Earl Spencer Levels a Stunning Accusation Against King Charles
Nearly three decades after Princess Diana’s tragic death, her younger brother is once again making headlines over the royal family’s treatment of the late princess.
In his new memoir, Swan Song, Earl Spencer recounts an alleged telephone exchange with the then-Prince Charles following Diana’s fatal car crash in Paris in August 1997.
The discussion reportedly concerned whether Diana’s young sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, should participate in the funeral procession behind their mother’s coffin.
According to Spencer, Charles made a remark that would shock anyone familiar with the circumstances surrounding Diana’s death.
“Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough!”
Spencer presents those alleged words as evidence of Charles’s “pent-up contempt” toward his former wife.
The accusation is particularly explosive because Diana’s death devastated millions worldwide and left two young princes facing an unimaginable loss.
However, Spencer’s account has encountered significant resistance.
Buckingham Palace issued an unusually pointed response questioning the reliability of memories shaped by family tragedy.
“The pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and color memory in ways others do not recognize.”
The palace’s statement challenges Spencer’s interpretation without offering a detailed public reconstruction of the disputed conversation.
Meanwhile, reports suggest Prince William is deeply unhappy with his uncle’s decision to revisit private family discussions.
Royal commentator Kinsey Schofield has raised questions about whether publishing these allegations serves any constructive purpose, particularly given Spencer’s longstanding public commitment to protecting Diana’s sons.
Piers Morgan Uncovers an Embarrassing Problem With Spencer’s Timeline
Piers Morgan has entered the controversy with a challenge that goes beyond competing memories of Diana’s final days.
The outspoken broadcaster disputes Spencer’s portrayal of Charles as indifferent to Diana’s death.
Morgan points to testimony from Paul Burrell, Diana’s former butler, who reportedly witnessed Charles’s reaction after arriving in Paris.
Burrell described the future king as “a broken man” and “utterly grief-stricken” in the aftermath of the tragedy.
Royal biographer Christopher Andersen has similarly characterized Charles as “devastated” and “crushed” upon learning what happened.
Those accounts present a dramatically different picture from Spencer’s allegations.
But Morgan’s most concrete objection concerns an entirely separate passage in the memoir.
Spencer reportedly identifies Morgan as editor of the Daily Mirror in 1993.
There is one major problem.
Morgan did not take charge of the Daily Mirror until 1995.
In 1993, he was working at The Sun.
Unlike the disputed conversation between Charles and Spencer, Morgan’s employment history is a matter of public record.
That distinction matters because the controversy surrounding Spencer’s book rests heavily on the accuracy of his descriptions of events from decades ago.
An incorrect date does not automatically disprove another allegation, but it provides critics with a specific example of an error that should have been caught before publication.
And Morgan says this is not the first time Spencer has incorrectly connected him to events involving Diana.
Spencer Already Apologized for Another Accusation Against Morgan
The disagreement between the two men extends beyond a single job title.
Spencer previously accused Morgan of responsibility for publishing intrusive photographs showing Diana exercising.
However, the photographs appeared before Morgan joined the newspaper Spencer had associated with him.
Spencer subsequently apologized for that mistake.
Now another dispute has emerged over the memoir’s description of a telephone conversation between Spencer and Morgan concerning Diana’s funeral.
Morgan is reportedly pursuing legal action against Spencer and publisher Penguin over that account.
According to the account of the dispute, Morgan wants the contested material removed and is seeking damages that would be directed to the King’s Trust.
Spencer, however, maintains that his description of the telephone exchange is accurate.
That leaves readers with two separate issues.
One involves factual errors concerning Morgan’s professional history.
The other concerns sharply conflicting accounts of private conversations that took place almost thirty years ago.
The first can be evaluated against documentary records.
The second is substantially harder to establish without independent evidence.
The Royal Family Faces Another Battle Over Diana’s Legacy
Princess Diana’s death remains one of the defining moments in modern British royal history.
Her funeral brought extraordinary public attention to the monarchy, while images of William and Harry walking behind their mother’s coffin became permanently embedded in the public consciousness.
For years, questions about the royal family’s handling of Diana’s life and death have fueled books, documentaries, interviews, and public disagreements.
Spencer’s memoir adds another contentious account to that history.
Yet his allegations arrive at a time when Prince William and Prince Harry have already experienced years of highly publicized family tensions.
The decision to revisit sensitive conversations from 1997 has therefore prompted questions about what the publication accomplishes beyond reopening old wounds.
Spencer is entitled to describe his personal experiences and challenge the royal family’s version of events.
At the same time, Morgan is entitled to scrutinize statements about his own involvement and demand corrections where the historical record contradicts them.
The central question is whether Spencer’s recollections can withstand the same scrutiny applied to any other account making serious accusations against identifiable individuals.
One Documented Error Leaves a Bigger Question Unanswered
Morgan’s criticism has created an uncomfortable situation for Spencer.
A memoir that makes extraordinary claims about private royal conversations must persuade readers that its author has accurately reconstructed events from many years earlier.
Getting a journalist’s employment dates wrong does not establish that a completely different conversation never happened.
Nor do recollections from Burrell or Andersen conclusively determine what Charles may have said during a separate telephone call.
Nevertheless, the mistakes involving Morgan provide legitimate grounds for closer examination of the book’s chronology and supporting evidence.
Spencer’s allegations about Charles remain disputed, and the public has not been presented with independent proof establishing the precise words exchanged during the alleged 1997 conversation.
That uncertainty is unlikely to disappear simply because either side insists its recollection is correct.
For Morgan, however, the immediate issue is considerably more straightforward.
He knows where he worked in 1993.
And that easily checked detail has become one of the most consequential challenges to Spencer’s controversial new memoir.
