In Monday's Times, Jenni Russell, always a moderate and balanced voice, wrote this in response to Spencer's "revelations":
It is selfish, spiteful and self-aggrandising. It is hard to see its purpose, other than to undermine the King and make his family feel freshly wretched while profiting from both. Spencer asserts he is just telling the truth, 29 years later, and that the royal rejoinder amounts to “gaslighting”. But there is reason to doubt that what he says he heard is what was said.
Spencer claims Charles sounded like “a lottery winner” on the morning of the tragedy. “I suspect the prince’s first reaction must have been to think more of how this event might free him to marry the woman he loved, rather than appreciating the loss of one he did not.” Both interpretations are belied by the evidence.
I talked to an impeccable source who was with Charles that day. He describes Spencer’s allegation as “wildly improbable. It’s not the Charles I saw.” That man was “in total shock, bereft and sad”. He hadn’t slept since news of the crash in the early hours and was overwhelmed by “sorrow, and concern. He was really worried about the children. They were at the forefront of everything.”
He is not a reliable reporter. He presents himself as her fierce champion when we know from published letters that the year before she died he was writing to her saying there had been “years of neglect on both sides”, that their relationship “was the weakest I have with any sister”, and accusing her of fickle friendship, manipulation and deceit.
The royals didn’t protect Diana post-divorce but nor did he. In 1993 she asked to rent a house she had known since childhood on his estate, situated behind his gates; he said yes, only to retract a fortnight later, claiming there would be too much police and press activity and he must put his wife and daughters first.
