Strange days for royalists, right? They’re now twisting themselves in knots to bash Princess Diana’s brother, the Earl Spencer, for writing down his recollections of Diana and everything that happened around her. The first big headline from Swan Song was Charles Spencer’s recollection of a phone call between himself and then-Prince Charles in the days after Diana’s 1997 death. They were arguing over the funeral arrangements and Prince Charles unloaded “his pent-up contempt for Diana, and his horror that the world was so bowled over by her death.” Then Prince Charles hissed at Spencer, “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough!”
This recollection led to Buckingham Palace releasing a bonkers statement in which they basically called the Earl Spencer a liar: “While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is 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.” The royal ecosystem has been in shambles ever since, with even hardened royal-bootlickers questioning whether the palace’s statement put more fuel on this particular fire. I guess the palace forgot that Charles Spencer also signed up for promotional interviews, and in his new BBC interview, he was asked about the palace’s statement and whether he’s lying about the current king.
In his first interview since the statement was released, the Earl insisted he was “telling the truth” about the phone call, telling the BBC: “I can tell you here and now, those are exactly the words he said.”
Reacting to the comment from the palace in an interview at his Althorp estate, he said: “Well, is he furious? Is he furious or is he embarrassed?”
He added: “I’ve only ever had two calls on the line with Prince Charles at any stage of my life…. I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said and I promise that to you now. Genuinely, that is what he said. I don’t hear him saying he didn’t say that.”
When asked whether he had evidence to back up his claim, the Earl said he had told family and friends what had been said at the time “because it was so monstrous”.
He also described the palace rebuttal to his account as a “smudged one”, adding: “They’ve said that recollections may vary.”
Something I’m keeping my eye on is the performative shock AND the lack of shock in some quarters. The old-guard royal reporters who actually knew Diana and spoke to her often (like Richard Kay) are not shocked in the least by Charles Spencer’s revelations. Those are the reporters who remember the briefing wars and how the Windsors threw everything at Diana in an attempt to destroy her. But the performative-shock people are interesting too – like, given everything we know about King Charles, Spencer’s story sounds completely in character. I’m including the BBC interview below, alongside a clip of Richard Kay defending Charles Spencer and saying that of course Spencer kept notes and remembers what happened.
Richard Kay publicly confirns that Charles Spencer kept notes of everything that was said at all times and he was aware that King Charles has said this , apparently from Diana's family, her sisters were very upset about it and her mother too. He also mentions that King Charles…
— Nina (@ShakeLS) September 18, 2026
Screencaps courtesy of BBC.
I believe he said them, just like I believe he was giddy with excitement that she died. You only have to look how he treats Harry over the years – from the false stories about rehab ad beyond to Meghan and the children. Vile, self centered, cruel man.
People are going to believe what they’re going to believe, but so many people love Diana, so many people believe that her death was not an accident, people found it extremely cruel to have married Diana and cheated on her like he did when she was so so young, people knew how incandescent he was that Diana absolutely had star power and influence, and so many people questioned Charles implication in what happened to her. It will not be surprising that people will choose to believe Charles Spencer.
Anyone with memories about the war of the wales back in mid 90s will totally believe what Spencer says because it was being said back then.
It’s hilarious that some like Richard Kay are like “yeah I was there and I saw him take notes and I took notes back then of what I was told”.
The royalists getting mad at Spencer for writing a book about his sister are just upset because Spencer is simply reminding everyone of who Charles the current king really is.
They’re also upset that he’ll be exposing their lies and making pots more money than all of their own opportunistic books about Diana put together. He’s destroying their cushy little gigs one by one, and they are reduced to contradicting their own words and their own books in real time.
It’s not just that Kay confirms that it would be entirely in character for Spencer to take notes, especially given the circumstances around planning the funeral – but also, that Kay and CS spoke several times that week, Kay himself took notes about confidential things CS told him about Charles at the time – and Kay’s notes “chime very much with the revelations he [CS] has made in the book”. Yikes.
Yikes, The Fall of the House of Windsor? If William weren’t so beastly toward Harry and Meghan, I’d be feeling sorry for him. What a malignant trap.
William might be more than happy to just go to his fetish dungeons and drink himself sick all the time instead of having to pull himself together occasionally to go to a pub in public with Kate. The Earl is just telling the truth but it’s having the effect of a Molotov cocktail 🔥.
Just feel happy for Williams children. Let the fall of the Windsors come in time to free them.
That reporter has always been problematic but she was SO unprofessional. The naked scepticism, the scorn, the dismissive scoffing, the repeated insistence that he must have misheard, or be mistaken, and then dramatically reading – with exaggerated emphasis – the palace’s statement again, and repeating twice that “the king is CLEARLY FUUURIOUS!”
And knowing Prince Charles’ history and his history in the short time as king and doing the whole: “but this is the KING!” and “Are we to believe YOU over the actual KING????” And being “shocked” every time Earl Spencer said something. Nauseating. I admire the way he kept his cool, because she was clearly trying to rattle him.
She used to do the same thing to Labour and LibDem politicians whenever the Tories had been caught in a bind. I’m surprised she’s still employed by the BBC, thought she had left ages ago.
This is the reporter who interviewed Kamala Harris when she was in London on her book tour. I recognized her immediately. She tried to get MVP to say that President Biden had been in cognitive decline despite Harris denying that in the book. MVP shut her down hard.
It was set up as a reenactment of Prince Andrew’s interview with Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis.
All I was thinking was, wow, Charles Spencer is really smart, and Prince Andrew must be as dumb as a rock.
The reporter is laura kuenssberg.
A smug, snide woman who has only gotten worse since 2016. How she got so far up with BBC the world will never know.
I heard that the Tories seeded their right wing friendly people in the BBC during all their years in power. The BBC has changed a lot.
Thank you. Laura Keunssberg I think? I can’t stand her. She is so unprofessional in her interviews and her biases are always like a neon sign. Leading the viewers into a certain narrative. Who are we to believe, you or the KING? What a shill.
If Charles S said recollections may vary, that’s a deep stab into the bs the royals come out with since that was supposedly qe2’s reply to Harry. Go Spencers.
Ps I’m not looking it up but I thought it was qe2 and not Charles. Either or. I have a shocking memory.
Yes, you’re correct, it was QE2 who said recollections may vary. And when some people looked sideways at that, reports started giving Kitty the credit for it.
Remember when BP and KP went after the BBC regarding the Diana Panorama interview?
IIRC, Charles Spencer’s extensive notes and archiving sealed the BBC’s fate. His nephew William called him to help with the case. The BBC had to apologise, and later William declared they were the source of his mother’s paranoia.
He still had proof, over 30 years later, of what the BBC had done. So his memory and archives were enough to go after the BBC, but now they aren’t enough to tell his sister’s story.
Chuck has a long history of being nasty to people, its where William gets it from – in turn they got it from QEQM (who could be a nasty piece of work).
The irony is is that the Spencer family (inc. the Spencer-Churchill branch) have more titles and land that the RF with a aristocratic lineage going back to the 16/17th century. In some ways Diana came from better ‘stock’ than Chuck does – mind you most of the British aristocracy do.
When Elizabeth and Philip spent time in Malta, Charles Spencer’s father was sent as part of their official coterie. The father was their good friend, which is why the older sister had dated Prince Charles but found him too odd. So Philip eventually begged for Diana.
Because the palace treated Diana, a true blue blood, so horribly, no aristocrat would let their daughters marry William, especially because they all knew how vile Camilla was and didn’t want their daughters tortured by her. Camilla was never intimidated by Kate.
To this end, no aristocrats were invited to the coronation for the first time. Charles and Camilla swapped the aristocracy for tabloid hacks. Now they are suffering because their traditional base is keeping quiet, and the king has to rely on the usual tabloid hacks like Malone, Fitzwilliam, Eden and similar dregs.
“Is he furious or is he embarrassed?” Great comeback. He also points out that there is no denial. Spencer came well prepared for this nonsense.
They will probably never deny it. There is a real fear that the conversation was recorded by the ardent and strict note taker and writer.
Chucky has no shame and is beyond embarrassment. He actually thought the rehab of his image was working. This book is a well-deserved reality check.
It was a great comeback. And he came out looking more calm and collected than the reporter who kept pulling faces and acting aghast.
The royalists are hanging on for dear life. They can’t be on one hand cheering on Charles’ cruelty and pettiness towards Harry and Meghan and on the other believing Charles Spencer’s account of his interactions with Charles are lies.
This! Cruel, petty and utterly selfish are what Charles is and will always be!
Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, Richard Kay managed to do both. He was a confidant of Diana, and defended Charles Spencer. While managing to smear Harry in the very same article. Quite a feat.
Spencer, as per Kay, is right to write the truth about Diana, and has the receipts. While Harry “styles himself as Diana’s defender”, needs to get over it, and find another purpose in life than riding the coattails of his mother, whining brat that he is. He is writing for the Daily Fail after all, they won’t forgive Harry and Meghan for the lawsuits.
King Charles is a monster. I believe every word the Earl Spencer wrote.
What really boggles the mind is that we have known who King Charles is since he married Diana. Am I in a fever dream, or was he not one of the most hated people in the world after her death? In the same vein as knowing Trump was a scumball in the 90s and we all seem to have collectively forgotten, we all knew the royal family were horrible and probably led to Diana’s death. Then the Queen got old and suddenly she was revered and everyone’s favorite Grandma – despite decades of seeing her cold and unfeeling. It’s just not at all shocking to hear that the King would have said these words. He’s always been an a$$, who raised as a$$ who will take over when he dies. Why are the British so committed to these clowns?
“Why are the British so committed to these clowns?” It’s truly mind boggling.
I absolutely believe Charles Spencer. He speaks with great conviction, and it’s right to point out that the Palace’s statement didn’t actually deny that KC made the remarks (it was fluffy wording, designed to give the impression of a denial, without actually being a denial). Spencer is an intelligent man, and I don’t doubt that he has taken contemporaneous notes of key events and conversations throughout his adult life. He’s a published historian and was aware that his sister had become a part of history too by marrying into the BRF. His personal life has been a bit of a shitshow, and the press are attempting to weaponise this as if it devalues his stance, but then the palace can hardly take the higher ground in that respect, can they. Everyone remembers Spencer’s rage against the BRF at Diana’s funeral, and this just all makes sense.
Yes, and there’s a name for a statement put out to squelch a story without denying it. It’s called a non-denial denial.
I also remember KC being “giddy” just after QE2 died – it was when all the foreign dignitaries started to arrive for the funeral, he couldn’t stop grinning. I guess it made him feel important or something, as if they were all there for him rather than his mother.
So I can well believe he was giddy when Diana died too – how convenient for him, she was finally out of the way. Never mind how this would affect his sons. I just don’t think he can see beyond himself and his own interests.
“Recollections may vary” SLAY, I love how he supports Harry snd Meghan and although my initial impression was that Invictus was the impetus for the temporary relocation I now believe Earl Spencer heavily influenced the decision to come back.