In a candid interview with the BBC, Charles Spencer, Earl of Althorp and younger brother of the late Princess Diana, warned that the media landscape confronting Prince Harry and Meghan Markle is eerily similar to the frenzy that surrounded his sister in the 1990s. He labelled the press a cancerous influence in the couple’s lives, insisting that the public should learn from Diana’s tragic experience.
Spencer’s remarks arrive just days before the release of his memoir Swan Song: Diana, My Sister a book that promises fresh revelations about the Princess’s marriage, her death, and the subsequent handling of the royal family by the establishment. While the memoir itself is set to dominate headlines, the Earl’s comments about the Sussexes have already sparked a fresh round of debate about the role of journalists in the lives of modern royalty.
Parallels between Diana’s era and the Sussexes’ present
When asked by BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg whether Diana would have recognized the scrutiny faced by Harry and Meghan, Spencer answered, “If you read a tabloid story about Diana or the couple, you can see how unbearably harsh it can be.” He went on to say that the relentless negative coverage is “a cancerous influence in their life” and that society owes a debt to Diana by preventing a repeat of those tactics today. He recalled his sister’s “tears of despair” and her sensitivity to criticism, noting that such suffering should serve as a warning for current media practices.
The memoir’s explosive claims and royal backlash
Spencer’s upcoming book contains several high-profile accusations, the most shocking of which allege that King Charles, then Prince of Wales, reacted to Diana’s death with callous indifference. The Earl writes that Charles, after a pause on the phone, “unleashed” his “pent-up contempt” and told him, “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough!” He also claims that Charles sounded “giddily elated – like a lottery winner” when discussing the aftermath. Buckingham Palace responded with a rare, stern statement, reminding the public that “the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory.”
Despite the palace’s refusal to comment on the book itself, Spencer defended his narrative, insisting he shared the alleged conversation with close friends and family at the time because he found it “monstrous.” He also denied that financial motives drove the memoir, asserting that his sister would be “cheering from the rafters” at the publication. The controversy has intensified as the memoir’s serialized excerpts appear in major outlets, raising questions about whether the revelations will further damage the already strained relations within the royal family.
Harry’s personal connection to his uncle
Harry spent several weeks with Spencer in July, shortly before returning to the United Kingdom, underscoring a closer bond between the two men compared with Prince William’s more distant relationship with his aunt. Royal commentator Emily Nash noted that this intimacy places Harry in a precarious position: he is eager to honour his mother’s legacy while also attempting to rebuild his relationship with his father, King Charles. The Sussexes’ ongoing media battle, therefore, sits at the intersection of personal grief and public scrutiny, a dynamic that Spencer believes must be “beholden on people to learn from Diana’s example.”
Critics such as journalist Katie Nicholl argue that the timing of the memoir, emerging almost thirty years after Diana’s death, threatens to eclipse the brothers’ charitable efforts and the King’s current engagements. She describes the situation as a “blow” to an already “unsteady ship,” suggesting that the book may reignite old wounds rather than provide closure.
As the royal family prepares for the memoir’s launch and the ensuing media storm, Spencer’s stark warning serves as a reminder that history may be repeating itself. Whether the public and press will take his counsel to heart—or whether the “cancerous influence” will persist—remains to be seen.
