I did read it. A "hedge"? The "unicorn" comment? I took that as sarcasm. Perhaps in error? If that was your hedge, you are correct. She may very well be the only one, assuming the story is correct at all. You don't know. What we do know is that the BBC survives innumerable fact checks intact. Their accuracy is high. I'm less concerned about right/left bias (which would be different in the UK anyway...Europe is already "left" on a US scale) as long as they are accurate.

Not intending a personal attack. As I said, I would hold a person with an English Lit degree to a lesser standard than a hard-science degree. Different disciplines, different criteria. I would not expect an English Lit person to be able to evaluate the quality of the evidence, nor the extent of it (i.e. how far one may extrapolate it, does it show a pattern, etc). They may be able to, but that is not required for their discipline.

The only thing I ding the BBC for is they are very pro-Royal. They gave some coverage to people objecting to the continuation of the monarchy (last year during the run-up to the coronation), but mostly it was "we're so excited". Nevermind that about 45% of the UK population thinks the monarchy should be abolished. An actual majority of those under (I think) 30 favor that.