Earl Spencer Accuses King Charles of "Giddy Elation"

Spencer's account details Charles's alleged demeanor during this call, portraying him as inappropriately joyful given the tragic circumstances.

This specific quote and description of Charles's emotional state have ignited controversy, raising questions about the royal family's private reactions to Diana's passing. The claims are a central point in Spencer's new memoir, which revisits decades-old events with a new perspective on royal interactions.

Buckingham Palace issued a statement in response to Earl Spencer's allegations, though it refrained from directly commenting on the book as a matter of principle. The palace's statement subtly countered the claims by suggesting that the "pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment, and color memory in ways others do not recognize even many years after such a loss."

This response marks an update to the previously used royal phrase "recollections may vary," acknowledging the subjective nature of memory, especially under emotional duress. The palace's measured reply aims to contextualize Spencer’s accusations without engaging in a direct dispute, highlighting the passage of time and the emotional toll of loss.

In the old footage, Spencer described Charles as "perfectly polite all day" following Diana's death, noting that "nothing nasty has ever been said about it by him to me."

This historical clip creates a stark contrast with Spencer's recent claims of Charles being "giddily elated" and making callous remarks. The discrepancy between his past and present accounts raises questions about the evolution of his public portrayal of the King and the motivations behind his current accusations.

Bower suggests this collaboration is part of a coordinated effort, describing it as a "pincer movement" against the monarch.

According to Bower, Spencer's renewed accusations align with efforts from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to undermine the King's reputation. The biographer argues that these stories are being weaponized, leveraging old claims to create new headlines and exert pressure on the royal family.

Bower spoke with these sources again and confirmed they were "united in saying that Charles was in real grief."

Bower explicitly labeled the idea of Charles being "giddily elated" as "complete rubbish." His sources described Charles as "absolutely smitten" and "horrified" by the news of Diana's passing, directly contradicting Spencer's portrayal of the King's emotional state during that period.

Tom Bower attributes Earl Spencer's decision to release the controversial memoir to a combination of "money troubles" and personal issues, noting that Spencer has been in therapy. He highlights that the book is published by the same company responsible for Prince Harry's memoir.

Bower suggests that publishers are actively seeking "juice" and sensational headlines to justify their financial investment in Spencer's book. This implies that the timing and nature of the revelations might be influenced by commercial interests, aimed at maximizing sales and media attention.

According to Bower, Harry and Meghan aim to return to royal duties with their security protection fully reinstated. This desire, combined with Meghan's influence, is presented as a driving force behind actions that could further damage the King and the royal family.

Bower highlighted that Diana had to record the interview twice due to technical issues, casting doubt on the reliability of the narrative. He asserted that the story was widely known to be untrue, suggesting that its resuscitation by Earl Spencer is an attempt to weaponize old, discredited claims.

He emphasizes that this book, like Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey or Prince Harry's Netflix series and memoir, will be read worldwide.

Bower states that the public often prefers sensational headlines over factual accuracy, amplifying the negative impact of such reports. He anticipates that Charles Spencer will grant further interviews later in the week, ensuring continued media attention and further damage to the royal image on a global scale.

Tom Bower highlights a stark contradiction in Earl Spencer's actions, noting that in 1997, Spencer refused to host Princess Diana at Althorp, citing concerns about paparazzi. This refusal occurred during a critical period in Diana's life.

Bower points out the irony that, after Diana's death, Spencer now charges visitors £10 to tour the Althorp estate, where Diana is buried. This commercialization of the family home contrasts sharply with his earlier reluctance to provide a refuge for his sister.

He highlighted the Prince's Trust, which under Charles's leadership, has helped over a million young people.

Ellis further noted the King's instrumental role in building 20 charities from the ground up, emphasizing his significant convening power and tireless fundraising efforts. He also commended King Charles's diplomatic skills and his proficiency in multiple languages, showcasing a long history of public service and dedication.

Nigel Farage stated, "We have a very good king. We have a man who's dedicated his life to his family and this country."

Panelists highlighted the King's unwavering commitment to the Commonwealth, noting his age—nearing 78—and his recent battle with cancer. They described him as possessing great personal dignity, underscoring his resilience and continued service despite personal health challenges.

Tom Bower suggested that the allegations are strategically timed to promote a new book deal, stating, "I say he said it 29 years and a book deal later. This is for sales."

The panel viewed the nearly three-decade gap as a deliberate marketing move, designed to maximize serialization and sales. They anticipate that the controversial narrative will persist in the media, continually driving public interest and boosting the book's commercial success.

He noted that newspapers have paid a substantial amount for these rights, and there are still unrevealed views on sensitive topics such as Prince Harry, Prince William, and Camilla.

Further revelations are anticipated regarding Princess Diana, the infamous BBC Panorama interview, and historical instances of "shunning" within the royal family. Bower suggests that the media cycle surrounding the book is designed to maximize sales through a prolonged period of public discussion and dramatic disclosures.

A debate has arisen regarding the funeral procession of Princess Diana, specifically about who influenced the decision for her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, to walk behind the coffin. Earl Spencer claims a significant argument occurred over this matter, implying his involvement.

However, Tom Bower disputes this account, citing "impeccable sources" who witnessed the events. According to Bower, it was Prince Philip who influenced the decision, offering to walk with the boys to provide them support and ensure they did not feel isolated during the somber occasion.

He mentioned that Prince Philip himself walked behind his sister's coffin in 1937 when he was only 16 years old. Similarly, Prince Edward, Duke of Gloucester, was also 16 when he walked behind the King's coffin in 1952.

These examples illustrate that it was a historical tradition for young male royals to attend such solemn events. The underlying goal for the princes in Diana's funeral was to ensure they felt included and supported, rather than isolated, during a period of intense public grief and personal loss.

Tom Bower pointed out that King Charles is dealing with ongoing challenges from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, stating, "The king gets damaged and we've still got the problem of Harry and Megan. What are they all the trouble they're going to cause? We got the Andrew problem, too."

Analysts suggest that the institution is in a state of crisis, navigating controversies surrounding the Sussexes, revelations from Earl Spencer, and the lingering issues related to Prince Andrew. There is a call for the King to adopt more confrontational and decisive advisory tactics to address these multifaceted challenges effectively.