“He’s VENGEFUL!” Diana Butler SLAMS Earl Spencer And Defends King As Piers Morgan Plans To Sue

I think this book is more about Old Spencer than it is about his sister Diana, quite frankly I didn't recognize some of it. He talks about the king being giddy with excitement when Diana died. Well, here's, I was in Paris. I saw the king, he was a broken man. The last five years of her life are pretty vague in the book because he knows nothing about them. She said my family only want me when they want the best seats in the best restaurants in town or want to sit in the raw box of Wembleden. They were jealous. It's official. My legal case against Old Spencer is going ahead on instructed lawyers and they've written formally too. Old Spencer about the false allegations he makes about me in his book and to his publishers, Penguin, as I revealed here on Monday, Spencer directly accused me of publishing the notorious Jim photographs of Princess Diana in the mirror back in the '90s. It was an infamous and egregious invasion of her privacy and mom's resulted in an expensive legal settlement and big global acrimony. In the end, the mirror paid over a million pounds to Diana, which is the highest amount of money that's ever been paid to a member of the royal family by a media organisation in history. But as Old Spencer has now confessed, this all happened two years before I ever worked for the mirror group and this book still remains on sale with the defamatory lie, notwithstanding his admission that is completely untrue and his public apology to me. The publisher, Penguin, is reportedly rushing to print a new addition without the defamatory lie but copies of the defamatory claims are, as we speak, on Shells being sold all around the world and every copy sold is a repetition of a damning allegation which he and the publishers now know and have admitted to be false. That's why, in my opinion, it must be withdrawn from sale. And the publishers should postpone any new addition until every so-called factor in this book has been interrogated as it should have been before it ever went to print. Well Spencer was asked about this on the UK's ITV with Lorraine Kelly earlier today. What about the allegations from Peer's Morgan? He's going to pursue legal action because there were some inaccuracies in the last one. We've apologized for it and it's going to be changed. Absolutely. Unlike some journalists who we know of, I'm very happy to acknowledge I made a small error and I've apologized and it will be put right in the second edition but that's it. What he said is that if you get that wrong, it's given people an opportunity to have another go at you to say well if you got that wrong, what about other inaccuracies in the book, what would you say to that? Well, I stand by the book. Well Spencer's apology didn't come personally to me or to my lawyers. He hadn't even received our legal letter at the time. It was issued by a spokesman to the media with extraordinary haste and actually was buried beneath the repetition of another bogus claim in which he says, "Elspens has a count of his conversation with Peer's Morgan. This is in the book. It's accurate. Mr. Morgan was surly and annoyed when Elspens had called personally to tell him he was not welcoming his sister's funeral. The book then recalls Elspens' assumption that Mr. Morgan's response was because he was at a similar mirror and the mirror group had published a highly intrusive photographs of Princess Diana at the gym. The photographs were published by the Sunday mirror on 7th of November 93. Mr. Morgan's pointed out he didn't join the Daily Mirror in October 1995 as an historian. Accuracy is important to Elspens. He therefore wishes to clarify that his assumption was incorrect. Elspens apologises to Mr. Morgan for this error. There's a former National newspaper editor and a broadcaster of many decades standing. Accuracy is important to me too. I remember that phone call very well and why wouldn't I? Let's face it, it's not every day that Princess Diana's brother calls you to uninvite you from her funeral. I wrote it all down in my own contemporaneous diaries, which were then published in the book 20 years ago. This is what I said in my book, published in 2005. At 2pm, Elspens had called me. Hello, Mr. Morgan. I'm bringing on behalf of my mother to ask all tabloid editors not to attend a funeral service. He was polite but firm. I could sense the rage simmering in his voice. Okay, I said, but when can I just say that when I received the invitation for Lord Chamberlain yesterday, I specifically said I would only accept if it had been expressly approved by you and your family and I was assured it had been that the invitation was from the family. I don't wish to be rude Mr. Morgan, he replied, but it would just be preferred if you showed our request respect. Basic human decency, I wrote dictates that you don't argue with someone who just lost their sister. It goes without saying that we will respect your wishes. I replied and wrote in the book. Could you please pass my personal condolences to your mother as we've always got on well. Thank you. I will, he replied. Thank you. Well, given that the King himself has varying recollections of his phone calls with Elspenser in that very same week, I would argue there's a clear pattern emerging. Elspenser will sell a lot of books and make a lot of money from his books. And that's why I'm demanding a payment to charity, the King's trust charity, which is King Charles's charity. King Charles has already been judged, sorry, Charles Spencer has already been judged in the court of public opinion, depending on what he does next, the court of law may have to determine the rest. Well, joining me now is Paul Barrow, Princess Diana's longtime butler for his exclusive first interview since Elspenser's book was published. Paul, great to have you on Uncensored. Thank you, he is. First of all, your reaction to this book in its totality. You've obviously seen all the serialization and seen all the reports about it. What is your overview of this book? I think this book is more about Elspenser than he's about his sister, Diana. I read this rather spiteful, revengeful aristocratic point of view that he's penned and quite frankly, I didn't recognize some of it. Well, here's. I was in Paris. I saw the King. On the day he came to Paris, he walked down the corridor towards me. He was a broken man. He was devastated. And he went into the room with Dan and sisters for 10 minutes and came out. Clearly, he'd been crying. His eyes were bloodshot. And honestly, I've never seen him like that ever. He was pale and he was scared. And really, I thought to myself, you're here for the boys because you are the boys' father and this is their mother. And he was paying respect to Princess Diana. So, I don't recognize what Elspenser says about Prince Charles. It didn't ring true with me at the time. I just thought, what man? What human being in the hours after Diana was killed in that car crash when you're the father of her two boys would say that to her brother. None of it makes any sense. But it made more sense to me when I saw his account of my phone call within that week, which was completely disingenuously twisted to make me look mad. Because I just recounted in the monologue, if you actually go back and read my own diary entry, and look, my book was a massive best-selling book. It was number one for many weeks on a Sunday Times list. It sold hundreds of thousands of copies. It was serialised like his in the Daily Mail. You couldn't have missed it. Number one in the next 21 years since it was published has ever questioned the veracity of the entries about him, least of all him. And I just think that he has deliberately targeted people to settle schools in a way that it's impossible in a way to disprove it. The big mistake he made with me was to genuinely get a material fact so badly wrong that he has no choice but to apologise. And the recollections of phone calls, it's Charles's word against his. It's my word against his. And he's flying in the belief that he can probably just, you know, rough this out. He's vengeful. He's calling the king to account. Because there's always been a war between the Spencers and the Walesers. You know that started in Westminster Abbey when he stood up and gave his eulogy. I sat there facing our queen in Westminster Abbey in front of Diana's coffin when he said those words. Of course, the royal family did not applaud when the nation applauded. What Charles Spencer did, he was, he got the public feeling, the narrative right. And what he said in Westminster Abbey was what the people were thinking, but the picture behind closed doors was a very different one. I remember watching our queen and I remember her being berated in Westminster Abbey in a house of God by her godson for doing something terribly wrong. And I could not accept that. I couldn't accept it. He should have had more respect to our queen at that time. And then we went to author. We went and stood by the graveside. And I was the last man standing, peers, the very last one, the rest of them left the island. Missy Chan kid said to the boys, come on boys. Paul wants to say his goodbyes. And I stood there looking down into the hole. And I could see the coffin there. And I thought to myself, why are you here? Why are you buried in a pet cemetery on an island surrounded by water with no marker? Why? At least because the Spencer's claimed the narrative. They wanted Diana back. And I looked down thinking at the plate, the plate on the coffin read Diana Princess of Wales and the dates. And I thought, even in death, your majesty, why did you not give her back her role, heinous title? Because when that title was taken away from her peers, she cried. She said, what will people say and what will people think they've demoted me? William said to her, "Don't worry, Mummy, when I'm King, I will give it back to you." But now I learn that the Queen, that the Queen, her late Queen, did offer to give back Princess Diana's title. Why didn't the Spencer family have some respect for the mother of a future King for the Princess of Wales? She would have been so proud to have had that title back. Well, I think the argument, I mean, but, do you know what, I don't. I think to be fair, to Spencer on that point, the offer was made after Diana died. You know, if I was in his shoes and it got offered after her death as he pointed out, it's no good to her now, I kind of got that. Just as I actually agreed with him, it's not like I just agree with everything he's written, I actually agreed with him about how wrong it was that the two boys were made to walk for two miles through huge crowds of very over-emotional people. They were very young these kids, and I've got three sons myself. I would have hated to put them through something like that. I'm sure it has had mental scars to this day. So it's not like everything he says here that I've read, I disagree with. It's just, I'm not sure what I can believe. You know, the stuff that involves me purely goes to his credibility, and I also watched him today on Lorraine. And he was trying to make out that his only motivation was a love for his sister. This is a tribute to his sister. It flows through every page. It was never my intention, he said, with a straight face. To attack the king. Really, really? And yet day one, as this book explodes into public consciousness, the main story in the headlines is you claiming the king, when he was Prince Charles, hours after his ex-wife had died, was giddy with excitement, like a lottery winner. It has really stuck with me that image. Imagine someone who's won the lottery. The jubilation they're feeling. Hands aloft. I've won. Does anybody genuinely think that is what Prince Charles was behaving like in the time? You've given a very powerful and eloquent insight into what he was really feeling when you saw him in Paris. And that was certainly all the impression I was giddy. Paul, I just want to ask you about, you know, when I had a lunch with Diana at Kensington in Paris, you know that as well as I do, because you were there serving the lunch. And it was an amazing experience. William was about 13 and a half. I recounted all this in my diaries years after she died, obviously. But it was fascinating because A, she was so incredibly open in that lunch about everything. All the scandals, all the men, all the stories. And William was obviously hearing all this and obviously was aware of it all too. And she said to me, I have to tell him because he reads about this stuff, which I completely understood. And there were lots of takeaways. One, she was mesmerizing in terms of company. She was really fun, obviously very beautiful. But really, I just found it great to just be around and to have a lunch with. But she also made certain sort of pleas to me. And one of them was very specific. That paparazzi were constantly intimidating and harassing. And these were rogue, like foreign paparazzi, mainly, following around trying to upset her so she would cry or gesticulate and they would think that pictures they could sell. And I understood this and I went back and we actually announced we were no longer going to buy these. This is about a year before she died. We're no longer to buy them and we stop buying them. And other papers followed suit and then accelerated a sort of complete ban on this stuff after she died of all pictures of paparazzi pictures of that kind, which was the right thing to do. But when I listened to Well Spence a positioning himself as the great standard bearer for her legacy in history, I'm just very curious what you think about that because I got the impression things between her and her brother were pretty fractured in the last few years. He wasn't there. Pears, he wasn't there. By his own hand, Diana showed me a letter and in it he said, "I've long considered that I'm on the periphery of your life." And for the last five years of Diana's life, they barely spoke. I can tell you on one hand the times that he came to Kensdrup Palace for lunch. He was not a regular visitor. They were not in regular contact. I did send the occasional facts to South Africa to his estate there. When I was done, I wanted him to know something. But he was not part of her world. And I even think that those five years, the last five years of her life, are pretty vague in the book because he knows nothing about them. What did she think of him? In the last few years of her life, do you think? Well, I can tell you what she thought about her family. She said, "My family only want me when they want the best seats in the best restaurants in town, or want to sit in the Royal Box at Wembleden." They didn't care about Diana. I'm telling you this piece because Diana achieved so much in her short life. I'm much more than the entire Spencer family put together. And I basically think they were jealous. They were jealous of her success and the love that she had from people around the world. And when it came to that final moment of them taking her back, I was incensed because the Spencer family came to apartments eight and nine. And Missy Shunke particularly, and I wrote about this, she sat and she destroyed half of Diana's correspondence between her friends, between people that she cared about, probably a letter from you in there. And letters from her majesty, The Queen, and the members of the Royal family. I was so incensed, I asked to see The Queen. I said, "You majesty, I need to speak to you." She granted me an audience, a private audience of Buckingham Palace, which lasted up to two hours. We stood in her sitting room. I told her everything that was happening. And she understood. That's what led me into a very difficult position piece when I was accused of stealing items from the princess. But I had a moral obligation to protect that small corner of her world, which she could no longer protect herself. Who would do that for you? You do that for your friend. You do that for a colleague, whom you love too. I did it for her. And The Queen stood there and she listened to all of this and she said, "You know what happens, Paul?" When people die, families claim their dead ones back. And that's what the spouses have done. They've claimed her back. Personally, I do not feel she should be on that island. She should be buried in a public place where people from all walks of life can actually pay their respects to her and not pay an entrance fee to all through. To see the house and stare at the island. Well, there's no marker. I think it's shocking the way that she's being claimed back by the Spence's in death and they were not there for her in life. Fascinating stuff. I mean, I'm going to bring in a panel a minute to discuss this and you're going to stay with us and continue talking about this. But just finally, before I get to the panel, in light of all you've said, do you trust him to be an accurate historian of Diana's life? No, I don't. I don't because this is his narrative, very much like Harry and his truth. This is Spence's truth. But the truth is a much bigger picture than Spencer has painted. And I think this serves him well. He doesn't serve Diana well. It certainly doesn't serve William and Harry well because now Harry's fallen into the Spencer camp and William is firmly in the Windsor camp. This is a battle of two aristocratic, Irish-talking-crowned aristocratic families who are now at war in public. Yeah, it really is. We'll stay with us, Paul. Joining us in the studio, John Sobel, host of The New's Agents, former Conservative MP Louise Mench. A Katie Nichol host of The Royals Uncensored. Well, welcome to all of you. Katie, let me start with you. You're obviously getting a new episode dropping tomorrow. It's going to be huge, obviously, given the enormity of this. You know, a strange thing to find myself at the centre of all this, suddenly. By default, really. I mean, literally, I just said to the team, "Is there anything about me in the book?" They found the extract. So when I read them, I realised it was completely untrue. I had nothing to do with it. And I was genuinely angry about that. And he's blown up as a debate about his credibility. I've got to say, I found what Paul just said, very powerful. Very powerful. Particularly the insight into how Charles was in the immediate aftermath when he flew to Paris. A broken man. A broken man. And that really just struck me. Because he saw the king back to this whole giddly excited, like a lottery winner. And I agree with you. I don't see that. I think it's one of the most defensive things, honestly. I've ever read about a public figure. But when someone is in a moment of grief or trauma and shock, people do react differently. But everyone I've spoken, and it's fascinating speaking to Paul, and we love him to come on our show as well. He's fantastic. But every former aid and current aid I've spoken to, and there have been many, have said this is not something that they would recognise of Charles. And I suppose back to the point that you're making about what Spencer's written about you and his recollection being so different to what actually happened. The recollection of Barrel's interpretation of Charles and his grief, it does just beg that question, what else is he wrong about? No, there are certain people that Spencer writes about, including Robert Fellows, the King's then private secretary, married to one of Diana's sisters, who, and Paul raised this point, offered to reinstate Diana's HRH. Well, the thing is, Robert Fellows isn't here to say exactly what happened, whether the Queen really did think what he'd said in that eulogy was powerful and he had every right. And that is the problem. And as Barrel has said, we are only hearing one side. It is Spencer's truth. The problem with this story is the other person, of course, Diana, is no longer here to. Well, that's it, and Louise, you know, I've had a long check in history with Spencer. It's had moments of levity. I remember it was to do a monthly lunch at the mirror, for example. I'd invite celebrities, business tycoons, media figures and stuff. They were always great fun. We'd have about 20 people and we'd layered on. We'd have a good time. He came to one of them in the early 2000s and he sat opposite me. He was very charming and we got on very well. That was the last time I saw him. But there was certainly no bad feeling right there. And yet I pick up the book and his only references to me and dig, dig, dig, dig, dig. He was fine. He was perfectly entitled to. But he shows a slightly macaerial mind that he would come and suck with the devil and then whack the devil in the book. The problem here is it seems to me we're in this era of my truth. And I thought Paul touched on this really well about Harry as well. That people can get absolutely laser-focused on what they think their truth is. And they forget about facts. And the reason it matters more actually with him than Harry is that he's come off saying, "I'm a historian, right? You can trust me and believe me because I am a historian." He's written some good history books. But when you're a historian and you're making basic factual errors of a county made with me, which are not small mistakes, by the way, they're not. Cusing me at the worst invasion of Royal Privacy ever and having to pay down a million pounds, I don't take that lightly. It's not a small mistake. But his way he responded, "I assumed he was the editor." That's not the language of the historian. Can you defend this? I can't defend the factual error. And he's already admitted it's a factual error. There's no question about it. There's no two ways about it. You were not the editor of them or at the time, period of the end. But I think it is fair to say that there's a much bigger case to be able to defend his account of the conversation. I went back through your excellent book, The Insider, which I've had for years, of Red for years, to say that you don't like Charles Spencer, according to that book, is to call the Taj Mahal a grave. I looked it up. He called you up after doing a sort of wager thochristy thing where he was trying to get which person was leaking to the newspapers. He called you a bastard. You called him bonkers. You called him a monk. I didn't call him bonkers to his face. No, but what you do say. Just to be clear about what you're talking about. When I was editor of the news, again, an interesting insight to how he used to operate. He always saw himself as a journalist and media figure. I was editor of the news, the world. He thought one of his friends was leaking stories to us. He was right. Which he was, yeah. But what he did was he set the friend up with a fake story about him quitting Britain, quitting his wife and children, going to live and work in America. And he allowed us to run the story in the first edition. Then he called me to say, "I've got you now." And all I remember thinking is, and we just turned the story around immediately and said, "El Spencer's cruel kind of news of the world readers." All I could think of doing. But the interesting thing, he was happy for that story to appear. He could have called me before publication. And once we went to him for confirmation and said, "I've got you." Right, now I know he could have done that without the story ever appearing. There will still be people in Cornwall and Wales who are laboring out of the massive misapprehension that in 1995, El Spencer quit his wife and kids to go and live in America, because he allowed the fake story to actually be published. So it's complicated. Yeah, but let's just get this right. You called him, and I quote, "A lying toe rag don't make me apologize to that prick." That's a quote. You said, "This will probably have to be bleaked up, but you said that'll teach El Spencer to fuck with us." When you praised, you did praise his eulogy, but you said, "I don't like the guy with this." Now, you also say in your account of the conversation, he was seething with rage. In his account of the conversation, he doesn't say he was angry, but obviously you saw him a seething with rage. I could feel it in his voice. Okay, I could sense the rage simmering in his voice. So I wrote it down. He wouldn't describe himself as angry. You saw him as angry. That's how you took the conversation. He saw you as resentful, because unsurprisingly, when you're invited by the Lord Chamberlain to go to the funeral, you're like, "Really, you know, this seems a bit weird to the Spencer family approve." And when he disinvited you, you said, you explained yourself, "Look, can I just say that this was the Lord Chamberlain invited us?" Yeah, but I did that very respectfully. He took, I don't doubt it, but he took it clearly as arguing the toss. I am not saying that you were arguing the toss, but he took it that way. And I think that is really, that is reasonable. I will also say, and I'm taking my life in my hands here, that although you did clearly not publish the intrusive photographs of Princess Diana, what you did do as the editor of The News of the World is publish very intrusive photographs of then-counsel Spencer at a clinic where she was getting treatment for bulimia and alcohol. Lord Spencer complained about you to the PCC, and it was upheld. Hence you saying, "I'll apologise to Countess Spencer, don't make me apologise to that prick." So although you didn't publish one set of intrusive photos, you did publish another and you yourself say in the book to be fair, because I'm not saying it was a mistake and I shouldn't have done it. As I've been saying all week, I'm not professing to be the mother to Reza of Lead Street. I haven't been an editor for 20 years. I did make mistakes, bad ones, and I was rightly punished for them and monlisted for them. And I also publicly apologized for them and so on. So I was held to account for those things. My issue here is that he has rushed out an apology, and I didn't like him at the time, then he came to lunch and we got on very well, right? So this happens in our game, right? Yes, exactly. In fact, you came out with some false claims about me. I did, and I had to apologise to you. And you had to apologise, so we're in the game of making public apologies for mistakes around books. I did. You had to do that. 100%. So we all have our little cross to bear, and I don't dispute anything you've said. And it's not really that, but let me bring John in here. It's not about that to me. It's about the credibility of him as a historian. And the moment you make a mistake of this nature and the scale of it, in my opinion, is pretty significant, it does call into question your credibility as an historian. No, I would love to say that there is nothing more important in the whole world than Peers Morgan and his relationship and love Spencer, but I would be telling a lie. The fact of the manor is that what this book is about is about his relationship with the king. You're able to answer back. You're able to say, page by page, line by line, this is factually incorrect. The king is not in a position to be able to do that. He was able to issue a pre-buttal before the book came out saying, in general terms, a sibling's grief, memories may get clouded. That's all he could do. And so I don't want to feel sorry for the king when he's all powerful, but what can he do when you have got a book like this coming out with the most egregious claims about his behavior in the wake of the death of his ex-wife and in Earl Spencer's sister? And he can't fight back. He can't answer back. And I think there are some really fundamental questions. Yours are really important. But the fundamental questions seem to me about this is, can it be trusted that this is a fair account? He wasn't keeping a diary as we understand it. He told friends, it's 29 years later. I mean, do I remember every conversation I had from 29 years ago? Not really. And would I put them in quotation marks? I probably wouldn't. So that you said you would never seek to make money out of your sister? I mean, you've said that if you win this libel action, any money is going to the king trust. Do we know what's going to happen to the money that is coming in? The millions that are going to come in. No, we don't. And he was in the camera. I will never profit from my sister. Exactly. And he castigated all those who did. So I think that there are really fundamental questions. I mean, he's done some interviews. I think there's still some pretty searching questions for Earl Spencer to answer. Look, I know he's a member of the aristocracy. I know he lives in this fantastic mansion. You know, it's stunning, I'm sure. But he is a bloke who's publishing a book with some very contentious claims. And if you're doing an interview with him, you've surely got to do an accountability interview where you say, I'm sorry, we've got to put this to you. What about the money? Why are you doing this 29 years after she died? How can the king possibly respond to these claims? Most of the people on the throne were with a straight face. Say, I didn't want to attack the king. When the main headline that preemps the serialisation is you launching the most vicious attack on the king, imaginable. Piz, you said it yourself that he badges himself as a historian, yeah. He also badges himself as a journalist. And if you write something down and you've got a journalist sense, you know what the heck is. I mean, haven't even got to his little lunch with Diana where she says, I've got to get divorced because Charles has in love with his valet, right? Just drops this in. Now, we in Fleet Street all knew about this rumor. I think it was a ridiculous untrue rumor about Charles's supposed relationship with his valet. We know who the valet was. I won't repeat it here. But I know all about this. But he just casually puts this in. Again, as an historian. And then says, well, I don't know this true or not. Well, a genuine historian wouldn't just fly a rumor suggesting that King Charles is secretly gay and having an affair with his valet without actually thinking, maybe as an historian, I shouldn't put that in. Also, you and I have both written books. We know when serialization is out. Of course. What bits are going to be taken out for serial? And did he complain, by the way, when that line was the main headline? Or did he say to the Daily Mail, no, you shouldn't have this. Or did he ring the publishers and say print more copies, right? Let me bring Paul Barrow back in here. Paul, you know the thing I'm really thinking about is what would Diana have thought about this if she was still alive? And obviously, it doesn't quite work that way because a lot of what he's talking about is post to death. But I can't imagine that Diana would have wanted her brother to launch such a. vicious attack on Charles. You know, she adds some moments with Diana about Charles. I always remember this one, that when the Dimblebee, Jonathan Dimblebee book came out about Charles, the authorised biography, and there was a remarkable line in there, which they were told they couldn't use as a headline, but it said that in the book, it becomes clear that Charles was never really in love with Diana. She got somebody to call me at the knees of the world and said, "As completely untrue, you have photographs of our secret second honeymoon in your safe, which we asked you not to run up the time, and the knees of the world didn't. You now have my permission to run them, and they were pictures of them in the ocean, very loving kissing, cuddling and everything else in the ocean. We ran them over a number of pages with the headline, the proof that Charles did love Diana, and she loved it, right? And that showed to me, he was a young woman who married very young to a much older guy who was in love with somebody else, couldn't be with her. It's like a Shakespearean tragedy in a way, but it really meant a lot to Diana that she loved him. And towards the very end, and you would be the best person to ask, to also very end, they had some quite poignant happy times together, fleeting, right? They did. I remember the time when he came to the door, and the doorbelly stood there, and he said, "Is the princess in?" I said, "She's upstairs, you're all hands." "Well, can I see her?" So I said, "Well, this way." He said, "I know the way, so he bodged past me and up the staircase into her room, and she wasn't there." And I knocked down to the dressing room and said, "You'll never guess who's here." He's come to see you. What he's doing here, he hasn't come to take away more furniture, has he? He said, "I don't know what he wants." She said, "What's my head look like?" "Do I look alright?" "Do I look?" "Yes, that's good, you look great." "Go on, go on, kill him." So she went across the corridor and, "Charles, how lovely to see you." "Oh, he's been so long." This was a couple who had matured in years and accepted each other's positions in life. She'd accepted the fact that Camilla was the love of his life. She always loved him, always. Until the very end, she loved him. She was the mother of his children. She loved him. And whatever love is, his famous quote, in his world, he couldn't quite quantify what love was between Camilla and Diana. They were two very different loves, but he did love her in his own way. So what did just back to my question there? What do you think she would have made of this book coming out now with what it's doing? It would never have happened. Oh, I would hope it would never have happened. She would say, "Think about my boy's, Charles. Think about the rest of my family and the troubles they're going through at the moment. This is not going to help them. It's not going to help William. He's on his path to becoming king. It's not going to help Harry who's in a mess at the moment." So she would ask him not to write it. I think that will be the best path forward. Interestingly, when you interest me out, I thought about Robert Fellowes today because I thought if Robert Fellowes was alive today, that book would not have been written because he would have stood up in the Queen's corner. And you know, I'm reminded, Paul, as you're talking, that in Harry's memoir spare, he described how he believed you were milking her death for money when you wrote your book, Royal Duty, adding it made my blood boil. Again, the brass neck. I had to go to the high and come out in the land. I had to suffer two weeks of prosecution and never have a defense. And I was set free by her manager. You were. You were. When you see Harry and now Spencer, both doing the opposite of what they said they would ever do, both making money out of Diner. I mean, now you hear that Harry's working on some documentary about it for the 30s. He's playing the path. I'm sorry now. He's set the stage for Harry. Now having written his book, the stage is clear now for Harry to do his documentary. And that's why I feel that Harry has fallen into the Spencer camp. Katie, you know, we've covered the rules for a long time, right? I don't dispute that Spencer has a right to write the book. I do think it's important to remember what he said in 1998. Can you imagine anybody making a profit at their brother or sister's death? It's so low, it's inconceivable. I don't know anyone who would. I will never profit from Diner's death. How does that square with this? How does that square with Harry and William both saying on the 20th anniversary, this is the last time we're going to speak about our mother. And now we know that Harry is going to be working on a documentary ahead of the 30th anniversary. And it's, I have to say, I think Paul hits it absolutely on the head when he says this is about them, you know, even even in death 30 years on sort of squabbling over who is going to reclaim this narrative, who who is going to be the closest, the one to be able to tell her story. And it really just does come across, I think, as very unedifying, when all they said they wanted was for Diana to rest in peace. Well, that's the very last thing that's happening. I mean, Louise, do you believe that his motivation is really about paying tribute to Diner? How does that square with these stories about the lottery winning, you know, giddiness and so on? I mean, no one writes that. If your motivation is to say what a lovely person Diner is, you're doing it because you want to get maximum damaging headlines against her ex-husband, who's now the king? Look, obviously, Lord Spencer is extremely angry with the role family and blames Prince Charles immensely as he then was for what he did with Camilla and feels that his sister was betrayed and he cares very much about it. I mean, Diana had loads of affairs too. She did indeed. There are some that I know about that no one knows about. Including with Julia will calling her at the time his wife and then wife was my constituent. They hear it all over the hall. Absolutely. Look, none of us are perfect, including members of the royal family, including Princess Diana, including Charles Spencer, including you and me. That's absolutely true. But he did actually mention when he said part of his motivation for writing this book was that he'd been asked by his nephew, asked by a nephew to contribute to a forthcoming documentary and he didn't want other people to be able to frame it. He wants to be able to put his recollection of his sister in his own way. Is he making money? Yes, he is. But he's also just sold a small quarter. Part of all thoughts is state for 60 million quid. So I really don't think that money is the primary motivation here. I think it's been 30 years. He's bottled it up. He's written most recently a book about the abusive school that he went to as a young boy. I think it was powerful. I think it's part of doing this for his own mental health to get his version of it out as you would say, uncensored what he believes and what he has. And as far as there is strangement, let's not forget that Diana did say in her will that she left Spencer, if anything happened to Charles, as the guardian of her children. So that in that is strangement cannot have been that much. She didn't leave her two sisters, the guardians of her children. She left just her brother. So sometimes we all have fights when our families, lots of your viewers are going to have fights in their families. The fundamental love was still there. And I think that's what we should remember at this time when we're going backwards and forwards about who said what to. Yeah, John, there's going to be a lot of fall out from this obviously. I guess the question is how damaging ultimately it may be to King Charles or otherwise. I think public opinion is siding a lot more with him, actually, over all this, than it is with Spencer at the moment. You know, Charles, King Charles, not a perfect man, he's admitted to many failings and falls. El Spencer is not a perfect person. It is a family here, albeit one that lives in the biggest sober bubble of them all. What do you feel about the sort of consequences of this? Yeah, that's a really interesting question because I think the consequences are different in different geographical territories. I mean, I was always struck when I was based in America in Washington. How even the most sophisticated Washingtonians who were part of, you know, the political circles and foreign policy elite would say, what do you think about the way Charles treated Dana? Yeah. I was thinking, Hang on, that was 20 years ago. What do you mean? So we're not talking about that in Britain anymore. He's married Camilla, she's, you know, etc, etc. We've moved on. I suspect in America, this will play very powerfully of what Charles Spencer has said. I think in Britain, I think you're absolutely right. The sympathy will be with the King as yet another drama is played out in public. And I can't just help kind of think about the irony that you've got people talking about the invasion of privacy and that these people are not allowed to live their lives and their privacy is invaded by a terrible press and let's face it, the press have been terrible at times. But isn't this an invasion of the privacy? Isn't aren't these books the authored by the nobody has made it royal privacy more than Harry did with his book, nobody, or the Oprah Winfrey interview, whatever. That was the biggest inside hatchet job we've ever seen. You know, the newspapers and stuff would rely on sources and tips and so on, but you're on the outside peering in over the palace gate walls, right? In Harry's case, he's the insider, spray gunning them all reveal. I mean, the thing that always lived with me was the way that he revealed in his book, Private Conversations, that took place at Prince Philip's funeral between him, William and Charles. Think about that. More expensive. And it spends his panic exactly the same. He has done exactly the same. To the point you're making, because as I write for Vanity Fair, I've seen the impact on an international audience, this isn't a constitutional crisis. I'm not saying that. But the fact that we're all here talking, the fact that peers, you're making headlines around the world, shows the power of Diana 30 years on. Yes. Well, that's the only case. The damage that can be done, if the king is seen to have been that uncompassionate, to not have that empathy, it doesn't matter that it's 30 years on, it still has a huge impact. And he knows it. He knows it, as a journalist in the story, he knew the power of what he was saying, and that's why he put it in the book. And Penguin knew it, which is why they were very happy for this to be the lead headlines that came out of it. Paul, we come back to you. I mean, there's the other line, of course, which got huge attention, was Charles supposedly saying, "We'll forget about her soon." That was 1997. That was never going to happen. We're still talking about Diana. We will be for centuries to come. She was a completely mesmerizing, a mercurial, complex, but extraordinary figure. I mean, the biggest celebrity I've ever seen in my lifetime, with a possible exception of Donald Trump now. But she was. She was a global superstar. You know, I said to her once, "Do you ever wish you could just be anonymous again?" And she went, "Where would I go?" She said, "I could go to Iceland and be in an eglue." And an Eskimo would say, "You're Princess Diana." And it really struck me that, you know? And the other thing I remember it, she took me to the window and she said, "Look, there's the National Inquirer motorbike." And she went through all the paparazzi and the mainly American crews, actually, that used to hang around and follow her. And she said, "I'm going every time I go out." "I'm going to load the way to get out of the palace." And every time I leave, you know, we're in a chase. And I went, I mean, you could give them a slip if you wanted to. And she was a police trained driver. She was a brilliant driver, got police trained. And she, you know, I got, she gave me the distinct impression. She liked, you know, running around London with these guys 'cause it cheered up a boring wet Wednesday. So, part of her. - She was a great. Part of her was like torn between hating them and thinking, "Well, actually, this could be a better fun on the Wednesday." But she knew what the game was, please. She knew how to play it. And that's why she invited you to Canada Palace because she wanted to hear what you thought and she wanted to tell you personally what she felt. And so the two of you could come together and give something good. And that was unprecedented back in the day. And what you have to think is you now have to look through the eyes of those times, the '80s. That was a very different time to now. And we're all, we all are in the danger of looking through today's eyes at this subject. Go back and see how she struggled, see how she fought it. And Harry should have known better to do what he did because he was taught by the best tutor you could ever have his money. She taught him exactly what to do and how to do it. And his job was to be William's wingman and he's forgotten it. And you know, he's behaving with incredible dignity right now, Prince William. I mean, I take my hat off to the provocation. He must be under to respond. William and Catherine are exceptional. I totally agree. I want to end on a purely selfish personal note, Paul, for you to clear something out that was published in the Daily Mail diary today, the gossip column, from the former chef, Darren Grady, who was the chef who I think prepared our meal that day. Yes, and he would know everything, wouldn't he? Well, this is what I want to ask you because apparently, according to the mail, he said, he quotes Diana as saying that I was a jerk after lunch. Is that your recollection? I thought lunch was not my recollection. Peers, stop it. But he should behave himself, too, because that is not my recollection. No, you know it's not. You know you want her over, and you know that. Thank you, Paul Borrel. So you're the kind of historian that I think we should hear more from. That's the truth. That's my recollection, because we did get on great. And we spoke a lot, you know, and it was, you know that's, again, a part of it, I slightly resent what he's trying to position himself as a great, you know, protector against the all powerful nasty vial media. She had a very similar relationship with Richard Kaye, another journalist she respected and got on with. You know, I never claimed to be a friend of hers, but we were friendly. And we worked out a way of working together, where I don't want to, I don't want to blow smoking your direction, but she liked you. Do you know what? Thank you, Paul. I spent a hearing she thought I was a jerk. And by the way, Darren McGrady, the food wasn't great. No. I'm just thinking of being mean to you. I'm going to say the Butler service was fantastic. And the lunch companions were great. You and your cooking can do one. If anything, ironically, I would have preferred a nice slab of jerk chicken. And thank you to my panel, really appreciate it. It's a fascinating story. It's going to roll and roll. We have a new episode Katie tomorrow dropping of Royals Uncensored. The fastest growing royal show in the world. Huge numbers, you guys are getting. Very proud of you. Keep it up. And, you know, if you can't do numbers when this is all going, you never will. It's extraordinary, isn't it? Just when we think the royals are calming down, people are losing interest, bam. Here we are, front page news, all over the world. Paul, thank you, in particular. You're welcome. Really appreciate you giving me the first to develop. I've been really fascinated to hear what you had to say about all this. And you haven't disappointed so far. Can't be quiet until you came along. Yeah, well, thank you. I appreciate it. And I found all of what you said very powerful, particularly about Charles's state of mind in the aftermath of the death. So, really important contributions of the debate. Thank you very much. Peace Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. We enjoy our show and also only one simple thing. It's subscribe on YouTube, and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.