Dickie Arbiter

Royal commentator and broadcaster. Press secretary at Buckingham Palace from 1988 to 2000, serving Queen Elizabeth II and the then-Prince of Wales, including at the time of Diana, Princess of Wales's death and funeral in 1997. Appointed LVO. He began his broadcasting career in Zimbabwe and later worked as a newscaster and presenter for LBC News Radio and Independent Radio News in Britain. His autobiography On Duty With The Queen was published in 2014.

What we have documented

We have documented 2 statements by Dickie Arbiter, 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.

Statements by Dickie Arbiter

Dickie Arbiter

Role at the time: Royal commentator and former press spokesman for Queen Elizabeth II, interviewed on GB News

Challenged the characterization

Statement summary

Interviewed on GB News, royal commentator Dickie Arbiter said that having worked for King Charles for five years he did not believe Charles ever said the words Spencer attributes to him, “let alone think that,” that Spencer “really has got an axe to grind,” and that the timing after 29 years suggests the claim is a “good line” that sells books. He said Spencer once said in a 1998 television interview that he would not profit from his sister. Later in the segment he said Spencer “needs money” and would earn it from the book, mainly in the United States.

“I have to say here and now, I worked for the King for five years. I was in very close proximity of him. I was his spokesman for five years. I do not believe he ever said that, let alone think that. It's just not in his DNA. He wouldn't even think anything like that. He wasn't capable of thinking like that. And I think Charles Spencer really has got an axe to grind. And you have to ask, why after 29 years? Why didn't he do it, say, on the 25th anniversary of Diana's death? Has he been harboring it for 29 years? I really do not understand why he's coming out with it now. I mean, yeah, it's a good line. It sells books and the books will fly off the shelves if people indeed want to read it or believe it. And he'll make a lot of money. It's interesting, isn't it? He once said in 1998 in a television interview, I will not profit on my sister. And what is he doing? Just that.”
Watch the original video (opens in a new tab)GB News: 'King Charles wouldn't even think that' - ex-Palace spokesman on Earl Spencer's allegations01:37–02:39
Why we used this label

On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Arbiter disputes the attribution, saying Charles never said or thought what Spencer reports, and offers a competing account of Spencer’s motive. This is a challenge to the accuracy of Spencer’s characterization rather than a defence of any conduct, and is consistent in direction with his September 17 statement on BBC Newsnight. The closest competing label is condemns, which loses because he is disputing the account rather than criticizing conduct.

Dickie Arbiter

Role at the time: Royal commentator; Buckingham Palace press secretary 1988-2000, including at the time of Diana's death and funeral

Challenged the characterization

Response to this claim

During the phone call confirming Diana's death in 1997, then-Prince Charles "sounded giddily elated - like a lottery winner."

“There's no way he could have ever said anything like that. Charles Spencer is just talking hogwash.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)Charles 'sounded giddily elated' after Diana died, Earl Spencer claimsClosing section, following the summary of the Daily Mail excerpts: the paragraphs carrying Dickie Arbiter's Newsnight remarks, Jennie Bond's BBC Breakfast remarks, and the note on Prince Harry's representatives.
Why we used this label

On whether Spencer's account of Charles's words and demeanour is accurate, Arbiter disputes the attribution outright, saying there is "no way" Charles could have said anything like that and offering a competing description of his state at the time ("devastated"). That is a challenge to the accuracy of Spencer's characterization rather than a defence of any conduct: the case does not put Charles's behaviour up for moral evaluation, it puts Spencer's rendering of it in question. This is the same label carried by Buckingham Palace's statement, though Arbiter goes further: the Palace questioned the reliability of Spencer's memory without denying the remark, while Arbiter denies it. “Condemned” loses because Arbiter's criticism of Spencer is a means of rejecting the account, not an evaluation of the case's underlying conduct.

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Case

Earl Spencer's memoir claims about King Charles's reaction to Diana's death

Relationship to this case: Speaker

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.

MonarchyUpdated

Topics in this coverage