Interesting Jennie Bond calling it "war".
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/buckingham-palace-now-at-war-diana-4773391
If it looks like war and sounds like war – then it’s war. Twenty-nine years on from the death of his sister, Diana, Princess of Wales, Earl Spencer has sharpened his sword and wielded it ruthlessly. King Charles has hit back with a rare public statement couched in careful language barely disguising open fury.
The Spencers and the Windsors are locked in another bitter battle. Round Two of the War of the Wales’s – after the opening bout when then-Prince Charles and Diana fought their way out of a broken marriage.
I welcomed the news that Earl Spencer was going to write a book about his sister, once the most famous woman in the world, who died so tragically young. He said he was tired of hearing people talk about Diana when they didn’t know her and I hoped his book would be an affectionate and authoritative portrait of the sister he loved. And it probably is – we shall see when it’s released next week.
But from what we have read so far, it is also a character assassination of the King. Did he really unleash a “stream of anger “in a row over whether Prince William and Prince Harry should walk behind their mother’s coffin? Was he honestly full of pent-up contempt for Diana and horrified that the world was so bowled over by her death – so much so that he “hissed “down the phone: “We’ll forget her soon enough?”.
Earl Spencer is a journalist, historian and author of some repute. He’s also very charming to meet in person. I have no reason to doubt his memory of what was said during those seismic days after the car crash in Paris. But neither do I have any reason to disbelieve the King, who clearly has a very different memory of what was undoubtedly a heated phone call with his ex-brother-in-law. Buckingham Palace’s assertion that “fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise” is a turbo-charged version of the late Queen Elizabeth’s “recollections may vary”. With bells on.
The Charles I knew back in those days was a tortured soul, genuinely sad that – for many reasons – his marriage had failed so quickly and so comprehensively. Diana was sad too. “We would have made such a great team”, was her constant refrain.
The week after she died was one of the most turbulent in the modern monarchy’s history. There were furious rows about everything, from the kind of funeral she should be given, to whether a flag should be flown at half-mast over Buckingham Palace, when the Queen should return to London, and – critically – whether William and Harry should be asked to walk behind their mother’s coffin.
In his book, Spare, Harry remembers his uncle Charles being furious about the suggestion that they should join the funeral procession, suggesting he thought it was a “barbaric” idea and “raised hell”.
So we know there was an almighty row, but only two men – Earl Spencer and Charles – know what was said in a private phone conversation.
Whatever the truth, my question is: what’s the point? Who benefits from raking over what was said nearly 30 years ago in the midst of grief, shock and trauma? William and Harry love their father, even though Harry’s relationship with him remains strained. And Harry, at least, is close to his uncle Charles – he took his family to stay with him at Althorp last month.
As adolescents, the two young princes endured the painful break-up of their parents’ marriage, followed by the shocking death of their mother. They were just 15 and 12. Both still bear the scars. Do they really have to witness another blistering family row? Do they want to be made to relive the agony of their mother’s death and that painful walk behind her coffin? What help is that to anyone? Will the drama encompassing the Royal Family ever end? The King must be in despair.