JAN MOIR: On his American tour, Charles Spencer's critiques of the Royals chime with the grievances of Harry and Meghan

Charles Spencer, the Earl Spencer and brother of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, has embarked on a high-profile promotional tour across the United States that has reignited tensions surrounding the British Royal Family. Central to his appearances is the launch of his new book, "Swan Song: Diana, My Sister," which blends personal recollections with pointed critiques of the monarchy, particularly targeting King Charles III.

Spencer’s American media strategy has included interviews on television, radio, and podcasts, where he openly challenges the narrative surrounding the Royals, often portraying them as manipulative and unsupportive. His commentary aligns closely with the public grievances voiced by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who have previously expressed feelings of exclusion and disillusionment with the institution.

In a notable New York event, Spencer was interviewed by royal biographer Tina Brown. Rather than focusing solely on Diana’s legacy, Spencer revisited controversial moments following her death in 1997. He characterized Prince Charles as someone who exhibited volatile behavior, contrasting this with his own composed demeanor during those difficult times. These assertions, while dramatic, have been met with skepticism given their subjective nature and lack of corroborating evidence.

Earlier in his tour, Spencer appeared on CBS Mornings with presenter Gayle King, a close associate of Meghan Markle. The interview was marked by a congenial tone, with King endorsing Spencer’s book and praising his protective stance toward his nephews, Princes William and Harry. Spencer denied claims of widespread criticism against him, attributing dissent primarily to Buckingham Palace, though independent reactions suggest a more mixed reception.

Further expanding his claims, Spencer spoke on a Canadian radio program where he speculated about Diana’s possible ADHD and dyslexia, as well as alleged phone hacking incidents. He also reiterated a contentious remark that Prince Charles was “giddily elated” upon learning of Diana's death, an interpretation based solely on his recollection of Charles’ tone during a phone call. This portrayal has been questioned for its credibility and emotional plausibility.

Spencer’s narrative also revisits the contentious aspects of Diana’s funeral procession, depicting Prince Charles as emotionally unrestrained and disrespectful in private conversations. He insists that these details are factual, presenting himself as a historian committed to truth rather than gossip. However, critics argue that his perspective is heavily biased and self-serving, aiming to reshape history to fit his personal grievances.

Despite his public denunciations, Spencer claims to have not read Prince Harry’s memoir "Spare," which adds another layer of complexity to his stance on family history. His selective engagement with the Royal Family’s recent controversies raises questions about his motivations and the accuracy of his representations.

This tour follows a pattern reminiscent of Harry and Meghan’s media engagements, both in tone and content, suggesting a shared narrative critical of the monarchy's internal dynamics and public image. Spencer’s book has achieved bestseller status in the U.S., signaling that his version of royal history resonates with a significant audience.

The sustained public airing of familial disputes through media channels continues to fuel debates about the monarchy's role, legacy, and relevance. Spencer’s contributions add another dimension to the ongoing saga of the British Royals’ relationship with the press and public opinion, particularly in the transatlantic context.

While the full impact of Spencer’s tour remains to be seen, it clearly underscores the persistent divisions and emotional complexities within the royal family. His direct and often provocative commentary ensures that the conversation around the monarchy’s past and present will remain a prominent and contested topic in the cultural discourse surrounding British royalty.