Seems it’s now Harry’s uncle - the Earl of Spencer - having his turn at a “tell all” book.

I realise that JenniRen, every book by one person about another is bound to be their perspective. That doesn’t invalidate their account of joint experiences, or of conversations with others though.

David49

I had a lot of sympathy for Diana, unlike Catherine she was not well suited for the role, in addition she had an unfaithful husband, it must have been a miserable time for her.

Was Charles unfaithful during their marriage? Or is that rumour and speculation?

Casdon

I realise that JenniRen, every book by one person about another is bound to be their perspective. That doesn’t invalidate their account of joint experiences, or of conversations with others though.

Obviously it does invalidate their account if it is a lie.

Spencer has already been threatened with legal action.

There is no need to be so defensive. It does not invalidate everything somebody says if one, or several things are factually inaccurate. It calls their memory into question for sure, but most accounts of other people do contain some factual inaccuracies, they are based on memory and interpretation, which can both fail.

I'm not defensive 🤔

I was merely pointing out a fact.

It’s said the then Prince Charles was exchanging cosy chats with Camilla Parker Bowles on his honeymoon with Diana.

JenniferEccles

It’s said the then Prince Charles was exchanging cosy chats with Camilla Parker Bowles on his honeymoon with Diana.

Of course, that could have been true but Diana knew this before she married him. It was an arranged marriage, sometimes they work well but in this case caused unhappiness for all.

Casdon

I realise that JenniRen, every book by one person about another is bound to be their perspective. That doesn’t invalidate their account of joint experiences, or of conversations with others though.

Well it does if it contains provable inaccuracies presented as fact. That's why we have the laws of libel for printed matter and slander if spoken!
It can also cast doubt on other areas on the basis that if he got this so wrong, who,'s to say what else might be questionable.
If an opinion is stated it should be expressed as such, not presented as a fact.
Spencer has written a couple of very good history books and should know better! His editors or their minions should also have fact checked first.

JenniRen

JenniferEccles

It’s said the then Prince Charles was exchanging cosy chats with Camilla Parker Bowles on his honeymoon with Diana.

Of course, that could have been true but Diana knew this before she married him. It was an arranged marriage, sometimes they work well but in this case caused unhappiness for all.

Diana did not know this when she agreed to marry him and then when she realised was expected to follow through anyway. She was just 19 years old with much older people, including her future husband, advising and persuading her. Wherever the fault was, it doesn't appear to be Diana's nor can we dismiss it as something she knew about nor can we put it down to being "an arranged marriage". Many people have a friendship with their exes, it doesn't mean they are going to be unfaithful with them.
Incidentally, when I refer to 'fault', I am referring to the early period of the engagement and marriage rather than the later mess it turned out to be.

Yes MawsRosie, in relation to the specific facts which are inaccurate. My point is though that some facts being wrong does not mean that everything that is said is inaccurate. I’m not defending him, I just think the condemnation of everything he has written is misguided, doing so is based on the individual prejudices of the Gransnetters who write such comments, because like everything that is based on individual recollection, it’s not black and white.

His 'inaccurate assumption' about Piers Morgan would have been easily checked so why didn't he?

Was his assumption coloured by his personal dislike of PM and if so has his personal dislike of KC also coloured his 'memory' of a telephone conversation that took place 29 years ago.

I agree Casdon that some facts being wrong does not mean that everything that is said is inaccurate but it does rightly IMO create doubt as to the validity of ES's book, as it did with H&M's Oprah interview and H's book Spare.

Casdon

Yes MawsRosie, in relation to the specific facts which are inaccurate. My point is though that some facts being wrong does not mean that everything that is said is inaccurate. I’m not defending him, I just think the condemnation of everything he has written is misguided, doing so is based on the individual prejudices of the Gransnetters who write such comments, because like everything that is based on individual recollection, it’s not black and white.

I agree that you shouldn’t dismiss everything, but once he has proven to be inaccurate, every other fact he writes could justifiably be questioned.
Would you trust someone who you discover to have distributed even one about you?

You're also right about writing, on GN or in his book, being individual prejudices and recollection.

I know from talking to my sisters about our childhood events, that we all remember different things, and saw the situations differently Mollygo, so I think if one of them had a memory that was different to mine, I’d put it down to the hackneyed ‘recollections may vary’. This is a brother’s account, so it’s all from that perspective, and his flawed memory of events fifty plus years ago forwards, I think that’s how I would view it.

This is one reason Charles Spencer should never have written this book, supposedly a biography, as it has stirred up all the speculation about Diana and Charles again: did they, didn't they; not our business now.

And in writing this book Spencer of all people, should have checked every word, statement, speculation he wrote himself before publication, because he was in the prime position to know.
Which makes me think this book was written in haste.
.

Casdon

I know from talking to my sisters about our childhood events, that we all remember different things, and saw the situations differently Mollygo, so I think if one of them had a memory that was different to mine, I’d put it down to the hackneyed ‘recollections may vary’. This is a brother’s account, so it’s all from that perspective, and his flawed memory of events fifty plus years ago forwards, I think that’s how I would view it.

I agree, Casdon. In my mind my sister exaggerates everything that happened in our childhood with some things inflated to beyond the truth. As far as she is concerned, I underplay everything and obviously I disagree with that although accept there are some things I have buried deeply enough to be able to carry on my relationships without continual angst. Sometimes I find myself "fact" checking with other members of the family because I find myself doubting my own memories. I suspect the reality for most things would be that it is somewhere in the middle however, one thing I do know for sure is we were never, ever in care...something she has told loads of people! Who knows where the truth lies with Earl Spencer, Prince Charles and Piers Morgan.
However, one thing I think is that Piers Morgan is not a nice person, holds grudges and never sounds particularly friendly to me so whenever he says he was respectful to Earl Spencer when he revoked the press invitations to the funeral, I can see exactly why his tone sounded the way Charles Spencer reports it.

No disrespect to Lorraine, ITV she has a job to do.

But, when the landed gentry decide to appear on daytime tv to promote their novel, it’s time to switch off!

How dreadful for William to be related to not one, but two attention seekers.

I wonder if Harry timed his return to the UK to coincide with the publication of his uncle’s controversial book?

Delila

I wonder if Harry timed his return to the UK to coincide with the publication of his uncle’s controversial book?

🤣🤣🤣
Are we allowed to wonder things like that!

But then, I wonder whether Harry will publish how upset he is that his mother’s past is being dragged up for all to speculate on again? Or whether for once he will keep schtum, rather than upset his uncle?

Mollygo

Delila

I wonder if Harry timed his return to the UK to coincide with the publication of his uncle’s controversial book?

🤣🤣🤣
Are we allowed to wonder things like that!

But then, I wonder whether Harry will publish how upset he is that his mother’s past is being dragged up for all to speculate on again? Or whether for once he will keep schtum, rather than upset his uncle?

Mollygo, who knows? It does, though, provide a chance to air various grievances again, with back-up this time.

No harm in wondering…😄

He is widely considered to have moved deliberately to coincide with this muckraking money maker of a 'book'.

Aveline

He is widely considered to have moved deliberately to coincide with this muckraking money maker of a 'book'.

Widely considered by who? This is an assumption made by those who would believe the worst rather than there being any evidence quoted by anybody and speculation by the press who keep stoking negativity. Move on and in a couple of months this will be considered "fact" regardless of there being no evidence of this; it seems to happen to anybody who is famous that the press doesn't like.

Casdon

I know from talking to my sisters about our childhood events, that we all remember different things, and saw the situations differently Mollygo, so I think if one of them had a memory that was different to mine, I’d put it down to the hackneyed ‘recollections may vary’. This is a brother’s account, so it’s all from that perspective, and his flawed memory of events fifty plus years ago forwards, I think that’s how I would view it.

Pity that isn’t written in the forward of the book.

icanhandthemback

Aveline

He is widely considered to have moved deliberately to coincide with this muckraking money maker of a 'book'.

Widely considered by who? This is an assumption made by those who would believe the worst rather than there being any evidence quoted by anybody and speculation by the press who keep stoking negativity. Move on and in a couple of months this will be considered "fact" regardless of there being no evidence of this; it seems to happen to anybody who is famous that the press doesn't like.

Exactly the same applies to the things that Spencer has in his book, his descriptions of Prince Charles as "looking elated" and so on. Now that they are published in print, they risk becoming "facts", even if he was grieving for his sister at that moment and probably very ready to believe that her estranged husband was rejoicing at her death.

I rather like him,as he said in the BBC interview he wanted to have a last word about his experiences with the Royal family with respect to his sister. I felt he was eloquent but frankly seething with rage, well controlled but defiant, at Diana's funeral.
As others have said a flawed individual but one who loved his sister, who still fascinates many people.
I'm not remotely a Royalist but really want to read the book

I hope Piers Morgan's lawyers make a hefty dent in Earl Spencer's profits.
Nobody has any right to publish a book knowing some of the 'facts' are inaccurate. It makes me wonder how many more facts are incorrect.
I had to laugh at the item on BBC News which showed a bookshop putting Half Price stickers on the jacket.