Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

BBC to pay ‘substantial’ damages to William and Harry’s former nanny

Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, was nanny to Harry and William (PA)
Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, was nanny to Harry and William (PA)

The Duke of Cambridge’s former nanny has received substantial damages from the BBC over “false and malicious” allegations used to obtain Martin Bashir’s 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales.

Alexandra Pettifer, previously known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, appeared at the High Court in London for a public apology from the broadcaster over “fabricated” allegations she had had an affair with the Prince of Wales while working as Charles’ personal assistant in 1995.

Her solicitor Louise Prince told the court that the allegations caused “serious personal consequences for all concerned”.

As well as the allegation of the affair, the court was told Ms Legge-Bourke was falsely accused of becoming pregnant with Charles’ baby and having an abortion.

Ms Prince said that Ms Legge-Bourke had not known the source of the allegations over the last 25 years, but that it was now likely that the “false and malicious allegations arose as a result and in the context of BBC Panorama’s efforts to procure an exclusive interview with Diana, Princess of Wales”.

The court was told that the Dyson Investigation, commissioned by the broadcaster, had “shed some light” on how the interview had been secured.

The solicitor said that the “totally unfounded” allegations “appeared to exploit some prior false speculation in the media” about Charles and Ms Legge-Bourke, whose duties at the time involved looking after William and his brother Harry, the Duke of Sussex.

William and Harry with Tiggy Legge-Bourke in   1993
William and Harry with Tiggy Legge-Bourke in 1993 (PA)

“After Diana, Princess of Wales, became aware of the allegations in late 1995, she became upset with the claimant without apparent justification,” she added.

Ms Prince said Ms Legge-Bourke “holds the BBC liable for the serious impact the false and malicious allegations have had.

“Had the BBC not fallen short, the claimant and her family could have been spared 25 years of lies, suspicion and upset.”

After the hearing, BBC director-general Tim Davie said the broadcaster would “never show the programme again” nor licence it to other broadcasters, apologising to Ms Legge-Bourke, Charles, William and Harry for how Diana was “deceived”.

At Thursday’s short hearing, judge Mr Justice Nicklin heard that in September 1995, Earl Spencer – Diana’s brother – was told that Charles was in love with Ms Legge-Bourke and that they had been on a secret holiday together.

Diana, Princess of Wales, during her 1995 interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC
Diana, Princess of Wales, during her 1995 interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC (PA)

The court was also told that in October 1995, the BBC was at a “critical stage” in negotiations with Diana over her appearance on BBC Panorama, at the same time she told her solicitor that Ms Legge-Bourke had had an abortion.

Ms Prince continued: “In October 1995, Diana, Princess of Wales, wrote of allegations that she may fall victim to an accident, in order for HRH the Prince of Wales to marry the claimant.”

In December 1995, Diana publicly confronted Ms Legge-Bourke with the abortion allegation, before telling a senior member of the royal household that she had a hospital letter proving the abortion happened.

Alexandra Pettifer outside the High Court, central London
Alexandra Pettifer outside the High Court, central London (PA)

Ms Prince said: “As the allegation of an abortion was totally false, any such letter could only have been fabricated.”

She continued: “The claimant was extremely upset and confused by these events.

“She felt she had to prove to others that the allegations were completely untrue by revealing highly sensitive matters, including private medical information.

“Sadly Diana, Princess of Wales could not be convinced, even when incontrovertible evidence was presented.”

The solicitor said that the allegations had been repeated in the press over the last 25 years, though many reports cast doubt on them.

Diana, Princess of Wales, during her 1995 interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC
The 1995 interview had wide-ranging repercussions (PA)

She continued: “Nonetheless both she and her family have until the present day continued to face suspicion and disbelief. A long shadow has been cast over relationships with those close and dear to her.”

After the hearing, Ms Legge-Bourke said she was “disappointed” legal action was needed.

She continued: “Sadly, I am one of many people whose lives have been scarred by the deceitful way in which the BBC Panorama was made and the BBC’s subsequent failure to properly investigate the making of the programme.

“The distress caused to the royal family is a source of great upset to me. I know first-hand how much they were affected at the time, and how the programme and the false narrative it created have haunted the family in the years since.

“Especially because, still today, so much about the making of the programme is yet to be adequately explained.”

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball, representing the BBC in court, said the broadcaster was “extremely sorry for the serious and prolonged harm caused to the claimant and the historical investigative shortcomings”.

He also said: “The BBC accepts that the allegations made against the claimant were wholly baseless, should never have been made, and that the BBC did not, at the time, adequately investigate serious concerns over the circumstances in which the BBC secured the Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales.

“Had it done so, the BBC accepts that this may well have led to these false statements being addressed and corrected far earlier and that this may well have diminished the harm caused to the claimant and her family over many years.”

A spokesman for the Duke of Cambridge declined to comment.