The Princes and the Press - Two Part BBC documentary 2021

[Erin9]

Well, if the Sun to be believed, there might be some truth about the boycott rumour.



Prince William and Kate Middleton ban BBC from screening Christmas carol concert amid fury over royal documentary

Wow. Makes you wonder about Part II.

It sure seems like the BBC are going out of their way to alienate the BRF. In light of the Martin Bashir mess, you’d think they’d tread lightly. Especially given HM’s age, the recent loss of her husband and health concerns. Go figure. Seems counter productive to me.

 

[Marengo]

A lot of BBC programmes these days have a strong political agenda, which is why there are so many calls for it to be defunded. If you choose to buy a newspaper or subscribe to a pay TV channel with political bias, that is your choice - it's your money, spend it how you like. But the BBC is funded by the licence fee, and is supposed to be neutral. Rajan is open about being a republican - again, he's entitled to his personal views, but not to push them on the BBC. And they interviewed Gina Miller, a political activist who holds strong anti-British views - and I can't see that she had any relevance to the issues except that her picture once happened to feature on a newspaper front page which also featured a picture of Meghan, in relation to a completely different story.

Having said all that, I didn't think that the first episode said anything that might have upset the Royals. The criticism was all of the horrible tactics used by royal reporters, especially against Kate and Chelsy. But it does sound as if the second episode's going to be more controversial: the Christmas concert has definitely been moved to ITV, because ITV's own website's reported it now, so William and Kate are clearly very upset about something.

I don't know what the BBC's playing at. And it shouldn't be playing at anything - it's taxpayer-funded and therefore isn't supposed to have any sort of agenda. They're doing themselves no favours - even people who aren't particularly royalist don't want to see the Queen upset when she's recently been widowed and is suffering from health problems.

I suppose that the idea was that Mrs. Miller was faced with a high number of death threats and racism, perhaps due to her being an outspoken woman of colour. The documentary maker perhaps saw a link to the situation of the duchess of Sussex, also a woman of colour and also at the receiving end of rascist online abuse. Nothing odd I would say, though the documentary maker could also have invited other high profile women of colour. There are a high number of other people interviewed, even the sister of the prime minister. That could be considered biased by the opponents of the prime minister perhaps.

The documentary maker can be a republican, there is nothing wrong with that perse. It is as potentially biased as having a monarchist doing such a show. In this case I can't see what his ideology has to do with the content of his documentary. Much harsher things could be said about the monarchy, while it all seems rather mild. By him being open about it, he at least gives the viewer some transparency. That way the viewer can decide for him/herself if and where the republican views come in play.

Over the years how many reports and documentaries have been made by supporters of the monarchy? Most of them I would say. I especially remember the diamond jubilee and the -IMO- pompous and idolizing language of the BBC reporters, who seems to use the word 'glorious' in each and every sentense. Not the kind of reporting that I am used to in the Benelux, where such adoration would be considered absurd by much of the public.

--
The view from the Irish Times. They seem to agree with those of us who claim that the documentary contains nothing new:

In fact, Rajan’s investigation into the dystopian dynamic between William and Harry and the UK press – or, more specifically, the tabloids – feels like old coals raked over. It is a shopworn, albeit entertaining, portrayal of two dysfunctional institutions: Fleet Street and the British Monarchy. But ultimately it lacks bombshells and is unlikely to prompt much calumny within “the Firm”.

This is one of those docs in which already established facts are presented as the scoop of the century. Did you know the British royals vie for media coverage? Or that royal correspondents do deals with “palace” insiders. And that those same insiders brief against other royal households?

If you’ve watched five minutes of The Crown – or ever perused a British red-top – the answer is that of course you did.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...eet-street-and-the-british-monarchy-1.4736387

 

[US Royal Watcher]

...

The documentary maker can be a republican, there is nothing wrong with that perse. It is as potentially biased as having a monarchist doing such a show. In this case I can't see what his ideology has to do with the content of his documentary. Much harsher things could be said about the monarchy, while it all seems rather mild. By him being open about it, he at least gives the viewer some transparency. That way the viewer can decide for him/herself if and where the republican views come in play.

Over the years how many reports and documentaries have been made by supporters of the monarchy? Most of them I would say. I especially remember the diamond jubilee and the -IMO- pompous and idolizing language of the BBC reporters, who seems to use the word 'glorious' in each and every sentense. Not the kind of reporting that I am used to in the Benelux, where such adoration would be considered absurd by much of the public.
....

I agree that as a taxpayer supported broadcaster, BBC commentary should include a diversity of views, including both monarchists and republicans. However, there is an issue of basic fairness. It sounds like the first broadcast was fairly balanced and it may be that the second part will also be fairly balanced, but I think the BBC should have let the palace review first, since they are the primary subject. That would have given the BBC the opportunity to correct anything that was inaccurate or give the palace the opportunity to respond to anything the palace felt was inaccurate.

 

[Hallo girl]

I agree that as a taxpayer supported broadcaster, BBC commentary should include a diversity of views, including both monarchists and republicans. However, there is an issue of basic fairness. It sounds like the first broadcast was fairly balanced and it may be that the second part will also be fairly balanced, but I think the BBC should have let the palace review first, since they are the primary subject. That would have given the BBC the opportunity to correct anything that was inaccurate or give the palace the opportunity to respond to anything the palace felt was inaccurate.

The only question I have with that regard is that if Meghans lawyer was interviewed, and although it was only minutes, unless there is more next time, it would suggest that Meghan was made aware of the programme. The lawyer rather than Omid is the question mark for me.
I would have thought for balance that the palace would have been made aware.
I am not saying they would have put somebody on or maybe they were, refused but expected to see the programme before transmission

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

For those who are unaware, Omid has tweeted that he was interviewed for this program in November 2020 and is letting everyone know this "for full transparency."

I found it interesting that he is at pains to let everyone know when he gave his perspective. He is letting everyone know he waded into this war about who from the Royal Family briefs whom among the royal rota before it was exposed that he is the biggest beneficiary of them all when it comes to getting the inside scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[Moran]

The only question I have with that regard is that if Meghans lawyer was interviewed, and although it was only minutes, unless there is more next time, it would suggest that Meghan was made aware of the programme. The lawyer rather than Omid is the question mark for me.
I would have thought for balance that the palace would have been made aware.
I am not saying they would have put somebody on or maybe they were, refused but expected to see the programme before transmission

I agree. I'd also like to know the times Meghan was made aware of the program and the time BP was informed.

This said, I can't quite imagine a representative of any of the royal courts sending someone to engage in he said, she said with Meghan's people.

I say Meghan's people because no lawyer, in no country is going to discuss a client's case on TV without authorization.

 

[Ghost]

For those who are unaware, Omid has tweeted that he was interviewed for this program in November 2020 and is letting everyone know this "for full transparency."

I found it interesting that he is at pains to let everyone know when he gave his perspective. He is letting everyone know he waded into this war about who from the Royal Family briefs whom among the royal rota before it was exposed that he is the biggest beneficiary of them all when it comes to getting the inside scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

Camilla Tominey also tweeted that she was interviewed a year ago. Also, none of them was aware about what the others said, so BBC could intertwin their words as they pleased.

I found the whole program to be quite superficial.

 

[MARG]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...e-degrading-airing-of-the-royal-dirty-laundry

Review of the documentary by The Guardian.

Of course, Harry may never have believed in the Deal. The media’s treatment of his mother – from Martin Bashir’s importunate interview to the paparazzi who shadowed her to her car-crash death – made him, understandably, hate the press. As did the hacking of his previous girlfriends’ phones. The case for his scepticism was strengthened here by Rajan’s interview with private investigator Gavin Burrows who told that he and others hacked into Chelsy Davy’s voicemails, tried to find out whether she had had an abortion, attempted to get hold of her medical records and scrutinised her sexual past. And then flogged the information to the red tops.
And then there was the racism. Our prime minister’s sister Rachel was interviewed about her column of four years ago in which she wrote of Meghan bringing “exotic DNA” into the Windsor bloodline. These days, she suggested, she wouldn’t have written such stuff. Why? Because “it sounds either eugenicist or racist”, she replied. Rajan rightly pointed out, it wouldn’t have sounded any less so four years ago.
Ultimately, Rajan’s programme eloquently if unwittingly made the case for the republicanism he once overtly espoused. Royal journalism, as he showed it in action, does the opposite of exciting reverence: rather, it places its hand gently on the backs of Britons’ heads and pushes our noses deep into the royal family’s dirty linen. Everybody involved gets degraded by it.

I was interested in the mea culpa from Gary Burrows, a private investigator rather than a reporter who apologised was basically "part of a group of people who robbed him of his normal teenage years. Ruthless,” Burrows reflected on his participation and contribution to the frenzy around young Prince Harry. Talking about the life he led and the excesses enabled by the muckraking he and other PI's indulged in while snorting their cocaine. But cocaine does not come cheap and yes in the early 2000's they set their sights on Harry for no other reason than William will be King one day and Harry was then, just the spare.

Trying to re-create the Diana-mania by making William the lazy entitled one who got to cruise through everything and Harry the one who pushed the envelope, the outcast, the person who doesn't quite fit the square peg the one who was loved less with ghastly stories about his father not wanting him because he had red hair and the media speculation as to if he was even Charles child, trying to drive a wedge between Harry and both his father and his brother. All of that factors into the man that Harry is today and the fact that he loathes the press of any kind. It's worth remembering that the BRF are still in litigation with some media outlets.

Enter Meghan and her seemingly effortless way of managing the media attention. No wonder Harry thought she was wonderful and no wonder she put the cat among the pigeons with a royal media that had been hounding the BRF since the day Charles and Diana announced their engagement. She didn't understand that they knew the media better, that the US Celebrity press and the UK Royal Media could not and cannot be compared. Even Harry knew that it was a brief respite or media honeymoon when they got engaged. I think he desperately wanted Meghan to be right.

I like the article by Ed Powers in the Irish Times:

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...eet-street-and-the-british-monarchy-1.4736387

 

[A-Bik]

Well fellow royal reporter and documentary participant, Robert Jobson has a very different take from Camilla Tominey, and confirms there are indeed inter-palace briefings.
I think that's quite obvious over the years, despite declarations to the contrary.

@2:02

 

[A-Bik]

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...e-degrading-airing-of-the-royal-dirty-laundry

Review of the documentary by The Guardian.

Of course, Harry may never have believed in the Deal. The media’s treatment of his mother – from Martin Bashir’s importunate interview to the paparazzi who shadowed her to her car-crash death – made him, understandably, hate the press. As did the hacking of his previous girlfriends’ phones. The case for his scepticism was strengthened here by Rajan’s interview with private investigator Gavin Burrows who told that he and others hacked into Chelsy Davy’s voicemails, tried to find out whether she had had an abortion, attempted to get hold of her medical records and scrutinised her sexual past. And then flogged the information to the red tops.
And then there was the racism. Our prime minister’s sister Rachel was interviewed about her column of four years ago in which she wrote of Meghan bringing “exotic DNA” into the Windsor bloodline. These days, she suggested, she wouldn’t have written such stuff. Why? Because “it sounds either eugenicist or racist”, she replied. Rajan rightly pointed out, it wouldn’t have sounded any less so four years ago.
Ultimately, Rajan’s programme eloquently if unwittingly made the case for the republicanism he once overtly espoused. Royal journalism, as he showed it in action, does the opposite of exciting reverence: rather, it places its hand gently on the backs of Britons’ heads and pushes our noses deep into the royal family’s dirty linen. Everybody involved gets degraded by it.

I can't link, but our papers say the royals were given the opportunity to have their side forward in the show and declined. Quite rightly IMO.

Their anger stems from the fact that they were not provided a preview of the documentary which would give them the right of reply.

I personally believe this is the Streisand effect in full action.
This was on BBC 2, and might have received some column inches and then blown over like the myriad of royal docs we've had this year.

Now, it's become a whole other matter.

 

[Ghost]

Now even participants at the documentary are openly feeling conned: Amanda Plattel

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-boy-Amol-Rajan-conned-royal-hatchet-job.html

 

[AC21091968]

The Telegraph has given some insights in to the second part of the BBC's The Princes and the Press documentary. Some revelations include the episode renamed from "Megxit" to "Sussexit", the claim that senior staff briefing the tabloid, appearance of The Duchess of Sussex’s lawyer, recent court case against the press and Martin Bashir scandal.

BBC documentary claims palace ‘senior source’ helped in war against Sussexes
Palace sources described as 'unfounded conjecture' the idea that a senior member of the Royal Household aided a tabloid newspaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...aims-palace-senior-source-helped-war-against/
Archived link: https://archive.vn/KcXla

 

[Claire]

Bit confused - I think I am in one of those moment when the tail is wanging the dog. Does anyone know the exact and truthful original of the word, Megxit. I understand it was a headline created by one of the tabloid newspapers.
So I find it odd that the Telegraph and the BBC are running with Harry's origin story. I know that the BBC are desperately trying to brown nose up the the Sussex camp. But really - journalistic ethics appears to be a dying commodity in the world.

 

[A-Bik]

The Telegraph has given some insights in to the second part of the BBC's The Princes and the Press documentary. Some revelations include the episode renamed from "Megxit" to "Sussexit", the claim that senior staff briefing the tabloid, appearance of The Duchess of Sussex’s lawyer, recent court case against the press and Martin Bashir scandal.

BBC documentary claims palace ‘senior source’ helped in war against Sussexes
Palace sources described as 'unfounded conjecture' the idea that a senior member of the Royal Household aided a tabloid newspaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...aims-palace-senior-source-helped-war-against/
Archived link: https://archive.vn/KcXla

Oh, Telegraph.

Considering this documentary was filmed in Nov 2020, and Harry only recently opined about his unhappiness with the term 'Megxit' this 2021, I doubt the BBC is doing Harry's bidding.
Unless there was time travel.

Thing is there have been debates about the misogynistic trope over the word Megxit on shows here from Newsnight, to Guardian think pieces.
I believe the station, who like to see themselves as right-on , are just adhering to that.

Seems the papers are upset, this BBC2 show did not get the '24/7 anti-Sussex narrative memo', so are throwing all theories out there.

 

[TLLK]

Bit confused - I think I am in one of those moment when the tail is wanging the dog. Does anyone know the exact and truthful original of the word, Megxit. I understand it was a headline created by one of the tabloid newspapers.
So I find it odd that the Telegraph and the BBC are running with Harry's origin story. I know that the BBC are desperately trying to brown nose up the the Sussex camp. But really - journalistic ethics appears to be a dying commodity in the world.

To be honest, I don't recall how it came to be used but I'd always believed it was a simple play on "Brexit."



Unfortunately I have to agree with your last statement. Considering the scandal associated with the BBC over the Panorama Interview Inquiry, I would have thought that the company would have been more concerned about presenting a balanced view.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Oh, Telegraph.

Considering this documentary was filmed in Nov 2020, and Harry only recently opined about his unhappiness with the term 'Megxit' this 2021, I doubt the BBC is doing Harry's bidding.
Unless there was time travel.

[...] Seems the papers are upset, this BBC2 show did not get the '24/7 anti-Sussex narrative memo', so are throwing all theories out there.

That is not what the Telegraph article says.

 

[TLLK]

That is not what the Telegraph article says.

Thank you for pointing this out Tatiana Maria.?

 

[yukari]

Bit confused - I think I am in one of those moment when the tail is wanging the dog. Does anyone know the exact and truthful original of the word, Megxit. I understand it was a headline created by one of the tabloid newspapers.
So I find it odd that the Telegraph and the BBC are running with Harry's origin story. I know that the BBC are desperately trying to brown nose up the the Sussex camp. But really - journalistic ethics appears to be a dying commodity in the world.

Journalism nowadays seems less about reporting a news, but more about leading public opinion.

The Telegraph has given some insights in to the second part of the BBC's The Princes and the Press documentary. Some revelations include the episode renamed from "Megxit" to "Sussexit", the claim that senior staff briefing the tabloid, appearance of The Duchess of Sussex’s lawyer, recent court case against the press and Martin Bashir scandal.

BBC documentary claims palace ‘senior source’ helped in war against Sussexes
Palace sources described as 'unfounded conjecture' the idea that a senior member of the Royal Household aided a tabloid newspaper
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...aims-palace-senior-source-helped-war-against/
Archived link: https://archive.vn/KcXla

I still don't understand why it's called "The Princes and The Press" when it's actually more about "Prince Harry and The Press".

Sure it mentioned William ... for less than a quarter part of eps 1 which feel more like a formality since it's "The Princes" which quite semantic. I mean okay, it showed that both princes and their (then) girlfriends were hacked but only one prince deserves a public apology, what about the other three?

 

[Claire]

Yep - it is Harry and the Hateful Press by comparing against William. It is not as if Harry and William are the only people that have ever faced the press. Or even faced social media, press intrusion or phone hacking. The whole thing misses perspective and context.

 

[Alison H]

Quite a bit of it was about Chelsy. I don't suppose she's very pleased about having her name dragged back into the public domain, a decade after she and Harry split up. She's a private individual now, and there was no need for the BBC to bring her into this.


Regarding "Megxit", Harry and Meghan left the Royal Family just as the UK was leaving the European Union, so the term was used purely because it rhymed with "Brexit", which was much in the news at the time ... a bit like there used to be a lot of "Fergie" jokes in 1986, when Alex Ferguson was appointed manager of United a few months after Sarah Ferguson married Prince Andrew, or "Phil the Greek" jokes to sound like "Zorba the Greek". It wasn't chauvinistic or meant as a dig at Meghan: it was just that her name fitted.

 

[Hallo girl]

Oh, Telegraph.

Considering this documentary was filmed in Nov 2020, and Harry only recently opined about his unhappiness with the term 'Megxit' this 2021, I doubt the BBC is doing Harry's bidding.
Unless there was time travel.

Thing is there have been debates about the misogynistic trope over the word Megxit on shows here from Newsnight, to Guardian think pieces.
I believe the station, who like to see themselves as right-on , are just adhering to that.

Seems the papers are upset, this BBC2 show did not get the '24/7 anti-Sussex narrative memo', so are throwing all theories out there.

We do not know when all the interviews took place, although some contributors have said 2020. The thing is that programmes are edited and according to reports the second episode was in this process up to the wire. So it is possible to change the title of an episode or subtitle.

 

[Hallo girl]

Amanda Platell has written a column complaining that her contribution had been selectively edited from 2 hours to 2 minutes. She states she is ashamed to be associated with it. She has also asked to see what part of her interview is included in part 2 and was refused. She describes the programme as a hagiography of Harry and Meghan.

 

[Curryong]

Why is the programme a hagiography of Harry and Meghan? Because Platell disagrees with it not being a complete criticism of the couple from beginning to end, as the newspaper she writes for and those of most of the other journalists who contributed to the Priinces and the Palace have been since at least 2016? And as for her contribution being edited down there is surely no interviewee who would expect a two hourly interview to be shown in full. That would be ridiculous.

Speaking for myself I appreciate the evenhandedness that the BBC at least tried to portray towards the Sussexes and I’m looking forward to seeing the second part of this series.

 

[tommy100]

Platell also said it the reason given for not being able to be shown a copy was that it was still being edited up to the last minute.

I saw on twitter a pic of Amol Jagen with Meghan's best friend Misha Nonoo at a party - so maybe there are Sussex links after all.

Edit here is the photo: https://ibb.co/Pmk50Pf

 

[Moran]

Platell is a journalist and surely knows what can be done with such an interview. I find it ridiculous that she "trusted" the interviewer.

About the hagiography, she's spot on. As yukari pointed out, there were no Princes. It was poor Harry and Meghan, with Chelsy thrown into the mix which was very unethical of the BBC. The woman has long moved on and might not appreciate of this reminder splashed for everyone to see that she had been checked on for sexual diseases.

I see this as a way to make it even more about poor, poor Harry. He's had not one but two women important for him being torn apart by the press.

 

[Osipi]

Platell is a journalist and surely knows what can be done with such an interview. I find it ridiculous that she "trusted" the interviewer.

About the hagiography, she's spot on. As yukari pointed out, there were no Princes. It was poor Harry and Meghan, with Chelsy thrown into the mix which was very unethical of the BBC. The woman has long moved on and might not appreciate of this reminder splashed for everyone to see that she had been checked on for sexual diseases.

I see this as a way to make it even more about poor, poor Harry. He's had not one but two women important for him being torn apart by the press.

When a well respected (?) news outlet like the BBC resorts to dredging up stories from Chelsy's past to make a point, if I was Chelsy, I would be fuming and smoke coming out of my ears that they'd "use" me rehasing derogatory ways and means to prove a point about something that I'd long been gone from. The press coverage.

Chelsy, however, declined to be a part of anything to do with the royal world and that includes the press. She's moved on. Harry and Meghan remain focused on the Big Bad British Press and the angst they caused them. As if fighting back is ever going to do any good at all. All it does is give the Big Bad British Press more steam to keep on doing it to them.

I have to admit to having a thought here. I'm wondering if somehow Sunshine Sachs is behind convincing the BBC to do such a program in the hopes that the British people would feel more kindly towards the Sussexes. Being a more "balanced" source, by making it Princes it made the whole thing seem more palatable.

Of course I've not watched the documentary. I started watching part 1 and didn't make it through 10 minutes of it.

 

[tommy100]

TBH if they'd have called it "Prince and The Press" and just focussed on H&M they that would have made it seem less like a hit piece in a weird way.

 

[yukari]

The Telegraph just dropped this in my email:
Princes and the Press: Sussexes never intended to 'become Trappist monks and take vow of silence'

Archive: https://archive.ph/OOQ3A

(...)
The programme has angered the royal households for*presenting “overblown and unfounded claims” as fact.

In a rare move, Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace joined forces to release a strongly worded joint statement to the programme, expressing disappointment that the BBC was giving such claims credibility.

They turned down an offer to cooperate with the show on the basis that they were not given enough information about the allegations being made and who was making them.

An accompanying five-part podcast presented by Rajan, due to be released on Monday with further episodes coming weekly, has been delayed amid concerns about the Royal family's reaction.

BBC sources said the podcast would now be released as a box set at a later date.

(...)

I can't help to wonder whether the reason is actually the palace's reaction or the last revelation in form of Meghan's admission during the last hearing.

Platell is a journalist and surely knows what can be done with such an interview. I find it ridiculous that she "trusted" the interviewer.

(...)

True.

Honestly when I saw her article, my first reaction was "Serve you right. How does it feel to taste your own medicine?" because she's one of the so called "journalist" who also often take something out of context to push a narrative.

Ironically, this documentary is basically one about how the press (royal reporters) sort of pushing a certain narrative and manipulating public with it for clickbait while the doc itself is also doing the same.

 

[AC21091968]

I found an Youtube link to part two of The Princes and the Press. The video quality is not great with some glitches, out-of-sync audio and zoomed in frames. I'm still watching it as of now, mostly by listening to the audio

 

[Alison H]

The Telegraph just dropped this in my email:
Princes and the Press: Sussexes never intended to 'become Trappist monks and take vow of silence'

Ironically, this documentary is basically one about how the press (royal reporters) sort of pushing a certain narrative and manipulating public with it for clickbait while the doc itself is also doing the same.

I think Jenny Afia's comment in that article says a lot:

“That's not how privacy works. Privacy is about the right to own and control what personal information you choose to share with somebody.”

That isn't how it works, and that's what Harry and Meghan can't seem to get. Using a long lens camera to take a photo of someone on a private estate, publishing pictures of young children or tapping someone's phone is obviously unacceptable, but, beyond that, no-one in the public eye can expect to control what the media do and don't say about them. I'm sure that every politician whose fiddling of expenses has made the front pages, and every celeb who's cheated on their partner and found details of it all over the papers, wishes that they could, but the world isn't like that.

This just seemed to be rehashing a load of old stories. Yes, we know that Meghan had an expensive baby shower in New York. Yes, we know that taxpayers' money was spent on doing up Frogmore Cottage. What's the point of going over it all again? There's always been a certain amount of negative publicity about royals. You could go back to the Middle Ages and people complaining that Henry III was letting his Lusignan half-siblings going around breaking the law, or that Elizabeth Woodville's relatives were bagging all the best heirs and heiresses in the country! There's nothing new.