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.

I think as PPs have pointed out in their rather sneery "look at all the monarchists coming up with explanations for KC3's behaviour" type posts, people are reluctant to accuse CS of simply lying. But that of course is another possibility.

The timeline doesn’t match at all

CS literally says that while he was an equerry his father was warned off by Mountbatten as he wanted her to marry Philip, but his father wasn’t an equerry until 1950. After her marriage.

No non-fiction books would never get published if the publisher wanted certainty on every interaction involving living people!

(If that were the case, how did Harry get away with saying he was on his own at Eton when the Queen Mother died, when a simply google would have shown he was ski-ing with his father and brother. Do the Publisher fact-check or not? The evidence suggests not…)

Given that another thread was set up as “Do you believe Spencer” with a straight yes or no vote, and with the majority (66%) not believing him, that is indeed a possibility 😆

Indeed. Some posters seem very happy to present CS's account of KC3's words as fact, when there is no apparent corroboration of those words (perhaps graduates from the Spencer School of Historical Scholarship). If it then becomes who do you believe, it turns out theirs is the minority opinion because most believe KC3. And before anyone tries - yes, but hardly surprising when this board is full of raging monarchists - someone already thought of that and posted the same poll in AIBU. Again, the majority believe KC3.

I don’t think a report of Charles saying

‘we will forget her soon enough’

about Diana would be published without some thorough checking and corroboration
More importantly Charles would have denied it clearly and not issued his word salad smear attempt

The royals do not hesitate to simply say someone was lying.

They released a formal statement saying Virginia Guifree was lying without any recourse to the law .
Simply an attempt to silence her .

Yet they were lying weren’t they ? They had known about Andrew up to his neck with Epstein for decades.

I just don’t see the point of this. Somebody who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt died in a car crash, 30 years ago. Why is a book even needed?

Whether he said it or not <and I'm obviously in the he didn't camp> what reason is there for sharing it. Who is benefiting other than Spencer and his bank balance?

He witters on in the simping interview about ott negative media intrusion with Diana and then the Markles yet he is fueling the fire and what is far worse is he will be distressing his 'blood family' William.

KC is far too much an experienced diplomat to have revealed anything to buffoon Spencer but if he had, so what? Why reveal it? It makes no sense other than to cause great upset yet he alleges he isn't a vengeful man. Bollocks.

I think something like 1,700 people responded to that poll, which must be an all time record for an MN poll.

Almost 7 out of 10 respondents don’t believe Charles Spencer,

People smile in official photo - stop the Press

It reminds me of that scene in Gone Girl where someone asks the Ben Affleck character for a selfie and he smiles automatically (we generally all do, it's a pavlovian reflex for moat people when getting a photo) and it was then used by people pushing a negative narrative that he was guilty.

A classic case of gaslighting in fact. Which many still fall for, clearly.

Watch the interview .

He had a perfectly clear reason for writing his book .

If anything proves it’s true it’s the rattled smear attempts

Funny that he hasn't provided said corroboration when challenged though, isn't it?
'I don't think' is doing some heavy lifting there. And those who 'think' that CS is telling the truth are in the minority.

I watched it. To put the story straight by revealing a couple of alleged comments in private conversations does not cut it, sorry.

I wish Kuenssberg had asked where he was donating income generated from gossiping in books and interviews if he hasn't don't it for the cash.

No you are neglecting to point out that he told others soon after Charles made the remark at the time .

Other journalists have also come out to corroborate this .

It is not gossip .

It is utterly shocking .

Charles Windsor is cruel .

It is gossip because we only have Spencer's word for it

@DelectableMe

He told others immediately it happened .

Some journalists say they were aware of it

And it is published and Windsor is not denying it

Windsor not denying it means nothing.
If I tell lots of people that my sister stole my shoes, does that make it true?
No, because telling people something isn't evidence.
"Yes, DelectableMe told me her sister stole her shoes"
"must be true!"

I don’t believe him. He’s horrible, unscrupulous and mercenary.

Nasty man.

If King Charles and Charles Spencer had a "furious row" over King Charles' own sons then Charles Spencer really overstepped the mark. It's not up to Charles Spencer what King Charles decides for his sons. Sure, he can express an opinion or suggest something different, but he's not the one to tell a father how to be with his own sons. A "furious row" suggests Charles Spencer was trying to force King Charles to do what Spencer wanted regarding King Charles's own sons, which is totally out of order.

Charles Spencer is so arrogant. Sometimes, with some of the things he says, I get the impression that he believes that he should have raised William and Harry as a king and a prince and not their own father.

None of them has confirmed that KC3 actually said what CS claims. And surely they would, wouldn't they, if they could? Rory Stewart said there was no way KC3 would have said that. Why doesn't that count as 'corroboration' if Richard Kay's 'he told me there was a row but I don't know what was said' does?

No the king is arrogant. You don't know what the row is about. Are you saying you would never ever intervene for your own nieces and nephews?

He would have been king if it weren't for that pesky Mountbatten interfering in the romance between his equerry father and the already married with two children Elizabeth!
It should have been him!

That corroborates Spencer saying it. It doesn’t corroborate KC saying it.

That's certainly what it sounds like! 😉