Charles Spencer sees ‘echoes’ of Diana when he sees Harry & Meghan’s treatment

As I was looking up some background on Charles Spencer’s relationship with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, I was startled to remember that Tom Bower, that rancid old fart, once boldly claimed that Spencer repeatedly tried to talk Prince Harry out of marrying Meghan. As of yet, Spencer has not been asked about that claim in his promotional interviews. However, he was asked about how much attention Harry and Meghan receive, and how the Sussexes have been targeted endlessly for years:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are receiving negative attention that “echoes” the scrutiny the late Princess Diana also experienced, according to her brother, Charles Spencer.

During an appearance on BBC News to promote his book Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, the 9th Earl Spencer addressed concerns that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are facing criticism similar to what Diana faced before she died in a car crash in Paris at the age of 36 in August 1997.

Spencer, 62, famously described Diana as “the most hunted person of the modern age” in the eulogy delivered at her funeral, while blasting the treatment she endured from the press and the royal establishment.

“If you look at an article in a tabloid about Diana or the couple that you’re mentioning, Harry and Meghan, they can be really, really unpleasant,” Charles told BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg from his Althorp estate. “I think it would be really beholden on people to learn from Diana’s example.”

Kuenssberg brought up two concerning claims made by the Sussexes, who recently returned to the U.K. from California six years after stepping back from royal duties. Prince Harry, 42, spoke out about a lack of support from the institution with his life choices, while Meghan, 45, once described herself as “the most trolled person in the entire world.”

“I’m not here to speak for Harry and Meghan, but for anyone who is being destroyed in this way daily, it must be such a cancerous influence in their life,” said Spencer, recalling how he saw sister Diana’s “tears of despair” in response to the media coverage that she received.

“One of the problems with Diana was she was very sensitive to the criticism,” he continued of the late Princess of Wales. “I’m sure most of your viewers think ‘she had this splendid life and it was all amazing, she was so privileged and perfect in so many ways,’ but she was really brought low by all of that criticism.”

“I suppose it’s a pity when I see echoes of that now,” Spencer added.

[From People]

There are “echoes” of Diana’s treatment when it comes to the Sussexes, almost as if the monarchy, the press and the establishment are running the exact same Diana playbook on Harry and Meghan. It’s shocking to see the exact same talking points and arguments made against both Diana and Harry. And Meghan is a lot like Diana too – both are sensitive women who have been driven to suicidal ideation because of the sheer volume of bullying, hectoring and smearing. Charles Spencer has been very measured and sympathetic in how he speaks about his nephews.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Charles Spencer sees ‘echoes’ of Diana when he sees Harry & Meghan’s treatment”

  1. JFerber says:

    Absolutely right. Thank you for stepping up, Charles Spencer. Now please tell Harry to come back home to California.

  2. Shiela Kerr says:

    We all do.

  3. Ocean Girl says:

    Yeah, no lies detected. I understand why Harry would want to be “on British soil,” but I’ve had a bad feeling about it since they decided to do this.

  4. Lorelei says:

    TBH I think it’s actually a lot worse for Meghan considering the technology available now.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    When the press used to say the Palace learned from the mistakes they made with Diana, it was a lie. The difference was they got a married in (Kate) who was willing to give up her agency and personality to be the future Queen.

    • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

      I think you’re giving KKKate more credit than she’s due. This is a woman who never had a real job in her whole life. Was there agency or personality to give up?

      • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

        Kate was very very ambitious. I think she knew she had little to work in terms of her personality, self potential and she was very traditional at the gender level: gurl was like Camilla, she never had or dreamt of being a self successful hard working professional women. Never. She was looking to rely on someone else to be able to call herself successful. She bent over backwards and became very patiiiient, erased and invisible, get her dream of being in the top chair one day. She is actually really the best match for the monarchy to replace Diana – (not the best match to lazy willie)

        She is proof today, that even after so many years, she still doesnt have anything to show for, with her “power” inside the royal family. No world influence, no voice, no opinion, no nothing. That is exactly what it means to NEVER PUT A FOOT WRONG.

      • Lorelei says:

        It’s actually an interesting thought experiment. Wish we could have a “Sliding Doors” view of what Kate would have done with herself if she hadn’t successfully gotten William to take her back after the 2007 breakup (although no one would really care who she was if that was the case!).

    • Tessa says:

      The press and royals did not learn. The issues with Diana was limited to her workload or so they said . so Kate could get away with working less and being “eased in” to work. Or they needed a break because they just married. Kate never stepped up .Diana liked to work and the marriage to Charles was the real issue, with him not wanting to be “overshadowed” and “jealous” of his wife.

  6. Hypocrisy says:

    I don’t know the lady who interviewed him in this, but I did not like her at all.. Charles Spencer has been a master class in all the interviews I’ve seen even when there is an obvious hostility underlying the questions they are asking.

    • Livvy says:

      He has been doing extremely well and it is such a pleasure to listen to him speak so eloquently and also put interviewers in their place when necessary. The interview with Tina Brown is another example. She is a very overbearing personality who needs to be seen as sharply clever (her book on Diana failed for me because of this and her constant need to insert how well connected she was in English society). The audience applauded Earl Spencer a few times for his strong responses and Tina did back down and move on as an admission of defeat. This makes it such a delight to listen to him. Diana has a true champion.

  7. MikeB says:

    Here is a Daily Express story headline, “Meghan was just rocked by brutal reminder that she’s no longer relevant-it’s humiliating” .My question to the Express is this, if Meghan is no longer relevant why do you pump out 20+ stories on a daily basis?

    • Beth says:

      Sounds like this is about the Ari Emanuel nonsense. The reality is that he transitioned to overall Executive Chairman after corporate restructuring, so is no longer directly oversees any WME talent (who all remain ‘relevant’, lol!). WME stills represents Meghan and Archewell and has done for over 3 years now.

    • Lorelei says:

      @MikeB, it makes me so sad, truly, that there’s an entire cottage industry that makes millions of dollars off of trashing Meghan, so they’re never going to stop. Magazines, websites, podcasts, books, even “merch” on places like Etsy ffs.

      She’s obviously learned how to process it, and she focuses on what’s important to her, but she still knows what’s out there and is likely concerned about how a lot of things will need to be explained to the kids when they’re older.

      That’s why, even when she makes a choice I personally find puzzling, I cannot bring myself to criticize the person who — IIRC — was the most abused woman on the internet for at least two years straight for absolutely no reason (besides racism).

      Human decency seems to exist less and less every day. And lawmakers need to do a LOT and fast to keep up with technology/social media.

  8. Brassy Rebel says:

    I have been critical of Harry and what I see as his embrace of the monarchy and royalty in general. I try to keep my comments civil without personal criticism or name calling. Everyone here keeps me honest in fact, and I appreciate that. My criticism is always from the left because I’m anti-monarchy. But the discourse CS calls out here is a whole different thing. First of all, it’s right wing commentary based on the ridiculous idea that the royal establishment is always right. But more importantly, this kind of criticism becomes very personal very quickly. It’s marked by snide superiority and cruel name calling. And most of it is just straight out lying about the Sussexes, especially Meghan. Finally, these critics are putting their misogynoir on full display against Meghan who, in their telling, has turned Harry into her puppet with no agency of his own. It’s all toxic and very much resembles their treatment of Diana 30-40 years ago. If anything bad happens, they won’t care and will simply move on to their next target. So sick.

  9. YankeeDoodles says:

    I totally appreciate this comment, @Brassy Rebel, it’s very well put. And it puts me in mind of what everyone deplores about our politics at the moment — in the UK but also in the US, I would say to a lesser extent — which is “populism.” But the media is incredibly influential in creating that vibe, that tone, that mood. The entitlement of some very second-rate bigoted, provincial self-appointed gatekeepers is inversely proportional to any “journalism” they have practiced. It’s just namecalling. If you want evidence, facts, logic, proof, context, insight…. Forget it. They’re a shrill mob. And it’s a mob mentality that they cultivate. Every fascist movement starts with journalism, Mussolini was a braying mule for a fascist movement, Hitler made rabble-rousing speeches and wrote a book-length harangue, the National Socialist movement was anchored by their party paper, Goebbels was a diabolical propagandist, Nigel Farage is a media darling, Donald Trump started his presidential run effectively off the back of his slot in reality tv, Boris Johnson was a celebrated journalist and tv “personality,” it’s all…. Just a bit like these people are playing roles that even they don’t take seriously. Then you have the radio talking heads, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, then Fox News, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc…. It’s all a fascist flavoured ecosystem anchored by the media. Harry specifically calls out Rupert Murdoch in Spare, and he’s right. For whatever reason, these people think news coverage is on par with medieval witch-burning and superstition, it’s like watching a village in the grip of a neurotic paranoid episode. Like Salem. Fascist politics are all *personal* and it’s about selecting us and them, membership. Which is depressingly terminal. Nothing good ever comes from it.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment