Family feuds are messy enough behind closed doors, but when you are dealing with British royalty, private phone calls become global headlines. Charles Spencer, the 9th Earl Spencer and brother of the late Princess Diana, is sticking firmly to his story. In his upcoming memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, he alleges that King Charles made a callous remark about Diana shortly after her tragic death in August 1997.
According to Spencer, during a heated phone call regarding whether young Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother's funeral procession, Charles allegedly hissed, "Rest assured, we'll forget her soon enough".
Buckingham Palace did what it almost always does when confronted with explosive royal tell-alls: it issued a carefully worded statement. Without flatly denying the words were uttered, a palace spokesperson suggested that "the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory".
Spencer isn't buying it. In a sit-down interview with the BBC, he fired back with typical bluntness. When asked if the King was furious or embarrassed, Spencer doubled down. He noted that he had only spoken directly on the phone with Charles twice in his entire life. Because of the intense nature of the moment, he was hyper-alert. Those were precisely the words used.
The Phone Call That Sparked a Royal Firestorm
The dispute centers on the chaotic days following Diana's fatal car crash in Paris. Tensions were running high between the Spencer family and the royal household over public mourning rituals and the handling of Princes William, then 15, and Harry, then 12.
Spencer argued that Diana would never have wanted her young sons thrust into the merciless glare of a global television audience while walking behind her coffin. An argument ensued. Spencer claims Charles grew angry, went on a rant, and then paused before delivering the remark that has now blown open decades-old wounds.
"I was just so stunned," Spencer recalled, noting that he flatly told the then-prince he could not believe what he had just heard before slamming down the phone. To prove he isn't manufacturing memories decades later, Spencer points out that he immediately shared the conversation with close friends and family members at the time because it felt so monstrous.
Why the Palace Response Echoes Past Controversies
If the phrasing from Buckingham Palace feels familiar, it should. Observers immediately drew parallels to Queen Elizabeth II’s famous "recollections may vary" response following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey.
It is a classic institutional tactic. Instead of launching into a point-by-point refutation that only keeps the story alive in the media cycle, the institution shifts the blame to human fallibility. By implying that grief distorted Spencer's perception, the palace attempts to invalidate the memory without technically calling him a liar.
Spencer caught onto this maneuver immediately. He accused the palace of softly smuggling in that old formula, noting that Charles has never directly come out to say he didn't say it.
What Else Is Inside the Memoir
The phone call remark is only the tip of the iceberg. The upcoming publication of Swan Song: Diana, My Sister touches on several other sensitive historical nerves:
- Diana's profound struggles with her mental health during the early days of her marriage.
- Revelations that Diana reportedly considered calling off the wedding altogether after sensing a lack of genuine affection.
- The raw, vulnerable state of young Prince Harry on the day of the funeral, whom Spencer described as looking tiny and utterly bereft.
For years, the official narrative surrounding the royal family's handling of Diana’s passing has been heavily managed. Books like this disrupt the authorized version of history. Whether you view Spencer's memoir as a courageous act of protection or a painful reopening of old family trauma depends entirely on where you stand on royal transparency.
One thing is certain. The fallout from these revelations will continue to dominate discussions as the public weighs competing accounts of a national tragedy. Take a hard look at how institutions handle historical memory when deciding which side of the argument holds water.
