The Palace rouses itself to call Spencer a liar. I'm paraphrasing. I admire the elaborate prose: "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."
September 20, 2026
"Unlike my other callers, who were stunned, barely able to articulate their condolences and offers of help, he sounded giddily elated — like a lottery winner, I remember thinking at the time."
Writes Earl Spencer, now, about what he says he thought 30 years ago, quoted in "10 key claims in Earl Spencer’s Princess Diana book/Allegations by the princess’s brother provoked an unprecedented response from Buckingham Palace. These further revelations are likely to add fuel to the fire" (London Times).
Posts
29 comments:
Why wait 30 years to tell the tale? Maybe the guy's short of cash and he's decided taking a shot at the King will prove beneficial.
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was paraphrasing Machiavelli.)
The British Empire has been a source of misery for the world for at least 150 years if not since the founding of the United States. The Royal Family is no small part of that.
This is what the conflict in Iran is truly addressing.
We should go back and free the motherland and do a thorough purge of the British political class.
I kind of like these kind of stories. They Royals are so absolutely unimportant that reading these stories is good harmless fun.
“Royals” is descriptive of a particular group of people. But, seriously; it’s become a one word oxymoron.
Take “His Majesty”. Can anyone think of a single “majestic” thing about Charles?
To say that one admires that elaborate prose is essentially an admission liking the taste of sophisticated bullshit. It must be soap opera Sunday.
"His Majesty is mindful [of stuff] others do not recognise"
Ordinary people have have a fore, a mid and a hind brain. Royals have a 4th brain known as the Royal Recognizer brain. It's tacked on to the very front like a flashy hood ornament. That's what Charles used to see this sordid business for what it really is.
"They'll get over her soon enough." That's not true. She's the James Dean of royals.
Some think king chuck is a powerless figurehead.
He is not. The king has absolute and total powers that would make a Stalin or idi amin drool with envy. And not just UK but similar powers in Australia Canada, new zealand and other parts of the world.
Not just cinc of military but the y swear a fuehreroath to him personally
Appoints a prime minister but has no requirement to do so.
No law can be passed without his approval (assent)
Parliament can only meet with his permission
And lots of other powers.
He may not exercise these powers publicly but he has them
If he went nuts there is no one to stop him.
Never rely on a man's better nature, he may not gave one.Heinlein
Chuck is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Probably not even the sharpest spoon.
He is also king of Canada with many of the same powers in that colony
John Henry
Chuck is king of 15 colonies masquerading as countries (like Canada)
I had not realized that these in clouded the Solomon islands as well as Tuvalu (10 sq miles, 10m pop)
John Henry
Who "he"? Charles?
The change in Charles is quite marked. He was a giggling, resentful adolescent into his forties or fifties and now he's quite mature, serene, and imperturbable. Is that the result of age, of finally assuming great responsibility, or of the weight of mortality.
The last time a king refused his assent to a bill from Parliament was when? Royal refusal would probably lose the king his throne. In the Victorian era, Walter Bagehot defined the monarch's powers as the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. At this point, Britain is more likely to abolish the monarchy entirely than to see a revival of royal privileges.
I read the other day that when the king of Belgium refused to sign a liberal abortion bill, the constitution allowed the legislature to declare him incapacitated for a day so the bill became law without his approval. Britain has no written constitution though.
Why don’t you get right on that Achilles? Go ahead, raise your army. What a maroon.
Gerda Sprinchorn said...
I kind of like these kind of stories. They Royals are so absolutely unimportant that reading these stories is good harmless fun.
They are absolutely not powerless.
They are one of the organizing structures behind the otherwise nebulous globalist movement. They are a driving force behind all of the open borders and WEF bullshit.
They drew the lines in the Middle East and they support the regimes that are destabilizing that region.
These people. To escape anti-monarchists hunting the English Royal Family, King Charles' father, Prince Philip of Greece, was placed inside an orange crate and smuggled out of Greece. That is pretty funny. My ancestors wanted to kill all of these people because they were so awful.
Anyways, I do sort of feel for Prince Charles. His reaction to his wife's death is not that odd. Giddiness and confusion can be a physical symptom of grief and intense stress.
Earl Spencer and Harry seem to be kindred spirits. Entitlement looms large. I admit I grew weary of the Diana worship a long time ago. I was very saddened when she died, but I also recognize she was a master manipulator of the press. I blame her for everyone and his brother feeling the need to bare their soul, their private experiences, to the public. Her brother is irrelevant and it bugs him.
The king does not need to refuse to assent. As you, and Bagehot, point out, the king also has the right to be consulted. Having been consulted, by his prime minister, who has pledged loyalty to him, not the country or parliament or the people, what will the PM do>
Here is how I see the consultation:
PM: We are thinking of banning green neckties
King: Actually I am partial to green neckties. I think we should require them.
PM, back in parliament: Change the word ban to require in the necktie bill.
No need not to assent. The bill never reaches him.
In parliament, the 150 page bill requiring green neckties is never read by anyone and the members all vote the way the party tells them to.
We may have a chance soon to see this in action if Reform "wins" the next general election and asks the king to appoint Frarage as his PM.
If the king did refuse to assent or to appoint Farage, there is nothing anyone can do about it. The military and everyone else that matters has pledged the fuereroath to Chuck and under British law, going back on that oath is "treason"
Citizens are completely unarmed, down to kitchen knives.
So if Chuck, or William, decides to say "You silly sods, I've sent Parliament home and you are going to see what a king does" nobnody in the UK can do anything. Would someone outside do something?
John Henry
Re Belgium and the constitution: Belgium does have a constitution, Britain does not. It has traditions, customs and practices, many conflicting, written down in a million places over the years. They can call it a Constitution but it is not.
Which edition of Bagehot are you referring to, Lazarus? In the second edition, which I have read, Bagehot points out in the intro why a second edition is required. He says that the constitution had changed so much under palmerston(?) that Bagehots first edition was useless.
No votes. No parliamentary intention to change it. No voting on it. Little or no public discussion.
Bagehot doesn't say this but the reason it changed was because the queen, through her PM and "consultation" (as Bagehot called it) changed it.
I said the king doesn't exercise his powers publicly. But he has them all the same. And he seems to exercise them privately. As in the necktie example, he doesn't have to even tell parliament, via his PM, to specifically do anything.
John Henry
What Chuck does inside the UK is not that big a deal to us. He is also king of Canada with much the same powers over Canada. Canadians have also been disarmed. Their military also takes a fueheroath to him.
If he goes nuts with Canada, dismisses Carney and decides to rule directly or through his Governor General of Canada, that does affect us directly.
John Henry
One bit of Trivia that most people don't know. When President Trump called Carney Governor of Canada, he was giving him a promotion. Canada already has a Governor, actually a Governor General. She is appointed by the king, used to be British (up to 1952) but Canadian since then.
Carney was appointed by her, and she has to sign off on everything he does. In the name of the king who can't be bothered with such trivia as Canada.
John Henry
EAB said: "Earl Spencer and Harry seem to be kindred spirits. Entitlement looms large. I admit I grew weary of the Diana worship a long time ago. I was very saddened when she died, but I also recognize she was a master manipulator of the press."
I agree 100%. I never thought I would feel sorry for King Charles, but I wouldn't wish his in-laws on my worst enemy.
In England everything is about sex.
Watching from a distance — I spy plotting by Earl Spencer and Harry to set Harry up as the “popular royal” (the people’s Prince) like Diana was, in opposition to the old guard represented by Charles and William. It’s a long game but Harry doesn’t have any other game. No wonder William is furious about Harry return and Charles saw the need to defend his reputation.
I don’t think the Earl’s book excerpts are landing quite in the way he anticipated. I’m probably not the only one who until now had no opinion of him either way, but now I think he’s a lowlife scumbag. Like Harry and Maleficent Markle.
After many years of uncertainty it finally occurred to me to go on the internet to find out how to pronounce Bagehot so I'm feeling pretty good about myself right about now.
Pretty good. Pretty, pretty, pretty good.
Are you going to tell us?
Badge-it. Almost like Badger. In fact I am surprised that no one has done a parody with a badger expounding on the British Constitution. CC, JSM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.