Page 17 | Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 3

Viviennemary · 2026-09-20T16:27:25+00:00

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.

Constantrunner · 21/09/2026 23:18

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:15

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.

Show quote history

She will have every aspect of her life examined so that royalists can trash her. If I was her I would not publish the letters.

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:19

Serenster · 21/09/2026 20:00

Piers Morgan cares - he has just announced he will be suing Lord Spencer and the publisher for defamation. This could be fun…

Show quote history

PRH seem...somewhat lacking in the fact checking arena at time. They published Spare.

wordler · 21/09/2026 23:19

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:15

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.

Show quote history

Copyright stays with the letter writer not with the letter receiver so she can’t publish them whole without risking being sued.

Nothing to stop her paraphrasing and talking about them though.

myrtleWilson · 21/09/2026 23:19

foxylady2 · 21/09/2026 20:13

If that's it then this looks like a remarkably low bar for a defamation action. Piers Morgan hardly a stranger to controversy himself, given the phone-hacking era — is now threatening legal action over allegations made about him in Earl Spencer's book.

Perhaps there is a genuinely serious defamatory allegation in there, but until we see precisely what was written, this looks rather more like a strategic legal move and publicity opportunity than a case of obvious and substantial reputational harm.

The courts aren't supposed to be a venue for every minor grievance between public figures. If the alleged statements amount to nothing more than disputed recollections, opinions or relatively trivial inaccuracies, one has to ask whether litigation is really proportionate or whether the publicity generated by threatening it is part of the point.

I seem to remember that Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson attended a private lunch hosted by Camilla just two days before Clarkson published his notorious column about Meghan in which he described fantasising about her being paraded naked through the streets and having excrement thrown at her. The column was subsequently removed by The Sun, which apologised. Whatever one thinks of Clarkson, the timing of that lunch and the subsequent column certainly raises questions about the extraordinarily close relationship between some royal critics and people in the royal circle

Show quote history

The lunch wasn’t hosted by Camilla

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:25

foxylady2 · 21/09/2026 21:00

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.

Doesn't say much for the publisher's fact checking standards.

myrtleWilson · 21/09/2026 23:27

Was this book rushed through publication process do we think?

myrtleWilson · 21/09/2026 23:29

wordler · 21/09/2026 23:19

Copyright stays with the letter writer not with the letter receiver so she can’t publish them whole without risking being sued.

Nothing to stop her paraphrasing and talking about them though.

Show quote history

Known in chess circles as ‘the Meghan play’ no doubt!

IAmATorturedPoet · 21/09/2026 23:31

Oh dear, Charles ‘I’ll never profit from my sister’s death” Spencer has dropped a clanger.
And he’s now got Piers Morgan coming for his grubby ass! 😬

Illegally18 · 21/09/2026 23:33

Janiie · 21/09/2026 13:08

He makes me cringe. His Julian Clary voice, his smirks, his history of failed relationships putting him in no position to judge anyone. It was reported that he wasn't a great support to Diana when she was alive, so is this all guilt and shame manifested in blaming others?

He's hanging on to the coat tails of this tragedy to maintain some kind of fame, relevance and obviously for financial reward.

If he wanted to do the right thing by his sister he'd stfu.

Edited

I agree, he's no sex bomb.

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:33

Constantrunner · 21/09/2026 23:18

She will have every aspect of her life examined so that royalists can trash her. If I was her I would not publish the letters.

Show quote history

Then blame Lownie for mentioning her, but you absolutely cannot make this kind of accusation and then hide. It's cowardly and nasty.

This should be treated as it is then - an unfounded, unsourced and uncredited piece of gossip. Can't be used to "corroborate" anything.

JustAnotherWhinger · 21/09/2026 23:34

myrtleWilson · 21/09/2026 23:27

Was this book rushed through publication process do we think?

I haven’t seen any mention of that anywhere.

i do wonder if they do less careful checking if the people mentioned are unlikely to sue.

Almost regardless of what he says about the royal family the most that’s ever going to happen is a statement. They’re not going to sue.

So in some ways it’s likely not worth their while spending too much time checking as all that’s going to happen is that errors are blamed squarely on Spencer, and anything that brings it to the headlines is likely good for sales.

Probably would have been a good idea to carefully check things attached to people like Piers Morgan though. Being a horrid man guilty of several horrid things won’t actually allow folks to just apportion blame to him for things he wasn’t part of.

bluegreygreen · 21/09/2026 23:36

Interestingly, The Salt Path was also published by Michael Joseph / Penguin.

I think they may need to have a bit of a think.

ETA Spare was published by Penguin but a different imprint - probably because it was published in the US at the same time

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:36

myrtleWilson · 21/09/2026 23:19

The lunch wasn’t hosted by Camilla

Show quote history

Facts don't appear to matter here - seems we've veered into fictional writing now (as CS has done).

I'd be interested to see whether any of his book is actually about Diana as a person, he seems to be using her as an object to wage war and settle scores.

IAmATorturedPoet · 21/09/2026 23:42

Quite, Myrtle.
It was hosted by Ewan Venters, head of Fortnum & Mason (but that’s just one of those pesky facts!).

AlonsoMosley · 22/09/2026 02:02

foxylady2 · 21/09/2026 20:46

My take is that Morgan has a weak case. He appears to be trying quite aggressively to insert himself into the Diana story, disputing details of Spencer’s recollections and now threatening legal action over what he says are defamatory claims.

There is also an obvious irony here: Morgan is challenging Spencer over his account of events in which Morgan himself was a prominent tabloid editor. He is effectively asking a court to adjudicate parts of a historical narrative in which he was an active participant.

And there is a broader point about his relationship with the establishment. Morgan has spent years cultivating relationships with people at the highest levels, including members of the Royal Family. Given that those people cannot easily answer back to contemporary criticism in the normal way, there is something rather convenient about Morgan now presenting himself as the aggrieved party when Spencer turns the scrutiny back on him.

This is a nothing burger a they say in America- Morgan gets to play an hour of performative outrage which will quitely be forgotten soon after .

Show quote history

Yes, and something else too.

The Palace, as in, the royal family invited Morgan and the tabloid editors to Diana's funeral. CS called them and asked them not to come.

What in God's name was KC thinking, to invite them? I mean, there was so much revulsion and almost immediate antipathy towards the tabloids. The public saw the link.

Gosh, that has really shocked me.

AlonsoMosley · 22/09/2026 02:11

@MrsFinkelstein

Exactly what are "the Palace" going to do to her?

We could ask Virginia Roberts. Oh wait ...

BemusedAmerican · 22/09/2026 03:41

Minestronemusings · 21/09/2026 11:27

They are Richard Kay and A N Wilson who say what CS says now about his conversation with the then Prince of Wales aligns with what he told them around the time of Diana’s funeral.

A publisher such as Penguin would make sure that anyone accusing the King of such an awful statement would have solid corroboration before publishing.

Show quote history

No. The RF normally never comments on books or sues.

BemusedAmerican · 22/09/2026 03:53

AlonsoMosley · 22/09/2026 02:02

Yes, and something else too.

The Palace, as in, the royal family invited Morgan and the tabloid editors to Diana's funeral. CS called them and asked them not to come.

What in God's name was KC thinking, to invite them? I mean, there was so much revulsion and almost immediate antipathy towards the tabloids. The public saw the link.

Gosh, that has really shocked me.

Show quote history

And now

BemusedAmerican · 22/09/2026 03:54

Posted too early.

And now CS is in bed with the tabloids. The same ones he didn't want at the funeral.

Any news about those missing 4 books?

Kirschcherries · 22/09/2026 04:34

AlonsoMosley · 22/09/2026 02:02

Yes, and something else too.

The Palace, as in, the royal family invited Morgan and the tabloid editors to Diana's funeral. CS called them and asked them not to come.

What in God's name was KC thinking, to invite them? I mean, there was so much revulsion and almost immediate antipathy towards the tabloids. The public saw the link.

Gosh, that has really shocked me.

Show quote history

As PM has said, he had dinner with Diana and William, potentially he spoke to her more than CS in her later years. The relationship between Diana, (H&M) and the tabloids was complex but it’s clear she had relationships with several tabloid editors so not completely unreasonable to invite them to her funeral.

foxylady2 · 22/09/2026 06:57

BemusedAmerican · 22/09/2026 03:41

No. The RF normally never comments on books or sues.

Show quote history

"in principle" until it isn't. A principle that is.

foxylady2 · 22/09/2026 07:06

bluegreygreen · 21/09/2026 22:20

@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.

Penguin are the most culpable here in my opinion - for a book of this import and reach that purports to be fact it should have been fact checked ruthlessly before publication and with AI tools and a good editor /team behind that process these errors would have been caught.

Morgan seems very pleased with himself and a drinking / dining pal of Camilla he will have curried much favour with the Royals. I can see Charles giving him a call laughing away in his stilted tone to thank him for services rendered. "I would love to give you a gong old bean but those bastards keep bringing up past foibles. So I'm afraid can't do. But thank you so much Sir , we are all very pleased. " Which if Morgan has any sense he will record and use if for his next book.

Constantrunner · 22/09/2026 07:07

Kirschcherries · 22/09/2026 04:34

As PM has said, he had dinner with Diana and William, potentially he spoke to her more than CS in her later years. The relationship between Diana, (H&M) and the tabloids was complex but it’s clear she had relationships with several tabloid editors so not completely unreasonable to invite them to her funeral.

Show quote history

The tabloids helped kill her. The inquest ruled her death was due to the driver being drunk and paparazzi chasing the car. Paparazzi the tabloids paid for stories. Of course it was wrong to invite the press.
I also don't understand how the king, who was divorced from Diana, thought he had the right to decide who to invite to the funeral. It was up to the family to decide what non family members were invited. Not her ex husband FFS.

Constantrunner · 22/09/2026 07:10

IAmATorturedPoet · 21/09/2026 23:42

Quite, Myrtle.
It was hosted by Ewan Venters, head of Fortnum & Mason (but that’s just one of those pesky facts!).

On behalf of Camilla.

Constantrunner · 22/09/2026 07:13

MrsFinkelstein · 21/09/2026 23:33

Then blame Lownie for mentioning her, but you absolutely cannot make this kind of accusation and then hide. It's cowardly and nasty.

This should be treated as it is then - an unfounded, unsourced and uncredited piece of gossip. Can't be used to "corroborate" anything.

Show quote history

It's up to lownie what he says.
I was responding to the comment asking why on earth this woman would not come forward if she really has these letters.
And I have said it's obvious. If she does royalists will examine her life in detail and trash her for anything they can find.

When we have a culture where this happens to anyone who speaks ou5 against the king or heir, it means the truth abou5 them as people is always hidden. It's that culture that enabled Andrew.