BBC bosses moaned that Martin Bashir’s interview with Princess Diana would ruin their hopes of getting knighthoods, it has been revealed.
Newly-released documents show that top BBC lawyers were involved in exchanges about the personal implications of the controversy after it was revealed in 2020 that Bashir used forged bank statements to trick Princess Diana into agreeing to the interview.
In the 1995 Panorama interview, Diana told Bashir “there were three of us in this marriage” when referring to the relationship of King Charles and Queen Camilla. Prince William condemned the interview, saying he felt it was a “major contribution to making my parents’ relationship worse”.
Her brother, Earl Spencer said the interview fuelled Diana’s paranoia about her royal aides.
In July 2020, Bashir was contacted by Robert Seatter, the head of BBC History, for his response to allegations of forgery. Bashir responded by suggesting the controversy was the result of jealousy and race and class discrimination at the BBC.
Seatter then had email correspondences with corporation lawyers Peter De Val and Elizabeth Grace who worked in the data protection department, which fought the release of the messages.
He sent an email reading: “PS is my knighthood to follow after this?! I somehow think not.”
Grace said: “Can you do a deep curtsy?”
De Val responded: “I don’t think any of us will be appearing in the honours list for a while… And the Grenadier Guards do still work for Her.”
Seatter wrote: “No, I think you may be right: ‘Services to heritage and inappropriate revelation’ doesn’t have the right ring, does it?”
De Val responded: “Get you a 10-stretch in The Tower … do they still have the Rack there? I expect so.” Grace wrote: “A short stretch in the Tower would be my preference — I am a bit over this saga (and it would just be lockdown minus [redacted details] and chores).”
The two lawyers were among those who appeared at hearings of an information rights tribunal at which the BBC repeatedly opposed the messages being released.
More than £150,000 has been spent on external lawyers by the BBC in trying to block the release of the documents that relate to the controversy.
A judge in the tribunal last year said the emails must be released with “utmost expedition” and criticised the BBC as “inconsistent, erroneous and unreliable” when considering requests for information.
The emails were finally released on Tuesday, nearly three years after a freedom of information request by documentary maker Andrew Webb.
In the emails, Bashir was advised to avoid social media by BBC bosses in attempts to limit the damage to the corporation as scandal raged, after he was photographed picking up a takeaway while he was unwell at the height of the scandal, prompting a conversation with Richard Burgess, then the BBC’s UK news editor.
Questions were raised about Bashir’s condition after journalists were told he was ill with complications from Covid in October 2020, the day after Webb’s documentary, examining Bashir’s methods was aired.
In an email exchange with senior colleagues including then-director of news, Fran Unsworth, Burgess said Bashir had reassured him he was aware of the severity of the situation.
Burgess wrote: “Martin said he had gone out to pick up a prescription but had taken the opportunity to go to the takeaway opposite.
“He said he wanted to reassure me that he is in no way ignorant about how bad this is for everyone else. He said he will try not to make anything worse. I said that I did not think he should be tweeting — which he agreed.”
He added Bashir had deleted a recent post containing a photo of President Obama and late US congressman John Lewis.
Bashir and Burgess agreed on the wording of a statement setting out that he was “recovering from quadruple heart bypass surgery and has significant complications from having contracted Covid-19 earlier in the year”, but Bashir doubted the update would “satisfy the press”.
Burgess told colleagues: “He said he felt supported and protected by us, in this regard.”
The BBC said in a statement: “There is nothing to support the allegations that the BBC acted in bad faith in 2020 and we maintain this suggestion is simply wrong.
“We have worked to provide relevant material throughout this lengthy process, which has involved extensive archive and record searches spanning nearly 30 years. We have also accepted and apologised when errors have been made and taken extensive steps to rectify those errors.”
