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.

'Admire Earl Spencer taking on the establishment'. Is that an order from you? Please don't tell me who I should admire.

You hear of people giggling at funerals etc. It is a reflex not that they actually think it is funny. Charles went with Diana’s sisters to collect her body.

Did the then Prince Charles really say "Rest assured, we will forget Diana soon enough"? Sounds more like something Charles Spencer's imagination created.

Earl Spencer has said that Prince Charles sounded "like a lottery winner" after Diana died.

The papers certainly a grand job of turning the attention away from themselves.

They came down on the Friday and the funeral was the Saturday. The children couldn’t have come down any later really.

I don’t think the anger for the French paps went away did it? People were angry they took photos of her dying., rightfully so.

Do you believe Earl Spencer? He only seems to have remembered all this 30 years later. It almost contradicts the things he's said in the past.

Never mind the he said, she said, who said what.

Looking at the bigger picture - I think that this book is going to be damaging for the monarchy. Earl Spencer is not afraid of them

I'm not dismissing it because it's uncomfortable for Charles. I'm finding it hard to believe that Charles responded to the death of Diana, the mother of his children "like a lottery winner". I'm finding it hard to believe that Charles reacted in the way Charles S is alleging. I'm sure there were some really emotional and difficult conversations but the way Charles S is choosing to speak of them doesn't really line up with what we saw and read at the time. It's the callousness that I find unbelievable.

Grief clouds the memory and 30 years of time won't make anything any clearer. I'm surprised that Charles S, a noted historian, has produced this. Maybe the earlier years will be different.

I am not a monarchist but no way is KC some kind of sociopath who would sound like a lottery winner in a conversation with a man who’d just lost his sister.

Yes I believe him. By many accounts, Charles was cruel to and didn't love Diana. It's not far fetched to assume that he was also cruel to her after she died?

I had to laugh at a pp saying that CS was a money grabbing so and so, when KC managed to smooth over the fact that he received a few million in cash from a Qatari Prince in a couple of Fortnum and Mason bags. You could not make this up.

That money was for charity though, of course. No way could it be transferred by international money transfer either, couldn't have a money trail now could we.

Dubious goings on at best, and all the other stuff about Savile, Peter Ball, et al makes me sceptical, which is a sensible thing, until the truth is copperfastened.

Never a denial, never an explanation, often a derisory chunk of gaslighting from RF though when the chips are down.

That's nice.

I think he waited until his brother in law died who was secretary to the queen, before speaking out.

I’m also no conspiracy theorist but there’s something iffy about the timing of this and the return of Harry .

Charles did not like Diana. That was obvious. A man said that he met Diana and told Prince Charles that he met her. Charles said to him in reply 'and you survived meeting her, did you'.

By many other accounts, Charles was also jealous of Diana. He was the Royal, yet Diana always got more attention from the public.

Diana dying also let him be free to marry Camilla.

He benefitted from her death. It's not far fetched to think that he was happy.

It makes him look bad though

A pox on both their houses.

Can believe Prince Charles said all that stuff. But Charles Spenser is just out for a pay-day. Remember he wouldn’t give Diana a place to live on the family estate when she asked.

No time for either of them.

Really, do we think he has that much loyalty to a brother of one of his ex wives?

I don’t know that it will be.

I think it could have been. It absolutely could have been.

But in the three excerpts released so far two have incorrect facts/made up bits/exaggerations (his father being warned off QEII and the Frogmore burial issue) and that will make a lot of people wonder what else is incorrect/made up/exaggerated.

Had he made sure that everything that could be easily fact checked was accurate then the bits that can’t be would be more easily believed and he could have caused mega grief for his former brother in law.

But there is no way we can really know that. For the most part, we only ever see the side of his nature that he chooses to show the world, along with the occasional intemperate outburst. The very nature of their upbringing and the emotional coldness of their childhoods must have created characters so profoundly strange and unlike our own that they are almost impossible for ordinary people to comprehend.

Charles Spencer’s blistering confidence—backed by a 15th-century family tree—is exactly why he has the guts to look the Royal Family squarely in the eye. You can totally understand his anger, too; he genuinely feels Diana was just used and spat out by the royal machine.

But supreme confidence can't override basic human biology. This argument happened during a week of intense grief, trauma, and zero sleep, meaning he simply cannot be sure he heard it right. King Charles was likely making a cynical, exhausted point about the fickle public, meaning "they'll forget her soon enough". Supreme confidence doesn't mean he heard or remembered it correctly, words said during an argument are often misinterpreted, misheard or misunderstood.

Fair

@Ferriswheel101I do think he could have said it referring to the public but he would deny that too.

I think this will be an important book in history and will turn the public against the monarch again

Charles Spencer didn't know whether Prince Charles was giddily elated. He didn't know whether CW was giddily elated then, or now, and nor does anyone else. He has cunningly said that Charles Windsor sounded giddily elated, knowing what every newspaper and TV station knows - that if you suggest something to a set of people there will be plenty of them who are not analytical enough to see how they are being manipulated. That way little shit-heaps cause suggestions and opinions to become rooted as absolute truth in the minds of some for ever.

I don’t think it will, the sycophants wont entertain it & the majority are indifferent.