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

There are many stories of siblings remembering the same childhood differently, so I think if he's acknowledging that they do remember is differently that is fair enough.
Thanks for clarifying, @BasiliskStare.

I suppose, though, it does again emphasise that this is not really a story of Diana, but a story of the Spencers (or even Charles Spencer himself) and how Diana related to them.

❤️ you are brave and I can’t say how much I admire you for speaking your truth.❤️

It’s not he was an alcoholic,he is still one.Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.I am one,I have been sober over 23 years.Think the Spencer one has only lasted about 18 months……to date,he still drinks non alcoholic wine according to his wife,so his chances of staying sober are about nil.

This would suggest he has been drinking for multiple years,I don’t believe a single word that leaves his mouth.

I've read it and one of the things I didn't like about it was the fact he "challenged" what Diana had said about their childhood. She had basically described it as pretty miserable, but he said it hadn't been. For him, maybe that's his honest opinion, but why is he attempting to contradict his sister's own lived experience?

I don’t wish to be unkind but the truth of the matter is…..he was an alcoholic….he was pissed ….his recollection is somewhat hazy ……..

I finished it yesterday and quite enjoyed it, but it’s patchy and the titles of the chapters didn’t work IMO. I also didn’t believe the story about Nelson Mandela visiting Diana’s grave and having to have a bridge put up for him as he was too old to go in a rowboat (or something similar). Seems like a weird thing to make up, but equally didn’t ring true.

Obviously Americanised ones. Veneers they can do what they like. With crowns
Its all very matching the natural colour.

Yeah, but Persil white?

Veneers. People too old for the sudden British rush to make all teeth perfect in teenage years,.and have money, all get veneers.

What's going on, dental wise? Spencer had blindingly white teeth and now Burrell. It's most distracting.

It is, but this is a “special”. I just saw the beginning and he was talking to Paul Burrell with the weird teeth

You could be right.

I think something has gone wrong, I know he's a troubled individual, and maybe he's not thought it all through.

The inaccuracies are bad, but have been made worse by his publicity interviews where he repeatedly spoke about his 'duty to tell the truth'.

I think Channel 5 has had a Piers Morgan:Uncensored slot on Friday evening for a while, so it's not just because of the current issue.

If I remember correctly it's a roundup of the weekly news on his YouTube channel / streaming services.

I'm watching it in the background, hmm.

Yes, that was an odd, and quite rude comment.

I have enjoyed his history books too, but have felt they've lacked rigour in parts, and I have qyestioned his source use.
However, in this book he just seems to be telling his own version of a story. Too many factual inaccuracies..

I've read a few of his history books - they've been well researched and historically accurate and I've enjoyed reading them. I'm really surprised that a book about his own sister wasn't thoroughly fact checked especially as he describes himself as a historian.

I’m not watching it but Channel 5 is running a “Piers vs Earl Spencer, an Uncensored Special” currently!

For many of the errors all he needed do was have the manners to let his sisters read it before it went to print.

He could still have made his “not writing by committee” comment, but they would likely have been able to correct a few factual errors for him.

Well, at the very least, it needed someone who was alert to the fact that any mud slinging in the direction of one Piers Morgan had better stick 😆

I’ve edited plenty of academic tomes and my opinion on this is that, in publishing terms, it’s a corner-cutting mess.

In academia we have peer review, often ‘blind’ (ie you don’t know who is commenting on your work). Normally there’s an editor and two peer reviewers giving feedback.

For the kind of ‘pop history’ book that Spencer has produced, I wouldn’t expect peer reviewers to have been deployed but I would expect an expert ‘reader’ to have been hired. It’s not great money, but I did it myself in my own area of specialty as a post-doc and did it diligently.

Is this publisher cutting corners? If not, who was the reader? This book really needed a specialist in modern media - and not necessarily in history nor, dare I say it, archaeology.

I think if they think that kind of business will make them more money then they’ll not care.

If they end up with 10/12 high profile ones that make them a lot of money each then it might be more worth their while than 20/30 accurate but low selling books.