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

Ermagah! That’s sharp.

I think it’s understandable to come out swinging given the pain this book will cause their children.

While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss
Elegant 😂

He may well be an unpleasant character and I'm certainly not suggesting that Lord Spencer is some sort of saint. But that isn't really the point. He clearly feels that a wrong needs to be put right over the treatment of a sister he obviously loved and respected deeply. Whatever his faults, I think it's worth hearing what he has to say before simply dismissing him because we don't like the messenger.

And when you're dealing with people who have that much wealth, privilege and power, those things probably count for very little in the end. What matters far more is whether a genuine injustice occurred and whether the truth about it has been properly told. If Spencer genuinely believes a grave wrong was done to someone he loved, then seeking justice and setting the record straight could matter to him far more than money or status ever could.

And it's not his problem what this does to the reputation of the House of Windsor or the monarchy. That's a separate issue. His concern, presumably, is what happened to his sister and whether a serious wrong was done to her not protecting the reputation of an institution to which he owes no constitutional duty.

If he was so concerned about Diana why did he refuse her request for a home on the Althrop Estate ?

That's a really beautiful statement, it's very kind and empathetic, but it does challenge the credulity of some of the claims.

Barry Mannakee, then James Hewitt.

Later Oliver Hoare, then Will Carling.

That's a fair question, but the simple version isn't quite true. Spencer refused Diana the specific Garden House, but he did offer her alternative accommodation. You can criticise that decision, but it doesn't prove he didn't care about her. the Times was forced to apologise for that smear

www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/180627-Earl-Spencer-Associated-Statement-in-open-court.pdf

@Mylovelygreendress
I’ve just googled that and according to an interview Charles Spencer gave to Hello magazine the house she wanted was unsuitable because it was too close to the public road adjacent to Althorp and the police advised against it.

He didn't.

The building she wanted (the Garden House) wasn't available - it was needed for staff and police advised that it wouldn't be suitable.

He offered her several others and she refused.

He has successfully sued both the Times and the Daily Mail over this.

Yes, the fickle public. Good point, if even a word of Spencer’s book is true.

Anyway, a man on his fourth wife after how many mistresses? is not, I would wager, a paragon of virtue and truth. Charles Spencer can get tae fuck with his hypocrisy. (Poor Cat Jarman will probably rue the day she met him, a few years from now.)

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the midst of that situation, with the absolutely surprising reaction of the public, can remember conversations in minute detail like that. Especially with the level of back and forth over what kind of funeral it would be.

So I wouldn’t totally believe his version, or the palaces versions. Unless it was recorded the chance of it being not 100% accurate is high.

@bluegreygreen
At least Charles can say in his defence that Camilla was his only partner. Diana seems to have left a trail of destruction in other people’s marriages.

@JustAnotherWhinger
He may have kept meticulous contemporaneous diaries.

References for Earl Spencer and Garden House at Althorp

People report re Times https://archive.is/dJsvo

Press Gazette report re DM https://archive.is/xSXZx

Seriously, Diana was a girl when she was groomed to be his wife. He was an arse and if she cheated that is why. Let's not whitewash how bad he was...

I think the whole lot - RF and RF adjacent- are generationally dysfunctional.

He was an NBC News correspondent for around ten years and has written ten books, so it takes little imagination to believe that a conversation with the then Prince Charles about the aftermath of Diana's death would have stayed in his memory. This was his sister's violent and deeply traumatic death, after all. I can remember exactly where I was when I heard that she had died, and I suspect most people of our generation can.

Spencer is now recalling a conversation in which he says Charles made a particularly striking remark about Diana. Whether you believe Spencer's recollection is another matter, but as a matter of principle, it ultimately comes down to whose account you find more credible and I know who I do.

@jobnotsure
Oh I completely agree. The Queen Mother and Diana’s grandmother Lady Fermoy were the groomers in chief.
How anyone can have respect for the RF is beyond me.

Or the Spencers.

Theres been zero mention of him writing things during the call, and even shortly after it’s not always 100% that you recall someone’s words exactly, especially in high emotion and/or pressure conversations.

I’d actually bet the more accurate recordings would be if meticulous notes kept by an aide who didn’t have the emotional involvements. They won’t be necessarily be involved in a private chat between the two Charles’ though.

Neither of them are particularly trustworthy chaps.

A “beautiful” statement from a deeply unpleasant man who probably doesn’t want his subjects reminded of just what an absolute cunt he was to his first wife. 🙄

I’m not doubting he remembers the conversations. It’s that he claims to remember the exact wording of it that I doubt. Humans are unreliable.

Its also very hard to believe that he wouldn’t have mentioned it for all this time.

I actually thought this statement was repulsive. Sneering, sanctimonious faux-compassion. Basically claiming that ES was mad or lying. If they don't comment on books 'as a matter of principle' why do so now?

I can't say categorically whether or not ES's account was true. What I can say that I can remember every detail of certain instances/ things being said and done during distressing times, as clearly as if they happened yesterday. Such things are never forgotten. If Charles thinks this account is false I would have had more respect if his spokesperson had just said that.

@OctopusFriend
Yes - the Spencers too
And the whole ‘aristocratic’ lot who go with them

Yes, it's strange. Here we are, almost 30 years on, and he has a book to sell 🤨