The panic is difficult to miss in the current cycle, and it’s a particular kind of panic emanating from King Charles and his merry band of sycophants. For the past month, I have not gotten “panic” about the Sussexes’ UK return whatsoever – even if Charles was caught off-guard, he clearly believes he has the tools to manage the Sussexes, regardless of what they’re saying or doing. He does not have the ability to control or manage the Spencers, specifically the Earl Spencer, Princess Diana’s brother. Which is why the king is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Charles Spencer from the word go. Well, the Telegraph is trying to do running commentary about the palace fallout from Charles Spencer’s Swan Song, the revelation that then-Prince Charles said “rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough” just days after Diana’s death. Some main points:

Charles Spencer didn’t warn his nephews or the palace: Earl Spencer did not warn Prince Harry, Prince William or Buckingham Palace about the contents of his memoir of Diana, Princess of Wales, The Telegraph understands. Although it was announced that the Earl was writing the book, the security operation around it was so tight that the manuscript was not shared in advance. The Princess’s sons, former husband and Buckingham Palace were also not warned about allegations made in its pages.

King Charles’ former PR guru says the king ordered staffers to never criticize Diana: The King told staff never to criticise Diana, Princess of Wales, for years after her death, a former aide has said. The then Prince of Wales was “absolutely emphatic” in ensuring that her memory was respected, according to Julian Payne, his communications secretary at the time. [Payne] said he did not recognise “the way the King is being characterised in those remarks”, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Naturally, we ended up discussing her several times during that summer because the media interest was so intense. What I remember was he was very clear that there was never to be any criticism, never to be any pushback on the narratives that were usually highly critical of him. He was absolutely emphatic that we were to respect her memory and not undermine it in any way. When he was telling us there was never to be any criticism or pushback, that wasn’t about him. That was absolutely about the late Princess and her memory, so it seems to me very odd that in the moment itself, with the grief of his family and his own shock, that he would choose that moment to use those words. It’s just not language that I recognise.”

A source close to the King disputes Charles Spencer’s book passage: A source close to the King said the alleged comment about Diana was “just not in his nature and it certainly wasn’t in his nature at that time, when he was a man absolutely grief-stricken”. The source added that, at the time, he was “paralysed with grief” and defied protocol by insisting that Diana be afforded a full state-style ceremonial funeral, and that her coffin be draped in the royal standard as it was returned from Paris to London.

[From The Telegraph]

The complaining and explaining is really amazing to see. It turns out that a whole-ass king is capable of complaining and explaining at any time, and does so whenever he feels like it. That last part is worth a highlight – then-Prince Charles was “a man absolutely grief-stricken.” And yet, in the palace’s Wednesday statement, King Charles is apparently “mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and color memory in ways others do not recognize, even many years after such a loss.” Meaning that Prince Charles’ grief for the ex-wife he hated made his memory sharp as a tack, but Charles Spencer’s grief for his sister made his memory cloudy? Grief is so funny, I guess.

As for whether Charles Spencer informed his nephews or the palace about anything in the book… I believe that Spencer didn’t send out advance copies to anyone. But I also believe that Harry probably had some idea of some of the stories in the book.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images.