Earl Spencer memoir claims King Charles reacted with elation to Diana's death; Palace disputes account
Unbiased summary
Earl Spencer, brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, has released a memoir titled 'Swan Song: Diana, My Sister' with excerpts serialized in the Daily Mail. He claims that King Charles, then Prince of Wales, sounded 'giddily elated – like a lottery winner' in a phone call after Diana's death in 1997. Spencer also alleges Charles said 'we'll forget her soon enough' during a dispute over funeral arrangements. Buckingham Palace issued a statement saying the King is mindful that 'the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory.' The memoir also claims the late Queen offered to restore Diana's HRH title, which Spencer declined. The royal family has not commented further, while Prince Harry reportedly was aware of the book but did not read it.
Generated with deepseek-ai/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 (NIM)
Coverage by outlet
The Guardian
left
Angle
Focuses on the palace's rebuttal and the ongoing tension between Spencer and the royals, framing it as a story of institutional defensiveness.
Bias
The Guardian emphasizes the palace's 'robust rebuttal' and the phrase 'pain of fraternal grief' as a dismissive tactic. It also highlights Spencer's suspicion that palace officials were 'relieved' at Diana's death, giving weight to his account. The coverage is critical of the monarchy's response, framing it as an attempt to undermine Spencer's credibility.
BBC News
centre-left
Angle
Presents the claims neutrally while underscoring the palace's strong pushback and the personal nature of the attacks.
Bias
BBC News gives balanced coverage, noting the allegations are 'highly personal' and based on Spencer's own recollection nearly 30 years later. It also includes public reaction uncertainty and notes Prince Harry's representatives declined comment. It stays close to the facts without overt editorializing, though the phrase 'controversial book' and 'attacks' slightly tilts toward the palace's perspective.
The Independent
centre-left
Angle
Sensationalizes the claims, using 'bombshell' and 'tear the Royal Family apart,' while linking to news about Prince Harry's UK return and Charles's AI speech.
Bias
The Independent emphasizes the dramatic impact of the memoir, framing it as a crisis for the monarchy. It publishes multiple articles on the same story, including a 'live blog,' and ties in Charles's AI speech as a backdrop. It also includes speculation on Prince Harry's involvement, potentially amplifying the controversy without additional evidence.
The Mirror
centre-left
Angle
Shifts focus to Prince Harry's public appearance, portraying the royal family as carrying on amid controversy, with a neutral but slightly sympathetic tone toward Harry.
Bias
The Mirror's main article is about Harry's Invictus event, with the Spencer claims as a secondary story. It notes the palace's response but does not editorialize extensively. The angle seems to humanize Harry, describing his 'good to be back' comment, while giving minimal space to the details of the memoir. This downplays the seriousness of the personal attacks on Charles.
i Paper
centre
Angle
Lists the claims in a factual, listicle format, focusing on the key revelations without heavy commentary.
Bias
The i Paper presents the claims as a straightforward enumeration with limited editorial spin. It includes the palace's statement verbatim and gives space to Spencer's justification for opposing the princes' walk. The tone is neutral, but the choice to lead with 'Five new Earl Spencer claims' implies novelty and newsworthiness without overt bias.
Daily Mail
right
Angle
Frames the book as a 'war of words' and strongly defends the King, while promoting its exclusive serialization rights.
Bias
The Daily Mail is the publisher of the excerpts, yet its coverage is distinctly pro-royal. It uses charged language like 'hatchet-job' and quotes unnamed sources suggesting William is 'furious' and the King is 'apoplectic.' It also includes commentary from royal editor Rebecca English suggesting Spencer's motives are spiteful. The paper emphasizes Prince Harry's awareness to imply a family schism, while dismissing the allegations as unreliable.
The Sun
right
Angle
Takes a strong pro-Charles stance, dismissing Spencer's credibility and using an unnamed former aide's testimony to defend the King.
Bias
The Sun publishes a first-person piece from a former royal photographer who claims Charles was 'distraught' and would never have said such things. It also accuses Earl Spencer of having 'no right' to intervene in royal decisions. The paper omits any counter-evidence and frames the memoir as a product of Spencer's personal vendetta, relying on anecdotal and emotional appeal rather than impartial reporting.
GB News
right
Angle
Emphasizes that Prince Harry is 'brushing off' the controversy and focuses on his public appearances, framing the royal family as resilient despite the allegations.
Bias
GB News highlights Harry's smile and interactions, suggesting he is unaffected by the 'damaging allegations.' It repeatedly refers to the claims as 'astonishing' and 'damaging' but gives little analysis of the evidence. The outlet also notes Meghan's absence, implying a narrative of family disunity. Overall, it treats the story as a distraction while reinforcing a pro-royal 'business as usual' narrative.