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."

One of those things, you don't think about it, then something happens. Jane was married at 21 when Diana was 17 and their lives diverged, so she may not have had the complete picture.
Overall, an avoidable tragedy that night.

His word against the King, hard to prove either way. What I have had experience of though, is that things are said in the midst of grief and shock that get misconstrued and cause damage. I have relatives who have never spoken since the death of a loved one when the wrong thing was said, from the outside pretty innocuous. However, these two people never had much time for each other and I think that is the root of this. Spenser and Charles resented each other before Diana's death. Neither come out of it well, squabbling in public over something so tragic

Exactly. If he was intelligent he'd know exactly how hurtful this public gossiping would be for his 'blood relative' William whom he went on and on about protecting. Ah but the money was just too tempting, sorry William forget that ridiculous speech, all bets are off!

Thick and nasty. I wonder if he has any friends?

If you write what is potentially going to be a best seller, then your literary agent will make the best deal possible to get it serialised in a prominent newspaper or on-line media outlet. That is absolutely standard marketing practice. Charles Spencer won’t have had much choice over where the book was serialised, it would have all been arranged by his publisher and agent.

Yes, I think those points are fair. Whatever you think of Charles W, he certainly looked upset and shaken when he met Diana's coffin at the airport, and devastated at the funeral.
To be as happy and elated as a lottery winner over the violent and tragic death of the mother of your children?
Unlikely.

Oh I'm sure he'd have known it would be serialised in the Mail. Bit of tabloid gossip with unsubstantiated claims suits them when they're the ones spouting it.

But what does make you think he's intelligent though?

Course he said it. Charles has always been a bitter petulant twerp.

He was always horribly jealous of Diana’s popularity. He’d have been delighted she died, paving the way for more attention and freedom to date Camilla.

No.

But probable 80% of eulogies have some reference to "never forgetting them"... That is kind of what the eulogy is....

I think something was said in the context of the public/tabloid hysterical grief. The Royal family where both surprised and shocked about this so a remark along the lines of this being forgotten about soon wouldn't be surprising. I don't believe he meant Diana as a person would be forgotten, she was the mother of his children, the future King and he was fully aware of her popularity.

Obviously he did, it’s a deliberate marketing strategy.

We've probably had some experience of deaths where dc and exes are involved even if not directly and no matter how troublesome exes can be I don't know anyone giddy with excitement over it. Everyone always knows the kids have lost a parent and that is the concern. I believe it obviously would have been with KC.

Surely KC would know that she wouldn’t be forgotten because of her own popularity and the two boys she left.

We have never forgotten his ‘whatever love is’ comment…

Yes. I think Charles in bad tempered, self-centred and rash with his words when in private.

Actually Charles and Diana were on very good terms at the time of her death. They were friendly and successfully coparenting and both had moved on.

Her death was shocking and it left his children motherless. Do you think he wanted that?
Do you think he wanted her turned into a saint and the RF have a huge dip in popularity?
This was at a time when the couple had reached a rapprochement, and would have tea together at KP. It's noteworthy that she was estranged from her brother (and mother) at the time of her death.
CW would have been happy for her to move away and remarry, no doubt, but a terrible violent end?
Not unless he's an absolute psychopath.

Yes, if he’d referenced it in his eulogy he’d be using that to back up his claim now.

Sort of cross post, but yes. She did say they'd reached a companionable relationship, and were both keen for things to be better between them for all concerned.

Somethinggg · Today 09:38

Daygloboo · Today 09:30
Oh give over

But what does make you think he's intelligent though?

Charles Spencer was a journalist before he became an author and he writes well as it happens; as demonstrated by his famous eulogy which I believe appears on the course books of some universities now as one of the best speeches ever written.

Before that he studied modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford University.

His publications are as follows:

Memoirs & Family History

• Swan Song: Diana, My Sister (2026): A deeply personal and intimate portrait of growing up with his sister, Princess Diana, and a candid account of her tragic passing.
• A Very Private School: A Memoir (2024): A poignant firsthand account exploring the culture of cruelty and long-lasting trauma he experienced at a British boarding school during his childhood.
• The Spencer Family (1999): A detailed history chronicling the lineage and legacy of the Spencer family over several centuries.
• Althorp: The Story of an English House (1998): A historical guide to his family’s ancestral home, Althorp House.

Historical Non-Fiction

• The Rabbit Hole Book (2024): Written alongside Richard Coles and Cat Jarman, this companion book to their hit history podcast explores eccentric facts, lost tales, and bizarre historical objects.
• The White Ship: Conquest, Anarchy and the Wrecking of Henry I’s Dream (2021): A narrative history focusing on the devastating 1120 shipwreck of the White Ship, which drowned the heir to the English throne and sparked a bloody civil war.
• To Catch a King: Charles II's Great Escape (2017): The thrilling true story of Charles II's six-week evasion of Parliamentarian forces following his defeat at the Battle of Worcester.
• Killers of the King: The Men Who Dared to Execute Charles I (2014): A gripping account of the men who signed the death warrant of King Charles I and the brutal retribution they faced after the monarchy was restored.
• Blenheim: Battle for Europe (2004): A historical analysis of the pivotal 1704 Battle of Blenheim and how it shaped the course of European history.
• Prince Rupert: The Last Cavalier (2002): A biography of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, a prominent Royalist commander during the English Civil War.

No, he said "whatever in love means", although I agree, it's a strange thing to say!

I believe he would have said something sooner if it was true. I don't know..😕

Earl Spencer is banking on the fact that KC cannot say more to the public than the statement he's already made .

KC may have made the remarks but can ES not see how the fact that he's made these accusations will affect William and Harry so terribly , he's thoughtless and selfish .

So? What is the point of that? It's all on Wiki- anyone can find it.

His books are mainly published because of his links to Royalty and his own family tree and contacts. They are very niche books which will only appeal to academics.

Writing well (have you read the books?) doesn't mean anything.

I'm sure Spencer believes that what he is saying is true. However, that doesn't mean it is. Feelings can run high when someone dies, and different people can have widely differing memories of the same conversation.

Memories can also become distorted over time. We think that we replay memories, but the reality is that we reconstruct them. Every time we recall a memory, it changes a little. Unless he recorded the call or wrote down the conversation immediately after putting the phone down, it is unlikely Spencer's recollection is accurate after all this time.

I think Spencer is telling us his truth. I don't know if it is objectively true but, on balance, I think it probably is not.