THE creator of legal drama Suits has confirmed Buckingham Palace changed a line of Meghan Markle’s dialogue.
The legal drama helped launch Markle’s career, and its creator has now opened up on the palace’s influence when she was still on the show.
Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, creator Aaron Korsh said the royal family “weighed in” on scripts involving Meghan.
She played paralegal Rachel Zane and left the show following the end of its seventh season.
READ MORE: Edinburgh Yes rally: Alistair Heather and Kelly Given on 'fresh' view
On the royal family’s influence, Korsh explained: “Not many things, by the way, but a few things that we wanted to and couldn’t do, and it was a little irritating.”
He recalled one incident in which the royals objected to Markle’s character saying the word “poppycock” on screen to refer to a sensitive topic.
“The royal family did not want her saying the word. They didn’t want to put the word poppycock in her mouth.
“I presume because they didn’t want people cutting things together of her saying cock.”
The line was eventually changed to “bulls**t”.
Republic CEO Graham Smith tweeted that the move showed a “weird level of control and paranoia from the palace”.
Another commented that it was “ridiculous” while another questioned why the show’s creator didn’t refuse to change the lines when requests were made.
Korsh added that he was unsure how the royal family had obtained unfilmed scripts of Suits and that Markle herself was never responsible for delivering edits.
He said: “It might have been the directing producer at the time, or her agent. Whoever it was, they didn’t like having to tell me any more than I liked having to hear it.”
Prince Harry (above) previously revealed the palace’s intervention on the show in his memoir Spare.
He wrote: “Meg packed up her house, gave up her role in Suits. After seven seasons. A difficult moment for her, because she loved that show, loved the character she was playing, loved her cast and crew – loved Canada.
“On the other hand life there had become untenable. The show writers were frustrated, because they were often advised by the comms team to change lines of dialogue, what her character would do, how she would act.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here