“Giddily Elated”: Earl Spencer’s Devastating New Memoir Exposes King Charles’s Shocking Reaction to Princess Diana’s Death
Almost three decades have passed since the world collectively stopped spinning on that fateful August morning in 1997. The tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a devastating car crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel in Paris remains one of the most culturally defining and deeply agonizing moments of the twentieth century. For millions around the globe, the memory of her sudden loss is eternally etched into their minds—a profound, shared grief for the “People’s Princess.” Yet, behind the towering iron gates of Buckingham Palace and the heavily guarded walls of the British monarchy, the private reactions and intimate family dynamics surrounding her passing have largely remained shrouded in royal secrecy. That is, until now. In a move that is currently sending unprecedented shockwaves through the very foundation of the British Royal Family, Diana’s fiercely protective younger brother, Charles Spencer, the 9th Earl Spencer, has unleashed a torrent of astonishing, incredibly damaging allegations against King Charles in his explosive forthcoming memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister.
Scheduled for global release just ahead of the 30th anniversary of Diana’s tragic passing, Swan Song promises to be the definitive, unfiltered account of the Princess’s life, told by the man who arguably knew her best and loved her most fiercely. Earl Spencer has long been viewed as a thorn in the side of the Windsor establishment, famously delivering a blistering, unforgettable eulogy at his sister’s funeral in Westminster Abbey that overtly challenged the royal family’s treatment of her. Now, he is tearing open decades-old wounds, claiming he was ultimately compelled to write the memoir to forcefully correct the myriad of “untruths” that have slowly morphed into accepted history over the years. But it is his deeply personal, jaw-dropping revelations regarding the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death—and specifically the behavior of her ex-husband, the then-Prince of Wales—that are dominating global headlines and forcing the Palace into a frantic, highly defensive posture.
In what is undoubtedly the most explosive and deeply disturbing claim to emerge from the newly serialized extracts of the book, Earl Spencer paints a chilling portrait of King Charles’s emotional state in the chaotic, harrowing hours immediately following the Paris car crash. While the rest of the world was plunged into an abyss of disbelief and mourning, Spencer alleges that the King’s reaction was vastly, shockingly different. According to the Earl, when Charles placed a phone call to him following the fatal accident, the Prince of Wales sounded “strangely matter-of-fact.” But the allegations do not stop there; in a phrase that is sure to haunt the reigning monarch for years to come, Spencer boldly claims that Charles actually sounded “giddily elated” and likened his unusual demeanor to that of a “lottery winner.”
This incredulous allegation strikes directly at the very heart of the King’s public image and moral character. Spencer controversially speculates in the deeply personal text that Charles’s bizarrely upbeat reaction stemmed from a dark, unspoken realization: that the sudden, tragic removal of Diana from the global stage “might free him to marry the woman he loved.” At the time of Diana’s death, Charles’s deeply intertwined relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles (now Queen Camilla) was already a source of immense public controversy and deep personal pain for Diana. The horrifying suggestion that the future King of England felt a sense of euphoric, selfish relief at the death of the mother of his two children is a bombshell of apocalyptic proportions for the modern monarchy’s PR machine.
The memoir relentlessly continues to dismantle the carefully constructed royal narrative surrounding the grieving process. One of the most heartbreaking and enduring historical images of the twentieth century is that of a 15-year-old Prince William and a 12-year-old Prince Harry, heads bowed in unimaginable sorrow, walking solemnly behind their mother’s casket through the crowded, weeping streets of central London. For years, the empathetic public has loudly questioned the agonizing decision to subject two deeply traumatized young boys to such a barbaric, highly public spectacle. Earl Spencer’s book finally pulls back the curtain on the bitter, furious behind-the-scenes battle over this exact arrangement.
Spencer reveals that when one of Queen Elizabeth II’s most senior royal aides explicitly informed him of the Palace’s firm intention to have the young princes walk in the funeral procession, he flatly and furiously refused, reportedly stating, “That’s not going to happen.” He firmly believed that Diana would have been absolutely horrified at the terrible thought of her beloved boys enduring such a harrowing, traumatic public ordeal. However, just minutes after his tense confrontation with the royal aide, Spencer claims he received a furious, unyielding phone call directly from Prince Charles. Charles allegedly insisted that the boys must walk, bizarrely comparing the tragic situation to his own personal experience of walking behind the coffin of his great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten, who was brutally assassinated by an IRA bomb in 1979.
When Spencer rightly pointed out the vast, undeniable difference between a 30-year-old man mourning his great-uncle and two young, vulnerable children violently mourning their mother, he claims Charles simply “went nuts.” According to the excerpt, Charles unleashed a steady stream of unbridled anger down the telephone line while Spencer listened in stunned silence. It was in this precise moment of furious confrontation that Charles allegedly revealed what Spencer vividly describes as his “pent-up contempt for Diana, and his horror that the world was so bowled over by her death.” In a moment of pure, vitriolic rage, Charles allegedly hissed down the phone line: “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough!”
The sheer cruelty of that alleged statement—”we’ll forget her soon enough”—stands in stark, sickening contrast to the living reality of Diana’s enduring, global legacy. Almost thirty years later, she is arguably more beloved and remembered than ever before. Spencer writes that he was utterly stunned by the vicious remark, taking a few long seconds to mentally process the sheer callousness of the words before flatly replying, “I can’t believe you just said that,” and abruptly hanging up the phone in disgust.
But Swan Song does not solely focus on the immediate aftermath of the tragedy; it also delves deeply into the agonizing, highly publicized years of Diana’s royal marriage. Spencer portrays a deeply unhappy union where Diana felt profoundly “isolated and trapped” within the restrictive, gilded cage of the royal establishment. He alleges that Charles was perpetually hyper-critical of his young wife, contributing significantly to the severe mental health struggles that tragically led her to contemplate “ending it all” in her darkest, most desperate moments. In a particularly bizarre and previously unheard anecdote, the Earl also makes an unfounded claim regarding the day Diana officially informed him she was going to divorce the Prince of Wales. During a private lunch at San Lorenzo, her absolute favorite upscale London restaurant, Spencer claims Diana confided in him that Charles was actually “in love with his valet.” While this specific, highly scandalous claim remains entirely unsubstantiated, its inclusion in the memoir perfectly illustrates the deep levels of paranoia, mistrust, and utter dysfunction that entirely consumed the royal marriage in its final, toxic years.
The sheer volume and severity of these staggering allegations have forced Buckingham Palace into a highly unusual and deeply revealing corner. Traditionally, the British monarchy operates strictly under the steadfast, historical mantra of “never complain, never explain,” heavily preferring to maintain a stoic, dignified silence in the face of public scandal or rampant media speculation. However, the deeply personal and highly damaging nature of Earl Spencer’s claims necessitated a swift, calculated public response. In a rare move that vividly highlights the Palace’s deep concern over the spinning narrative, a spokesperson for King Charles issued a carefully worded, yet fiercely sharp rebuttal.
“While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle,” the official statement began, before smoothly delivering the killing blow: “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 masterful piece of royal public relations essentially, and quite publicly, accuses Earl Spencer of being a deeply traumatized, unreliable narrator whose historical memories have been hopelessly distorted by decades of unresolved grief and lingering, bitter resentment. Royal commentators and eagle-eyed observers immediately noted the striking, undeniable similarities between this statement and the late Queen Elizabeth II’s famous, highly publicized response to the explosive allegations of royal racism made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during their infamous 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview. By subtly deploying the iconic “recollections may vary” strategy once again, the Palace is aggressively attempting to completely undermine Spencer’s credibility without becoming officially entangled in a messy, undignified public shouting match with a grieving brother.
However, casually writing off Earl Spencer’s searing account as merely the clouded memories of a grieving relative is a highly risky, potentially disastrous strategy for the monarchy. Spencer is absolutely not a distant, disgruntled former employee looking for a quick payout; he is Princess Diana’s literal flesh and blood, the maternal uncle to the future King, Prince William, and the fiercely loyal Prince Harry. His unique perspective carries immense, undeniable historical weight and commands fierce public loyalty. By publishing these claims, Spencer is effectively pouring high-octane gasoline on the smoldering embers of the public’s lingering resentment toward King Charles and Queen Camilla regarding their historical treatment of Diana.
The impending publication of Swan Song also raises profound, incredibly uncomfortable questions about the current, fragile state of relations between the Spencer family and the Windsor dynasty. How will Prince William, who currently enjoys a close, highly collaborative working relationship with his father, react to these devastating public attacks on the King’s character? Will these shocking revelations further embolden Prince Harry, who has already waged his own highly public, bitter war against the royal establishment and the British press? Reports have already quickly surfaced indicating that Earl Spencer did not consult with his nephews prior to the publication of the book, potentially opening up entirely new, painful rifts within an already deeply fractured and heavily scrutinized family dynamic.
Ultimately, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister serves as a stark, uncompromising reminder that the past is never truly buried when it comes to the Royal Family. The ghosts of the tumultuous 1990s—the bitter divorce, the tragic accident, the warring camps of Windsor and Spencer—continue to fiercely haunt the modern monarchy. While King Charles has spent the last three decades meticulously, tirelessly rebuilding his public image, culminating in a largely successful coronation and a generally well-received reign, Earl Spencer’s devastating memoir threatens to drag him forcefully back into the darkest, most damaging chapter of his life.
Whether the public ultimately chooses to believe the astonishing, chilling claim that King Charles felt like a “lottery winner” upon hearing of Diana’s tragic death, or broadly accepts the Palace’s assertion that Earl Spencer’s memory is simply, tragically clouded by unimaginable grief, one fundamental, undeniable truth remains completely intact: Princess Diana has absolutely not been forgotten. Despite the alleged venomous hisses of her ex-husband in the heat of a terrible argument, her legacy continues to shine brilliantly, casting a long, unyielding shadow over the British monarchy. As the world solemnly prepares to mark the upcoming 30th anniversary of her passing, it is abundantly clear that the battle for the definitive truth of her life—and the true nature of the royal family she left behind—is far from over. The wounds are still incredibly raw, the resentments still burn fiercely, and the captivating, deeply tragic story of the People’s Princess will continue to echo loudly and powerfully through the hallowed halls of history for generations to come.
