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

I just finished it in a couple of days. CS doesn't dwell on the issue of possible parental disappointment in Diana's sex, but I'm assuming from the circumstances and from other things that I have read that surely they wanted Diana to be a boy. However, it doesn't appear from anything in the book that her parents loved her any less because she was a girl. By all accounts, Johnny Spencer was a doting and involved father, and he and Diana had a particularly close relationship.

From what I have read in other accounts, it appears that Diana's unhappy childhood stemmed primarily from her parents' divorce, not from being treated differently because she was a girl. However, I can certainly understand that a system (agnatic primogeniture) which inherently values males over females could certainly make a girl think that she was perhaps surplus to requirements. I cannot imagine growing up or raising children in such an environment.

Popularity and childhood bedrooms are irrelevant to primogeniture.

It's odd as surely the Spencer children already had their rooms before Raine moved in?

Two of her children were adults & I think the younger two remained with their father.

It would be very odd if he meant to announce to the world that she was a fully grown adult at the time.

@LambriniBobInIsleworthISeesYaThere are photos of Nelson Mandela at Althorp and he is walking across a bridge

I didn’t think it was made up- why would he do that?

No I agree. I wonder if he forgot that revealing her age when she pushed Raine meant revealing that she did it when she was married with children?

He revealed to all that she was a married mother-of-two when she assaulted her step-mother by pushing her down the stairs.

i do wonder if he realised that most people assumed that had happened when Diana was a child.

I can’t imagine that the biggest revelation about his sister personally was meant to be that one.

He doesn’t seem to have criticised her particularly after she was married in the book if I understand correctly. He seems to have then pointed her as a victim. Probably so he could continue with his pantomime villain port of Charles

Why ? Because he adored her? He also criticised her

I'm not

Surprised there were no comments on Diana’s affairs with married men

Robert Fellowes died 2 years ago.

It may have been started before he died, but I suspect it was never going to be published while he was still alive.

Fellowes was in a unique position. He was part of the Spencer family, and he was involved in much of the organisation of Diana's funeral (as well as other Royal Household discussions) as a private secretary to the Queen.

He would have been able to confirm or deny many of the statements in the book.

ETA I feel a great deal of sympathy for Jane Fellowes (as well as her sister). Charles S says his sisters were hurt when he told them about the book. He doesn't strike me as someone who would pick up on subtle signs of others' upset, so they may have been quite distressed.

I would love to know when he started writing this. Before or after his own memoir and its success. Given it came out in 2024 and he said he had a breakdown requiring residential care after his own book that doesn’t seem like a long time to write it.

Also would be interesting to know if it was always intended to come out now.

A bit off-topic, but I notice that the review mentions the memoir of Alathea Fitzalan Howard, The Windsor Diaries, My Childhood with the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. This is a fascinating read. I highly recommend it.

I know. I just can't understand why Spencer would want to do this, it's awful. Never mind the wrong information!

@Cathandkin Absolutely. That’s what I think is unforgivable. Is everyone involved never allowed to be content with their own thoughts and memories? I get that the press cannot be controlled in this respect, but her own brother with no regard for his nephews and their dc is appalling.

Most book sellers have it as well. They’ll not stop selling until they have to (and some people will buy it because it’s likely to be changed - that’s a market in and of itself).

It wouldn’t really have mattered if Charles had said that as Camilla didn’t want to marry him.
Andrew Parker Bowles was a more attractive marriage than Charles for her. He had the life of luxury without the stresses and responsibility.

Such a pity, and a shame people are still exploiting it.

@Cathandkin Ha! An abridged version. Not many come out of it well. Damaged human beings all round.

Not quite the full story, but certainly, the marriage was a mistake.

@JustAnotherWhinger Amazon have it. I think it should have been pulled but it’s available.

I think the publisher bears the cost of edits and reprint.

A lot of the issues arose from Charles not saying he liked Camilla before she married Parker Bowles. He could not make up his mind about women, or they rejected him, so granny and her cronies found someone for him. Diana naively agreed! What a lovely life she could have had, but interfering family members served her, and King Charles, very poorly. They just thought she could be moulded and would allow Charles to continue his pre marriage arrangement with Camilla. Just a horror story really.

Thanks for the link, @bluegreygreen. To me, this first-rate review cuts through to the heart of the stupidity and hypocrisy of the Spencer-Sussex delusion on Harry's part, and Spencer's manipulation of Harry and others.

It didn't ultimately matter how Johnny and Raine allegedly treated Charles Spencer, and it didn't matter what anybody did or said about any of that family - the fact is, that he (Charles Spencer) and only he would inherit the Spencer estate and become the next Earl Spencer, and he knew this from a young age.

Similarly, it has never actually mattered what any Spencer or Sussex or anyone else thought or thinks about the monarchy and its members. The fact is, Charles was always going to inherit and become King, as will William. And Charles Spencer has always known this too, from a young age.

Popularity and childhood bedrooms are irrelevant to primogeniture.

Harry, who ceased being the 'spare' 13 years ago, attaches himself to Spencer in a futile gesture of rebellion while failing to understand that Spencer is more like William, as a beneficiary of primogeniture, and that Spencer is likely using him for publicity purposes for his book(s) and that there will be precious little reciprocation.

Oh I see, possibly, although his relationship was like a lot of newspaper men, Diana liked to keep friendly because she wanted favourable press.

Well yes, but I am guessing that he also disapproves generally of this biography. He could have written a Diana book himself but hasn’t (yet).