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.

Piers Morgan on the BBC says that Spencer’s account of the phone call in which Piers is alleged to have been surly and “snarled” is incorrect and thus casts doubt on his memory of “other phone calls”. This realty is turning in to a case of “he said, she said” for Earl Spencer 😬

Yes, but Prince Charming exists only in books.

All very true.

But you said they had done “everything they could to erase her”. They haven’t even taken her off the website, so perhaps not the concerted effort you are suggesting. How have they erased her then?

Yes, it was always thus - this just proves it. Some historian. 🙄

I have the book on Kindle - it's not easy to flip to and fro , (well it may be but not for me 😊) When CS was phoning the tabloid editors to ask them not to come to the funeral / memorial / WA , I think he did say PM was surly. There is no independent corroboration of this. Just as there was no independent footnote or the like that corroborates QEII saying "tetchily" "what's she done now" after being informed of the accident - though not the extent of it. Not the conversations between CS and KC on the phone . So @smilesy , I agree with you given the lack of footnotes in the book backing up conversations , it is a bit he said , she said. I think the fact BP rarely responds it is some measure of their disagreement , but no-one will truly know how these conversations went.
I wonder if CS gave a roll of the dice , and maybe he hasn't got two sixes but he might have enough to beat the bank ( not an entirely well thought out analogy - I fully admit 😂)

Apart from the erasure of her name from prayers at the local church at Balmoral the morning when her death became known you mean?

It’s late so I will let AI do the talking:

The "erasure" of Diana, Princess of Wales, from the formal structures of the British Royal Family and public life was a systematic process driven by rigid protocol and palace image management.

After her separation and eventual divorce from the future King Charles III (then the Prince of Wales), the Royal Household took concrete institutional steps to strip her of official status and marginalize her public standing.

The most notable concrete examples of how this erasure was executed include:

1. Stripping of the "Her Royal Highness" (HRH) Status

The day after her divorce was finalized on August 28, 1996, the Palace formally notified Diana that she was no longer permitted to use the title Her Royal Highness. This move was considered to be petty and vindictive considering that she would always be the mother of a monarch or future monarch.

• The Protocol Impact: Losing the "HRH" was not a minor detail; it fundamentally shifted her place in the constitutional hierarchy. Formally reclassified as a private individual, royal protocol now dictated that Diana had to bow or curtsy to members of the Royal Family, including her ex-husband, her former in-laws, and theoretically, even her own teenage sons, William and Harry.

• The Rejection: Documents indicate that while Queen Elizabeth II was initially open to letting Diana keep the style, Charles was unyielding that it be removed. Recently revealed excerpts from Earl Spencer's memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, state that the Palace even offered to posthumously restore her HRH title on the day of her funeral—a symbolic gesture her brother flatly declined as a hollow "consolation prize".

1. Drastic Reduction of Royal Privileges and Security

By removing her from the inner institutional circle, the Palace systematically dismantled her operational capacity:

• Office and Funding: While she received a lump-sum financial settlement, she was stripped of the funding earmarked for a full Royal Household. Her staff was heavily downsized, and her diplomatic backing was minimized.
• State Protection: The removal of her HRH status meant she was no longer automatically entitled to taxpayer-funded Royal Protection Command security. Although she was offered a limited form of police protection for official public events, the daily, comprehensive security apparatus that guarded her as a core royal was withdrawn (prompting her to rely on private security).

1. Forced Withdrawal from Charities and Public Patronages

During her tenure as a working royal, Diana was the patron of over 100 charities. Following the breakdown of her marriage, the Palace exerted immense pressure to regularize her public life, resulting in her formal resignation from approximately 80 charities and organizations in 1996. She was forced to narrow her focus to just six primary causes (such as Centrepoint and the Royal Marsden Hospital), effectively severing her institutional ties to the vast majority of the British public and civic organizations she had championed for over a decade.

1. Media Campaigning and "Spin"

The Palace press machinery actively worked to manage narratives that favored the monarchy over Diana.

• When Prince Charles publicly acknowledged his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, Palace PR operations aggressively sought to rehabilitate Charles's public standing, frequently positioning Diana as volatile or uncooperative to shield the heir to the throne.
• According to royal biographers and aides, Charles openly voiced the belief that once Diana was removed from the royal fold, the public’s obsession would fade and she would be largely forgotten by history.

1. Exclusion from Royal Events

Following her separation, Diana was methodically uninvited from major national and state events where the Royal Family was present. She was excluded from Trooping the Colour, state banquets, and official foreign tours representation. The goal was to present a unified, streamlined image of the House of Windsor that explicitly did not feature her, establishing a visual and public narrative that her era within the family had concluded.

According to Spencer, any mention of her baptism was erased from the official guide book at the local church at Sandringham and the guides were told not to mention her name.

All of this after serving the RF since she was twenty and being incredibly successful at her role , being betrayed by her husband, and producing two heirs and any chance of a decent private life ruined by having been connected to the institution.

And I believe her good reputation and intentions were intentionally erased by “friends” and allies of then-Prince Charles who ran an active media campaign targeting Princess Diana. This retaliation was catalysed by the release of Andrew Morton’s 1992 biography Diana: Her True Story and reached its peak around her 1995 Panorama interview.

The narrative pushed by Charles’s camp severely impacted Diana's mental health, leaving her feeling vulnerable, isolated, and profoundly paranoid. The core insults, briefings, and public labels directed at her by his circle included:

1. Labelling Her as "Unstable" and "Paranoid"

The most damaging and widespread narrative leaked by Charles's allies was that Diana was mentally unbalanced. His friends frequently briefed journalists that she was "clinically paranoid," histrionic, and suffering from severe psychological issues that made her impossible to live with.

Nicholas Soames (a friend of Prince Charles) got into trouble with Prime Minister John Major around that time for remarks criticizing Diana (such as claiming she was in the "advanced stages of paranoia"), for which he went to see the Prime Minister to apologize.

Earl Howe famously called her a “loose cannon" over her campaigning about land mines when her intervention and highly publicized work in 1997 fundamentally shifted public opinion and accelerated international politics, ultimately leading to the signing of the Ottawa Treaty (the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.

Edited : sorry the numbering hasn’t worked during C&P but I’m sure you get the gist!

There's another allegation now on TwiX, @BasiliskStare, that Spencer said in the book that the car taking Diana's body to Althrop broke down on the way.

People are pointing out that isn't the case, but it did stop to clear flowers from the windscreen.

Do you remember if CS said this?

Most of what you describe in the long list you give, @Pipedreams607, would have been an automatic consequence of stepping back from being a working royal.
Similarly to Harry, you don't get to leave the job and keep the perks.

As she was no longer representing the country, there was o reason to invite her to 'major international and state events'.

Regarding security - we know that she did have security, until she refused it after believing Bashir.

As you say, Soames criticised her after the Bashir interview, was severely criticised himself for doing so, and apologised.

By 1997, Diana was definitely acting in a more political fashion. Howe was clearly concerned about her landmine campaign. She was also lobbying Tony Blair to allow her to become involved in Northern Ireland at that point (I'm glad he had the sense not to agree to that).
That is the reason that I'm glad the HRH was removed - royals should avoid becoming involved in politics, and she was really getting to close.

AI will tell you what you want to hear, at enormous length, as your post demonstrates. This proves absolutely nothing.

Diana was not mentioned at church that Sunday because her very, very recently bereaved sons were present and no one wanted to traumatise them any further. This is not difficult to understand.

It’s funny how you find an excuse for everything! …..at what point will you acknowledge the actual facts…..

Diana knew well before her divorce was finalised that she would be losing her HRH.

The Letters Patent were finalised and issued between the finalising of Andrew and Sarah’s divorce in the May and Diana and Charles’ in August.

It covers anyone who marries someone entitled to the HRH automatically under the 1917 LP’s as it mirrors it - so children of the monarch on the male line, eldest son of the POW and eldest son of the eldest son of the POW - and then gets divorced. So both Sarah and Diana lost the HRH under then and anyone who divorces in future would be the same (so Kate, Meghan and Sophie would currently lose theirs if they divorced).

…..from the big brother house perhaps? …….

@bluegreygreen - sorry it takes me a while to find chapters on the Kindle rather than a "proper" book. I do love my kindle , mainly because my house is simply too small to accommodate the number of books I read - but searching to and fro is harder. Anyway to your question

CS and KC and W&C inter alia went to Althorp mainly by train. They watched the hearse procession on the TV , with the stops for flowers to be removed. (CS was reflecting on the tv commentators reflecting on his eulogy) . He does say in the book "at some point he & his family were informed the hearse had broken down" - because of the slow speed the engine had burnt out. . He also says that "impressively" BP had anticipated this and they were told a reserve hearse was being "driven to the rescue". I watched this on the TV and I don't remember it , but CS does say he was informed about the breakdown and the backup.

In short yes it's in the book. Honestly I don't remember it - wouldn't I have if they had wrestled the coffin between 2 cars on the M1. ? But unlike some I am perfectly able to say my own memory may vary or indeed be downright faulty 😂

Someone on Twitter has said they’ve looked the you tube video and the hearse that leaves London and the one that arrives at Althorp have the same reg no (so they are the same vehicle is his point I assume)

The hearse did have to stop on the M1 to clear flowers as the driver couldn’t see, I do remember that

Excuse my poor screen shot skills

This is the hearse leaving Westminster abbey, stopped on the M1 to remove flowers and arriving at the gates of Althorp. Definitely the same one.

Thanks @BasiliskStare - I'm sure it would have been reported had it happened.
Maybe he was told there were preparations for all eventualities?

I know what you mean about your Kindle. I bought mine when I went on a year's fellowship abroad - saved me having to transport lots of books back home! - and now use it for fiction, but it's rubbish for flipping back and forward.

Crossposted - got distracted doing something in the middle of writing - thanks @JustAnotherWhinger.

Yet another 'inaccuracy' then.

@bluegreygreen and @JustAnotherWhinger thank you both.

This is why I was interested to read the book to see what he had set down in his own words. Now reading that paragraph - what actually he says is "At some point my family and I were informed the hearse carrying ...had broken down....... Then
"we were told a reserve hearse was within striking distance and was being driven to the rescue - D's coffin would resume its journey to us in the backup vehicle"
Then - "this delay persuaded us to have lunch before the burial ceremony "

He doesn't actually say it did happen , he said they were told of this.

And this is why , and it might sound boring to many , I'm interested in what people actually write ( or indeed say in interviews etc ) because there can be a great deal of nuance between rumour / speculation and what are the actual words someone has demonstrably said / written . Sometimes it may not matter . Sometimes it's imperfect recollection. Sometimes it gives some wiggle room for plausible deniability.

In this case I can't see why he would make this up. I think it's imperfect recollection or it was told to him it might happen and it actually didn't That said if you recollect one thing imperfectly - well....
I do allow for people not remembering everything perfectly at a time of stress and grief. I suspect many of us have experienced that.

ETA quick edit for sense

I think this is an inaccuracy that’s likely a mangle of two things

There absolutely would have been a back up hearse nearby in the plan. There always is for royal events and this was based on a royal event. So it was likely discussed this was what would happen if needed, down to the changing of lunch time.

The journey was, iirc, considerably slower than expected because the hearse had to travel at much lower speeds because of the crowds, and in particular because of the flowers on the windscreen.

I’d put money on what happened here is that he’s conflating two conversations - what would happen if the hearse broke down and the change of lunch, and lunch being changed because of delays.

I also can’t see why he would lie about it. It is however, imo, an example of somewhat sloppy writing. Had he checked about the delay then he could easily have written that they changed lunch because they believed there had been an issue with the hearse but it was actually just slow.

It adds to the weight for me that this is a book purely of his recollections, with no fact checking, rather than a book with any aim of historical accuracy.

@JustAnotherWhinger - I think I'm with you on that 🍷☕💐. See also as I said above his few footnotes are mainly (as it seems to me) to explain UK terms to a US audience - not to give evidence as to where he got X orY opinion from eg ( & I'm making this up ) related to me by so and so on this date , or even "private conversation" . It's his memory - take it or leave it pretty much. Which is OK if you take it as such - but not so much if he is happy to cast aspersions without backup on others who aren't able or willing for other reasons to contradict him. But it's memoir not biography so up to him. It's a shame because I think there could have been a better book ( not necessarily a better selling book) in there . However not my sister , not my book. I think it will end up on the remainder pile of history given time. & Actually the way things are going - not that much time. 😊

I agree with this. Until this book, it was easy enough for CS to be seen as the kind and tortured aristo brother of Diana. His voice is soft and comforting and he looks like Diana. But the content of the book opens him up to personal scrutiny. And the scrutiny isn’t looking good for him. Piers Morgan is suing him - CS has had to apologise to him for a proven factual inaccuracy. I’m old enough to remember how utterly destroyed Victoria Lockwood was in the 90s - bearing CS 4 kids whilst he apparently fucked all and sundry. VL actually looked like she was going to die. And those adult kids are not on good terms with him - he’s even been absent at some weddings of theirs. Apparently he didn’t see much of Diana anyway.

I think he would have done better to keep
quiet. I believ he did say he wouldn’t profit from Diana. And now he is seemingly trying to.

I personally find it hard to believe everything he says due to the above. I am no royalist either. I don’t mind Charles and Camilla, I don’t love them either. I do think that William and Kate should be king and queen soon. I don’t like the idea of Charles being well over retirement age with cancer and still having the king duties. Him and Camilla have lots of grandkids between them and they ought to be able to live peacefully.

According to Charles S there was an unusually sheer drop near their mother’s house that he was very scared about (as a child). His “greatest fear was losing my balance and tumbling down into the gorse below”. Diana knew this.

He continues she commanded him to stop one day & “Diana suddenly lurched forward without warning and shoved me over the edge”.

Although a childish prank (?) I found it a bit odd/chilling.

😉