What did we learn from the BBC’s heavily promoted documentary The Princes and the Press? We learned a lot about Amol Rajan, the BBC Media Editor, than we did the Royals.
Rajan, who wears jewellery and is very sure of his self, appears slightly chippy. Far cry from Jenny Bond, Nicholas Witchell and the school for fawning obeisance.
By choosing this self-confessed republican to front a prime-time programme about the Royals, the BBC seems to have decided it’s time to end their traditional coverage which often seemed to be conducted from the bended knee position.
Amazing is the rise in five years of Amol Rajan’s BBC success.
Appointed editor of the Independent newspaper at just 29, he’d previously worked as a researcher and assistant presenter on Channel 5’s The Wright Stuff.
Rajan is smart, confident, and certain of his worth. Nothing wrong in that, but he’s rubbed a few (less talented) folk up the wrong way in his quest for fame and success.
One BBC insider describes his ‘magnificent vanity’ coupled with ‘grotesque false modesty’.

In just five years, Amol Rajan has risen to prominence at BBC. Rajan is confident, smart, and self-assured. Nothing wrong in that, but he’s rubbed a few (less talented) folk up the wrong way in his quest for fame and success. One BBC insider describes his ‘magnificent vanity’ coupled with ‘grotesque false modesty’
Rajan was appointed Media Editor at the BBC in 2016. He has been selected for the Today show. You can find him everywhere, on radio and TV, in podcasts as well as features.
Next year he’s presenting two documentaries on social mobility – a subject he seems to know very well.
Now, he’s touted as a possible successor to Laura Kuenssberg as the BBC’s next political editor. But maybe that’s a rumour he started himself. Rajan is unstoppable in his rise.
Amol edited a national paper. I was an outsider when I first joined BBC, but I eventually made it to the top of the power pyramid, reaching executive rank.
Knowing how convoluted and arcane the organisation is – plenty of stale white men of a certain age, not to mention woke box-ticking appointees – I take my hat off to his determination, although every time we’ve met, he makes me feel slightly inadequate.
Amol’s charm and social skills are unmatched. Amol was able to edit the Independent from 2013 to 2016, and become a trusted advisor and confidante to Evgeny Lebedev, the current Baron.
Was he worried that his journalistic goals might be compromised by travelling around the world as a multi-millionaire with Boris Johnson in Italy, while sat at Boris Johnson’s palazzo in Italy, with Boris Johnson and the rest of the less opulent,?

Amol is charming, and his interpersonal skills are legendary. Amol was able to edit the Independent from 2013 to 2016, and become a trusted advisor and confidante to Evgeny Lebedev, the current Baron.

The BBC would be strange to show a documentary about the rivalries between Prince Harry (and William) – two hours worth of claims, assertions and counter-claims. This agenda could do nothing but harm to the men.
One hack describes him as a ‘crony journalist’ which seems cruel.
A documentary on the Royal family was bound to be a huge success. It would also raise hackles among the media and lead to massive coverage.
Is Amol Rajan now part of the news?
These documentaries are supposed to expose their history and dissect the conflicting relationship between Princes. A well-trodden agenda.

Janet Street Porter (pictured:) ‘Like Amol, my first job was as a journalist. Later, when I started my career in journalism, I joined BBC outsiders. I eventually made it to the highest levels of leadership, reaching the CEO level.
Rajan spoke to the traditional cast of Royal correspondents and former staff members as well as pundits.
There were a couple of mini-scoops; one from a private investigator who – after sixteen years – decided to admit he’d hacked the phone of Harry’s girlfriend Chelsy Davy.
A female journalist (Rachel Johnson) admitted she’s described Meghan in less than helpful – bordering on racist – language.
It has been a disappointing screening, despite the promise of more scandal in the second part.
The BBC’s decision to commission the documentaries at all seems bizarre. In May they had to apologize for their father’s Martin Bashir Panorama conversation with their mother 25 years ago.
The inquiry was chaired in part by Lord Dyson. This was the end of a lengthy campaign by Earl Spencer and the Sunday Times to expose how Diana consented to such a disastrous interview.
It’s perhaps worth noting that I didn’t see the BBC’s Media Editor calling for an investigation, though I am sure he does not condone what Bashir was found to have done.
The Panorama documentary that revealed the lies that Bashir used to obtain his scoop and that inquiry made it seem strange for the BBC to want to air two hours of allegations and counter-claims about Prince Harry’s rivalries with William.
The agenda could do nothing but cause pain to the men.
Lord Dyson’s report into the Bashir affair concluded that the reporting involved fell short of the BBC’s ‘high standards of integrity and transparency’ and the internal investigation in 1996 was ‘woefully inadequate.’

There were a couple of mini-scoops; one from a private investigator (Gavin Burrows, pictured above) who – after sixteen years – decided to admit he’d hacked the phone of Harry’s girlfriend Chelsy Davy
Dyson claimed that Dyson obtained the interview by deceit and senior executives later covered up.
In spite of Diana writing a letter which claimed Bashir didn’t show her any information she didn’t know about already and expressing no regrets (the NO was underlined), we now know that she was in a fragile state of mind at the time. Since then, the Princes of Wales and Bashir have been in a fraught relationship with media.
Rajan claimed that Prince William was the prince who decided to join the game of media demands, while Prince Harry is determined to stand for justice and fight against compromise.
BBC airs an hour-long innuendo on two couples who are barely speaking about their relationships.
Can there be a single soul who doesn’t know how the hounding of their mother framed their attitude to the press?
If the Royals do have a ‘deal’ with the media, they are no different to other prominent businesspeople and entertainment stars.
According to Rajan, going along with the ‘deal’ (which William is prepared to tolerate) means favourable coverage in return for co-operation. Duh. Tell me something I didn’t know.
Prince Harry continues to pursue his phone hacking litigation and is determined to stand firm. It would be so easy to live a simple life.
Rajan, as editor at the Independent was a high-quality journalist. By mapping these so-called ‘wars’ between the rival Royal households sneaking negative stories to the press about each other, is he telling us anything new or worthwhile?

Lord Dyson’s report into the Bashir affair concluded that the reporting involved fell short of the BBC’s ‘high standards of integrity and transparency’ and the internal investigation in 1996 was ‘woefully inadequate’. Pictured: Bashir interview in 1995 with Princess Diana
His documentary, more importantly, will make it clear that the Royal Family has every reason to not cooperate with the BBC for the future. They have reportedly already stopped the BBC covering the carol concert.
Rajan is well aware that the Royals have a great reputation for rating – and Rajan agrees.
He’s used Harry and William to further his career, with a programme over which they have absolutely no control and which has clearly caused the Royals hurt.
The BBC hasn’t learned much since Bashir.