Royalists are in shambles over King Charles’ statement on Charles Spencer’s book

Royal reporters have been feasting throughout September. But there’s a problem! Having spent years catastrophizing every single thing about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they have no idea what to do when the Earl Spencer, an aristocrat with deeper ties than the mostly-German Windsors, decides to tell his side and his sister’s side. The Windsors are in shambles but so are the royal commentators. Adding fuel to the fire, it’s clear that King Charles and his palace lackeys are running around, screaming, crying and throwing up over the Earl Spencer’s book. So, the Daily Mail’s royalists sat around and war-gamed the whole situation. One of the big topics was whether the palace should have issued that statement earlier in the week, the statement of: “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 colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.” Another version of “recollections may vary.” How many times can the Windsors call their critics “liars”?

Buckingham Palace’s statement on Earl Spencer’s book claims was a ‘terribly misguided mistake’, the Daily Mail’s Diary Editor Richard Eden has claimed. Speaking on a new episode of this newspaper’s flagship Palace Confidential show, Mr Eden was joined by Royal Editor Rebecca English, Queen Elizabeth II’s former Press Secretary Ailsa Anderson and host Luke Blackall.

Mr Eden has revealed that he believes the Palace’s statement was ‘terribly misguided’ – and that it was ‘unnecessary’ for the King to have responded ‘so quickly’ to the Earl’s explosive claims.

‘I’m just terribly saddened and actually quite angry about it. I think it was a terribly misguided thing to do – to respond so quickly in this way,’ said Mr Eden in the latest Palace Confidential episode. Mr Spencer, 62, said that Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, has been written to correct ‘untruths’ told about his older sister – and saw him lift the lid on an alleged incendiary row with the now King over Diana’s funeral arrangements almost 30 years ago.

‘Throughout her 70-year reign, the Queen took that view of “never complain, never explain”,’ Mr Eden added. ‘Yes, the exception was after the Oprah Winfrey interview. But even that statement people remember it for the recollections may vary, but it was a very emollient statement.’ Mr Eden added that while the late Queen’s statement was an attempt to ‘smooth things over’, Charles’s response to Earl Spencer’s claims took a more ‘aggressive’ tone.

‘The reason I’m angry about it is because the King never said anything when Harry’s book came out,’ said Mr Eden. ‘It was terrible the things that Harry said about Prince William and particularly Catherine who never answered back. As soon as a book comes out that criticises him for something he said 30 years ago, he rushes to put out a statement the week before the book comes out. I think it’s a terrible mistake.’

Rebecca English then added: ‘I can’t make up my mind whether it was the right thing to do. But I don’t think we can deny that this has changed the way the book is being perceived.’

Ms Anderson said: ‘I understand what you are saying about Spare. What Charles Spencer is saying is about the death of a woman and her ex-husband’s reaction to it which is abhorrent in any set of circumstances, whether you’re a member of the Royal Family or someone walking down the street. And I think that is why they have reacted so quickly, is because of the set of circumstances compared to Spare.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I agree that the circumstances were different between Swan Song and Spare, between Charles Spencer and Prince Harry. The palace rightly or wrongly believed (and still believes to this day) that they can control Harry, that they own Harry, that they can control the Sussexes’ story. Spare also has a throughline of love – Harry’s love for his negligent father most of all. Charles Spencer has a different story altogether, because he knows what actually happened and how then-Prince Charles actually behaved. The comparison isn’t to Spare, it’s to Netflix’s The Crown. When The Crown started covering the Diana years, the palace did everything they could (including threatening lawsuits) over how the show covered Diana. Basically, King Charles knows what he did and he’s still trying to rewrite the ghastly way he treated Diana. The king is a thin-skinned dogs-t father and dogs-t husband who loses his mind whenever anyone calls him out on it.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.