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

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?

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

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 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.

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.

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?)

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?.

What other inaccuracies are there, out of interest?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

Placemarking.

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