Charles should have listened to his mother – ‘Never complain, never explain’

Seconds out! Roll up for the War of the Charleses – the King vs the Earl.

Even before it’s published next week, Charles Spencer’s new memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, is sending shockwaves through the House of Windsor.

In an early extract, Spencer says the then Prince Charles “went nuts” after the earl suggested his nephews, William and Harry, were too young to walk behind Diana’s coffin – and that he reminded Charles he had been 30 when he’d done the same at his great-uncle Lord Mountbatten's funeral in 1979.

The King, Spencer says, then hissed down the phone: “Rest assured – we’ll forget her soon enough!”

A Royal spokesman responded: “His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgement and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.”

The King’s response has been compared to Elizabeth II’s reaction to Harry and Meghan’s revelations to Oprah Winfrey: “Recollections may vary.”

In fact, there’s a world of difference. The late Queen’s statement was pithy and brilliantly indirect. It wasn’t saying that Harry and Meghan were lying; but that events were seen differently by the two different sides.

By contrast, the King’s statement was pointed – and directed at Spencer: it was Spencer’s reason, judgement and memory that were at fault, not the King’s.

King Charles has gone right against the old maxim followed by his late mother: “Never complain, never explain.”

Elizabeth II never gave an interview in her 96 years. She knew her royal mystique lay in her Sphinx-like silence, occasionally broken by short, wise words. How powerful, and yet how unaggressive, was her alleged statement on the Scottish independence referendum in 2014: she hoped “people will think very carefully about the future”. And who can forget her moving line during the Covid isolation years: “We will meet again”?

The late Queen, inheriting the throne at 25, learnt the golden rule of silence young. Charles, waiting to inherit the job for 73 years, was longing to be heard. Hence his “black-spider” letters to government ministers, so called because of his handwriting – and his 1994 TV revelation to Jonathan Dimbleby that he’d been unfaithful to Princess Diana.

For years, no one could stop Prince Charles from speaking out. Just as he apparently did with Charles Spencer, he reacts with volcanic rage if someone disagrees with him.

In 1988, Prince Charles invited Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, then the Sunday Telegraph editor, for advice. Perry said he should emulate the Queen – cut a few ribbons, stand clear of the political fray and remain an objective, popular icon.

Prince Charles buried his head in his hands, moaning: “But then I’m just a cypher.”

“Exactly!” said Perry.

The problem with responding, as the King has done, to this first revelation from Spencer’s book, is that you only highlight the news story and keep it rolling on – in pieces like this one I’m now writing.

It also leaves you in a bind when more revelations come out – as they will in the Daily Mail’s serialisation over the next few days.

Does Buckingham Palace now respond to every new Charles Spencer bombshell? If it does, the War of the Charleses will just escalate. If it doesn’t, people will assume the later revelations are true, because the King hasn’t denied them as he did the funeral story.

There is one person who can calm the King – the Queen. She soothes his rages. He listens to and adores her. The next time there’s an infuriating revelation – from his former brother-in-law or anyone else – she could perform a mighty service by telling her husband: “No public statements, darling!”

Harry Mount is author of How England Made the English (Penguin)