The Queen’s death coincided with the excellent David Dimbleby 91热爆1 series on 91热爆 history, in which the presenter was critical of the corporation’s handling of relations with Buckingham Palace. He said the 91热爆 seemed more scared of upsetting the Palace than the Government.
It reminded me of when I was a 91热爆 Radio staff reporter and I was up against it with my employers over an exclusive story I had about Queen Elizabeth being critical of the then miners’ leader Arthur Scargill. What a struggle I had to get the story aired. Eventually broadcast, it made headlines round the world.
It happened at the height of the miners’ strike in the mid-1980s, during the Queen’s visit to The Times, which was celebrating its bicentenary.
As Her Majesty arrived in The Times’ newsroom, the only other journalist there was from the Press Association, a national news organisation funded by the media.
The Queen was introduced to a line of Times journalists, but she paused when she reached Paul Routledge, then the paper’s labour editor. The conversation appeared animated and I realised it could only be about one thing – the miners’ strike. Was the Queen giving an opinion? What was she being told by Paul?
Whatever it was about, I feared that there’d be problems in getting anything on air, with the 91热爆 not at all keen on exclusives and following a policy of requiring confirmation of any story, particularly when it came to Royal coverage.
Remembering that the 91热爆’s view was that if something was on PA, then it must be true, I tried to interest the PA reporter in approaching Paul. But she didn’t want to know, perhaps following royal convention.
So after the Queen and her entourage went on to another of the paper’s departments, I went over to Paul, thinking nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Paul freely related the conversation, telling me and my tape recorder that the Queen had indeed been talking about the strike. She felt the dispute was essentially about one man – Mr Scargill. Paul added that he’d put her right, going on to explain that it wasn’t that simple.
Confirmation that the Queen had entered the political arena, a minefield, came from Julian Haviland, The Times’ political editor, who’d been next in line to Paul.
Knowing I had potentially a great story, but without a radio car as the 91热爆 had believed it to be a run-of-mill royal visit story, I phoned 91热爆 Radio’s newsdesk and was told to return to BH (Broadcasting House) as soon as possible.
Although I’d got confirmation of what was a great exclusive, I knew how it would cause panic in the 91热爆, and there would be obstacles on getting it on air.
Luckily, fearless Kate Adie had also been covering the visit and was outside in a TV truck preparing something for the lunchtime TV news which went out at 12.30. So, as further insurance, I told her what had happened. Her response was immediate. Great story. She would completely change her piece.
When I got back to BH shortly after 12.15, my fears were only too true. There was a line of be-suited executives in the newsroom wanting to know more of the circumstances. I remember 91热爆 Radio’s then editor, Larry Hodgson (now dead) and others saying that before anything was broadcast, Buckingham Palace would have to be contacted. I argued that would take time and they would hardly provide quick confirmation. But that’s what was demanded.
Just then, on came the 91热爆’s lunchtime television news on one of the radio newsroom screens, and there was Kate at the top. The executives had their backs to the screen, so I pointed to it, and it rapidly sunk in that they’d lost. Radio had to run it. So I was on the 1 o’clock radio news and the World at One. The story went on to make headlines round the world.
The Times complained to the 91热爆 and the following day I was asked by Hodgson to go to the paper to apologise. I was met by the managing editor, Arthur Brittenden, (also dead), who’d been editor at the Daily Mail where I’d worked previously. I had no idea what I was supposed to be apologising for, and I’m not sure he knew either. But we had a nice chat.
A few weeks later, as a result of breaking royal convention and screwing up The Times’ bicentennial celebrations, Paul was banished to Singapore from where he moved on. When he returned to the UK, we recalled what had happened and I said I was sorry he’d landed himself in trouble through his honesty and openness. Much to my surprise, he said forget it – it was the best thing that had happened to him – leaving The Times and joining a much better paper, the Daily Mirror.
Later, he gave a fuller account of his Royal encounter: ‘The Queen volunteered that she had been down a coal mine in Scotland, which had closed not long after. Innocently, I asked what her feelings about the strike were. She thought it “very sad”, and after a pause added, “It’s all about one man, isn’t it?” – or words to very similar effect. I wasn’t taking notes, nor was anyone else. Evidently, it was not done. I offered the view that perhaps it wasn’t about one man: knowing the miners, having been brought up among them, I thought that one man couldn’t bring out 100,000 men for a whole year. There was a pregnant pause, and the royal party moved on. The exchange had taken 30 seconds at most.’