Spencer vs Windsor: the battle over Diana’s legacy

Quite right!

The episode examines the fallout from Earl Spencer's new memoir, 'Swan Song,' which contains caustic allegations against King Charles III. T

Key takeaways

• Earl Spencer's memoir 'Swan Song' has prompted a rare direct response from Buckingham Palace regarding his claims about the King.
• Critics argue that Spencer's motivations for the book may be driven by financial necessity and personal revenge rather than historical accuracy.

Main topics

• Earl Spencer's memoir
• Liberal Democrat party conference

Notable quotes

They are mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory.

Conclusion

The episode serves as a critique of how modern institutions struggle w

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:00) Subscribe to The Spectator and get 12 weeks of Britain's most incisive politics coverage, unrivaled books and arts reviews, and so much more, all for just £12. Not only that, but we'll also send you a £20 Amazon gift card, absolutely free. Go to www.spectator.com forward slash voucher to claim this offer now. Speaker 1 (0:29) Hello and welcome to Quiet White, the Spectator's podcast with me, Michael Gove, the editor of The Spectator, and Madeleine Grant, assistant editor and parliamentary sketch writer. And this week we'll be discussing Spencer versus Windsor, the real Game of Thrones, in which these two noble, or are they, houses battle over the reputation of the late Diana. We'll also be considering the Liberal Democrats, relevant or risible? And we'll also be reflecting on the Church of England. After Archbishop Sarah Mullally had to withdraw an honour that she extended to a Pakistani cleric after it was discovered that he himself had called for an honour for Osama bin Laden, what is the future of the Church? Speaker 1 (1:17) This week, Charles Spencer, Earl Spencer, brother of Lady Diana, the late Princess of Wales, has published a memoir, a swan song, built around the eulogy that he gave at her funeral 29 years ago. And the striking thing about the memoir is the... if not savage, certainly caustic tone that he deploys towards the royal family in general and the king in particular. And I think it's the first time that Buckingham Palace has responded directly to any of the plethora of books that have been written, which have been critical and have professed to be inside accounts of the king's weaknesses or other member of the royal family's foibles. The palace has said that, quote, They are mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory. Maddy, what do you think Charles Spencer is up to? Speaker 2 (2:14) I guess I'm pretty cynical on this issue. I think he's trying to make money. The way that he's framing it is as I am a historian, he has written some very good history books. Therefore, I'm trying to get what I feel to be important. biographical information into the public domain. He said in one in the interview with Laura Koonsberg at the BBC that he was kind of towards the end of his life and he felt compelled to get it out there. You do kind of question the validity of that. For example, if merely getting the facts out there was his priority. You know, he could quite easily have written the book and then donated the money to one of his sister's many charities, for instance. But he has notably not done this. He is known to be a bit cash strapped at the moment, paying for his astonishingly expensive private life. And I tend to think that what's been put out there is it's a lot of kind of he said, he said type stuff, which is very difficult for the palace to argue against. But, you know, some of what is out there. is already being criticised. The broadcaster Piers Morgan has said that he's been completely defamed in the book because the book alleges that when he was editor of the Daily Mirror, he authorised some very intrusive pictures of Princess Diana in the gym, I think it was. Speaker 1 (3:29) And Speaker 2 (3:30) he says, well, that's impossible because I wasn't editor of the Mirror at that time. And it does make you think if you can get such a very basic detail wrong. what else might be wrong. Speaker 1 (3:39) But Speaker 2 (3:40) I think it could still do grave damage to the royal family, especially around the world, where perhaps, as we saw with the Meghan and Harry Oprah Winfrey interview, where quite a lot of what they said began to fall apart pretty quickly, actually, stuff that was instantly disprovable. Speaker 1 (3:55) Like their claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury had married them before the actual ceremony. Speaker 2 (3:59) Yeah, exactly. I was watching that with my now husband, who's a clergyman, and he just said to me point blank, that's not theologically possible for that to be true. And also the stuff like, oh, you know, Archie wasn't a prince because he was mixed race. When in fact, you become the prince when your grandparent is the monarch. And at that time, her late Majesty the Queen was still alive. So Archie is now a prince. So it was absolute... bollocks, but it did considerable damage around the world. People that, you know, you and I are very interested in the royal family. Most people have better things to do than understand all of the kind of arcane details and so forth. So it's kind of, it will go out there and make a vast amount of money. Probably people that like the king already will be not convinced by it, but I think it has the potential to be very damaging. It seems particularly unkind thing to do at a time when we know that the king has been having cancer treatment and there's... all sorts of other issues in that family, to dredge up pain from almost 30 years ago and monetise it seems, I don't know, pretty despicable to me. I Speaker 1 (4:58) think money is a feature, but I don't think it's the dominant one. I think the dominant feature in Charles Spencer's make-up is a curious form of pride stroke revenge. I think that the moment when he imprinted himself on the nation's consciousness and the spine of the book is the eulogy that he gave at that funeral. And as a piece of rhetoric stroke oratory, even though there were aspects of it that were wicked, arguably, nevertheless, it was incredibly powerful. Speaker 2 (5:29) And Speaker 1 (5:30) at that point, Diana was as close to a secular saint as any woman has been in Britain, perhaps from the Queen, over the course of the last century. And Charles, in the public mind, was if not the villain. in the eyes of many, certainly an unfeeling and faithless husband. Now, nearly 30 years on, the king is popular. Camilla, the queen, is, if not adored, certainly respected and held in considerable affection. And Diana's memory has faded. And I think for Charles, both as a brother, to be fair, but also as the bearer of the Spencer name and as the champion of... the Spencer family and the honour that he believes attaches to that title, I think he's found it increasingly difficult to bear that Diana has faded from memory. And that's why, in a way, the most powerful central charge in the book, which is that Charles said in a conversation with Spencer about Diana. that we will forget her soon enough. Speaker 2 (6:49) The Speaker 1 (6:49) reason why that charge, I think, is included, irrespective of the truth of whatever the king uttered at the time, is because for Charles Spencer, the idea that Diana is increasingly, if not forgotten, certainly, you know, her memory is less powerful. That, I think, is the most difficult thing for him to bear. Speaker 2 (7:11) Yes, I don't think Diana's... been forgotten. Speaker 1 (7:14) So Speaker 2 (7:14) I think maybe a more nuanced picture has emerged where perhaps years after the event, people can have a more honest conversation about the way that Diana not only was a victim of the press, but also facilitated it in many ways. I think that's true. But the thing is, Charles Spencer makes so much of being this kind of prominent, sensible historian who's very methodical. But none of these outrageous claims have been corroborated in any way. I think the The conversation, the giddily elated conversation that you mention, he says, I think in the book that afterwards he goes and speaks to friends and family mentioning the conversation. Could any of them come forward to corroborate it? Because this is truly damning, if true. You know, you should provide backup evidence. Another thing that really doesn't track is the fact that he claims that Charles was, he felt giddily elated because he now had a free hand to marry Camilla. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Before Diana's death, there had been efforts to bring Camilla into the fold and prepare the public for the idea that she might one day become the second wife. All of that got delayed by years because of the contempt for the king that generated in the aftermath of Diana's death and the contempt towards Camilla as well. So it more likely had the exact opposite effect. So I think there's just, and I noticed in the Laura Kunzberg interview that he already seemed to be walking back on some of the claims that he'd made. So when Laura Kunzberg pressed him on specifically the point about being giddily elated, which is a really astonishing claim to make after... speaking to a man shortly after the mother of his children has died and he's had to inform his children that their mother has died. This is really kind of panto-villain behaviour, if true. And Laura Koensberg asked him about this and he says it's downgraded to, this was my interpretation, I cannot be sure. Yes. Speaker 1 (9:11) This Speaker 2 (9:11) is my truth, basically. Speaker 1 (9:13) Quite. And again, there were only two people in that conversation. As you said, it's a he said versus he said moment. And as well as the point, which I think is a fair one, about the pain of fraternal grief that the palace makes, it's also the case, without wanting to be too inclined to over-interpret things, that what to one ear might sound giddy, Speaker 2 (9:38) to Speaker 1 (9:39) another could be someone who is profoundly disorientated. Speaker 2 (9:43) Yes. You Speaker 1 (9:44) wrote a brilliant column recently in the magazine about the way in which... different attitudes to grief manifest in different ways. And I think the idea that someone who is grieving or disorientated or at a loss or in a state of emotional turbulence should automatically behave in a prescribed fashion is in itself very Victorian or old-fashioned. We cannot know what was in the king's mind. on the basis of his tone of voice. And as you point out, Charles Spencer has an interpretation of it. Speaker 2 (10:26) He's Speaker 1 (10:27) entitled to that. But it can't be the canonical truth. He can't know exactly what the king was thinking at that point. All he can relay is that there were a maelstrom of emotions that those close to Diana will have felt at that time. Speaker 2 (10:47) I do feel that if you're going to make such an astonishing, outlandish claim about someone, then you ought to be very, very sure before you hit that nuclear button. Speaker 1 (10:59) I Speaker 2 (10:59) mean, how would Charles Spencer like it if similar levels of, let's say, charity were to be thrown at him? I mean, his family life is not exactly a bed of roses. He seems to be on very bad terms with all of his children. or maybe most of his children, he didn't attend his daughter's weddings, he didn't behave well towards three ex-wives, and owes a vast amount of alimony. You know, you do think a little bit, you know, physician heal thyself. You know, is this really the person to be pontificating about how one should behave towards a wife or an ex-wife? Speaker 1 (11:36) Well, quite. And I think that there is in that a sense that, as you point out, It wouldn't ordinarily be a matter of comments, certainly not of criticism, that Charles Spence has not been the most uxorious of husbands. He is entitled to a private life to make his own choices. But inevitably, when he starts speculating on such a thin basis about what the king really felt and thought, that necessarily invites scrutiny of his standing to do so. As he himself has acknowledged, he's only had two telephone conversations with the king, both in the space of that turbulent week. One, he attributes sentiments to the king on the basis of tone. And then another, he makes clear that after the allegation that the king has said, we'll forget her soon enough. And again, we can't know if those were the exact words. He put down the phone. So again, we don't know how that conversation might have developed. That conversation was in the context of Spencer's objection to William and Harry following Diana's coffin. Now, it may well be that that was a mistake and an emotional burden that those young men, those boys actually,