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.

IIRC in the book , CS was initially concerned about the evidence Bashir gave him , the false invoices etc. He invited D and Bashir to a meeting at a friend's flat. He then , in the book became more sceptical of Bashir's claims and I think I'm right , he said to Diana "I'm sorry I wasted your time". I would have to go back and check but I think there is some sense of regret he wasn't more forceful about it. She had decided on giving the interview.

It seems a shame as well, if he was having doubts about Bashir, that he didn’t pass this on to anyone else who may have been able to look in to it at the time 🤷‍♀️

I did not expect this thread to get to 10 pages. It has.

I'm happy to start another one if it is about the book or closely related accounts , questions etc. I would also include Piers Morgan's reaction to the book and how that ends up. If anyone is interested just give me a thumbs up reaction sign and if enough interest I'll start one.

If people want to discuss PW's temper, general how does the RF use the press etc - that's fine , but I'm not interested in starting a thread about that.

😊

Said it before but I'm astonished how little digging CS did into these 'invoices.' Both he and Diana had the means to do so, but I get the feeling she wouldn't have done that anyway because they simply confirmed what she already wanted to believe.

Thank you for this thread, @BasiliskStare and for taking the time to read the book. I would be interested to see what happens wrt Piers Morgan and his legal action, but I suspect it might get lost and another thread might be badly derailed. So with this caveat I am in 👍. Sorry for long winded thumbs up 😆

I see MrsDanversGlidesAgain has answered for me but she’s missed out a few things.

Of course the pro-Diana and pro-Harry stance is seen as anti-monarchy and I believe, for good, substantiated reasons. Even more so in Diana’s case. The fall out landed squarely on W and H.

But more than that, I lived in London when Diana did, and I am roughly the same age and, like many, without going in to details, strongly identified with her struggles in many ways.

Also, I knew someone who knew her mother in Scotland, and Diana’s mother, who was characterised as the bolter, without any of the other circumstances being taken in to account, suffered a great deal of misogyny.

My sympathies always lie with the underdog facing powerful, implacable, institutions.

And it worries me that so many support an institution that see individuals as collateral damage. I loathe the way they push out and ostracise those who oppose them and the underhand tactics they use to achieve this, while pretending to be the sole of respectability. They are utterly ruthless.

And now of course Lownie has exposed financial irregularities too. The Windsors have hugely overstepped their mark in this regard. And I simply can’t understand, looking at it logically, why our head of state needs to be shrouded in such secrecy unless they are doing something very wrong?

Not to mention the institution covering up for AMW’s wrongdoings for over a decade.

I used to be a fervent monarchist and I loved a royal wedding. Now though, I can’t look at those things without seeing everything else.

Or confirmed what was already happening to her thanks to the PR campaign, paid for by Charles, to rehabilitate Camilla that smeared Diana in the process.

It obviously didn't help that much as you repeated the mistake - Charles was a porn too - 10 minutes later.

I actually don't mind my SPAG being corrected. Recently it was pointed out to me for that I'd written "Wallace Simpson" instead of "Wallis Simpson", so I was able to correct it.
I'd prefer to have a mistake like that mentioned to me rather than continuing to make the same error.

Great post @Pipedreams607

You have summed up the issues well.
I agree with all you say - apart from being a former monarchist as I was born hating monarchy I think ! Even when being read fairy tales I was thinking ‘wait a minute ….’ lol

I have respect for those who can reflect and change their views based on experience . Kudos to you for that and for the others like you who can see how we have been played .

Thank you, I wouldn’t normally post these …but a quick google….and voilà ….

Thank you very much Ukisgaslit 💐

I think you were a very wise child! 😀

I actually missed out another reason why I’m a Republican and that’s because I think the institution wreaks havoc on the people within it. I don’t envy them at all.

First there is the toxic principle of who inherits and who does not, which as we have seen, can destroy family relationships.

And imagine being heir and it dawning on you as a child that this will be your destiny? Surely that is psychologically cruel?

And I don’t think you can be brought up in that exalted environment and it not have a detrimental effect on your character.

And that is besides all the arguments about this inherited privilege holding us back as a collection of nations.

I could go on… 😀

I think there were some things in the Morton book that were exaggerated but the divorce was very bitter and that is not unusual in those circumstances. Also the balance of power against Diana back then was immense, so if she was going to strike back, she had to land a direct punch as it were.

Diana: Her True Story by Andrew Morton was published in June 1992.

It was not, therefore, really an issue of 'hitting back' during a bitter divorce, given that the divorce proceedings started some time after 20th December 1995, when the Queen formally asked them to divorce.

Nothing to do with my point. Here you are, constantly defending an arch monarchist and royal.

😂😂

Of course. I'm sure Diana would be horrified!
Such a very royal lady.

Yet you support Diana, who was a monarchist and royalist and aristocrat to her fingertips. Strange.

Most people are quite capable of understanding two (or more) things at once.

I think Bashir's behaviour was egregious and am only sorry there was no way found in which he could be brought to account (I know it was looked at by police and CPP).

I also think it is deplorable behaviour for a mother to give an interview where her teen and pre-teen sons will find out personal information live on television at the same time as the rest of the world; and where she has to be persuaded by one son's housemaster to tell him that the interview is even happening.

I don't have any problem in holding both those opinions at the same time.

Why do you support Diana?

The royal couple’s separation was announced in Parliament in December 1992.

The unofficial separation, as we know, had already been in existence a long time, and there had been lots of discussions about the official form that would take.

The Morton book was Diana’s bid to lay that foundation and fight back.

So, here we are. Many posts in; literally no evidence whatsoever that William is permanently incandescent, or even has a slight problem in that regard.
Most peculiar!

It was her bid to remain in the public eye, and remain famous.

Is that difficult to grasp ?

That the treatment of Diana says something about the Windsors that they would prefer to stay hidden ?

Nonsense .

Look at the - ironically- royalist tabloids .
We are told that William is incandescent about this and that.
Why ?

For those interested in the book and closely related things I have started a new thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/theroyalfamily/5582241-charles-spencers-book-diana-swan-song-etc-etc-thread-the-second

I’ll assume that you meant to add Charles to the criticism as he did the same thing and did it first .