BBC agrees to pay damages to Prince William and Prince Harry's ex-nanny over 'false and malicious' allegations

The BBC has agreed to pay substantial damages to the Duke of Cambridge’s ex-nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke

Published Last updated

Allegations about her – dubbed “false and malicious” – were used to obtain Martin Bashir’s 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales.

Alexandra Pettifer, better 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.

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

The court was also told Ms Legge-Bourke was falsely accused of becoming pregnant with Charles’ baby and having an abortion.

Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke
Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke
Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, outside the High Court
Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, outside the High Court

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 Ms Legge-Bourke and Charles.

“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.”