The short version
- The Palace broke its traditional silence to dispute Earl Spencer's recollections without explicitly denying the specific events he described.
- Spencer maintains that Charles appeared giddy and suggested the public would soon forget Diana, claims he says are a matter of historical record.
- The controversy highlights enduring tensions between the Spencer and Windsor families as the 30th anniversary of Diana's death approaches.
A significant rupture in royal protocol has emerged following the publication of new allegations by Charles, Earl Spencer, concerning King Charles III’s conduct after Princess Diana died in 1997. Buckingham Palace issued a strongly worded statement responding to claims made in the earl’s latest book, marking a departure from the institution’s long-standing policy of avoiding public commentary on published works. The response did not directly refute the specific incidents described by Spencer but instead cast doubt on his reliability as a witness, suggesting that grief may have distorted his memory and judgment over the decades.
The core of the dispute centers on Spencer’s assertion that Charles, then Prince of Wales, exhibited a lack of appropriate solemnity in the immediate aftermath of the car crash that killed Diana. Spencer recalls encountering his former brother-in-law at Balmoral Castle shortly after the tragedy. According to the earl, Charles appeared unusually light in tone and even suggested that the world would soon forget Diana. These recollections stand in stark contrast to the image of a grieving widower often portrayed in official narratives and have sparked intense debate regarding the true nature of the couple’s final years.
In an interview conducted at Althorp, the Spencer family estate where Diana is buried, Earl Spencer defended his account with conviction. He emphasized that his motivation was not vengeance or an attempt to damage the monarchy, but rather a desire to establish an accurate historical record. Spencer noted that while the Palace had not explicitly denied his version of events, its statement questioned his ability to recall them accurately. He maintained that his memories were precise and that the institution’s response was an indirect challenge to his credibility rather than a factual correction.
The Palace’s statement invoked the complexities of fraternal grief, noting that such profound loss can cloud reason and color memory in ways that others may not recognize, even many years later. This phrasing suggests that while the King did not necessarily say the words Spencer attributes to him, the earl’s interpretation of Charles’s demeanor may be flawed. By avoiding a direct denial, the Palace leaves room for ambiguity, allowing supporters of the monarch to argue that his behavior was consistent with shock and sorrow, while critics point to the unusual nature of the response as an admission of discomfort.
Tensions between the Spencer and Windsor families have persisted for generations, predating Diana’s marriage into the royal family. Historical records indicate a series of splits and disagreements between the two aristocratic lineages long before either Charles or Diana was born. This longstanding friction provides context for the current dispute, suggesting that personal animosity may influence how each side interprets past events. Allies on both sides have rallied to support their respective narratives, with some insisting the King would never have made such remarks and others backing Spencer’s detailed recollections.
Spencer’s book serves as both a tribute to his sister and a corrective to what he perceives as myths surrounding her life and death. As the 30th anniversary of Diana’s passing approaches, the publication has reignited public interest in the circumstances of her final days. The earl described walking through Althorp, noting the quiet dignity of the grounds where Diana once danced and skated, contrasting this peace with the storm his words have provoked. He visited the island where she is buried, marked by a large stone urn, emphasizing her enduring presence in the family’s memory.
The controversy underscores the ongoing struggle for control over Diana’s legacy. Spencer argued that his eulogy, which declared that Diana would never be extinguished from people’s minds, was intended as a direct rebuttal to Charles’s alleged comment that she would soon be forgotten. By publishing these details, he has forced a public reckoning with the private dynamics of the royal family during one of its most traumatic periods. The lack of definitive proof means the truth remains contested, leaving historians and the public to weigh conflicting accounts.
Looking ahead, the impact of this dispute on the monarchy’s public image remains uncertain. The Palace’s decision to break its silence indicates a level of frustration with Spencer’s narrative that is rare in modern royal communications. However, the absence of a direct denial prevents a clear resolution, ensuring that speculation will continue. As the anniversary approaches, attention will likely remain focused on how both families choose to honor Diana’s memory, with this latest conflict serving as a poignant reminder of the unresolved tensions that have defined their relationship for decades.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Kuenssberg: I asked Earl Spencer who we should believe - him or the King?
