‘Hasn’t helped himself’: Royal expert exposes key inaccuracies in Charles Spencer’s Diana book

Claims made in Charles Spencer’s book about his sister Princess Diana have been called into question by a royal commentator, who has identified at least two “historical inaccuracies” in the excerpts published ahead of its release.

In Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, Earl Spencer, 62, chronicles the late Princess of Wales’ childhood, marriage to King Charles and untimely death in a Paris car crash in 1997, and the events that followed.

Victoria Arbiter told nine.com.au she has noted “inaccurate comments” in the book.

“Where Earl Spencer hasn’t helped himself ... is that he’s made categorical statements that can be proven to be inaccurate. When you have inaccurate comments, that calls into question the validity of the rest of the text,” the royal commentator and author said.

One example, Arbiter noted, was Earl Spencer’s claim that because Diana lost her HRH (Her Royal Highness) title, she was not eligible to be buried at the royal grounds of Frogmore in Windsor

“There’s two points on that. First of all, the Queen [Queen Elizabeth] had suggested she should be. So, she had the Queen’s permission, and the Queen had wanted her to be buried at Frogmore.

Read more

‘I cannot be sure’: Diana’s brother backtracks on claim King Charles was ‘giddy elated’

“But also, Wallis Simpson is buried at Frogmore. Wallis Simpson didn’t have HRH status. So, straight away, that’s inaccurate.”

Simpson remains one of the most controversial figures in British royal history. Her relationship with then-King Edward VIII triggered a major constitutional crisis in the monarchy.

In 1936, Edward chose to abdicate the throne so he could marry Simpson who was a divorcee.

The pair were both laid to rest at the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore, which serves as one of the royal family’s official burial sites.

A second claim Arbiter identified as being inaccurate is that Spencer’s father John Spencer, the 8th Earl Spencer, was romantically interested in then-Princess Elizabeth when his father served as equerry to the then-king, King George VI.

“He was equerry to the King from 1950 to 1952. By then, the Queen was already married to Philip and had two children. So, that’s the problem,” she said.

“When these claims are made that don’t stack up against historical, archival fact, it does call everything else into question.”

Arbiter criticised Spencer over other claims made in the book – in particular, what she labelled his “secondary” treatment of Prince William’s grief following Princess Diana’s death.

Much of what has been published and spoken about by Spencer so far has focused on Prince Harry’s suffering and his public participation in his mother’s funeral.

“I can understand the visual of Harry looking so small and younger by comparison, but to diminish someone’s grief or to say that they were of secondary concern because they happened to be tall, handsome, and dignified just blows my mind,” Arbiter said.

“But it reiterated an opinion that has existed since Diana died ... poor little Harry, and William is fine.”

Arbiter speculated Spencer’s apparent leaning towards his youngest nephew may owe to the closeness of the pair’s relationship.

“In his BBC interview, Charles Spencer did talk about the fact he’s an uncle to both boys. He addressed the rift. But he has – throughout the course of interviews and comments that he’s made – leaned towards Prince Harry,” Arbiter said.

“I don’t know, I don’t know what their relationship is, but Harry has been much more open in terms of his ongoing relationship with Earl Spencer. We know Harry and Meghan visited the Spencer family estate in July when they were in the UK.

“William has been much more private in his ongoing relationship with the Spencers.

“He does have one. There are some of the Spencer cousins are godchildren godparents to his children. So there is a relationship there.

“But it would seem that certainly in terms of their willingness to talk to the press and their willingness to keep these old wounds seeping, there seems to be quite a similarity between Harry and his uncle.”

Arbiter also questioned Spencer’s claims King Charles’ appeared “elated” by the death of his former wife.

Read more

Former royal aide defends King Charles as more claims emerge from Earl Spencer’s book

“We have only to look at how things transpired in the hours immediately following Diana’s death,” she said.

“The King went against his own mother, the !ueen, to insist he fly to Paris, and commandeered a royal plane. Diana’s coffin was brought home draped in the Royal Standard. And Charles’ face! My gosh, the grief that was just etched on his face.

“My father [royal reporter Dickie Arbiter] was at RAF Northolt when the coffin returned home. He witnessed it first-hand.

“I was sitting in Westminster Abbey for Diana’s funeral, and there is no way anybody could look at then-Prince Charles and suggest he was anything other than utterly broken by what had happened.”

Arbiter also questioned the purpose of the book, which appears to be more about “settling scores” than celebrating Diana’s life, as the title Swan Song may suggest.

The publication of the book comes a year before the 30th anniversary of Diana’s death, and while King Charles continues to battle cancer.

“I thought, much like Princess Margaret, Diana’s life and legacy is always defined by the tragedy in her life,” Arbiter said.

“It is never defined by the fact that she was also effervescent, vibrant, hilarious, fun-filled, joy-filled, mischievous woman who lit up any room, who did the most amazing things for so many people.

“Everything was always at the expense of herself. And so that’s what I was hoping to see from this book, and that there would be, with 30 years of distance, perhaps there would be the grace to view things with objectivity, with an air of forgiveness, with the benefit of hindsight.

“That’s not what’s come across.”