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

His Nazi SS adjacent sister lest we forget.

Nor does William.

Diana’s mother- Frances Shand Kydd - told friends that she heard nothing from QE2 after Diana died. Not a word. She was William and Harry’s other grandmother and she was completely effaced by the RF.

They’d have to learn Dutch though!

They are emotionally stunted.

They got 4 Dutch / English translators at the ready. Probably capable of translating a quarter of the book in one night.

Prince Harry's account in Spare seems to agree with Spencer's in many respects. But I know how widely hated H is on here so many royalist posters will dismiss his account as they do his uncle's, and insist that they are both lying and the senior royals alone are paragons of virtue.

'In Spare, Harry told readers that his memories of his childhood have been affected by the trauma he experienced after his mother's death.
The prince recounted a number of events around this time, one of which was the numerous discussions surrounding Diana's funeral. He recalled that the princess's brother, his uncle Charles Spencer, strongly objected to any suggestion that his nephews should walk behind the coffin.

"There was some discussion about the next day's funeral," Harry wrote. "Per the latest plan, the coffin would be pulled through the streets on a horse-drawn carriage by the King's Troop while Willy and I followed on foot. It seemed a lot to ask of two young boys. Several adults were aghast. Mummy's brother, Uncle Charles, raised hell. 'You can't make these boys walk behind their mother's coffin! It's barbaric.'"

Harry continued: "An alternative plan was put forward. Willy would walk alone. He was fifteen, after all. Leave the younger one out of it. Spare the Spare. This alternative plan was sent up the chain. Back came the answer. It must be both princes. To garner sympathy, presumably."'

Not exactly classy.

Sounds très Tony Blair

Whatever his reasons for doing this he obviously doesn't care how it will affect his nephews, his sister's sons.

But he's 'blood family' intent on 'letting their souls sing' according to his funeral oratory.

I have no idea of the truth of his claims but I do think it's interesting that this is one of very rare instances C3 has chosen to clap back at his critics.

Watching 👀

I just think it's interesting that Philip is blamed as is Blairs government - but Spensor and Campbell both point finger at Charles camp.

I mean honestly god know at this point who said what to who and how the decision finalised - but in my 20s at time I remember Queen and Prince Philip were trying to keep them at Balmoral out of way but press and public opinion went completely mad - and then Blare stepped in ever the populists and put pressure on RF to do something to appease public. Though Campbell when I saw him speak about it was clear with kids of their own and with eye to public they were surprised at suggestion of walking behind coffin and not sure about it at all.

And we have the Queen’s dresser’s book revelations coming out shortly, detailing how they allegedly kicked her out with unceremonious dignity following QE2’s death. It’s going to be a busy autumn with H&M back in town. If everything currently bubbling away comes to a head, 1992’s annus horribilis could end up looking like a walk in the park by comparison and that’s without the whole Andrew affair potentially blowing up as well.

The Queen reputedly said, “Après moi, le déluge.” She may not have been wrong. And apparently Fergie is now rummaging around down the back of the sofa looking for the money. The perfect storm.

KC's alleged remarks are now the headlines in the Daily Mail.
Very fitting - that was Diana's newspaper of choice.
She would ring journalists with information, or even go to the offices.
They will always champion her..

Harry was present and remembers that happening or that was what he was told happened? 🤷‍♀️

I suppose we'll never know. No doubt if they hadn't been allowed, there would have been a lot of criticism, too.

Harry's got a £50 million deal on the back of all this. As a soap opera there is none better. I'm invested.Back in the day before the internet you had to spend a £1 minute on a grubby telephone line to hear tampongate - I did listen in to a friend who paid I'm ashamed to admit at the time.

I really have no idea which.

Just thinking
If Catherine died would George be expected to walk behind her coffin ?
Absolutely not.
What were they thinking back in 1997???

My point of view , just to take some emotion out of this. This is one account of one person's relationship with another. It's a memoir.

As an historian (I'm not but am used to reading with an analytical eye ) , if you read a memoir , diaries etc , you do it with an eye to the bias of the author. & if you are doing it academically , you find other texts which either substantiate or oppose the author. Also , why is it written ? Is it for history , money , to set the record straight, for the benefit of the legacy of the author or any one of those or another reason. Which subsequent people will have to analyse and decide over time where the real story lies. Now eg if you were analysing the dairies of let's say Churchill or Nelson (I'm making this up here - but bear with me ) there would be people who think because of the historical context it is worth doing. Over time will CS's memoir be worth analysing - no idea.

In this context also, in the context of the whole book ( which I have not read ) are these headline snippets reflective of the whole book? Or are they the crowd-pleasing bits which CS can sell to the DM for its serialisation.

I'm not saying CS is right or wrong - All I'm trying to say is that CS has written a personal account. No-one can necessarily make a judgment about either he or KC being "dreadful" . It's a new book and it's newsworthy but without being po-faced , memoirs are just those. Not necessarily everything in them is fact. If they go towards a body of work which comments on a particular period or group of people , all to the good. But to be taken if one is interested in trying to get as near as possible to the facts , as part of a whole.

As an example @bluegreygreen has given a contemporaneous reference regarding the walk behind Diana's coffin. This is one example of how one memoir has to be taken in context.

OK I realise I have been rather a bore there . Sorry 😊

It’s terrible in retrospect, the walk. Those poor kids.

If they were on their way to The Hague, some of them would probably have been in English and other languages.

Maybe that explains the selectiveness of the heist.

Interesting to see the Palace and the King clapback, how many more will we see.
🍿

The Spanish version of "Spare", En la Sombra got out early. Didn't it?

Well, we already know that the following people are liars: Blair, Campbell, Harry, and C Spencer. And yes, potentially any member of the cultural construction known as the ‘working royal family’.

I’m not sure that CIII would take the risk over knocking this one back if he wasn’t sure.

As per H’s recollection on having the boys walk behind the coffin ‘to garner sympathy presumably’?

Presumably doing a bit of hard graft there.

There was enough sympathy - I doubt anyone needed to garner anything in that respect. Everyone would have been already so sad for their loss.

As for CS’s book?

If he wanted a bit of the drama then he has it. At the expense of his nephews. What a peach.

And as has been mentioned, feeling was high at the time and this is only one side of the story. One recollection if you like.

Recollections - as have been shown already - may vary.

Still. Whatever sells.