Public disputes concerning monarchies, royal households, royal duties, titles, constitutional roles, and the relationship between royal institutions and private activity.
Published coverage on this page: 2 cases · 24+ statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
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.
Published
Read the case
Labels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
28 matching statements
Role at the time: Author of Swan Song, interviewed by CTV Your Morning
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.
“At no point am I looking to discredit anyone.”
What this label refers to
He rejects the claim that he intended to discredit Charles.
Role at the time: Author of “Swan Song: Diana, My Sister” and brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, interviewed by CBS News
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.”
What this label refers to
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
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.”
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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”
What this label refers to
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
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.”
What this label refers to
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
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.”
What this label refers to
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: Daily Mail senior editor-at-large and former royal reporter who was a confidant of Diana, Princess of Wales, writing in the Daily Mail
Statement summary
In a Daily Mail column, senior editor-at-large Richard Kay wrote that he spoke with Charles Spencer several times in the week between Diana’s death and her funeral, and that Spencer said everyone he had dealt with over the funeral had been helpful except Prince Charles, with whom he had had a “furious row” “about the boys.” Spencer added of Charles, “He has been utterly pathetic.” Kay says this chimes with Spencer’s memoir. He does not claim to have witnessed the telephone call Spencer describes.
Quotation excerpt
“He and I spoke several times during that frightful week between Diana’s death and her funeral. … Then, pointedly and without further explanation, he said everyone he had been dealing with over the funeral – courtiers, officials, Downing…”
“He and I spoke several times during that frightful week between Diana’s death and her funeral. … Then, pointedly and without further explanation, he said everyone he had been dealing with over the funeral – courtiers, officials, Downing Street – had been helpful, with one exception. Who, I asked? ‘Prince Charles,’ came the reply. He said they’d had a ‘furious row’. It was ‘about the boys’, but he was reluctant to go further. Cuttingly he added: ‘He has been utterly pathetic.’”
What this label refers to
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Kay supports the accuracy of Spencer’s account in outline: what Spencer told him at the time about a hostile exchange with Charles is consistent with the memoir’s picture. His evidence is contemporaneous provenance, not first-hand knowledge of the call in which Spencer says Charles said “we’ll forget her soon enough,” and he does not claim otherwise. It is labelled condemns for consistency with how this case treats other corroborating accounts, and the rationale records that the evidence concerns a row over the funeral rather than the quoted remark.
Role at the time: Royal commentator and former press spokesman for Queen Elizabeth II, interviewed on GB News
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Journalist and documentary film-maker, author of “Dianarama,” interviewed on Times Radio
Statement summary
Andy Webb, who worked with Spencer on a book about the 1995 Panorama interview, told Times Radio that Spencer had always struck him as a truth teller and a meticulous note-taker, and said the account of the conversation with Charles had been relayed to him privately years before the memoir was published.
Quotation excerpt
“He came across to me as never anything less than a truth teller. … He’s a ferocious note taker. And indeed, the account of that conversation with King Charles about, you know, Diana will soon be forgotten — I can say now that that…”
“He came across to me as never anything less than a truth teller. … He’s a ferocious note taker. And indeed, the account of that conversation with King Charles about, you know, Diana will soon be forgotten — I can say now that that conversation itself had been, you know, relayed to me confidentially, and I’m sure not only me over the years.”
What this label refers to
On Webb supports the accuracy of Spencer’s account, which places him at the opposite pole from the Palace, Arbiter, Payne and Hardman. His contribution is corroborative rather than a criticism of Charles in his own voice: he vouches for Spencer’s reliability and, more materially, says the account was circulating privately long before publication, which bears on whether it was produced for the book. It is labelled condemns for consistency with how this case treats assertions of the account, and the rationale records that his evidence is provenance rather than first-hand knowledge of the call.
Role at the time: Journalist and royal biographer, interviewed on Times Radio by Ed Vaizey
Statement summary
Royal author Robert Hardman told Times Radio he did not accept the “giddily elated” characterisation, citing Charles’s visible emotion at the funeral, while acknowledging that it is how Spencer remembers the exchange.
Quotation excerpt
“The person who was most visibly moved, the most emotional person in that entire funeral was Prince Charles. So this idea that he’s elated, that he’s somehow, you know, giddily dancing around the room, I’m afraid I don’t buy it. But that’s…”
“The person who was most visibly moved, the most emotional person in that entire funeral was Prince Charles. So this idea that he’s elated, that he’s somehow, you know, giddily dancing around the room, I’m afraid I don’t buy it. But that’s how Charles Spencer remembers it. So that’s his view. But the king clearly remembers it very differently.”
What this label refers to
On Hardman rejects the accuracy of Spencer’s characterisation of Charles’s demeanour, offering his own observation of the funeral as counter-evidence. He stops short of alleging invention, expressly allowing that this is how Spencer remembers it and framing the disagreement as two differing recollections, which keeps it within “Challenged the characterization” rather than condemns.
Role at the time: Royal commentator; BBC royal correspondent 1989-2003
Response to this claim
During the phone call confirming Diana's death in 1997, then-Prince Charles "sounded giddily elated - like a lottery winner."
“I have no reason to disbelieve this is his memory of what happened, but there are usually two sides to a conversation and a story.”
On whether Spencer's account of Charles's words and demeanour is accurate, Bond holds two materially different positions at once. She credits the account's sincerity ("no reason to disbelieve this is his memory of what happened"), which withholds any suggestion that Spencer is inventing it, and in the same breath withholds endorsement of it as an accurate record of the exchange ("there are usually two sides to a conversation and a story"). She also characterizes the account as "vindictive" and "extraordinary," a judgment about how Spencer has told it rather than about whether it is true. “Challenged the characterization” loses because she expressly does not dispute Spencer's rendering -- she declines to treat his memory as the whole of it, which is a weaker and genuinely two-sided position. “Condemned” loses because her criticism is of the memoir's tone and motive, not of the case's underlying matter.
Role at the time: Author of the forthcoming memoir "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister"; Princess Diana's brother
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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: Royal commentator; Buckingham Palace press secretary 1988-2000, including at the time of Diana's death and funeral
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.”
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.
Role at the time: Former royal butler to King Charles at Highgrove House (2004-2011), speaking on the podcast The Royals Uncensored
Statement summary
On the podcast The Royals Uncensored, Grant Harrold, who worked as a royal butler for Charles at Highgrove from 2004 to 2011, said "the King certainly didn't want Diana forgotten," and that he saw that "firsthand." He said it is "completely possible that maybe it was an exchange of some kind," but that from his own experience in the period after Diana's death, he believed Charles still had feelings for her, citing that Charles continued to wear her wedding ring until his remarriage and kept other personal items connected to her.
Quotation excerpt
“The King certainly didn't want Diana forgotten, I saw that firsthand! This is a nuclear strike at the heart of the monarchy. This is extraordinary, what's come out. I was quite shocked. Look, it's completely possible that maybe it was an…”
“The King certainly didn't want Diana forgotten, I saw that firsthand! This is a nuclear strike at the heart of the monarchy. This is extraordinary, what's come out. I was quite shocked. Look, it's completely possible that maybe it was an exchange of some kind, but I was around, especially in those days after Princess Diana had obviously died... and from my experience - and this is me being very honest and open with everyone here - he still, I believe, had feelings for [her], I think he still cared for her. He still wore her wedding ring as far as I could see, and that obviously was removed, obviously, after his next wedding. And there were other things around that very much meant she was still part of their lives. Now, why would you still want those memories? Why would you keep those things, those personal things around, if you were telling the word that, she'll be forgotten?”
What this label refers to
On whether Spencer's account of Charles's words and demeanour after Diana's death is accurate, Harrold does not flatly deny the exchange occurred — he calls it "completely possible" — so this is not a denial like Arbiter's. Instead he disputes the characterization that Charles was indifferent to Diana or wanted her forgotten, offering his own firsthand observations (the wedding ring, kept personal items) as counter-evidence. The closest competing label is condemns, which this case uses for accounts that support Charles's side; it loses here because Harrold does not reject Spencer's account of the words as false, only the broader characterization of Charles's feelings that the account implies.
Role at the time: Former Metropolitan Police royal protection officer who was Diana, Princess of Wales’s personal protection officer from 1987 to late 1993, interviewed on Times Radio
Statement summary
Interviewed on Times Radio’s The Times at One, former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe said it was “not for me to say that it's true what the King is alleged to have said,” but that Charles is “quite capable of it” and that he could imagine him “grimacing” over the line without having “actually said it or actually meant it.” He said he does not see Spencer “making things up here to sell his book” and that “Personally, I think Spencer is right,” while adding that he “wasn't privy to the conversation.” Asked about criticism that Spencer is cashing in on his sister’s legacy, he said he does not take that line.
Quotation excerpt
“Well, I mean, it's not for me to say that it's true what the King is alleged to have said. I can see why Spencer has written this book. Do I think that the King said something like this? Well, he's quite capable of it. And maybe in this…”
“Well, I mean, it's not for me to say that it's true what the King is alleged to have said. I can see why Spencer has written this book. Do I think that the King said something like this? Well, he's quite capable of it. And maybe in this line here, when discussing with Spencer about Diana's death and so forth, you know, when he was meant to be saying, well, you know, she'd be soon forgotten. I can see him grimacing over that statement. But that's not to say that he actually said it or actually meant it. But I do believe that Spencer, from the times that I've met him and known him, I don't see him actually making things up here to sell his book. Personally, I think Spencer is right.”
What this label refers to
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Wharfe declines to say the remark was made (“not for me to say”) and allows that Charles is “quite capable of it” but may not have “actually said it or actually meant it.” Separately he says Spencer is credible, “right,” and has no reason to lie. Because he supports Spencer’s good faith while leaving the accuracy of the specific words unresolved, the statement is “Mixed or conditional”. The closest competing label is condemns, which this case uses for accounts that corroborate Spencer; it loses here because Wharfe expressly declines to confirm the words and suggests Charles may not have meant them.
Role at the time: Royal commentator and author of Our King: Charles III, writing a column in The Sun
Statement summary
In a column in The Sun, royal commentator and author Robert Jobson wrote that only Charles and Earl Spencer know what was said on the phone call and that Charles was “devastated after Diana’s death.” He also wrote that Charles “can have a filthy temper,” that he “can say things in the heat of the moment,” and that “it shouldn’t be dismissed that this could have been said.” He concluded that “The King is not a cruel man” and that the comment Spencer says he heard “wasn’t kind.”
Quotation excerpt
“In reality, Charles was devastated after Diana’s death. Now, anyone who knows King Charles knows he can have a filthy temper. It was more explosive when he was younger. He is not a vindictive man, but cross him and he can lose it. It…”
“In reality, Charles was devastated after Diana’s death. Now, anyone who knows King Charles knows he can have a filthy temper. It was more explosive when he was younger. He is not a vindictive man, but cross him and he can lose it. It flares up, it doesn’t last long, and he doesn’t hold grudges. He apologises soon afterwards. But he can say things in the heat of the moment, and it shouldn’t be dismissed that this could have been said. Funerals are one of the most emotional times for any family, royal or not.”
What this label refers to
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour after Diana’s death is accurate, Jobson does not deny that Charles may have said it: he writes that Charles “can say things in the heat of the moment” and that it “shouldn’t be dismissed that this could have been said.” He also rejects the portrait of a callous Charles, saying Charles was “devastated” and “not a cruel man.” Because he neither confirms nor refutes the account and takes different positions on the remark’s plausibility and on Charles’s state of mind, the statement is “Mixed or conditional”. The closest competing label is “Challenged the characterization”, which loses because he concedes the remark is plausible rather than only disputing its portrayal.
Role at the time: Communications secretary to the then Prince of Wales, 2016–2021, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme
Statement summary
Julian Payne, who ran Charles’s communications from 2016 to 2021, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he did not recognise the way the King is being characterised in Spencer’s account, and described Charles as emphatic that Diana’s memory was to be respected and never publicly contested.
Quotation excerpt
“What I remember was he was very clear that there was never to be any criticism, never to be any pushback on the narratives that were usually highly critical of him. He was absolutely emphatic that we were to respect her memory and not…”
“What I remember was he was very clear that there was never to be any criticism, never to be any pushback on the narratives that were usually highly critical of him. He was absolutely emphatic that we were to respect her memory and not undermine it in any way.”
What this label refers to
On whether Spencer’s account of Charles’s words and demeanour is accurate, Payne disputes the characterisation, saying he does not recognise it and offering a contrary account of how Charles spoke about Diana in private. He does not deny the telephone call occurred or claim direct knowledge of it; his evidence is his own experience of Charles’s standing instructions years later. That is a challenge to the characterisation rather than a denial of the specific remark, which is the same label the Palace statement and Dickie Arbiter carry here.
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
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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
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!"”
What this label refers to
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.
Role at the time: Official statement issued by a Buckingham Palace spokesperson on behalf of King Charles III
Response to this claim
In the days after Diana's death in 1997, then-Prince Charles told him by phone, "Rest assured, we'll forget her soon enough."
“While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.”
The Palace statement does not confirm or deny that Charles made the specific remark Spencer attributes to him. Instead, without addressing the quotation directly, it suggests Spencer's account may be distorted by "fraternal grief" clouding "reason," "judgment," and "memory" many years on -- disputing the reliability of Spencer's characterization of what was said, rather than either admitting or flatly denying it.
Role at the time: British royal family expert
Statement summary
British royal expert Hilary Fordwich defended the palace's stance and called Harry's linking of the letter to Uganda's Invictus Games withdrawal "a ghastly move."
“a ghastly move”
What this label refers to
Fordwich defends the palace's stance and criticizes Harry's response, defending the conduct under scrutiny.
Role at the time: Royal commentator
Statement summary
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams said the King's letter "states the palace's position, but it's clearly intended as a put-down."
“states the palace's position, but it's clearly intended as a put-down”
What this label refers to
Fitzwilliams describes the letter as both a legitimate statement of the palace's position and a deliberate put-down, combining an acknowledgement of its legitimacy with criticism of its tone.
Role at the time: Royal broadcaster and photographer
Statement summary
British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard called the King's letter a "reality check" that was "inevitable and warranted," saying he "is protecting the institution."
“reality check... shouldn't have been a shock... inevitable and warranted”
What this label refers to
Chard defends the King's decision as an inevitable and warranted 'reality check' aimed at protecting the institution, directly defending the conduct under scrutiny.
Role at the time: Royal broadcaster and journalist
Statement summary
Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner called King Charles's decision to publicize the letter "an act of malicious intent" and said the message was "unjustified."
“My personal opinion on the decision by King Charles to make public a letter... was an act of malicious intent initiated by those intending to disrupt their return... The message was unjustified.”
What this label refers to
Turner directly condemns the King's decision to publicize the letter as malicious and unjustified, a clear condemnation of the conduct under scrutiny.
Role at the time: Columnist
Response to this claim
Charles’s public clarification of Harry and Meghan’s royal limits was justified.
“pre-emptive slapdown”
Hyde criticizes the King's letter, saying it looks like a pre-emptive slapdown and would draw more attention to the dispute instead of suppressing stories.
9th Earl Spencer; brother of Diana, Princess of Wales; author of the 2026 memoir "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister."
1 case and 8 statements
British journalist and senior editor-at-large at the Daily Mail, where he has worked since 1980. He spent twenty years writing about the Royal Family, was one of Diana, Princess of Wales's most trusted confidants among journalists, and won the title Royal Reporter of the Year for his coverage of her death in 1997.
1 case and 1 statement
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.
1 case and 2 statements
British journalist and documentary film-maker; author of “Dianarama,” an investigation into the 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales.
1 case and 1 statement
British journalist and royal author; writes for the Daily Mail and has written biographies of Elizabeth II and Charles III.
1 case and 1 statement
British journalist, broadcaster and royal commentator. BBC royal correspondent from 1989 to 2003.
1 case and 1 statement
British etiquette expert and royal commentator known as "The Royal Butler." He served as an under-butler and butler to King Charles III, then Prince of Wales, at Highgrove House from 2004 to 2011, and later worked for the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay.
1 case and 1 statement
Ken Wharfe is a former Metropolitan Police inspector, royal protection officer, author and commentator. He protected Diana, Princess of Wales, and her sons William and Harry. He continued in the Royal Protection Squad until retiring in 2002 and oversaw security at Diana's funeral in 1997. His books include Diana: Closely Guarded Secret and Guarding Diana, written with Robert Jobson.
1 case and 1 statement
Communications secretary to the then Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall from 2016 to 2021, including the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death in 2017.
1 case and 1 statement
Robert Jobson is a British journalist, author and broadcaster covering the royal family.
2 cases and 2 statements
Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997); former wife of King Charles III; died in a car crash in Paris on August 31, 1997.
1 case
King Charles III is the British monarch, who acceded to the throne on September 8, 2022, after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. As Prince of Wales, he founded The Prince's Trust and the Sustainable Markets Initiative, and supported causes related to education, the environment, rural communities and the arts.
2 cases
