Please or to access all these features

The royal family

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

602 replies

BasiliskStare · 18/09/2026 13:13

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
Fondmemories · Yesterday 05:34

noonames · 22/09/2026 20:38

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

She posted on her Instagram how proud she is of him and this book!

noonames · Yesterday 06:02

@Pipedreams607 You can’t seriously expect anyone to a) read reams of AI crap and b) take that as a sensible argument?

To answer the first question - this has been covered quite extensively - the minister said he didn’t mention her name because he thought it would be too difficult for her sons so soon after they were told she had died. Instead he led prayers for the family and others who were grieving. (Presbyterians don’t believe in purgatory and don’t generally pray for the dead so Diana herself didn’t miss out.)

Obviously nobody was going to have forgotten her six hours after she had died, whether her name was said out loud that morning or not, and the RF laid on a huge, televised funeral for her a week later. The minister not mentioning her by name at Crathie is hardly evidence of erasure.

The rest of your post isn’t worth reading imo. So much AI nonsense about, what’s the point? One poster uses it, another uses it to argue back, might as well just leave Claude and Grok to it and all go to the beach. At least you could make the effort to tidy it up and make it look more human, like you usually do.

upinaballoon · Yesterday 07:50

gishgalloping · Yesterday 00:08

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.

People will harp and harp on this 'not mentioning her name at all' . They don't want to acknowledge that it's perfectly possible for a priest to lead a few moments of silence in 'which we remember those dear to us', without mentioning specific names. You can name names and leave a space for those who are not named, all in the same short prayer.
While I'm here, I do not believe that Prince Philip FORCED the boys to go to church that morning and I do not believe that the Queen INSISTED that Diana's name be unspoken. The boys were used to going to church. It was part of the regular routine, which is quite a good thing to hold on to when you are bereaved. If the Queen asked for Diana's name not to be spoken out specifically that would seem to me a good way round the boys being able to remember Diana without, as gish says, being even more upset. Maybe the vicar suggested it.

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 07:54

upinaballoon · Yesterday 07:50

People will harp and harp on this 'not mentioning her name at all' . They don't want to acknowledge that it's perfectly possible for a priest to lead a few moments of silence in 'which we remember those dear to us', without mentioning specific names. You can name names and leave a space for those who are not named, all in the same short prayer.
While I'm here, I do not believe that Prince Philip FORCED the boys to go to church that morning and I do not believe that the Queen INSISTED that Diana's name be unspoken. The boys were used to going to church. It was part of the regular routine, which is quite a good thing to hold on to when you are bereaved. If the Queen asked for Diana's name not to be spoken out specifically that would seem to me a good way round the boys being able to remember Diana without, as gish says, being even more upset. Maybe the vicar suggested it.

I know! People act as if they were actually there.

MrsFinkelstein · Yesterday 07:56

Not read the book, but I've just remembered where I've heard the tetchy "What's she done now?"

"Prince Philip" said it in The Queen, the film with Helen Mirren.

I believe there might also have been a scene in there where "The Queen" was asked whether Diana should be mentioned in the Sunday Church service at Crathie - but I can't absolutely remember. The PP comment was a definite scene.

CS talked about scenes in The Crown with CW being upset in his recent interviews. Not saying he's an absolute numpty that thinks these things are documentaries, but I'm not not saying that.

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 08:00

MrsFinkelstein · Yesterday 07:56

Not read the book, but I've just remembered where I've heard the tetchy "What's she done now?"

"Prince Philip" said it in The Queen, the film with Helen Mirren.

I believe there might also have been a scene in there where "The Queen" was asked whether Diana should be mentioned in the Sunday Church service at Crathie - but I can't absolutely remember. The PP comment was a definite scene.

CS talked about scenes in The Crown with CW being upset in his recent interviews. Not saying he's an absolute numpty that thinks these things are documentaries, but I'm not not saying that.

Edited

Yes, I do wonder if some people get "information" from the Crown or other fictional representations.

VibrantpurpleA · Yesterday 08:01

bluegreygreen · 18/09/2026 14:57

As above, while the story has been about for a while and may or may not have some truth in it, putting it as a reason for Diana to tell her brother she is divorcing makes no sense.

Diana and Charles R formally separated in December 1992 (announced in the Commons).
The Bashir inteview was 20th November 2025.
The Queen wrote to them both on 20th December 2025 advising them to divorce.

It's thought the final trigger for the Queen to instruct them to divorce was Diana's horrendous behaviour to Tiggy Legge-Bourke at the Wales' staff Christmas party on 14th December, but whether or not that is the case, there is nowhere in the story where Charles S's version makes sense.

Laughable that the Queen sought to instruct divorce after Diana’s behaviour, not Charles’ complete obvious longstanding affair with Camilla.

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 08:03

VibrantpurpleA · Yesterday 08:01

Laughable that the Queen sought to instruct divorce after Diana’s behaviour, not Charles’ complete obvious longstanding affair with Camilla.

I'm assuming because going public was a turning point.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Yesterday 08:04

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

I watched it and I don't remember it either. I do recall the hearse stopping to clear flowers from the windscreen.

Kirschcherries · Yesterday 08:11

@BasiliskStare Thank you for your summaries. I certainly don’t remember them changing Hearst's.

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 08:13

Kirschcherries · Yesterday 08:11

@BasiliskStare Thank you for your summaries. I certainly don’t remember them changing Hearst's.

No, they didn't change hearses. The cameras followed the entire journey. As pp said, the driver stopped at one point to clear the flowers from the windscreen.

Thegirlwhowent · Yesterday 08:15

Pipedreams607 · 22/09/2026 23:44

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!

Edited

If you had worded your question differently you'd have got a different answer. AI told you what you wanted to hear. It's a good idea to challenge any AI assertion. I do and it frequently admits it was wrong or biased. Think of it from a different angle. Maybe ask what did the royals do to preserve the memory of Diana?

noonames · Yesterday 08:39

Thegirlwhowent · Yesterday 08:15

If you had worded your question differently you'd have got a different answer. AI told you what you wanted to hear. It's a good idea to challenge any AI assertion. I do and it frequently admits it was wrong or biased. Think of it from a different angle. Maybe ask what did the royals do to preserve the memory of Diana?

Or better still, that PP could actually have a little think and come up with their own response 🤔

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 08:43

noonames · Yesterday 08:39

Or better still, that PP could actually have a little think and come up with their own response 🤔

Yes, indeed!

bluegreygreen · Yesterday 09:13

Catching up this morning.

Yes, @BasiliskStare and @JustAnotherWhinger - that totally makes sense as a way the hearse story could have happened but again, not what you would expect from a historian with a 'duty to tell the truth'.

@MrsFinkelstein thanks for that snippet.
The Crown.
Even their own historical adviser is on record as saying they make things up depending on the effect they want to create.
Netflix calls it a fictional dramatisation.
I will also not call Charles S an absolute numpty ...

shiningstar2 · Yesterday 09:21

He has lied about Piers Morgan in his book so I have no doubts that what he has said.about KC are also lies. He writes what fits his own agenda and has had to admit that his comments about Piers Morgan are fictitious.

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 09:27

shiningstar2 · Yesterday 09:21

He has lied about Piers Morgan in his book so I have no doubts that what he has said.about KC are also lies. He writes what fits his own agenda and has had to admit that his comments about Piers Morgan are fictitious.

It was also heavily criticised by Wesley Kerr on GMB, who pointed out many other inaccuracies, with evidence.

TypingTootOnMyCommute · Yesterday 09:50

With every snippet I read, I am convinced it is about as self serving and accurate as Spare was.

RepercussionsMayVary · Yesterday 09:57

Predictions on when the media coverage will end - or are we thinking that there will be so many inaccuracies that come to light it will be discussed for years like OW interview and Spare?

Do we think BP slap down on day one did enough for KC3 - or has CS own cockups inadvertently taken the spotlight off KC3?

How do we think W is feeling now?
How do we think H is feeling now?

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 09:58

On the LK interview, Spencer was highly critical of KC using his title in his rebuttal of the book. Spencer said "I have a title but I don't use mine".
Fast forward to his exchange with Piers Morgan; the statement refers to him as "Earl Spencer" twice.
How hypocritical.

RepercussionsMayVary · Yesterday 10:00

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 09:58

On the LK interview, Spencer was highly critical of KC using his title in his rebuttal of the book. Spencer said "I have a title but I don't use mine".
Fast forward to his exchange with Piers Morgan; the statement refers to him as "Earl Spencer" twice.
How hypocritical.

Maybe he should pass on that advice to H&M

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 10:00

RepercussionsMayVary · Yesterday 10:00

Maybe he should pass on that advice to H&M

😂😂😂

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Yesterday 10:02

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 09:58

On the LK interview, Spencer was highly critical of KC using his title in his rebuttal of the book. Spencer said "I have a title but I don't use mine".
Fast forward to his exchange with Piers Morgan; the statement refers to him as "Earl Spencer" twice.
How hypocritical.

He's a real comedy turn, isn't he? 'Ooh, who does he think he is, king or sumfink?'

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 10:03

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · Yesterday 10:02

He's a real comedy turn, isn't he? 'Ooh, who does he think he is, king or sumfink?'

I'm actually finding it really funny! Hubris.

JustAnotherWhinger · Yesterday 10:04

quaintireneofrye · Yesterday 09:58

On the LK interview, Spencer was highly critical of KC using his title in his rebuttal of the book. Spencer said "I have a title but I don't use mine".
Fast forward to his exchange with Piers Morgan; the statement refers to him as "Earl Spencer" twice.
How hypocritical.

That statement also called his sister Princess Diana, which in a swathe of titles she did have over the years that was not one of them.