Charles Spencer says jealousy and harsh royal decisions shaped Princess Diana’s final years and funeral, while Buckingham Palace questions his memory.
In his forthcoming book, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, Spencer recalls King Charles making a cutting remark about Diana shortly after her death. He also challenges the decisions surrounding her September 1997 funeral.
The dispute puts two stark accounts before the public. Diana’s brother describes contempt, jealousy and poor treatment. Buckingham Palace says decades of grief may have distorted his judgment and memory.
Spencer, the 9th Earl Spencer, spoke with correspondent Mark Phillips at Althorp, his family’s estate in Northamptonshire. Diana was laid to rest on an island there after her death in a Paris car crash.
He said he decided to create the book as requests arrived for his participation in other books and documentaries. The approaching 30th anniversary of Diana’s death, he said, convinced him to give his own account.
Spencer argues that much of the criticism aimed at Diana missed what made her different. His effort to deliver what he calls a definitive account follows his stated aim of correcting Diana’s record.
“I think people who picked at her and found fault with her did so without a true appreciation of the unique force that she was,” Spencer said. He described her as a “totally rogue but brilliant force” that parts of the British establishment could not manage.
Diana was 19 when she was chosen to marry the then-Prince Charles. Spencer said the royal family may have expected her to fit a familiar role because the Spencer family had long served the crown.
She did not fit that mold. Spencer said Diana told him that the problem appeared during her first overseas royal tour in Australia. Crowds showed more enthusiasm when she stood on one side of the street than when Charles stood on the other, he recalled.
Spencer stopped short of alleging outright malice. His accusation was narrower and more direct: “I don't know about malice, but I do know about jealousy.”
That claim also sits beside the lasting questions about Charles and Camilla. Charles maintained a connection with his former flame during his marriage to Diana, and Camilla later became queen.
Spencer’s sharpest allegation concerns a conversation with Charles after Diana died. In a CBS News interview, he offered this recollection:
“He said about Diana, 'We'll forget her soon enough.' And he said it, I can't really recreate it, but it was said with a bit of a hiss, to be honest. And I said, 'I can't believe you said that.'”
The statement remains Spencer’s recollection. No second account of the conversation appears, and the exact date was not given.
Spencer also recalled a telephone call in which Charles “sounded excited in a sort of upbeat way.” He wondered whether that mood reflected relief, but he acknowledged that he could not say what Charles was thinking.
Buckingham Palace answered with an unusually personal statement about grief and memory. Its response has deepened the public dispute with Spencer.
“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 did not directly address the words Spencer attributed to Charles. Instead, it challenged the reliability of his recollection by pointing to the effect of grief.
That leaves the central allegation unresolved. Spencer has supplied his account, while the palace has questioned his judgment without giving its own detailed version of the exchange.
Spencer also disputes the handling of Diana’s funeral on September 6, 1997. Prince William and Prince Harry joined Charles, Spencer and Prince Philip behind Diana’s coffin as the procession moved through London toward Westminster Abbey.
Spencer said he initially dismissed the idea that the boys would make that public walk. He called the plan “barbaric.”
He said unnamed politicians involved at the time told him the decision reflected concern that Charles would face insults from the crowd if he walked without the boys. Spencer did not identify those politicians.
His description was blunt: “I was told they wanted to do it. And I was, I believe I was lied to.” Spencer did not identify who allegedly misled him or explain the exact assurance he received.
The lack of names and details matters. A serious accusation against a powerful institution deserves scrutiny, but the public also deserves to know who made the disputed decision and who gave Spencer the account he now challenges.
Spencer said he never reveals his private conversations with William and Harry. That restraint leaves another gap, though Harry’s connection to the memoir has drawn attention.
Spencer wondered whether Harry’s later feelings grew in part from the treatment of his grief after Diana died. He framed that as a question, not a settled conclusion.
“He was so young,” Spencer said. “And I just wonder if a gentler, more understanding treatment of his grief then might have helped him, and that everyone might have found a happier course ahead.”
That is Spencer’s interpretation, and he offered no direct statement from Harry to support it. Still, it brings the focus back to the children who had to mourn while carrying out a public royal duty.
Spencer’s defense of Diana extends beyond the disputes over her marriage and funeral. He said she would have made “a really amazing queen” and argued that her star power would have served Britain well.
His family has continued honoring Diana’s memory, while the royal family still faces questions about how it treated her life, death and public legacy.
Powerful institutions earn trust by answering serious claims with clear facts, while accusers owe the public evidence strong enough to match their words.
