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

Yes, and brother dear who abandoned her in her time of need will make money just like the other ghouls.

Let's hope for Spencer's sake that his many ex wives don't decide to brief against him or write a book. I have a feeling that could be interesting and make him a less reliable witness.

I am not particularly a royalist but I do feel sorry for the Waleses having to deal with this madness from HAM and now this.

That had nothing to do with Diana and poor Diana was her own worst enemy because she was desperate to prove herself completely without any responsibility for the fact that her ill-suited marriage failed.

However, at the end they were at peace with one another, unlike she was with her brother.

Leave her alone.

Wouldn’t be odd for him to keep a diary though.
In fact that’s exactly the sort of thing men with his sense of importance are more likely to do.

It’s all very grubby.

Was he a historian thirty years ago?

No idea 😆😆

I think we might hear from His children. These are living people who have chosen to stay away from this man, as Diana did.

He seems quite toxic. imagine having someone that you were estranged from selling a book about you after your death. It’s ghoulish.

At this point I’m not sure how he remembers all of his ex-wives names.

Diaries can be works of fiction too. Especially for a man with a sense of importance

Absolutely sickening.

As can the books they produce. See: Spare.

The King has too much class and character to get down in the mud with this hog.

He had trained as a historian but was not published until 1998. He was in an on air television correspondent though at the time of Diana's death, so will have understood the law around libel and contemporaneous statements,

I imagine the King is seeking legal advice as we speak

CS didn’t abandon his sister and successfully sued to that end so be careful what you repeat.

I want someone to sue Dickie Arbiter (By Order of The Brown Nose) for going on Newsnight with dear Paddy last night and repeating the nonsense about Charles Spencer denying Diana a house when CS successfully sued the Times 2021 for spreading that story. The Times had to retract and apologise. CS also previously claimed damages from the DM for a similar accusation.

Dickie Arbiter and his multi-coloured tie is so desperate to defend the RF at any cost it’s embarrassing frankly.

https://people.com/royals/princess-dianas-brother-charles-spencer-wins-new-legal-victory-over-lie-that-he-deprived-diana-of-a-home/

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/earl-spencer-wins-libel-damages-from-daily-mail-publisher-over-claim-he-was-unbrotherly-towards-princess-diana-after-her-marriage-collapsed/

Yes they can. So defence would ask for any diary and fact check it. If everything else is true, it makes the diary more trustworthy evidence.

Yes crazy to open up yourself up to a libel case. Given earl Spencer already won this case against the tines, it would be a slam dunk case.
But I am also surprised MN are not more careful about their legal responsibilities here.

Good job the lorry wasn't driving through a tunnel in Paris !! 😃

The letters he returned to her and nasty comments within them prove his did abandon her.

He may have successfully proven he offered to rent her a place on the estate rather than than let her make her own choice. Or some other bit of minutiae. But those letters in his own hand prove Charles Spencer had constructively abandoned Diana. Now he wants to make himself a hero. It’s sickening.

I don’t need your legal advice, either but, uh thanks.

I don't think you understand the law if that is your take.

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

How could Charles be "compelled" to do anything, @Crosswurd, when he's quite literally beyond the law and we parliament has repeatedly shown itself unwilling even to discuss such matters?

As so many have said we simply don't know whether the alleged words were spoken, and unless Spencer recorded the call we probably never will
I'm a bit surprised that Charles went for a smear instead of outright denying it though, and wonder if the thought of a recording occurred to him too

I admit I do not have as full an understanding of libel, I work in criminal cases.
Libel was covered in training but that was a long time ago.
So please explain exactly what I have wrong please. Because my understanding was social media platforms have been found guilty if they do not take proportionate steps to prevent libellous statements. And mn let the libellous statements about earl Spencer stand.

“Ekins said: “The central allegation of the article accordingly was that the claimant acted in an unbrotherly, heartless and callous way towards his sister, the late Princess of Wales, by refusing her any accommodation on his estate when she wanted to escape from the unhappiness she associated with Kensington Palace after her marriage had collapsed.
“This was, as the defendant accepts, defamatory and untrue.”

This was the heart of the lawsuit. My claim is not that he offered her no accommodation, he clearly did.

Yet, he still treated her shabbily and the proof is in his own letters. Mocking her mental health, goading her about her eating issues.

Camilla’s rehabilitation campaign had nothing to do with Diana ??

I’ve read some nonsense on here from royalists but this takes the biscuit .
Why was Camilla hated ? Because of how she and Charles treated Diana.