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.

Earl Spencer is not interesting enough to people, so a book about him wouldn't wash its face. He's not Royal either and nor do we have to financially support him or provide security, nor do we curtsey to him, as most do for the Royals, nor do we have to listen to any sycophantic reporting about him, his children, schools, clothes and so on. There just isn't enough drama or soap opera type gossip with him!

So there's little revenge possible against him personally I think.

I was on the fence about his revelations, but I believe him now. The Buck House statement was NOT a denial, it was pure gaslighting with a huge dollop of derision thrown in for good measure. But we all know that the Royals are without sin don't we? They are perfect in fact.

It wasn't gaslighting, it was a kind, reasonable and intelligent statement in the face of the accusations.

Panic stations more like!

I can't square what he is saying now with two recorded occasions of him praising how Prince Charles handled the aftermath of Diana's death, one in an interview with CNN, one a speech he made from his doorstep in South Africa.

He could have stayed silent, but he chose to praise him.

'Earl Spencer is not interesting enough to people, so a book about him wouldn't wash its face'

Oh people like to see blabbermouths get their comeuppance. It doesn't matter that he's not royalty and we don't pay for him. We all know he's had a life of difficult relationships <even within his own 'blood family'> so while his exes maybe can't share how odious he is because of NDAs, perhaps someone who has there, an 'eye witness to history' as Spencer likes to call gossips, would spill the tea. I'd read it .

Didn't sound panicked to me, I thought it was measured, and more generous than Spencer deserved.

Recollections may vary.... but it is only a generous statement if you believe Charles didn't say what ES said he did. I think he did. We differ.

Having watched the interview and Spencer being less than forward with evidence, I would agree.

I agree with you.

Have you noticed my username lol .

We are heavily propagandised.

One benefit of the atomisation resulting from social media is the stronghold of one voice media has gone . The grip is loosening .

It was a horrible statement. I have no idea how you can say it was kind.

Because that is my view. Grief can have a terrible impact.

Yes I think the king did say those things. It's totally believable and Charles Spencer was totally credible.
At the end of the day this comes down to who you believe?
A man who gave a measured interview and came across as telling the truth? Or a man who issued an acerbic statement that didn't even deny the accusations?

Yes it was a bit pa and patronising but perfectly polite.

I wish they hadn't responded at all though, they need to ignore Spencer.

By the way -no one is royal .

It was a lie when it was invented and it’s a lie now .

I don’t believe anyone today seriously believes it .

Well, it's all a bit he said/ she said.
I don't know what the absolute truth is, unfiltered by strong emotions and after so long, and I doubt it will ever emerge, but I just don't see the benefit of all this after all these years.

And the mistresses too. Would love to have seen his face when his ex wife AND former mistress turned up at the divorce court together.

Well I have preordered my copy of the book
The irony is that I wouldn’t have bothered ordering the book if the media hadn’t made such a fuss about it

Richard Kay is really in his cups with this story;

The bizarre exchange took place after the death of John Spencer, the 8th Earl Spencer.
At that point Charles Spencer, then aged 27, inherited the family's 13,000-acre estate at Althorp, Northamptonshire, as the 9th earl.
Charles Spencer, now 62, recalls how after his father's funeral service at a church in Northamptonshire, he, along with Prince Charles and Princess Diana gathered 'rather awkwardly' in Althorp's oak-panelled tapestry sitting room.
He writes: 'I shared that I had found it so moving to see my father's coffin being borne into the church by his six longest-serving male members of staff that I had started to cry.
'Then Prince Charles suddenly said: 'You're so lucky!'
'I was unsure if I had heard him right. 'I'm sorry, sir?'
'You're just so lucky – you know, inheriting when you're so young!' '
Earl Spencer claims that, 'warming to his theme', Prince Charles then added: 'You're inheriting this place in your twenties.
'And, I mean, I'm 43…and I employ 50 people… but my parents insist on treating me like – like a child!'
'At this he stamped his foot in emphasis,' Earl Spencer writes in his forthcoming memoir. 'I have to say, very much like a child; and a petulant one, at that.'

https://www.dailymail.com/news/royals/article-16145097/amp/Earl-Spencer-Charles-lucky-inheriting-young.html

Camilla should write a book about her time as the mistress of the future KING!! Forget about Spencer's ex wives, we need to get the lowdown on Charles. He was no saint either!

So there we have it. Two sides to every coin.

Yes, I would agree.

Well that’s the point of excessive lines and PR.

I hear there's a vacancy in Charles' PR department, you might consider applying!

Before he and Victoria signed their divorce agreement, Victoria claimed that he moved her and the 4 children to S. Africa under false pretence so he could be closer to his mistress, she wanted to have the divorce hearing in the Uk where it would have been more beneficial to her, he fought against that. She eventually sued her solicitors for not following her request.

Charles Spencer tried to gag the S.Africa media from reporting on the court case, but he couldn’t gag the UK media.

His motives are mainly monetary as it’s not very convincing he wrote this book to do right by his sister, as if !

It’s a marketing and PR campaign run by his publishers.

I'm not a royalist, but ... one thing that strikes me from the Laura K interview is that Charles Spencer often describes past conversations as if he's providing direct quotes/a transcript of the original dialogue. He varies his intonation when conveying someone else's words, and even the BBC transcription puts quotes around them. For example, he recounts how his sister Lady Jane Fellows told him over the phone as soon as she got the word that Diana had died. In the BBC interview he recalls Jane saying "I'm afraid she's died." In the book (based on excerpt 2 published in the Daily Mail), CS writes: "And Jane, witnessing the completeness of his [her husband Robert Fellowes's] shock, relayed to me, in a soft voice: ‘That’s it… it’s curtains… Duch is dead…’ " It's minor, and these two versions aren't contradictory - except in the specific words used.

How, then, can we trust that KC literally and exactly said "rest assured, we'll forget her soon enough" and not something like "rest assured, this" (the uproar and controversy around Diana's funeral arrangements - which very likely WAS on KC's mind more than a pure, emotional grief response) "will be forgotten soon enough"? The atmosphere in the UK between her death and her funeral was extremely volatile and tense; I'm not sure CS, who was in Cape Town, would have fully appreciated what that was like in order to put KC's words in the full context. There's a possibility of mishearing in addition to misinterpreting - all made more likely by the fact that the two men never discussed this again and it's been 30 years. I'm not saying either one is lying or that my example of a possible alternative phrasing is correct, it just seems quite possible that CS's quotes may not reflect precisely what was said even if he believes they do.

As for being "giddy" in the aftermath of a death - well, the entire system of royalty (and aristocracy) situates and normalises the death of a loved one as the main way to get things you want. A better job, a higher-level title, more money, more land, a house, greater prestige, broader access - it all comes through the death of someone you love and whom your loved ones are mourning. It's no wonder if people are desensitised.