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
wordler · 18/09/2026 19:05

foxylady2 · 18/09/2026 19:02

We are in special case uncharted territory here and he loved Diana far more than her royal husband did and he has earned the right to say his piece.

I’m betting he didn’t love her more than William though - who has to experience another person making money off his mother’s memory.

FancyKitten · 18/09/2026 19:05

What stands out to me is not what Prince Charles allegedly said, but that CS hung up on him. I mean, much as he disliked PC, and tensions were high, would you really do that? Sounds rather embellished…

thiswillbedisplayed · 18/09/2026 19:05

I find it interesting how so many are automatically giving KC the benefit of the doubt. I mean this is a guy whose wife was feared him. Is estranged from one of his son, zero contact with his daughter in law. A younger brother who was up to God knows what. And whose favourite civilian seemed to be Jimmy Saville, a guy that many found creepy back in the day, even if not suspecting his actual horrific crimes. All in all an odd choice of person to print on your money.

BunnyBunbunbun · 18/09/2026 19:05

Banjas · 18/09/2026 19:01

I agree.
Daft.
But then I wouldn’t curtsy to anyone.

You don't actually have to curtsey to anyone.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 19:05

Wewinnow · 18/09/2026 19:03

To be fair, the only bits I’ve read so far were about what happened after her death - so I think that helps explain why it doesn’t centre on her experience of the events.

That would be difficult…

foxylady2 · 18/09/2026 19:06

BunnyBunbunbun · 18/09/2026 19:04

Weird that you couldn't care less about Diana's other son losing his mother.

It breaks my heart because it's terrible when any child loses his or her mother young, especially in a stupid accident. The fact that Diana's children walked behind their mother's coffin doesn't particularly break my heart. I went to my mother's funeral (very much as an adult, thankfully) and every single second of it was like a freakish out-of-body experience. There's no right way to bury your mother that isn't horrendous. The whole thing about Harry (apparently Diana had only one son, in the minds of some) walking behind his mother's coffin has been blown out of all proportion. If Harry and William hadn't walked behind their mother's coffin - alongside their father, grandfather and uncle - then something else would have been the issue that those with an agenda would have jumped upon. Probably there would have been some fuss about how William and Harry had been sidelined at their mother's funeral and weren't allowed to honour her publicly. It's all a load of nonsense.

You don't know what I think but I now know what you do.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 19:08

thiswillbedisplayed · 18/09/2026 19:05

I find it interesting how so many are automatically giving KC the benefit of the doubt. I mean this is a guy whose wife was feared him. Is estranged from one of his son, zero contact with his daughter in law. A younger brother who was up to God knows what. And whose favourite civilian seemed to be Jimmy Saville, a guy that many found creepy back in the day, even if not suspecting his actual horrific crimes. All in all an odd choice of person to print on your money.

Edited

This site is very pro Royal tbf

MrsLeonFarrell · 18/09/2026 19:08

foxylady2 · 18/09/2026 19:02

We are in special case uncharted territory here and he loved Diana far more than her royal husband did and he has earned the right to say his piece.

At the time of her death they were estranged and Diana and King Charles had a good relationship as co parents. If Charles S wanted to write from his perspective he can't call it a biography.

MrsLeonFarrell · 18/09/2026 19:11

thiswillbedisplayed · 18/09/2026 19:05

I find it interesting how so many are automatically giving KC the benefit of the doubt. I mean this is a guy whose wife was feared him. Is estranged from one of his son, zero contact with his daughter in law. A younger brother who was up to God knows what. And whose favourite civilian seemed to be Jimmy Saville, a guy that many found creepy back in the day, even if not suspecting his actual horrific crimes. All in all an odd choice of person to print on your money.

Edited

And the biography is written by the brother Diana was estranged from at the time of her death. A man who, from all accounts has behaved badly to multiple wives and whose 3 oldest children don't speak to him. Charles S isn't a great example himself

persephoneee · 18/09/2026 19:11

FWIW my take on it is this -

When Diana died, the Royal Family were shocked of course, but put on their stiff upper lips again, and believed (I think) that as Diana was no longer HRH and divorced from Charles, that it wouldn't impact on the RF that much.

Then the surprise, shock, amazement at the audacity of the unwashed in demanding that the Queen return to London, demanding that flags fly half mast, demanding to see the RF grieve as they were grieving, really irritated them. How dare they! If the people hadn't risen up, the funeral would have been in private I think or very low key at best.

But that wasn't what happened was it? Matters progressed outside their control of and the RF were horrified that their power was not enough. I mean when were the boys going to get to see their mother's family if they were kept in Scotland "to protect them". From what? Normal grieving...

So everything they did was not because they wanted to, but because they had to. Charles may have been sad for his children, but I reckon he didn't give a damn in the long run. But he was forced to. So he said what he is alleged to have said. I believe something like that was said alright when I think about it, and the type of man Charles is.

MrsLeonFarrell · 18/09/2026 19:12

Wewinnow · 18/09/2026 19:03

To be fair, the only bits I’ve read so far were about what happened after her death - so I think that helps explain why it doesn’t centre on her experience of the events.

That's a fair point.

TishToshByGosh · 18/09/2026 19:14

thiswillbedisplayed · 18/09/2026 19:05

I find it interesting how so many are automatically giving KC the benefit of the doubt. I mean this is a guy whose wife was feared him. Is estranged from one of his son, zero contact with his daughter in law. A younger brother who was up to God knows what. And whose favourite civilian seemed to be Jimmy Saville, a guy that many found creepy back in the day, even if not suspecting his actual horrific crimes. All in all an odd choice of person to print on your money.

Edited

Hmm. So many people retrospectively saying they found Savile 'creepy' - I'm afraid that's the wisdom of hindsight. He really was not universally regarded as creepy in the 1990s, he was just another celebrity, liked by some, not by others.

You can guarantee he was always on his best behaviour with Charles. It's unfair to hold the association against Charles now.

HolidayHideaway · 18/09/2026 19:17

TishToshByGosh · 18/09/2026 19:14

Hmm. So many people retrospectively saying they found Savile 'creepy' - I'm afraid that's the wisdom of hindsight. He really was not universally regarded as creepy in the 1990s, he was just another celebrity, liked by some, not by others.

You can guarantee he was always on his best behaviour with Charles. It's unfair to hold the association against Charles now.

Why was a poorly educated, single man like him privy to so much deeply personal info & such a trusted adviser on marriage/affairs of State etc?

Superhansrantowindsor · 18/09/2026 19:17

Nobody knows for certain who is telling the truth but I definitely think keeping the boys in Balmoral as long as possible was a good idea. I had lost someone very, very dear to me just a few days after Diana died. I was so angry with all these people on the news saying they were grieving. No they weren’t. They were upset but they weren’t grieving and it was awful how people were desperate to see two children in public shedding a tear for their mother. Just awful.
My opinion on the book - you’d have to have a heart of absolute stone to be so casual about your children’s mother, as alleged by the earl. Diana’s own friends have apparently said that Diana was on good terms with her ex husband when she died and they had a good co-parenting relationship.
Why has he waited until now to write his book? He needs the money with all his divorces.

BunnyBunbunbun · 18/09/2026 19:17

thiswillbedisplayed · 18/09/2026 19:05

I find it interesting how so many are automatically giving KC the benefit of the doubt. I mean this is a guy whose wife was feared him. Is estranged from one of his son, zero contact with his daughter in law. A younger brother who was up to God knows what. And whose favourite civilian seemed to be Jimmy Saville, a guy that many found creepy back in the day, even if not suspecting his actual horrific crimes. All in all an odd choice of person to print on your money.

Edited

Lol, let's instead believe a man with three ex-wives, none of whom have anything good to say about him, several children who don't talk to him and whose weddings he didn't go to, with three sons-in-law and a grandchild he's probably never even met, and who as far as is known was not even talking to the sister he's trying to present himself as the protector of when she died. King Charles was probably on better terms with Diana when she died than Charles Spencer was.

People are giving King Charles the "benefit of the doubt" because many of us were actually around during the years being discussed and we saw what was happening and none of it corresponds to this version that Charles Spencer is trying to dump on us now. Even Charles Spencer himself has spoken about these events on occasion over the years and his accounts of King Charles then were positive. Now he's suddenly decided to see everything differently.

The things he's saying don't even sound plausible. Charles had been divorced from Diana for two years and separated for several more when Diana died. In what way would Diana's death had freed him to marry Camilla?

As for King Charles's younger son and daughter-in-law, the reality is that they are very much interested in spending time with Charles and now they are back in the UK (they are the ones who left) they will have more opportunity to do so privately. Just don't expect to see cutesy pics of them all together on Meghan's Instagram though.

AgathaDanbury · 18/09/2026 19:19

persephoneee · 18/09/2026 19:11

FWIW my take on it is this -

When Diana died, the Royal Family were shocked of course, but put on their stiff upper lips again, and believed (I think) that as Diana was no longer HRH and divorced from Charles, that it wouldn't impact on the RF that much.

Then the surprise, shock, amazement at the audacity of the unwashed in demanding that the Queen return to London, demanding that flags fly half mast, demanding to see the RF grieve as they were grieving, really irritated them. How dare they! If the people hadn't risen up, the funeral would have been in private I think or very low key at best.

But that wasn't what happened was it? Matters progressed outside their control of and the RF were horrified that their power was not enough. I mean when were the boys going to get to see their mother's family if they were kept in Scotland "to protect them". From what? Normal grieving...

So everything they did was not because they wanted to, but because they had to. Charles may have been sad for his children, but I reckon he didn't give a damn in the long run. But he was forced to. So he said what he is alleged to have said. I believe something like that was said alright when I think about it, and the type of man Charles is.

I mean when were the boys going to get to see their mother's family if they were kept in Scotland "to protect them". From what? Normal grieving...

All the grief tourists enjoying their days out on the mall for one, and the press for another.

Yamyamabroad · 18/09/2026 19:19

Hasn't Charles Spencer given any thought to how his book will affect his nephews - especially as he vowed to protect them? Harry may not be on good terms with the RF at the moment but the signs are there that he wants to be and he actually needs them and the status that gives him. William will inherit a throne that CS is potentially helping to bring down. He only appears to be thinking of himself and the money he can get.

persephoneee · 18/09/2026 19:25

AgathaDanbury · 18/09/2026 19:19

I mean when were the boys going to get to see their mother's family if they were kept in Scotland "to protect them". From what? Normal grieving...

All the grief tourists enjoying their days out on the mall for one, and the press for another.

I'm sure there are back roads to Althorp, which is Northampton anyway and not near the madding crowds in London.

Flufffluff11 · 18/09/2026 19:25

I for one like that Earl Spencer sees prince Charles as a normal human (an irritating brother in law) and is not afraid to stand up to him

TishToshByGosh · 18/09/2026 19:27

HolidayHideaway · 18/09/2026 19:17

Why was a poorly educated, single man like him privy to so much deeply personal info & such a trusted adviser on marriage/affairs of State etc?

Edited

Savile might have left school at 14 but he had an immense IQ - he was in Mensa. Charles was the last person to hold someone's lack of education against them. Diana wasn't much better educated, she left school with 2 O Levels and she didn't have the excuse that she needed to start earning some money for her family.

The choice of Savile, an unmarried man, as marriage counsellor was bizarre, but I believe that was Philip's brilliant idea, not Charles's.

I'm not defending Savile - knowing what we know now, the man wasn't fit to advise anyone on anything - but that's hindsight speaking, not the knowledge Charles would have had at the time.

Flufffluff11 · 18/09/2026 19:27

Have you seen the new article out today.

Earl Spencer said that Prince Charles sounded ' elated, upbeat and excited' after Diana died.

CoffeeCantata · 18/09/2026 19:27

FancyKitten · 18/09/2026 19:05

What stands out to me is not what Prince Charles allegedly said, but that CS hung up on him. I mean, much as he disliked PC, and tensions were high, would you really do that? Sounds rather embellished…

Edited

I just think CS is a horrible man so what he says, for me, has to be filtered through that lens.

But as I said upthread, if he hates Charles so much (which he clearly does) why in earth doesn’t his thought process go like this:

“I don’t like KC and I think he wronged my sister. But he’s got what may be terminal cancer and he has some rotten family problems himself. I think I’ll leave him be - after all, it was over 30;years ago now and I should tea have had this out with him privately, or not at all. Also - stirring up all this now will hurt my nephews so much.”

I think that’s what a decent, mature, well-adjusted person would feel but I don’t think CS is any of those things.

Flufffluff11 · 18/09/2026 19:29

CoffeeCantata · 18/09/2026 19:27

I just think CS is a horrible man so what he says, for me, has to be filtered through that lens.

But as I said upthread, if he hates Charles so much (which he clearly does) why in earth doesn’t his thought process go like this:

“I don’t like KC and I think he wronged my sister. But he’s got what may be terminal cancer and he has some rotten family problems himself. I think I’ll leave him be - after all, it was over 30;years ago now and I should tea have had this out with him privately, or not at all. Also - stirring up all this now will hurt my nephews so much.”

I think that’s what a decent, mature, well-adjusted person would feel but I don’t think CS is any of those things.

Because he loves his sister more than he cares about Prince Charles obviously.

If Diana was my sister, I'd probably write a book about her.

bingobangs · 18/09/2026 19:30

I don’t know much about CS, he sounds like a dreadful husband but then so does CW. He is entitled to write a book about his family.

OutwiththeOutCrowd · 18/09/2026 19:31

I don't think there are any real villains here. I am not sure Prince Charles, as he was then, would necessarily have remembered what he said in a visceral manner in a heated phone call decades ago - although he would know it was not the sort of thing he would come out with under normal circumstances. If he was going to respond at all with a statement, I think he could have sounded more magnanimous. He might have decided to diffuse tension as we are coming up to a year in which Diana will be especially remembered, and some unity would be preferable.

An alternative statement:

'While His Majesty has no recollection of these words, he remembers the week of Princess Diana’s tragic death as a period of overwhelming, unendurable stress for everyone involved. In the white heat of such shared family grief, painful things may have been said that do not reflect His Majesty's true feelings, then or now.'

Of course there may be worse to come which would make an olive branch foolhardy - but I found the original statement rather condescending and 'gaslighty'.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread