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 wondering now if the unprecedented statement from Charles was actually to protect William and Harry ( to a lesser extent) ?

Why include it though? Or isn't particularly credible and Diana had plenty of other reasons to divorce, although I believe in the end they were ordered to by the Queen.

It's that sort of thing that drags down the book from worthy biography to scandal mongering for me. I really hope that the early parts of the book are good because at the moment it feels like an opportunity wasted.

I am fairly persuaded that William had a hand in the statement

Maybe. I can't believe Diana would approve of this book. She loved her children and had built a good relationship with their father finally. She had her say, why rake it all up 30 years later.

And probably Catherine.

I will probably end up reading the book at some point.

I am dubious about how much is fact and how much is written to make a good story though.

The story of his father and QEII doesn’t remotely fit timing wise.

The latest excerpt says that Diana couldn’t be buried at the royal burial ground Frogmore because she’d lost her HRH. There are several non-HRH’s buried there (probably most famously the Duchess of Windsor). And even if that had been a rule the Queen offering Frogmore means it could have happened. But there are multiple people buried there who were not HRH’s.

In a screaming, escalating, heated row it’s reasonable to assume things were said on both sides that weren’t actually meant to some degree. Then throw in grief & shock.

This

Was it protocol that Diana lost her HRH on divorce?

Such excellent points, @DaisyDooley. Thanks 🙏🏼

if you have an argument , root it in the text

That’s fine for a discussion about fiction, which this book might well be.

But if the book is purporting to discuss historical events, then it’s essential to consider what’s claimed in the book against external evidence.

Agreed, but I think the OP is meaning that any analysis of the book should be based on and around what it actually says, rather than speculation or conjecture, or by referring to things that the book does not refer to. So I think that the OP is well aware that history and context are relevant

I can’t believe you are writing that MrsLeonFarrell

You do know that Charles Spencer was the chief mourner at the funeral?

He had a lot more right to be at the front and centre of everything related to the funeral; much more so than Diana’s ex-husband!

No. It was both a vindicative and petty move on behalf of the RF.

There wasn’t really a protocol before the divorces of the 90s

The Queen issues Letters Patent in the August, so just after Andrew and Sarah’s divorce was finalised, and just before Charles and Diana’s was, stating that any former wife of a son of the monarch, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and the eldest son of the eldest son of the POw (so basically the wives of the same males entitled to automatic HRH Prince titles at the time) would no longer be able to use HRH.

My heart breaks for William dealing with all this

It's just so cruel.

By centreing himself I mean what he is writing is all about him and his reactions rather than being an objective record, which is the way biographies are usually written. I disagree that he was the chief mourner, surely that was William and Harry as her children?

I disagree that he was the chief mourner, surely that was William and Harry as her children?

This.

I can't see Harry being particularly happy with it either. We'll have to wait to see what the rest of the book is like but he does seem to be going with Diana as victim which doesn't really reflect her vibrancy and the impact she had.

Interesting on Newsnight tonight on this subject.

Kemi Badenoch when questioned was reluctant to comment on the Charles v Charles controversy because, as she put it,

“the King is my boss”.

What?

A very, very strange, thing to say!

Rory Stuart once again played the King’s lapdog,

Ailbhe Rea, a very bright journalist, political editor at the New Statesman, was asked how Andy Burnham would react to the dispute and she said that he would know not to upset the palace!

Neil Kinnock was the only one who said it was none of his business.

And we are supposed to believe that the RF doesn’t have any influence over our parliamentarians?

Chief mourner?
Chief money -maker more likely.
No one has made more money out of Diana than her ‘historian’ brother Charles.
He didn’t support her in life by bygod shes (financially)supported him in death.
Nearly thirty years later and he’s STILL selling her to the highest bidder.
Hes trying to bring pain and suffering to the King and to Diana’s sons. I haven’t got much time for the younger son who likes to monetise her himself but for William this is incredibly cruel.
It’s also cruel for Diana’s eldest grandchild Who has started at Eton this past week.
Charles Spencer is really an awful man. Multiple ex wives, abusive, marriages where he cheated over and over, children by every marriage, children that he has no relationship with. I don’t suppose any of his ex wives would be rushing to have tea with him, unlike Diana did with her Ex husband.
He really is in no position to criticise the King.
He could have written a really nice book about his sister with lovely anecdotes about her, a book filled with the essence of Diana - instead he’s taken a huge shit on her memory IMHO.
All for those thirty pieces of silver.
I suppose it’s too much to hope that one of Diana’s sisters will say something against this book.

The royal family are very powerful. No politician is going to take them on.

It gives us an insight into how Diana was behaving and what she was saying.

TypingTootOnMyCommute · Today 21:02

I disagree that he was the chief mourner, surely that was William and Harry as her children?

This.

No the children were minors.

Charles Spencer was chief mourner, even though BP took over all of the funeral arrangements and even denied Diana her pre-described choice of music and that is why CS gave the eulogy and not Prince Charles.