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.

Really? @CoffeeCantata

the first thing you learn re sources is to look at the organs of the state.

I don’t see much questioning of Windsors going on amongst royalists here .
We have bald proof that the Windsors have lied to the public in their statement calling V Guiffre a liar . That’s one among many .

The public do believe Spencer . It fits with how the Windsors behaved at the time of Diana’s death.
The panic statement and contacting the ex girlfriend with a letter from Charles looks extremely suspect .

Yes, Piers Morgan of all people!

It’s really quite important to make sure if you are writing a ‘factual’ book that you have your info and all dates correct.
The dead can’t bite back, but those that aren’t can, and in Piers case will.

He appears to be rewriting history about his relationship with his sister, as adults they had very little to do with each other, he wasn’t very loving and charitable to her and her sons when she needed a place to stay. The Andrew Morton book laid bare how lonely she was, and how awful her childhood had been.

She wrote these words to the person who was the one taping her answers to the questions being sent to her by Andrew Morton,

“Obviously we are preparing for the volcano to erupt and I do feel better equipped to cope with whatever comes our way! Thank you for your belief in me and for taking the trouble to understand this mind—it's such a relief not to be on my own any more and that it's okay to be me."”

She was abandoned, not only by her husband, but by her own family, CS is,the last person to be writing about her.

She had a royal ceremonial funeral. Yes an existing royal funeral plan for the queen mother was amended for her funeral, much of this details security arrangements and crowd control.

A state funeral has the following elements that Diana's funeral did not have.

A state funeral requires a parliamentary vote and funding approval. Diana's funeral was approved by the monarch only.

A state funeral is totally funded by the taxpayers. Diana's funeral was funded by taxpayers, the royals paid for some bits within the abbey like flowers, and the Spencers paid for her burial and internment ceremony.

In a state funeral the gun carriage is pulled by navy soldiers using ropes. Diana's funeral the gun carriage was pulled by horses from the kings troop.

A state funeral is overseen by the earl marshall and college of arms. Diana's funeral was overseen by the royal household.

A state funeral the monarch sends a formal invite to both houses of parliament to attend. Not in Diana's funeral.

Why do you keep repeating lies proven in court to be lies? It's tiresome how often the same lies keep being repeated. Almost every twenty minutes on this site.

The public do believe Spencer

Some of them do. Most polls are showing that most of us don't.

All the polls show that almost 7 out of 10 respondents do not believe him, that’s a\pretty much a slam dunk on how he is viewed., Now with the inaccuracy around Piers Morgan, it’s looking less credible by the day.

It’s true he didn’t want her on the Althorp estate, he admits it himself, which is where she understandably wanted to be, and he wasn’t up for offering her a refuge unless she paid for it.

Not exactly an example of brotherly love.

And sources include the official line we are being fed.

Where is the questioning of that ? Particularly as their bald lies were exposed so recently re Andrew.
Any historian would question the veracity of their statements based on that lie alone !
That was not the usual word in a tabloid journalist’s ear -it was a formal statement with the full weight of the institution behind it !

No there is no poll.
There are many polls - all linked to certain outlets .
As for the poll in this section - If I were you I’d be asking about that 30 % who do believe him .This section is notorious for extreme royalist views - it should be 90%

Immediate responses are ephemeral.
It is the long term damage that matters and this report re Charles will add to it .

And paid a huge amount of money for silence by QE2 let's never forget that. It dwarfs and then some all the peccadilloes or otherwise of those being criticised who are outside the magic royal circle.

There is one in AIBU as well, I believe

typo

These "polls" are gash ones generally beneath the story in tabloid newspapers as trashy as the papers who host them.

I’ll hold my hand up and admit I have no facts to back it up, but whilst there may indeed be many polls, I imagine they’d all be pretty similar in the 30/70 divide?

You are making sweeping statements you can't back up. 'the public believe Spencer'? Stats, please? My guess is that a large proportion won't give a tinker's cuss and that there'll be divided opinion amongst the rest. But some stats would be fine. On here we know that only 30% believe him.

I would answer 'I don't know' if asked. That means I am not prepared to accept his account at face value without further examination. I think that's the intelligent approach. The old Mandy Rice-Davies line comes to mind 'Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

And of course pps on here scrutinise royal behaviour. It's insulting to suggest otherwise. It's simply that the AMW matter was discussed at huge length some months ago and it's not the topic of this thread.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use it as an example but you keep on about it in post after post when it's not what's being discussed here.

Read by trashy people?

No there is no poll.
There are many polls - all linked to certain outlets .

So which is it, there are polls or there aren't?

And which 'certain outlets' are these?

Charles Spencer's latest "truth bomb" is that the Queen considered pinning Prince Charles' ears back when he was at school to stop him from being bullied, but Prince Philip stopped her. And we are meant to take Charles Spencer seriously?

"Not quite our people, dear." Obviously the polls in these trashy outlets are the wrong people coming to the wrong conclusions and can be ignored.

I have to hand it to you, you are putting up the good fight in the face of all facts that don’t support your views.

2,200 posters responded to the poll on the RF forum, that has to be a record for any poll anywhere on Mumsnet. . The one on AIBU has a similar split

The ones in the media are all showing a similar split, there is consistency across all the polls, no matter where they are derived from.

You are allowed to bury your head in the sand, if that’s how you want to deal with the reality of Charles Spencer not having much credibility with this book.

I wonder if all the declared "believers" in Charles Spencer also believe his diagnosis that she had ADHD, which implies that she had odd, disruptive behaviour. Charles Spencer is the one calling Diana unstable and problematic.

But surely polls are irrelevant here we are talking about the "truth". You don't get to stand up in court and quote polls. Occam's razor says who has the most reason to lie or deflect. Indeed if you take into account the stated facts from both sides and AN Wilson's and Richard Kay's tacit confirmation then we are at ;

The available evidence is more consistent with a genuine and very unpleasant argument having taken place than with the entire episode being a decades-later invention. The unresolved question is the precise words Charles used and the context/tone in which he used them.

Since just about everybody has that now - why not !

Heavily caveated....

Earl Spencer also claimed that Queen Elizabeth II had contemplated having Prince Charles’s ears pinned back but Prince Philip intervened and put a stop to it.
“Apparently, Prince Philip had learnt that the Queen was contemplating the possibility of having Prince Charles’s ears pinned back a little by a doctor: their protrusion had led to him being teased at school and mocked in the media,” he wrote.
“Philip not only stopped the medical procedure from being considered further, but he also had one of the Queen’s corgis’ ears operated on.
“This was to serve as some sort of lasting reminder of a plan that Prince Philip had decided was ridiculous for its softness and vanity.
“While I have no idea if these disturbing tales were true, Diana believed them.”

But surely polls are irrelevant here we are talking about the "truth".

I suspect that if the polls were 70% in favour of Spencer you wouldn't be calling them irrelevant: and the inverted commas are very appropriate, as none of us know what the truth is. And not likely to either, as the palace is unlikely to engage any further than they have done and Spencer can continue arguing into the void.