Palace Rejects Earl Spencer's Claims About King Charles After Diana's Death

Buckingham Palace has rejected claims in Earl Spencer's memoir Swan Song about King Charles in the days after Diana, Princess of Wales died. The Guardian The dispute concerns Spencer's account of private conversations around funeral arrangements. The Palace disputes that account.

The memoir is titled 'Swan Song: Diana, My Sister'. The Guardian It recounts Diana's life story and the week of her death. Spencer is the brother of Diana, Princess of Wales. BBC He has described the book as a brother's simple tribute to his sister Diana. The Guardian

At the center is an alleged remark Spencer attributes to Charles after Diana's death: 'Rest assured, we'll forget her soon enough.' The Guardian Spencer places that remark during a heated row over funeral arrangements. The same allegation is described elsewhere as a heated phone call before Diana's funeral. The Guardian

Spencer further claims Charles sounded 'giddily elated' after Diana's death. The Guardian That description comes from his recollection of private contact before the funeral. Both characterizations come from Spencer. Both are contested by the Palace.

Reuters reported on September 16, 2026 that King Charles responded to criticism from Princess Diana's brother. Reuters The rebuttal noted on September 18, 2026 followed that report in publication order. That leaves two sourced positions on the record. One is a memoir account with direct quotation. The other is an institutional rejection of that account.

The broader context here is a common bind in palace communication. Private grief and protocol, the formal rules for royal events, collide. Recollections differ. A memoir fixes one participant's version in print, like one side of a phone call written down for the public. Silence can be read as assent, while rebuttal keeps the story alive.

Looking at what this means for readers who follow disputed accounts, the form of each claim matters as much as its content. Spencer offers named, first-person recollection of phone calls, including quoted speech. The Palace offers denial without, in the material available here, a competing transcript. Neither version can be checked alone from the verified facts. That limit calls for strict attribution of each claim to its source.

In my view, the weight lies less in settling what was said than in how the disagreement is archived. Once a rebuttal is issued, the allegation circulates as disputed. That status affects citation, repetition, and editorial caution. It also focuses the next questions. Whether contemporaneous notes, witnesses, or correspondence reach the record will decide if this moves beyond competing memories. Until then, the record holds a claim, a denial, and a book presented as personal tribute rather than institutional history.