OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Meghan Markle Distressed by Child Porn Allegations Against Father

11 sources · updated 2026-10-24
Left 27% Center 27% Right 45%
3 left · 3 center · 5 right

What happened

Thomas Markle Jr. told The Sun, which first reported the story on October 22, 2026, that he had found "hundreds, if not thousands" of child sexual abuse images at the Cebu, Philippines home of his father, Thomas Markle Sr., 82, the estranged father of Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and that he had reported the discovery to the FBI and Philippine authorities. The New York Post, Daily Caller, and NBC News later credited The Sun as the origin, with Thomas Markle Jr. as the first on-record source. Markle Sr. denied the allegations, calling them "sick lies"; Philippine officials confirmed the matter was under investigation, the FBI said it would support Philippine authorities and investigate any related U.S. federal violations, and London's Metropolitan Police said it was not investigating him but was conducting internal inquiries into its handling of a 2018 letter about him. On October 23, Meghan said she was "deeply distressed," that the 2018 letter—shared with her after her wedding that year to Prince Harry—had made "troubling and disturbing allegations" against her father, and that she had kept their children from contact with him "to protect them." Her half-sister Samantha Markle said the allegations had "no merit."
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 11 articles

7 of 10 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to The Sun. Thomas Markle Sr. denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 7 of 10
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Meghan Markle, The Sun, Thomas Markle Jr., Kinsey Schofield, Buckingham Palace source and Metropolitan Police
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 10
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 3 of 10
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: The Sun
Unnamed sources 3 of 10
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “a source close to the case in Cebu”
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Thomas Markle Sr. (NewsNation, Oct 23, 14:21 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 22, 23:20 UTC by New York Post, crediting The Sun, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage omits that British police say they are not investigating Thomas Markle Sr. Fox News reports the Metropolitan Police is not investigating him and is only reviewing how an earlier letter about him was handled. NBC News reported only that those police did not immediately respond. Readers of left-leaning coverage therefore get Meghan's claim that she received assurances of an investigation, without the police statement that no case against her father is open in London. Right-leaning coverage leads with the investigation and with how long Meghan had known. Left-leaning coverage leads with her distress. The Daily Caller frames her statement as an admission of long awareness. NBC News opens on her reaction to news that had just broken. What did the earlier letter to British police actually allege, and was it the same conduct her half-brother now describes?
Bottom line

You can read NBC News on Meghan's statement and never learn that the Metropolitan Police say they have no investigation of her father, only an internal look at an old letter.

The receipts — 3 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • London's Metropolitan Police said it is not investigating Thomas Markle Sr. but is conducting internal inquiries into the handling of the 2018 letter official statementin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The FBI said it is aware of the allegations, will support Philippine authorities as appropriate, and will investigate any related allegations of federal violations of U.S. law official statementin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Thomas Markle Sr. said the computers were boxed up in Mexico and put on a cargo ship, and that he had never downloaded porn contextin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets centered Meghan's statement, quoting her that she was "deeply distressed" and that her thoughts were "with any children who may have been harmed." NBC News and The Hill presented her 2018 knowledge of the police letter as the reason she had already limited contact, and highlighted her claim that "certain media publications' distortion over the years" had mischaracterized that distance. They treated the denials from Markle Sr. and Samantha Markle as part of the record, noted official confirmation of a Philippine investigation, and did not frame the episode primarily as a crisis for the royal household. Coverage closed on her stated hope that "justice will be fully served" and that "the priority remains the safety and protection of innocent children."
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets put more weight on Thomas Markle Jr.'s graphic account of the alleged material and on U.S. law-enforcement follow-up. The New York Post reported the FBI was "poised to open their own probe" and, separately, quoted commentator Kinsey Schofield saying the allegations "may give King Charles III the ammunition to take a firmer stance in distancing the monarchy from Harry and Meghan." The Daily Caller characterized Meghan's statement as an admission she had been aware of such allegations "for years." Fox News and others amplified the family split, including Samantha Markle's charge that her brother "wants to destroy our dad" and Markle Sr.'s claim that the accusations were made "with no proof" and possibly for money.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that the 2018 letter, the Metropolitan Police review of how it was handled, and Meghan's decision to keep her children from contact with her father supply a child-protection explanation for a rift long covered as mere family drama, with her statement keeping the emphasis on victims and an active investigation. The right's strongest argument is that Thomas Jr.'s first-on-record account, the FBI's willingness to examine related U.S. violations, and Meghan's own acknowledgment of years-old allegations recast the estrangement and, as Schofield argued, give the palace reason to treat the Sussexes as a reputational liability. The central unresolved tension is whether the criminal claims will be substantiated—Markle Sr. and Samantha Markle deny them and no public forensic findings have been released—versus how far a still-unproven private allegation should be read as vindication of Meghan or as grounds for the monarchy to separate itself further.

11 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.