Nearly three decades after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has stepped forward to defend claims in his forthcoming memoir that King Charles made a coldly dismissive remark during a private phone call in 1997 — words Spencer says left him so stunned he hung up the phone. The dispute, now playing out publicly between Spencer and Buckingham Palace, touches something older and unresolved: how grief is remembered, who controls the story of the dead, and what was truly said in the private hours after one of the most public losses of the modern age. It is a reminder that history is n
Earl Spencer insists King Charles said 'we'll forget her soon enough' about Diana
The dispute centers on decisions affecting young Princes William and Harry regarding their participation in their mother's funeral following her fatal car crash.
I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said
Mark
So Earl Spencer is saying the King used these exact words—"we'll forget her soon enough"—during a phone call about the funeral. How confident can we be that this actually happened?
Mimi
Spencer says he was hyperalert because he'd only ever spoken to Charles twice in his life. He also says he told family and friends immediately after, which is the kind of detail that does lend weight to his account. But it's a private phone call from 1997. There's no recording, no third party on the line.
Luke
Right. And the Palace's response is clever—they're not saying he's lying, they're saying grief clouds memory. That's actually harder to disprove than a flat denial would be. Spencer says he told people at the time, but we don't have those people on record confirming what he said he told them.
Mark
What about the broader context? Is there other evidence about how Charles behaved in those days?
Mimi
Spencer also claims Charles sounded "giddily elated" when he called after Diana died. That's a much stronger allegation—it's about tone and demeanor, which multiple people might have noticed. But again, we're relying on Spencer's characterization of a phone call.
Luke
And that's the pattern here. Spencer has a book coming out. He's making claims that are damaging to the King. The Palace can't really defend itself without either confirming the call happened or looking evasive. Spencer has incentive to make the story dramatic. None of that means he's wrong, but it means we should hold the claim lightly.
Mark
What about the actual decision—whether the princes walked in the procession?
Mimi
That happened. William and Harry did walk. Harry later said it was hard for a twelve-year-old, though he came to feel it was the right choice. So the disagreement Spencer describes—about whether they should do it—that was real and consequential.
Luke
But we don't know what Charles actually said to Spencer about it. We know they argued. We know Spencer felt strongly that the boys shouldn't walk. We know Charles apparently disagreed. The specific words—that's where we're on Spencer's word alone.
Mark
And the book comes out next week?
Mimi
Yes. Swan Song: Diana, My Sister. This interview is clearly meant to set the stage for it. Spencer's making his case publicly before the full text arrives.
Luke
Which is smart strategy for him, but it also means we should wait to see what else is in there before we settle on what we think happened.
Der Puls
- Spencer alleges that Charles, during a heated argument over whether young William and Harry should walk in their mother's funeral procession, paused — and then said 'we'll forget her soon enough.'
- Buckingham Palace has responded not with a direct denial but with a carefully diplomatic suggestion that fraternal grief can distort memory, a statement that questions Spencer's account without openly calling him dishonest.
- Spencer is pushing back hard, arguing he had spoken to Charles only twice in his life and was therefore 'hyper alert' to every word — and that he told family immediately because the remark was too monstrous to carry alone.
- The book, Swan Song, also claims Charles sounded 'giddily elated — like a lottery winner' when he called Spencer after learning of Diana's death, deepening the portrait of a man seemingly unmoved by his ex-wife's fate.
- With the full interview airing this Sunday and the book arriving next week, the dispute is poised to intensify, threatening to reopen wounds from 1997 that the Royal Family has never fully closed.
Nearly three decades after Princess Diana's death, her brother Earl Spencer has stepped forward to defend claims in his forthcoming memoir that King Charles made a coldly dismissive remark during a private phone call in 1997 — words Spencer says left him so stunned he hung up the phone. The dispute, now playing out publicly between Spencer and Buckingham Palace, touches something older and unresolved: how grief is remembered, who controls the story of the dead, and what was truly said in the private hours after one of the most public losses of the modern age. It is a reminder that history is not always settled by time, and that the people closest to great events often carry irreconcilable versions of the same moment.
Earl Spencer sat down with the BBC this week to defend a claim now at the center of a public dispute with Buckingham Palace. In his forthcoming memoir, Diana's brother alleges that during a phone call shortly after her death in 1997, King Charles — then Prince of Wales — said something so shocking that Spencer hung up the phone: 'we'll forget her soon enough.'
The remark allegedly came during an argument over whether Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother's coffin. Spencer had insisted Diana would not have wanted that burden placed on her young sons. Charles, he says, 'went ballistic,' accusing the Spencer family of lacking a proper sense of duty — and then, after a pause Spencer had hoped might bring something more measured, came those six words. 'I was just so stunned,' Spencer recalled. 'I said, I cannot believe you just said that. And I hung up on him.'
Buckingham Palace responded with a carefully worded statement suggesting that 'the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory' — a diplomatic way of questioning Spencer's recollection without directly calling him a liar. Spencer came prepared to push back, noting he had spoken to Charles only twice in his life and was therefore acutely attentive. 'I was hyper alert to what he was saying,' he said, adding that he had told family and friends immediately because the remark was 'so monstrous' he needed to share it.
The dispute sits within a longer reckoning with the Royal Family's conduct in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death. Spencer's eulogy in 1997 was already widely read as a rebuke to royals who appeared distant from public grief. Now, nearly thirty years on, his book — Swan Song: Diana, My Sister — threatens to reopen those wounds. He also claims that when Charles called him after learning of the crash in Paris, the King sounded 'giddily elated — like a lottery winner,' a stark contrast to other callers who were barely able to speak.
The question of the funeral procession carries its own weight. Prince Harry later said that walking behind his mother's coffin at age twelve was something no child should be asked to do, though he acknowledged in 2017 that he was ultimately glad he had. What remains unresolved — and may never be settled — is what was truly said on that phone call, and whether two people's irreconcilable accounts of the same moment will simply have to stand, unanswered, beside each other in history.
Earl Spencer sat down with the BBC this week to defend a claim that has now become the centerpiece of a widening dispute with Buckingham Palace. In his forthcoming book, Diana's brother alleges that during a phone call in the days after her death in 1997, King Charles—then Prince of Wales—said something Spencer found so shocking he hung up the phone. The exact words, according to Spencer: "we'll forget her soon enough."
The remark allegedly came during an argument over whether Princes William and Harry should walk behind their mother's coffin in the funeral procession. Spencer had insisted Diana would not have wanted that burden placed on her young sons. Charles, he says, "went ballistic" and "ranted for a while," accusing the Spencer family of lacking a proper sense of duty. Then came the pause—the moment Spencer thought the King might collect himself and say something more measured. Instead, he heard those six words. "I was just so stunned," Spencer recalled in the interview. "I just, after a stunned silence, I said, I cannot believe you just said that. And I hung up on him."
Buckingham Palace responded to the book excerpts with a carefully worded statement suggesting that grief itself might be unreliable. The Palace said the King was "mindful that 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." It was a diplomatic way of questioning Spencer's recollection without directly calling him a liar.
But Spencer came to the BBC interview prepared to push back. He emphasized that he had only ever spoken to Charles twice in his life, which meant he was acutely attentive to what was said. "I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said and I promise that to you now," he told the interviewer. "Genuinely, that is what he said. I don't hear him saying he didn't say that." When pressed on whether he had evidence, Spencer said he had told family and friends immediately after the call—because, he said, the remark was "so monstrous" he needed to share it. When asked which Charles the public should believe, he was direct: "I'm telling the truth."
The dispute sits within a larger narrative about the Royal Family's conduct in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death. Spencer's emotional eulogy at her funeral in 1997 had already become a flashpoint, seen by many as a rebuke to the royals for appearing distant and out of step with public grief. Now, nearly three decades later, his book—titled Swan Song: Diana, My Sister—threatens to reopen those wounds. In other excerpts, Spencer claims that when Charles called him after learning of the crash in Paris, the King sounded "giddily elated—like a lottery winner." Spencer was in Cape Town when his sister Jane called in the middle of the night with the news. The contrast he draws between Charles's tone and that of other callers, who were "stunned, barely able to articulate their condolences," forms part of a portrait of a man seemingly unmoved by his ex-wife's death.
The question of whether William and Harry should walk in the procession has its own weight in this story. Prince Harry later said that doing so at age twelve was something no child "should be asked to do." In 2017, he told the BBC he was ultimately glad to have participated, though he acknowledged the difficulty. The decision, then, became entangled with questions about duty, childhood, and what the young princes themselves wanted—questions that Spencer says he was trying to protect them from, and which Charles apparently felt were matters of family obligation.
Buckingham Palace has declined to respond further to Spencer's latest comments. The full interview airs on BBC iPlayer on Sunday and on BBC One that evening. Spencer's book arrives next week. What remains unresolved is whether the public will ever know with certainty what was said on that phone call nearly thirty years ago—or whether this will remain one of those historical disputes where two people's accounts of the same moment simply cannot be reconciled.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
I was hyper alert to what he was saying and those are precisely the words that he said and I promise that to you now. Genuinely, that is what he said.— Earl Spencer, in BBC interview
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
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei BBC News ↗
Culture & Arts