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

BlessedArt Whether anyone here accepts it or not, the comments may or may not have been said.

I'm not one of those you accuse of never faulting Royalty. I just question whether if your brother-in-law had made that comment to you would you be able to be so congenial just 3 months later? I certainly couldn't 'forgive and forget' that quickly, and I'd not manage to smile and be congenial. For me that's so unlikely that I do question the veracity of that particular quote. And if it was true and I could forgive so quickly why would I 30 years later want to resurrect it knowing how awful it would be for my beloved nephews to hear it, probably for the first time?

Bellanonna I haven't read the book, have no intention of doing so, I don't knowingly put money into the pockets of vile men like Charles Spencer. I will comment on accredited quotes from it if I see fit.

BlessedArt
Whether anyone here accepts it or not, the comments may or may not have been said

Or might have been totally invented?
Could you possibly hedge your bets any more?

Smileless2012

First time I've heard that nonsense lemsip and am surprised anyone would believe it TBH and as for all books would've been gone over by lawyers prior to print, that doesn't stop them peddling lies as 'Spare' is an example of.

What a shame he didn't stick to books of historical note GrannyGravy.

Diana who could have become our Queen is and will be of historical interest in years to come.

Smileless2012

The book isn't out until next week but is to be serialised in the Daily Mail and I think this snippet was 'leaked'. You don't have to read the book to comment on one publicised item it contains.

To be fair - and ignoring the obvious reason why this comment was “leaked” (aye right) all we can do is comment on this extract- but nothing to stop us from extrapolating from it the likely tenor of the book.

Yes historical interest GrannyGravy. Is unsubstantiated 'he said' worthy of historical note?

If Spencer wanted to bite back he could have found a way to do it that didn’t involve causing further division between his own flesh and blood. Losing one’s mother isn’t something you simply get over, and hearing about your father possibly saying such a callous thing about their loss can bring one back to the early days of pain.

Didn't read Harry's nor want yo read this .let Diana rest in peace. What sort of uncle puts those boys through bad memories of a awful time. Like they say if you can't say something nice say nothing..

Didn't Meghan and Harry stay with him a while ago? Enough said.
The man is ill and carrying on, as you do. Leave him alone.

I hope they know their father well enough to know he'd never have said such a thing.

I think it's understandable Earl Spencer wants to put, what he perceives, as the injustices that PD suffered to rights. He didn't think it was acceptable that W&H should have been made to follow behind PD coffin, for all to view. He thought his sister wouldn't have wanted that. PC, at the time, apparently replied that he had followed his uncle Lord Mountbatten's procession. To which ES said you were age 30. Thereafter ES says PC was incandescent with rage and said she will soon be forgotten.
I don't find it hard to believe that conversation happened. I think ES in his speech at PD funeral showed palpable anger towards the RF.

.
Watch his 'Rosebud' interview with Gyles Brandreth on YouTube.
It quite marvelous and very honest.

You really get to realise that he's a very decent chap and how his early life (mother leaving; abusive school etc) has affected him in adult life (i.e failed marriages).

It's incredibly interesting - and, as with all his 'Rosebud' interviews, Gyles is the perfect interviewer/conversationist.

(P.S. I very much enjoyed also, amongst many others, the 'Rosebud' interviews with Richard E Grant and Sir Julian Fellowes)
.

Thanks for that Barbadosbelle.

Horrible funeral address. Seems he is keeping Diana’s wrecking tactics going— to undermine the royal establishment. When she said in her Bashir interview—- I don’t know if Charles wants to be king—-that was the start, egged on by Harry unwittingly(minimum wits) and Megan and Spencer. Just wreckers. Long live the king.

Even if the words were said, there are so many ways in which they could have been uttered, depending on the circumstances.

Plevey08

I think it's understandable Earl Spencer wants to put, what he perceives, as the injustices that PD suffered to rights. He didn't think it was acceptable that W&H should have been made to follow behind PD coffin, for all to view. He thought his sister wouldn't have wanted that. PC, at the time, apparently replied that he had followed his uncle Lord Mountbatten's procession. To which ES said you were age 30. Thereafter ES says PC was incandescent with rage and said she will soon be forgotten.
I don't find it hard to believe that conversation happened. I think ES in his speech at PD funeral showed palpable anger towards the RF.

But what's done is done? I expect many of us have to accept that in our own lives.

Rosie51

BlessedArt Whether anyone here accepts it or not, the comments may or may not have been said.

I'm not one of those you accuse of never faulting Royalty. I just question whether if your brother-in-law had made that comment to you would you be able to be so congenial just 3 months later? I certainly couldn't 'forgive and forget' that quickly, and I'd not manage to smile and be congenial. For me that's so unlikely that I do question the veracity of that particular quote. And if it was true and I could forgive so quickly why would I 30 years later want to resurrect it knowing how awful it would be for my beloved nephews to hear it, probably for the first time?

Bellanonna I haven't read the book, have no intention of doing so, I don't knowingly put money into the pockets of vile men like Charles Spencer. I will comment on accredited quotes from it if I see fit.

What I would or wouldn’t do has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the comments were said. Same goes for everyone else. People can be as angry as they like about the possibility but none of us were there and we will never know. I don’t put anything past anyone these days, least of all a so-called “royal”.

MawsRosie

BlessedArt
Whether anyone here accepts it or not, the comments may or may not have been said

Or might have been totally invented?
Could you possibly hedge your bets any more?

Did you not understand what “may or may not meant”?

Are you upset that I acknowledge that I—like you—weren’t there and can’t know the truth?

Before making such an accusation I really think.you must have proof! Unless some can be found, it is no better than 'you said, he said'. I think only one nephew will be extremely upset at these new revelations, the younger? upset is not a word that immediately comes to mind!!!

Oh dear, is it just me or is anyone else sick of this unpleasant saga?

Alison333

Oh dear, is it just me or is anyone else sick of this unpleasant saga?

No, it's not just you.

I wish they'd all quietly go away and donate their money.

Harry will be round to Uncle Charles for a chat about this. Something for Harry to add to his dislike of his family.

I see no reason to disbelieve Earl Spencer based on the palace putting out a statement. The King is perfectly able to remember things differently as can anybody who has a mind to. There are many things reported on the shocking things Charles said to Diana, he is known for being bad tempered at times and quite frankly, had he been anyone other than the King, he would have had no say in Diana's funeral at all as they were divorced. I don't think his very public role at the funeral was anything other than Charles trying to win back the public's adoration which had suffered enormously with his affair with Camilla.
That said, I don't suppose there is much love from the Earl of Spencer for Charles either. However, he is as entitled as anyone to put his side of the story. I'm not sure it is a book I'd buy nor would I put my life on the line to suggest it was truth or lies. Ask different people what happened at a single situation and you will get different stories with the emphasis on various different points. Unless you keep records of incidents that happened so long ago, I think it is quite possible that both sides will have justified their actions with the retelling of their stories, either to others or themselves, and there will be a vast difference over the years as to what actually happened. Scientifically, this is a known thing and that memory becomes completely true in your mind and completely true in someone else's. No wonder recollections differ!

paddyann54

Aren,t all sides allowed to give their stories?
Charles and Diana both had books and interviews and I don’t remember the outrage that Harry,s book caused .
Now her brother wants his experience told…why not?
I certainly wouldn,t trust the “king” or any off his offspring to tell a fact based truth so I suppose this book will be the same .
Monarchy belongs in the past and that’s where it should have been left.
Hopefully if people can see through the very thin veneer of upstanding humans and see the mire underneath we,ll see the end of the “Windsors”. very very soon .
The billions we pay on their upkeep can be put to better use !

"Aren,t all sides allowed to give their stories?"

Yes, of course, but my point was that serious historians will research the facts, not sensational, possibly false, recollections of an interested party who had their own agenda.

Of course,this could be great fodder for future episodes of The Crown. I've never actually watched it, but apparently much is pure fiction.

Whoops started a thread on this this morning, not sure how to delete mine, in any case it isn’t attracting much attention so will just post on here. 🙄

Agree with OP that this can only make a bad situation worse.
Impossible to think that there is any benign motive behind it.