Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 3

[Viviennemary]

A new thread and book not even published till Tuesday. I checked on Amazon and its only 12th on the non fiction bestseller list. Doesn't show Earl Spencer in a very good light imho.

Only 12th, he might have to chuck in a free jar of Meghan’s soon to expire rank looking spread

Charles was in love with his valet? Well I wasn’t expecting that. 😅

It's going to drag on and on and won't look good for the Charles W at all.

It will look less good for Charles S.

We have only had 2 excerpts so far, not the whole book, yet there are multiple people on both mainstream and social media pointing out several contradictions between what he has said now and what he said previously.

Examples that I have seen used are the CNN Larry King interview, and quotations for biographies for Tina Brown, Andrew Morton and Robert Hardman, all of which have said clearly that Charles R had been pleasant to work with over the funeral arrangements.

Beside this, there is the embarrassing historical inaccuracy of the equerry story.

There is also the ill-judged dismissal of William's distress, simply because he was 2 years older, and taller, so appeared to be holding things together better.

I suspect Charles S may regret the flavour of these initial excerpts. I don't know of the rest of the book will be sufficient to pull things back for him.

To an earlier poster, who wondered about Diana not wearing a seatbelt.
She definitely was NOT wearing a seatbelt.
There are photos of her and Dodi in the car (presumably taken by one of the despised French and Italian paparazzi), and I think taken at one point in the car, and it can be seen that the front passenger (who survived), a security person? provivded by Al Fayed, actually does up his seatbelt as the car increases its speed.
Secondly, Diana was apparently found in the well of the car.
I have read that one of the paparazzi actually took a pic of the dying Diana, which was then sold on to a 'proper' journalist, but he has said, it was something he could not publish. (Even though these were French and Italian paparazzi, and the event happened in Paris, I would like to think that things have changed since then).

Thanks for the new thread.

This is simply revenge for how he feels Diana was treated by Charles and the Royal Family a score being settled very deliberately, and served very cold. And, in essence, it’s decades-old karmic debt finally coming due. You never really saw this with Elizabeth II, because she generally didn’t make enemies in quite the same way. At one level, that’s simply how the world works: how you behave is, eventually, how you get treated.

I think its far more nuanced than that.
It's now clear he is setting up the Sussexes as Diana's "successors" and, perhaps, it's him thats been feeding their delusions?
He only mentions H walking behind the coffin. W was there, too.

I thought Charles Spencer came across very convincingly in his interview on the BBC tonight.

Especially when he spoke about how his eulogy related directly back to the difficult conversation he had had with the then Princes Charles; the emphasis on the word duty, and the boys’ blood family, and how Diana will be remembered forever. It’s all a direct response to Prince Charles. That made a lot of sense.

Also, things are much different thirty years on with the Queen and Prince Philip, and Robert Fellowes deceased, and he is able to say what he actually thought at the time, without causing distress to his godmother.

Also you are misreading the excerpt which refers to the royal train journey after the funeral, bc CS did not dismiss William at all! He said he was equally concerned for both brothers and reiterated that tonight in his conversation with Laura Kuensberg. He said he supports both of Diana’s sons.

What he said in the extract is that Harry drew his attention on the royal train at that moment bc it struck him how alone he was. The inference being that people were paying attention to William.

Later he talks about how Harry was spinning out of control and how he thought a little more careful handling and compassion towards Harry in that moment might have saved him a lot of trauma later on.

As for the valet - if that is what you mean by the equerry story - why is it confined to a particular date? Charles W has had three valets over the years. They are older men now. Presumably if he was in love with one of them, that took place over a period of time?

CS didn’t seem to regret much judging by his interview with LK tonight, although I imagine the DM or Penguin’s marketing department choose the extracts and not him.

He seemed very clear about why he had published this book and I understood his motivations a lot better. He hasn’t spoken in thirty years about the circumstances of Diana’s death and a lot has emerged in the meantime about Martin Bashir etc, and it seems appropriate that he can leave his eyewitness account and his unique perspective on Diana as a historical record so what has been published about her is more balanced. He said this will be his final word on it and as such it’s appropriate the book is called Swan Song.

Great interview, it was perfect. He said he could have stuck the knife in more than he had but he told his story. I was in London on the day of Diana's funeral and will never see anything like that again. Like the fact he has waited 30 years to tell it. The eulogy makes a lot more sense now (anger towards Charles and RF etc)....

Having watched Lord Spencer’s interview with Laura Kuenssberg this evening I was amused to see him claim he supports the monarchy, and that a stable monarchy is the best form of government. And I then practically choked on my dinner when he went on to say his (current) wife is Norwegian, and that he very much admires the Norwegian monarchy!

Yes, that monarchy where the new Queen was a very close associate of Epstein, her son has been convicted of multiple counts of rape, and the King’s sister has had to give up using her royal title as she kept trading on it to promote her interesting views about communicating with angels and her husband’s business as a self-proclaimed Shaman. Excellent judgement you are displaying there, Lord Spencer…

His role is ultimately to defend his own blood from those who would do harm to him or to them for their own reasons and, in doing so, to defend the institution: the Firm.

The Windsors are the most expensive and visible part of the British state, and as such they are inevitably subject to public accountability. And that, in a nutshell, is what this is about.

And I don't particularly care whether I like him as a man obviously, he isn't the most pleasant of people. But as a historian, I do regard his first-hand position as valuable in getting closer to the truth, or at least to the truth as he sees it. That distinction matters: I'm interested in his perspective as a historical witness, not in whether I happen to like him personally.

The Palace, frankly, would have done well to say nothing. Never complain, never explain would have served them far better. Instead, they have thrown petrol on the fire, leaving him feeling that he has little option but to hit back. Every attempt to contain the story seems only to have created another reason for him to speak and the longer it goes on, the harder it becomes for anyone to put the genie back in the bottle.

Also, things are much different thirty years on with the Queen and Prince Philip, and Robert Fellowes deceased, and he is able to say what he actually thought at the time, without causing distress to his godmother.

Equally, this conveniently means that anyone who could deny his accounts is dead….

Just about to watch - here it is for anybody who missed it.

i dont think he came across convincingly.
He seemed to have forgotten what he had written.

The fact he stated about Diana not being able to be buried at Frogmore because she had lost her HRH is also incorrect.

The inaccuracies in things that are easily check do make it more difficult to put faith in the things that are things he said imo.

Give that man an Oscar !

He thinks about her every day and welling up at the end

why didn’t she ask him where the money is going from the sales - somewhere in memory of his beloved sister ? I think not

He’s a piece of work

I also got annoyed when he got tearful when asked about whether he missed his sister. Given he hadn’t seen her for months before her death, and had written her a letter stating: "After years of neglect on both sides our relationship is the weakest I have with any of my sisters... perhaps you have more time to notice that we seldom speak. I long ago accepted that I was a peripheral part of your life, and that no longer saddens me. Indeed, it is easier for me and my family to be in that position as I view the consternation and hurt your fickle friendship has caused so many." - this seemed more than a little self-serving.

Agree with this.

I think it’s time to scrap the monarchy. The constitutional aspect was the only angle that justified it but it’s become such a shit show that a different imperfect system can’t be worse than this.

None of this will end well for H&M or Spencer. What on earth Dr Cat Jarman is doing mixed up with this shower of truth-averse crackpots is anyone’s guess.

Gosh. A little impertinent for a stranger to assume that they know better what Charles Spencer’s emotions should be towards his late sister than he does!

Frankly, if you have had a troubled relationship with a close family member then you are less likely to have “resolved” your grief, as much as one ever can, decades later, than if your relationship was untroubled.

Gosh. A little impertinent for a stranger to assume that they know better what Charles Spencer’s emotions should be towards his late sister than he does!

Like Charles Spencer assuming he knows better than Charles Windsor about his emotions towards the untimely death of his ex-wife, you mean?

Charied W is the King. He has more to lose than Charles S

This