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

What a way to commemorate Diana’s tragic death. Her death had such an intense influence in the country, high expressed emotion around us. No wonder the feelings of the royal and Spencer family remain heightened.

Why now? That’s what’s on everyone’s lips.My own view is that Harry has persuaded him to do it.To tell his ‘truth’ to further get at the RF and discredit it.Now he is in the UK I think he will be a constant malign presence.

Earl Spencer said he wanted to commemorate thirty years since her death by recording his memories. He’s evidently a respected historian,. It’s clear Diana, Charles and the impact of their disastrous marriage will be continued to be studied by historians (and the media)

How sad to see one of her children described as a constant malign presence. How on earth is Harry responsible for the actions of his uncle.

I would believe a word he says, just a money grubber.

I would = I wouldn’t

I find it funny that Spencer's sisters are keeping quite? Are they not supported their brother and his book?
KC went with both sisters to escort her body back to the UK, it was not the her big mouth Brother, that speaks volumes if he really cared.

It’s said that they are very close Iam64 and have spent a lot of time together.
And yes, I do believe that Harry will be a malign presence here and yes it’s sad but true.
He’s so far into his victim status I don’t think he can ever climb out of it.

Having his turn at malicious shit-stirring, is how I’d put it.

Witzend

Having his turn at malicious shit-stirring, is how I’d put it.

Exactly.
And now the Earl is being interviewed and is headline news on all the news outlets here and abroad.
What a vindictive man.
There are bettter ways to commemorate the death of a loved one.

My perspective is that we can't know precisely what Charles was thinking or what he meant when he made those comments that obviously irk Spencer.

I'm not defending Charles, simply trying to be objective about an emotive subject. I think it's well understood that people in shock sometimes do - and say - things that seem at odds with the gravity of the situation. On the other hand, it's also known by most that Charles took a rather pragmatic 'approach' to his early relationship with Diana - in spite of the media attempting to portray it as some kind of fairy tale romance.

When he said, "she'll be forgotten soon enough" I'm guessing most people - and certainly Spencer - believed he meant that he would soon forget her. Maybe he did - however, it's also possible that he made the observation in a 'world-weary' cynical way. I don't know and I don't think anyone can say for sure why he said that or what he meant by it; although those that really dislike him will insist otherwise.

What puzzles me more - because I'm interested in human behaviour - is why Spencer decided to write this 'tell-all' book. I understand he feels protective of Diana and maybe the drive to 'put the record straight' is now his mission in later life, but I'm surprised it doesn't seem to have occurred to him that, in doing this, he'll also put his sister back into the spotlight. She may well have been "The people's Princess", but not for everyone. To some, her erratic behaviour and her subsequent affairs provoke less than flattering observations.

If he's attempting to highlight the dysfunctionality of the RF 'life', and to stick it to the King - is he not aware that the similar dysfunctionality within his own family, not to mention his serial-marriages, will also come under the spotlight? If you think about it, historically nobility, the aristocracy, royalty, have always to some degree or other been somewhat flawed and maladjusted.

I just don't know what he hopes to gain from this book. Maybe it would really have been better to allow Diana to simply RIP.

Shame on the BBC for doing an interview and is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that in 29 years no one has ever publicised what ES told them Charles supposedly said about Diana soon being forgotten?

I think when telling a lie it needs at the very least to be believable. Why on earth would Charles expect, believe or want his sons to forget their mother?

I would have expected this book to come out this time next year, the actual 30th anniversary of Diana’s death.

Why now?

Is it because there’s talk of Harry making a film/documentary next year to commemorate his mother’s life?

Frightened it’ll take attention off the book?

For what it’s worth, (and I’m a Royalist), I’m afraid I do tend to believe the Earl’s take on all this. The King has not denied saying it, just hedged round with flowery phrases.

What I do think is that it’s all out of context, I think Charles meant that the huge outpouring around Diana would, inevitably, fade away, and she would be, not ‘forgotten’, but not relevant in the same way.

I also think that many words should never have been published, this applies to Harry as well as his uncle.

On youtube there are video clips and transcripts of Charles Spencer being interviewed where he answers questions about his eulogy at the funeral. One was did King Charles or any of the RF criticise it. His reply was no, none of them ever said anything nasty to him, they were pleasant and all took the same train back to Althorp for the burial. Does that sound like a man who had been ranted at and told his dead sister would 'soon be forgotten' only days earlier?
Why do people assume CS is telling the truth? And why would he wait until now and not reveal this soon after the death? He's exploited Diana's memory for money before, he's doing it again now in my opinion.

Why do people assume CS is telling the truth?

Because you cannot imagine the ex brother-in-law of the King would tell such blatant untruths, if that is what they are? Even if they dislike each other intensely.

Because it’s slander, if untrue. And saying it about the Monarch, not just any old ex BIL.

But then H&M have been economical with the truth on more than one occasion also.

I just don’t see why there is a cause for outrage over something dodgy the King said 29 years ago at a time of heightened emotion. I mean the Earl says he just listened to the King rant on and said nothing, which seems odd seeing as he’d just lost his sister and disliked the King already.
Weddings and funerals are times when people can say or do something inappropriate that might be remembered for a long time but are seldom weaponised and usually accommodated. Certainly most people can’t write a tell all book about what auntie Sylvia said at great uncle Percy’s funeral. Who would care?
And of course the King’s father was renowned for dropping clangers, by comparison I feel the King is fairly restrained but if on one occasion he let his guard down and became cross with the Earl, saying something regrettable, so what? Has anyone not been guilty of this at some point?
We all get to the end of our tether.

And btw that is if we believe the Earl. Which I don’t. He is taking things out of context and not remarking on what he said to the King at the time.

In her interview with Earl Spencer Laura Kuenssberg raised the question about which Charles the public should believe.

A fair question which makes me wonder whether Harry will believe his father or uncle.

I don’t think he can sit on the fence.

There isn't any cause for outrage about conversations between Spencer and the King.
This is simply a two pronged attack on the King from uncle and nephew, fuelled by their festering resentment provoked by Diana, who contributed to her misfortunes rather more than we realised at the time of her death.
The pretence that Harry was attempting a reconciliation with his father appears to have gone by the board, also the resumption of Meghan's 'acting career'. The children's education in England seems now to be of secondary importance.
I also wonder if Spencer's three marriages failed because of his obsession, or possibly guilt, about his sister.

I fear we are facing the prospect of the resurrection of the Cult of Diana for the next twelve months.

I think when you have four marriages and seemingly difficulties in relationships with your children the person responsible is likely to be the man in the centre of it.
I think however he was probably telling the truth about what charles said but I dont think that reveals anything about Charles that we didnt already know.

Recollections indeed vary, as do opinions.

Firstly there doesn't seem to be any independent record of who said what to whom during a telephone conversation that took place thirty years ago.
Secondly Earl Spencer is not going to tell Laura Kuensberg now that KC did not say what ES quoted in his recently published book.
Thirdly language , tone and context are everything in understanding a conversation. Any conversation about public reaction and possible intrusiveness into ES's private life per se and on his estate where the late POW is buried could have provoked a " everyone will move on/forget " type comment. Didn't the brother refuse his sister's accomodation on the Spencer Estate request because of possible public/press intrusiveness ?
The Spencers , through William, late Princess Diana's son, will inherit the throne. There's no need for a succession war.

I've never liked Charles or Camilla they both did the dirty on Princess Diana, Charles used her and Camilla was no angel either. So no sympathy from me for Charles and I would think a fair amount published in the book is true. I would have loved to have seen how Diana's life had turned out if she had lived.

That's very pertinent Rosie. I didn't know about that and it certainly makes ES's claims even more outrageous IMO.

As for the response from Charles, it's just like the Queen's 'recollections may vary' a very diplomatic way of saying that someone's lying, without actually saying so.

It’s 45 years since Charles and Diana married.

With the benefit of hindsight, of course they should never have done so.

Totally unsuited in every way.

But they did, it all went wrong, ended terribly with her untimely death.

I’m sure Charles has often regretted things he has said and done regarding his ex wife, and if Diana had lived, I’m sure the same would have applied.

Nothing can change any of it, and raking up past slights and hurts does no one any good.

a fair amount published in the book is true shouldn't everything in the book be true Peacelildilly? If not, how's anyone supposed to know what's true and what isn't?