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.

Can you link? This has been going on for hours and you have literally provided no evidence.
None.

Surely it is the one thing that we can all agree on that none of them should go blabbing to the media?

Diana evidently judged that in order to hold on to the boys and have decent custody arrangements, the interview was something that needed to happen, despite the initial hurt it caused to William in particular.

I don’t think that was an unreasonable conclusion to reach having been shown “proof” that the intelligence services had been gathering information on her? She obviously thought this information was going to be used against her in the divorce settlement?

Jephson who was with her for eight years has clearly stated how Diana’s first concern was her sons and their future happiness and so I think it’s a bit shoddy to characterise her as a bad parent when she is dead.

There are definite echoes of Diana’s mother here being characterised as the unreliable “bolter” when in fact she was facing alleged domestic abuse, public shame, and establishment opposition when she left and probably jumped in to the arms of another man for those reasons. She needed the protection in that day and age.

Diana was the Princess of Wales, and a true monarchist. I'm not blinded by that. I criticise them all.

Are you saying that what we are told by the tabloids is….evidence 🤔

When I mean to include something, it will be in the post or added in a subsequent post.

You will not need to assume.

Because gossip and drama make money.

Not one tabloid is pro monarchy.

They are pro selling advertising. And t individual reporters are pro raising their own profiles to be able to do TV appearances and sell books.

The reason they may feel pro monarchy to you is that the algorithms show that Royal stories are huge click bait draws and it’s easier a lot if the time to generate more popular stories with lots of clicks by hyping up the drama.

They are quite happy to throw even the most popular royals under the bus if it’s getting the views - the where’s Kate drama for example.

Christopher Anderson’s book on W and K mentions the ‘bellowing tantrums which leave Charles shaken’

This is also mentioned in Robert Lacey’s book ‘battle of brothers’
There are others no doubt but you can google for yourself if you are genuinely interested .

Thats two books in a 5 sec google
You can google the tabloids yourself @quaintireneofrye

I’ve no interest in tabloids in fact it’s only on this section that tabloids are mentioned - but I’m sure you are right .

Can I? I prefer not to take evidence from tabloids, but you do you.
Reas the thread. The Robert Lacey except actually made us feel sorry for William, and shocked at Diana. He was only 13.
So. No evidence of him being permanently incandescent. Nada. Zip.

Got it
Charles did it first but that’s fine
When Diana did it, it was ‘cruel’

Why do you hate her so much? It’s so odd!

Yes obviously she should have scuttled away with her tail between her legs saying nothing about Camilla and allowing all the blame, via “friends of Charles” to be placed on her.

The RF were of course relying on her to conform and go quietly. That is why she had been picked as as suitable candidate for Charles’s wife in the first place. So she wouldn’t make a fuss.

And I honestly think this was one of the reasons that the public reaction to her death was so overwhelming; it was because she had the bravery to speak out despite all of the problems it caused her and it leading, eventually, to her death. I think the ordinary person in the street respected that decision and saw the basic injustice of the position that she had been placed in. And how the royal family treated her, despite her doing her charity work fantastically well in such difficult circumstances.

If you think I said that, feel free to quote the post where I did so.

Otherwise, again, please do not assume.

I don't hate her. I don't hate anyone.
I question royalty though.
I would never be obsequious. It's fine for the ultra royalist posters on here - it's an opinion, fine. I reject the Saint Diana of Kensington trope. That's all.
Whenever I dare to question her I get attacked..
"Why do you hate her" when I have shown no hate.

But it has been said umpteen times that it is very probable that William loses his temper on some occasions. As we all do. I can bellow with the best of them. That doesn’t make me permanently incandescent. Nor does it William. In fact isn’t it one of those authors you have quoted above who continues on to say that William has never raised his voice to Catherine or the children? Someone else quoted that on this thread I think. Also, since when has losing one’s temper and shouting made one aggressive? This isn’t the same thing

Why not address the question though bluegreygreen?

Why don’t you criticise Charles for doing exactly the same thing?

Do you ?

There are others no doubt but you can google for yourself if you are genuinely interested .

"no doubt"
So, you don't know and you're guessing.

Yep... tumbleweed....

Just a reminder - for those who want to discuss the book and matters closely related to the book - I've started a new thread as we are on page 10.

Thanks!

Do I what?

I'm looking at the tabloids. They have never stated William is incandescent with rage. Only people I've seen saying that are paid Sussex stans.

Cite your sources.

Fair enough, I suppose we all come at this from different angles?

You might at least give her credit for very much not being obsequious to the royals? 😀

No one is saying she was a saint except those who want to knock her down.

The St Diana trope wasn’t believed by anyone of sound mind at the time, maybe with the exception of some of those people who sleep all night on the mall to catch a glimpse of a carriage whizzing past, but most people clocked that she was someone with flaws who found herself in a very difficult position, with the whole world watching, from a very young age.

She didn’t need to do the interview to stay famous. She was already one of the most famous women in the world and she was seeking protection.

@jeffgoldblum When did William hit his father on the head, repeatedly, in front of cameras??

Did they mean when he was a literal baby?
Or when he affectionately tickled his cheek in the Coronation rehearsal?

How did I miss him hitting Charles repeatedly, on TV???