Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 2

1000 replies

Viviennemary · 18/09/2026 14:17

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
IAmATorturedPoet · Yesterday 01:33

OneLilacHedgehog · Yesterday 01:28

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

You’re right? No,
You’re a joker? Yes 😂

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 01:37

IAmATorturedPoet · Yesterday 01:33

You’re right? No,
You’re a joker? Yes 😂

I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker
I sure don't want to hurt no one

😁

IAmATorturedPoet · Yesterday 01:38

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 01:37

I'm a joker
I'm a smoker
I'm a midnight toker
I sure don't want to hurt no one

😁

Great song 🎵

jeffgoldblum · Yesterday 01:40

IAmATorturedPoet · Yesterday 01:38

Great song 🎵

for you!!!
Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Some call me the gangster of love
Some people call me Maurice
Cause I speak of the pompitous of love

Roxring · Yesterday 01:43

Wonder if Oprah is knocking on his door for a sit down interview !

AnnoyedAsAllHeck · Yesterday 02:04

Flufffluff11 · 19/09/2026 20:45

If they didnt wear one, I can't understand why they didn't wear one.

Would any of us not wear a seat belt on a high speed road going into a tunnel?

Not sure why they didn't. Just know they didn't, according to the rescuers. Of course, who knows if they are totally truthful. One article said she was actually on the floor of the vehicle when rescuers arrived. Others have said differently.

I think that people get complacent and think they are safe, especially in the backseat.

OneLilacHedgehog · Yesterday 02:21

The royals often don't wear seatbelts. A photo of Elizabeth was published in the papers after Diana's death of her 8n a car without a seatbelt.

AnnoyedAsAllHeck · Yesterday 02:47

OneLilacHedgehog · 19/09/2026 23:31

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

Their car hit a wall. It clipped another car when entering the tunnel but that had nothing to do with the fatal accident.

No one but Henri Paul caused the accident. Diana died because of the severity of the accident and her not wearing a seatbelt, though I am not convinced it would have saved her.

AnnoyedAsAllHeck · Yesterday 02:52

OneLilacHedgehog · 19/09/2026 22:36

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.

Nothing in the statement has anything to do with calling someone crazy. Not a clue how you are pulling that conclusion out of the air.

A bit of projecting, perhaps?

P.S. Crazy with grief has NOTHING to do with being crazy! LOL!

AnnoyedAsAllHeck · Yesterday 03:01

Roxring · 19/09/2026 19:30

There is a really old interview with Charles Spencer, where he is asked about his relationship with Harry and William, the article points out that neither William or Harry attend Spencer family events , he answered he doesn’t see William much but regularly sees Harry, they were probably 19 and 21 at that time.

I guess it’s no coincidence that both Harry and Charles are the two who have exploited and profited from Diana’s death.

That is very interesting. I think that others have tried to profit but those are the only family members, ones who are supposed to let her RIP, that have actively exploited and profited from her death.

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 07:28

AnnoyedAsAllHeck · Yesterday 02:47

Their car hit a wall. It clipped another car when entering the tunnel but that had nothing to do with the fatal accident.

No one but Henri Paul caused the accident. Diana died because of the severity of the accident and her not wearing a seatbelt, though I am not convinced it would have saved her.

I’d put the blame on Dodi for pulling Paul out of the Ritz bar when he was off duty and had (quite reasonably) been drinking. Paul was employed by the Fayeds so would have found it hard to refuse. I’m sure Dodi wouldn’t have taken no for an answer.

Martin Bashir had suggested to Diana that royal security was spying on her, causing her to ditch it and put herself in the care of the Fayeds. He also contributed to her paranoia about the RF wanting her gone. Evil man.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Henri Paul.

MrsLeonFarrell · Yesterday 07:39

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 07:28

I’d put the blame on Dodi for pulling Paul out of the Ritz bar when he was off duty and had (quite reasonably) been drinking. Paul was employed by the Fayeds so would have found it hard to refuse. I’m sure Dodi wouldn’t have taken no for an answer.

Martin Bashir had suggested to Diana that royal security was spying on her, causing her to ditch it and put herself in the care of the Fayeds. He also contributed to her paranoia about the RF wanting her gone. Evil man.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Henri Paul.

As with many accidents, the tragedy comes as a result of many, often small, errors. It all added up to the crash but many made decisions that contributed.

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 07:45

MrsLeonFarrell · Yesterday 07:39

As with many accidents, the tragedy comes as a result of many, often small, errors. It all added up to the crash but many made decisions that contributed.

Yes, and who knows? They might have made it back to safety if Dodi hadn’t urged Paul to race the paps, or if they’d worn seatbelts.

It was a deadly combination of factors.

Mondaytuesdayhappydays · Yesterday 07:45

BunnyBunbunbun · 18/09/2026 19:05

You don't actually have to curtsey to anyone.

Of course not ! Do not have to do anything of the kind
I’m not actually anti-RF but would never debase myself that way with another adult - bowing and scraping
The same as titles Sir/Baroness etc eww- I would not use them apart from those that are earned such as Reverend or Doctor.

MrsLeonFarrell · Yesterday 07:46

Not sure where to put this comment amongst the many threads.

I am finding it interesting that the poll about who to believe is 67% Charles R and 33% Charles S, but the poll asking if Charles R should abdicate is 90% against abdication.

Having read lots of comments in lots of places in the last few days it seems that the 30 year gap means that even if someone is inclined to think Charles S is being totally accurate in his recollections, the time that has passed means perspectives have changed.

Maybe it's because most people have experience of the distorting affects of grief and how memory changes over time? Maybe it's because Charles R is proving to be a pretty good King. Maybe it's because Charles S hasn't exactly behaved well in the intervening years? Maybe it's all that and many other things. Whatever factors are involved if Charles S was hoping to heap public disapproval on the King with his book I don't see that happening. The public narrative and reaction is layered and complex, like real life.

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 07:57

@MrsLeonFarrell

i think that’s an excellent summary.

I would suggest that when the sensational dust has settled and people reflect a bit more calmly opinion will be more critical of Spencer, especially in the light of his highly dubious moral character.

Hoarding these grudges for so long, only to lob a hand grenade at a terminally ill man with no care for the impact on his nephews is not a good or magnanimous look.

Maybe KC behaved badly at times but all this should have been dealt with between the decades ago.

I have zero respect for Spencer.

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 07:58

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 07:28

I’d put the blame on Dodi for pulling Paul out of the Ritz bar when he was off duty and had (quite reasonably) been drinking. Paul was employed by the Fayeds so would have found it hard to refuse. I’m sure Dodi wouldn’t have taken no for an answer.

Martin Bashir had suggested to Diana that royal security was spying on her, causing her to ditch it and put herself in the care of the Fayeds. He also contributed to her paranoia about the RF wanting her gone. Evil man.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Henri Paul.

Diana was spied on . Every move was logged - this was explained as normal palace security .Which it was.

But this normal monitoring was weaponised against her - leaks to newspapers etc about who she was seeing

Others in the same building would have similar security but no leaks .

Look at Andrew and Epstein and the victims of trafficking that we now know were brought into palaces . Was that splashed all over the papers to smear Andrew? No.

She was not paranoid . She was right .
Was Diana friends with Kanga?

So chilling that Diana wrote to her solicitor before she died fearing she would be incapacitated in a car accident .

She didnt think they’d kill her - that would be counter productive as we have seen as a result of her real car accident .

Didn’t Ingrid Stewart, the royal biographer, write that when Elizabeth was told of Diana’s car accident she said ‘ they must greased the brakes’ ! Bloody odd thing to say .

Margaret said ‘that’s that sorted then’

foxylady2 · Yesterday 08:02

Richard Kay has come out and confirmed CS view. Here is part of the article which is on Mail+

https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16142015/RICHARD-KAY-Earl-Spencer-Diana-death-row-Charles-memoir-book.html

He and I spoke several times during that frightful week between Diana’s death and her funeral. He wanted to know about Dodi Fayed, who died with her in the crash. What kind of man was he, he asked? Was he good to her and did I think she loved him?
I couldn’t answer about love, though I did say that as this was the only relationship since her marriage to be acknowledged it must mean something. He asked if they might have married. I told him that I thought they really might. Wisely Spencer was doubtful and left Dodi out of his oration (I, too, later concluded Diana would not have married him).
I said Dodi and I had spoken a couple of times the previous week when the two were still away on their last Mediterranean cruise. He rang me on Diana’s mobile phone calling me ‘Ricardo’, the nickname she had given me so people overhearing wouldn’t know who she was speaking to.
I recall telling Spencer that he seemed straightforward, easy-going and uncomplicated, and that appealed to Diana.
He told me about the thousands of letters that had come by the sackload from all over the world. Then, pointedly and without further explanation, he said everyone he had been dealing with over the funeral – courtiers, officials, Downing Street – had been helpful, with one exception.
Who, I asked? ‘Prince Charles,’ came the reply.

He said they’d had a ‘furious row’. It was ‘about the boys’, but he was reluctant to go further. Cuttingly he added: ‘He has been utterly pathetic.’
We touched on the events since the tragedy a few days earlier. The atmosphere on London’s streets, packed with mourning bystanders wanting to pay their respects, was febrile.
There was anger at the perceived coldness of the royals sequestered on their Scottish estate.
Much of it was directed at Prince Charles. Spencer told me he found the royal's wish to walk behind his ex-wife’s coffin weird, and it alarmed both courtiers and the police. There was talk that the crowd might shout abuse at the prince or even hurl objects.

Amid the drama of that week – at one stage the prince was reported to have told his family, when they questioned why he proposed to bring Diana’s body home in a royal flight, ‘Would you rather it was a Harrods van?’ – the prince was viewed as both villain and victim.
Looking back through notes I made at that time, family members initially told me they hoped the funeral would be a small one. Someone had gone through Diana’s address book at Kensington Palace. There were only 40 or so names in it. But as she once told me, they were the people ‘she really loved'.
It was the extraordinary scenes of thousands lining the route from RAF Northolt, where Diana’s coffin had been flown to from Paris, into central London that changed everything.
Charles Spencer’s oration, in which he made his famous pledge to ensure that Diana’s ‘blood family’ would do all it could to ensure William and Harry were ‘not simply immersed by duty and tradition, but can sing openly’, as his sister planned, was the last act of the Spencer/Windsor wars.
But Harry, who has sought desperately to cloak himself in his mother’s legacy as an outsider and disruptor, has revived the conflict. He feels he has been undermined and traduced by the Royal Family, just as his mother felt.
Harry’s return to these shores, demanding an apology for the way he feels he and Meghan were treated before they fled to California, is something of a replay, particularly in the way he has intensified those Spencer blood ties.
Diana always used to tell me how thrilled she was to be a Spencer. When she lost her HRH title on divorce, although hurt, she remained upbeat. ‘I shall always have a title, the one I got from my own family,’ she told me. This was Lady Diana Spencer, or Lady Di, as she was universally known.
Poignantly, Spencer reveals how, hours after his funeral address, the Queen – whose face, rigidly composed, did not flicker a sign of emotion as he spoke a few feet from her that September day in 1997 – offered, incredibly, to restore her Royal Highness style.
Was this the Queen, so outwardly impassive and reserved, finally acknowledging the mega-watt star power of the princess? Or was it her way of accepting that the royals had treated Diana shoddily?
Of his remarks she offered no criticism, telling Robert Fellowes that as Spencer – her own godson – was speaking as Diana’s brother, he was entitled to say whatever he felt fit.
For his part, Spencer viewed the HRH gesture as well-meaning but hollow and turned it down. Despite her bravado, I knew Diana felt its removal deeply and believed it had been done out of spite.

One consequence, the book relates, was an encounter with Princess Michael of Kent, her neighbour at Kensington Palace whom she despised. The imperious Marie-Christine told her: ‘Don’t worry Diana – you only need to curtsy to me when we are in public!’
Harry, whose wife was said to bridle at having to curtsy to Kate, would surely identify with his mother’s dismay as he embraces his Spencer heritage.
In his California absence, the admiration and respect for the other figure in this saga, Prince William, has deepened and blossomed. However much Harry may hate it, William and Kate are the true inheritors of Diana’s popularity and of her sense of duty.
As her little brother, Charles Spencer sees his duty is to correct some of the many calumnies Diana’s fame brought on his family. Among them that her childhood was unhappy. Despite the sadness of their parents’ divorce, he writes of their blissful early years in Park House on the Sandringham estate, so much homelier than Althorp where they moved when Diana was a teenager.

A young Charles Spencer looks adoringly at his big sister Diana in 1967
And he vehemently defends his father over claims he was an abusive husband who struck his wife. Untrue, says Spencer.
In challenging the narrative of his sister’s early life he risks putting himself at odds with Diana’s own version of events. That came in her collaboration with Andrew Morton in Diana: Her True Story – and the author has the princess on tape.
On the royal marriage, Spencer captures both its bleak aridness but also its intimacy. Diana’s account to her brother of learning how her husband was bullied as a child by his father is deeply affecting. (She always insisted to me that there were times when the two were properly ‘in love’.)
Above all, his book tries to reveal the Diana he knew, a vibrant beauty but often troubled. He offers a diagnosis – ADHD – and suggests that as part of that condition she suffered from Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria (as does he). This, he says, ‘is an intense emotional pain in the face of others’ rejection or criticism’.
It is heartbreakingly sad to read these words and how, as he claims, Diana drove herself on more than one occasion to Beachy Head, the towering East Sussex cliff, and contemplated ending it all. ‘Her love for her sons stopped her going further.’
Back in 2002 Charles Spencer gave an interview in which he said it was time to draw a line under ‘being the man who made a speech at his sister’s funeral’.
Almost 25 years later, with a sensational and controversial flourish, he finally has.
Earlier I suggested this was the history Spencer always wanted to write. I believe it’s also the book Diana would have wanted him to write.

RICHARD KAY: Why Earl Spencer's damning memoir rings so true to me

They last met at London's Tate Gallery on July 1 - Princess Diana's 36th birthday. It was unexpected.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16142015/RICHARD-KAY-Earl-Spencer-Diana-death-row-Charles-memoir-book.html

CoffeeCantata · Yesterday 08:03

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 07:58

Diana was spied on . Every move was logged - this was explained as normal palace security .Which it was.

But this normal monitoring was weaponised against her - leaks to newspapers etc about who she was seeing

Others in the same building would have similar security but no leaks .

Look at Andrew and Epstein and the victims of trafficking that we now know were brought into palaces . Was that splashed all over the papers to smear Andrew? No.

She was not paranoid . She was right .
Was Diana friends with Kanga?

So chilling that Diana wrote to her solicitor before she died fearing she would be incapacitated in a car accident .

She didnt think they’d kill her - that would be counter productive as we have seen as a result of her real car accident .

Didn’t Ingrid Stewart, the royal biographer, write that when Elizabeth was told of Diana’s car accident she said ‘ they must greased the brakes’ ! Bloody odd thing to say .

Margaret said ‘that’s that sorted then’

Where are you getting this stuff from?

Youtube?

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 08:03

@CoffeeCantata

His nephews are middle aged men for gods sake.

If he had written this a few years after it happened I’d agree with you .
He waited 30 years . He showed remarkable restraint

Oh and Charles PR - if you are reading this your smearing campaign is weak and obvious . Everyone who criticises is ‘mentally ill / of bad character / drunk.
As if those 3 terms don’t sum up the Windsors .

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 08:04

@CoffeeCantata

Is this news to you ?

It’s from the investigation into her death.
Look it up yourself .

foxylady2 · Yesterday 08:05

Charles’s has never visited Diana's grave, never once.

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 08:05

@CoffeeCantata

I’m assuming you are familiar with the Mishcon note?

You should be if you are giving your opinion on this .

myrtleWilson · Yesterday 08:11

foxylady2 · Yesterday 08:05

Charles’s has never visited Diana's grave, never once.

I’ve never visited my grandparents graves, nor the places where I scattered my mother’s ashes, nor my sister’s ashes - what point are you trying to make?

smilesy · Yesterday 08:18

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 07:58

Diana was spied on . Every move was logged - this was explained as normal palace security .Which it was.

But this normal monitoring was weaponised against her - leaks to newspapers etc about who she was seeing

Others in the same building would have similar security but no leaks .

Look at Andrew and Epstein and the victims of trafficking that we now know were brought into palaces . Was that splashed all over the papers to smear Andrew? No.

She was not paranoid . She was right .
Was Diana friends with Kanga?

So chilling that Diana wrote to her solicitor before she died fearing she would be incapacitated in a car accident .

She didnt think they’d kill her - that would be counter productive as we have seen as a result of her real car accident .

Didn’t Ingrid Stewart, the royal biographer, write that when Elizabeth was told of Diana’s car accident she said ‘ they must greased the brakes’ ! Bloody odd thing to say .

Margaret said ‘that’s that sorted then’

Wasn’t most of this in the falsified documents that Martin Bashir gave her? How would it have been in the Palace’s interest to off Diana in some way? Her star was definitely waning at the time she died. Why upset the status quo? The RF are good at playing the long game. They have been doing it for a thousand years or so

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.