The monarchy has survived worse than Charles Spencer’s revelations, writes Shelagh Fogarty

Perhaps it has less sting because Charles Spencer is not the King’s son. But the late Princess of Wales remains such a significant figure that anything concerning Diana, and the circumstances surrounding her marriage and death, still carries enormous weight.

One thing that particularly interests me in the claims being made now is the suggestion that the Queen and palace officials considered restoring Diana’s HRH title.

I don't know whether that would have been motivated by genuine respect for Diana or whether there was also a sense that it might soften some of what had happened to her after the separation and divorce.

Whenever I see footage of Diana’s funeral, I still find one moment incredibly moving. As the gun carriage carrying Diana’s coffin passed Buckingham Palace, the late Queen Elizabeth bowed her head very deeply and respectfully.

There was something striking about that moment. For those few seconds, there was no barrier between the Royal Family and the princess's remains.

Perhaps that gesture was, in some sense, in lieu of the HRH title. It was certainly an act of respect.

And I think that respect was necessary. Not simply because of what the public thought, although that was undoubtedly a factor, but because Diana had tried incredibly hard in her marriage. She had given the Royal Family its future. She had given them William and Harry.

That is not something to be dismissed. It is something for which she deserves huge respect, then and now.

What feels more difficult about the revelations now is the description of the then Prince Charles's reaction to Diana's death, particularly the suggestion of a tone of giddy euphoria.

Some of what Charles Spencer has said does chime with what we know about the relationship beforehand. But I am not sure we can judge anyone's tone or behaviour in the immediate aftermath of a death, particularly the sudden and shocking death of a young woman.

People grieve differently.

Whenever I have been bereaved, I have tended to want to spend relatively little time with the body of the person who has died. Other members of my family have wanted to stay longer, to be physically close to that person for as long as possible.

Neither response is wrong. Nobody should be judged for the way they cope in those extraordinary first hours.

That is why I am reluctant to draw conclusions from someone's tone at the moment they are confronted with the death of a person they have had a complicated relationship with.

And that brings me to the bigger question. Is this going to cause irreparable damage to the monarchy?

I don't think it is.

There could, of course, be more to come. There could be things Charles Spencer is able to definitively prove. We simply don't know yet.

But King Charles has been through worse.

If you were around in the 1980s and 1990s, you will remember just how extraordinary the public scrutiny and reputational damage around the then Prince Charles could be.

The intrusion into his private life, particularly around Camilla Parker Bowles, was extraordinary. It must have been appalling to experience. His private conversations were exposed, people mocked him and there were those who argued that he could not, or should not, become King.

And yet it was survivable.

The monarchy survived it. Charles survived it. The institution moved on.

That doesn't mean what is happening now isn't uncomfortable. Of course it is.

Charles Spencer's account lands at a particularly awkward moment for the King and the Prince of Wales as they try to shape the monarchy they want to create, both individually and together.

And Harry isn't doing that work. He is doing other things, and good on him for that, but he isn't doing the work of building the institution his father and brother are trying to lead.

Nor is Charles Spencer.

He is, in his own way, running a coach and horses through that work.

Why now? I don't know.

It could be about money. It could be about attention for the book. Those things may well play a part.

But I suspect something else is going on too.

It isn't that long since Charles Spencer wrote about his own experiences of abuse at boarding school and the therapeutic work he has done since then to become happier as a person.

Perhaps, in writing about Diana now, he is trying to lay some of his own ghosts to rest.

And I think there may be a ghost haunting Charles Spencer: the mistake, as he may see it, of his sister's marriage to Charles.

If you've ever experienced a bitter marriage and a bitter divorce, you will know that you don't heal from those wounds quickly.

And if the person you divorced then dies very young, that makes the emotional landscape even more complicated.

Perhaps we are seeing a grieving brother, perhaps a vengeful brother-in-law, perhaps simply someone finally telling his version of a story he's lived with for decades.

I don't know.

And ultimately, neither do we.

What I do know is that the Windsors have survived messy, painful and deeply uncomfortable episodes before.

This is another one.

It may be a fairly massive bump in the road. It may be deeply uncomfortable for the King and the Prince of Wales.

But I don't think it is the end of the road.

____________________

Listen to Shelagh Fogarty from 1-4pm Monday to Friday on the LBC app.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk