Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer

[Viviennemary]

Buckingham Palace said they don't usually comment but they can't stay silent. Apparently Prince Charles said at the time of Diana's death rest assured we'll forget her soon enough. Which is pretty horrendous. Charles has more or less said grief had clouded Earl Spencer's judgement and memory.

I don't know why he has waited nearly 30 years to come out with this.

No it came from the public. I remember the press initially reporting people gathering outside the palace after her death was announced and the press sounded puzzled. Some went down to interview people and were asking, why have you come here.

And as flowers and soft toys were left there were various articles attempting to explain why so many people were upset. But all the articles I read seemed a bit perplexed. It was a very organic reaction.

A certain type of middle class person at the time sneered at the public reaction though. Private Eye for example clearly did this.

I think the media were running to catch up with the public reaction. I remember the enormous queues to sign books of condolences at most large towns and cities. There was hardly any press coverage of this, but I remember passing a long queue every day on my way to work.

I think that's a pretty typical situation when someone in the public eye passes away - the media that previously chastised them will praise them.

The articles you post are from a couple of years before she passed away.

I do remember the day after she died going to the newsagents and seeing all these headlines on the papers that had been published the previous evening or early in the morning before her death had been announced, going on about her latest "escapades" with Dodi. At the time I was probably angry at their hypocrisy. I still think the British tabloid media in the 1990s was absolutely horrendous (and still is when it comes to most royal matters). But, I'm also a little more aware now that Diana herself was baiting the media and using them. She may have hated the paparazzi but she also needed the coverage they gave her. This isn't to blame her for anything, but just to point out this was a more complex situation.

It's not too dissimilar to Harry today: he hates the media but at the same time he uses it, and in the worst possible way. His media strategy is a mess and based on nameless "spokespeople" making statements on trivial issues that are best ignored. He claims not to want media attention but behaves in a way that demands attention. He wants privacy and security for his kids but almost weaponises his kids in his battle with the government and media over security. He uses his kids as part of his marketing of having "found freedom" and living his own way.

I thought I read that Camilla married APB as Charles went off on his Royal Navy appointment? She was not seen as suitable as a commoner.

I think he's just pissed off by them all and enough is enough 😂

Because you can pray for the soul of all who have recently died, in a Christian service, without upsetting the boys by specifically mentioning her name. Have you ever led intercession prayers? Do you go regularly to a church where there are regular intercession prayers? The leader of the prayers can very easily, and I know some who do, leave a silence of a few moments for people to pray silently for those who are 'in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity'. In the next paragraph they can pray for the souls of those who have died, and they don't have to say names. It doesn't mean that those who are sick or have died are not prayed for.

I'd imagine possibly the comment was made with reference to the huge crowds that gathered, wailing and crying as if they knew her. I can perhaps imagine him commenting that the crowds will forget her soon enough or something similar because I remember thinking at the time it was a really OTT display considering she wasn't known personally.

I said you were disingenuous because you shared two tabloid headlines as an example of press before Diana's death. In reality the headlines were quite a few years before her death.

He may have said it, in frustration having a bad moment, or he may not have done. If he did say it it wasn’t kind thing to do. But saving this up for 30 years to generate headlines to sell a book is a lot lower imo.

You're confusing me with a different poster.

I think there's a big difference here. There is an allegation that King Charles said a certain thing, and a quite incendiary thing at that. If Charles didn't say that and it's basically a lie, then he has every right to correct that allegation and should absolutely say something about it.

There's no need for Charles to "clap back" at every daft statement made about him. That simply underlines that when he does respond, then the allegation against him is particularly egregious and false.

I was going regularly to church at this time. No you don't stay silent about significant bereavements of your congregation.
Intercession prayers is a chance for people to pray for anyone else. It does not replace the explicit mention of prayers for others.
And nearly every other church mentioned Diana's death that Sunday. Only the boys church pretended she had not existed.

He gives you the creeps, does he? What about Charles Spencer? And his comment about his "thick and thin" first wife? Fuck him. Shit stirrer.

I don't know why you're getting so excited and personally attacking me 🤷‍♀️

They are two random articles showing that yes the press did report negatively about Diana. There were many more. Her every move was followed. Are you saying that the press did not report on her negatively ? Then the press did adopt for a while " don't speak ill of the dead".

I think we need to read the rest of the book before making that judgement and I for one am looking forward to doing so.

But he didn't say it was a lie. He agreed to the release of a horrible statement basically saying you were confused.
This is Charles all over. He is weak. So it's all passive aggressive language and everyone he disagrees with is either confused or crazy.

Did I say they were the day before she died ?

@fuschiaproudparrot thanks for basically confirming that your original post was inaccurate.

You said it was how the media portrayed her before her death. That usually means at least in the few months before, not the many years she has been alive.

Nobody has claimed that Diana was perfect or that the media never reported anything negative about her.

Where did I say I was a fan of hers?

You can defend his actions all you want, I do not like the man.

@OneLilacHedgehog And nearly every other church mentioned Diana's death that Sunday. Only the boys church pretended she had not existed.

I mean, seriously, you think that happened, with W and H present, because the royal family had so little respect that they couldn't be bothered to recognise Diana's death, even with her young sons present? Could you not imagine a somewhat more charitable explanation- like not wanting to upset the boys more at that moment?

Being critical is one thing, but this is quite bizarre. You seem to be determined to make the most negative possible interpretation of every action of the RF, to the extent of attributing motivations that would be almost inhumanly callous.

People here try and push you into being a critic or fan of one side against the other. It's infantile.

Most of us recognise these people as complex human beings, good and bad. I don't like what I see of Charles although I admire the work he has done with the kings trust. He appears a pretty arrogant short tempered and entitled rich man who is used to everyone doing exactly what he wants.

But that doesn't make me a fan of Diana. I admire greatly the hiv work she did. I think she was very badly treated by Charles and the royal family. But she was also a typical type of rich woman focused on her looks and treatments and just desperate to be loved by a man. I doubt we would have had much in common.

We don't have to take sides. Simply point out the facts. I will challenge the many lies told again and again.

So again I suspect I wouldn't like earl Spencer if I met him. But so many lies are repeated about him and that is unfair. And he himself says his childhood sexual abuse negatively affected how he was in his marriages.

I wasn’t that young (14) when my Dad died & partly regret I did not see him.

Then again, my Mum always said she regretted bringing my elder brother (just about to turn 16) with her to see him… so who knows?

To add to my previous post: one of the reasons that DH’s friend was so concerned about being able to get a retirement cottage on the estate was that his elderly mother had developed dementia.

When he was still working, the friend got home one day to find his mum bustling about in the kitchen.

”There’s someone through the hoose for you,” she said.

The friend went into the living room to find Prince Charles sitting there with a cup of tea and a plate of custard creams.

Charles looked up at the friend and said “I do believe that your mother thinks that I’m a travelling salesman.”

I feel like KC is in a difficult position tbh. The whole "never complain, never explain" worked (mostly) when the late queen was alive, partly because social media wasn't a thing for most of her reign, but also because she had a degree of public affection, even with people who weren't particular fans of the monarchy, that Charles simply does not have.

@ProfessoressaSazzasez my partners father died when he was 12. He was not allowed to see him and regrets it greatly. Children should be asked and told clearly what it involves.
He regrets viewing his mother though as it was over three weeks due to an autopsy and the face was not well preserved. But no one warned him of that fact beforehand.
It was very helpful to me to see my parents after their death as an adult. My sister didn't want to, and that is fine. It's such an individual decision

I think she was thought unsuitable.

But if she didn't want to marry him it's a moot point anyway.