Does this latest royal family headline show press hypocrisy?

[Constantrunner]

This latest headline exposes the hypocrisy of the press.

I don't think it does.

I just think it is about time we let Diana rest in peace. The number of books and articles, tv programmes etc is enough, we don't need any more.

Agreed. It was nearly 30 years ago and everyone needs to move on. Current events are tacky, tawdry and downright nasty.

What I think is hypocritical is Charles Spencer chastising the press in his BBC interview for apparently hounding Harry and Meghan while at the same time taking money from the Daily Mail for the serialisation and promotion of his grubby book - when the Daily Mail is the very paper that Harry has just had a failed legal battle with for, he alleges, hounding him, hacking his phone and making his wife's life a misery.

All the while, Spencer's grubby book is full of the same king of tabloid hounding of people like King Charles that he accuses the press of doing to Harry and Meghan - in fact, his grubby hounding is far worse.

Whoever created that image at OP is also confused as to what the press is and what a book is. Books are not the press. Moreover, it's entirely right - given that Charles Spencer makes all sorts of incendiary accusations in his book - that he is scrutinised. On top of all that, his book has not yet been published and the only excerpts that have been seen so far by the public are the ones published in the Daily Mail, the newspaper Harry says has caused him “great distress”.

I also don't see any quotations from "the press" alleging that Spencer is "cashing in". The people saying that are members of the general public online.

As long as there is interest in it, the press and publishers will do this. Diana is dead, she is part of our shared history now. The RF in lots of ways deserve more scrutiny anyway. Earl Spencer is a private citizen, we don't pay for him, and anyone can write a book if they want.

Well given that there are about a bazillion threads about the book I’d say interest in Diana is very much alive and kicking.

The threads I've seen seem to be about using the book to give the RF a kicking. I think most people just think let the woman rest in peace and stop trying to make money out of her.

And I think most young people won't give a toss about it at all.

The subject of the thread is hypocrisy. Absolutely an author making allegations should be scrutinised - unless you think we are meant to take everything that's ever published by a private citizen as gospel truth that can never be questioned.

Charles Spencer is a huge hypocrite. He makes some bizarre allegation that he thinks - and only in retrospect does he think so - King Charles sounded "elated" on a phone call discussing arrangments after Diana's death beause her death meant he could now marry another woman, even though Charles and Diana had been separated for several years and divorced for two and there was no impediment to either of them remarrying, especially as Diana herself had had subsequent relationships.

Yet, the truth is that it's Charles Spencer who is the serial adulterer and multiple divorcee, who was dumping his wives and going on to new women even while at least one of his wives had recently given birth. The way he treated his ex-wives is absolutely horrendous. So, he's a huge hypocrite for criticising Charles for being in a relationship with a woman other than the one he married. I wonder if Charles Spencer is projecting his own thoughts about his own marriages and divorces onto King Charles.

What a bizarre suggestion, that only the royals can be scrutinised because they get a small amount of state money when performing state duties, while authors and large landowners such as Charles Spencer - who uses every available trick to avoid tax, thus effectively costing the ordinary taxpayer - are not to be scrutinised.

Everyone who puts out a book and insists "I'm telling the truth" should have that book and his motives scrutinised.

Edit: typo

@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees "And I think most young people won't give a toss about it at all."

Why is that relevant? It doesn't mean that lots of the rest of us aren't interested. Personally I think the RF should be scrutinised a hell of a lot more and I don't think Diana would want to rest in peace either.

The press report on the news. Diana was news and they reported on her (often with her collaboration). Charles Spencer’s book is also news and he / his publishers have arranged for serialisation in a newspaper. Of course his book is more newsworthy than others, partly because he was her brother, but also because of the lurid claims he has made and his personal attacks on our head of state. Exposing the hypocrisy of the man who said he would never profit from his sister is also a story worth telling imo.

I agree. And if her brother wants to tell his version of what happened and give her ex-husband a well-deserved kicking in the process, I can’t say I’m losing any sleep over it. They’re all tawdry, in my opinion, so bring on the mudslinging.

ps - I never understand the ‘let her rest in peace’ comments. It’s a strange argument against a book. Diana isn’t being disturbed by anyone writing about her - she’s dead.

I think the media think that people are more interested in the events of nearly 30 years ago than the people actually are.
I'm quite supportive of the BBC in general but the constant plugging of that bloody interview and snippets on the news is starting to piss me off.

Anyone who read the papers in the summer of 1997 does not need to be told about the hypocrisy of the press.

He's giving Diana a good kicking as well. Some brother. 🤷‍♀️

As usual a rash of threads trying to divert from Harry's cock up - however yes we do know what the press is like with people. Build them up and kick them down. It's bad but even worse when your own relatives do it. Spencer doesn't care what his sisters think about his book so he's not going to care about what his dead sister would have thought.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that, but I’m only on chapter 8. He certainly isn’t giving a sanitised version of Diana, which is very refreshing.

You all guess things but state them as if they are true. You have zero idea what Diana's sisters think

No you are wrong . I read what Spencer said about his sisters thoughts on the matter.

Spencer himself said he never told his sisters that he was writing the book, they never saw it before it was completed and they are probably hurt that he did this. He admits that if they knew they would probably have disagreed with what he was writing and tried to change it. He says didn't tell them so they could disassociate from it once it was published (he obviously wanted to be as controversial as possible in the book) and says it's a brother's view, implying his sisters' view is different.

When asked what his sisters think, Spencer said:

"I think they were hurt that I hadn’t told them, to be honest. I said, “I was going to hurt you either way, because I was either going to tell you and still write it how I wanted it. It wasn’t going to be a committee effort.” I wanted them to be able to put their hand up and say, “Well, we didn’t know he was doing it,” in case there’s backlash or whatever. So they’re totally innocent parties in this. This is very much a brother’s view."

https://people.com/princess-diana-brother-charles-spencer-on-conspiracy-theories-her-neurodivergence-and-more-exclusive-12130540

I do think the bevy of writers of books about the RF are mostly cashing in.ans it's all a bit tacky really.

But they are not betraying their own families to do so.

The royal family are public figures paid for by the taxpayers. Of course they will have articles and books written about them. If the royal family don't want this for the future, they need to wind up the monarchy and become private citizens.

What cock up has he made now?

It's most of you care about. Harry and Meghan, who are private citizens.
The actual royal family doesn't interest most people on this board.

The press will print what sells.

Spencer said in 1998 in the documentary, Diana: My Sister, The Princess:
“Can you imagine anybody making a profit out of their brother or sister’s death? I mean it’s so low it’s inconceivable … I’ll never profit from Diana’s death.”

It's hardly surprising when people feel he's being hypocritical. When that is combined with historical inaccuracies in a book about which used the term 'a duty to tell the truth' in his publicity interviews, people are rightly going to criticise.

Robert Hardman has a good factual review here https://archive.ph/PMWsO

Every single book has some tiny historical inaccuracy. If you knew anything about publishing you would know that.
What you are saying nobody should write or talk about Diana unless it's approved by the royal family. So William and Catherine giving photos of their children's mothers day cards to the Diana to the press is fine. William telling the press Diana was paranoid is fine. But any non royal talking about Diana is forbidden.

Eh? They talk about Diana all the time. There have been countless books and articles about her, for decades. All by non royals.
How have you missed that?