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

Yes, but these are getting to be pretty high profile:- The Salt Path, Spare and now Swansong. It’s starting to look a bit obvious that they don’t care about the books they publish playing fast and loose with the truth. Just seems a bit odd 🤷‍♀️

I think the big thing might be - will risking its reputation mean it doesn’t make money?

If it makes more money from trashy bios or memoirs with a few iffy recollections than it does from accurate history books then they might not care.

I would have thought, though, that Penguin RH is starting to risk its reputation if it constantly publishes high profile non fiction books with factual errors in them. As we can see here, people often perceive that it is down to the publisher to fact check, so without knowing that this is not the case, it’s possible that confidence in PRH will begin to evaporate. Also, even though it’s not down to the publisher in a legal sense it does somehow seem a bit immoral to just “publish and be damned” when it comes to talking about subjects who are still living 🤷‍♀️

Half price in my local TG Jones. I was tempted to go in and move the copies to the fiction section, but did not want to soil my hands.

Yes, I would say so.

So I’ve only read the excerpts but for those who have read the rest of the book do you think it lacks a good editor who could have held CS to a higher standard and also helped him with tone so it didn’t just sound like a personal attack piece?

That’s interesting but under libel law it’s not just the originator of the potential libel, it’s anyone who published it.

So if you interview a man and he claims politician A is a sex pest then you publish it in an article A can come after all parties involved - the person who made the claim and the publication that published it.

@GellerYeller My DD is a lawyer and apparently publishing legal teams look at any liability for the publisher. Not the actual “truth” in a book. That’s down to the author. Spencer wrote the inaccuracies and lawyers don’t look at every utterance. However certain names when mentioned , like Piers Morgan, should have triggered careful reading!

I don’t think a grudging apology is enough for anyone - my Nan always said an apology means nowt of it isn’t sincere.

Rather than knobbing about with a superior ‘Earl Spencer apologies for Mr Morgan for this error’ without the team of justification before it.

A ‘Piers, I’m sorry for my error’ would have been far better.

Is PM without fault? No. But I do think he is right to press on this occasion. It is already out there - but it should no longer be sold with that error now that it is known.

I don’t think they’ve bothered too much to fact check and I can kind of understand it with regard to the royal family.

They’re not going to sue. So the worst that happens is a formal statement.

Penguin say “very sorry, he assured us he was there so this was accurate…”

Controversy is good for them as the more people talk about it the better sales are

They dropped a clanger nor fact checking the bit about someone as litigious as Piers Morgan.

Or spare apparently! , could be untrue but apparently penguin doesn’t fact check , the responsibility is down to the authors….not sure if all publishers do this or it’s unique to them?

They didn’t for The Salt Path

Or Spare

They didn’t for The Salt Path.

Hello 👋 @BasiliskStare , I admit that after the descent of the last thread , I was going to leave you all to it , however…toot , you are correct with no actual verified proof, the interpretation is down to our own bias and already held opinions.
it’s always said that you need both sides of each conversation and then the truth is usually in the middle!
the problem we have is Spencer has waited until many of the people who could correct his narrative are dead or in Charles case unlikely to comment directly……he was stupid to go after Morgan who doesn’t fit either category and is notorious for holding a grudge!

You would think…

I don’t think they did though.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks @BasiliskStare , have finally name changed.

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

Thank you @BasiliskStare

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.

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.

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.