CEBU, Philippines — Philippine authorities are investigating allegations that Thomas Markle Sr., the estranged father of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, possessed child sexual abuse materials reportedly discovered among his belongings in Cebu, triggering a wider inquiry involving Philippine law enforcement and US authorities.
The Department of Justice’s anti-trafficking and online sexual abuse and exploitation of children task force in Cebu is investigating the matter, Justice Undersecretary Nicholas Ty confirmed to Reuters on October 23, 2026.
The allegations have drawn international attention because of Markle’s connection to the British royal family and renewed scrutiny of claims that reportedly surfaced years before the current investigation.
Authorities have confirmed an investigation, but the allegations have not been established as fact in court.
Alleged discovery in Cebu prompts investigation
Reports by British newspaper The Sun, subsequently covered by Reuters, the Associated Press and Philippine news organizations, say Meghan’s half-brother, Thomas Markle Jr., allegedly discovered suspected child sexual abuse images and videos while sorting through belongings left at his father’s former residence in Cebu.
According to the reports, the materials were allegedly found among items stored in boxes, including old electronic devices and computer storage media.
Markle Jr. reportedly turned over information and evidence to Philippine authorities. Philippine Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla told Reuters that the son had provided evidence, including a laptop.
The contents, origin and authenticity of the alleged materials must be established through proper forensic examination and investigation. Details reported by media outlets should not be treated as independently verified findings.
Thomas Markle Sr. denies the allegations
Markle Sr., 82, has denied the accusations in comments attributed to him by the Daily Mail and reported by international media.
He described the allegations as “sick lies” and said he was shocked and hurt by the accusations made against him.
The denial is an important part of the developing story. As investigators examine the available evidence, any determination of criminal responsibility must be based on admissible evidence and due process.
Markle Sr. reportedly returned to the United States after experiencing serious health problems. His current location has been reported as the United States, although details of the investigation and any possible next steps remain subject to official confirmation.
Meghan Markle says allegations left her deeply distressed
Meghan said she was “deeply distressed” by the reports and expressed concern for any children who may have been harmed.
In a statement reported by Reuters, the Associated Press and other news organizations, she said she had previously been made aware of troubling allegations concerning her father.
Meghan also addressed her longstanding estrangement from him, explaining that her decision to prevent contact between her father and her children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, was intended to protect them.
The Duchess of Sussex married Prince Harry in 2018. Her father did not attend the wedding, and their relationship has remained strained since the events surrounding the ceremony.
Meghan emphasized that the safety and protection of children should remain the priority as the allegations are examined.
Earlier letter to British police raises further questions
The controversy has also renewed attention on a letter reportedly sent to London’s Metropolitan Police concerning allegations about Thomas Markle Sr.
On October 24, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that it had received a letter in January 2019 containing claims about alleged offending outside the United Kingdom. The force said its Royalty and Specialist Protection unit passed the letter to the office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex but did not share the details with other law enforcement agencies.
The Metropolitan Police said it was reviewing how the matter had been handled and considering whether a referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct was necessary.
The development does not establish that the earlier allegations were proven or that British police had conducted a criminal investigation into them. It does, however, raise questions about how the information was assessed and shared at the time.
FBI and Philippine agencies may work together
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that it is aware of the allegations and would provide support to Philippine authorities as appropriate. The agency also said it would investigate any related allegations of violations of US federal law.
The Associated Press reported that the FBI had sought assistance from the Philippines’ National Bureau of Investigation. Philippine authorities have also confirmed that the case is being examined by relevant law enforcement agencies.
Because the reported discovery took place in the Philippines while Markle Sr. is believed to be in the United States, coordination between authorities in the two countries could be important in determining the evidence’s origin, identifying any potential victims and establishing whether laws were violated.
However, the precise scope of the agencies’ work and any eventual legal action must be confirmed by official announcements.
What happens next?
Investigators will need to establish whether the reported materials exist, determine their contents and provenance, and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support any criminal charges.
The case may also involve questions about the handling of electronic evidence, the identification and protection of potential victims, and coordination between Philippine and US authorities.
For now, the central distinction remains clear: an investigation is underway, but an investigation is not a finding of guilt.
As the case develops, the public will be watching for verified updates from the DOJ, the National Bureau of Investigation and other relevant agencies.
The next major development may depend on what investigators can establish from the digital evidence—and whether the inquiry leads to formal legal action.
