Earl Spencer says Prince Charles was excited and giddy after Diana died.

[Flufffluff11]

News articles today have released a new snippet from Earl Spencer's book.

Earl Spencer says Prince Charles was 'excited, elated and giddy' after Diana died.

What are your thoughts on this comment?

Well. We know the cloth that Harry is cut from now, don’t we

It's not evidence, just his interpretation of how someone sounded under incredible stress. It seems to fit his narrative.

OP you are carefully ignoring the posters who have told you that Charles (the King) and Diana were getting on very well when she died. It is documented that they were co-parenting the boys well and often had tea together. On the other hand Diana hadn't spoken to her brother, her sisters or her mother for some time. Prince William said several years ago that his mother should be allowed to rest in peace and her death should not be monetised. His uncle obviously doesn't think that applies to him.

The Althorpe story is only a partial truth. Diana asked for a specific property on the estate which was not available and would be difficult for security. He offered other houses on the estate which Diana rejected.

Charles pushed for the part state funeral recognising that the mother of the future king should be honoured. They had to use part of the Queen Mother's plan because there wasn't one in place for Diana. I think it was the Spencers who wanted a more private funeral. Not sure the crazy public would have been happy with that!

It'll be Harry's turn next.

Poor woman, let her rest in peace?

Like everything, Accounts definitely vary on 'Charles and Diana were getting on well when she died' as I've read other things that said that they were not.

.

Princess Anne married Tim Laurence in a Church of Scotland church, not a Church of England church.

Sigh.

First of all read the thread and that will help you. I was replying to a poster.

Second of all, you've got the first two words of my sentence the wrong way round.

I wrote ' it is' - not ' is it. '

I wrote- 'it was never alleged anywhere that he ever showed elation in front of his children. '

Please try to read the thread before you post. Otherwise it wastes everyone's time.

But the poster you were quoting originally never said anything about him showing the emotion in front of the children. The PP was talking about him feeling the emotion, not displaying it. So everyone is bickering about what was an entirely irrelevant post anyway.

Yes the poster did, scroll back.

I wonder which of Diana’s beloved good causes will be benefiting from the proceeds of the book?

oh wait……

Apologies. I misread.

I’ve read it. The poster said he’d have to be a monster to feel that emotion in the situation where he’d just had to tell his children that their mother was dead, she said nothing about whether he did or didn’t display the emotion in front of the children. You were the one who brought that up.

Ok thank you

Recollections may vary

We don’t need recollections, we can just go back and read what was actually written.

Charles Spencer is a pig. A shameless money grabbing philandering hypocritical pig. He exploited his sister after her death by flogging tickets to the Althorp museum. He is doing the same thing now by writing a spiteful unsubstantiated account of his version of events designed to rake in money after his last divorce. Nasty piece of work who doesnt care about who he is hurting...his nephew William who has to suffer yet more pain because of yet another tawdry tell all book.

It was a joke. Which you didn't get.

I did 🙄. It just wasn’t funny.
Of course, whether something is funny or not is entirely subjective. As is whether someone sounds ‘giddy’ or ‘elated’. Someone else may have thought he sounded distressed, or stressed.
And someone else might have found your joke funny 😉

I'm laughing at that one. If you 'can go back and read what was actually written' you'll see the post that I replied to didnt mention anything about telling the children that their mother died. Another poster wrote that

But that makes no sense - her death particularly in such a dramatic and violent way was the worst thing that could have happened to Charles.

He was just getting to a point where Diana was clearly moving on with new men - Camilla was quietly rehabilitating her image, the public had stopped mostly taking sides.

Diana living, remarrying, maybe having another child, aging, co-parenting the future King etc etc

All of that would have made Charles’ life much easier.

Her death turned him into the villain in the eyes of many, and it meant the chance of marrying Camilla and having her accepted had to be delayed by another decade.

He knew that Diana’s early death was not a good thing for the royal family - there’s no way he would be elated.

No it's your posts that's not funny. Youre very serious!

Even the other poster admitted that she read it wrong and apologised.

So why are you butting in?

Move on

Im not trying to be funny? Im trying to have a discussion, on a discussion forum. Wild, I know!
I thought you welcomed peoples opinions?

Yes but stop butting into a conversation that was nothing to do with you, and after the other poster has already apologised to me for reading it wrong. You're dragging on something that was already over. Move on

Princess Margaret could have married Peter Townsend but I believe she would have had to give up being a princess. She made a choice. I was a small girl at the time and I remember people talking about it and a picture of her on the front of the paper, looking very sad.

Yes, she would have had to give up her royal status.

If she had posted on MN 'I am 23 years old. I want to marry a divorced man 16 years older than me who has two children' what advice would she have been given?

The previous divorcee before Margaret and Peter Townsend was considered unsuitable for very good reasons additional to her divorced status.