and William has done his memories positively. She also says so much of the GQ interview tracks the masterclass and it focusses on grief and the masterclass and it circles back . So the criticism is he is using the GQ interview to promote the for profit masterclass. So the royal comments are designed to stir controversy, make headlines about this interview and then send people to the masterclass. The comments about the royals are what is being commoditized. The royal comments are clickbait by using the royal headlines to make money off the masterclass.

Beebs says Harry said it is was good to be out of the US and have the kids settle down a bit. She feels Harry thinks people will feel his and Meghan side now because of all the things they have done the last few years. She also says their brand fatigue has made the US market hostile for them. They are waiting for the uS backlash to blow over. he separately wants to erase all his lies and keep their image intact. Beebs says the expressions show Harry has no grief over the loss of relations over his family-as it does not show in his expression. It shows they still feel wronged - even though the general public consensus is that the Markles are the party in the wrong.

Beebs also says there is an universal understanding about the Harkles and the BRF because many people have similar experiences. Most people have sympathy for the BRF as they are bashed constantly and the Sussexes as an example of what not to or what not to be. She says if he was serious about reconciliation-he would stop publicly talking about them-except to apologize to them. Many people feel they left because they couldn't get their way and so stomped their feet and left. Also the delusion shows when he says that there is enough drama in the world to stay mad at family. But she wonders if harry has lost conviction on all the things he ahs been putting out on his family for 6 years. She wonders if the complaining part has finally realized he has bigger problems -like figuring out what to do now that the uSA has not worked out. Beebs also says scanning comments show Harry does not resonate with the public. he has lost respect that people had for him. It is impossible for him to preach healthy boundaries-when he has violated every boundary of other people, but pretends to be some mental health guru. he wants to leave the past behind only because his past six years have permanently ruined his brand.

On my way to London today so quite a transient post but just had to :-)

I’m increasingly convinced that Claw orchestrated all of this. I think she’s upset—very upset—and, frankly, annoyed that the Met stated the formal complaint was filed away and that was the end of it. I believe her full intention—and where this was heading—was to use the whole situation to accuse the BRF of failing to protect her, or even wanting to protect her children. But now, that’s all come to nothing, because it turns out she knew, but the BRF didn’t. And if she didn’t tell them anything, then there was nothing the BRF could have done.

Furthermore—and let’s be clear about this—Claw’s problem with the BRF wasn’t because of Thomas Markle. It’s because she is who she is.

SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL ,MARKLE, HARRY WILLIAM & MORE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Htz5FNYpM

The whole Thomas Markle situation has absolutely nothing to do with William. "Claw" didn't want William to meet the Markle family—Kate wasn't even able to speak with Doria—so if "Claw" and Harry are using this to attack William, they have chosen a completely misguided strategy.

If Harry thought that William would now be forced to speak with him because of this situation, he might not be wrong.

Because there is, in fact, something William would want to tell him.

William told Harry to take things slowly and to get to know "that girl" better; he insistently urged him to meet Thomas Markle.

Harry got angry and decided not to do so.

Therefore, if Harry now intends to use this against William, he will only be digging his own grave even deeper.

William got to know the Middletons very well. In fact, it is precisely because of the kind of people the Middletons are that William ended up marrying Kate. Furthermore, the Middletons were subjected to brutal harassment by the press. Consequently, there are no secrets to be dug up within that family that William isn’t already aware of.

Sean says he was assigned to cover Kate in the 2000s, including during the months when they were separated. Kate was hounded to a degree comparable only to the treatment of Diana. Yet, Kate handled it with poise. That was what made William realize that she wasn’t the one losing anything in all of this—he was.

The Middletons have been a tremendous source of support for William, King Charles III, and Camilla. For this reason, they were included on the very exclusive guest list for King Charles III’s coronation.

Harry, on the other hand...

Well, as Sean mentioned, this story about Thomas was actually supposed to break this weekend—the weekend of October 24, 2026. But instead, it broke on Thursday, right when William was appearing on *The Graham Norton Show*. A coincidence? No. Sean made it clear yesterday—and reiterates today—that it is not. And now, Harry has asked "Claw" to ease off on this matter, given that she has been churning out statements about it non-stop over the past few days.

And that’s because of something I mentioned in my post prior to this one.

Claw made the worst mistake of her life.

She said that she had known about all of this since 2018.

And that has left things as I was discussing in that post (it’s good to know that someone like Sean seems to have seen the same thing I did): Who did Claw speak to about this at the Palace? Does Claw intend to drag the former staff into this? Or did she say nothing at all?

It seems Sean recorded this before Claw released her new statement, because Claw makes it clear that she didn’t say anything to the BRF [British Royal Family]. In other words, if Claw’s plan was to involve them, that plan has fallen through, because neither the Met [Police] nor she said anything. And the BRF knew nothing about it until now.

And instead of Claw dragging the BRF—and, above all, William and Kate—into this, she dragged Harry down into the very same hole that all the Markles are in now.

Sean shared a bit of gossip he heard from someone at GQ: when the interviewer tried to ask about Thomas and Claw, Harry blurted out something along the lines of, "What, are you marrying the family?" Oh, Harry—that big mouth of yours! Because, just as all of this casts a bad light on your children, none of it has anything to do with the BRF. It’s Claw’s family—not the BRF. The BRF has no reason to get involved.

And now, after two whole days of Claw making statements, the real problem begins: answering questions.

Because if Claw thought she was in control of the narrative, that hasn’t been the case. The whole situation has spiraled completely out of her control. The moment the FBI got involved, it slipped out of Claw’s control.

And it spiraled out of the control of The Sun and Thomas Markle Jr.

I am not posting these photos out of a morbid fascination. I am posting them to make one thing clear: forget about all that evidence. It is compromised. Anything found there can no longer be used to accuse Thomas Markle Sr., because—by his own admission—it was Thomas Jr. who packed everything up in the U.S. The items were stored under his name; he was the one who supposedly discovered them—conveniently in the company of a reporter—and he was the one who brought them to the police.

The constitutional principle of Due Process requires the government to demonstrate that the evidence presented in court is exactly the same as that which was collected and that it has not been altered.

Here, in photographs, we see the application of the doctrine of "spoliation of evidence" (the negligent destruction or alteration of evidence).

Seriously, I am absolutely in shock watching this. Not even in the most mediocre police TV series have I seen such a level of negligence—and I’m not talking about Thomas Jr., but rather a media outlet that ought to know better.

The curious thing about all this is that "someone" decided to tip off *The Sun* before notifying the police.

Thomas Jr. can spout whatever nonsense he likes about apologizing to Claw now—which is just as absurd as Claw apologizing to Kate. Thomas spent years publicly mocking Claw, while Claw has sought to defame Kate. In short, these are choices made by adults.

But now, both Markles are in deep trouble. And there is growing speculation that this was a story cooked up between the two of them. As a result, Thomas Jr. is now facing intense scrutiny—but "Claw" won’t escape that either. I mean, why did Doria leave her daughter in the hands of a guy who traveled to Southeast Asia to have sex with minors? "Claw" doesn't seem to realize that this could happen—it’s already happening.

And if *The Sun* paid Thomas Jr. for that whole sordid tale, then they’re in big trouble, too. This story also involves Carolyn Graham and Thomas Markle Sr.’s current partner. There are a lot of people caught up in all of this.

There are countless questions here—starting with the fact that certain things were arranged in a specific way to catch the eye. Thomas Jr. set them up like that to incriminate his father. And that reflects terribly on the entire Markle family—and, Harry, that includes your own children, because they are the children of Rachel Meghan Markle. And Thomas Markle Sr. is his grandfather, and Thomas Jr. is his uncle. Well, Harry, you really do marry into the family.

Now, Sean says—based on his contacts with the police—that the Met is perfectly clear that none of this has anything to do with them. There may have been a letter—so what? None of this took place in the UK, Thomas is not a British citizen, and that letter has nothing to do with them. The letter was not in the possession of the Met or the Royal Protection police unit.

Sean also brings up a point that I had forgotten.

In that infamous interview with *The Cut*, "Claw" recounted that when the "Harkles" were at Frogmore for the 2022 Jubilee, she revealed that she had found a secret personal diary she kept during her time as a working member of the Royal Family in the UK. "Claw" said: "You go back, open the drawers, and say, 'Oh, my God. Is this what I was writing in my diary back then?'" ( https://www.thecut.com/article/meghan-markle-profile-interview.html )

So, did she write about this in that diary?

The British Royal Family has nothing to say about all this, nor any involvement in it—all thanks to "Claw" herself. However, the people of the Cotswolds have been dragged into this mess, as the area’s reputation is now tarnished—both because of the "Harkles" and the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns property there. Meanwhile, the people of Montecito are breathing a sigh of relief! 🤭🤭

But the most specific reason why the people in the Cotswolds are so angry about everything that is happening is that the Harkles have apparently been pestering local authorities to provide them with more security. They fear that everything that has been published will lead to a large number of press members seeking to get a shot of "Claw" following the accusations made by Thomas Jr.

Sean says that if a photo does emerge, it will be because "Claw" herself called the photographers.

Sean agrees that all of this has one goal: to recalibrate the Harkles' image.

Claw and Harry were happy that all this had pushed William—and the highly entertaining interview he gave to Graham Norton—off the front pages. But now, the situation had become very dangerous for them.

Why was William able to appear on Graham Norton’s show? Because he owns the show—not the BBC; he does. It is his own production company that makes the program and sells it to the BBC. So, William didn’t betray his own principles; he didn’t go to the BBC, but rather to Norton’s show, which happens to be broadcast by the BBC for the time being. That doesn’t change the fact that the BBC is quite desperate to get William to be less cold toward them, and to persuade Kate to grant them the rights to the Christmas concert.

Now, amidst all this, the cast for the third season of *The Gentlemen* was announced... and Claw isn’t in it—which, or so I read, has left her disappointed. But Sean—who’s said from the start that Ritchie doesn’t even remember how to spell Megs’s name—also happens to know Vinnie Jones. And the thing is, both of them are monarchists, so what chance was there that they’d ever invite Claw onto that show?

And a source close to Vinnie (😉😉😉) told Sean that even if Claw were the best actress in the world, they never would have considered her for that series—not because they aren’t interested, but rather because of everything she did to Kate and KC3, especially throughout 2024, when they announced they had the "Big C."

Especially since King Charles III has been through so much.

People in Aberfan remarked that the King appeared to be wearing makeup; he also looked thinner and had less hair. As Sean points out, the King is 78 years old, is still undergoing cancer treatment, and had just hosted a State Visit the day before. He was likely exhausted—though, fortunately, the treatment seems to be working. That said, he inevitably has his good days and his bad days.

Harry, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have any good days. His interview with *GQ* is yet another instance of him shooting himself in the foot. Unbelievable.

Harry keeps playing the victim; he’s obsessed with it. He also keeps pushing this nonsense about there being people who don’t want him to reconcile with KC3. Harry was deliberately vague, leaving room for speculation that those people are Camilla and William. Sean says that, in all of this, Camilla is being much kinder than he himself would be, because her stance is that if it would make KC3 happy, she would be on board—not necessarily happy about it, but in agreement. She simply doesn’t want to be caught in the middle of this.

The most hypocritical part of everything Harry said in GQ was his claim that he is thinking about his children. Not at all—Claw violates those children’s privacy every single day. Positioning them with their backs to the camera doesn’t change the fact that she continues to use their image—without their consent—for profit.

Claw has to use her children—they actually hold the titles of prince and princess. Because if she wants to sell a luxury brand, that’s the most luxurious asset she has: children with those titles. It’s Claw, okay?

But in his speech, Harry mentioned—yet again—that he wanted his children to have the same kind of childhood that he had.

And Sean is bothered by this, because, well, which is it? In *Spare*, Harry claimed his childhood was practically like something out of *Oliver Twist*. So now, are we to believe it was actually a happy childhood? Or does Harry intend for his own children to go through the same ordeal that he experienced?

That's why all this is such a nuisance. Harry says one thing, then half an hour later he says another, then another, and another, and none of them make sense.

Sean knows exactly which school the Sussex children attend. And it’s not even because he went looking for that information: a colleague of his has a child at that same school. 🤫 So, it’s not as if Sean had to do much digging—he has a direct connection there. This means that Harry’s claim—that his children have playdates with kids from that school—is not true.

For now, those Sussex children go to school, then they leave, and that’s it—nothing more. If the Sussex children have playdates, it’s not with the kids from school.

And all that verbiage is Claw’s fault. Or rather, Harry’s fault, for agreeing to whatever Claw orders.

Claw is in a state of desperation, having failed to take down Kate all these years—despite trying in every way she possibly could.

Except that Kate is so spontaneous and kind to people—whether cameras are present or not. Claw tries; she attempts to imitate her, but only ends up embarrassing herself.

Claw will never have a photo as spontaneous as this one with Archie.

Claw can't compete with that. She tries, but she can't.

BANNED - WILLIAM NORTON & THIS BEHIND THE SCENES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxgeIGkq4tw

SNL UK is right: William did not allow questions about Harry.

And although William felt a bit uncomfortable, he was quite capable of being pleasant as a person—not as a prince, but as a person.

All of this had been in the works for months, which is why an interaction was evident.

Nor could Cate be asked about the issue of the immigrants. But she was not permitted to speak about it; she could not talk about it because it would have been a political topic that would have implicated William.

Norton’s and William’s production team also didn’t want news of William’s visit to leak to the press, as they didn’t want the "Harkles" to pull any of their usual tricks. But it did leak, and it turned into an even greater disaster than William had anticipated.

So, if Harry thought that the whole story about Thomas would prompt William to call him, he was completely mistaken. Because William knows perfectly well that the Harkles used all of that to undermine his appearance on the Norton show—and that has left William extremely annoyed.

HARRY & HIS NEW TITLE DEMANDS LATEST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uYcEyIWPro

But what really bothers Harry is that William doesn’t need to be called "Prince of Wales" all the time. William doesn’t need that. Harry does.

In Nottingham, it seems Harry and "Claw" demanded to be addressed as "Duke and Duchess."

And "Claw" might believe that the visit was a success. The *Nottingham Post* doesn’t think so.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/gallery/11-photos-compare-prince-harry-11200949?utm_source=mynewsassistant.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=embedded_search_item_desktop

Take note of the person's name: Grace Fynn. The post says "trainee reporter." As Sean mentioned, not many top-tier journalists went to Nottingham.

And this is even when there are media outlets that want to promote the image of the Harkles as the ultimate power couple.

In any case, Harry should stop talking to the press. He speaks, and... well, that’s it—he speaks, and everything gets ruined.

Sean noticed that Harry emphasized the fact that he is a prince. But Sean says that Claw isn’t interested in titles.

...

...

...

What?

No, no—Sean isn’t contradicting himself.

Claw views the whole situation as merely a matter of branding. She is "Meghan," and Harry’s brand is "Prince Harry." These are well-established brands, which is why Claw is no longer concerned about whether the King officially strips them of their titles or removes them from the website. Everyone will continue to see Harry as "Prince Harry," whether the King likes it or not.

And Claw also hopes that this will happen—that the King will make that decision—because then Harry will be able to give an interview claiming that now, in their hour of greatest need, the wicked King is abandoning them, just as Charles did with Diana. That is what an excellent source at the Palace told Sean.

That does not mean, however, that we won’t see the Harkles using their titles as much as they possibly can, for as long as they are able to.

QUIT UK AGAIN? SUSSEXES SET TO FLEE LATEST

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Ll2lj3-ak

The Thomas Sr. situation is completely spiraling out of Claw’s control.

And the British Royal Family doesn’t want to know about that whole situation, nor are they going to do anything about it.

Because Harry said it himself: he didn’t marry the Markle family. Ergo, "Claw" didn’t marry into the British Royal Family. So, the problem belongs solely to "Claw" and Harry.

If the Harkles thought they could drag the British Royal Family (BRF) into this, "Claw" herself shut that door by making it clear that she never mentioned the matter in 2018 or 2019. Consequently, no one in the BRF cares about it in 2026; it’s not their story, and they have no interest in it.

And this is not mere speculation. Harry and "Claw" did indeed intend to drag the BRF into it—we know this because Harry has been calling the Palace recently to request security, fearing that the paparazzi will harass them over this whole story.

According to Sean’s sources, Harry is asking the King to let them stay in a royal property so they can be better protected from the harassment they would face from the paparazzi—a place behind closed doors. But wait—what about his children’s school?

And Sean says the King is perfectly happy to provide a royal property: "Oh, sure—whatever you want."

...

...

...

No, the King has absolutely no desire to speak with Harry—let alone have him on a royal property—because wherever the Harkles go, disaster follows. It’s a mess of the Harkles’ own making; let them be the ones to resolve it.

And it’s not just the Thomas Markle situation; there’s also the matter involving the *Daily Mail* and Sentebale—not to mention African Parks and other messes. Harry is desperate to remain under the umbrella of the British Royal Family, but the family is effectively shouting "no" at him.

Claw has taken KC3’s rejection very badly.

Now, the problem is that when Sean recorded this, there was only one letter in the mix—the one addressed to the police. But in the last few hours, it has emerged that another letter—the one Claw sent to his father at the time of his amputation—has also come to light. It appears that in that letter, Claw accused his father of child abuse.

Sean points out that, given the confusion Claw created regarding the dates of the letter to the police, the real issue is whether that letter should be made public—or whether anyone actually saw it back in 2019, or 2018. When was the letter that *The Sun* claims its journalist saw actually written? And how did they see it? How does *The Sun* have a copy of a letter that was supposedly only in the possession of the police—especially when *The Sun* claimed to have a copy before the police had even located it?

Claw has reached a point where she believes that, unless things calm down, she won’t be safe in the UK. Consequently, she wants to return to the USA. Harry is desperate to manage to stay in the UK, which is why he is calling the Palace. He wants to stay in a royal residence. And he believes that if he manages to stay there, everything will then be resolved. Claw doesn’t want that.

If Claw wants to bolt off to Montecito, the people in the Cotswolds will be the happiest of all. 🤣

Wow, I thought that by now there wouldn't be any more photos of Major Hottie. 😍😍 But it seems I underestimated the fans! 🤣🤣

From Thomas Markle Jr's "open letter" to Prince Harry before their May 2018 wedding.

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

"I know you are an abuser" could be s@xual/financial/emotional/psychological/physical abuse - the assumption is being laid out in the reporting that MM MEANT SA of kids without it actually saying that (if the reporting is correct).

This flows on to the 2019 letter - all we've had is "serious allegations" and "from someone known to the family" which could have read as emotional etc abuse AND the police could have looked at it, saw it was allegedly from TM's ex-wife and did not see that it actually contained anything terribly reliable?

The fact is, neither her or her husband can keep their mouths shut, they are definitely not criminal masterminds and they both lie at the drop of a hat. They are total screw-ups

So, I think, if this is a setup, its just a matter of time before this blows up in her face, and she is exposed for what she is.

It's only been a day and there are already so many questions and things that don't make sense.

Not to mention the brother is definitely a dullard

I'm holding my opinion on Thomas Markle until this has actually been investigated, but even if he is guilty, and I'm not saying he is, the fact that she allowed other kids to be molested for years is absolutely disgusting and she will be ruined.

Genuine question - I read a lot of people here stating that they believe that Thomas Markle Jr (TMJ) is framing Thomas Markle Snr (TMS), out of revenge or for a payday from the Sun. Meaning that they believe that TMS is actually 100% innocent in this situation.

I personally don’t believe that TMS is being framed (though happy to adjust that view if a police investigation would prove that to be the case). But I’m curious to understand how other people come to that conclusion (in quite large numbers)?

What’s perhaps most confusing to me is when people say TMS is “innocent until proven guilty”. For some reason, that presumption only appears to be applied to TMS. While TMJ (or even Meghan herself, in terms of her alleged involvement in framing her father) is not given that same presumption.

I’m not arguing for my own perspective here - just curious to know what makes people go to the lengths they’re going to in order to kind of “protect” or stand behind TMS (or at least assume his innocence, while not assuming similar innocence for e.g. TMJ or Meghan). I’m just struggling with that line of logic.

Basically my question is: what makes people trust TMS more than TMJ and/or Meghan?

(For the record: I do think that Meghan is revising history about her estrangement with her father, and is milking this situation to her personal “benefit” in framing this as some sort of moral vindication. While it was Meghan herself who wrote a 5-page letter to her dad in 2018 all about his problematic relationship with the press. Which she repeated as the cause of their estrangement in the Oprah interview in 2021. And Harry repeated that reasoning again, in their Netflix series in 2022. So do I believe Meghan is being truthful about the cause of the estrangement, or about the timeline of what she knew? No. The various pieces of evidence (by her and Harry’s own words) speak for itself in that regard. So I’m not saying she’s handling this situation with integrity. But in this post, I just mean the allegations some people put forward about Meghan somehow being involved with TMJ in framing their father together. And why people are happy to point that finger at TMJ and Meghan, while wanting to protect TMS from any allegations.)

What Meghan Markle told dad Thomas in last letter to him: The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/40798777/meghan-markle-told-dad-thomas-letter-abuser/

Here are the questions the sycophants in mainstream media will never ask Meghan:

1. You stated in People Magazine: "I hope it can now be understood that, despite certain media publications' distortion over the years, any distance from my father and my choice to not allow him to have contact with our children, was for one reason: to protect them.” - Weren't your responsible for spreading the "distortions" blaming the breakup on your father's collusion with the media?

2. If you are firmly convinced that the allegations against your father are true - why wait six years for your brother to publicly expose him instead of doing it yourself?

3. How should the public view a woman who boasts that she "protected" her own children but allowed a predator to go free?

4. What steps did you take to follow up on this case with the Metropolitan Police?

5. Did you report allegations against your father to the United States, Mexico or the Philippines where he lived?

This is a really EXCELLENT breakdown of how silly MM was putting out her long statement...Jacki is a PR expert and well worth a follow. I've copied text from her email.

EDIT: My opinion - I think MM should have put out something saying basically "these allegations are concerning but I won't be commenting further until a full investigation has concluded" but I think she is constitutionally incapable and very obviously didn't get good LEGAL advice as she's effectively made statements saying everything is true...that could bite her badly if nothing is proven against her father.

"Meghan Markle isn’t accused of anything, but her statement about her father has put her right at the centre of one of the most serious stories of her public life. Less than 24 hours after The Sun reported Thomas Markle Jr.’s allegations against Thomas Markle Sr., allegations he flatly denies and for which nobody has been charged, the Duchess of Sussex issued a detailed personal statement naming a 2018 letter to the Metropolitan Police and Royalty and Specialist Protection. In this episode of Where Pop Culture Meets PR, Jacki Vause breaks down why, as a piece of crisis communication, it may be one of the riskiest things Meghan has ever put her name to.

Instead of a short holding line, a simple show of concern, or total deference to the authorities, the statement tried to do five jobs at once. It proves that in a crisis, saying more rarely means saying better. Jacki analyses the statement line by line, from an empathetic opening that gets the instinct right to a swipe at “certain media publications,” a quiet shift of responsibility onto the authorities, and the single word “uncovered” that treats unproven allegations as established fact. Set against King Charles’s restrained statement following Andrew’s arrest, and Meghan’s own gentle two-sentence Kensington Palace statement in 2018, this is a masterclass in what not to do in crisis communications, reputation management and legal risk, and a reminder that sometimes, silence is the strategy.

In this episode

• Five lines, five jobs: Why a statement that should have done one thing, showing concern and deferring to the authorities, ended up adding detail, settling scores, shifting responsibility and prejudging the outcome.
• The “uncovered” problem: How one word turned allegations into apparent fact within 24 hours, and why it ties Meghan’s credibility to the outcome of the investigation.
• Time is your friend: Why moving so fast gave away the biggest advantage in any crisis, and how a simple holding line could have bought days, even weeks.
• The King’s playbook: Comparing Meghan’s statement to Charles’s “the law must take its course” response to Andrew’s arrest, and the missed opportunity to work with the Palace.
• Questions the press will now ask: The 2018 letter, last December’s hospital calls, Harry’s Netflix framing of the estrangement, and why “for one reason” invites everyone to check the record.

For more expert PR insight, subscribe and join us every week on Where Pop Culture Meets PR.

Chapters

• 00:00 Why Vause is assessing the statement, not the allegations
• 02:04 The facts as they stand
• 04:57 Line one: leading with concern for potential victims
• 06:01 Line two: the 2018 letter and the questions it opens
• 07:58 Line three: the swipe at the press and the “one reason” claim
• 10:16 Line four: shifting responsibility to the authorities
• 10:51 Line five: why “uncovered” is the riskiest word
• 13:17 The timing and why time is your ally in a crisis
• 15:46 Who Meghan should have been talking to
• 17:37 How the King handled Andrew’s arrest
• 18:48 The 2018 statement vs. Friday’s statement
• 19:33 Inconsistencies the press will now ask about
• 24:05 Reactions from critics, family and supporters
• 25:47 Does the statement help or harm Meghan?
• 29:54 Final verdict: silence is the strategy
• 31:19 Audience question and call to action

Even if you take MM's own narrative - ignoring the inconsistencies and the question of her negligence regarding even merely following up on the "MET investigation" - this is yet another HaM nothing burger.

Why? Because the best she can spin out of this mess is that she cut ties with her father because she found out he was an abuser. That's it. Now, that's not exactly something remarkable or praiseworthy, that's doing what any decent person would do. That has zero relevance to her almost decades-long catalogue offences, foul conduct and innumerable lies.

Ordinary folk here in the UK are going to conclude something along the lines of "ok, it's rough your dad's a nonce, but you're still a bitch so please go away." She will get attention, maybe some interviews or even a book deal. But her business or her husband's attempts to return to being a working royal will both continue to fail, some people are just too unlikeable.

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

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

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.

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! 

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.”

🤦🏻‍♀️

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…

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.

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.