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.

Arise Sir Piers Moron

So much for Spencer’s legendary historical accuracy 😂

It's true.

Diana sued in 1993.

Piers Morgan moved to the Mirror in 1995.

It's starting to feel like we need a thread of historical inaccuracies in Spencer's book.

It's an error that his publishers should have gone through the manuscript with a fine tooth comb.Dates are easily checkable and this will be used to smear the whole book. Spencer needs to issue an apology and an update. This might do

I accept that I was mistaken in stating that Piers Morgan was editor of the Sunday Mirror at the time the photographs of Diana were published. I had confused the chronology of his career with that of the newspaper and its editorial team at the time.
The underlying account, however, was referring to the Mirror group's publication of the photographs and the subsequent legal action brought by my sister. I did not intend to suggest that Mr Morgan personally commissioned, obtained or published those photographs when he was not responsible for the newspaper at that time.
I therefore withdraw that specific reference to Mr Morgan and apologise for the error and any distress or reputational harm it may have caused.

For a historian fact checking, especially with dates, does not seem to be his forte at all

I do wonder if publishers are lax on fact checking things about the royals because they are very unlikely to sue. I thought that about the error in Harry’s book with the Queen Mums death.

They’ve dropped the ball by missing errors about people likely to sue though. They’ll be hoping that’s not a recurring thing.

Hang on! Piers Morgan was the editor at the time of Diana’s funeral wasn’t he and as such responsible for what the Mirror group had published about Diana in the past? If he was not officially representing and responsible for what the Mirror Group put Diana through historically at that moment, who was?

Second, hasn’t Piers Morgan lost his job for lying in the past?

Third, isn’t he a friend of Camilla?

Fourth, I don’t buy that if this is a simple date typo or other error, it doesn’t automatically mean everything in the book is untrue however much people want to play on that?

Agreed and this will be used to to trash the whole book but it was the Mirror that did those actual things but Morgan wasn't the editor until 2 years later in 1995 but Spencer asserts he was the Editor of the Mirror at that time. Hence the defamation. An easy mistake to make as Morgan is a shit either way so the substantive point is broadly correct even if the detail isn't.

Out of curiously @Minestronemusingshow many errors would there have to be before you accepted that it’s understandable that people will doubt what he writes because so far he keeps making very basic errors with easily checked facts?

Piers M is indeed an odious man who has been involved in some reprehensible things in his career. That doesn’t mean anyone can just allocate responsibility for other things to him. working for the mirror at the time of her death doesn’t mean that stating that he was responsible for a breach of her privacy four years previously, before he worked there, is fine.

This could have been a book that was phenomenally damaging to KC.

CS is watering down his own impact with mistakes.

And silly silly mistakes for a historian who should be used to double and triple checking dates and details.

Well he did suggest Piers Morgan was responsible. I hope he does get sued.

how many errors would there have to be before you accepted that it’s understandable that people will doubt what he writes because so far he keeps making very basic errors with easily checked facts?

Exactly.

This is the third proven inaccuracy to date in a book that is supposed to be a factual record, by a known historian.

1 The equerry story
2 The Frogmore story
3 The Piers Morgan story

None of these are differences of opinion or potential misunderstandings in the heat of the moment.
They are simply errors of fact.

So far, we have read 2 excerpts, and know of the third error from Piers Morgan himself.
I wonder what will be uncovered in the rest of the book?

Exactly. 'Historian' my arse. More like a tabloid junior and not a very good one at that.

Oh dear. Some people are going to be very disappointed by his failings as a doyen of all things historical 😆

How many times? The equerry story is NOT an error! Princess Elizabeth wrote to Johnnie Spencer during he Second World War while he was serving with his regiment. There was talk of him becoming her suitor. This happened years before he served as her equerry after she had married Philip. Elizabeth and Johnnie had known one another for years! This is easily verifiable in various history books.

And people disagree about the Frogmore story especially after it’s been revealed that the late queen offered to restore Diana’s HRH title posthumously.

It’s transparent why people keep repeating these myths though.

What did he say in the book though? Genuine question as I can’t remember. Did he refer to his father as being the Queen’s equerry at the time of the letter writing. Or did he say it was during WW2?

The story being discussed absolutely is an error.

The excerpt said “my father , a soldier and a courtier who years before, as an equerry, had a romantic connection with the future Queen Elizabeth II, which was ended by Lord Mountbatten”

The words as an equerry are literally there.

Again, words have meaning. As an equerry he had the romantic connection - that is literally what it says. He was an equerry from 1950-1954.

Ah thank you. I wondered if that was the case. Charles Spencer’s lack of accuracy strikes again

@Minestronemusings In my reply to you at 20:50 yesterday, I quoted the equerry passage and showed you exactly why it was factually inaccurate.

You may not wish to accept that, which is another matter, but the information is there.

Indeed, perhaps Charles Spencer meant

“my father , a soldier and a courtier who years before becoming an equerry, had a romantic connection with the future Queen Elizabeth II, which was ended by Lord Mountbatten”

But, if the quoted piece is as was listed

“my father , a soldier and a courtier who years before, as an equerry, had a romantic connection with the future Queen Elizabeth II, which was ended by Lord Mountbatten”

these are two very different scenarios - perhaps the stolen Dutch copies hold the answer (wasn't it the Dutch copies in Scobie's book too?)

They are indeed two very different scenarios. Almost as if words are somewhat important when writing a book.

I do wonder if there is a special book club somewhere that specialises in stolen Dutch books!

If it had been a translation from one of the Dutch books you’d have to wines if it was a translation error, but it would be simply bizarre if the serialisation was being done from a translated copy.

Piers Morgan's video statement on TwiX, in case anyone wants to watch it. He includes a snippet from Charles Spencer's interview.

Piers Morgan Uncensored

Oh come on! The important bit is the rumour of the romantic connection between QE2 when she was a Princess, with Johnnie Spencer, whether he was an equerry at that point or not isn’t particularly pertinent because lots of history books confirm that their relationship was much closer than is usual between equerry and royal employer bc they had known one another for yonks.

No, the important thing in a supposedly historically accurate book - and that is his own choice to state so emphatically that it is an accurate book being written to correct inaccuracies and lies - is that what is written is inaccurate.

If you start rewriting his words then you have a totally different book.

You may not care if factual books are actually factual but some folks do.

If this woman exists, and if what she says is true, then she should publish the letters. Exactly what are "the Palace" going to do to her?

Lownie has done some excellent work, he's also ballsed it up on more than one occasion.

I'm no real fan of Charles - so if this woman does exist then let's see the letters.

Otherwise this is all just a bunch of crap.