MONDAY HOT TAKE: WHY IS EVERYONE UNSTABLE EXCEPT THE CROWN?
Whenever the Crown is accused, the institution is never the problem. The accuser is unstable, paranoid, manipulated or too grief-stricken to remember.
In Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, Earl Spencer alleges that while opposing plans for William and Harry to walk behind their mother’s coffin, Charles told him:
“Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.”
Buckingham Palace did not say Charles never said it. Instead, it claimed Spencer’s grief could “cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory.”
Did you catch that shit?
Don’t answer the allegation. Diagnose the accuser.
Spencer says he told family and friends. Richard Kay says what Spencer told him “chimed very much” with the book. Not proof, but it makes the Palace’s grief excuse harder to swallow.
We have seen this play before.
Diana exposed the reality of her marriage, and her distress was used to paint her as unstable. But Charles loved Camilla before Diana, Camilla attended their wedding, Charles later admitted adultery, and Diana told us there were “three of us in this marriage.”
So what the fuck was she imagining?
What did the institution know before a 20-year-old Diana entered that cathedral? Why was her pain treated as proof that something was wrong with her instead of the marriage?
Camilla’s rehabilitation cannot erase those questions or place her character beyond scrutiny. Why must we examine Diana’s reactions but never Camilla’s choices?
Camilla received rehabilitation and a crown. Diana’s suffering became evidence against her.
The same machinery was aimed at Prince Harry. He challenged the institution, so he became angry, damaged and supposedly brainwashed by Meghan Sussex. Now Spencer speaks, and grief supposedly corrupted his memory.
Different person. Same fucking strategy.
Question their sanity, spouses and motives. Question everything except the Crown.
Spare me the profit outrage. The royal press has cashed in on Diana for 30 years. Why is her brother the exception?
Joseph Pulitzer said a public-spirited press must possess “trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it.”
That means scrutinizing power—not protecting Palace access or psychoanalyzing the King’s critics.
This is bigger than whether Charles said one sentence.
It is about an institution that protected Charles, rehabilitated Camilla, treated Diana’s pain as instability and now attempts to explain Spencer’s own memory to him.
How many people must be called unstable, paranoid or brainwashed before journalists ask whether the institution diagnosing all this damage helped cause some of it?
At what point does the Crown stop judging everybody else’s sanity and account for its conduct?
Diana was not forgotten. Neither should the damage be.
Instead of issuing another carefully worded statement soaked in gaslighting, the monarchy could have used this moment to do something far more meaningful:
Take some fucking accountability.