Princess Diana Brother Claims Palace Gaslights Him on Book
Left 0%
Center 67%
Right 33%
0 left · 2 center · 1 right
What happened
Charles Spencer, brother of the late Princess Diana, published a memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, that recounts a 1997 telephone conversation with then-Prince Charles, now King Charles III. Spencer writes that after he objected to Princes William and Harry walking behind Diana's coffin, Charles said they would forget her soon enough. Buckingham Palace issued a statement that the king is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory. In a CBS Mornings interview, Spencer said the Palace has to gaslight him, insisted nothing is wrong with his mind or memory, and said he told others including Barbara Walters of the remark at the time. He said he did not tell the family about the book until just before release and has since spoken with William and Harry.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
1 of 1 article cites a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 1
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Charles Spencer and Buckingham Palace
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 1
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 1
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 28, 15:53 UTC by CBS News, naming its source.
- Not counted 2
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only right-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
NBC News reported it on 2026-09-17.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning coverage never carries Spencer's charge that Buckingham Palace "has to gaslight" him. The New York Post also skips the Palace statement that grief can cloud reason. That column instead uses the memoir to argue that Diana's death is still an unexplained public event. Left-leaning outlets have not covered the story at all. A reader of the right therefore misses the memory dispute now underway. A reader of the left misses the book and the Palace reply entirely.
The New York Post puts crash speculation first, asking whether "nobody knows nothing" after a public royal accident, rather than leading with Spencer's television defense of one remembered call.
What independent record exists of the 1997 phone call Spencer says he described to Barbara Walters at the time?
Bottom line
The New York Post turns Spencer's memoir into an unsolved-crash column and never prints his gaslighting charge against the Palace. Left-leaning outlets have not covered the dispute.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Buckingham Palace said the king is mindful that fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory
- Spencer said he told Barbara Walters at the time about the "forget her soon enough" remark
- Spencer said he did not tell any of the family he was writing the memoir until just before public release
- Spencer wrote that Diana's husband was extremely jealous of her star power
- Spencer said he has spoken with William and Harry since the book was released
The Right View
The New York Post treated the memoir as reopening Diana's death and palace treatment of her, quoting Spencer that Charles was extremely jealous of her star power, that Diana was made to feel stupid, that Spencer feared a terrible accident, and that he always believed she would be killed. It contrasted palace composure at the funeral with what it called a lack of reporting on how the 1997 Paris crash happened. CBS News reported Spencer's U.S. television interview, the specific funeral-procession quote, the Palace grief-and-memory statement, and Spencer's reply that they have to gaslight and pretend something is wrong with his mind. CBS also reported that he kept the project from the family until publication, has spoken with William and Harry since, and said he wanted the book to celebrate Diana.
Our Take (balanced)
The dispute is built on named actors, a published book, a specific quoted line, a Palace statement, and a televised interview, so the present-day clash is reportable. The historical claim itself is thin: one party's unrecorded 1997 phone recollection, with no documents released and corroboration limited to Spencer's assertion that he told others then. Established facts are the book's publication, the wording of the Palace statement, and Spencer's gaslighting characterization on air. That Charles spoke those words, that the Palace is gaslighting, and the broader claims about palace hostility remain alleged. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for contemporaneous notes, confirmation from people Spencer says he told in 1997, or a more detailed official response.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.