Earl Spencer's Diana memoir reignites royal controversy with claims about King Charles

Earl Spencer has published a book about his sister Princess Diana that contains claims about King Charles, and the King has publicly disputed what Spencer has written. The book reopens questions that the royal family has spent decades trying to put to rest.

Spencer's central allegation concerns Charles's emotional state in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death in 1997. According to Spencer, when he spoke with Charles after the crash in Paris, the then-Prince of Wales sounded what Spencer describes as "giddily elated." This characterization has drawn a sharp response from the King, who has rejected the account as inaccurate. The dispute over a single phone call has become the focal point of a larger disagreement about how Diana's death should be remembered and who gets to define that memory.

The book contains five major claims that collectively challenge the established royal narrative around Diana's life and the circumstances of her death. Spencer has defended each of these assertions in subsequent media appearances, including a BBC interview where he stated plainly that he is "telling the truth." He has not backed away from any of the book's central contentions, even as the King's office has issued a rebuttal. The specificity of Spencer's claims—particularly the characterization of Charles's tone during their conversation—suggests these are not vague recollections but detailed accounts that Spencer believes he can stand behind.

The publication of this book marks a significant moment in the ongoing tension within the royal family over Diana's legacy. For nearly three decades, the official account of events surrounding her death has remained largely unchallenged in public. Spencer's decision to publish detailed claims that contradict the King's version of events signals a willingness to break that silence, even knowing it would provoke a direct confrontation with the monarchy.

The King's decision to issue a rebuttal rather than remain silent is itself notable. Royal protocol typically discourages direct engagement with criticism, particularly from family members. That Charles felt compelled to respond suggests the claims struck at something he felt needed immediate correction. The public nature of both Spencer's assertions and the King's denial means this is no longer a private family matter but a dispute playing out in full view of the media and the public.

Spencer's media appearances defending the book have framed the dispute as one about truthfulness. He has not presented his account as interpretation or memory filtered through time, but as fact. This stance leaves little room for compromise or the kind of diplomatic language that might allow both sides to move past the disagreement. Either Spencer's recollection of Charles's tone is accurate, or it is not. Either the other four claims in the book are true, or they are not.

The timing of the book's publication and the subsequent dispute raises questions about what prompted Spencer to write it now, decades after Diana's death. The book appears designed not merely to document history but to challenge the version of history that has been accepted by the institution Spencer's sister married into. In doing so, Spencer has positioned himself as a counterweight to official royal narratives, willing to say publicly what he believes happened, regardless of the institutional consequences.

The dispute between Spencer and King Charles is unlikely to be resolved through further public statements. The two men have fundamentally different accounts of a private conversation, and no amount of additional media appearances will change that basic fact. What remains to be seen is whether other members of the royal family will be drawn into the dispute, whether Spencer will face pressure to recant or soften his claims, and whether the public will view his account as credible or as the grievance of a family member with reasons to resent the institution his sister joined.