Earl Spencer's Memoir on Diana's Death Week Draws a Palace Rebuttal
Charles Spencer's memoir Swan Song went on sale on 22nd September carrying his account of the week of his sister Diana's death and contested claims about the now King Charles that prompted a rebuttal from Buckingham Palace.
Penguin Books lists Swan Song as a book by Charles Spencer with ISBN 9780241825594 and describes it as telling the story of Charles Spencer's life with Diana and the week of her death. Penguin Books The publisher lists the title as out on 22nd September. Penguin Books A dedicated extract article from the book was published by Penguin on 21 September. Penguin Books
The book is identified as a new book by Princess Diana's brother, Earl Spencer, containing Spencer's memories of how Charles reacted to Diana's death. CNN
Specific claims centre on the conduct and language of the then-Prince of Wales. Spencer claims that then-Prince Charles made a comment about Diana soon after her death in 1997. InStyle In a published excerpt, Earl Spencer says the then-Prince of Wales subjected him to a "stream of anger". BBC
Two further passages have drawn particular attention. Earl Spencer writes in Swan Song that Charles sounded 'giddily elated' after Diana's death and that he believes Charles may have contributed to Diana's eating disorder. The Guardian The first is presented as Spencer's recollection of tone in a phone conversation. The second is presented as belief, not as a clinical finding.
Buckingham Palace issued a rebuttal to claims made in Earl Spencer's memoir Swan Song. The Guardian The Palace has responded.
The broader context here is how to weigh two limited kinds of evidence. It is like comparing a diary entry with a short press statement. A memoir, a personal account written from memory, offers recollection without official minutes. A palace rebuttal, a formal denial, offers disagreement without a detailed counter-story. Because the Palace replied formally rather than staying silent, both sides are now on the public record. Neither form allows independent verification of private conversations from 1997, and both are shaped by the interests of their authors.
In my view, the stakes lie in control over narrative rather than in any immediate procedural consequence. The relevant questions are narrow. Who spoke to whom, in what sequence, in the days after the death. How those recollections were recorded at the time, if at all. And whether further contemporaneous material will enter the public domain. On the evidence in the verified extracts so far, those questions remain open.
