A Right Royal Quarrel - Revisited

 As we know, Charles Spencer has written a new book about his late sister, Princess Diana. It's called "Swan Song: Diana, my sister. Beautiful. Beloved. Hunted". At the risk of sounding cynical, that sounds like a precis of the book and, knowing what we know, why bother to read it? After all, haven't enough books, articles and TV documentaries been made about the late princess already? Well, apparently not. Again, as we know, a huge row has broken out between Spencer and the King. As the BBC comments:

"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".

Now, were the Royal family not involved, and were the Earl not an aristocrat, there would have been no publicity at all about Diana's death and no book written about that tragic event 25 years later. Personally, I think this matter should  dropped from the public arena and the princess left to rest in peace. I know that many people will agree with me but, unfortunately, we are going to be bombarded with the issue on all the media outlets, and thus be difficult to avoid.

For people are taking sides on this issue. Rory Stewart, who is a friend of the King, said on BBC Newsnight:

“I know the King, I simply cannot believe that he could have said something like that”. 

And other commentators, such as Gyles Brandreth, are defending the King. I have not found any defenders of the book online, but I'm sure they will make an appearance. Earl Spencer has reacted with matching indignation to the royal denial. Quoted in the Guardian, he says:

Spencer said: “It was astonishingly provocative and below the belt because it was essentially trying to say I’d lied without the king being able to deny what I’d said. I also thought it was a rather poor imitation of the ‘recollections may vary’ quote, which was a much more elegant way of putting things, but in these circumstances entirely out of place. He added that “Diana would be cheering from the rafters at this book”

Which side are you on? If, like me, your answer is "Neither", I wish you well with your other media choices. As for the book, well, all this controversy will do book sales no harm. TV and press interviews will bring the interviewees a few quid. That might sound cynical, but as a musician I know once said: "There's one problem with being a cynic: you're always right".

As for the earl himself, he would be well advised to look through his own back catalogue. I have one of his books - a good one - which should stand as a warning to him. It's called "Killers of the King: The Men Who dared to Execute Charles 1". Now, as we know, the Parliamentary regime that replaced the Stuarts did not last and the King's son, Charles 2, was restored to the throne. Now, as Jennie Erikson says, in her review:

"This book is, at its core, an account of the bloody revenge meted out to all Parliamentarians involved in the execution of Charles I. After Charles I's death, England was briefly ruled by a republic before the monarchy was restored by the dead king's son, Charles II. In Killers of the King, Charles Spencer (the author and, confusingly, the third Charles in this review) delightfully reveals an intense personality trait of the young new king: when it came to bloodthirstiness and revenge, the Count of Monte Cristo had nothing on Charles II! Spencer discusses in detail Charles' life-long quest for revenge against those who had a hand in his father's death."

And the revenge was bloody indeed. Many of the people who carried out the execution were hung, drawn and quartered. Others, who fled abroad were hunted across Europe and even the American colonies. Even the corpse of Oliver Cromwell was dug up and thrown in a ditch. Earl Spencer had better start looking over his shoulder. Charles 3 might show vindictiveness in other ways.

Sitll, as my colleague, Rednev said on Facebook, what does the issue about Diana matter to people under 40 in this country and around the world? In another 25 years, this whole issue will have passed into history.