The reaction is unusually significant because Buckingham Palace has rarely responded directly to claims in books about the Royal Family. In this case, the Palace issued a pointed response to Charles Spencer's recollections, while several British royal commentators and former royal staff have also challenged his interpretation.
1. Buckingham Palace's message: they are questioning Spencer's memory
The Palace did not simply say, "Charles never said that."
Instead, its statement was carefully worded:
“His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory…”
That is important. The Palace is essentially saying that Spencer's recollection may have been affected by the intense grief and circumstances surrounding Diana's death, even though almost 30 years have passed.
It is a remarkably diplomatic rebuttal.
In other words:
Palace position: We question the reliability of Spencer's recollection without getting into a public argument about every word.
2. Spencer says the Palace deliberately avoided denying him
Spencer has responded forcefully.
He argues that the Palace's statement is significant precisely because it does not explicitly say that Charles did not make the remark.
Spencer told ABC that he found the response condescending and described it as being "gaslit by a king." He maintains that what he wrote is what he remembers and considers it a fundamental part of the truth of his book.
He has subsequently doubled down rather than retracting the allegation.
So we now have a very clear dispute:
| Spencer | Palace |
|---|---|
| "This is what happened." | "Grief can affect memory." |
| He stands by the exact recollection. | The Palace questions the reliability of the recollection. |
| He interprets Charles's words as contempt for Diana. | It does not accept that characterization. |
| He sees the Palace response as an indirect accusation that he is wrong. | It avoids directly litigating the historical conversation. |
3. Former royal insiders are defending Charles
This is where the British response becomes more interesting.
Former royal staff and commentators who knew Charles have argued that Spencer's description doesn't correspond with the Charles they knew.
Veteran royal commentator Robert Jobson, for example, has rejected Spencer's characterization and said he witnessed Charles being deeply affected by Diana's death. Jobson points to Charles's visible emotion at Diana's funeral and his efforts surrounding the funeral arrangements as evidence inconsistent with the idea that Charles was indifferent to Diana.
Other former royal aides have similarly defended Charles's character and questioned Spencer's account.
That produces an important distinction:
They aren't necessarily proving Spencer's memory false.
They are saying:
The Charles we knew does not fit this description.
Those are two different arguments.
4. The "giddily elated" allegation has produced an even stronger reaction
Spencer goes beyond the "we'll forget her" conversation.
He writes that when he spoke to Charles after Diana's death, Charles sounded "giddily elated — like a lottery winner."
That is an extremely serious characterization because it suggests not merely emotional coldness but an almost celebratory reaction to Diana's death.
The Palace has rejected this portrayal as well.
And again, the response is not simply:
"That conversation never happened."
Instead, the Palace challenges the reliability and interpretation of Spencer's recollection.
That distinction is important for anyone writing about the controversy.
5. The British media are divided
The British press itself is fascinating because there isn't one unified "British media" position.
Some outlets have treated Spencer's revelations as major new evidence about the Royal Family.
The Daily Mail, for example, has been serializing the memoir and giving the allegations enormous prominence. The Guardian and BBC have treated the claims as significant but have also emphasized the Palace's response and the question of memory.
Meanwhile, some royal commentators are much more skeptical of Spencer.
That means the media debate isn't simply:
Spencer vs. the British public.
It is increasingly:
Spencer vs. the Palace — with the British press debating both sides.
6. There is another fascinating historical parallel
Spencer himself has compared the Palace's response to the late Queen Elizabeth II's famous response to the Harry and Meghan Oprah interview:
"recollections may vary."
Spencer says the Palace's current formulation—grief affecting memory—is effectively another way of questioning someone's recollection without directly calling them a liar. He described the current response as a less elegant version of that earlier royal formulation.
That is a very revealing comparison.
The monarchy has learned that directly calling someone a liar can create an even bigger story.
A more sophisticated institutional response is:
We acknowledge that they remember it that way, but circumstances may have affected their recollection.
That leaves the Palace denying the credibility of the claim without engaging in a detailed public fight.
7. But there is an important weakness in Spencer's position too
We should not automatically assume that because the Palace hasn't directly denied the exact words, Spencer must therefore be correct.
There is a genuine evidentiary problem:
The alleged conversation was private.
There appears to be no recording or independent witness establishing exactly what was said.
So historians ultimately have:
Spencer's recollection
versus
the Palace's rejection/questioning of that recollection.
That makes it impossible at present to establish the exact wording as an independently verified fact.
And this is where I think your broader interest in British media and royal power becomes particularly interesting.
8. The deeper issue is actually bigger than whether Charles said the sentence
There are really three competing versions of Diana's history developing.
Spencer's version
Diana was poorly treated by an institution that never fully understood her, while the media exploited her vulnerability.
Palace version
Diana's death was a profound tragedy for Charles and the family, and Spencer's memories may have been distorted by grief and the passage of time.
Media version
There are multiple interpretations, depending on the publication—some sympathetic to Spencer, others strongly protective of Charles and the monarchy.
And there is a fourth perspective:
The historical record
This requires comparing Spencer's memoir against contemporary documents, recordings, interviews, royal correspondence, journalists' contemporaneous accounts and later investigations.
That is the level at which we can begin separating memory from evidence.
The most revealing part
I actually think the wording of the Palace response is almost as historically interesting as Spencer's allegation.
If Buckingham Palace had said:
"King Charles categorically never said this."
the dispute would be straightforward.
Instead, it essentially says:
Grief can affect memory.
That leaves the public with an unresolved question:
Is Spencer remembering something that genuinely happened, or has his interpretation of an emotionally traumatic period changed over nearly three decades?
At this stage, neither side has produced evidence that conclusively settles that private conversation.
And that ambiguity is likely to keep the Diana–Charles–Spencer story alive for a long time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sponsored by: StudyBridge AI
Artificial intelligence is changing education, but the real breakthrough isn't just getting fast answers—it’s achieving true concept mastery at every learning stage.
That is why we built StudyBridge AI on sappertek.com.
A student in 5th-grade fractions needs a completely different explanation than a university student working through multivariable calculus. StudyBridge AI bridges that gap by adapting directly to the student’s academic level.
Here is how StudyBridge AI supports learning across every milestone:
Elementary & Middle School: Simplifies complex concepts into patient, interactive, step-by-step explanations that build foundational confidence.
High School: Delivers instant STEM problem-solving, essay structuring, and AP test prep support.
University & College: Accelerates research synthesis, advanced coding logic, and dense technical material analysis.
Whether you're a parent looking to support your child's education or a college student managing a heavy course load, StudyBridge AI acts as a 24/7 personal study partner.
Explore the platform today: sappertek.com
#EducationTechnology #EdTech #ArtificialIntelligence #StudyBridgeAI #Sappertek #FutureOfLearning #HigherEducation #K12Education #StudySmart
