Princess Diana's brother has told the BBC exclusively that he is "telling the truth" about a phone call with King Charles in the days after his sister's death. 

Earl Spencer claims in a new book the then-Prince of Wales said "we'll forget her soon enough" during an argument over whether Princes William and Harry should walk in Diana's funeral procession.

In a strongly worded response, Buckingham 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".

But in his first interview since, Earl Spencer said: "I can tell you here and now, those are exactly the words he said."

Pressed on whether he had evidence to back up the claim, he said he told family and friends at the time what had been said "because it was so monstrous". 

In response to the Palace disputing his account, Earl Spencer, who shares his first name with the King, said: "They've sort of smudged that one, haven't they? They've said that recollections may vary."

When asked which Charles the public was meant to believe, he said: "I'm telling the truth."

Buckingham Palace declined to give a response to Earl Spencer's fresh comments. 

The remarks may bring a renewed focus to the war of words between the Palace and the King's former brother-in-law.

In excerpts of his book published by the Daily Mail, Earl Spencer claims the phone call took place after he insisted Diana would not have wanted the young princes to walk in the procession.

In his BBC interview, he says the King "went ballistic" and "ranted for a while", accusing his family of not having an adequate sense of duty.

"And then he stopped and I thought, oh now, now he's gonna pull himself together and say something more appropriate," Earl Spencer said. "And then, he said, 'we'll forget her soon enough'."

He said he couldn't say exactly what went through his mind at that moment as he was "just so stunned", adding: "I just, after a stunned silence, I said, I cannot believe you just said that. And I hung up on him."

Earl Spencer's book, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, is due to be published next week and is expected to be highly critical of the Royal Family. 

In further extracts published on Thursday, he claimed how the King "sounded giddily elated" when he called him after Diana's death in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997, alleging Charles sounded like a "lottery winner". 

Earl Spencer recounts being alerted to the crash by a phone call from his sister Jane in the middle of the night at his home in Cape Town, South Africa.

A call from Charles was among those that followed, and he alleges: "Unlike my other callers, who were stunned, barely able to articulate their condolences and offers of help, he sounded giddily elated - like a lottery winner, I remember thinking at the time."

The death of Diana, a hugely popular figure, created a volatile atmosphere in the country at the time, with the royals accused of failing to show feeling and empathy, and seeming to be out of touch with the public mood.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmqxvd1drd35o

IN THE GUARDIAN — ROWSON

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

Jonathan Cook: Media Can Make Us Believe Anything

Why do billionaires buy up newspapers? Because by owning everything – especially media – they can mould our minds through sustained plot engineering, writes Jonathan Cook.

The current narrative of “beloved king shocked by claim he said something nasty 30 years ago” is a perfect example of how, given a bit of time, the media can reinvent the very reality the media itself once created, readily flipping on its head a now inconvenient, earlier narrative.

Anyone who lived through the Princess Diana years should be able to recall that, according to the media of that time, Charles was the undoubted villain – a cold-hearted man who cheated from the start of his marriage on a young, beautiful, doting wife he never loved.

Charles wanted his old flame Camilla as his bride and future queen – and, with Diana’s untimely death in 1997 at the hands of the press pack as her car was chased through a Paris underpass late at night, he soon got his way.

Earl Spencer’s new claim in a book published this week that Charles told him, shortly after Diana’s death, that she would “soon be forgotten” fits all too snugly with that earlier narrative.

But not with the new narrative.

Now, with Charles a “kindly old king and family man battling to recover from cancer,” the sort of behaviour that made perfect sense in the earlier narrative is a nuisance. Which is why Earl Spencer is receiving a lot more pushback than he would have expected had he made such a claim back in the late 1990s.

Three decades ago, Charles was portrayed as an unpopular Prince of Wales, a man lacking the common touch of Diana, and a crank obsessed with irrelevant things like the environment and architecture. The Queen, so the story of that time went, was so unsure of his ability to rule effectively that she dared not abdicate.

Fast forward to the present day, with Queen Elizabeth II dead and Charles III head of state.

The King is now a wise elder statesman bearing lightly the heavy burden of high office, managing Britain’s tricky relations with a deranged Trump administration better than any politician, and doing it all through serious illness. Ever the good father, he is fulfilling his duties as king to provide his son, William, with the chance to raise and enjoy his young family before he himself is crowned.

We’re in permanent telenovela land. Who knows which bits of this, if any, are true. But the plot twists serve a purpose, like soap opera, to keep us entertained and distracted from the real problems we desperately need to be focusing on.

And most importantly, whichever way the plot switches, the media cash in on the drama of it all.

But there is a deeper point. The media, through sustained plot engineering, can have us believe anything – that black is white, that up is down. They can, through sheer force of a new narrative consensus, make us believe the very opposite of what we were encouraged to believe a few moments earlier.

Media Empires

That is why billionaires buy up newspapers. Because they can, through their ownership of everything, and most especially the media, shape our minds into believing it is a good thing that billionaires own everything.

They make us believe that any change to that order would be catastrophic.

They make us believe that our societies are in decline, not because the billionaires have siphoned off all the wealth to their off-shore accounts but because small boats are “invading” our shores.

For decades, they had us believing the planet was doing just fine despite what all the scientists said. It was simply down to each individual to be more responsible: to cycle more, to recycle more, and to switch to long-lasting lightbulbs. Now that climate chaos is upon us, they tell us we will just have to adapt to hotter summers and colder, stormier winters.

The only consistent element is that the billionaires never address their own role in engineering this ecological disaster. Their choice to prioritise rocketing profits over the health of the planet is never scrutinised by the media they own.

Last year the writer Omar El Akkad published the book One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This on the West’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. One can already see how prophetic the book’s title is.

A British government led by Sir Keir Starmer that deeply colluded in the mass slaughter in Gaza is now recasting itself as an opponent, under the new leadership of Andy Burnham.

Similarly, the billionaire-owned media is slowly taking a less enthusiastic stance on Israel, doubtless hoping that Israeli voters evict prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the forthcoming general election so that the media have a freer hand to rewrite their script. Then they will gradually accept as a given that what Netanyahu did – though not Israel – was a genocide. And of course, they will have always been against it.

Any lie can be repackaged as a self-evident truth once you have absolute narrative control. The naked emperor can be magically clothed, if the media so decides.

Amid this pervasive unreliability, there is one North Star by which to navigate. Anything that benefits the billionaires cannot be trusted. As long as they are in charge, we will continue squabbling among ourselves, victims of their self-serving story-telling.

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years. He returned to the U.K. in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict: Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish State (2006), Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East(2008) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). If you appreciate his articles, please consider offering your financial support.

This article is from the author’s blog, Jonathan Cook.net.

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….