Charles Spencer's book Diana Swan Song etc etc . Thread the second.

Placemarking.

Am also keen to see how it ends re Piers Morgan.

Thank you! I thought it was a strange book, really. I've read a couple of Spencer's books, which I've enjoyed, but this one is patchy. Also, I'm disappointed at the lack of evidence in some parts. I think if he had better advice, and checked the evidence more, it would have been better.

I will join you on here @BasiliskStareet al. Just waiting for the other thread to fill up 👍

I see he's retracted the stuff on Piers Morgan, fair enough.

If you mean his grudging apology, it isn’t enough for Morgan though. He wants all the copies to
be destroyed. He is still taking legal advice. That’s what we are waiting to find out about

Oh I see. It's not the only inaccuracy, apparently.

It's not the only inaccuracy, apparently.

When I spot one or more inaccuracies in a book or article or interview, I wonder what else is inaccurate that I haven't spotted and tend not to believe anything the writer or speaker says.

What other inaccuracies are there, out of interest?

That's the problem for me. It doesn't tally with the Morton book, or the later Diana in her own words, so it is definitely not a reliable book.
I wonder if it was rushed for some reason?.

On the previous thread we discussed:

1 The equerry story. The story of Charles S's father being warned off the Queen by Mountbatten as an equerry. Incorrect: he was equerry after the Queen married Prince Philip.

2 The Frogmore story. The story Diana would not have been permitted burial in the Royal burial ground at Frogmore because she had lost her HRH title. Incorrect: this was offered by the Queen, and there are several people already buried there without that title.

3 The Queen's speech story. Charles S said that the Queen gave her broadcast speech on the eve of Diana's funeral from the balcony. Incorrect: Many can remember it being from a room inside Buckingham Palace.

4 The hearse story. Charles S said the hearse broke down on the way to Althorp and there was a back-up hearse that the coffin was moved across into. Incorrect: the hearse stopped a couple of times to clear flowers from the windscreen but there was no breakdown.

5 The Piers Morgan story. Charles S said PM was responsible for invasive photographs in the Mirror in 1993. Incorrect: PM did not join the Mirror until 1995

These are the specific individual inaccuracies we discussed.

The people who have read the book also said that Charles S contradicted Diana's previous description of their childhood as having difficult or unhappy times (please can someone clarify this part?)

I wonder if it was rushed for some reason?

Getting ahead of the competition, perhaps? Ingrid Seward has a new book out and I expect there are others in the pipeline. Maybe he's also hoping for a tv deal, for next year.

I thought it all sounded pretty genuine. It’s true that people’s interpretation and memory of the same event can be different to others, and there are a few differences, but overall I thought it sounded pretty much like his genuine recollection of events.

The trouble is, though, there are some provable historical errors as highlighted by pp, which tends to cast doubt on his recollections being very accurate. I mean, it’s another one of these “my truth” things. Awkward when there are plenty of people and records around to contradict what you say 🤷‍♀️

I still think you have to base it on the actual truth, though, and that's what Spencer is claiming.

A question. My understanding from reading reviews is that he structured the book around his Eulogy. Do you think it would have worked better if he had written chronologically? Would it have centred it more on Diana than himself?

Yes, I think that's the problem. I've seen a couple of interviews with him and he centres those around the eulogy as well, mentioning it a lot. I think he structured the eulogy in a particular way, and is using that technique for the book, but I don't think it works.

It’s true that people’s interpretation and memory of the same event can be different to others,

This is not the same as relying on documentation from a few hundred years ago though. This is living memory.Take the example of the queen addressing the nation when she came back to London - there are films of her speaking with the Mall in the background. Millions of us watched it and it was obvious it was filmed in a room in the palace because there'd be lights and cameras - no way HM could have done that on the balcony with the noise from thousands of people outside.

The same with the hearse allegedly stopping because it broke down - again, millions of us watched that live and saw no such thing.

The impression I'm getting, and I have only read extracts, is that there doesn't seem to be any appreciation for the way the passage of time both blurs memory and gives perspective. He seems to writing as the Charles S who wrote the eulogy rather than a an older man looking back.

It feels like a missed opportunity for a serious retrospective on Diana's life blending the hindsight of history and the depth of personal reminisce and context.

Thank you @BasiliskStare

Me too, I can't see PM backing down.

Thanks @BasiliskStare , have finally name changed.

Also, Harry sort of got away with it because he admitted that Spare was all a load of bollocks his truth wasn’t necessarily the truth. Charles Spencer keeps telling us that he’s a journalist and historian.

I watched Piers Morgan uncensored, he had Paul Burrell on, Piers is really on a roll, Penguin seem to be kicking the can down the road and not making any decision, hoping Piers will relent, but I don’t think he will unless they make a huge donation to the Kings trust.

It is all down to interpretation eh?

Some of course will think it is heartfelt and genuine and others will think it is a bitter and unsubstantiated pop at the RF/King.

It is totally subjective and there is the rub.

I’d love to know exactly what happened but we will never know. We can feel or think all we like but we will never know for sure if we are right.

And nor I suspect by the look of it will CS.

Surely the publishers had their legal team all over the manuscript with a fine toothed comb? Inconsistencies posted upthread barely needed fact checking- the balcony and broken down hearse for example. Unless the lawyers are very young, MANY people remember these events clearly.