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’m not one to support PM but that book will be out there with that inaccuracy for ever more.

All because CS wanted to make a point and a jabby one at that.

That wanky little apology isn’t enough.

As a historian, as he is at great pains to point out, facts and accuracy matters.

It seems from the excerpts so far that a lot of it is his feelings, his interpretation, his perception. So it is all the more important to get checkable details 100% correct in order to add some weight to the feelies. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no consideration given to those that may have inaccuracies printed about them.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that this is a hurried, spiteful book with no credence to it whatsoever now.

I don’t give a fig for Morgan but I do care about facts!!
and it should not matter who the recipient is , facts are facts ….if you don’t understand that and frankly choose to defend a deeply unpleasant man with an extremely doubtful notion on morality and an extremely grasping avarice for money and power , just because he’s attacking the king ….all I can say is wow!

Thanks @BasiliskStare (and @JustAnotherWhinger for your comments to date).

I'm enjoying the reviews.

I was never convinced by Spencer declaring himself ‘a historian’. It takes a lot more than a degree to become a professionally respected and accepted academic scholar. You can’t just identify into it because you’re posh.

I’m surprised that he gave Piers Morgan such an open goal, though. That’s very careless.

Come on. It doesn’t matter who the victim of libel
is. The law says you can’t libel people. It doesn’t make it ok just because Piers Morgan is almost universally loathed. It makes Spencer look
like a complete amateur and his frankly rather churlish apology has only made things worse imo. Yes Morgan can look after himself, but that isn’t the point here, is it? Spencer has made a major error over something that was easy to check. That is writing about other people 101. Get your facts right. Schoolboy error

Forgetful

You should see some of the support for Charles Spencer, despite his treatment of women - it’s mind boggling 😵‍💫

His wife, who is a proper academic, must be cringing 😬

I have read Spare. I have to say CS's book is better than that. Now put a playing card between them ? 😂 I think CS is trying to get some modicum of truth into his book. The bits about the RF and to a lesser extent the press (where he does have more justification ) do come over as over the top,

I think as a book he would have been better to give it more revisions. It is better written (imho) where he doesn't have a Spencer vs RF axe to grind. The tabloid press at the time I have some sympathy for , but he's not quite altogether as unbiased as an historian might be with either.

I suspect there was a better book ( again my opinion ) than this which could have come out , but one wonders whether it would have sold as well without the headline grabbing bits.

I'll say again one of the more interesting bits was when he talks about his first and subsequent drafts of his eulogy. That to me was genuinely interesting. I'm not sure the end result was the best , but some of the earlier ones I think were best left on the drawing board.

I will say nowhere does he refer to anything other than D telling him KC (PoW) as was ) was in love with his valet. And even he says that didn't sound credible ( hence my comment about layers of unreliable narrators. ) I'm feeling nervous but nowhere as I recall from this morning is rape mentioned re the royal household. So that's OK as a topic but not in relation to D and the then PoW in this book.

From what you say, @BasiliskStare, he should have marketed the book as his memoir of life with his sister, not pushed it as 'his duty to tell the truth', and had some better editing.

That way, there might have been less scrutiny - though I suspect that was going to come as soon as he decided to release excerpts in advance, given that all the most sensational parts were going to be published at once.

Well this is going to be expensive: Piers Morgan demands withdrawal from sale of all first edition copies of Earl Spencer's book and a reprint minus the pages which libel PM.

22 September 2026, 16:16 BST
Updated 1 hour ago - BBC
Piers Morgan has called for Earl Spencer's book about Princess Diana to be pulled from the shelves over a factual error.
Earl Spencer, Princess Diana's brother, apologised to Morgan for incorrectly describing him in the memoir as the editor of the Daily Mirror when the Mirror Group published "highly intrusive photographs of Princess Diana at the gym" in 1993.
Speaking to the BBC, Morgan said he accepted the apology but that his lawyers would be "laying out that we want the offending pages to be removed from this book. And if that means they pulp the first edition, so be it".

I just started it today on Audible and I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

I’m slightly gutted re the fuck up with Piers Morgan. Odious little twerp. He’ll be loving it.

It sounds as if parts of it are aimed at selling to the tabloids press that he claims to be disgusted by. Moral.outrage but happy to get the money.

Pipedreams607

I hope it will illustrate very clearly to people under forty who have only heard the revised version of her life as authorised by KC and Camilla, what Diana had to contend with every day and how gamely she carried on despite such dreadful breaches of trust and privacy.

You know, I really don't think they'll be interested.

The boys were at boarding school. Charles could have easily visited them and taken them out for tea. His excuse that it was Diana's fault he rarely saw the boys us the kind of excuse crap divorced dad's everywhere give.

You know you are wrong. There is a renewed interest in under 25s fuelled by tiktok and Instagram posts

Disagree. My kids are in their 20s. They have slightly less than zero interest in Diana. So much so, they know barely anything about her.

The fact that you take Charles Spencer’s word re visiting St Mary Magdalen church and what allegedly a docent said to him says it all really!

What Burrell said was not his opinion -it was true.
The letters from Charles Spencer to Diana denying her the possibility of renting a house on the Althrop Estate are public record as is the burying of Diana on the island in the pond on the estate, the building of a series of rooms to house a Diana Exhibition and opening the house every year and charging people to visit are also facts in the public domain.
It’s not a case of ‘believing Paul Burrell’.
Can you understand that?? Would you like me to provide links to show you these undeniable facts??

Considering Diana was the most photographed woman in the world who died tragically at a young age I don’t understand how you think ANYTHING could ‘erase Diana’s memory after her death’.
The RF, the Monarchy keeps rolling on. They don’t mention George VI much - has he been erased or has time just passed??

Diana definitely had faults but your description of her is too one-sided,

It’s funny how Patrick Jephson, the one person who worked in close proximity to her, for over seven years, in five continents, in stressful circumstances, denies that she had any sort of personality disorder isn’t it? He describes her as organised, energetic, meticulous and professional with natural sympathy and intuitive intelligence when carrying out her charity work.

And he wasn’t just involved in her work life. He got pulled in to the divorce negotiations and tussles over the children too, He became involved in every aspect of her life in fact. And yet he still described her as down to earth and resilient with a good sense of humour.

I do think it has suited the current incumbents of the throne to promote and play up her more difficult side which is poor behaviour when she can’t answer back.

I have young adult children and although they are not particularly interested in royalty overall, they have heard of Diana and are much more interested in her life than in the lives of the late QE2 or King Charles and Camilla.

I love this idea that the RF have somehow “erased” Diana when there is still an extensive biography of her on their own website 🤪

Of course there would be on the official website. The RF are always worried about public perception.

And presumably William would have had something to say about it if she had been left off the official website.

So where has she been erased from?

I have young adult children
That's nice for you.
So do I plus nieces, nephews and children of friends.

They have heard of Diana and are much more interested in her life than in the lives of the late QE2 or King Charles and Camilla
Mine have heard of her, but interested? Not so much.
A couple of nieces in their late teens went to London for William and Catherine's wedding and had a great time.
All I've heard of Diana from them is one saying she realised that D wasn't actually the wonderful mother she'd been portrayed as.
The rest are much more interested in the King and the P&PoW if they show any interest in royalty.

I don't think there's much point in people posting saying "My children think..." as plenty of people's children will think differently.

(It's almost as bad as "Man here!" and expecting everyone to accept the great truth they have to offer.)

So, not erased, then?