We have documented 8 statements by Charles Spencer, in 1 case. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.
Case updates
Has the Palace said its last word on Earl Spencer's memoir?
Get an email if Buckingham Palace, Prince Harry or Earl Spencer says more about the memoir's account of the call after Diana's death.
Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.
Role at the time: Author of Swan Song, interviewed by CTV Your Morning
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
Charles Spencer rejected criticism that including Diana's alleged valet comment was meant to discredit Charles. He said material about others was relevant to Diana's story.
Role at the time: Author of “Swan Song: Diana, My Sister” and brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, interviewed by CBS News
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
Asked by CBS News whether he is bitter, Charles Spencer said he is “absolutely not bitter” and that if he were, his book “would be more bitter.” Asked whether he has a relationship with King Charles, he said he does not, that the relationship ended, and that “he’s still my king. I respect the crown and that’s it.”
“No, I'm absolutely not bitter. I can tell you, if I was bitter, this book would be more bitter.”
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Spencer rejects a characterization of his motive, that the book is driven by bitterness, rather than addressing the accuracy of his account. It is recorded because motive is a live element of the dispute, with critics such as Arbiter attributing an axe to grind and a financial motive. The closest competing label is condemns, which loses because he expresses no judgment of Charles in this answer.
Role at the time: Author of “Swan Song: Diana, My Sister” and brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, interviewed by CBS News
Mixed or conditional
Statement summary
Asked by CBS News what he meant by describing Charles as “giddy” in their call after Diana’s death, Charles Spencer said Charles “sounded excited in a sort of upbeat way.” Asked whether that was right after she had been killed, he said “Yes,” adding that he is “not justifying or criticizing” but “reporting that’s the fact.” Asked about his suggestion that Charles felt free to pursue Camilla, he said he had written that it “might have been it” but that he “can’t say what he was thinking.”
“He sounded excited in a sort of upbeat way. … Yes, and obviously I'm not justifying or criticizing. I'm reporting that's the fact. … I said in the book that that might have been it, yeah, but that's obviously … I can't say what he was thinking”
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Spencer reaffirms his observation that Charles sounded upbeat, presenting it as a reported fact, while disclaiming both judgment of it and certainty about Charles’s motive. That combination is mixed rather than a condemnation of the conduct, and is consistent in direction with his BBC answer that he could not be sure what Charles was thinking. The closest competing label is condemns, which loses because in this exchange he expressly says he is not criticizing.
Role at the time: Diana’s brother and author of Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, speaking in a BBC interview
Mixed or conditional
Statement summary
In a BBC interview, Charles Spencer said he inferred a possible explanation for the tone he says he heard in Charles’s voice after Diana’s death, but could not be sure what Charles was thinking.
“I cannot be sure, I'm saying that's what I assume from the tone is a possibility.”
Open the original interview (opens in a new tab)Key takeaways from BBC interview as Earl Spencer defends claims about KingSection “Charles had ‘giddy tone’ after Diana’s death”; exchange in which Laura Kuenssberg asks whether Spencer can be sure what then-Prince Charles was thinking.
Why we used this label
Spencer maintains his personal perception of the tone while expressly limiting his claim about Charles’s internal motivation. “Mixed or conditional” records that qualification without judging the accuracy of either the 1997 account or his inference.
Role at the time: Diana's brother and author of the forthcoming memoir Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, speaking in a Mail on Sunday interview
Challenged the characterization
Statement summary
In a Mail on Sunday interview, Charles Spencer called Buckingham Palace's response to his memoir claim 'gaslighting.' He said it suggested he had lied without directly denying his account of the 1997 phone call.
“It is not every day you wake up to find you’ve been gaslit by the King.”
Open the original interview (opens in a new tab)Mail on Sunday interviews Earl Spencer about the Palace's response to his Diana memoirParagraphs reporting Spencer's response to the Palace statement, beginning 'It is not every day you wake up to find...'
Why we used this label
In this interview, Spencer primarily challenges the Palace's characterization of his recollection as clouded by grief, calling the response 'gaslighting' and saying it implied he had lied without directly denying his account. Unlike his earlier BBC interview, this excerpt does not add a new description of the 1997 call. The label records his challenge to the Palace response, not a judgment that the Palace intentionally misled him.
Role at the time: Author of the forthcoming memoir "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister"; Princess Diana's brother
Condemned
Statement summary
In a BBC interview with Laura Kuenssberg, responding directly to Buckingham Palace's statement that grief can "cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory," Earl Spencer said he stood by his account word for word, explaining that he had only ever had two phone calls with Charles and was "hyper alert" to what was said. He gave a fuller account of the call, saying Charles "went ballistic" and ranted about the Spencer family's sense of duty before saying "we'll forget her soon enough," after which Spencer said he hung up on him. He characterized the Palace's response as having "smudged" the matter by suggesting recollections may vary.
“I've only ever had two calls on the line with Prince Charles at any stage of my life. I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said and I promise that to you now. Genuinely, that is what he said. I don't hear him saying he didn't say that. [...] He went ballistic, would be the right term, and started really going for my family as a whole, about their sense of duty, not being adequate enough, and ranted for a while, I have no idea how long, but it was a significant period, and I just listened. And then he stopped and I thought, oh now, now he's gonna pull himself together and say something more appropriate. And then he said, 'we'll forget her soon enough.' I really was so stunned, and I just, after a stunned silence, I said, I cannot believe you just said that. And I hung up on him. [...] They've sort of smudged that one, haven't they? They've said that recollections may vary. [...] I'm telling the truth.”
Open the original interview (opens in a new tab)'I'm telling the truth': Earl Spencer defends Diana book claims about Charles in BBC interview · BBCBBC News article carrying an exclusive interview conducted at Althorp; full interview airs on BBC iPlayer and BBC One that Sunday.
Why we used this label
Spencer reaffirms and expands his account here, insisting on its accuracy and directly rejecting the Palace's suggestion that his memory may be unreliable. This continues the same condemnation of Charles's alleged conduct recorded at 979 and 980, but is a separately dated, distinct statement: it is his first response to the Palace's specific rebuttal (901), made in a different venue (a broadcast interview rather than memoir excerpts) and adds new detail (Charles going "ballistic," Spencer hanging up on him) not previously captured. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, since part of the interview disputes the Palace's characterization of his memory as unreliable; that loses because the interview goes well beyond disputing that characterization to restate and add detail to the substantive condemnation of Charles's conduct.
Role at the time: Author of "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister" and brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, in excerpts published by the Daily Mail
Condemned
Statement summary
In further excerpts from his memoir "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister," published by the Daily Mail on September 17, Charles Spencer describes the telephone call he says he received from the then Prince Charles after Diana's death in 1997. He writes that, unlike other callers, Charles sounded giddily elated, like a lottery winner, and that the call was strangely matter-of-fact given the enormity of what had happened. He says Charles told him he had informed William and Harry of their mother's death that morning in their bedrooms at Balmoral. Spencer adds that, looking back, he suspects Charles's first reaction was to consider how the death might free him to marry Camilla rather than to register the loss. The account is Spencer's recollection and the inference about Charles's state of mind is expressly his own supposition; neither is established here.
“Unlike my other callers, who were stunned, barely able to articulate their condolences and offers of help, he sounded giddily elated – like a lottery winner, I remember thinking at the time. … It all sounded strangely matter-of-fact, given the enormity of the disaster. … Looking back now, I suspect the prince's first reaction must have been to think more of how this event might free him to marry the woman he loved, rather than appreciating the loss of one he did not.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)ITV News: "Charles sounded 'giddily elated like lottery winner' over Diana's death, Earl Spencer claims"
Why we used this label
Spencer is the author of that account and here extends it, characterising Charles's demeanour on the call as elation and imputing a self-interested motive. That is an adverse judgment on the conduct under scrutiny, made by its principal accuser. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, which is how Buckingham Palace's reply (901) is classified; it does not fit Spencer, who is not disputing a description but advancing one.
Role at the time: Author of "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister" and brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, writing in the memoir as serialised
Condemned
Statement summary
In his memoir "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister," serialised from September 16, Charles Spencer writes that the then Prince Charles telephoned him in the days after Diana's death in 1997 and said, "Rest assured, we'll forget her soon enough." Spencer describes the remark as hissed and attributes it to what he calls Charles's pent-up contempt for Diana and his horror at the scale of public grief. This is the central allegation of the case. The quotation is Spencer's recollection of a private call almost three decades earlier; the characterisations of Charles's tone and motive are his own, and Buckingham Palace has neither confirmed nor denied the words.
“He unleashed down the phone what I have always taken to be his pent-up contempt for Diana, and his horror that the world was so bowled over by her death. "Rest assured," he hissed, "we'll forget her soon enough!"”
Spencer is the author of that account and makes the allegation at the centre of the case, attributing to Charles both the remark and a contemptuous motive for it. That is an adverse judgment on the conduct under scrutiny by its principal accuser, and it sits opposite Buckingham Palace's reply, classified “Challenged the characterization” for questioning the reliability of the recollection without denying the words. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”; it does not fit, because Spencer is advancing a description rather than disputing one.
Charles Spencer's memoir alleges then-Prince Charles told him days after Diana's 1997 death that the world would "forget her soon enough," and that he sounded "giddily elated" on the call. Buckingham Palace neither confirmed nor denied the account, citing grief's effect on memory.
