Thursday, 30 June 2022
Buckingham Palace won’t publish probe into claims of Meghan bullying staff / Royal family receives over £100 million as costs soar despite cost of living crisis - full breakdown
EUROPE
Buckingham Palace won’t publish probe into claims of
Meghan bullying staff
By Karla
Adam
June 30,
2022 at 7:20 a.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/30/meghan-royal-family-bullying-report-conclusion/
LONDON —
Buckingham Palace confirmed that “lessons have been learned” following an
investigation into complaints that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, had bullied
palace staff members, but it has not published the findings nor explained what
those lessons are.
.
Last year,
the palace launched an investigation into bullying claims after an article in
the Times of London claimed that two of her employees had been driven from
their jobs and a third had been undermined.
Lawyers for
Meghan denied the reports, calling it a “calculated smear campaign” and said
that the Times of London was being “used by Buckingham Palace to peddle a
wholly false narrative” about the duchess. The reports appeared in the paper
shortly before Meghan and Prince Harry’s bombshell interview with Oprah
Winfrey.
The palace,
which never backed the claims but said they were serious enough to be
investigated, said in a statement on Thursday that the probe had concluded and
that “recommendations on our policies and procedures have been taken forward.”
The palace said that it would not be publishing the results of the review,
which looked at how the palace handled the complaints — not the specifics of
the allegations themselves.
Buckingham
Palace to investigate whether Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, bullied her staff
During a
Wednesday briefing on annual royal finances, a palace official, speaking on the
condition of anonymity, told reporters that the details would remain confidential
to protect the privacy of those who gave testimony about their experiences.
“Because of
the confidentiality of the discussions we have not communicated the detailed
recommendations,” the official said. “The recommendations have been
incorporated within policies and procedures wherever appropriate, and policies
and procedures have changed.”
The
official added: “I think the objectives have been satisfied because lessons
have been learned.”
Royal
watchers had expected the review might be mentioned in the Sovereign Grant
Report, the annual financial accounts of the monarchy’s spending and income
that was published on Thursday.
According
to the palace official, the investigation into the bullying allegations was
funded privately, not by taxpayers, meaning that it did not have to be included
in the public accounts.
The annual
report showed that British monarch’s official expenditure for 2021-2022 had
been about $124 million, an increase of 17 percent on the previous financial
year.
This amount
exceeded the $105 million in the Sovereign Grant — the pot of public money
provided by the British government to cover the costs of the queen’s household
and upkeep of royal residences. The palace said that the royal finances cost
$1.57 per person in the United Kingdom and that the bulk of its spending went
toward major renovation works at Buckingham Palace. The extra costs, the palace
said, would be met by reserves set aside in previous years.
The
accounts showed that the most expensive trip over the past year was the trip to
the Caribbean in March by Prince William and his wife Catherine, Duchess of
Cambridge — seen as something of a public relations disaster — that cost
$274,000.
William and
Kate, touring the Caribbean to celebrate queen’s jubilee, draw anti-colonial
protests, demands for reparations
Some said
that the costs seemed excessive, especially in the current economic climate
with a cost-of-living crisis that is starting to bite. Inflation in the U.K. is
over 9 percent — the highest rate in 40 years. “£100m for the royals? Reign it
in,” roared the Daily Mirror on its front page.
Michael
Stevens, the queen’s treasurer who is also called the Keeper of the Privy
Purse, said in a statement that royal finances would also probably be tightened
in coming years.
“With the
Sovereign Grant likely to be flat in the next couple of years, inflationary
pressures on operating costs and our ability to grow supplementary income
likely to be constrained in the short term, we will continue to deliver against
our plans and manage these impacts through our own efforts and efficiencies,” he
said.
By Karla
Adam
Karla Adam
is a London correspondent for The Washington Post. Before joining The Post in
2006, she worked as a freelancer in London, writing for several U.S.
publications including the New York Times, Newsweek and People magazine. She is
a former president of the Association of American Correspondents in
London. Twitter
Royal family receives over £100 million as costs
soar despite cost of living crisis - full breakdown
Costs claimed by senior royals such as the Queen,
Prince Charles and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have continued to rise
By Russell
Myers Enda Mullen
08:26, 30
JUN 2022UPDATED08:53, 30 JUN 2022
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/uk-world-news/royal-family-receives-over-100-24359721
A new
report has revealed that the royal family cost taxpayers £102.4 million last
year. While the country continues to cope with the cost of living crisis the
money received by the the royals rose by 17 per cent (£15 million).
It means
the cash they received exceeded £100 million for the first time. Royal finances
expert Norman Baker described it as “not right”, the Mirror reports.
The bill
was driven up in part by the multi-million-pound renovation of Buckingham
Palace. Spending on the project rose to £63.9 million, up £14.4million on the
previous year.
Renovation
work intensified to prepare the palace for the Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
The Queen was in another of her official residences yesterday, receiving
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh.
The
Sovereign Grant Report shows that last year the royal family’s travel costs
soared from £1.3 million to £4.5 million, as in-person royal visits resumed
following the pandemic.
Royal
finances expert Norman Baker said: “The Government should have a complete
rethink of how taxpayers’ money is allocated to the royal family. We have no
say in how the royals choose to use private jets or helicopters, which are all
paid for out of the public purse, and while ordinary people are struggling it
isn’t right.”
The 10-year
Buckingham Palace renovation project appears to be on target to cost £369
million. Delivering the Sovereign Grant Report, Keeper of the Privy Purse, Sir
Michael Stevens, said: “There was a significant increase in work against a hard
deadline to enable Buckingham Palace to be at the centre of the Platinum
Jubilee celebrations. We were pleased to deliver against our plans.”
Spending on
the royals rose by almost £15 million in 2021/22, up more than 17 per cent on
the previous year, the report revealed. Sir Michael said: “The year was not
without operational and financial challenges. Covid meant we had another year
in which access to the royal palaces was restricted for the Royal Collection
Trust, which again affected our ability to help self-finance our work on behalf
of the nation.”
While
ordinary Brits coped with the cost of living crisis costs incurred by senior
royals continued to rise. Prince William and Kate’s trip to the Caribbean cost
£226,000 in flights and accommodation.
Despite
campaigning on environmental issues, Prince Charles still flies between his
royal residences at an average cost of £15,000 a time. The Queen’s royal train
cost £100,000 for just three outings last year, but is now exclusively powered
by “hydro-treated vegetable oil”, royal sources revealed.
As a
non-working royal, like Prince Harry and his wife Megan, Prince Andrew no
longer qualifies for public funding and gets nothing from the Sovereign Grant.
He is now thought to be exclusively funded privately by the Queen.
Caribbean tour
William and
Kate’s controversial visit to Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas cost roughly
£226,000. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge came in for heavy criticism during
the tour in March, with critics labelling it a “throwback to Britain’s colonial
past”.
The royal
pair raised eyebrows for travelling in an open top Land Rover driven by a
Jamaican soldier during a military parade, with some people suggesting it
“looked like a scene from The Crown”.
In an
unprecedented statement, William said after the Caribbean visit: “Tours are an
opportunity to reflect. You learn so much. This tour has brought into even
sharper focus questions about the past and the future. In Belize, Jamaica and
the Bahamas, that future is for the people to decide upon.”
Royal train
The Queen
will not give up using the royal train despite just three outings for her and
Prince Charles costing £100,000 The monarch will hold on to her favourite mode
of transport, which she can travel and sleep on when on engagements - despite
it being used so little each year.
Her Majesty
used the royal train last July on a return journey from Windsor to Manchester
to celebrate 60 years of Coronation Street and the 600th Anniversary of
Manchester Cathedral, costing a staggering £42,452. Prince Charles used the
train twice, with a journey over several days between Stonehaven, Newcastle and
Durham and back to Windsor coming in at £42,450.
A royal
aide said: “The Queen has no plans to stop using the royal train which provides
excellent value for money.”
Green fuel
Environmentalist
Charles committed to using “green fuel” for plane journeys where he can,
despite it costing the public purse far more than normal fuel. A source said:
“The prince is aware of the extra cost but the destructive cost to the environment
during a climate emergency is far greater."
Harry and
Meghan are now paying for themselves - the Prince of Wales no longer funds them
after they ditched their royal roles seeking “financial independence”. After they
shed their life as working royals in 2020 they signed £100m worth of deals with
streaming giants Netflix and Spotify.
During the
couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey in March last year, Harry said “my family
literally cut me off financially” in “the first quarter of 2020”. A source
close to Prince Charles said the Duke and Duchess “should be congratulated on
achieving their goal” in raking in millions from the private sector - despite
using their new found roles to routinely slam the royal family on global
television interviews.
Charles’s
bill for his sons and their families no longer lists the Sussexes in the
accounts.
Charity cash
Changes to
the way the royal charities accept donations have been implemented after Prince
Charles accepted £2.6million in cash from a former prime minister of Qatar. The
Prince of Wales will never again handle large sums in notes to be passed to his
charities, a royal source has stated.
Charles
faced criticism over being presented with one million euros stuffed in a
briefcase while two other cash gifts of more than £1.6million were given in
Fortnum & Mason carrier bags between 2011 and 2015. A report claimed the
heir to the throne personally accepted the donations for his charity The Prince
of Wales’s Charitable Fund from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, above .
A royal
source said Charles acts on advice and such incidents have not happened in the
past five years and will not happen again.
Wednesday, 29 June 2022
Prince Charles will no longer accept large cash donations for charities
.webp)
Prince Charles will no longer accept large cash
donations for charities
Royal source says heir to throne ‘operates on advice’,
after claims sheikh gave him millions in bag and suitcase
Caroline
Davies
Wed 29 Jun
2022 16.00 BST
The Prince
of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior
royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims that he
received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase
and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
The Sunday
Times reported that Charles personally accepted the donations, which were
passed to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF) from Sheikh Hamad bin
Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, who was the prime minister of Qatar between 2007 and
2013.
The three
donations were said to have been made between 2011 and 2015. Clarence House has
said all correct processes were followed.
A royal
source said that the heir to the throne “operates on advice”. “Situations,
contexts change over the years. I can say with certainty for more than half a
decade with the situation as it has evolved, this has not happened and it would
not happen again … That was then, this is now.”
The Charity
Commission is examining reports to decide whether this is a matter for it to
investigate.
Although
there is no suggestion of any illegality, or that Charles offered anything in
return for the cash, critics have said the allegations show poor judgment on
the part of the heir to the throne.
The
campaign group Republic has demanded full disclosure over the matter , and has
described the events as “shocking”. It has written to the Charity Commission in
connection with the cash donations.
The
Metropolitan police is currently investigating accusations of cash-for-honours
at another of the Prince’s charities, the Prince’s Foundation, over allegations
that a Saudi millionaire was offered help to obtain a knighthood and UK
citizenship in return for generous donations.
The former
Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Norman Baker has called on the Met to take
the cash donation claims into account during its investigation, claiming that
it contradicts previous statements from Clarence House that the prince did not
directly involve himself in fundraising for his charities.
The royal
source said there had been “a lot of reporting about the Prince of Wales
‘accepting’ this money”.
“It was
passed immediately to his charities and it was his charities who decided to
accept the money. That is a decision for them. And they did so, and, as they
have confirmed, it followed all the right processes. The auditors looked at
it,” the source said.
The Charity
Commission has said in a statement: “We are aware of reports about donations
received by the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Foundation. We will review the
information to determine whether there is any role for the commission in this
matter.”
Clarence
House has said: “Charitable donations received from Sheikh Bin Jassim were
passed immediately to one of the prince’s charities, who carried out the
appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were
followed.”
Tuesday, 28 June 2022
Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate
.webp)
Queen's consent investigations
Prince Charles
Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to
change law to benefit his estate
Newly discovered documents show government yielded to
heir’s demands amid fears of a constitutional crisis
Queen’s
secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo
Prince
Charles
Photograph: Ben Stansall/PA
Rob Evans,
David Pegg and Severin Carrell
Tue 28 Jun
2022 14.56 BST
Prince
Charles exploited a controversial procedure to compel government ministers to
secretly change a proposed law to benefit his landed estate, according to
documents uncovered by the Guardian.
Official
papers unearthed in the National Archives reveal ministers in John Major’s
government yielded to his demands amid fears that resisting the heir to the
throne could spark a constitutional crisis.
Ministers
backed down to “avoid a major row” with the prince, effectively allowing him to
force the hand of the elected government.
The
disclosure of the documents provides further evidence of how the royal family
has used the secretive procedure known as Queen’s consent to alter legislation
to benefit their private interests.
Under the
procedure, the monarch and her eldest son are given copies of draft laws in
advance so they can examine whether the legislation affects their public powers
or private assets, such as his Duchy of Cornwall estate or the privately owned
estate at Sandringham.
Ministers
must obtain the consent of the Queen and the prince before relevant legislation
can be approved by parliament. This procedure is different than the better
known procedure of royal assent, a formality that makes a bill become law.
A Guardian
investigation has revealed that the Queen’s consent procedure has been used by
the monarch in recent decades to privately lobby for changes. During her reign,
ministers have been required to secure approval from the Queen or her son for
more than 1,000 parliamentary acts before they were implemented.
Buckingham
Palace and the government say Queen’s consent is a “purely formal” part of the
parliamentary process and is granted by the monarch as a matter of course. The
palace has said that “consent is always granted by the monarch where requested
by government” and that “this process does not change the nature of any such
bill”.
But the
newly revealed documents, concerning a leasehold reform act that became law in
1993, provide detailed evidence of Charles applying pressure on elected
ministers to ensure an exemption to prevent his own tenants from having the
right to buy their own homes.
The Windsor
family has used the consent procedure to vet at least four draft acts that have
changed leasehold laws since the 1960s. Under such laws tenants live in
properties for a specific number of years on a lease, instead of owning it
outright. The changes have given tenants across the country the legal power in
certain circumstances to buy their homes from their landlords.
Letters and
internal memos from September and October 1992 show Charles took a “close
personal interest” in Newton St Loe, a small Somerset village that is part of
the £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate, and insisted his properties there should be
excluded from the proposed bill. His lobbying secured a special exemption for
the village that has to this day left the tenants financially worse off.
The
documents also reveal Charles wrote directly to Major in October 1992 noting
that he would be shortly receiving a request to give his consent to the
leasehold bill, and expressing his “particular concern” about another aspect of
the proposed law – which he feared would permit tenants to buy and redevelop
historic properties without preserving their “special character”.
‘It is
important to avoid a major row with the Prince of Wales’
Charles, as
the heir to the throne, is given a private annual income – currently about £20m
– out of the profits made by the Duchy of Cornwall, a property estate. The
52,000-hectare estate collects rents on properties across 20 counties in
England and Wales. However, in some areas its tenants are barred from buying
their homes. These tenants, whose number is unknown, continue to pay rent to
the duchy – money that in turn is paid to the prince.
Last year,
after a Guardian investigation revealed the Windsors had vetted several
leasehold reform acts, the duchy said in a statement that neither it nor the
prince had had “any involvement in the drafting of legislation that relates to
any part of leasehold reform”, including the question of tenants buying their own
homes.
In
September 1992, lawyers representing the duchy privately told the government
they were concerned about the proposals contained in a new leasehold bill, and
argued the Newton St Loe tenants should be denied the right to buy their homes.
David Landale,
the duchy’s secretary, said the village – one of the duchy’s main holdings –
was “particularly well liked and valued by His Royal Highness because of its
well-balanced mixture of farms and woodland”.
On 30
September a Whitehall official, JE Roberts, warned ministers that “the
difficulty is that the Prince of Wales takes a close personal interest in the
development of this village”, adding that Charles saw “no reason why he should
now relinquish control. It has been made clear to me that if the government
wish to press ahead on this issue, the prince will wish to discuss it at the
highest levels.”
Roberts
stressed: “The Prince of Wales is likely to come back on Newton St Loe.
Ministers will then need to decide whether it is worth fighting him on the
issue.”
Sir George
Young, the housing minister at the time, and another minister, Tony Baldry,
believed it was not justified to prevent the Newton St Loe tenants from buying
their homes when others in the country had that right, according to a letter.
It was feared it would create a precedent for other major landowners.
In a memo
on 9 October, Roberts noted: “No special case can be made beyond the fact that
the prince has taken a special interest.” He cautioned that ministers’ most
important objective was to “ensure that the consent of the Queen and the Prince
of Wales to the bill is obtained … their consent is necessary before the bill
may be introduced.”
“Ultimately
I assume that the will of ministers can prevail over that of monarchy but a
constitutional crisis would add a further dimension of controversy to the bill
which would be better avoided,” he wrote.
Roberts
warned the ministers faced a choice between either conceding to the prince or
staying firm and “looking for a mechanism to break the deadlock. Unfortunately
I am not aware that our constitution has provided any such mechanism!”
On 22
October, Roberts advised: “On the basis that it is important to avoid a major
row with the Prince of Wales … there is a case for letting matters rest … It is
open to the minister to fight if he wishes, recognising that this is likely to
have costs on both sides.”
However,
Baldry replied: “We have probably got as far as we can with this … we should
let the matter rest.” Young agreed: “I could live with this – reluctantly.” On
the same day, the prince gave his consent to the bill.
The special
exemption barring the Newton St Loe tenants from buying their homes was made
public only during the enactment of a later leasehold act in 2002.
Sign up to
First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST
A duchy spokesperson
said: “The Duchy of Cornwall estate is exempt from leasehold reform legislation
but has agreed to act as if bound in, apart from in a very small number of
specifically identified areas including Newton St Loe. As you can imagine, we
do not discuss individual leaseholds.”
In
practical terms only a small number of Newton St Loe tenants are affected by
the ban. But they say they have suffered bitter financial hardship as a result
of the prince’s special rights. One, Jane Giddins, said she and her husband
cannot borrow against their home to pay for social care for themselves in the
future. She added that the value of the 99-year-old lease on their home – their
main asset – diminished steadily as it got closer to ending.
“It is
total injustice, and feudal,” Giddins said. “Because my freehold is owned by
someone who is immensely wealthy and powerful, I am not protected by the law
that applies to everyone else in this country. I can’t do anything about it.”
She said
that when she and her husband took the lease in 1996, the duchy told them about
the ban on buying it – but she could not have known that the prince had lobbied
to keep the village exempt from leasehold reform.
“I took the
view that it was so obviously anachronistic and grossly unfair, that by the
time I needed to sort it out, the law would have been changed. And I had no
idea that the duchy would be able to stop the law being tidied up.”
Monday, 27 June 2022
Prince Charles In Major Controversy After 'Accepting a Suitcase With 1M Euros', Report Claims | GMB / Prince Charles: calls for investigations into ‘cash in bags’ controversy
Prince Charles: calls for investigations into ‘cash in
bags’ controversy
Government and Charity Commission urged to examine
claims Qatari sheikh donated €3m
Caroline
Davies
Sun 26 Jun
2022 17.16 BST
Prince
Charles faced fresh controversy over the funding of his charities on Sunday,
with calls for the government and the Charity Commission to investigate claims
he accepted €3m in cash from a billionaire Qatari sheikh.
Claims in
the Sunday Times that Charles accepted three donations between 2011 and 2015
from former Qatari prime minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani –
known as “HBJ” – were described as “shocking” by critics. One donation,
totalling €1m, was reportedly handed over in a small suitcase and another was
stuffed in a carrier bag from upmarket department store Fortnum & Mason.
The cash,
allegedly then counted by Charles’s aides and subsequently collected by Coutts
bank, was paid to the Prince of Wales’s charitable fund which aims to
“transform lives and build sustainable communities” through awarding grants.
The fund told the Sunday Times that its trustees had concluded that the donor
was legitimate and its auditors had signed off on the donation.
Although
there is no suggestion of any illegality, or that Charles offered anything in
return for the generous donations, critics said it raised serious concerns
about the future king’s personal judgment, especially given Qatar’s record on
human rights.
One
described it as more like the actions of a “South American drug baron” than a
future king, while another said the image of Charles’s aides counting out the
cash was like a scene from TV sitcom Only Fools and Horses.
Clarence
House said in a statement: “Charitable donations received from Sheikh bin
Jassim were passed immediately to one of the prince’s charities, who carried
out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct
processes were followed.”
The royal
family’s guidelines make no mention of cash donations, but do say that at their
sole discretion members of the royal family are allowed to accept a cheque as a
patron of, or on behalf of, a charity with which they are associated.
The
campaign group Republic today demanded full disclosure from Charles over this
latest controversy and said it would be writing to Prince Charles, the
government, MPs and the Charity Commission. Graham Smith of Republic said the
claims were “shocking” and raised ethical questions.
.webp)
“Prince
Charles met Sheikh Hamad in private, with no officials present and with no
disclosure of the meeting in the court circular,” said Smith. “Sheikh Hamad
faces serious accusations over human rights and has significant financial and
other interests here in the UK.”
Norman
Baker, a former government minister and Liberal Democrat MP, who has written a
book on royal finances, said: “A million dollars in cash stuffed into Fortnum
and Mason bags, or shoved into a holdall or a suitcase, and handed over behind
closed doors. This is what one might expect from a South American drug baron,
not the heir to the British throne. It seems there are no lengths Charles will
not go to get money for his good causes.”
Last year,
Charles’s closest aide Michael Fawcett was forced to resign after donations to
another of his charities, the Prince’s Foundation, came under scrutiny after
allegations it offered to help a wealthy Saudi donor secure a knighthood and
British citizenship. The Metropolitan police said earlier this year it is
investigating the honours claim under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act
1925, after complaints from Baker and others. Clarence House has said Charles
had no knowledge of the alleged offers to the billionaire businessman Mahfouz
Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, who denies any wrongdoing.
Of these
latests claims, Baker said: “[Charles] is already involved in a police
investigation as a result of my complaint to the Metropolitan police last year.
This is grubby, scuzzy behaviour which reinforces the view many are reaching:
that Charles is not fit to be king.
“He doesn’t
behave in any way which is appropriate to his position. If an MP behaved in
that way they would be out of parliament.”
The Northern
Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, said the donations the Prince of Wales is
alleged to have received from the former prime minister of Qatar would have
gone through “proper due process”.
“This isn’t
a government issue, but what I have seen is the palace have been very clear,
that all moneys go through proper due process, the charities obviously go
through proper due process,” Lewis told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme.
“I’m
confident having had some dealings with charities, the Prince’s Trust, the Prince’s
Foundation, around the palace in the past myself that these will have gone
through proper due process.”
But the
royal author and Prince Charles critic Tom Bower, said the claim that royal
aides were asked to handle carrier bags stuffed with money was “like a scene
from the TV comedy Only Fools and Horses.”
Coutts
declined to discuss specific transactions, but a spokesperson told the Mail on
Sunday: “We have longstanding and robust policies and controls to assess the
source, nature and purpose of large and unusual transactions. In particular,
receipt of cash payments by the bank receive thorough review and oversight.”
Sunday, 26 June 2022
Lucy Worsley Investigates - Preview
REVIEW
Lucy Worsley has to hold back tears as she gets
serious about the witch hunts
4/5
In her new series, Lucy Worsley Investigates, the
historian has ditched the twinkle for sober research - and it suits her
By
Jasper Rees
24 May 2022
• 10:00pm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/lucy-worsley-has-hold-back-tears-gets-serious-witch-hunts/
In the
1990s Britain’s witches started to enjoy a better press thanks to JK Rowling.
Four centuries earlier, not far from the very Edinburgh cafe in which she
scratched out the early adventures of Hermione Granger and the boy wizards in
her gang, witches were in less good odour. As grippingly related in The Witch
Hunts: Lucy Worsley Investigates (BBC Two), the state-sponsored hounding of
blameless women began in Edinburgh in the 1590s with the execution of Agnes
Sampson.
Carefully lacing
the facts together from books, documents and sessions with fellow historians,
Worsley wandered into a horror story. Poor Agnes, she revealed, was a midwife
and healer in a village in East Lothian who found herself snared in the
cross-hairs of history.
John Knox’s
Presbyterians had jostled to prominence just as the Little Ice Age and a
growing population made food scarcer. To propitiate the Almighty someone needed
blaming and folk healers, newly suspected of being in league with the Devil,
fitted the bill. Most of them were women.
Then in
1590 the heirless James VI’s ship, bringing home his Danish bride, nearly sank
in a storm in the Firth of Forth. Agnes was summoned before the king to
Holyrood and had a confession of conjuring up the storm tortured out of her. As
they hunted for marks of the Devil “found upon her privities”, she admitted to
a fictitious 200-strong coven before being executed by strangling.
Fun times
these were not, though perhaps they were not so unlike our own. Imagine the
fanatics of Isis teaming up with the disinformers of Russian state TV: that was
the Scotland of James VI, who, as James I, would shortly export this misogynist
ideology to England.
This new
series, casting Worsley as an inky-fingered sleuth shedding new light on well-worn
episodes in British history, could run and run. Previously I have been
resistant to her immersive style – the mob caps and the mummery would trigger
my inner harrumpher.
Her
director still fetishises her shoewear with close-ups of clacking Marplesque
heels, but there’s now less artful twinkling and more impassioned sincerity.
Here you could watch Worsley reacting in real time to unscripted discoveries.
When she found a document quoting Agnes more or less verbatim, she distinctly
paused to hold back a tear.
This was
sober, research-based storytelling, with field trips to overgrown ruins and
museum storerooms. The only glimmer of impish wit was in Forfar, where the
camera spotted a black cat on the prowl.
Worsley’s
true co-stars were the documents she disinterred. However, it was only if you
paused on the relevant frame could you read the vilification of blameless women
at its most pornographic: “It has latelye beene found that the Divell dooth
generallye marke them with a privie marke, by reason the Witches have confessed
themselves, that the Divell dooth lick them with his tung in some privy part of
their bodie, before hee dooth receive them to be his servants.” Worsley
left that bit out. As did Rowling.
1. Princes
in the Tower
Air date:
May 15, 2022
Lucy
Worsley investigates what really happened to the two princes who disappeared in
1483.
2. Madness
of King George
Air date:
May 22, 2022
A close
look at the life of George III, including the effect of his mental illness on
Britain and how the assassination attempt on his life changed psychiatry.
3. The
Black Death
Air date:
May 24, 2022
Lucy
Worsley reinvestigates and reveals new evidence about some of British history's
biggest unsolved mysteries.
4. The
Witch Hunts
Air date:
May 24, 2022
Lucy
Worsley reinvestigates and reveals new evidence about some of British history's
biggest unsolved mysteries.
.webp)
