The short version
- Earl Spencer maintains that King Charles told him during a 1997 phone call that the public would soon forget Princess Diana.
- Buckingham Palace issued a statement suggesting that the pain of losing a sibling can cloud judgment and alter memories over time.
- Spencer describes his motivation for publishing the memoir as a duty to record historical events from his perspective as an eyewitness.
Earl Spencer has publicly defended controversial allegations made in his upcoming memoir regarding King Charles, asserting that his account of their interactions following Princess Diana’s death is factually correct. In an interview with the BBC ahead of the book’s release, Spencer characterized his decision to publish these details as a responsibility borne by someone who witnessed history firsthand. He emphasized that he sought to establish a definitive record of events that have remained disputed for nearly three decades.
The central contention involves a telephone conversation Spencer claims occurred shortly after Diana died in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997. Spencer alleges that during a heated exchange about whether Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother’s coffin at her funeral, the then-Prince of Wales remarked that the public would forget Diana soon enough. Spencer stated he was so shocked by the comment that he ended the call immediately.
Buckingham Palace responded to these claims with a carefully worded statement that did not directly deny the specific quote but questioned the reliability of Spencer’s recollection. The palace noted that the King is aware that fraternal grief can impair reasoning and color memory in ways that are not always apparent to others, even many years after the traumatic event. This response highlights the inherent difficulty in verifying private conversations from nearly thirty years ago.
Spencer provided a detailed timeline of how he learned of his sister’s death while he was in South Africa. He recounted receiving an initial call from his sister Lady Jane Fellowes, who suggested the crash was not serious. As more information emerged, the news grew increasingly distressing, culminating in the confirmation of her death. Spencer described the progression of calls as moving from minor injury concerns to fatal outcomes.
Regarding the phone call with Charles, Spencer recalled a tone he described as giddy or light, which contrasted sharply with the stunned reactions he received from other callers. He speculated that this demeanor might have stemmed from Charles’s relief at being free to marry Camilla, though Spencer acknowledged he could not be certain of the Prince’s internal thoughts. He maintained that his interpretation was based solely on the auditory cues present during the conversation.
The dispute over the funeral procession arrangements appears to have been a flashpoint in their relationship. Spencer claimed he had agreed with palace officials that the princes should walk behind the coffin, but later changed his position, arguing it was not what Diana would have wanted. He recounted telling Charles that while the Prince had walked behind Lord Mountbatten’s coffin, he was thirty years old at the time and Mountbatten was not his mother.
Spencer insisted that the specific phrase attributed to Charles is accurate, noting that he has only ever spoken with the King on two occasions. He argued that his immediate reaction of hanging up supports the severity of the comment. He also mentioned that he shared this story with close friends and family at the time, describing the remark as monstrous. Spencer suggested that Princes William and Harry would not be surprised by these revelations.
The memoir, titled Swan Song, also touches on Spencer’s famous eulogy for Diana, in which he stated that her qualities would never be extinguished from their minds. He framed this speech as a direct rebuttal to the sentiment he claims Charles expressed. Spencer, now sixty-two, cited his awareness of mortality and the passing of his own parents as factors motivating him to set the record straight before it is too late.
The release of the book has reignited public interest in the private dynamics of the royal family during one of its most turbulent periods. While the palace has declined to engage in a point-by-point refutation, the statement regarding grief and memory serves as a subtle challenge to Spencer’s narrative. The coming days will likely see further analysis of these claims as the book becomes available to the public.
Spencer’s account offers a starkly different perspective from the official royal narrative, emphasizing personal betrayal over institutional protocol. By framing his actions as a duty to history, he positions himself not merely as a grieving brother but as a historian correcting the record. The divergence between his memory and the palace’s stance underscores the enduring complexity of interpreting past events through the lens of personal trauma.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Key takeaways from BBC interview as Earl Spencer defends claims about King
