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

Where did these "suggestions" come from? The Spencer family? Because I doubt Princess Elizabeth was aware that John Spencer had been suggested for her.

But Charles Spencer takes it even further and claims there was a romantic connection between Elizabeth and his father that was upended by Mountbatten.

I read the other day that there were "suggestions" that Princess Margaret should succeed to the throne and not Elizabeth because Elizabeth was supposedly shy and Margaret was more outgoing. There are claims that Diana suggested that Harry should succeed to the throne and not William for similar reasons. People always appeal to "suggestions" in order to say what they want about the royals and serve an agenda. I'm sure "suggestions" could be conjured up about any aristocratic teenage boy within the very broad circle of the palace back then.

I do think that Charles Spencer's belief that his father should have married Elizabeth (which would make him king today!) but Mountbatten deliberately charged in to scupper that romance in order to get the Mountbattens on the throne is part of what lies at the heart of his bitterness today.

Just as an aside, even in the unlikely event The Queen had fallen for Johnny Spencer and the marriage was initially successful, there would have been a huge conflict of interest when Johnny became Earl and would inevitably have wanted to spend time at Althorp. They’d have ended up living separately. Plus there probably would have been issues around the Queen subsiding his inheritance tax and even if she didn’t there would have been plenty of rumours to the effect of misappropriation of Royal funds.

I won’t say bullet dodged as it was clearly never going to happen - she spotted Phillip at age 13 and the rest is history.

Well the King has the courts if he wishes like his sons to seek legal redress - it is certainly a hugely libellous statement to make if not true.

I believe Charles did say it

Spencer will not have forgotten that and probably kept notes .

Charles has not denied it either . He tried to smear Spencer and just made himself look more guilty .

Asa historian as others have said he is a copious note taker.

In fact when you look at Spencer’s eulogy - when he says with a break in his voice that Diana will never be forgotten it makes perfect sense as a riposte to what Charles said .

That is further confirmation for me .

Yes true. Earl Spencer is a historian and known for taken detailed contemporaneous notes. So if anyone is confused it's likely to be king Charles

Which increases the possibility earl Spencer took detailed notes at the time. These would be entered into evidence

Spencer is a good historian, I've read a couple of his books. He uses sources properly. However, this isn't a history book with clear and supported evidence. It's quite a different book in content and intent.

I forgot to add, I don’t think the boys should have walked behind the coffin. I think they were too young.
Whether the RF or Blair’s government, it shouldn’t really have happened imo. But as I said damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Yes it is .
That still does not mean it is not true .

Your last sentence is true, I think.
Can you imagine if they hadn't been allowed to walk? How bitter would Harry be about that?.

@OctopusFriend true. But it is publicly known that earl Spencer keeps detailed notes of any significant events in his life. And as a historian he will be trained in how to accurately take notes of events.

I almost want the royals to try and sue earl Spencer. Because I think earl Spencer would win in a court.
Contemporaneous notes taken by earl Spencer would be direct evidence. And a court would decide on the balance of probabilities. If real Spencer told anyone at the time about what king Charles said, they would be a witness. Hearsay is permissible in civil cases.

But of course the royal families lawyers would never allow this to go to court.

As a "trained historian" he should go for facts. So he loses his sister in a violent and traumatic way. He has an emotional phone call with her ex husband.
He puts the phone down after the highly charged conversation and recounts it in a neutral way? He looks good, Charles Windsor looks bad?
No. I don't think so.

No, CS ' s own contemporary notes aren't evidence.

Yes they are. Legally speaking. I unlike you understand the law.

I don’t think it’s about jealousy at all. More about revenge and score settling and feeling that his sister had been badly used? Funnily enough I saw Michael Gove talking about this very thing on some broadcast or other last night.

Charles Spencer has absolutely no need to feel jealous in aristocratic terms, as has been explained many times before, CS probably regards the British royal family with its dynastic heritage from the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as arrivistes or parvenus compared to his solid English aristocratic Whig family with its roots stretching back to the late 15th century.

So in class terms, the Spencers probably felt that when Diana married Prince Charles, that she was to some degree, marrying down.

This isn’t about jealousy; it’s about striking back. The clue was in CS’s funeral speech when he spoke about co-opting William and Harry to his “blood” family.

Yes they are. Contemporaneous notes can be presented into evidence.

Edit: a long time since I practiced so maybe mistaken but I don’t think so.

No need to get personal. Why? Does it help your argument? Support your points?
You have no idea about my knowledge of the law. Now that you have decided to get personal, I won't engage any further.
Not my style.
Au revoir.

Is it me or is the book a lame duck? If the biggest revelations are the King said something out of turn (which I don't believe for a second) and the Queen offered to reinstate Diana's HRH then I think the publisher and Daily Mail have been conned.

This is one of those times where you would say this is false and I am going to prove it and sue you. Charles Spencer did over the false claim by The Times that he had denied Diana a home. He won because it was false. Posters here keeping bringing it up to smear Spencers character as though it is true but fail to realise it isn't and ignore that the Times had to apologise for suggesting it.

I think if this is crossing alone that you break protocl to issue a statement why not sue the person if it really isnt true.

So after his beloved sisters death he was taking notes? 🤣 That said she was used as a step stone to status & money by her family in life so its not surprising he was calculating how to carry on doing so after her death.

I am more curious why not of his oldest children speak to him and why they didnt have him at their weddings; surely fair to ask if hes happy to make claims about others.

I’m trying to remember about contemporaneous evidence @OctopusFriend and I’ve got in the depths of my brain, when I had to give evidence, one time that I could rely on my notes, but not present it as evidence IIRC.

But that’s decades ago. I really should retire gracefully on this point as it were <apologies>

Of course they are! They will be the most compelling evidence of all. How do you think ANL won the case against Prince Harry and the others? Because its reporters had contemporary notes that could prove their stories were sourced from contacts and not from hacking.