Earl Spencer / Dartmoor

[Vice Admiral]

External Link/Members Only

"King Charles is accused of insensitively saying to Earl Spencer, in the wake of Diana's death in 1997, that 'we'll forget her soon enough', according to excerpts published in the Daily Mail."

I don't believe a word of it.  It's highly unlikely that Prince Charles (as he then was) would have said such a thing to anyone – and inconceivable that he would have said it to Diana's brother, of all people.

Earl Spencer is a cunt of the first order.

In any case, why does he come up with this shit 30 years after the event?

So, there's now another traitor to go to the Tower, along with Harry Rotter and the Wicked Witch of Montecito.

Actually, on reflection, the Tower's too good for them.  I read the other day that Prince William is the owner of Dartmoor prison, now empty of convicts.  So let the fuckers rot there!

[Mr Garmin]

"whatever love is?"

I think that in modern parlance he'd be thought to be somewhere on the spectrum.

I can well believe that he said such a stupid thing.

[Jumping Jack Flash]

In any case, why does he come up with this shit 30 years after the event?

He’s got a book to sell.

[Vice Admiral]

"whatever love is?"

I think that in modern parlance he'd be thought to be somewhere on the spectrum.

I can well believe that he said such a stupid thing.

In fact what Prince Charles said was, "Whatever 'in love' means."

Without re-running the whole saga of the marriage – God protect us from that! – Prince Charles's unfortunate comment simply gave the game away.  He was not "in love" with Lady Diana Spencer, and was too honest (or tactless) to pretend he was. It was in effect an arranged marriage.  They were ill-matched in every way.

We all sometimes semi-accidentally say things we regret afterwards.  Nonetheless, my view remains that it is inconceivable that Prince Charles made the comment that Earl Shit-Spencer claims he did.  It runs contrary to everything in the context of the time, and of the two men's relationship.

[Mr Garmin]

In fact what Prince Charles said was, "Whatever 'in love' means."

I know it was Charles the Turd.  Can't stand the man, cunt of the highest order.  Gave up a woman that was considered one of the most beautiful on the planet for one that we can all agree was the ugliest.

[Davey Dykes]

Diana's appeal was the fairly attractive woman who was completely unobtainable for Joe Bloggs.

By no means unattractive but I've banged dozens of SPs who if you put them side by side were way hotter as I suspect many on here are exactly the same.

[Mr Garmin]

Beauty is subjective but, whether you like it or not, Diana was considered one of the most attractive for a variety of reasons.

Obviously there are thousands of equally stunning girls on the planet and attraction isn't just physical appearance (as proved by Charlie boys choice) but it's one of the metrics used by the media et al.

Somebody once said 'show me a beautiful married woman and I show you a man who's fed up fucking her'

[george r]

I know it was Charles the Turd.  Can't stand the man, cunt of the highest order.  Gave up a woman that was considered one of the most beautiful on the planet for one that we can all agree was the ugliest.

well said mate 

[Watts.E.Dunn]

I bet  the old Spencer boy has got a problem with his large manor needing repairs, and this is a good way to knock some cash up;!..

[Charliehutton]

I know it was Charles the Turd.  Can't stand the man, cunt of the highest order.  Gave up a woman that was considered one of the most beautiful on the planet for one that we can all agree was the ugliest.

I've always liked Charles, as it happens. Diana was certainly beautiful; as Will Carling said, "well, you would, wouldn't you?" but Charles seemed to find her a high maintenance pain in the arse. Camilla can't compare when it comes to looks, but she sounds a bit of a giggle, and a terrific support for him.

Diana's brother, I think most of us would agree, is an utter cunt.

[Jerboa]

Apparently Spencer has a expensive divorce he needs to fund, he's not whiter than white as the media made him out to be. Before Diana’s death they were estranged, he banned her from Althorpe.

[Vice Admiral]

I try to avoid pronouncing on the rights and wrongs of other people's marriages.  Charles and Diana was a disastrous mismatch.  As in the case of most marriage break-ups, there were faults on both sides.  Charles was stiff, prematurely middle-aged, serious, intellectual, set in his ways.  Diana was young, fun-loving, not very bright.  There is a lot of evidence that she was also an absolute nightmare. 

In one respect (perhaps more), Meghan is like her – both being addicted to fame and admiration.  Which can be very dangerous drugs.

[Stevelondon]

Oh who gives a toss about these people. If they all suddenly vanished into thin air we would still have the royal history to look at and of course all those lovely buildings 😂

Our royal family degenerated into somewhat of a soap opera over the years.

[Vice Admiral]

Incidentally, Earl Shit-Spencer’s claims partake somewhat of the pot calling the kettle black – in view of the fact that, according to his third wife, Karen, he ended their 13-year marriage via a text message; and that he refused to talk to her in person or to explain, which she found cruel and inexplicable.

[Jerboa]

Spencer is claiming Charlie was hanging out the back of his male valet. 

[Mr Garmin]

Spencer is claiming Charlie was hanging out the back of his male valet. 

The male line of the RF are long renowned to like a bit of that, his father was alleged to bend in that direction.

[DastardlyDick]

In fact what Prince Charles said was, "Whatever 'in love' means."

Without re-running the whole saga of the marriage – God protect us from that! – Prince Charles's unfortunate comment simply gave the game away.  He was not "in love" with Lady Diana Spencer, and was too honest (or tactless) to pretend he was. It was in effect an arranged marriage.  They were ill-matched in every way.

We all sometimes semi-accidentally say things we regret afterwards.  Nonetheless, my view remains that it is inconceivable that Prince Charles made the comment that Earl Shit-Spencer claims he did.  It runs contrary to everything in the context of the time, and of the two men's relationship.

Diana, as far as the Royal were concerned, was a means of getting an heir, Prince Charles (as he was then) had a "duty" to provide one for continuity. She wasn't bad looking back in the day External Link/Members Only but Charle'swanted to play the field a bit more so Andrew Parker - Bowles beat him to it.
That doesn't give Earl Spencer the right to slag Charles off 35 years later, but, as said, he has a book to sell.

[Norwichwood]

The male line of the RF are long renowned to like a bit of that, his father was alleged to bend in that direction.

Plus going to an all boys school with fagging going on. And his Uncle...... liked the boys

[sadolddeejay]

Plus going to an all boys school with fagging going on. And his Uncle...... liked the boys

As well as physicalabuse, fagging certainly occasionally involved homosexuality.and/or sexual abuse. (And abuse of that nature continued after the fagging system was formally dismantled, in my experience.)

But it was normally more about having a servant/valet than about homosexuality.

Personally I don't find arguments for commonality in the etymology of public school "fag" and U.S. "faggot" convincing.

[Vice Admiral]

I've always liked Charles, as it happens. Diana was certainly beautiful; as Will Carling said, "well, you would, wouldn't you?" but Charles seemed to find her a high maintenance pain in the arse. Camilla can't compare when it comes to looks, but she sounds a bit of a giggle, and a terrific support for him.

Diana's brother, I think most of us would agree, is an utter cunt.

A very fair analysis.

I can never understand why some people have it in for the King.  He is quite demonstrably a decent, conscientious, hard-working man, without (unlike Harry Rotter and Earl Shit-Spencer) a malicious bone in his body.

Yes, he has his eccentricities, but who wouldn’t if they lived the weird life he lives?  Which I wouldn’t take for a billion dollars.

And I think we do best not to pass judgement on his first marriage.  Some people think they know everything.  They don't.  We all tend to take one side or the other.  But it’s none of our business.

As for Spencer's stream of bile ... doubtless there’s a grain of truth in it, but it’s all filtered through his bitter and poisonous mind.

To take one small example.  My guess – and my guess is as good or as bad as the next man's – is that, if Princess Diana said that Charles was in love with his valet, it was a light-hearted remark, perhaps reflecting Charles's dependence on the man.  I don't for an instant think there was any shirt-lifting going on.  Just shirt-ironing.

In fact, whatever else you may say about the royal family, they've never been big on the love that dare not speak its name.   The last monarch who arouses suspicions in that direction was William III (1689–1702), and before that James I (1603–1625).

Among “non-monarchs”, Prince George, Duke of Kent – younger brother of Edward VIII and George VI – was almost certainly bi-sexual.