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.

Either some serious context is missing or he never said it. You don't forget the mother of your children, no matter what.

Any examples of this "smearing"?

So you are calling deceased Diana a liar. OK.

Funny that Charles admitted all this, saying it was 'a present from a friend'.

Even Charles is making this up to smear himself?! 🤣

Tbh, and I’m no fan of the royal family, the speech Spencer made at the funeral was absolute clap trap and performative nonsense. and certainly wasn’t the place or time to settle any scores.

I've always thought that & was surprised that he was lauded for it.

I thought it was a beautiful speech. How insulting to call a eulogy by a brother to his sister after her tragic death 'absolute clap trap'
Awful just awful.

It seems like crap back then and even more so in the retelling. If she was a victim, her family held the first responsibility for it. They wanted their daughter to marry the future king and pushed her into it.

But Charles’s ongoing affair with Camilla was an open secret in Fleet Street before and after the 1981 wedding. If you’ve ever read Born to be Queen by Silvie Krin, a Private Eye serialisation that was published as a book, it’s reflective of what every journalist knew at the time.

PP walked behind his sister and nephews coffins when he's only 16yo himself. So if anyone there had a first hand perspective about that very rare unfortunate event, it's him.

Yes, the truth can be quite awful.

Not sure what you mean by “what you say” - I’m not expressing an opinion on whether or not the allegation is true. Just pointing out that correcting a lie would not be a smear and asking you, can you really not come up with a reason for the king defending himself. Can you not, by the way?

FWIW, I agree the king’s statement doesn’t say “I do not accept this, it’s not true”. But that’s what it means to anyone with reasonable comprehension. The royals are very good at these calm and diplomatic statements. Just like “recollections may vary” translates as “we do not accept this, it’s not true”.

Diana’s brother seems like a very dignified, intelligent man. I can’t get behind someone who can’t build a bridge with his own son and whose affair wrecked Diana’s life. Harry is Harry because of his childhood and his father does nothing but continue to abandon him. If he was not the King we would see him for what he is: a selfish, neglectful parent who has caused acres of hurt and pain - God knows how William copes

There’s nothing dignified about being married 4 times.

It's like Eastenders. We're supposed to look up to these people!

I think part of the reason there is such cognitive dissonance about Charles is to admit our king is what he really is would be too painful after we lost the legend our Queen - and we are supposed to call the woman he had the affair with Queen ? Gosh if it was a film you would switch it off for being too implausible

He’s not our King - what example has he set to England ?

Hes got a book coming out! About 10x the number of people will buy it now!

Clever boy (said in eye roll tones)

That could actually apply to both of them as Charles Spencer cheated on his pregnant wife multiple times.

But that’s precisely what neither statement does - they do not issue a clear denial and my reading comprehension is fine . There is no denial in that statement .

They try to smear the critic .
Why no clear denial ?
Or just ignore it .
Yet they do neither - they go to the same reflexive response they’ve been using for decades - smear the critic
And that response is precisely why I believe Spencer . Because I’ve seen the same smear and dismissal used again and again

They used it against Virginia Guifree . They called her a liar in a public statement
They still haven’t retracted that statement or apologised .

hit post too soon.

Spencer’s own children are not on good terms with their father. his life speaks for itself.

As for King Charles, I disagree wholeheartedly with your characterisation and think you’ve gleaned all of this picture from one source. But then I view Harry as an emotionally immature adult with a drug problem who failed to launch.

After reading Spare, I thought Charles actually came off as quite a sympathetic father. There were problems in the family for sure but I honestly think the marriage even happening was something bound to fail. They were both pushed into it, is my understanding. Him to marry someone suitable to produce an heir, her by her family. It's very sad.

Have you heard of confirmation bias?

I do quite like Charles, and I think he is a completely different person with Camilla than he was when he was under the thumb of his parents and in an unhappy marriage. Then when he was finally out of that and got what he wanted his ex wife dies and he is the bad guy again. That can make people say things they don't mean, if he did say it, or if what he said was misconstrued. But I do believe everything the Windsors do ( and actually most of their courtiers and other lackeys) is for the preservation and continuation of the Monarchy, above the needs of the individuals within it. It is in all their collective best interests that the Monarchy continues so anything that threatens that position is absolutely not tolerated. So AMW could do what he liked as long as nothing came back on them, but the second it did action was taken. Harry is beyond the pale because he moaned about them, stupidly not realising that his family actually do value the Monarchy over him, because literally all their wealth and influence comes from it and it alone. The nutso way people behaved after Diana died, whipped up by a press trying to deflect blame from themselves threatened their position so they had to ignore the welfare of the children and run back to London. The Queen could have ' addressed the nation' from that nation-in Scotland and refused to bring the children back. There was talk of the boys being made to walk in the parade to avoid the crowd booing them. What would have happened if she'd said no, sorry my grieving grandchildren need me? Nothing- but they panicked because they were told the Monarchy could be in trouble.

Surely William is also William because of his childhood and Charles should be recognised for that? Or is it just that the damaged son is all the fault of his father (never his mother of course) and the stable son is just lucky?

Also, what do you mean by Charles abandoning him? Harry chose not to be part of the working royals, he chose to move abroad, he chose to become financially independent (but accepted a year of his father bankrolling him then lied about being immediately cut off). Now he is choosing to come back as a private citizen (as the Sussexes themselves described it).

I've always thought CS speech at her funeral was all about assuaging his own guilt - they hadn't spoken for some time when Diana died, Diana was upset at him refusing her choice of where to stay at Althorp (yes, he offered her other places, but not her choice). Also his guilt over introducing her to Bashir and Bashir lying and manoeuvring her into that interview which ultimately led to the divorce. Bashir's lies also led to her refusing her Royal security - which IMO directly les to her death.

Her brother has a lot of bad decisions regarding his sister, I hope he acknowledges these in his book. I'm inclined to believe, he's reverting to type and blaming everyone else and taking no responsibility for his own behaviour.

Then you won't be rushing to read them when they come out !!