Nearly thirty years after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has surfaced a claim that cuts to the heart of an old wound: that King Charles, in the days before Diana's funeral, dismissed her legacy with the prediction she would soon be forgotten. The allegation, drawn from a forthcoming memoir, arrives at a moment when the royal family is already navigating illness, estrangement, and the long unresolved question of how history will judge its treatment of the people's princess. Buckingham Palace has responded not with denial but with the suggestion that grief distorts memory — a r
Diana's Brother Claims King Charles Said Royal Family Would 'Forget Her Soon'
They will never be able to lay Diana to rest
Mark
So Spencer is saying Charles told him Diana would be forgotten soon. That's a pretty direct claim. How solid is the sourcing here?
Mimi
Spencer says it in his book, which comes out next week. He's telling CBS News directly that this is what happened. The palace hasn't denied he said it—they've said his memory might be clouded by grief, which is different.
Luke
Right. The palace statement is careful. They're not saying "that conversation never happened." They're saying grief can distort memory. That's a strategic move, not a factual rebuttal.
Mark
And the two boys did walk in the procession, correct?
Mimi
Yes. William was 15, Harry was 12. Spencer objected to it, Charles overruled him, and the boys walked. Those images are iconic now.
Luke
So we have one confirmed fact—the procession happened—and one disputed claim about what was said in private. We don't have the other side of that conversation.
Mark
Why is Spencer releasing this now, nearly thirty years later?
Mimi
He says he felt it was his duty to lay out the true story of Diana. The book is called "Swan Song." It sounds like a final accounting.
Luke
But we should note: this is a book release. There's a commercial element. The serialization in the tabloids, the CBS interview—this is coordinated publicity.
Mark
Does that make the claim less credible?
Mimi
Not necessarily. It means we should be clear about the context. Spencer has had thirty years to think about this moment. Whether that makes him more reflective or more shaped by how the story has been told over time—that's something readers have to weigh.
Luke
The palace is in a bind. If they deny it, they're in a fight. If they stay silent, the claim sits unanswered. Nikkhah said they'll be in "reactive mode."
Mark
And the family's already dealing with Charles's cancer treatment and Catherine's recovery.
Mimi
Exactly. This isn't arriving in a calm moment. It's one more thing the institution has to manage while it's already under strain.
Il Polso
- Earl Spencer alleges King Charles told him Diana would be forgotten 'soon enough' during a heated dispute over whether her young sons should walk in her funeral procession — a claim that strikes at the monarchy's most vulnerable chapter.
- The accusation lands as the royal family is already stretched thin: King Charles is in cancer treatment, the Princess of Wales is recovering from illness, and Prince Harry's return to Britain has stirred fresh tensions.
- Buckingham Palace's response — suggesting fraternal grief can 'cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory' — stops carefully short of a direct denial, leaving the core allegation unaddressed and the public to draw its own conclusions.
- With Spencer's book set for tabloid serialization and a CBS Sunday Morning appearance imminent, the palace faces the prospect of being pulled into 'reactive mode' claim by claim, with no clear exit from the cycle.
- Royal observers warn the institution may never fully escape Diana's shadow, as each resurfacing of her story reopens the perception — cemented in 1997 — that the crown was indifferent to a grief that moved the world.
Nearly thirty years after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has surfaced a claim that cuts to the heart of an old wound: that King Charles, in the days before Diana's funeral, dismissed her legacy with the prediction she would soon be forgotten. The allegation, drawn from a forthcoming memoir, arrives at a moment when the royal family is already navigating illness, estrangement, and the long unresolved question of how history will judge its treatment of the people's princess. Buckingham Palace has responded not with denial but with the suggestion that grief distorts memory — a reply that, in its careful ambiguity, may say as much as it conceals.
Nearly three decades after Princess Diana died in a Paris car crash, her brother Earl Spencer is reopening one of the monarchy's most enduring wounds. In a forthcoming memoir titled "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister," Spencer alleges that King Charles — then Prince Charles — told him Diana would be forgotten "soon enough," a remark Spencer frames as contempt for his ex-wife in the days leading up to her funeral.
The dispute traces back to a specific confrontation: Spencer objected to the plan for Diana's sons, William and Harry — then 15 and 12 — to walk behind their mother's coffin. According to Spencer, Charles responded by questioning his sense of family duty before offering the prediction about Diana's legacy. The boys did walk in the procession, producing images that have remained lodged in public memory ever since.
Spencer told CBS News he felt compelled to record what he sees as the true story of his sister's treatment by the royal institution, even as it orchestrated her final rites. The book will be serialized in the British tabloid press, with Spencer set to discuss the claims on CBS Sunday Morning.
Buckingham Palace responded with a measured but pointed statement, suggesting the king "is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory" — a carefully worded pushback that declined to address the substance of the allegation directly.
The timing is freighted with significance. Diana's 1997 death triggered a wave of public mourning that exposed the royal family as distant and cold — a perception that became a lasting reputational crisis. Now, with Charles undergoing cancer treatment, the Princess of Wales recovering from her own medical ordeal, and Prince Harry's return to Britain generating fresh friction, Spencer's claims arrive into an already pressured institution. Royal observers expect the palace to be forced into a defensive posture throughout the serialization period, unable, as one analyst put it, to ever fully lay Diana to rest.
Nearly three decades after Princess Diana died in a Paris car crash, her brother is reopening one of the royal family's most persistent wounds. In a forthcoming memoir, Earl Spencer claims that King Charles—then Prince Charles—told him Diana would be forgotten "soon enough," a remark Spencer characterizes as contempt for his ex-wife at a moment when the family was preparing her funeral.
The dispute centers on a specific disagreement about the funeral procession. Spencer objected to the plan for Diana's young sons, Princes William and Harry, then ages 15 and 12, to walk behind their mother's coffin. According to Spencer's account in "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister," the then-Prince responded by questioning Spencer's sense of family duty and offering the prediction about Diana being forgotten. The two boys ultimately did walk in the procession, creating images that have remained seared in public memory for three decades.
Spencer told CBS News he felt compelled to set down what he calls the true story of his sister, one shaped by what he saw as mistreatment by the royal institution even as it orchestrated her final rites. The book, due out next week, will be serialized in the British tabloid press, with excerpts already circulating. Spencer is scheduled to discuss the claims in detail on CBS Sunday Morning.
Buckingham Palace responded Wednesday evening with a carefully worded statement that stopped short of calling Spencer a liar but suggested his recollections were distorted. The palace said the king "is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory." It was a measured pushback, but one that did not directly address the substance of what Spencer alleged.
The timing matters. Diana's death in 1997 triggered an unprecedented wave of public mourning that caught the royal family off guard. The institution appeared distant, even cold, in those first days—a perception that became a public relations catastrophe from which the palace has never fully recovered. For thirty years, the family has carried the weight of being seen as indifferent to a loss that moved millions. Spencer's new claims threaten to reopen that wound just as the family faces other pressures: King Charles is undergoing cancer treatment, Catherine, the Princess of Wales, is recovering from her own medical crisis, and Prince Harry and Meghan's recent return to Britain from California has created fresh tensions.
Roya Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times and a CBS News contributor, predicted the palace faces a difficult stretch ahead. She said the king's family will be forced into "reactive mode," deciding whether to respond to each claim individually or treat their initial statement as their final word. "They will never be able to lay Diana to rest," Nikkhah observed, "because the memory of her continues to occasionally haunt the royal family." She expects Spencer's book to contain more claims beyond what has already emerged, potentially keeping the palace in a defensive posture through the serialization period and beyond.
Citazioni salienti
I felt it my duty to lay out the true story of Diana in one book— Earl Spencer to CBS News
They will never be able to lay Diana to rest, because the memory of her continues to occasionally haunt the royal family— Roya Nikkhah, royal editor for The Sunday Times
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su CBS News ↗
Culture & Arts