Do you believe Charles Spencer about Charles Windsor's reported remark?

[OneLilacHedgehog]

Do you believe Charles Spencer that Charles Windsor said to him during a phone call "we'll forget her soon enough."

I will gladly quote my source.

‘Frances, The Remarkable Story of Princess Diana’s Mother by Max Riddington and Gavan Nadan.’

… refers to an act of compassion by QE2 by granting Johnnie S special leave to disembark at Tobruk in Libya and fly home to his fiancée during QE2’s tour of the Commonwealth in 1954 when Johnnie served as her equerry.

It goes on to say,

“ there was no particular closeness between the Queen and Frances…

… The bond between Johnnie and the Queen went back much further, however, and was much more relaxed than simply that between monarch and equerry. Prior to her marriage, Princess Elizabeth had written to Johnnie while he was on active service with his regiment during the war. There are too, suggestions that he was at one time considered as a potential suitor.”

I’ve read this in other history books so it’s no particular secret.

He’s been trying. Writing articles, books, social media presence, appearing in magazines, that podcast with Rev Richard Coles and Cat Jarman, another book, promoting Althorp along with countess #3 Karen’s landscaping, another book, and now here we are with a big break finally as the 30th deathiversary approaches and he’s got his best gang bundled together to keep the media game going. Result: Spencer’s back in the limelight.

It’s hard work staying famous.

The mothers of monarchs are never forgotten.

As the monarchy know.

Makes on wonder how "accurate" any of CS's work really is.

If you screw up something as simple as your own father's life, are you really going to be any good at anything else?

Maybe because he is setting the rules of what can be discussed?

If not, then they should be questioning the lies inconsistent remembrances.

I’d really like to have a look at the primary sources for Johnnie Spencer’s life, his relationship with the royal family and his first marriage.

So much of what we ‘know’ is from secondary accounts and hearsay. And now this part-fictional memoir.

That is indeed an excellent point. Republicans who support the aristos . Odd 🤷‍♀️

Charlie Spencer is a cheat and an abuser. He treated his first wife appallingly, having affairs and his children didn't want anything to do with him. Cat Jarman, why the hell did she marry him? The man is a menace.

And the blindingly obvious thing is, that if his dad had married QE11, then he wouldn’t exist let alone be born the heir.

Really hoping someone takes one for the team and buys the book.

And I’m still wtf re M’s swan emoji on her pantry bundles. That kind of passive aggressive, low key, sneaky shit speaks volumes.

Why do people think that if you criticise King Charjes , you must therefore support Charles Spencer? That doesn’t make any sense .
One can condemn King Charles for his adultery and failures as a father without making excuses for Spencer.
In my view both men have behaved appallingly in their personal life and neither gets a free pass simply because I criticise the other one
However, the fact remains that one of these men is the King and should therefore be held to a higher moral standard

Because the RF have this stupid 'never complain never explain' rule, in situations like this, and many others including the claims Harry made in his book, it makes them look guilty because they are not coming out and denying it or counteracting what has been said with another explanation.
Surely if someone had made such awful character smears against Charles, he would feel the need to defend himself and express his innocence in some sort of statement though....because whilst I am not a fan of his whatsoever, for him to be behaving how ES claims he did, is a whole new level of low.

I think it’s at least partly to do with the thread title. People often focus on that, especially where it’s a direct question.

‘Do you believe Charles Spencer about Charles Windsor's reported remark?’

It does seem to lean toward a ‘taking sides’ approach to answering the question.

And no, I don’t believe Charles Spencer about this and other stories he’s currently telling, and actually I doubt his veracity for lots of reasons irrespective of my opinion of Charles R.

What a classic of Whataboutery @Trutherwoke. That tells us nothing but your prejudices.

You do realise that just labelling a person "a historian" does not automatically mean their output is accurate or without bias?

No, and it's a very odd post altogether. Strange claims.

Good point by a journalist on the tv this morning if the book wasn’t for monetary gain perhaps Charles Spencer will donate all the money to Diana’s charities.

Why didn't Kuenssberg challenge him on anything? For example 'with your string of failed relationships including nc dc how would you feel if someone wrote a book about things they think you said 30 yrs ago?'.

It's like listening to Julian Clary with that flat, hissy voice voice why he didn't pay for a voice coach over the years.

He said a couple of times he's a 'historian', no you're a gossipy grabby man and his dead sister would hate his trashy book.

Would “doing everything in your power to make sure there was an accurate record out there” include giving interviews about how nice KC3 was at the time, and then sitting on it and doing nothing for nearly 30 years?

It’s the timing I find hard to believe. He has held on to this for years until his book is published.

Yes the term "historian" is bandied about, as if it gives him credibility. LK was not the most rigorous of interviewers.

Why wait 29 years? If things were as bad as he claims, why didn't he speak up sooner?

Sorry wrong poster

I honestly do not think Charles W ever said that people will forget Diana. After all, she is the mother of the future king.
However, I also think Charles S believes he said it.
My conclusion is, that Charles W possibly had a heated conversation in which the word 'Forget' was said, but meant something entirely different.
eg; that he did not want people to forget her, or something similar.
I also do not think he was 'giddily elated', which is a purely subjective impression Charles S says he had, when talking over the phone.
People often sound different over the phone when you can't see their face.
My own view is that Charles S is deliberately mud raking in order to sell his book.

I believe Charles Spencer. The RF were blindsided by the public outpouring of grief when Diana died and that just adds to my belief that PC thought everyone would just move on after her death. Don’t forget that his lack of respect for her showed on day one of their marriage when he wore Camilla’s cufflinks. Sounding elated, I’m not sure about though.

No self awareness.