Omid Scobie discusses Meghan Markle during BBC documentary

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Last Monday, the first instalment of ‘The Princes and the Press’, which focuses on Prince William and Prince Harry’s relationship with the British press, aired on BBC 2. The second instalment, which airs on Monday, November 29, covers the period of 2018-2021.

This means the controversial documentary will chart events such as the birth of Meghan and Harry’s first child Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and the royal tours of the Cambridges and Sussexes.

It will also look at Meghan Markle, 40, and Harry’s, 37, decision to step away from royal duties.

The second instalment is entitled ‘Sussexit’, following the decision to not use the term ‘Megxit’ in order to appease Prince Harry.

Speaking at a panel titled the “Internet lie machine” recently, the Duke said: “Maybe people know this and maybe they don’t, but the term Megxit was or is a misogynistic term, and it was created by a troll, amplified by royal correspondents, and it grew and grew and grew into mainstream media.”

During its one-hour running time, the show is expected to air claims about a briefing from within the palaces and also claims that there was a lack of support for the Sussexes.

It is also expected to make the seismic claim that a senior member of a Royal Household helped a tabloid newspaper in its court case against the Duchess of Sussex.

The documentary was still being modified until earlier this week so it could include the latest developments in the legal battle between Meghan and the Mail on Sunday.

The newspaper had previously published a letter from the Duchess to her estranged father, Thomas Markle, following which she sued them for the misuse of a “personal and private” letter and breach of copyright.

LIVE UPDATES: Royal Family LIVE: BBC changes part of royal film to appease Harry

However, Associated Newspapers launched an appeal against the ruling.

‘The Princes and the Press’ may delve into the evidence of the case, including that the Mail on Sunday editor Ted Verity claims he “held a meeting in 2020 with a senior member of the Royal Household” who had “direct knowledge” of how a letter from Meghan to her father was drafted.

During a witness statement in the case, Mr Verity referred to the source as having provided “high-grade information”.

He said: “This was not gossip or tittle-tattle: it was what I considered to be high-grade information from a serious individual in a position of authority and responsibility who knew the implications of what they were telling me.”

DON’T MISS 
Is the Monarchy more valuable to Britain than the BBC? VOTE [POLL] 
Royal Family’s biggest fear this week – Jeffrey Epstein’s secrets [INSIGHT] 
Meghan and Harry share striking similarity with two popular royals [REVEAL]

The newspaper group’s legal team later confirmed to the court that the source was not Jason Knauf, a former communications secretary for the couple.

Mr Knauf also gave evidence in the case that Meghan and Harry had authorised him to brief the authors of their biography ‘Finding Freedom’.

During the case, Meghan apologised for failing to remember she had authorised Jason to brief the biographers.

A series of emails disclosed during the case showed that the Duchess was aware of the meeting between Jason Knauf and the authors, and also that she had provided briefing notes ahead of the meeting.

There has been no official confirmation from the BBC as to what elements considered for the documentary will be used in Monday’s show.

The footage was also not run by the Palace prior to its airing though they were approached for a comment about the allegations mentioned within it.

A joint statement provided by Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace in response to the documentary said: “A free, responsible and open press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

“However, too often it is overblown and unfounded claims from unnamed sources that are presented as facts and it is disappointing when anyone, including the BBC, gives them credibility.”

Source: Read Full Article