To the King’s supporters, it looks like revenge served so cold that it has formed a layer of permafrost. Although relations between the House of Windsor and the Spencer family have been strained for decades, few expected such a calculated and cutting attack.
For Prince William, the sense of betrayal is likely to be even more personal. For years, he has urged those who continue to profit from his late mother’s memory to allow her to rest in peace. Now, he must seemingly add his own uncle to that list.
Whether Earl Spencer’s explosive book is an act of brotherly loyalty—an attempt to correct the wrongs many believe Diana endured both in life and after her death—is open to interpretation. What is beyond doubt is that he has used a carefully sharpened scalpel to reopen long-standing wounds.
When news emerged that the four-times-married aristocrat had begun writing a book after almost 30 years, I was privately told that William was ‘deeply disappointed’.
‘What good can ever come of it?’ one source asked.
‘You can imagine how this has gone down,’ said another.
Yesterday, I was told indirectly that William was ‘furious’. I cannot officially confirm that, however, as Kensington Palace is staying out of the dispute—at least for the time being.
It is worth remembering that the Prince of Wales is in an especially difficult position. His late mother’s resting place is on the extensive grounds of Althorp, the Spencer family estate. Put simply, William must pass through his uncle’s world to visit her.
When news broke that four-times-married aristocrat Earl Spencer had written a book after almost 30 years, I was privately told William was ‘deeply disappointed’, writes Rebecca English
Of course, Earl Spencer—who memorably promised at Diana’s funeral that William and Harry’s ‘blood family’ would protect her sons—would never prevent William from visiting to pay his respects.
Even so, one can imagine how painful this episode must be for the heir to the Throne, particularly as his estranged brother, Harry, has recently developed such a close relationship with their uncle.
It remains unclear whether the Duke of Sussex knew exactly what was coming. Some reports have suggested that he was ‘aware’ of the book’s contents, prompting speculation that the subject may have arisen when the two men met during the Sussexes’ recent visit to Althorp. Other reports claim that, like the King and Prince William, Harry was not briefed because security around the final manuscript was extremely tight—despite the theft of the Dutch-language edition this week.
As for the King, it is difficult to convey the depth of anger and disappointment reportedly caused by Earl Spencer’s account.
On Wednesday night, after the Mail reported the book’s sensational allegation that the then-Prince of Wales had said of Diana, ‘we will forget her soon enough’ shortly after her death, the Palace responded within just 90 minutes.
The unusually swift response underlined how strongly the claim had angered the King and his senior officials. It also broke the Palace’s long-standing practice of refusing to comment on royal biographies or memoirs—including Harry’s—as a matter of principle.
Yet the wording of the rebuttal, which appeared designed to cause maximum damage, offered the clearest indication of the depth of feeling: ‘His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.’ One former courtier described it to me as ‘“Recollections may vary” on steroids’, a reference to Queen Elizabeth’s famously controlled response to Harry and Meghan’s explosive Oprah interview.
There appears to be little doubt that Charles and the earl spoke during those turbulent days in 1997. However, only the two men know precisely what was said, and their recollections of the conversation, including its tone and language, differ dramatically. I am told that Earl Spencer, who is a historian, has always been meticulous about taking notes.
At Diana’s funeral, Earl Spencer memorably promised that William and Harry’s ‘blood family’ would protect her sons
Julian Payne, the King’s former communications secretary, told the BBC yesterday: ‘I personally was working for (Charles) during the 20th anniversary of the late princess’s death in 2017… He was very clear that there was never to be any criticism, never to be any pushback on the narratives that were usually highly critical of him—but he was absolutely emphatic that we were to respect her memory and not undermine it in any way.
‘It seems to me very odd that, in that moment, amid his family’s grief and his own shock, he would choose to use those words. It is simply not language that I recognise.’
Another friend of the King candidly admitted to me that the breakdown of his marriage to Diana had been ‘wretched’ and there were ‘wrongs on both sides’. But they empathised how ‘paralysed’ he was with shock, grief and, yes, self-recrimination.
They also point out that it was Charles who went against both the initial wishes of his own family, and that of Diana’s, for her to be treated as a private citizen. And it was Charles who insisted on flying to Paris to bring his ex-wife’s body back home. By all accounts, he even fought for Diana to be afforded a full state funeral.
Why, they ask, would Charles have wanted her to be ‘forgotten’ or diminished in any way, when he was privately battling for her to be given greater recognition?
Whatever the truth, it must be hard to see what good can come of all this. Scores may have been settled. But at what cost?
