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

A former royal aide has come to King Charles′ defence as more damning allegations emerge from Charles Spencer’s book on his sister Princess Diana.

A day after Buckingham Palace issued a rare statement addressing one of Earl Spencer’s claims about his former brother-in-law, a new extract from Swan Song: Diana, My Sister accuses Charles of sounding “giddily elated” on the night the Princess of Wales died.

Julian Payne, Charles’ former communications secretary, has weighed in, saying he does not recognise “the way the King is being characterised” in the Earl’s remarks.

In the first extract from the upcoming book, published in the Daily Mail, Spencer claimed the then-Prince of Wales told him, “We’ll forget her soon enough” days after Diana’s tragic death in 1997.

Payne countered this, telling BBC Radio 4 on Thursday (UK time) the King had been “absolutely emphatic” in ensuring Diana’s memory was respected and told his staff to never criticise his late ex-wife.

Read more

Royal family braces for fresh wave of outrage over Diana’s death as her brother takes aim

“We were to respect her memory and not undermine it in any way,” Payne, who worked with then then-Prince Charles and Camilla for five years until 2021, said.

“It seems to me very odd that ... with the grief of his family and his own shock, that he would choose that moment to use those words. It’s just not language that I recognise.”

In the second excerpt from the book, the Earl recalls speaking to the future king over the phone after his sister was killed in a car accident in Paris.

“Unlike my other callers, who were stunned, barely able to articulate their condolences and offers of help, [Charles] sounded giddily elated, like a lottery winner, I remember thinking at the time,” he wrote.

“He let me know he had informed William and Harry of their mother’s death, first thing that morning, in their bedrooms at Balmoral. 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.”

The Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers described Earl Spencer’s choice of words as “quite extraordinary”.

“Anyone I’ve spoken to who was around at the time said there couldn’t be anything further from the truth, Charles was absolutely devastated at the time,” he told Today Extra on Friday, hours after the second excerpt was published.

A royal insider echoed this toThe Sun, questioning why Earl Spencer had chosen this moment to make these allegations.

“Anyone who remembers seeing Charles at the time and watched back the footage and pictures knows he was a man in deep grief,” the unnamed source said.

“The footage and actions speak for themselves and one has to question why these allegations are surfacing now and whether they are being aired for money.” 

In a surprise move, the Palace issued a statement in response to the publication of the first extract of Earl Spencer’s memoir, saying it usually didn’t comment on books “as a matter of principle”.

Read more

Royals break cover after Princess Diana’s brother’s explosive claims

“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,” they added.

Myers told Today Extra we’re unlikely to hear again from the palace, with the statement reflecting The Firm’s attempt to “draw a line under” the controversy.

“I don’t think it’s going to go away anytime soon,” he added.

“That [statement] tells you quite a lot about how the King’s feeling about this.”