Jobson: King Charles reacted poorly to Camilla’s father’s 2006 death too

Last week, the Mail broke the story, via their serialization of the Earl Spencer’s Swan Song, about what King Charles said to the Earl Spencer just days after Princess Diana’s death in Paris. According to Spencer, then-Prince Charles was furious that Spencer did not believe that Prince Harry and William should walk behind their mother’s casket for the funeral. Prince Charles ranted at his ex-brother-in-law and then hissed “we’ll forget her soon enough.” Well, royal commentators have been at their wit’s end about it. Old-school reporters (who were actually there) have said that it actually sounds like something King Charles would have said at the time. Other commentators have tried to convince everyone that Spencer is lying. Like, these people are in shambles at the very idea that their king is a piece of sh-t who loathed his ex-wife. That the king threw a temper tantrum over Diana’s funeral arrangements. Robert Jobson has tasked himself with massaging the story in the most bizarre way. Via his latest Mail column:

Why did the palace issue a statement about Spencer’s book? These days, Buckingham Palace does not comment on books, as a matter of principle. It did not comment on Prince Harry’s Spare. I co-wrote Inspector Ken Wharfe’s memoir Diana: Closely Guarded Secret in 2002 covering his years protecting the princess, and that was greeted with silence too….Asked about Earl Spencer’s memoir, Swan Song, a palace spokesman restated the principle, then commented anyway. ‘His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and color memory.’ Somebody, surely, like his top aide Sir Clive Alderton, must have cleared it with the King before it went out. His Majesty should have sent it back with a black line through it. A classic non-denial denial. Too clever for its own good. It reads as a swipe at Earl Spencer. Calls him a liar without actually saying it. Worse, it leaves the impression that something was said. A dignified silence from the throne would have resonated far louder.

The king was so stupid to issue a statement: He is the head of state after all. Justice in Britain is dispensed in the King’s name. He should have risen above the fray, as his office requires, rather than be dragged into mudslinging.

Jobson doesn’t believe Prince Charles was giddily elated: The trouble lies in the phone calls after Diana died. Spencer claims that in one, soon after the news broke, Charles sounded ‘giddily elated, like a lottery winner.’ Do me a favor. Utter twisted nonsense. They also clashed over whether William and Harry should walk behind their mother’s coffin. By the earl’s account, he told Charles that Diana would not have wanted it, then held his tongue through a rant that, according to Spencer, ended when Charles uttered the words, ‘Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.’ Spencer was in no mood to be ordered about by the Windsors. In his eyes they had treated his sister badly and now they and the courtiers she loathed were dictating her farewell.

But the Earl Spencer had every right to write this book: His eulogy was emotional, powerful. Savage. Spencer has every right to pen his book. He is an historian and a good writer. It is fresh, and he says it sets out his reasons why he spoke as he did that day. Had he waited until the King was dead, he would have been accused of dancing on his grave. Back then, the royals and the press had to take it on the chin. My eyes were locked on the Prince of Wales, and sorrow was written across his face. None of them answered, which did them credit. Twenty-nine years on, the King should have done the same.

Jobson doesn’t buy it though: Charles was stuck in the middle, thinking first of his boys, when Spencer tried to tear up what had already been agreed. Of course, tempers flared. Frustrated? Yes, almost certainly. Elated like a lottery winner? I simply don’t buy it. That phrase says more about Spencer’s bitterness than about Charles. Without the quarrel before it, or any sense of how it was spoken, if it was spoken at all, ‘we’ll forget her soon enough’ tells us very little. If the earl has left his half of the conversation out of the book, that is disingenuous at the very least.

The temperamental king: I have observed Charles for more than three decades. He is a compassionate man. I saw nothing that week to suggest his mind was on marrying Camilla. He has a temper, which tiredness sharpens, as the pens showed us all. Twice, in four days in September 2022, a pen got the better of the new King. First came the pen holder he waved away at his Accession Council, then the leaking pen at Hillsborough Castle, Northern Ireland, prompting Charles to exclaim, ‘I can’t bear this bloody thing.’ Both moments were caught on camera, and the internet turned them into memes before the Queen was even buried. Those who know the King well say he never bears a grudge and always apologizes soon afterwards. But he does not do death well.

King Charles’ reaction to Bruce Shand’s death: Those present recall that when Camilla’s father, Bruce Shand, died in 2006, she was distraught. Charles assured her he understood, because he had been upset over his grandmother. Camilla was stunned. It was her father, she said, not her grandmother and Charles still had both his parents. There was no cruelty in it. He can be lost in his own world.

Charles would never have contempt for Diana!! I will give Spencer this much. If Charles really did say Diana would soon be forgotten, it would go a long way to explain the eulogy, and his vow that her blood family would not let her sons’ souls be ‘simply immersed by duty and tradition.’ The walk behind the coffin cost those boys dearly. Harry says he carries it still. Each new allegation wears the monarchy down a little further – all the more when the palace answers back. Nobody else was on that line. Having re-watched Spencer’s BBC interview, I find his account, as told, impossible to believe. Whatever passed between them in anger, contempt for the mother of his sons is not in Charles.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Whatever passed between them in anger, contempt for the mother of his sons is not in Charles.” I actually feel a tiny bit sorry for these people, because they really have nothing to cling to at this point. Especially for Jobson, who was around in the 1990s, when then-Prince Charles’ contempt for Diana was palpable. Charles and Camilla were already spreading contemptuous smears about Diana, her mental health, her work, her lovers. Is it really so shocking that Charles’ contempt for Diana would have spilled out in a phone call after her death? That he would feel “giddily elated” that Diana had died after the Panorama interview? And the part about how “he does not do death well” and he compared Bruce Shand’s death to his grandmother’s death. Wow. Big “he didn’t say it but if he said it, here are all the reasons why it was okay” energy.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

28 Responses to “Jobson: King Charles reacted poorly to Camilla’s father’s 2006 death too”

  1. MaisiesMom says:

    “Twice a pen got the better of him.” SNORT.

    • Lorelei says:

      I know, I died at that

    • SarahCS says:

      That’s the beauty of these stories. Ostensibly they are positive towards the subject while at the same time reminding us all of the times when the subject behaved poorly to terribly.

      It’s almost like they don’t actually believe the positive things they are saying.

  2. Brassy Rebel says:

    He definitely said it and that’s why Charles Spencer went off on them in his eulogy which, ironically, Jobson acknowledges. Jobson wants to make this about Charles “not doing death well”. Actually, Charles doesn’t do life in general well either. He’s an entitled, privileged asshole.

  3. Tessa says:

    Jobson writes fiction now. Maybe he’s hoping for a title. Charles could not have it both ways, he divorced Diana before she died. If he did not have contempt for Diana why did he apparently approve of his sympathizers negative books about Diana?

  4. Lady Digby says:

    Some idiotic male commentator on Radio 4 media show discussion about King’s cruel dismissal of Diana to her brother actually suggested that WE would forgive him because of the way he’s brought up his sons as a single parent and because he DOES alot for charity. Daniel Finkelstein in The Times took the view that the King is not there to be nice so it doesn’t matter a jot!!
    King was cruel to Diana and his sons and Meghan and two youngest grandchildren THAT DOES MATTER!!

  5. Lucy says:

    By reached poorly we mean basically responded like an extremely self centered person who was counting the days until his mother’s death, right? He’s not bad at death, he has very little empathy. Even when he tried, it comes back to only his experiences.

    • Lorelei says:

      Seriously, he is the most self-absorbed person who needs to be the center of attention at all times. Imagine being annoyed that your spouse was grieving their parent instead of devoting themselves 100% to you.

      His legacy is going to be that he was a jealous, small man. (And secondly, the temper issues.) He actually did accomplish some good things as POW, but they will always be overshadowed by how jealous he was that everyone liked Diana more than they cared about him.

  6. Elizabeth says:

    KCIII constantly showed contempt for Diana in the years before her death. I absolutely believe that a part of him felt relieved that she was no longer alive and that the public would forget her in the long run. I also think he either lacks empathy or doesn’t know how to handle other people’s emotions.

  7. Catherine says:

    Charles is not there to meet the needs of others. Others are there to meet his needs

  8. tamsin says:

    Didn’t Diana lose her father while she was still married to Charles? Wonder how much support she got, aside from telling her brother how lucky he was to inherit while young.

    • lemon&lime says:

      As I recall, he left in a separate car from the cemetery.

      I believe that Diana loved her father very much. There was a story around in the 90s that Earl Spencer met with Charles over his treatment of Diana. Charles probably loathed him as well.

    • Blubb says:

      You can read about Earl Spencers death in her bodyguard Ken Wharfe book as he was there
      The Earl died in 1992 when Charles and Diana were skiing with their children in Austria.
      When the news came Charles was to much a coward to tell Diana and so Ken had to tell her.
      What followed was another argument. Diana denied Charles to accompany her home, knowing it would be just for the show of it. She wanted him to stay with the boys so they could have fun.
      It was the queen ordering Diana on phone to take Charles with her home… Where they immediately seperated after touching down.

    • MaisiesMom says:

      Yes. The current Earl Spencer was 27-28 when their father died, making Diana maybe 31? According to his new book, Prince Charles said to him that he was “lucky to have inherited so young.”

  9. OriginalMich says:

    “Contempt for the mother of his sons is not in Charles.” LOLOLOLOLOL! His contempt for Diana was all the press wrote about for a decade.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    These people know that Charles Spencer is telling the truth. The fact that Charles was unable to comfort his children after Diana died is proof enough that the interaction did happen as Charles Spencer said.

    • Lady Digby says:

      Hear, hear @Amy Bee he didn’t hug or stay with Harry for long after telling him mummy was dead. Charles S was a grieving adult brother, Harry was his 12 year old son, cruelly robbed of his mother. Both men tell you Charles Rex was unfeeling and didn’t waste any time grieving over Diana. Just she’s dead, I’m free and the funeral is a RF production of which I am the star and everyone else is a satellite to my greatness.
      CS didn’t have to warn Harry and Will about the book’s contents because it was their lived experience for years. Diana to be erased and never spoken of within the RF and certainly not between father and two grieving sons.

  11. Blubb says:

    Hm, lemon&lie, as far as I remember that was Camillas father bringing Charles to tears about how he brought his daughter in misreputation.

  12. Blubb says:

    And about Camillas father and his remark: but his grandmother was more a mother to Charles than his mother. I mean Charles and Camilla lived their affair in her Birkhall while married with others. And Camilla would know that Charles emotional bond was with his grandmother.

  13. bisynaptic says:

    So, Charles is an impulsive, self-absorbed man? That’s your defense of him?

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Nailed it, bisynaptic!

      Which is probably also what Jobson thought to himself when he finished writing this drivel, “Nailed it, old boy!”

      These people are delulu. Charles clearly exhibited nothing but contempt for Diana. The whole “War of the Waleses” narrative was fueled by his expressions of contempt. Charles Spencer captured KC’s self-centered petulance accurately, and it’s torturing these apologists. I’m enjoying it thoroughly.

  14. Lady Digby says:

    Also Charles Rex was cruel towards Harry on the phone when he told him Meghan would not be welcome at Balmoral when Queen was dying in September 2022. Both were shabbily treated and giddily briefed against during the ten days before the funeral. I was shocked by the giddy gloating of the BM over the nasty way Charles Rex allowed them both to be treated then. It just wasn’t decent or appropriate or in anyway justifiable.
    Daniel Finkelstein wrote in the Times on Wednesday that it doesn’t actually matter if the King is or isn’t nice. Palace propaganda and client “journalism” are truly nauseating banging on and on about how noble and selfless King is and his life of public service.
    Charles Rex can be very nasty and Will equally nasty but both are monarch and heir. Do we need such an expensive head of state? Do we have to pay for endless lying propaganda about how saintly they are whilst they are so unpleasant and parasitic?

  15. YankeeDoodles says:

    What do these people get out of writing these pieces??? It’s like Goebbels level propaganda, we’re winning the war, the end is around the corner, we have miracle weapons, the people in camps are being fed and cared for and tucked in at night with their kiddies, it’s for their own protection…. Work will make you free. I mean. Is there any more abject occupation than enabling this manbaby? He’s a wretched piece of spineless self-absorbed shite.

  16. fwiw says:

    BLUBB, I agree that Chuck would have seen his g-mother as a mother. Cam might even have thought of Queen Mum & herself as Chuck’s co-parents. If this account is true, it again shows that Chuck can see everything only through his own eyes & needs, incapable of empathy — totally unlike Diana.

  17. JFerber says:

    BrassyRebel, Exactly! Perfectly stated.

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