Earl Spencer's book on Diana is stolen

[JustHereForTheShitsAndGiggles]

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

I also gave the benefit of the doubt until I read his preposterous claims about his father having a romantic connection with queen Elizabeth but was apparently warned off by Mountbatten to smooth the way for Philip!!! , by the time his father was an equerry…Elizabeth had been married to Philip for 3 years!! Did this man who I have been informed wrote credible history books forget to fact check this before writing it down?

I agree, several biographers have claimed he was devastated, also, selfishly, worried he would be blamed for her death. I think Charles Spencer is so far off the mark is trying to present and image of King Charles’s as being as ‘excited as a lottery winner’,,how sick is he to write that.

"He was absolutely distraught. He fell apart," Tina Brown, who wrote The Diana Chronicles, said Diana: 7 Days That Shook the Windsors. "He knew, instantly, that this was going to be a terrible thing, that...he will be blamed, that they will be blamed, for the death of Diana."

In King: The Life of Charles III, Christopher Andersen says Charles was "ashen and trembling" when he heard the news of Diana's death. "He let out a cry of pain that was so spontaneous and came from the heart. Palace staff rushed over to Charles’ room and found him collapsed in an armchair, weeping uncontrollably."

@Trainbleu Thank you , and gut feeling , as a writer I'd believe Tina Brown over Charles Spencer any day of the week.

It’s an outrageous claim. I misunderstood the timeline and wondered if he meant before Elizabeth fell for Philip which would have been when she was about 12 as she took a liking to Philip the first time she met him at age 13.

Why on earth would he write that? It’s nonsense.

Me too private!! , was concerned to start with!

I suspect the main reason is that they offered to pay the most!!

Actually I read a book about Diana’s mother called “Frances, The Remarkable Story of Princess Diana’s Mother” in which the authors outlined how Johnnie Spencer’s job as an equerry required him to accompany the then relatively inexperienced QE2 on a long tour of the Commonwealth in 1954 which was a great success.

They go on to describe how the bond between the late Queen Elizabeth and Johnnie went back a long way and,

”… was a lot more relaxed than simply that between monarch and equerry. Prior to her marriage, Princess Elizabeth had occasionally written to Johnnie while he was on active service with his regiment during the war. There are, too, suggestions that he was at one time considered as a potential suitor. If that was true, then having once been close to being a royal consort may have ignited his ambition to marry as close to the monarchy as he could. It might also explain why the Queen kept her distance from Frances, considering her too much of a loose canon for her own taste, the differences in their personalities clouding the relationship.”

So I wouldn’t be dismissing what Charles Spencer says quite so readily, as he may be in possession of some of the late Queen’s letters to his father by the sound of it?

I think this is what used to be called 'a likely story.' Another invention to give publicity to the wretched book.

It would still be the case that he’s either embellished the story to fit or got bits wrong though. He says that his father was warned off QEII by Mountbatten while he was an equerry. Which is when she is already married so not possible.

So if he has embellished or got that part wrong that then leaves the question of what else in the book is wrong or embellished to fit.

Well there's nothing exciting in part two .

I expect she wrote to a number of young men 'occasionally' during the war. It was the only way of staying in touch with friends and relatives, plus writing to the men you knew who were on active service was the patriotic thing to do, to support and encourage them.

It wasn't in itself a sign of great intimacy to send an 'occasional' letter. He would have been in her social.circle, so it's not very noteworthy that they stayed loosely in touch.

She was set on Philip, to the concern of her parents, and married to him by the time Johnnie Spencer was an equerry. Though very likely considered Johnnie Spencer an old friend with whom she felt 'relaxed'.

Agree. I remember it all well, and Charles looked absolutely devastated. No doubt he was worried about his own popularity, but that wasn't the whole story at all. I think Charles Spencer is very much remembering through the lens of his own 'truth'. He and his nephew are so alike in many ways. All of them negative.

Well, there are some pretty nonsensical claims from CS, one more makes little difference.
Is this at the heart of it? He thinks his Dad should have married Elizabeth then he - not the other Charles - should be on the throne?
Interesting. Jealousy.

I wonder if later in the book Charles Spencer will elaborate further about his father and Queen Elizabeth?

This has been discussed by others before so it's not new news.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/a-brief-history-of-princess-dianas-fiery-family

But by the 1940s, John’s heroism as a captain in the Royal Scots Greys during World War II, and his tall, good looks and simple charm made him a most eligible bachelor. According to the documentary When the Spencers Met the Monarchy, he was even once looked at by the palace as a suitor to the future Queen Elizabeth II.
Instead, in 1954, Queen Elizabeth II (whom he served as an equerry) attended his wedding to heiress Frances Roche at Westminster Abbey. The couple had four children—Sarah, Jane, Diana, and Charles (another son, John, died shortly after birth). They were a mismatched pair, he rather dull and she vivacious, but John was reportedly blindsided when he discovered Frances was cheating on him. “How many of those years were happy?” he later said of his marriage. “I thought all of them until the moment that we parted.”

However, other accounts show that Johnny was not a particularly good husband. It's rich to claim he was the injured party.
So much dissemblance.

One source for the rumours 6:38–7:45 is the timestamp. So Earl Spencer may just be rehashing old news basically unless he has evidence that it was more intimate than is believed.

Diana's father, Johnny Spencer, had been an equerry...
There was a strong bond of affection between Johnny Spencer and Queen Elizabeth.
When he was serving in World War II, they corresponded too.
“So he would be a number of eligible young men that may have even been considered to be a future husband to the Queen.”

s

KC looked completely and absolutely devastated when Diana died.

However when my dad died, I’m sure there were things my siblings and I said, in the depths of our grief, that may not have been the wisest. But sounding elated? I seriously doubt it. KC is by all accounts a sensitive man, that doesn’t sound sensitive to me, so I’m taking it with a pinch of salt.

As to the walk behind the coffin, it was a no win situation really. They’d have been criticised whatever the decision imo. Had they not been allowed to walk behind it, it would just be another stick to beat them with. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

Absolutely 💯

@Recklessismymiddlename

No. You are either misinformed or trying to smooth out the truth .
Neither Wiliam nor Harry wanted to walk behind the coffin .
THAT is the point .
They were made to do so to protect Charles from the public heckling him .

Yes walking behind the coffin is completely normal for families . But we do not have thousands of onlookers for miles gawping and grasping . The situation is not comparable.

W and H did not want to walk behind the coffin but were pressed into service to protect Charles. The children were used as protection and pawns are per the Windsor modus operandi .

And we have this account from Alasdair Campbell and probably others as to its veracity who also remarks that Price Phillip was incandescent at the advice Blair's government was giving the Royals at that time.

I do not think they would have been damned for preventing the boys from walking.
It would have been completely understandable for Charles to protect his sons from such an ordeal.
Everyone would have accepted the decision instantly.

@Recklessismymiddlename

Ive just re read your post.
You say feelings ran high after a death in your family . Completely normal .

But did anyone say ‘ we will forget her soon enough !’ to you or your siblings about for example your mother ?

I found out about this yesterday and thought yeah the Windsors are not what they say they are - it’s all lies and PR
But this morning it has really hit me . It was a bloody depraved thing to say . Monstrous

We don't know if he said it, though.