There was a blink-and-you-miss-it moment at the end of the BBC’s much hyped documentary about the royals which any impartial viewer might consider a trifle more important than its position, shoehorned into the programme just before the credits rolled.
It was the response from three royal households – Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace – to the hour-long show which included incendiary claims that their aides had briefed against the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
In view of what had gone before, the highly unusual joint statement was a damning indictment of the corporation which was accused of broadcasting ‘overblown and unfounded claims’ about the Royal Family.
Sources claim that the dispute between William (pictured with Meghan and Kate in 2020), and Harry (pictured below) will be investigated in more detail in next week’s instalment. According to royal advisers, Charles, William and the Queen haven’t been given a right of reply.
It also said it was ‘disappointing’ that the BBC had chosen to air allegations surrounding Harry and Meghan’s controversial exit from Britain.
All this would have been highly significant at the best of times but was made all the more so by one other extraordinary contribution – the appearance on camera of Meghan’s personal lawyer and preferred mouthpiece, Jenny Afia, speaking with the duchess’s approval.
Schillings was the adversarial law firm and Ms Afia received a privilege which seems to not have been extended to three royal families.
The appearance on camera of Meghan’s personal lawyer and preferred mouthpiece, Jenny Afia, was approved by the Duchess of Sussex
The lawyer, who specialises in reputation management, was given enough time and notice to record her unchallenged contribution to Sunday’s programme. Just in case viewers failed to grasp the significance, presenter Amol Rajan said pointedly that ‘the duchess’s lawyer spoke to me with Meghan’s permission’.
It was a great contribution. Ms Afia smoothly denied what was one of the programme’s central themes, that Meghan was a ‘difficult or demanding’ boss. It was, she said, ‘just not true’. These stories, she emphasised, were ‘false’.
Ms Afia is regularly name-checked by a grateful Meghan, and after her intervention on Monday night’s programme broadcast on BBC2 she should stand by for yet more gushing royal praise.
Yesterday’s program featured an interview with Gavin Burrows, a private detective who confessed to having targeted Harry’s exgirlfriend Chelsy Davie.
Trailer for next installment of two-part series. Meghan answers questions about bullying reports, currently being investigated by palace officials.
‘Absolutely not,’ Ms Afia replies.
The Princes And The Press documentary is directed by Mr Rajan. He selects media stories that focus on William and Harry from the highly-selective selection.
The palace responded by threatening a boycott of any future deals with the national broadcaster, in rare displays of unity. This could have wide-reaching implications.
Such an embargo could affect programmes related to next year’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
The palaces were also angered at the way many of the assertions made in the film – interventions they characterised as ‘tittle tattle’ – were permitted to go unquestioned. It was reported that there was intense frustration at the fact that the national broadcaster had been spreading unsubstantiated gossip about the royals, and their staff through prime-time TV as a documentary.
As ONE courtier close to the Prince of Wales puts it: ‘Mr Rajan allowed these statements to be made as though they were tablets of stone when in some cases they were plain wrong.’
It covered the media coverage for the brothers between 2012 and 2018, which was the year Harry & Meghan married.
Photographed: Omid Scobie, journalist and co-author Finding Freedom (controversial biography about the Sussexes), said that negative stories were being leaked about Meghan. He did not identify the people involved. “There were certain people who felt she [Meghan]had to be moved in her place.
Ex-BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt said he believed aides would have briefed against other royals ‘with the knowledge of whoever they were working for’.
The palace strenuously denies the claim.
Naturally, given this partisan approach, those early years when Meghan’s arrival in royal life was celebrated as a breath of fresh air were skated over. Negative stories about rancour and rifts, and the loss of brotherly affection between William and Harry were the mainstays of the documentary.
Omid Scobie who wrote Finding Freedom (a Meghan-friendly book) was among those that received a lot of attention. Although he claimed negative stories had been leaked about the duchess, he didn’t name any of those who were responsible. He blamed royal officials, however.
Dan Wootton, a Dan Wootton guest on this episode, spoke about his personal story that became known as “Tiaragate”. Jenny Afia, a Schillings lawyer who is working with the Duchesss of Sussex was also on the episode.
He claimed that there were people who ‘felt [Meghan]She needed to be placed in her spot. I think by leaking a negative story, that’s punishment’. Then he added: ‘There’s been rumours for quite some time that a lot of the most damaging and negative stories… have come from other royal households or from other royal aides. From my own research and reporting that’s exactly true.’ Alas he did not say what those stories were or, crucially, from whom they came.
In one passage, Mr Scobie comments on the departure of a palace PA, allegedly forced out by the duchess’s unreasonable behaviour.
The writer suggests the palace’s decision to not comment, while an unnamed aide said the person concerned was ‘much loved’ and would be ‘sorely missed’, was evidence of bias against Harry’s wife.
Why was that not adequately challenged? More important, Scobie didn’t answer questions regarding his personal relationship with the Duchess. Meghan has apologised for misleading the Appeal Court in her privacy case against Mail On Sunday.
She had previously claimed that she never contributed to the investigation, but she asked her assistant to forward information to Mr Scobie.
The woman claimed she forgot she did it and that she didn’t intend to mislead. However, it seems odd that such crucial information was not included in the BBC documentary. Then there was Mr Scobie’s highly partial revelation about race. A Persian writer appeared to claim that Harry and Meghan were racist because they had no reporters of mixed races.
Amazingly, this was also not denied. All the more odd when you consider that there are at least two full-time royal reporters with full or part ethnic-minority backgrounds and one of them was one of Amol Rajan’s witnesses.
But surely the biggest fault-line running through the programme was the BBC’s own complicity in controversial royal coverage and the absence of any mention of the Martin Bashir saga.
Representatives for Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William made a strong statement to the BBC before last night’s broadcast.
Interviews were held before Mail exposed the extent to which Bashir used falsified documents to fool Princess Diana into giving the 1995 Panorama interview.
The Palace was able to see that it didn’t wish to engage in a battle of words with an programme whose main purpose appeared to be to boost the profile of a BBC star performer.
A complete lack of perspective was not the only problem. Intellectual failures were also evident in failing to recognize that briefings, counterbriefing, and interpalace rivalries are all part of royal life.
In the 1990s Prince and Princess of Wales’ aides and supporter traded insults as well as information regarding their royal principals.
A similar operation was carried out later to help Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles. This was an abrasive period, where no one was allowed to give in. Any perceived insult at Camilla might lead to retaliation against another member of Royal Family.
Amol Rajan’s premise seemed to suggest that he was the first person to report on such troubling developments.
Although the BBC might be pleased with the media attention, there are growing concerns within the BBC about the potential for more serious consequences when the second part of the documentary is aired next week.