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.

His recent statement, "the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory." I.e. Charles Spencer is saying I said those things because he was crazy with grief.
It's part of the palace playbook to call detractors crazy.

The inquest actually decided Diana was unlawfully killed

Where does that say he is crazy? It doesn’t even imply that he is. It says grief has clouded his reason. Which means he is temporarily unable to think straight. Which can happen to all of us in moments of high emotion How on Earth have you interpreted that as implying he is crazy?

You are correct. I was unfortunately quoting a previous poster who said it was an accident. But it says she was unlawfully killed due to the fact that Henri Paul was drunk and therefore negligent. So not by spooks

The flaunting herself stuff was negative pr from the palace. How dare this widowed woman date and wear a bikini. It was incredibly misogynistic pr.

She wasn't widowed.

Meant to add, her death was still the outcome of an accident though. In that although Paul was negligent, he didn’t deliberately crash the car

The car Diana was in was hit by another car. The driver was drunk and Diana was not wearing a seatbelt. And they were being chased by paparazzi. They were the elements

The official verdict also says due to paparazzi chasing them.

Don't know where widowed came from! Obviously should have said divorced

You challenged other posters to explain Dimbleby’s remark, in a “well why would Dimbleby say that then?” way, when you yourself think he’s not to be trusted. It seems very odd to ask that question of others when your own opinion is that his claims are not trustworthy. Do you have reservations about any other sources you have quoted on the thread?

Yes. So an accident. As in not deliberate

He didn’t say crazy, so you’ve got that wrong. You have also misinterpreted the statement.

Do you see words that aren’t there and misinterpret statements in your day to day work in the field of criminal law?

Yet again, as you can't seem to grasp what I'm saying

I have already written - that none of us can know for sure what was said and what happened by anyone. How can we possibly.

It would be like in real life, if Mary came to me in the office and said 'Jim said this to me'. I have no way of proving it.

All we can do is look at what was said and what was written, and discuss it.

Cloud reason, affect judgement and colour reason i.e. he was not able to think, make judgements, or understand what was happening.
That basically means someone is crazy.

He is not saying that.
He is saying that grief can affect (ie cloud) these things, and he is right.
He is not saying that CS was unable to think, unable to make any judgements or unable to understand what was happening.
You need to read it again.

Affect judgement and reason. He is saying quite clearly that Charles Spencer was unable to comprehend things that were being said, and that he could not judge things correctly or reason correctly.
He is also saying by implication that he, Charles Windsor, could think and reason and judge clearly because he was not affected by grief.

You’ll argue black is white, as has been evident from your posts on other threads on the RF board.

I stand by what I’ve said, the statement doesn’t say CS is crazy, as you stated it did, and that you have misinterpreted his words.

Asked and answered.

And honestly it's a typical snidy palace statement. Because he is quite clearly saying you think I said that, but you couldn't really tell what was happening or think at all clearly, or reason. You were crazy with grief.
But it's all wrapped up in such snidy mean language that others have argued the king is saying he didn't say that, when the king clearly does not deny saying what he said.

Saying someone is so grief stricken that their reasoning and judgement is wrong, is NOT the same as saying, no I didn't say what Charles Spencer said I said. But the king just hopes that we don't notice that.

The kings statement actually convinced me he did say what he has been accused of. Because this is what the palace does. If something is not true and they put out a statement, they say clearly this is not true. There is no room for interpretation.

But if an accusation is true, the palace either put out an opaque statement like this where they don't actually deny the accusation, but hope you don't notice it. Or they take the technical route of saying something like the king did not say X on the 19th of August at nindrie house i.e. he did say it, but the accuser has a few details wrong about the exact date and/or location.

Following this modus operandi it's pretty easy to see which accusations are clearly true. And it is clear the king did say about Diana. We'll forget her soon enough

Your comment is logical and based on actually reading and understanding the statement, however you can’t argue with someone who has already made up their mind and is determined to retrofit everything to suit their narrative.

Cloud judgement and reason means unable to think clearly or make decisions.
Colouring reason means a person's thinking, and how they see and rationalise the world around them is distorted. It is a fancy way of saying crazy.

No it doesn’t.

Can you tell me what it means then using different words from those used in the statement?

I admit I am smiling at the fact you are denying reality.

No ! , perhaps you should do some reading.

I’ve already explained.

This is what you put:

Cloud reason, affect judgement and colour reason i.e. he was not able to think, make judgements, or understand what was happening.
That basically means someone is crazy^

That is not what ‘cloud’ and ‘colour’ mean and, as we have already ascertained, the word crazy was not in there when you previously stated it was.

You need to read it again, maybe get someone to go through it with you? 🤷‍♀️
I certainly can’t be arsed😁

No you simply repeated the words in the statement. You said I was wrong and that it means to cloud judgement. Simply repeating the words used in a statement is not explaining what it means.

But it's fine. I get that you know I am right but that you feel unable to admit it. I understand