(I posted this on a separate thread, but copying and pasting here as well...)
Love this sketch, and I do feel the second half of it is relevant here:
Diana's death was bloody awful for the royal family whichever way you look at it.
She'd been criticised for a long time that past year by the press for all sorts of things, been called a bad mother, you name it. When she died, the press (in their guilt) instantly u-turned by plastering that "queen of hearts" stuff all over the front pages and pointing fingers at Buckingham Palace in order to divert attention away from their own abhorrent behaviour, knowing of course that the palace could not retaliate. Diana would forever be remembered as a young, beautiful, saintly, wronged, tragic figure. If she'd lived, aged, made mistakes, shown herself as human and fallible, public opinion today would be quite different I'm sure.
People also seem to have retconned her as hating the monarchy, which is nonsense. She was a monarchist, and had a very close and affectionate relationship with Prince Philip in particular, whom she called "Dearest Pa". Frankly it makes no sense for Prince Charles or any of the rest of the family to be glad when she died. She and Charles were on very good terms by 1997 and were successfully coparenting. Charles would certainly have needed the Queen's consent to marry Camilla, but Diana's death didn't really change the likelihood of that. If anything, it probably set it back a few years because it would have been seen as insensitive to marry too soon afterwards.
Most important, though, the absolute devastation it brought the two young boys to lose their mother - look, you don't have to like Charlie. Plenty of people don't. But he's not a psychopath... he, like anyone else, would have done absolutely anything to spare his sons that kind of pain.
"Giddy" like he'd "won the lottery"? Oh do bugger off you horrid little man.
*Adding to the above - his insinuations about his father's romantic connecting with the Queen are clearly fabricated because the timelines simply do not add up, so we know he's capable of sensationalist lying elsewhere in this same book. He knows what will generate headlines, simple as that.
Charles Spencer has a history of being really quite cruel. His adult children have disowned him. Years after telling the world that his sister needs to be left to rest in peace, he releases a book to exploit her death just a little more for his own financial gain.
I understand a lot of people don't like the King. But please use your critical thinking skills here. A person's dislike of Charles and/or the monarchy doesn't automatically turn Earl Spencer into a stand up, trustworthy, kind man by default. He's an exploitative liar and a bully. I'm amazed anyone is taking this book seriously.