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.

It will do if one of Charles’s letters to this woman turns up stating sentiments about Diana that are very close to what he said to CS.

I guess it depends on what the Palace has paid her to stay silent or threatened her with to make it go away? The usual tactics!

Nonetheless the Palace must be rattled to know that a paper copy exists that corroborates CS’s story!

No it won’t. He is just writing down what he claims Charles R said. It still doesn’t corroborate that he actually said it because no one else heard it first hand. Jeez this is hard work

We’re at the stage where imaging what some unknown third party might or might not be able to say about some decades-old letters counts as hypothetical corroboration now too, smilesy. A reasoned discourse this is not…..

I know. I don’t know how many more times we can attempt to explain what “corroborate” means in words of one syllable. I might have to go and lie down in a darkened room 😵‍💫

'People who unswervingly feel the need to support the Crown are turning this in to something it isn’t for their own reasons'

It isn't about supporting the crown. I'm not a massive monarchist I can take them or leave them. I do think they do good work for charity obviously but this is not about the crown.

It's about Spencer alleging very unpleasant stuff was said that can never be proved or disproved. It is shit stirring and causing a lot of anguish for William.

He said he'd protect them from the nasty media yet it's his gossip that has been headlining, no-one else's! Irony not in 'eye witness to history' Spencer's dictionary it seems

No, it won’t.

It will show what Charles wrote to her. That still will not corroborate a conversation had between KC and CS.

Corroboration of a conversation would require witnessing that conversation.

The only way a letter produced by her could come anywhere near corroborating it will be if the letter says “I told Charles Spencer on the telephone that we will all forget her soon”.

Again, corroboration has a specific meaning.

I suspect some posters are metaphorically stick g their fingers in their ears and going “la la la” at this point. I’m not sure even linking an actual dictionary entry will help 🤪

I'm beginning to think that certain posters might be on the RF payroll at this stage!

I find it bizarre that some people will go to such lengths to support the RF (Charles) while vilifying those who have an opposite view. I find it hard to understand, unless they are related to them or temporary employees on the PR desk, called up in a crisis.

It's not THAT important an issue, it's just gossip, juicy, it gets people talking, and after all the RF is the best soap opera around, so without any juicy stuff it will be extinct.

So carry on. This is great, and methinks at times certain folk doth protest too much....

If by “vilifying” you are referring to attempts to get some people to understand how to use words in the English language correctly, then you might be in need of a dictionary as well. Although I suspect you have one to hand 😊

It is important.

if you’re presenting your book as a historical record of what happened then accuracy is important. As is verification and corroboration. Earl Spencer calls himself a historian. He has stated his book is a historical record of what happened.

Pointing out inaccuracies in factual statements in the book, and in people’s belief that the biggest he said-he said moment released so far has not been corroborated is not remotely vilifying anyone.

It’s interesting to me why people are so keen to try and shut down anything that points out said inaccuracies by claiming shit like “I wonder if they’re on the payroll”. There’s nothing “vilifying” about pointing out that some words have a very specific meaning.

Nice..... And not so subtle. And haughty. As expected.

Just like the RF really, correct?

If you think that most people are going to examine the statements in the book with that kind of granularity, I wouldn't bother, as I doubt they care that much.

Just give me/them the gossip FGS!

Exactly. Defence of our taxpayer-funded monarchy shouldn’t trump an attempt to get at the truth. The Praetorian Guard around the monarch seems to assemble at every attack as though we are vandals throwing paint at some cherished heirloom.

No. We are attempting, however imperfectly, to contribute to a substantive debate about who we are as a country, what we value, and what kind of country we ultimately want to be.

No. It just pisses me off that posters like to insist on making inaccurate claims and use words incorrectly. Not haughty. No need to be rude 😊

Ok then. Allow me to rephrase.

If, in that letter, the then Prince Charles, used words about Diana that were very similar to those he used when he spoke to Charles Spencer, using similar phrases which conveyed the same sentiments about her , I think that would be very damaging indeed to the monarch, and it would confirm that Charles Spencer’s version of events is far more likely to be true.

But as Lownie reported previously, this woman has already been contacted by the palace and they have “asked” her not to speak out.

I think we all know what that means.

You could always just enjoy your gossip and not start throwing rude accusations at people who expect books declaring themselves to be historically accurate to be so.

I thought if was a bit haughty tbh to talk to another poster about using a dictionary.

This is a fast moving sm thread, not a PhD thesis.

If he uses similar phrasing as to Charles Spencer’s claims it could indeed be damaging to him.

It could even, as you say here, put more people to thinking that Charles Spencer’s words are more likely to be true than they think currently.

Nobody has said anything otherwise. Only that it isn’t corroboration because that is a very specific thing.

All that proves is most poster on Mumsnet can't be arsed to engage and furthermore the ones that can tend to be in defence of the institution. I could frame a poll that might give a more accurate reflection of the populace.

Who do you believe?
Given Earl Spencer's reputation as a historian and his personal knowledge of Diana, compared with the well-documented controversies surrounding Charles including his admitted infidelity, questions over his personal conduct and reliability, and the enormous cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer, estimated by Republic at more than £500 million a year who do you believe is telling the more credible version of events?
Earl Spencer
Charles and the Windsors

OK Ma'am, at your service I'm sure. Curtsey incoming. And I shall say what I like within MN guidelines too. So there!

Now let me see what soap opera I can watch, and what's the latest "latest" gossip. Oh it's that former girlfriend of Charles in Canada who has been practically muzzled by the suits in case she reveals his letter to her about Diana. OK, this is sounding good..... rubs hands.

It was because the poster used an unusual word in a previous post. I like words. I think the poster does too. It was a bit of a jibe I admit, but not haughty 😊

Earl Spencer’s words would carry far more weight if he had properly fact checked things in his book.

Adding in stories that sound good, like the equerry and Frogmore, but are easily disproved throw question on the rest of his words.

That perfectly natural and it’s downright bizarre that people expect inaccuracies to be totally ignored and if they’re not it’s because people are rabid monarchists.

The poor language and grammar standards of certain journalists now certainly isn’t helping.

If only Diana could have been persuaded to curtsey like Kate all this unnecessary bother could have been avoided.

Yes and I acknowledged that in my reply five posts ago… by rephrasing!

Here’s the thing, you can say what you like. So can other people. You’re the one that resorted to chucking around the ludicrous payroll nonsense to try and silence posters who don’t agree with you.

some of us can disagree politely

enjoy your gossip