Gyles Brandreth Questions Camilla Tominey’s Sussex Sources as She Repeats Prince Harry Booing Claims on This Morning

Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex are reportedly planning to spend Christmas with Meghan’s mother, Doria Ragland, rather than joining the royal family at Sandringham. Hardly a surprise, but you can almost hear the collective groan from the British press, which surely had its annual collection of “Will Harry and Meghan Spend Christmas With the Royals?” stories ready to go.

A perfectly reasonable family decision, you might think. But apparently, even choosing where to spend Christmas requires a lengthy discussion about the Sussexes’ relationship with the British press.

During ITV’s This Morning, royal commentator Camilla Tominey joined Gyles Brandreth and the presenters to discuss the couple’s reported plans. What followed was considerably more interesting than the Christmas arrangements themselves. Brandreth began asking questions about anonymous sources, and Tominey suddenly had to explain how royal journalism works.

Harry and Meghan’s Christmas Plans Become Another Royal Debate

According to The Sunday Times, Harry and Meghan intend to spend Christmas and Thanksgiving with Doria Ragland, potentially travelling to California if she prefers to celebrate there.

A source described as a friend suggested that spending Christmas at Sandringham would be uncomfortable given the continuing family tensions. The couple reportedly do not expect an invitation. However, their precise travel arrangements remain unconfirmed.  

On This Morning, Brandreth thought spending Christmas with Doria sounded perfectly sensible. He recalled enjoying Christmas in Southern California and suggested that family tensions often become particularly difficult during the holidays.

Tominey, however, was more interested in the timing. She suggested that the Sussexes deliberately publicised their Christmas plans in October to prevent another round of headlines about being snubbed by the royal family.

And Camilla Tominey knows a thing or two about generating negative Sussex headlines. Remember, she broke the infamous 2018 story claiming Meghan made Kate Middleton cry during Princess Charlotte’s bridesmaid dress fitting. Meghan later disputed the account, explaining that Kate had actually made her cry and subsequently apologised. Tominey has not publicly identified the sources behind that disputed account.

Interestingly, shortly after Tominey’s article appeared, The Telegraph published a flattering interview with Kate’s mother, Carole Middleton. The timing was curious, although it doesn’t establish who supplied the bridesmaid story.

And her controversial reporting didn’t stop there. In 2019, Tominey accused Meghan of showing bias when she guest-edited British Vogue, questioning why her cover featured 15 women, only five of whom were white, and no men. Apparently, a women’s empowerment issue needed more white people and male representation to satisfy Tominey.

Then, in 2020, she published a Telegraph report highlighting allegations about Virginia Giuffre’s past sex work, which critics condemned as victim-blaming amid Giuffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew. Tominey defended the piece as straightforward reporting.

So you’ll forgive me for raising an eyebrow when Tominey suggests that announcing Christmas plans early prevents the press from manufacturing another royal snub.

After all, she has spent years reporting on the Sussexes’ supposed family tensions using anonymous “sources”. I suspect she would have had plenty to say if Harry and Meghan did not nip this Sandringham invitation storyline in the bud.

Which brings us to the most entertaining part of the discussion.

Gyles Brandreth Wants to Know Who These Anonymous Friends Are

Brandreth asked Tominey a straightforward journalistic question: when newspapers quote a friend of a public figure, how do journalists establish that the person is genuinely a friend?

It was a reasonable question, especially considering how much British royal reporting depends on unnamed sources. Tominey explained that journalists protect their sources and that different descriptions, including friends, representatives and people close to a couple, can indicate different relationships.

But Brandreth continued pressing her. Was the information coming directly from a friend? Was a public relations representative contacting a journalist? And how could viewers know whether the information was reliable?

Tominey eventually acknowledged:

“I didn’t write this story, so I don’t know.”

Well, there we have it. She had just spent several minutes analysing why Harry and Meghan supposedly wanted the information published, despite not knowing who had provided it.

Tominey then argued that, in her experience, major Sussex stories rarely become headlines without some involvement from their side.

That’s quite an assertion from the journalist behind the disputed 2018 bridesmaid story. Tominey defended that reporting when Phillip Schofield questioned her on This Morning in March 2021. Yet here she was suggesting that major Sussex headlines rarely emerge without the couple’s involvement.

So, Camilla, were the sources behind your bridesmaid story speaking for Harry and Meghan too, or does your theory about Sussex briefings only apply when it’s convenient?

Of course, Harry and Meghan have a communications team. They announce charitable visits, issue statements and provide information to journalists. That’s what communications professionals do.

But briefing the press about a scheduled charity visit is not evidence that every anonymous story about the couple originates from them.

And considering the number of intrusive stories published about Harry and Meghan over the years, that distinction is rather important.

Camilla Tominey Repeats Claims That Prince Harry Was Booed

Tominey then brought up claims that Prince Harry was booed during the October 9 Leicester Tigers rugby match against Gloucester. Boos were audible when cameras showed Harry on the stadium screen, and several newspapers reported that the crowd was jeering at him.

However, people who claimed to have attended the match challenged that interpretation, saying spectators were actually booing the referee.

During This Morning, a presenter relayed information suggesting the boos were directed at the official. Tominey’s immediate response?

“Well, that was said by some of the Sussex’s supporters online…”

And there it is. The presenter introduces an alternative explanation, and Tominey’s first response is to associate it with Sussex supporters. Never mind that people claiming to have attended the match were also questioning the headlines. Apparently, challenging the British press’s interpretation is enough to earn a Sussex Squad label.

Even her fellow panellists questioned the narrative. Gyles Brandreth expressed surprise that Harry would receive such a hostile reaction, while another panellist pointed out that rugby crowds regularly boo referees.

Tominey stood by her interpretation, citing the television commentator’s reaction. But a commentator hearing boos while Harry appeared on screen doesn’t establish whom the crowd was booing.

The target of the booing remains disputed, yet Tominey seemed far more interested in discrediting Sussex supporters than examining the alternative explanation.

Different Royals, Different Standards

The programme then turned to Kate Middleton and Princess Charlotte’s Elizabeth Line journey, and suddenly the tone changed. The panellists praised their ordinary mother-and-daughter outing, acknowledged their security detail and suggested the public should respect their privacy.

How interesting. Harry attends a rugby match, and the discussion centres on whether people dislike him. Kate takes Charlotte on a train, and everyone celebrates their relatability while discussing the importance of leaving them alone.

So, respecting royal privacy is perfectly reasonable when the royals in question are William and Kate’s family.

As for Harry and Meghan’s Christmas plans, spending the holidays with Doria Ragland sounds perfectly sensible.

But perhaps the more interesting question is why Tominey feels qualified to explain the Sussexes’ motives when she admitted she didn’t know who supplied the original Christmas story.

And that, rather than where Harry and Meghan eat their Christmas dinner, is what Gyles Brandreth’s questioning exposed.