Earl Spencer’s 5 most-damaging royal claims – and what they mean for the King

Earl Spencer has accused King Charles of gaslighting him after Buckingham Palace pushed back against explosive claims made in a new memoir about his late sister Diana. A PR battle is brewing over the book Swan Song following claims by Spencer that Charles said “we’ll forget her soon enough” shortly after the Princess of Wales’s death. Buckingham Palace hit back with a statement claiming that grief can “cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory”. Shorts But Diana’s brother said that response was “below the belt”, telling the BBC: “It is not every day you wake up to find you’ve been gaslit by the King.” Will Spencer’s claims hurt Charles’s public standing? With the help of royal commentators and PR experts, The i Paper assessed the most potentially damaging allegations. Claim: Charles had ‘giddy’ tone after Diana’s death Charles sounded “giddily elated – like a lottery winner” on a phone call with Earl Spencer after Diana’s death, the Earl alleged in his book. “I felt there was a sort of giddy tone,” he told BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg in an interview broadcast on Sunday. Dai Davies, head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection Command between 1994 and 1998, said Spencer’s memory of the phone call “could be suspect”. He added: “Speaking to protection officers at the time, the impression was that Charles was totally devastated. But unfortunately, some people might listen to [the claim]. It won’t do Charles and the Royal Family any good.” Earl Spencer has made claims about a phone call with Charles (Photo: Max Mumby/Getty) Some people will accept the Palace’s argument that grief “colours” memory, said royal correspondent Richard Fitzwilliams. “But it could be potentially damaging, because of how cherished Diana is,” he added. Lauren Beeching, a crisis communications specialist, pointed out that “none of us” could know what was said on the call. Yet the claim could still be “reputationally difficult” for Charles, she added. “A disputed sentence can be denied,” said the PR expert. “Describing someone’s tone creates an impression of their emotional state, and that is much harder to unpick once it is in somebody’s head.” Claim: Charles said ‘We’ll forget her soon enough’ The then prince of Wales was angered about Spencer’s objection to William and Harry walking behind Diana’s coffin at the funeral procession, the Earl also alleged. Spencer claimed that the King said to him over the phone: “We’ll forget her [Diana] soon enough.” Fitzwilliams said it was possible that the alleged phrase “could stick for some people” and was potentially damaging, regardless of its truth. “It could genuinely anger some people,” he added. “Diana is still part of the popular imagination, an icon, with a unique blend of magic for many people. So what will young people think? That’s the test for Charles and the Palace.” William, Spencer, Charles and Harry at Diana’s funeral in 1997 (Photo: Jeff J Mitchell/AFP) However, Fitzwilliams added: “Clearly Earl Spencer loathes Charles and wants some kind of revenge. It doesn’t mean everything is made up. But I think people will see it as a deliberate attack, so will take that into account.” Davies said he did not think Charles “would have said something so callous to someone he didn’t know very well”, adding: “A lot of people will take it with a pinch of salt.” Claim: Diana said Charles ‘in love with valet’ Diana made a sensational suggestion of her own when explaining to her brother why she wanted a divorce, Spencer claims in his book. The Princess of Wales allegedly told him that “my husband is in love with his valet”. The experts are scathing about this one – arguing that the claim undermines Spencer’s credibility. They dismissed the idea that it could cause any PR problems for the King. Charles and Diana in South Korea in 1992 – their last official trip together (Photo: Tim Graham/Getty) “That sort of claim is rubbish, there’s no basis for it,” said Fitzwilliams. “It was a bad mistake to include something silly and sensationalist like that, because it weakens his claims.” Beeching added: “If people start asking, ‘How could he possibly prove that?’ they may start asking the same question about everything else in the book.” Davies said: “I regard it as total salacious. It undermines his credibility to include a claim like that.” Claim: there was a ‘lack of obvious care’ for Harry Spencer said he was worried about the “lack of obvious care” for Prince Harry, then 12, in the aftermath of Diana’s death. “He needed Diana’s hugs, of course, and they would forever be denied him,” he wrote. “But instead of calm and nurture, he was allowed to spin out of control.” Fitzwilliams said the claim fitted with “the picture Harry has already painted” that he had not been properly supported by the family. “But I think the public is used to that, so I don’t think it will cause any eyebrows to be raised.” However, Beeching said it could be potentially damaging because it “overlaps with an account the public has already heard from Harry himself: “From a reputational perspective, when two people give accounts which appear to overlap, each can make the other feel more credible to the public.” Claim: Queen reacted ‘tetchily’ to Diana crash In his book, Spencer also makes a claims about Queen Elizabeth II. “When the Queen had heard the first news of Diana’s being in a traffic accident, she had asked tetchily, ‘What is she up to now?’” he wrote. The royal experts are dismissive of such a claim. “It’s not corroborated,” said Davies. “It’s totally unnecessary gossip to claim something like that.” Fitzwilliams added: “It just doesn’t seem like a claim like this was worth making. I don’t think it would change anyone’s view of her [the late Queen].” He said he did not think Spencer’s allegations would prove “especially damaging to support for the monarchy”. Beeching advised the Palace to keep quiet and suggested that a “prolonged” dispute with Diana’s brother was “very unlikely to be a communications battle the Palace benefits from”. Earl Spencer was approached for comment. The Palace declined to make any further comment