Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 2

[Viviennemary]

Buckingham Palace have said they won't be commenting further on the book. But I expect plenty of others will be and it's not even published yet so I started this second thread. I really liked Diana and thought she got treated shabbily by Charles. But really writing a book of gripes 30 years later is not on imho. I noticed on the news Harry declined to comment on it. Sensible decision for once.

I watched a vid of that recently, having seen it brought up ad nauseam on here.

My reaction: was that it? I thought he’d kicked the table over and stormed out, the way it’s discussed on MN.

And he’d lost his mother the day before!

What a compassionate lot you are on MN.

William and Harry in interviews plus Diana's friends who said she was still in love with him and would have taken him back

This whole issue is unresolvable because if you are a Diana worshipper and hate KC, you’ll believe Earl Spencer is telling it how it was.

If you roll your eyes at the sanctification of a very flawed woman and feel the situation is more nuanced, you’ll be more sceptical - and particularly if you’ve followed the very dodgy romantic career of Spencer over the last 30+ years!

Pick a side, basically!😂

Would this book have seen the light of day had Robert Fellowes still been alive I wonder? He’d have been able to confirm both Spencer and the Windsor sides, having a foot in both ‘sides’ so to speak.

You only have to read the account from the American woman who employed Diana as a nanny, before she became engaged to Prince Charles, to know that is not true.

Also, Patrick Jephson, who worked with her for seven or eight years as her private secretary and travelled with her to five continents, in pretty difficult circumstances, described her as;

“extraordinarily observant, intuitive, organized, and quick-witted, taking her role as a humanitarian and national ambassador very seriously”

https://www.thepworld.com/discover_article/patrick-jephson-on-princess-diana-and-her-enduring-legacy

Diana had mh issues, no one is denying that, but her problems largely arose as a result of her unhappy marriage, her very public betrayal by her husband, and latterly the very isolated situation she found herself in.

@Pipedreams607

And I’d add, her dysfunctional childhood. Her mother left the family when she was small and her maternal grandmother opposed her mother having contact with the 4 children.

Neither she nor Charles (PoW) were without their emotional baggage.

@CoffeeCantata did you actually read my post? It was the reaction of everyone else that I found more interesting then KCs actual reaction. Why does that mean I lack compassion?! Some of us aren’t interested in picking sides but you do you.

How many times does it have to be said on these threads that that is totally incorrect.
Here is The Times apology for printing an untrue story on this.

Now you will label me as a "fan" no doubt.
No, but you are spreading lies. Facts are facts. Read the statement . And now you're saying he's alcoholic 😮

Diana definitely wasn’t a saint, nobody is. But public betrayal like that is incredibly tough even if you have a dysfunctional childhood.

@simpsonthecat I didn’t know that & was wondering if his book would gloss over his “refusal”.

The Palace, under the late Queen, made the classic "recollections may vary" statement regarding Harry. They don't need to make endless statements basically saying the same thing.

As with Harry's book, Charles Spencer's book is only going to raise more questions about the credibility of its author.

One point I’d like to make is that Diana in her interview, said she went to her sisters and said she told her sisters, she wanted to pull out of the wedding and they told her it was too late, but in his book CS says she went to her father who says it was too late. Are they both true I wonder? Did she tell the RF?

How much better for all concerned if the marriage had not happened.

Maybe it’s not a compassionate observation in the circumstances, but the pp is right about pen gate. Yes Charles was obviously under great strain at the time, but the way everyone seamlessly jumped around him to calm him down, spoke to a pattern.

He also knew he was being televised on a formal occasion with officials in the room and still said out loud, “Oh god I hate this! Every stinking time”

Which makes you wonder what he is regularly saying in private?

And he can be seen in countless carriage shots or snippets of video on other occasions talking to Camilla in a way that appears he is deeply irritated or angry.

I was more inclined to take ES claim with a pinch of salt but the fact the palace responded so quickly with no attempts to smooth things over (unlike the response to racism allegations) makes me believe it more.

I've also read that she told her grandmother. I agree that she would probably have been happier married to someone else. But then we would have missed all the good she did. I think William got a lot of good from Diana as well. Life is never straight forward is it.

And there are letters where he "offers" her the Garden House and then writes again and takes the offer back. I'll believe the letters written by Spencer over anything else.

But feel free to do you boo!

She was also just so young.

If Harry’s Nazi uniform episode was a youthful mistake during his ‘wild’ years, he was older than Diana was when she became engaged to Charles.

True! The good deeds that she did were done because she had access that few had. Her charitable works were so special and I doubt if many other women would have been that compassionate and caring.

Yet, so many people were hurt during the marriage and the aftermath, that it's hard to not regret it also,

CS has literally written "looking back now" to indicate that all this is his latest reassessment of those events in the past, almost 3 decades ago. He is also talking about how he thinks King Charles felt felt "looking back now" 30 years on just by judging by the tone of his voice during an emotional phone call. They weren't even in a meeting, Charles Spencer couldn't even see King Charles' face. Whereas you are taking notes in meetings where everyone takes notes. I doubt Charles Spencer was taking notes in that phone call. If he was saying to King Charles "hold on a minute" each time he wanted to write something down, perhaps that's why King Charles got a bit flustered? Perhaps Spencer missed something King Charles said while he was busy scribbling down the previous thing and hence misunderstood what King Charles was saying?

As for Charles Spencer's credibility as a man, a husband, a father and a brother, check out what his ex-wives said about him in their divorce cases about his adultery and general all-round horrendous behaviour - all of which he disputes by smearing the exes as junkies and the suchlike. Consider the fact some of his children appear estranged from him (he has seven children with three ex-wives, he's now on wife number 4), and the disgusting letters he wrote to Diana when she was at her lowest (he even wrote to her that was manipulative and this was due to her eating disorder).

And yeah, I'm going to question the credibility of a man who was fooled by fake bank accounts into introducing his sister to Martin Bashir.

Sort of. Throughout history they've had the occasional reboot when the previous version had outlived its usefulness, been deposed, killed, or acquired an inconvenient surname during wartime. Whereas the Spencers have enjoyed many centuries of uninterrupted toffery and, at least in the great abolition debates, some of them could even claim rather more liberal credentials on slavery than members of the Royal Family. So perhaps the Spencers really are the more consistently aristocratic institution after all.

It’s not hard to imagine that, taken as a whole, the substance of what Charles Spencer is asserting is a fairly good approximation of the truth. He’s now doubling down on it in interview after interview, and, unlike the rather shifty Prince Andrew, he doesn’t appear to display that same evasive demeanour. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree and let’s not forget the Queen’s reported £12 million settlement in an attempt to suppress the truth. It’s all out there now, as opposed to being quietly buried. The Windsors don’t have a monopoly on the truth, and perhaps that’s what makes this whole affair so uncomfortable for them.

Oh and in the carriage outside Westminster Abbey of his £100 million Coronation .Charles and Camilla arrived at Westminster Abbey in the Diamond Jubilee State Coach. They were delayed outside because Prince William and his family were running late. A lip-reader reported that Charles was visibly irritated and said:

“We can never be on time.”

And that’s bad of him because?

In my book, that’s a positive thing. I hate unpunctuality - it’s disrespectful, so good for KC.

H is just a prat!

It shows and intemperate nature which along with other occasional outbursts adds up to an angry, impatient person.