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

Is it personal to state you don't understand the law in response to you stating something that is legally incorrect?
I thought it was just factual.

I have just written about my Christmas day 2026. I have a bridge to sell if you are interested.

When you stand in the witness box you can read your witness statement to refresh your memory, usually. But you are not allowed to refer to notes. The prosecution are probing for inconsistencies.

But contemporaneous notes can be entered into evidence. The key point is they have to be made at the time, and dated as to when they were written. They usually have to be signed as well at the time.

It's why letters can be accepted as evidence. Similarly police notebooks, medical notes, etc.

As a historian earl Spencer may understand the law around this and ensured his notes meet best evidence. That would mean if he recorded simply the factual discussion without his own opinions or theories.

Because its not that easy. Charles would be subject to disclosure meaning he would be compelled to hand over an array of artefacts from the time which risk being made public. Even if nothing bad in them, would you want any diaries or whatever made public? Spencers notes would be considered if they exist but wouldnt be enough by themselves, so it would involve seeking witnesses etc which even if there were any, as so much time has passed would unlikely be considered reliable. It also once again drags Diana (who has been dead for nearly 3 decades) into this mess. All of these men should let her rest in peace.

Jesus.

The next king and head of COE said
‘rest assured we will forget her soon enough’

about the death of mother of his children and you describe it as ‘speaking out of turn’ !

@Crosswurd civil courts and criminal courts do rule on cases where there is only the statements of the victim and the accuser. The notes would be additional evidence. And the judge or jury would be asked to decide who they believe.

Rape cases for example can have only the victim and accuser statements and some circumstantial evidence. They are not strong cases and the cost often does reject them, but not always.

@Crosswurd disclosure is for the prosecution, not the defence.

If charles was suing someone which side would he be on? But you are also incorrect, both would be subject to disclosure.

Although I am not so clear on disclosure rules in libel cases. And yes Google says both sides have to disclose.
Sorry I am used to criminal disclosure cases.

I love how no one even knows whether Charles Spencer kept notes of his phone call with the then Prince Charles and now they're entering these imaginary notes as evidence in a court of law!

What we very much do have are the comments Charles Spencer made in the immediate years following Diana's death about the then Prince Charles, his marriage to Diana and the great way in which Prince Charles behaved on Diana's death. He's incredibly positive about the then Prince Charles! Either he was lying then or he's lying now.
See this interview on Larry King, probably some time in the late 90s/early 2000s. It's in 5 parts on YouTube.

We also have records of Charles Spencer's letters to his sister Diana and it sounds like he behaved absolutely horrendously towards her. Seems like there's a lot that could come out in a court of law if it ever got to that stage.

"Letters that caused months-long estrangement between Princess and her brother resurface"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2026/09/17/earl-spencer-princess-diana-king-charles-princess-of-wales/

https://archive.ph/PTVj8

Again: nobody would have damned the Royal Family for not making the boys walk behind Diana’s coffin.

PR stunt, the Earl is obviously short of a few bob due to the number of marriages!

@BunnyBunbunbun earl Spencer is known for taking detailed notes of significant events in his life. This seems,s a pretty significant event.
So sure no one knows if he took notes, but I think it's a fair assumption.

And yes king Charles could use interviews earl Spencer gave where he did not mention this to cast doubt on what he said.

@BunnyBunbunbun letters to Diana are not really that relevant legally unless they can be used to suggest earl Spencer lied in any letters.
Unlike mn, courts are not interested in whataboutery. And no king Charles couldn't bring up what about Meghan either.

I think the book will do well.
Not that I’m going to buy it (I’m far too poor for that) but I am curious to hear Charles Spencer’s take on it all.

He is one of the few people who genuinely did know Diana and lots of people are going to be interested in what he has to say.

It was a horrendous situation, if they hadnt have walked then no doubt they may feel sad they didnt get the opportunity (albeit we will never know); life is just crap sometimes and no scenario would have made 2 young boys losing their mum and so publically better in my opinion. Some accounts suggest William wanted to walk- imagine if he had without Harry we would never hear the end of it given how upset he was about William getting an extra sausage.

Diana has been dead for over 30 years and still has more charisma than Charles Camilla William and Kate put together.

The book will do very well .
We’ve had 30 years of Windsors briefing against Diana / using her memory as and when it suits them.
Her brother is more than entitled to have his say in one book .

I agree, I think it will sell well. I think the fact he is a historian will help to sell the book.

@Crosswurd

‘some accounts’ - really?
Well from his own mouth William has said he did not want to walk behind the coffin . He has said he hid behind his fringe as a form
of self protection.
Neither boy wanted to walk.
They were ‘persuaded’ to do so to protect Charles from the public .

I am not a fan of the royals so not saying they havent, but in what ways have they briefed against diana and used her memory?

The boys were in Scotland and didn't really know what the public were doing in London. It was obviously going to be too much for them.
At least advise against it but give them the final choice. Instead they were advised to do it.

Yes this is the facts. Both boys said they were persuaded. But we are supposed to believe they are both lying?
It was not their choice.

Where did he do his PhD? What university is he employed at now?

According to you, Boris Johnson is a historian!

Well from their own mouths Harry in hindsight was glad he was a part of it & William recognises it was a balance of duty:

Prince Harry 'very glad' to walk behind Diana's coffin - BBC News https://share.google/6NtbGKIUJyEH3oGu3

So maybe whoever forced them did know best afterall? Again, no scenario would have made losing their mother any easier.

We know about Spencer's letters to Diana because they were disclosed to a jury in a court of law.