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.

@BunnyBunbunbun will maybe one day his daughter will bring out her book and then we can all rake over his behaviour. But still doesn't mean he is telling the truth.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
Had CS meant that comment in his eulogy as a veiled dig at what KC had said.
He would have used it to try and back up his current claims?

He doesn't need to back them up. He is clearly telling the truth.

If people suggest you are lying about something, it’s always handy if you can have something to back up your claims.

It would be interesting to get Diana’s sisters’ views/take on things.
But they have been so discreet.
It must have been particularly difficult for Jane Fellowes as her late husband, Robert was Private Secretary to the Queen between 1990 and 1999.
Diana and Charles separated in 1992 but relations were obviously bad before they actually separated.

Whatever was said and I doubt it has been quoted verbatim Charles Spencer is trashing Diana’s legacy - her son is the future of the Monarchy and he is trying to destroy it

Me thinks Charles Spencer with his big estate was also jealous of Diana -he bagged the estate and she bagged the kingdom - nothing he is doing now helps her sons or protects them
he’s another hypocrite 👏

( he also comes across as quite vengeful and spiteful )

I agree, and there are 3 ex wives in the wings, no doubt with watertight NDA’s as part of their divorce settlements, who probably have a lot to say about his own treatment of his wives and families.

@Lockupyourbiscuits

The Windsors are destroying themselves
They are the ones who covered up for Andrew and deliberately misled the public

They are the ones who clubbed together to help Andrew avoid court .

They are the ones whose greed is being exposed on an almost daily basis - and when it’s exposed they think throwing back 1% will satisfy the public

They are finished

They are a cold bunch for sure.

That's why they didn't like Diana. She was every thing they were not. Empathetic, kind, good at connecting

. I also like that Charles Spencer and King Charles are from a similar background and a similar time and can really stand up to each other.

I also like that they mirror many universal themes. Which is that in laws often don't get on, especially after divorces. And then what happens, after a death, is that often the two sides still fight and argue

My parents were divorced for a long time. When my dad died, it wasn't his death that hurt me . It was the awfulness of my mothers family and my fathers family still hating each other. And of course both sides usually blame the other side. And see their own person as perfect.

My uncle on my dad's side used the time after my dad's death to say to me how awful my mother was and that my dad had been perfect. if I ever pointed out a few things that my dad had done wrong, my uncle didn't want to hear it. It was awful and stressful. I felt stuck in the middle between two warring sides.

In a way, this argument between Earl Spencer and king Charles is actually helping me to process the awful time after my own dad died. I see it's not just my family who are like that

Opinion and rumours and gossip are not facts .

Do you think Richard Kay heard this from Charles Spencer in the first place? Or did he have other sources who might potentially be prepared to speak publicly now that so much time has elapsed?

After 30 years, Earl Spencer writes another book condemning King Charles, which makes me wonder why, given his own appalling track record as a husband and a father.

Most eulogies have a reference to keeping the memory of the deceased alive though. I don't think that in itself is evidence.

Probably one source no doubt but now David Dimbledy has weighed in and his opinion is pretty much unimpeachable and his brother is a close friend of the King so he won't have said that lightly.

Now Mr Dimbleby - who spent decades covering royal events - has suggested the Palace does not have fond memories of the late Princess - almost 30 years on from her death.
He told BBC Radio 4 Today: 'Diana was the prime example of someone who didn't act like the rest of the Royal Family - she was fresh, new and exciting to the public and they really adored her.
'And that was deeply resented in the palace. And still is. And this kind of tit for tat over who said what, and only two people know what was actually said just reignites all that.'

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16144103/David-Dimbleby-King-Charles-row-Earl-Spencer-royal.html

Well, yes, especially as he has put out that little nugget about how the late Queen was “in love” with his father. Which would mean that in another life, he would be heir to the throne 🙄. It would seem that he was very jealous indeed

I don't know. If someone married my 19 year old sister, while being in love with another woman, I'd still be annoyed.

KC ruined Diana's entire life and took all of her best years

Not really.

My point is that if CS is saying Charles was a terrible husband who I’ll-treated his wife (ex-wife), that is like Fergie’s calling someone else a greedy spendthrift!

CS was so unbelievably nasty and cruel, especially to his first wife, Victoria Lockwood, and particularly when she was very ill, that if he’s criticising Charles for being a bad husband…well, frankly that’s incredibly hypocritical, coming from him.

Yes, D was his sister. Yes, Charles was the PoW, but otherwise he’s just accusing him of what he’d done himself to a much greater extent.

Do you know anything about C Spencer? The criticism is beyond ironic, coming from a man who has been such a terrible husband himself.

I think this is relevant.

Well quite! Very well put.

I disagree really that someone has to have been a perfect person themselves, in order to criticise others.

One doesn't equal the other
And as far as I can see what CS has done is not exactly the same as what PC has done.

CS didnt marry a 19 year old as a business transaction while being in a relationship with an older woman. This led to Diana being in the public eye and being hounded

They've survived worse than this.

I don’t anyone said you have to be perfect, but it does seem hypocritical to criticise someone else for the exact same thing that you do

I agree. In the end, is this really an appropriate way to memorialise his sister?

I think some people will find it sensational for a while, especially those who dislike the monarchy, but I’d put money on it being viewed differently in time when the dust has settled.

I think in the final reckoning CS will be condemned for using his sister as an excuse to settle old scores - it’s really tasteless and nasty. Lots of people groaned when they heard he was even writing a book simply because they think D should be allowed to rest in peace now - it was seen as a tacky way of exploiting her anniversary for money.

But now we know the tone and nature of the book I think it makes him look very bad indeed.

If I were a grubby tabloid journo, I’d be digging the dirt on Spencer too - and boy, there’s plenty of it!

I think time will judge Spencer more harshly than the first reactions we’re hearing now.

Are you aware of the role the Spencer family played in that?