Nearly three decades after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has stepped forward with a private memory made public — alleging that King Charles, in the raw days following the 1997 tragedy, lost his temper and suggested Diana would soon be forgotten. The claim, surfacing now through a new book and a carefully timed BBC interview, reopens a wound that history had seemed to close, reminding us that the most consequential moments are often contested long after the world believes it has moved on. Buckingham Palace, declining to deny outright, has instead offered grief itself as an ex
Diana's brother claims King Charles 'went ballistic' over funeral procession row
we'll forget her soon enough
Mark
So Earl Spencer is saying King Charles lost his temper over whether the boys should walk in the funeral procession. That's a pretty specific claim to make public now, nearly thirty years later. Why do you think he's doing this?
Mimi
He's written a book, and this is clearly the centerpiece of his claims about that period. Going to the BBC with an exclusive interview ensures the story gets told his way first, and it puts pressure on the Palace to respond.
Luke
But here's what I notice: we have Spencer's account of what Charles said and how he behaved. We don't have Charles's version. The Palace response doesn't actually address the specifics—it just suggests grief might have clouded Spencer's memory. That's a deflection, not a denial.
Mimi
True. But the Palace is in a bind. If they deny it flatly, they're calling Diana's brother a liar. If they confirm it, they're admitting the King was angry about something that, in hindsight, was resolved the right way.
Mark
So we're left not knowing whether Charles actually said "we'll forget her soon enough" or whether he was angry at all?
Luke
Exactly. Spencer says it happened. The Palace suggests his memory might be unreliable. No one else was in that phone call. We have no independent verification of what was said or how it was said.
Mimi
That's the nature of private conversations from decades ago. But the fact that Spencer is willing to put his name and credibility behind this claim, in a book, is itself significant. He's not anonymous.
Mark
Does the Palace's response actually damage the King, or does it protect him?
Luke
It's protective in the short term—it doesn't confirm the allegation. But it also doesn't resolve it. Anyone reading this will wonder what Charles actually said and did.
Mimi
And that ambiguity might be exactly what the Palace wants. The story gets reported, but without a clear victor in the he-said-he-said.
Mark
What about the substance of the disagreement—whether the princes should walk? That was resolved, right?
Luke
Yes, both William and Harry walked, and it became an iconic moment. So whatever Charles's initial position was, it didn't prevent what happened. That's important context.
Le Pouls
- Earl Spencer alleges King Charles 'went ballistic' in a post-funeral phone call, claiming Charles said Diana would be 'forgotten soon enough' — a charge that, if true, cuts against the image of a measured monarch.
- The dispute centered on whether Princes William and Harry would walk behind their mother's coffin — a question that was both deeply personal and watched by millions around the world.
- Buckingham Palace responded not with denial but with doubt, suggesting Spencer's grief may have distorted his memory — a careful deflection that neither confirms nor clears the King.
- The princes did ultimately walk in the procession, and that image became iconic — meaning Spencer's allegation reframes a celebrated moment of royal unity as one born from conflict.
- With nearly thirty years of silence before this disclosure, the timing of Spencer's book and exclusive BBC interview signals a deliberate strategy to shape how history remembers those private hours.
- The dispute remains unresolved — two competing accounts, no shared record, and a Palace response that closes no doors while opening none.
Nearly three decades after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has stepped forward with a private memory made public — alleging that King Charles, in the raw days following the 1997 tragedy, lost his temper and suggested Diana would soon be forgotten. The claim, surfacing now through a new book and a carefully timed BBC interview, reopens a wound that history had seemed to close, reminding us that the most consequential moments are often contested long after the world believes it has moved on. Buckingham Palace, declining to deny outright, has instead offered grief itself as an explanation for Spencer's recollection — a response that resolves nothing and perhaps was never meant to.
Earl Spencer, Princess Diana's brother, has made a striking public allegation about King Charles in the days immediately following Diana's death in 1997. In an exclusive BBC interview tied to a new book, Spencer claims that the then-Prince of Wales became furious during a phone call between them, losing his temper entirely over a question that was both practical and deeply symbolic: whether Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother's coffin in the funeral procession.
Spencer's account includes a specific and damning quote — that Charles said during their argument 'we'll forget her soon enough.' If accurate, the remark would suggest a startling dismissiveness toward Diana's memory at the very moment her sons were preparing to grieve in front of the world. The procession itself became one of the defining images of the era, and the princes' participation was widely praised as an act of courage.
Buckingham Palace responded with a statement that was careful not to confirm or deny the specifics. Instead, it suggested that grief can distort memory — 'cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise.' The framing implies Spencer may be misremembering rather than misrepresenting, a posture that deflects without directly challenging his account.
What makes the disclosure striking is its timing. Nearly thirty years passed before Spencer chose to surface these allegations publicly, and the decision to do so through an exclusive BBC interview suggests a deliberate effort to ensure his version of events reaches audiences first. The core question — what was actually said in that phone call — remains unanswered, leaving two competing narratives and no resolution in sight.
Earl Spencer, Princess Diana's brother, has made a striking claim about King Charles in the days immediately following Diana's death nearly three decades ago. In an exclusive interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, Spencer alleged that the then-Prince of Wales became angry during a phone call between them, using language Spencer describes as losing his temper entirely. The dispute, according to Spencer's account, centered on a practical but symbolically loaded question: whether Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother's coffin during the funeral procession.
Spencer's allegations appear in a new book he has written, and they carry a specific charge. He claims Charles said during their argument that "we'll forget her soon enough"—a remark that, if accurate, would suggest a callousness toward Diana's memory at a moment when her sons were preparing to walk through the streets of London in front of the world's cameras. The funeral procession itself became one of the defining images of the late 1990s, watched by millions globally, and the question of whether the young princes would participate was not merely ceremonial but deeply personal and political.
Buckingham Palace responded to Spencer's claims with a carefully worded statement that did not directly confirm or deny his account. Instead, the Palace suggested that grief itself may have altered Spencer's recollection of events. "The pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss," the Palace said. This framing—that Spencer's memory may be unreliable rather than that he is deliberately misrepresenting what happened—is a common defensive posture when direct denial seems risky.
The timing of Spencer's disclosure is notable. Nearly thirty years have passed since Diana's death in a car crash in Paris in 1997. Spencer has been a public figure throughout this period, giving interviews and making appearances, yet he is only now, through a new book, making these specific allegations about Charles's behavior in the immediate aftermath of his sister's death. The decision to go public with the claims through an exclusive BBC interview suggests a deliberate media strategy, one that ensures the story receives significant coverage and that Spencer's version reaches audiences first.
The substance of the dispute—whether the young princes should walk in the procession—was ultimately resolved in favor of their participation. Both William and Harry did walk behind the coffin, a moment that became iconic and was widely praised at the time as a display of courage by the grieving sons. What Spencer is now alleging is that Charles's initial resistance to this arrangement was not merely a disagreement about protocol but involved an angry outburst and a dismissive comment about Diana's lasting place in memory.
The Palace's response leaves the core factual question unresolved. By attributing Spencer's account to the distorting effects of grief rather than directly addressing whether Charles made the remarks or behaved as Spencer describes, the Palace neither confirms nor denies the specifics. This approach protects the King from having to defend himself against a detailed allegation while also suggesting, implicitly, that Spencer's account may not be reliable. For readers trying to understand what actually happened in that phone call, the exchange between Spencer and the Palace offers competing narratives but no definitive resolution.
Citations marquantes
The pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss— Buckingham Palace statement
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur BBC News ↗
Culture & Arts