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.

"The people's earl" 😂😂 😂

Then your English comprehension grade is a B not an A.

At the risk of being accused of derailing again, GCSE English has changed. It’s no longer heavy on straight comprehension but is about interpretation as I said. This is relevant because posters are insisting on words with a literal meaning being the only ones that carry any weight. Clearly the examination boards disagree. It is a useful skill being able to interpret underlying meaning as well as what is literally being said and leans towards critical thinking. Which is often sadly lacking

I do believe PM about this actually.

The book by Penny Junor that presents a heavily critical view of Princess Diana is about Charles W.

It’s called ‘Charles: Victim or Villain?

It was published in 1998

It basically tried to make out that Diana was unfaithful first (yeah, right) , that she had severe mh issues that were innate and not brought on by the strain of her situation, and it included the story about the harrassing phone calls, which as I said previously, Jephson queried because a police report was circulating about them that went mysteriously missing and the story was timed to wreak maximum damage during the War of the Wales’s.

Junor herself has said she wrote the book with access and background briefings from close friends, relatives, and aides in Prince Charles's inner circle.

And seeing that that is the narrative that still currently prevails about Diana, which emanates largely from the offices of Prince Charles’s, I genuinely think that Charles Spencer has every right to try and correct the narrative a bit with Swan Song.

@simpsonthecat I agree they shouldn’t have denied VG’s claims.

Maybe they have learnt from that as the current statement is more nuanced as it covers the whole book - no need for a further statement.

I think everyone has a right not to comment on private conversations, unless it is in the public interest.

'Public interest' is not the same as the public are interested.

Conversations between CS and KC3 regarding Diana's funeral were private, without any legal or constitutional ramifications. CS can of course say whatever he likes about them, and people can believe him, disbelieve him, or shrug their shoulders and say there's no way of telling.

Equally KC3 can choose to keep private conversations private and not comment. Or make a general response, as he has done.

As has been said, this is an out of date view of GCSE English language. Nuance and interpretation are important these days. A valuable concept

The nuance is in the fact that the statement was a deflection purporting to be a denial but not actually be so.

Whatever you believe, it does prove that CS was very protective of his sister, going to the trouble of ringing around the heads of the tabloids to disinvite them from the funeral.

So much of what the RF does is geared to look good in the press no matter what the collateral damage. Eg they wanted Diana to pretend that all was well in her marriage even though her husband had been in love with someone else when they married and continued to be. And they wanted her to continue that myth in public even after the boys were born with Camilla remaining a secret. How f**ked up is that?

They wanted boys of fifteen and twelve to walk behind their mother’s funeral procession in front of a million spectators there, and 2.5 billion viewers on tv, partly because it wouldn’t be a good look if the then Prince Charles was booed.

Prince Charles paid PR professionals to rehabilitate Camilla’s image who did so partly by trashing Diana in the press.

So I think it was right for Charles Spencer to assert his right to disinvite the journalists whom the RF were and are continually courting.

I’ve nearly finished Swan Song & CS’s account has made me think less of Diana than I did before which I doubt was his intention.

Whilst she clearly had some incredible gifts & did transformative charity work & was a force for good she was clearly unstable. The endless fallings out over real & perceived (mostly) small slights are exhausting & not normal. She wasn’t talking to Elton John at time of death & I think the Raine reconciliation would have gone same way.

Berry’s book interesting here.

Come on folks, it should be obvious that comparing KC3’s statement to GCSE English Language is fine but commenting on the comparison is a derail. If this were the LSBA’s Advanced Certification in Debate Techniques, you’d all fail.

I think everyone has a right not to comment on private conversations, unless it is in the public interest

That would be all well and good if we had an elected heads of state who came without the baggage of a royal family.

But what many people on this board continually fight for is a constitutional hereditary monarch who comes with a family and who appoints his family to carry out work for, and represent, us the people and our collection of countries.

The royal family chooses to include the public in its funerals and weddings. Therefore there is legitimate public interest in what went on behind the scenes. Especially as the tax payer funds these spectacular ceremonies.

The RF can’t have it both ways and only include the public when things are happy and going well and then cover up the controversial aspects. It tries but the system doesn’t work like that.

Thank you for all of the points you make.

It's good for me, and others, to be reminded that 'In the public interest' is not the same as the public being interested.

And yet Diana saw more of some tabloid reporters, including Piers Morgan than close members of her family - by choice.

I have no particular preference on how the head of state is selected, except for a preference for avoiding another Brexit-type situation of major constitutional change.

From what I remember the RF wanted a private funeral for Diana, but had to change due to popular opinion.

It’s also good to be reminded that Diana’s funeral cost around £4 million pounds of largely tax payer’s money.

And the late QE2’s funeral cost £162 million

So yes I do think that constitutes legitimate public interest in the ins and outs of the arrangements.

Especially when the credibility of our head of state is being questioned.

Q.E.D 😂

Because public opinion was in favour of a state funeral for Diana. The original plans was for a private funeral.

I don't think the 'credibility ' of the head of state rests on a private conversation 30 years ago.

They wanted boys of fifteen and twelve to walk behind their mother’s funeral procession

There is independent verification, from Anji Hunter, then Tony Blair's Director of Government Relations, now a Labour Peer, that the RF did not want the boys to walk in the procession.
https://archive.is/QJYvd

Yes of course public opinion necessitated a family funeral, which incidentally proves how famous Diana was back then and how people felt that she had been very ill-used.

But I am responding to people who are arguing that this dispute should have remained a private telephone call between CS and CW.

I am saying that what we have in our constitutional monarch is a heady mix of private and public, both with finances, and how the institution represents us. The royal family is involved in all of it and that is what most posters on this board seem to support.

The RF literally invites the public in to their private lives and ceremonies in the form of weddings and funerals. And requires them to pay for them too!

So you can’t then say people shouldn’t have a legitimate interest in what goes on behind the scenes of these ceremonies, particularly when a major spat between two big players in opposing camps arises.

This is the way the institution and its supporters tries to play it again and again actually and I’m sick of it! Oh it’s apparently intrusive and inappropriate to to publish details about Diana when it suits them! But not if the narrative is the other way around and they are briefing Penny Junor!

We agree?

Not exactly but at least that was an interpretation 😊

it included the story about the harrassing phone calls, which as I said previously, Jephson queried because a police report was circulating about them that went mysteriously missing and the story was timed to wreak maximum damage during the War of the Wales’s

So which of the facts of the case did Jephson object to?
If there was a 'police report' circulating, presumably it was an unauthorised copy, and someone decided to destroy it.

Oliver Hoare was an antique dealer working frequently with people in the Middle East.
He started receiving silent phone calls in 1992, and reported them to the police in 1993.
The calls were traced to Diana's private lines in Kensington Palace, her mobile, her sister's house, and a line used by Charles in KP.
https://archive.is/KeRPp

Her friend confirmed the story after Hoare's death, and described Diana watching the house to see the lights go on.
https://archive.is/S3idt

Sorry, @BasiliskStare, just realising I've been pulled away from the book discussion again.

Will try to do better, I promise.