BBC is accused of 'anti-William and pro-Meghan and Harry' bias

The BBC's controversial documentary The Princes and the Press was 'very biased' against Prince William and Prince Charles and painted a picture favourable to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, royal experts told MailOnline today.

Angela Levin said it was telling that the corporation's final interview of last night's show - masterminded by republican BBC media editor Amol Rajan - was with the Duchess of Sussex's British lawyer, while the Royal Family's response was a written statement shown on screen. 

Jenny Afia, Head of Legal at Schillings, who represents Meghan and was speaking with the Duchess' permission insisted bullying claims printed about the Duchess were 'false' and said she rejected the 'narrative' that the former Suits actress was 'difficult to work with'. 

Minutes earlier, Omid Scobie, the royal journalist dubbed 'Meghan's mouthpiece', had claimed that members of Royal households had briefed against Meghan and Harry during their time in the UK. 

Royals are understood to be furious that they did not get sufficient opportunity to reply to the allegations in the show, and said to have threatened a boycott on future projects with the BBC after courtiers were not allowed to view the programme before the first episode was aired. 

In the joint statemen to the show, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace and Clarence House last night said it was 'disappointing' that the broadcaster had given credibility to 'overblown and unfounded claims' surrounding Harry and Meghan's departure from Britain. 

Ms Levin, a biographer of Prince Harry, said: 'The ending of the documentary is always what stays with you and they chose to use Meghan's lawyer to say that she wasn't a bully, and she was wonderful to work with. It's there you get the gist of what it was all about in my view. It's very biased. Anti-William, anti-Charles and pro Meghan and Harry'. 

'If you allow a lawyer from one side to have their say then they must let the other side have their say. They haven't done that and that's in the BBC guidelines.'  

The Palace provided a written statement with the Queen, Prince William and Prince Charles understood to be considering collectively complain to regulator Ofcom for the first time in history.   

When asked about the timing of the documentary, when Her Majesty is 95, has recently lost her husband and has been unwell herself. 

'It's absolutely shocking and very very wrong to have done it', she said, adding: 'It's taken almost two years to produce and it is quite out of date. They are currently re-editing the second part ahead of its broadcast next Monday'. 

Royal expert  Richard Fitzwilliams predicts that part two next Monday at 9pm on BBC2  will ‘undoubtedly worsen’ relations between the brothers and the BBC and Buckingham Palace.

He said: 'The second part will undoubtedly deal with the rift between the previously inseparable Princes and how the press covered it. This is a tragedy and has played out worldwide without, so far, any signs of being healed. The departure of the Sussexes from the ranks of senior working royals after so short a period, was disastrous for the institution. It was also significant that Meghan was represented in the programme by her lawyer who denied she had been “difficult or demanding” to work for. Some recollections, of course, may vary'.

The BBC has been accused of giving credibility to 'overblown and unfounded claims' about the Royal Family last night as it broadcast a controversial documentary about William and Harry - which also included an interview from Meghan Markle's lawyer. 

Lawyers for the Royal Family were on standby over the two-part BBC2 series which included claims by Omid Scobie - a royal journalist dubbed 'Meghan's mouthpiece' - that insiders from other royal households had briefed against the Sussexes. 

Buckingham Palace has reportedly threatened a boycott on future projects with the BBC after courtiers were not allowed to view the programme before the first episode was aired last night. 

Though the Palace only provided a written statement, the episode featured an appearance from Jenny Afia, a lawyer from Schillings who represents Meghan. 

The show's presenter, BBC media editor and Radio 4 presenter Amol Rajan, said Ms Afia was speaking with the Duchess' permission.

In a rare on-camera interview, she insisted bullying claims printed about the Duchess were 'false' and said she rejected the 'narrative' that the former Suits actress was 'difficult to work with'.

Meanwhile, in a strongly worded joint statement, given to the BBC ahead of last night's broadcast, the three royal households representing the Queen, Charles and William said: 'A free, responsible and open Press is of vital importance to a healthy democracy.

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

The hour-long episode one of the divisive two-part series, which was aired on Monday night, featured: 

Last night's first episode of The Princes and The Press detailed media coverage of the young royals from 2012 to 2018, when Harry and Meghan became engaged. 

It included claims of 'competitiveness' between the different royal households. Dan Wootton, then a Sun a journalist and now a columnist at MailOnline, also spoke about his 'Tiaragate' article about the Duchess in November 2018.

The article carried claims of a row between Meghan and members of the royal household over her pick of a tiara at her wedding with Prince Harry. It is claimed Meghan wanted to wear an emerald tiara, but her first choice was vetoed by the Queen. 

A row is alleged to have ensued, in which it is claimed Harry said: 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.'

Mr Wootton also addressed bullying claims made by Meghan's staff against her - claims that she denies and are currently subject to a palace investigation. 

He said: 'It took six months for it to get out after the wedding so when people like to say the press are going for Harry and Meghan, you had it in for Harry and Meghan. I completely disagree.

'It was actually these people behind the scenes who started to get annoyed, before any of it was public. 

'At that point no national newspaper had dared to really dive into this huge war that was developing behind the scenes. 

'And part of that was that no one in the royal rota was really prepared to break that story either.

'So I did take someone like me, as an outsider, to actually say 'no I'm going to do it'.

Journalist Omid Scobie, co-author of the controversial biography of the Sussexes, Finding Freedom, meanwhile said negative stories had been leaked about Meghan, although he did not name those involved. 'There were some people who felt she [Meghan] needed to be put in her place.

'I think by leaking a negative story, that's punishment,' he said. 

'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.'

Meanwhile, Jenny Afia, a lawyer from Schillings who works with the Duchess of Sussex spoke on camera and denied reports that Meghan was 'difficult' to work with.

She said: 'Those stories were false. This narrative that no one can work with the Duchess of Sussex that she was too difficult, demanding a boss, and that everyone had to leave is just not true.' 

It is understood that the BBC provided a written memo, outlining relevant allegations, but refused requests to provide an advance copy of the two hour-long episodes.

Insiders said the rift between William and Harry will be examined in even greater detail in next week's instalment.

Royal advisers believe the Queen, Charles and William have not been offered a proper right of reply.