The BBC is paying the former nanny who looked after Princes William and Harry a "substantial sum" in damages for false claims surrounding the now-disgraced journalist Martin Bashir's 1995 interview with Princess Diana.

The Times put the amount at £200,000.

It's one of the biggest payoffs for the web of lies Bashir weaved to snag the exclusive interview with Princess Diana.

Gina Thomas

Features correspondent based in London.

  • Follow I follow

At the time, the false rumor was brought to him that Alexandra Pettifer, then known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, had had an affair with Prince Charles and had aborted his child.

Prince Charles, reporter Bashir told the princess, was in love with her children's minder and spent two weeks on vacation with her.

The BBC journalist is said to have shown Diana, among other things, a fake receipt for the abortion.

Unfortunately, despite irrefutable evidence, Diana could not be convinced that these allegations were incorrect, according to a joint statement by the plaintiff and the BBC after the hearings at the High Court.

Diana is said to have confronted Legge-Bourke with a caustic remark about the supposed abortion at a Christmas party in December 1995.

That costs the BBC a total of four million pounds

So far, the public broadcaster has spent £4million in compensation for Bashir's fraudulent activities, including more than £1million in profits from the sale of world rights, which the broadcaster is estimated to donate to a charity chosen by the royal family praised.

Count Spencer, the princess's brother, whom Bashir had also covered in lies, hailed that "another innocent victim of this appalling scandal" had been brought to justice.

However, he reiterated his call for a criminal trial against those responsible.

BBC Director General Tim Davie apologized to Alexandra Pettifer and Princes William and Harry.

The BBC deeply regrets that it failed to investigate when warning signs were given immediately after the program aired that the interview might have been obtained through unfair means.

"Had we done our job properly, Princess Diana would have learned the truth while she was alive," Davie said.

He confessed that the channel failed the princess, the royal family and its audience.

Davie assured that the BBC would never broadcast the program in its entirety again, but given the historical importance, he did not rule out the possibility that short excerpts could be shown for journalistic purposes.

Alexandra Pettifer complained that the BBC had not adequately investigated the serious concerns about obtaining the interview at the time: had this been done earlier, the false claims could have been corrected and the damage might have been reduced.

She expressed disappointment that she had to take legal action to get the broadcaster to recognize the damage she had suffered.

The show and the false narrative it created haunted the royal family in the years that followed, largely because so much about the show's origins remains unclear to this day.

During the trial, it became clear what a long shadow the lies of the BBC journalist, who has since been fired, have cast on the lives of those affected.

Alexandra Pettifer said she felt compelled to reveal sensitive medical information to prove the claims were false.

She was scarred for life by the fraudulent way in which the "Panorama" show featuring Bashir's 1995 interview was created and the network's subsequent failure to properly investigate it.

It took more than twenty-five years for the investigative report commissioned from Lord Dyson to establish beyond doubt the extent of Bashir's fraud and the BBC's failings.

And even now, the BBC is still being caught flat-footed in court.