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.

One swallow does not a summer make. Spencer and the publisher need to apologise, correct and move on. AN Wilson and Richard Kay believe the phone call to be substantively true as do I. The fact the Royals have edited her out pretty ruthlessly in every respect on record points to that inconvenient truth. I can't see the wind but I can see it's effect in the trees. Same with Diana. How do you tell the grandchildren about the granny they never knew without revealing the perfidy of grandpa and step-grandma's role in that ? Now that will be a work of fiction far grander than anything Earl Spencer can dream up. Oh and that Great-Uncle who's not so great - what exactly did he do ? Finding Freedom is over there kids ->

How have they “edited her out pretty ruthlessly in every respect on record”?
(Do you mean apart from on their own website?)

It was a sweeping statement which on further research is more a feeling than fact. But it's my truth.

Are you seriously trying to implicate the RF in Roberts death?

You're ridiculous

“More a feeling than a fact” - why not call it what it is, a mistake, or a lie?

The basic fact is had Diana had a “private” funeral in a church then legally anyone can attend as it’s a public venue. The same applies to crematoriums anyone can attend. You cannot bar the press, divorced partners, strangers etc. from attending.

The Executors ( Frances Shand Kydd and Patrick Jephson) would normally organise the funeral. However, due to public, media and political pressure (Tony Blair) Diana had a State funeral. As such a committee organised the funeral based on the plans for the Queen Mother’s funeral. As a state funeral there was an invite list, and people would be invited for political reasons. Whether you like it or not Diana had a relationship with Piers Morgan and other newspaper editors so it is not that surprising he was invited.

Edited to add Tony Blair will have had a relationship with tabloid editors as would other members of the RF and CS.

There is a massive difference between saying anyone can attend legally, and actually contacting someone to invite them.

Diana did not have a state funeral. I don't know why royalists keep getting this basic fact wrong.

Yes as the Spencer family stated, the royal family took over organising the funeral and just expected the Spencer family to fall in behind.

Saying Diana had a relationship with the press makes it sound as if she had sex with them. She had communications with them like any famous person does. Lots of famous people do not have press at their funeral. So what you say is nonsense.

It was not a state funeral. It was fine for the royal family to suggest who should be invited, but her actual family and executors should have made the final decision.

It's the usual entitlement of the royal family who clearly think they are always the most important people in the room, and what they want is what should happen.

I'm pretty sure if the Spencer Family insisted, they could have organised the entire funeral.

And as Piers Morgan did not attend the funeral it seems pretty clear the Spencer's could make clear who could and couldn't attend.

Edit to add - Diana was a major public figure, who met socially with a lot of media figures, of course they would be invited. In the same way a lot of celebrities were invited that she knew and socialised with.

A lot of retconning history going on here.

I can't believe this alleged eminent historian Spencer has dropped so many clangers. Not much of a historian if he doesn't understand that dates are rather important.

To top it all the snap of him on the island where Diana is buried for an American magazine . It's just utter tabloid grabby crap.

He's made an utter fool of himself.

It’s horrible for the royal children to have to hear and read this stuff about their grandparents. Many of us might have skeletons in the family cupboard but it’s our private choice whether we tell young children about them, and even then it would be merely a family scandal.

Has Spencer thought ab his great nephews and nieces in all this?I hope they’re OK at their schools.

He’s a journalist more than a historian - I’ve read some of his stuff and it’s more a journalistic than an academic approach.

I agree there is a huge difference between having a public funeral where anyone can attend and the public (state) funeral that Diana had.

There was no way Westminster Abbey could have been a free for all with anyone attending.

For very pragmatic reasons Diana’s funeral was restricted to invited guests and followed the plans for a state funeral, even if it wasn’t called one. The pre-existing plans for the Queen Mother’s funeral were used I.e. state funeral plans.

It is naive to think KC sat and wrote the invite list. The existing plans would have a guest list probably with roles/jobs rather than names e.g Prime Minister & Spouse, Leaders of opposition parties, ambassadors, editors of xyz news papers, BBC, ITV etc. The committee organising the funeral will have used the list as a starting point but changed it e.g. to include representatives from Diana’s charities. For all we know Tony Blair or Alistair Campbell may have included Piers Morgan.

I can understand why CS didn’t want tabloid editors there but I can see why they were as the funeral was much bigger than a private funeral.

Diana's funeral was never a state funeral, but it was a "state-like" funeral. Based on QEQM funeral plans, which was a state funeral.

Again, a shit ton of retconning happening here.

I agree, and to make such a mistake with someone who has the media presence of Piers Morgan is just astounding ! It absolutely undermines the veracity of the rest of the book.

Also, CS and his new veneers,😬😬 they are just awful, I think they may be having an impact on his speech and mouth too.

The problem CS now has is exactly the same as PH had/has with Spare, which is what is fact and what is fiction. There will be factually accurate recollections but there will also be mis-remembered ones that are not factually accurate.

The statement issued by KC/BP carries more weight now due to the incorrect passages in the book about PM.

Thank you, I used “state” funeral to distinguish Diana’s funeral from a private funeral but forgot it wasn’t designated a state funeral.

I suspect that he’ll also experience a backlash from the press. His own marriage and family history is so scandalous that an exposure would surely beg the question: who is this man to criticise anyone else for their conduct?

It’s the way the press always operate- he’s flavour of the month now but they can make more money later by attacking him.

@CoffeeCantata

You are missing the point .

Charles Spencer’s marriages are not connected to a million pound PR machine pumping out propaganda daily.

The monstrous nature of what Charles Windsor said about Diana has undone 30 plus years of expensive image manipulation.

What else are they hiding ?
And we learn that the palace has contacted another ex girlfriend of Charles W warning her not to talk about the letter she received from him. Why do that ?

🙄Right-ho

I’m not sure there will be quite such a backlash once people read the rest of the book which by many accounts so far is quite dense, measured, very balanced about Diana but also very loving towards her. There are always ructions over the serialisation snippets!

Yes exactly.
I believe Charles Spencer behaved badly in his marriages, it has nothing to do with what the king said to him.

And there is no need to contact an ex warning them to say nothing if you are actually innocent of the accusations. It's quite clear the king did say what is being alleged.

Charles Spencer’s marriages are not connected to a million pound PR machine pumping out propaganda daily.

They are if he's criticising KC as a husband. If he were just criticising him politically, then no, I would agree.

But any historian or journalist worth their salt would always question the type of allegations he's made.

I don't know if they're true or not - my stance is that I don't just believe them

• simply because he's made them
• and because he has a motive for wanting to destroy KC

In looking at historical evidence you always need to ask yourself: who's writing this? Why are they writing it, and for whom? What's in it for them?

And I'm stunned at the way people seem just to swallow it as gospel truth.

But not everyone - the poll on another thread showed that nearly 70% of people didn't believe him and only 30% did.

Just to repeat (I hate being misinterpreted): I don't know if the allegations are true. Neither do you. All I want is some acknowledgment of the problems with bias, self-interest, revenge motives and propaganda from Spencer himself. Only a fool would fail to take those into account.

And there is no need to contact an ex warning them to say nothing if you are actually innocent of the accusations. It's quite clear the king did say what is being alleged.

It proves absolutely nothing about whether or not what is alleged to have been written was actually written. It does show consideration for an ex's privacy and not wanting the press to be all over her, her family and digging into the minutiae of her life, past and present.

I won't be reading the book - I wouldn't in any case, since I think Diana should be left to RIP now.

But it's good to hear that, even if it is post-mortem, he's showing some warmth towards her. That's big of him,

I think his own guilt is a huge driver in his motives for writing this book.

In looking at historical evidence you always need to ask yourself: who's writing this? Why are they writing it, and for whom? What's in it for them?

First year history teaches you that, or did. Always, always examine your sources and their bias.