Discussion about Charles Spencer's book - Swan Song : Diana, my sister , Beautiful, Beloved, Hunted.

[BasiliskStare]

I know there is a thread about the theft of some pre publication editions of this book.
This thread is more by way of a book club discussion about the actual book , the text. Threads will go where they will , but my intention is this is more for me to give my opinion on the book and for others who read it or are interested in the book to join in. I have pre-ordered from Kindle (half price otherwise I may not have 😊) But is only available on September 22nd. So a holding place if you like.

I think maybe because she asked to be allowed to live at Althorp and Wormleighton is not.

It wasn't just security - not wanting Diana on the doorstep was definitely part of it.
He had initially agreed, then rescinded the offer and placed a staff member in the Garden House. From his letter:

"I know you will be disappointed but I know I am doing the right thing for my wife and children. I am just sorry I cannot help my sister!

"Seriously though, there are farmhouses around here that may well not interfere with us, but I cannot afford to give them rent-free, although I wish I could. In theory, it would be lovely to help you out and I am sorry I can't do that.

"Victoria and I really value our privacy and the combined pressure of the Northants police, neighbours and friends have definitely compromised that. If you are really interested in renting a farmhouse, either here or in Warwickshire or Norfolk, that would be wonderful."

Sounds a bit doctor who……” doesn’t he look tired?! “ …..😁

I’m impressed by your dedication to your work. That’s the spirit

I understand him (and his family) not wanting the fuss and bother that Diana may well have brought with her. She was, after all, the most famous woman in the world at the time.

That said, this part stood out to me -

"Seriously though, there are farmhouses around here that may well not interfere with us, but I cannot afford to give them rent-free, although I wish I could. In theory, it would be lovely to help you out and I am sorry I can't do that.

And yet we were told the other day that he wasn’t short of money, had 40 million in liquid assets and 45-90 million in paintings.

I appreciate he said this 30 years ago but you would have thought he’d have had a couple of quid spare to let her live in one of his properties rent free.

I appreciate all families are different but I would (and have) helped family members out when they have needed it and will always do that.

He didn’t but still chooses to flog signed eulogies and make a few quid with a book. (Although that might be paying for the teeth).

When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Plus, how many times in the interview did Spencer plug "my eulogy"? 🙄

The title "Swan Song" is revealing of Spencer's personality and idea of himself. A swan song is the final dance of a dancer before retirement or a final gesture before one dies. Spencer seems to be saying that he is giving Diana's swan song, that he is defining her last gesture to the world and that his book is the definitive word about her. Only he can say who Diana is and what she was about, only he is her voice today. Such an arrogant, possessive man.

Down the swannee more like.

A quote from the DM today,

“Richard Kay actually paused his exchange with his host and said, that at this point he should say that at the time of Diana’s funeral he had conversations with confidential sources and they aligned with what CS is saying today.”

So only did he corroborate, he made a point of doing so!

As for A N Wilson, he has stepped forward to defend Earl Spencer's version of events in a piece for The Times and on his Substack

"An anecdote the Earl told me years ago convinces me he IS telling us the truth." He noted that because an older conversation between him and Spencer matched up, "we cannot doubt that Earl Spencer's account of those tragic events is true."

That corroborates CS telling people things.

It still doesn’t corroborate KC’s words.

Corroboration requires witnessing the actual conversations. Not the repeating of conversations by one party involved in them.

My telling two police officers that my brother threatened to set my house on fire and them repeating that wouldn’t be corroboration.

When he shouted at me on my doorstep that he’d be back to set my house on fire the police officers in attendance could corroborate it because they heard him actually say it. That is corroboration.

Second hand stories are not corroboration.

Thank you.

Not more arrogant than complete strangers on a website who have the audacity to think that they should be able to dictate what a man can write about his own sister, whom he lost when she was thirty-six and he was thirty-three.

He was there, he had unique access to events. This is his legitimate story to tell.

And what’s more, the book will go some way to rectifying the nastiness that has been put out there by the King Charles’ camp about his dead wife over the intervening years. I note that very few people seem to be objecting to the callousness of that.

I couldn’t bring myself to buy the book but I look forward to reading your thoughts @BasiliskStare

Did you mean to post that point on the other thread?

There was a conversation about the meaning of corroboration there; this is the book discussion thread.

It’s all so vague though, yes CS told them he had a row with Prince Charles, that is believable, it’s also believable it was about the boys walking behind the coffin and he disclosed that to the reporters.

However, no one, absolutely no one, has said “yes, he told me Prince Charles said ‘we will forget her soon enough’.

I'm really not sure what "nastiness" you imagine "King Charles’ camp" put out so it's a bit difficult to object to the "callousness" of something that doesn't exist, but from what I've seen of the excerpts from the book that have been serialised and in the interviews he's been doing, Charles Spencer does not paint a particularly pretty picture of Diana at all. For a start, he reveals to the world that Mohamed Al-Fayed allegedly sexually assaulted her - an incredibly private thing that she is unlikely to have wanted the world to know. He also "confirms" the story that Diana told someone else in complete confidence, never imagining that it would be broadcast to the world, that Diana pushed her stepmother down the stairs and enjoyed it.

Lol at the idea that I'm dictating what Charles Spencer writes. I'm just commenting on what the title reveals about him.

As for him "being there", he apparently wasn't even talking to Diana in the last period of her life. He also says that at various times Diana fell out with every single member of her family, even if she did eventually make up with them. Yet another nasty thing to say about her and, even if it were true it's a private matter and it's not his business to reveal anything about Diana's relationship with anyone but himself.
https://people.com/princess-diana-brother-charles-spencer-on-conspiracy-theories-her-neurodivergence-and-more-exclusive-12130540

He diagonses Diana as having had ADHD, even though he's not a doctor, and by saying he believes she had ADHD he's basically saying that she had mental health issues and behaved oddly and caused problems.

Spencer never even told his other two sisters that he was writing a book about their sister - and he admits they were hurt by this. In fact, the only people who knew were his current wife and his publisher. So, this book is really only his very personal interpretation of events from 30-40 years ago and earlier. He can't have done much research for it, he obviously never did interviews with his sisters or any other people who knew Diana to get more stories and memories about her and to corrobarate things. It's basically all plucked from his memory (even if he does admit that some of the things he believes now are not necessarily what he believed at the time) and I presume some of Diana's personal papers that he claimed for himself as the "head of the family" and which really should be in the possession of her sons.

In short, from what's been revealed about it so far, Spencer's book does not portray Diana in a particularly nice way at all and it's full of Diana's private thoughts and experiences (or what Charles Spencer says were Diana's private thoughts and experiences) that Charles Spencer does not have the right to reveal.

Edit: typo

Charles Spencer interview in People archive link https://archive.is/vtUJX

The fact that you take Paul Burrell’s word who stole £3 million pound’s worth of Diana’s possessions says it all really!

And we know why Diana did not trust many people when she died because Martin Bashir had forged documents designed to convince her that people were reporting about her to the RF and she was terrified of losing custody of her children. But people are deliberately skipping over that bit of the story!

Because, you know what, the RF have done everything they could to erase Diana’s memory after her death. I just saw CS speak to an interviewer about visiting the church on the Sandringham estate and there is no mention of Diana being baptised there in the official guide. And when he questioned this, a docent said to him, that they weren’t allowed to mention it but they always told people anyway.

Erasing her memory or just not eager to make a quick buck off her?

Erasing her memory or one of her sons at least maybe wants to let her rest in peace?

Erasing her memory or maybe just trying to appease people saying they have no business to mention her as she was free of the RF?

Because you know what? None of it matters because with her brother and a mouthy son about, she will never be allowed to rest in peace because they can say whatever they like. She is no longer here to dispute anything.

And signed copies of the eulogy and a likely tawdry book will always be for sale. As will the contents of any private conversation when she was with people she should have been able to trust the most.

(Although I suspect the book will be more about him than her - I await @BasiliskStare‘s review)

If it were me? I’d want to have my memory erased rather than folk picking my bones forever more.

Not sure how the royal family has attempted to "erase" Diana considering there is a whole long page for her on the royal family website, which has a much nicer biography of her and her work than the hatchet job on her that Charles Spencer has done.

https://www.royal.uk/diana-princess-wales

But that's like someone saying to you - sell your favourite I don't know, book/coat etc or make money out of someone else and keep your favourite book/hat whatever. He's chosen the latter. We don't tend to want to sell the family silver if we can get the dosh somewhere else.

Well said @TypingTootOnMyCommute

And the exhibitions at KP

Diana: Her Fashion Story (2017–2019): This major exhibition showcased 25 iconic outfits, including glamorous evening gowns, tartan daywear, and the famous ink-blue velvet dress she wore to dance at the White House.
The Wedding Dress Display (2021): Her famous 1981 royal wedding dress, designed by David and Elizabeth Emanuel with its 25-foot sequin-encrusted train, went on special public display after being loaned by Prince William and Prince Harry.
Style Evolution Displays: Smaller rotating exhibits have featured unique items, such as the protective flak vest and denim shirt she wore during her 1997 landmine clearance campaign in Angola

Charles Spencer recently sold about £60 million of land from the family estate to property developers supposedly because of fly tipping.

He's literally selling off the "family silver". I thought the main task of the landed aristocracy was to try to keep the family estate intact for the next generations. He's just selling it off for spurious reasons.

www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/the-final-straw-earl-spencer-says-fly-tipping-forced-sale-of-familys-farmland-8841541