Earl Spencer's Apology to Piers Morgan: What Went Wrong on Publication Day
Earl Spencer apologised to Piers Morgan on 22 September 2026 for wrongly claiming in his memoir that Morgan was behind the publication of intrusive photographs of Diana, Princess of Wales, in the mid-1990s.
The apology came on the publication day for Spencer's book, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister. Spencer is the brother of the late princess. The correction followed a threat of legal action from Morgan. The Guardian
The gym photographs
The passage at issue concerned photographs showing Diana working out in a leotard in a gym, allegedly taken by a hidden camera. The images were published by the Sunday Mirror on 7 November 1993.
Morgan did not join the Daily Mirror until October 1995, nearly two years after the photographs appeared. At the time of publication, he was working at The Sun.
Spencer said in his apology statement that he had incorrectly assumed Morgan was editor of the Daily Mirror when the Mirror Group published the gym photographs. He described the error publicly as an "incorrect assumption". HuffPost UK
Morgan had threatened to sue Spencer over what he termed "fabricated inaccuracies" and "examples of brazen falsity" in the book.
A second disputed claim
The gym photographs are not the only claim from the memoir to attract dispute. Spencer writes that King Charles told him "we'll forget her soon enough" ahead of Diana's funeral. Buckingham Palace has questioned that account. Sky News Spencer has said he left details about King Charles out of his book ahead of its release.
Morgan has separately accused Spencer of "shamelessly profiting" from Princess Diana. Yahoo Entertainment
The broader context here is the particular risk of memoir as a form. Personal memory carries weight with readers. It also carries risk in court. British libel law — which covers false published statements that harm reputation — rewards prompt correction when a date or job title can be checked against the record, and punishes delay. Checking a job title is like checking a passport stamp. It is simple and decisive.
In my view, publishers will read this as a procedural warning. Employment dates and titles are checkable. One unchecked assumption forced a public apology on publication day.
Looking at what this means for Swan Song, the two disputes point in different directions. The Morgan episode appears contained by an explicit factual admission. The timeline was verifiable, and Spencer conceded it. The claim about King Charles rests on a private conversation, with the Palace disputing Spencer's version. That second argument cannot be settled by a masthead date. It will likely shape early reception of the book more than the corrected passage.
