King Charles Issues a Rare Personal Response to Charles Spencer’s Claims About Princess Diana’s Death

The sudden and tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997 remains one of the most intensely discussed episodes in the British monarchy’s modern history. Decades after the event, new revelations have surfaced in the memoirs of her brother, Charles Spencer, drawing unprecedented reaction from Buckingham Palace and reigniting public debate about the royal family’s internal dynamics during times of crisis.

The forthcoming publication of Spencer’s memoir, “Swan Song: Diana, My Sister,” has brought stark new details to light, particularly in regards to the hours immediately following Diana’s fatal car crash, his interactions with then-Prince Charles, now King Charles III, and the complex arrangements of Diana’s funeral. More notably, Buckingham Palace, which traditionally maintains silence on books and media speculation, has issued a rare direct response, contesting the veracity of key claims made by Spencer.

The Midnight Call That Changed Everything

In an emotionally charged excerpt published by the Daily Mail, Earl Spencer recounts receiving a fateful phone call in the middle of the night at his Cape Town residence, where he lived with his four young children. The voice on the line was that of his sister Jane, informing him that Diana—lovingly nicknamed “Duch” by her family—had been involved in a car crash in Paris. Initial reports indicated a leg injury, but nothing overtly catastrophic. The household remained relatively calm, hoping for a swift recovery. Jane’s husband, Robert Fellowes, the Queen’s private secretary at the time, was believed to have access to reliable, up-to-date information concerning the royal family, further reassuring the Spencers.

Yet, as the night continued, the situation deteriorated. News outlets began reporting that Diana’s companion, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul, were dead at the scene. The Spencers’ telephone lines buzzed with anxious updates, culminating in a sixth call with Jane, during which the unimaginable was confirmed: Diana’s life had been lost.

The aftermath was a blur of grief, confusion, and constant calls from family and dignitaries as the world, almost overnight, came to terms with the loss of a beloved public figure. One of those calls, as Charles Spencer describes, came from Prince Charles.

For Spencer, those private phone conversations have remained indelible. He attributes Diana’s death, in part, to the relentless pursuit of the paparazzi, a view widely echoed and debated in public discourse since that harrowing night.

Prince Charles’ First Call and Its Aftermath

Among the flood of condolences and stunned commentary, the nature of Prince Charles’ call stood apart, according to Spencer’s account. Rather than the tearful, subdued words one might expect from a grieving ex-husband and father, Spencer characterizes Charles’ tone during the telephone conversation as “giddily elated.” He goes as far as to compare Charles’ demeanor to that of a lottery winner—an observation that is both striking and controversial given the circumstances.

Prince Charles reportedly told Spencer that he had just informed his sons, William and Harry, of their mother’s death, delivering the news to them in their bedrooms at Balmoral. According to Spencer’s memoir, the conversation quickly shifted toward what the tragedy could mean for Charles’ personal future, particularly with regard to his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, now Queen Consort.

This account, while deeply personal, has inevitably fueled further interest in the emotional and psychological state of the British royal family in the direct aftermath of Diana’s loss, and what it could have meant for Charles, William, and Harry.

As the days progressed, disagreements between Spencer and royal officials around the funeral arrangements placed further strain on these already tense family relations.

Disputes Over Princess Diana’s Funeral Arrangements

Acting as a chief point of contact for the Spencer family, Charles Spencer became deeply involved in discussions with Buckingham Palace and Prince Charles’ office. The responsibility was heavy, as public expectation and private grief collided. Despite Diana having divorced Charles a year prior to her death, royal protocol prevailed, and decisions such as the style and music of the ceremony were governed by palace officials.

Spencer recounts being told by palace aides that Mozart’s “Requiem,” one of Diana’s preferred choices, was unsuitable for an Anglican (Church of England) service—a claim he later discovered to be unfounded. This was just the beginning of a series of disagreements that would erupt during funeral preparations. Spencer noted that communication largely occurred not directly with the Royal Family, but mainly via Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm Ross, the then-comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office, who handled contact with admirable sensitivity, according to Spencer.

However, the most significant and emotionally charged point of contention concerned the proposal that Prince William and Prince Harry, then just 15 and 12 years old respectively, should walk behind their mother’s coffin during the televised funeral procession. Spencer strongly objected, believing that it would expose Diana’s sons to lasting trauma.

William and Harry at the Center of the Dispute

As outlined in his memoir, Spencer reminded Ross and other officials that Diana had made him her sons’ guardian in her will. Although he recognized his authority was only symbolic while their father lived, he felt morally empowered to advocate on William and Harry’s behalf. He firmly opposed subjecting them to an ordeal he felt Diana would have abhorred.

The palace, however, conveyed that Prince Charles and his aides had already decided the boys would walk. Tensions rose further when Prince Charles himself phoned Spencer directly to press the point.

The Controversial Allegation at the Heart of the Memoir

What happened during that call has now become the central controversy of Spencer’s book. According to Spencer, as the discussion about the funeral procession escalated—and Prince Charles insisted the boys should take part, referencing his own participation in Lord Mountbatten’s funeral as an adult—Charles grew frustrated with the Spencers’ resistance and reportedly declared, “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough!”

For Spencer, these words were searing, and he immediately recounted them to family members, believing it epitomized a lack of empathy toward Diana and her sons. The claim has reignited debates about royal attitudes toward Diana’s legacy and about the psychological toll of public mourning on the young princes.

Funeral Procession Decisions: Public Perception and Private Struggle

In the chaotic days before the funeral, further discussions took place between senior members of the Queen’s and Prince Charles’ households regarding who should join the cortège. According to Spencer, concerns were raised that Prince Charles might face public hostility if he walked alone; thus, it was suggested that Spencer and the young princes accompany him. Ross later relayed that William and Harry had agreed to walk provided their grandfather, Prince Philip, joined them for support—a compromise Spencer conditionally endorsed only if he could be assured the boys volunteered freely.

On September 6, 1997, the world watched as Prince Philip, Prince William, Spencer himself, Prince Harry, and Prince Charles followed Diana’s funeral cortege to Westminster Abbey, marking one of the most iconic and emotionally charged images in recent royal history.

The arrangements and the way they were handled remain a focal point for royal historians and the British public alike, especially as the personal accounts of those involved—including Spencer’s—bring additional layers of context and insight.

A Rare Response from Buckingham Palace

The publication of excerpts from “Swan Song: Diana, My Sister” triggered an unusual reaction from Buckingham Palace. Breaking with decades of tradition, a palace spokesperson issued a response to media outlets, including Page Six. The statement did not directly refute Spencer’s account but instead alluded to the fallibility of memory in the wake of loss: “While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.”

This carefully worded but pointed reply stops short of a total denial, but instead questions the accuracy of recollections formed in the emotional turmoil following bereavement. This response itself is noteworthy, as the Palace rarely intervenes directly in literary or personal disputes involving the royal family.

Spencer’s Public Defense and the Ongoing Debate

In an interview with the BBC, Spencer stood firmly by his account, stating, “I can tell you here and now those are exactly the words he said.” He underlined the infrequency of his direct contact with Charles—a factor, he argues, that made the memories all the more vivid and direct.

While he offered no contemporaneous documentation of the call, he claimed to have reported the exchange to close friends and family, so shocked was he by the sentiment expressed. Spencer has characterized the Palace’s response as an effort to “smudge” the issue, invoking the now-famous phrase, “recollections may vary.”

The contrast between the two sides—Spencer’s certainty and the Palace’s emphasis on the effects of grief on memory—reflects a broader societal debate about trauma, memory, and the complexities of high-profile family conflict.

The Memoir’s Impending Release and Public Response

“Swan Song: Diana, My Sister” is scheduled for publication on September 22, 2026. Its pending release has already made headlines, not only for its content but also due to a mysterious theft in the Netherlands, where four advance copies were reportedly stolen from a distribution truck. The unusual incident, reportedly discovered by the driver upon waking, has only added to public anticipation.

The claims within the book—especially those concerning Diana’s final days, the pressure on her sons, and Charles’ alleged remarks—have reopened old wounds and prompted a new generation to revisit the narrative of Diana’s passing and the monarchy’s role in shaping her legacy. As with many events involving the royal family, definitive answers may remain elusive, but the public discourse underscores how the impact of Diana’s life and death continues to reverberate decades later.

For now, the central dispute is unresolved: Charles Spencer maintains the accuracy of his recollection, while Buckingham Palace asks the public to consider the limitations of memory in the context of profound grief.

Disclaimer: This content is intended for entertainment purposes only and is not based on real events.