Condemned to Witchell

Dissecting a BBC Breakfast appearance by the corporation's Royal Correspondent reveals familiar problems with "impartiality".

This week, I’ve been taking individual columns/news stories/reports and subjecting them to close readings. Today’s final instalment of this mini-series looks at a two-way from BBC Breakfast with presenter Ben Thompson interviewing that most cursed of royal correspondents, Nicholas Witchell. As the BBC only keeps episodes of Breakfast on iPlayer for 24 hours, I’ve captured the full segment here.

Thanks to subscriber Katie Smith for suggesting I look at this one.

Previously in this mini-series:

1. Tales from the Twat Controller | A front-page story from The Times is little more than a government press release.

2. Pearson's poisonous medicine | Allison Pearson's newest column on the NHS is the latest in a long line of lies and distortions.

---

Ahead of the launch of Prince Harry’s memoir Spare next week and despite reports of stringent pre-publicity security measures, The Guardian says it acquired a copy of the book. Its first report, bylined to Guardian US Breaking News editor, Martin Pengelly¹, focused on an allegation that Prince William physically attacked his brother:

Harry writes that William wanted to talk about “the whole rolling catastrophe” of their relationship and struggles with the press. But when William arrived at Nottingham Cottage – where Harry was then living, in the grounds of Kensington Palace and known as “Nott Cott” – he was, Harry says, already “piping hot”. 

After William complained about Meghan, Harry writes, Harry told him he was repeating the press narrative and that he expected better. But William, Harry says, was not being rational, leading to the two men shouting over each other.

Harry then accused his brother of acting like an heir, unable to understand why his younger brother was not content to be a spare.

[After detailing an exchange of insults, Harry] writes: “He set down the water, called me another name, then came at me. It all happened so fast. So very fast. He grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and he knocked me to the floor. I landed on the dog’s bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me. I lay there for a moment, dazed, then got to my feet and told him to get out.”

Harry writes that William urged him to hit back, citing fights they had as children. Harry says he refused to do so. William left, Harry says, then returned “looking regretful, and apologised”.

At the time of writing, Pengelly has written a second story about Harry’s account of visiting a woman who said she could pass on messages from his mother Diana; it quotes him saying he “recognised the high-percentage chance of humbuggery”.

It seems The Guardian was planning to drip-feed stories from the book as a means of increasing traffic but after the Spanish edition — En La Sombra (trans. In The Shadows) was put on sale early, other outlets including Sky News and The Sun have copies. The Daily Mail and Page Six have also published excerpts.

Rival newspapers are still extremely bitter about The Guardian getting the jump on them. One of the many Telegraph pieces about the memoir today includes this lemon drop sour line:

Although Harry has condemned leaked stories about his private life, he and Meghan have made no complaint about The Guardian story.

When the BBC’s Royal Correspondent, Nicholas Witchell, appeared on BBC Breakfast he was responding only to the first Guardian story but it offers insight into the language of royal reporters and an example of how fragile the myth of BBC impartiality can be, especially in relation to the Royal Family.

BBC Breakfast @BBCBreakfast

Prince Harry claims his brother Prince William physically attacked him, according to the Guardian, which says it has seen a copy of the duke's upcoming memoir, Spare. Royal correspondent Nick Witchell gave his analysis on #BBCBreakfast bbc.co.uk/news/uk-641704…

Ben Thompson: Well, let’s speak now to our Royal Correspondent, Nicholas Witchell. Nick, morning to you. So these allegations are much more serious than a lot of what we’ve heard so far. What do you make of what we’ve heard?

Nicholas Witchell: Ben, the first thing to say is that there is no comment from Kensington Palace. I suspect that will be the position throughout today and throughout coming days as we hear the interviews with Prince Harry, both done by ITV and, of course, by America’s CBS. The second thing to say — as you’ve already heard — is that the BBC hasn’t seen a copy of this book but I think that it is absolutely clear that The Guardian’s correspondent in New York has got hold of a copy of the book, despite the very tight security thrown around it by its publishers. 

So we start off with Witchell essentially admitting that he doesn’t know much more than the viewer and certainly knows a lot less than ITV, CBS, and The Guardian. The BBC doesn’t have a copy of the book and Kensington Palace has cold-cocked him for a quote. Witchell was, of course, the subject of the then-Prince Charles's commentary through gritted teeth (“I can't bear that man anyway. He's so awful, he really is.”) during a photo call at Klosters in 2005.

It’s worth noting that unlike the news report and column dissected in the first two instalments of this series, Witchell was talking relatively off-the-cuff in this interview. However, look at what he said next:

And there is, yes, this striking story of this altercation in 2019, apparently over Meghan’s alleged behaviour, with William citing that she was “difficult, rude, and abrasive”. And it leading to this grabbing of Harry’s collar, the ripping of the necklace, and him falling to the ground. 

William is “citing” rather than “claiming” those things about Meghan, and a key detail from The Guardian report is not included — Harry telling William he was “parrot[ing] the press narrative”. This may leave the viewer with the impression that the altercation was triggered by “Meghan’s alleged behaviour” rather than William’s complaints about her and Harry rejecting the suggestion that he was “helping” him.

The way Witchell frames the anecdote and fails to include significant details from The Guardian report succeeds in making the alleged clash between the brothers seem to ultimately be Meghan’s fault even though the newspaper report makes it clear that she wasn’t present or told about the incident until later.

It’s also worth looking at how Witchell talks about the details of the alleged assault. William is removed from the narrative. Harry’s collar is grabbed, his necklace is ripped, and he falls to the ground but no one is there doing it. It’s a titled poltergeist, the heir to flinging a chair. Witchell also omits the claim that Harry had “scrapes and bruises” after the event.

Of course, you could argue that Witchell only has a limited amount of time to relay the details in this relatively short two-way. But the details he considers relevant and the way he presents them are not accidental. His retelling of The Guardian story gives a sense of where he stands, even as he offers a veneer of objectivity.

An interesting observation, I think, in the story by The Guardian’s New York correspondent, Martin Pengelly; he says, “Harry’s resentment of being the spare is the unifying theme of his book.” This refusal, it appears, of Harry to accept the reality that he is the younger brother and, my goodness, we are seeing this resentment in full force in his comments on Netflix and, I think, in these interviews that we are going to hear in coming days. 

“Resentment” is Pengelly’s choice of word and Witchell clearly agrees with it as he amplifies it here, despite saying that he has yet to read the book himself. It is not surprising that Harry — and his ghostwriter JR Moehringer — explore the theme of being a second son, it’s there in the title, but “resentment” is a loaded word. That same judgement is there in Withchell’s Pantomime Dame-style “my goodness” and assertion that Harry is “unable to accept the reality that he is a younger brother”.

And I think… clearly, it is just a statement of the obvious, that within the family there is tremendous sadness that it should come to this. And, according to The Guardian account, there was an anguished meeting between Harry, Charles, and William after the funeral of Prince Philip in April 2021. And, according to The Guardian, Harry’s book says, Charles, Harry says, stood between his warring sons “looking up at our flushed faces. ‘Please boys,’” Harry quotes his father as saying, “‘Don’t make my final years a misery.” 

The meeting between Harry, Charles and William after Prince Philip’s funeral was extensively reported at the time — with plenty of briefings flying around — and discussed in the Netflix documentary. Witchell knows this but was using The Guardian report as a crutch during the interview, referring to a printout, as well as playing dumb to emphasise the drama of Charles’ “Don’t make my final years a misery” line.

Witchell’s allegiance to the Royals and desperation for access, despite repeated sleights against him by Charles and William over the years, are apparent:

Thompson: Yeah, and Nick, the reason that we’re paying such close attention to these comments — and as you said we’ll get more detail when that book is finally published —  is that the allegations seem very specific. Maybe in the past, they were quite vague, they alluded to certain things happening. These allegations name people and they are very specific. 

Witchell: They are and this is a very full-scale unloading by Harry of all the incidents that have caused this deep resentment which, I think, he undoubtedly does feel. He thinks his family have treated him and his wife unfairly, and without sufficient respect. And for any number of reasons they decided to leave the Royal Family and to go into print and to go on the airwaves to tell their version of events. 

But I mean, as we all know, family disagreements occur; they are best settled in private but as you say, this book, it would appear, is full of specific details of the collapse of this relationship. 

Witchell’s Aesop act — “[disagreements] are best settled in private” — is the royal correspondent equivalent of economics reporters who pretend national budgets can be compared with a personal credit card. The Royal Family is not simply a family, but an institution, a business, a circus and a soap opera. Witchell’s entire purpose is to detail the minutiae of the lives of deeply mundane people elevated by crowns, unearned medals and their proximity to a magic vagina.

The idea that all of this should have been litigated in private pretends that the palaces do not engage in constant briefings — anonymous, off-the-record, on background — and that those briefings don’t make up a key element of Harry’s complaints about his family. Witchell knows this too but is playing cute in order to be able to offer a homily to the breakfast TV audience.

Thompson: And Nick, you say, there has been no specific response from the palace on these allegations but nonetheless they’ll be looking, like everyone else, to the publication of that book. How do you expect that they will handle what could be pretty damaging allegations? 

Witchell: I think they will want to see the book themselves. I think there is, as I say, little doubt that The Guardian has got hold of a copy of this in New York, somehow, despite all the efforts of the publishers. I think both palaces will wish to see the specifics, but I suspect… I suspect, it rather depends on what does emerge in coming days, that they will maintain this position of offering no comment. 

Witchell’s “suspicions” here will have been bolstered by more of those background briefings I just mentioned. Saying “we’re not saying anything… yet” is steer in itself. The current strategy from the Royal Family is to pretend to be maintaining a dignified silence while briefing The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph extensively.

And while the BBC pretends to have its own dignified distance from those outlets, Witchell’s performance this morning illustrates again that he peddles the same lines.

---

Thanks to DKD for reading today’s draft.

There are currently 6,922 subscribers to this newsletter (up 24 since last time), 528 of whom are paid subscribers (up 2 since last time).

My new target is to reach 7,000 total subscribers by my birthday on January 28 and 550 paid subscribers.

There will be at least one paid subscriber bonus this week.

1. Pengelly has a track record of acquiring high-profile books before publication, including titles by Michael Wolff (his Trump admin tell-all Fire and Fury), former FBI director James Comey, the adult star Stormy Daniels, former Hilary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and Mary Trump, the former president’s niece. That may be down to publishing industry contacts or a bookseller willing to give him titles ahead of the official launch dates.