Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Earl Spencer's book on Diana is stolen

635 replies

JustHereForTheShitsAndGiggles · 16/09/2026 01:04

Warning - DM link ahead...
Copies of Earl Spencer's sensational book about Princess Diana have been stolen from a lorry – just before its exclusive serialisation in the Daily Mail.
The memoir – Swan Song: Diana, My Sister – includes revelations about Diana's deeply unhappy marriage with the then Prince of Wales.
It also describes the crisis that engulfed the Royal Family after her death in a car crash almost 30 years ago.
Last night a publishing insider said: 'Earl Spencer has kept his silence for nearly 30 years and what he has to say about the King's reaction when Diana died is utterly devastating.'
But, in an astonishing development, the Mail can reveal that a truck packed with thousands of copies of the book was broken into after it was parked overnight in a lay-by in the Netherlands earlier this week.
Just four copies, which had been wrapped in black plastic to hide their contents, were stolen in what publishing sources believe could have been an audacious plot to steal the highly anticipated book of the year before it hits the shelves.

Earl Spencer's bombshell new book is stolen: Several copies of Earl's explosive book about his sister Diana - and how King reacted to her death - are taken in raid on a Dutch lorry | Daily Mail Online

Copies of Earl Spencer's book about sister Diana are taken in raid

The memoir - Swan Song: Diana, My Sister - includes revelations about Diana's deeply unhappy marriage with the then Prince of Wales.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16134057/Earl-Spencers-bombshell-new-book-stolen-copies-Earls-explosive-book-sister-Diana-King-reacted-death-taken-raid-Dutch-lorry.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 21:10

I had forgotten the allegations he was raped. That is obviously serious and should have been properly investigated.

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 21:13

I've forgotten what annus horribilis was actually about but this is far more "horribilis" and we aren't done yet.

altesse · 17/09/2026 21:14

Some would be forgiven for thinking that it is really really handy that some people are dead.

It makes it so much easier to print what you like without any objection whatsoever.

I love how the ‘blood’ family are doing the best by Di’s children in her memory.

Well. One anyway.

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 21:34

Maybe Diana was referring to this guy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/05/michael-fawcett-former-royal-aide-charles-once-called-indispensable

The Prince of Wales is once said to have remarked: “I can manage without just about anyone, except for Michael.” The 58-year-old’s resignation as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation – the umbrella group for the prince’s charitable interests – is his third since he began working alongside Charles.
Promoted to sergeant footman and then assistant valet to the Prince of Wales, he was summoned to explain why three other members of staff were resigning in 1998. A chauffeur, equerry’s assistant and valet had complained that Fawcett was using his closeness to Charles to “throw his weight around”. He duly resigned, but was back a week later, and promoted to the prince’s personal assistant, described by Charles as “indispensable”. At the end of 2000, he was made a Member of the Royal Victorian Order, awarded to those who give “distinguished personal service” to the monarchy.

Michael Fawcett: former royal aide Charles once called ‘indispensable’

The ex-CEO’s resignation from the Prince’s Foundation is his third since he began working alongside the prince

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/05/michael-fawcett-former-royal-aide-charles-once-called-indispensable

altesse · 17/09/2026 21:40

Well maybe that will be nice for his wife to read.

Thecows · 17/09/2026 22:03

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 20:51

I have to say, I find these revelations from Earl Spencer genuinely shocking.

Whatever one thinks of Charles, Diana or the bitter history between them, reading an account from Diana's own brother of those days and of what she had told him about her marriage is deeply disturbing.

The suggestion that Charles was not in love with Diana when they married, Diana's belief that his heart was elsewhere, and particularly her extraordinary statement that her husband was “in love with his valet”, are revelations that I would never have expected to see put into print in this way.

But perhaps most upsetting is Spencer's account of Charles's reaction to Diana's death and the alleged words he later used about her: “We'll forget her soon enough.”

These are, of course, Spencer's recollections and accounts of what Diana told him, and they should be treated as such. They don't prove every interpretation that will inevitably be placed upon them.

Nevertheless, I find the whole thing profoundly sad. Whatever had happened between Charles and Diana by then, she was the mother of his two sons and had died in extraordinarily tragic circumstances.

After everything that has been written about the Royal Family over the past thirty years, I genuinely thought there was little left that could shock me about the Charles and Diana story.

I was wrong.

You don't believe any of it though surely?

TheOvertGardener · 17/09/2026 22:08

altesse · 17/09/2026 21:14

Some would be forgiven for thinking that it is really really handy that some people are dead.

It makes it so much easier to print what you like without any objection whatsoever.

I love how the ‘blood’ family are doing the best by Di’s children in her memory.

Well. One anyway.

Cheers

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 22:08

Thecows · 17/09/2026 22:03

You don't believe any of it though surely?

It’s basically a binary “he said, she said” dialogue. Since no one else appears to have been present and there don’t seem to be any recordings, there’s no independent evidence to settle the matter. Both are, in their different ways, unreliable chroniclers. I tend to think that Spencer has no reason to lie. So yes.

TishToshByGosh · 17/09/2026 22:20

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 22:08

It’s basically a binary “he said, she said” dialogue. Since no one else appears to have been present and there don’t seem to be any recordings, there’s no independent evidence to settle the matter. Both are, in their different ways, unreliable chroniclers. I tend to think that Spencer has no reason to lie. So yes.

They both have reason to lie. King Charles to protect his reputation; Charles Spencer to sell copies of his book!

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 22:23

foxylady2 · 17/09/2026 22:08

It’s basically a binary “he said, she said” dialogue. Since no one else appears to have been present and there don’t seem to be any recordings, there’s no independent evidence to settle the matter. Both are, in their different ways, unreliable chroniclers. I tend to think that Spencer has no reason to lie. So yes.

True. But Charles Windsor never says publicly he has made a mistake. It's always someone else lying, being mistaken, having a poor memory or being crazy. It is never ever his fault. And that is simply not believable.

Earl Spencer has publicly said he messed up his marriages and admits he was in the wrong. He blames it on his childhood sexual abuse. Whether you think that the cause was his sexual abuse or not, the truth us he will admit when he has messed up. That makes him more believable

TheOvertGardener · 17/09/2026 22:25

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 22:23

True. But Charles Windsor never says publicly he has made a mistake. It's always someone else lying, being mistaken, having a poor memory or being crazy. It is never ever his fault. And that is simply not believable.

Earl Spencer has publicly said he messed up his marriages and admits he was in the wrong. He blames it on his childhood sexual abuse. Whether you think that the cause was his sexual abuse or not, the truth us he will admit when he has messed up. That makes him more believable

Since you call one by his title and another by a name he doesn’t use, your opinion is pure hokum.

Besidemyselfwithworry · 17/09/2026 22:27

It would have ended up in the works or Poundland anyway! Bargain basement!

TheOvertGardener · 17/09/2026 22:28

Thecows · 17/09/2026 22:03

You don't believe any of it though surely?

I admire your hopefulness in humanity for asking this question.

Believing or not believing isn’t part of the equation though.

TheOvertGardener · 17/09/2026 22:29

Besidemyselfwithworry · 17/09/2026 22:27

It would have ended up in the works or Poundland anyway! Bargain basement!

Next to Spare?

bluegreygreen · 17/09/2026 22:38

I tend to think that Spencer has no reason to lie.

As @JustAnotherWhinger has pointed out, Charles Spencer has lied about at least one thing that can be easily verified.

It does throw at least some uncertainty on his other recollections.

His comment about Lord Mountbatten warning his then-equerry father off QEII because he wanted her to marry Philip doesn’t fit time wise.

He was equerry to George VI 1950-1952, then QEII 52-54.

She married Philip in 47.

Noodledog · 17/09/2026 22:43

bluegreygreen · 17/09/2026 22:38

I tend to think that Spencer has no reason to lie.

As @JustAnotherWhinger has pointed out, Charles Spencer has lied about at least one thing that can be easily verified.

It does throw at least some uncertainty on his other recollections.

His comment about Lord Mountbatten warning his then-equerry father off QEII because he wanted her to marry Philip doesn’t fit time wise.

He was equerry to George VI 1950-1952, then QEII 52-54.

She married Philip in 47.

Many people (like me) who are old enough to remember how KC looked and acted immediately after Diana's death will also struggle to believe that he was giddy and elated after hearing about it. I'm not actually that keen on KC but I've never seen anything to suggest his response to the death of his children's mother would be anything like that, it would be positively psychopathic

bluegreygreen · 17/09/2026 23:00

I'm also old enough to remember what was going on in the years before and after Diana's death, @Noodledog.

Like you, I'm not the greatest fan of Charles, though I can appreciate some of the things he has achieved. I do remember how he was during that awful time, and the idea of him saying what has been stated is just illogical.

I can totally believe the row, and I could believe him saying something about the crazy public outcry, and the people forgetting, or something, but not that. It just doesn't make sense.

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 23:02

Yeah Charles Windsor never does anything wrong All the people who gave ever delayed negative anecdotes about him are lying, confused or crazy. He is perfect.

Noodledog · 17/09/2026 23:03

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 23:02

Yeah Charles Windsor never does anything wrong All the people who gave ever delayed negative anecdotes about him are lying, confused or crazy. He is perfect.

Not a single person has said he's perfect.

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 23:04

Noodledog · 17/09/2026 23:03

Not a single person has said he's perfect.

They pretty much do.

altesse · 17/09/2026 23:06

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 23:04

They pretty much do.

Where?

We’ll wait. We’ll all wait.

gishgalloping · 17/09/2026 23:07

OneLilacHedgehog · 17/09/2026 23:04

They pretty much do.

No one has said that he is perfect or even implied it.

jeffgoldblum · 17/09/2026 23:13

It’s always easier to believe lies about people we don’t like.

JustAnotherWhinger · 17/09/2026 23:33

Noodledog · 17/09/2026 22:43

Many people (like me) who are old enough to remember how KC looked and acted immediately after Diana's death will also struggle to believe that he was giddy and elated after hearing about it. I'm not actually that keen on KC but I've never seen anything to suggest his response to the death of his children's mother would be anything like that, it would be positively psychopathic

It’s also very easy to interpret how someone sounds when we can’t see their faces in a way that’s not accurate, especially when emotions are flying around, and shock is in play.

When I spoke to my best friend after my daughter died to me she sounded like she was stifling giggles. I was numb with shock and medication I’d been given so I didn’t react. When we talked later she apologised for the way her stifled sobs sounded, she didn’t want to break down and make me feel like I had to comfort her. I know 100% in my heart she was stifling sobs, but to my ears they sounded like giggles over the phone. To anyone who heard me I would have sounded flat and not bothered, whereas in reality I was doped up to the eyeballs as I wasn’t coping.

Wewinnow · 17/09/2026 23:47

jeffgoldblum · 17/09/2026 23:13

It’s always easier to believe lies about people we don’t like.

I don’t think Charles Spencer is lying exactly, but he may have misinterpreted Charles’ tone on the day Diana died (it’s hard to believe he was giddy with elation” at the death of his children’s mother).
I also think Charles Spencer may have misread the intention behind Charles’ words about people forgetting Diana. Perhaps Charles was merely trying to make the point that people’s feelings about Diana’s death would not run so high after a while?
For the most part, however, I find Charles Spencer’s words (in today’s Daily Mail online) entirely credible.
He’s telling the truth as he sees it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread