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.

@upinaballoon

The fact is the palace has not denied that Charles said it .

I believe it’s very pertinent that they categorically denied Virgina Guifree’s accusations. It was absolutely clear . And she was telling the truth .
So where’s the clear denial Charles ?

No. There is literally no corroboration for this.

But they aren't corroborating what CW said because they didn't hear it. They are corroborating that CS alleged something. That's all. There's a difference.

Well, 'snide' is a bit pejorative - it's diplomatic language for 'you lying bastards'.

I have a difficult sibling and she is forever bringing up things i have said, or that she SAYS I have said, in previous ding-dongs. These accusations bear little relation to what happened because she's mythologised them in her own memory. The only thing to do is to calm things down and I've often used exactly that kind of bland expression...something like 'That's not how I remember it', or 'I don't think that's what was said'. To come out all guns blazing with her would cause the Third World War, so I completely get why the Palace issue statements like this.

It's also dignified. They're not going to get into a slanging match, so they say something bland which implies that the subject is now closed.

@CoffeeCantata

No. The palace issued a clear flat denial of Virgina Giuffre’s accusations in an official statement issued with the full weight of the institution behind it .

I have quoted above .
They were happy to do so despite knowing she was telling the truth .

No such denial here re what Charles Spencer has accused Charles of .
Nothing but a waffling smear

'No such denial here re what Charles Spencer has accused Charles of '

Well we all read things differently clearly but 'cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory' is indeed up there with 'recollections may vary' as a very polite way of saying 'bollocks, didn't happen'.

Exactly. That's what some people on here don't understand.

There is a clear and obvious difference between the two situations though - Virginia Giuffre had filed a lawsuit against Andrew alleging he had sexually assaulted her - as part of that process a formal pleading was filed in court alleging just that. As the defendant, Andrew was going to have to plead in response to those allegations, and given his defence was “that never happened” it would clearly be a big problem if the statement from the Palace said anything different to that.

The Palace could have qualified their position in their own statement (saying something like “It is the Duke of York’s position that….”) and with hindsight I suspect they now wish they had. But, sadly, they obviously had unjustified faith in his denial and didn’t qualify their statement. I imagine that’s an important lesson learned right there!

No
It is not a denial .

We have seen a denial from the palace re Virginia . ‘False and without foundation’

The palace statement re Spencer was the opposite of that .
The cruel way he spoke about Diana gave the lie to all the ‘heartbroken Prince’ PR

We don't know if KC spoke in a cruel way about Diana.

It's a denial like recollections may vary. They won't want to dignify his accusations with specific comment to each story, a broad 'yeah right' indeed gets the message across.

Well, for most of us.

Who produced this 'heart-broken prince PR'? Did any of the newspapers of the day refer to him as heart-broken? If so, which ones?
Or is it a word you've just come up with?

Blasted, shocked, yes. But who said he was heart-broken and then used it as PR for him?

No-one claimed he was "heartbroken". Shocked, upset, yes.

By your logic the palace only deny something when they are lying, so by King Charles not denying this basically means he’s telling the truth? 😂😂😂

Tying yourself in knots there

They mostly lie yes.
Which is why it’s strange that they didn’t simply issue a denial to Spencer .
Why not ?

It is not a denial .

If you can read you can see its deflection .
No denial .

Point of spelling, it's Giuffre, not Guifre or Giuffre

It is a dismissal. Yes I can read thanks, indeed here I am reading and responding.

If anyone ever says to you time has 'clouded reason and affected judgement' they are telling you you're talking shite, albeit politely.

I've just seen Spencer is narrating his own trashy audiobook .

Okay still doesn't explain what a voice like Julian clary means.

There’s a lot of credulity on this thread - and a worrying lack of critical thinking.

This is so interesting to me, as when I see your posts, and those of the other royal fans, on this thread and on every thread to do with PH and DoS, I think the exact same thing! 😃

The Palace could have qualified their position in their own statement (saying something like “It is the Duke of York’s position that….”) and with hindsight I suspect they now wish they had. But, sadly, they obviously had unjustified faith in his denial and didn’t qualify their statement.

But this makes it seem like the Dad's Army Captain Mainwaring has a smart nephew who works/bumbles away in the PR office.

In reality some of the finest minds in the country run one of the most powerful institutions in the country.
At times, the PR fails when two realities clash - one is the demos wanting accountability against royals who think they are above that.

Agreed. It seems like some people will defend anyone who is a royal.

Personally I am not saying Charles Spencer is an amazing lovely man. I am saying I believe him. The two things are different.
The character assassination on Charles Spencer doesn't work on me, because it's not about was getting a good father or husband or a nice man. It's simply do I believe him. And yes I do.

I watched the interview and he comes across as speaking the truth.

Well, for most of us.

Not really. For some of you.

Going by the polls on the subject, on this board and AIBU, for the majority of responders (66% when I last looked).

I’m just pointing out that the late Queen didn’t apply critical thinking when it came to AMW and it seems
to be a common problem. How’s that nonsense?