Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in
the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until
a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication. Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent
(if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if
they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions,
whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in
the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until
a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication. Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent
(if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if
they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions,
whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed Morgan
as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in the gym. >Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until a couple
of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so that >the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication. >Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his >debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent
(if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if they >go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions, whilst any >damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's >reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether he >published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be out >of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no >real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
On 22/09/2026 20:47, GB wrote:
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana
in the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror
until a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done,
he doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication.
Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his
debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has
written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the
extent (if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine
that, if they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be
millions, whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the
costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's
reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small
compared to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to
look like softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book,
but there's no real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
What does it matter?
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in
the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until
a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication.
Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has
written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent
(if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if
they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions,
whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no
real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB wrote:
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in
the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until
a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication.
Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his
debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has
written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent
(if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if
they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions,
whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's
reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no
real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
All I know is with a lack of reseach that a few seconds on Wikipedia are
able to prove, the value of the book as anything other than fiction is
now a certainty. That's assuming you were prepated to treat it as a historical record (which I wasn't). Earl Spencer has proved quite neatly
how much effort you need to put into being "an historian" if you is posh.
For some reason the name Boris Johnson drove past my eyeline ...
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB wrote:
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared
to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no
real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
All I know is with a lack of reseach that a few seconds on Wikipedia are able to prove, the value of the book as anything other than fiction is
now a certainty.
That's assuming you were prepated to treat it as a historical record
(which I wasn't). Earl Spencer has proved quite neatly how much effort
you need to put into being "an historian" if you is posh.
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I don't think we should assume that a lawsuit will follow. It would be premature to issue proceedings without first negotiating. Spencer can
afford to make a realistic settlement offer. As you say, it is doubtful whether Piers Morgan's reputation has been damaged. At any defamation
trial, Piers will be faced with some uncomfortable questions - for
instance, when Meghan revealed that she had been feeling suicidal, Piers immediately told the nation that Meghan was lying and that he did not
believe a word of anything she said. I daresay they might find some
articles about Diana during the era when she was portrayed as immature
and attention-seeking, which could have been under Piers Morgan's
editorship.
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB wrote:
Earl Spencer admits that, in his latest book, he mistakenly placed
Morgan as editor at the Mirror at the time it published pics of Diana in >>> the gym. Morgan was actually at the Sun and didn't join the Mirror until >>> a couple of years later.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
I guess he'll regard a new print run as some sort of vindication.
Personally, I'm appalled at the proposed waste, and this demand of his
debases his reputation vastly more than anything that Spencer has
written.
If this goes to court, there would be prolonged discussion of the extent >>> (if at all) Morgan's reputation has been impaired. I imagine that, if
they go at this hammer and tongs, the legal bill will be millions,
whilst any damages would be pretty modest compared to the costs.
The proceedings will be heavily reported, which will damage Morgan's
reputation far more than the book. Nobody apart from him cares whether
he published some pictures over 30 years ago.
And, even if he wins and beats any part 36 offer, Morgan will still be
out of pocket for around 30% of his legal costs.
So, really this looks like a bluff on his part?
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small compared >>> to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to look like
softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book, but there's no >>> real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
All I know is with a lack of reseach that a few seconds on Wikipedia are
able to prove, the value of the book as anything other than fiction is
now a certainty. That's assuming you were prepated to treat it as a
historical record (which I wasn't). Earl Spencer has proved quite neatly
how much effort you need to put into being "an historian" if you is posh.
For some reason the name Boris Johnson drove past my eyeline ...
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I see it as substantially truthful and accurate, albeit written with the intention of settling scores and re-igniting old feuds.
On 2026-09-23, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB wrote:
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book
might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small
compared to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to
look like softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book,
but there's no real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
All I know is with a lack of reseach that a few seconds on Wikipedia
are able to prove, the value of the book as anything other than fiction
is now a certainty.
I assume there's a missing word there somewhere.
That's assuming you were prepated to treat it as a historical record
(which I wasn't). Earl Spencer has proved quite neatly how much effort
you need to put into being "an historian" if you is posh.
It's not a historical textbook? It's a memoir? I'm not sure what
relevance background facts that were not drawn from his personal
experience have to do with the accuracy of the bits that are his own
personal recollection of things that happened to him.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 11:25:16 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB wrote:
On the other hand the cost of reprinting the first edition of the book >>>> might only be a few tens of thousands of pounds, which is small
compared to the potential legal bill. The publishers don't want to
look like softies who can be easily bullied into reprinting a book,
but there's no real point of principle for them to defend here.
Anybody care to speculate what will happen next? Will Morgan actually
issue proceedings? Will the publishers fold?
All I know is with a lack of reseach that a few seconds on Wikipedia
are able to prove, the value of the book as anything other than fiction
is now a certainty.
I assume there's a missing word there somewhere.
That's assuming you were prepated to treat it as a historical record
(which I wasn't). Earl Spencer has proved quite neatly how much effort
you need to put into being "an historian" if you is posh.
It's not a historical textbook? It's a memoir? I'm not sure what
relevance background facts that were not drawn from his personal
experience have to do with the accuracy of the bits that are his own
personal recollection of things that happened to him.
In the apology, Mr. Spencer made reference to his credentials as an historian.
"As an historian, accuracy is important to Earl Spencer. He therefore
wishes to clarify that his assumption was incorrect. Earl Spencer
apologises to Mr Morgan for this error."
Which rather makes it worse, not better.
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole institution.
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
On 23/09/2026 09:29 AM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't think we should assume that a lawsuit will follow. It would be
premature to issue proceedings without first negotiating. Spencer can
afford to make a realistic settlement offer. As you say, it is doubtful
whether Piers Morgan's reputation has been damaged. At any defamation
trial, Piers will be faced with some uncomfortable questions - for
instance, when Meghan revealed that she had been feeling suicidal, Piers
immediately told the nation that Meghan was lying and that he did not
believe a word of anything she said. I daresay they might find some
articles about Diana during the era when she was portrayed as immature
and attention-seeking, which could have been under Piers Morgan's
editorship.
"...articles about Diana during the era when she was portrayed as
immature and attention-seeking, which could have been under Piers
Morgan's editorship..."
But would they be defamatory (in the sense of being patently untrue)?
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more
use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged
truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all, if
a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole institution.
If true, any suggestion as to why he didn't publish in 1997, when he was certainly up for "settling scores"?
He could have said it in Westminster Abbey on the day of the funeral.
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change. >>>>
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it >> than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect
might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity. Hypothetically speaking of course.
On 9/23/26 19:31, Owen Rees wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change. >>>>
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it >> than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
There is no such thing as bad publicity. - P.T.Barnum
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn11b8cfh.2tp.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so >>>>> that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>>>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change. >>>>>Pulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as >>>> the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it >>> than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect
might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I assume that Mr Rees point, is that in drawing attention to his
own slight misfortune at Earl Spencer's hands, Mr Morgan may thereby *inwittingly* be increasing the sales of a book written by his sworn
enemy. .
On 24/09/2026 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn11b8cfh.2tp.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so >>>>>> that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that isPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
done, he
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might
change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as >>>>> the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention
to it
than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect
might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I assume that Mr Rees point, is that in drawing attention to his
own slight misfortune at Earl Spencer's hands, Mr Morgan may thereby
*inwittingly* be increasing the sales of a book written by his sworn
enemy. .
It really wasn't a misfortune. In a lengthy book which sets out in some detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press attention (confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it difficult to
locate any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index to assist you.
So when Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says that the
deplorable sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under a
different editor, that is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight for himself. So that he can be invited onto more panel shows to discuss the
book and to give his expert opinion about our most noble and patient
King and all the King's disloyal critics.-a A King who has to put up with unfair criticisms from people who remember all his faults, all his petty jealousy of his attractive wife, all his black spider memos. And his yearning to be a tampax up Camilla's fanny.
On 24/09/2026 12:22, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn11b8cfh.2tp.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so >>>>>>> that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is >>>>>>> done, hePulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might
change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from
circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more
attention to it
than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect >>>> might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I assume that Mr Rees point, is that in drawing attention to his
own slight misfortune at Earl Spencer's hands, Mr Morgan may thereby
*inwittingly* be increasing the sales of a book written by his sworn
enemy. .
It really wasn't a misfortune. In a lengthy book which sets out in
some detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press
attention (confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it
difficult to locate any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index
to assist you. So when Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says
that the deplorable sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under
a different editor, that is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight
for himself. So that he can be invited onto more panel shows to
discuss the book and to give his expert opinion about our most noble
and patient King and all the King's disloyal critics.-a A King who has
to put up with unfair criticisms from people who remember all his
faults, all his petty jealousy of his attractive wife, all his black
spider memos. And his yearning to be a tampax up Camilla's fanny.
Those Piers Morgan references:
quotes
They also had privileges that went with their office, and no doubt saw attending the funeral of the lady they had tortured (and whose life, I believed, some of them had helped to end) as one of those ex officio benefits. They realized they were unable to be rude to the brother of
the much-mourned princess and, although clearly highly surprised by my
call, they each agreed not to come. The only one who sounded surly, as opposed to merely confused or embarrassed, was Piers Morgan of the
Mirror, who snarled with annoyance before he hung up. I assumed Morgan
must be feeling particular guilt because, four years earlier, he and his Sunday Mirror counterpart had published photographs taken with hidden cameras by a gym owner. They were of Diana working out in a leotard.
This was such an intolerable invasion of her privacy that Diana
instructed lawyers to sue the Mirror Group and to block further use of
the images.
[comment: so he "assumed", but his assumption was actually incorrect. It doesn't mean that all his loathing of Morgan was unjustified]
snip
Once, when I told her I had a particularly testing event coming up in my diary, she replied: rCyCount yourself lucky rCo thatrCOs the same day that IrCOve got to have lunch with Piers Morgan rCarCO
snip
Tony BlairrCOs press secretary, Alastair Campbell, recorded in his diary
for that same day before the funeral, 5 September: rCyPiers Morgan called and asked me to do all that I could to stop Charles Spencer attacking
the press.rCO He was worried about what I might say in my eulogy.
Campbell, who I only got to know several years later, and had not even
met at this stage, did no such thing.
unquote
On 24/09/2026 12:33, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 12:22, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn11b8cfh.2tp.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so >>>>>>>> that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, >>>>>>>> hePulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change. >>>>>>>>
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as >>>>>>> the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to >>>>>> it
than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect >>>>> might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I assume that Mr Rees point, is that in drawing attention to his
own slight misfortune at Earl Spencer's hands, Mr Morgan may thereby
*inwittingly* be increasing the sales of a book written by his sworn
enemy. .
It really wasn't a misfortune. In a lengthy book which sets out in some
detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press attention
(confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it difficult to locate >>> any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index to assist you. So when >>> Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says that the deplorable
sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under a different editor, that >>> is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight for himself. So that he can be >>> invited onto more panel shows to discuss the book and to give his expert >>> opinion about our most noble and patient King and all the King's disloyal >>> critics.
A King who has
to put up with unfair criticisms from people who remember all his faults, >>> all his petty jealousy of his attractive wife, all his black spider memos. >>> And his yearning to be a tampax up Camilla's fanny.
Those Piers Morgan references:
quotes
They also had privileges that went with their office, and no doubt saw
attending the funeral of the lady they had tortured (and whose life, I
believed, some of them had helped to end) as one of those ex officio
benefits. They realized they were unable to be rude to the brother of the
much-mourned princess and, although clearly highly surprised by my call, they
each agreed not to come. The only one who sounded surly, as opposed to merely
confused or embarrassed, was Piers Morgan of the Mirror, who snarled with
annoyance before he hung up. I assumed Morgan must be feeling particular
guilt because, four years earlier, he and his Sunday Mirror counterpart had >> published photographs taken with hidden cameras by a gym owner. They were of >> Diana working out in a leotard. This was such an intolerable invasion of her >> privacy that Diana instructed lawyers to sue the Mirror Group and to block >> further use of the images.
[comment: so he "assumed", but his assumption was actually incorrect. It
doesn't mean that all his loathing of Morgan was unjustified]
snip
Once, when I told her I had a particularly testing event coming up in my
diary, she replied: 'Count yourself lucky - that's the same day that I've got
to have lunch with Piers Morgan .'
snip
Tony Blair's press secretary, Alastair Campbell, recorded in his diary for >> that same day before the funeral, 5 September: 'Piers Morgan called and asked
me to do all that I could to stop Charles Spencer attacking the press.' He >> was worried about what I might say in my eulogy. Campbell, who I only got to >> know several years later, and had not even met at this stage, did no such
thing.
unquote
Apologies for following up my own post yet again. I missed one reference.
quote
In the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Morgan was one of four tabloid editors named, shamed and photographed in an article looking at who might be held responsible for the paparazzi's role in the fatal car crash in Paris. It must have been an extraordinary sensation for this powerful quartet to be on the receiving end of a good newspaper kicking. They were used to dishing out such treatment, without ever receiving it in return.
unquote
Seemingly Morgan does not attempt to rebut or draw attention to these other passages.
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the
author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more
use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an
egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged
truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all,
if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole
institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home.
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals
are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense
of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful
barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you
haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to
read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you
want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles deserves our admiration and respect. I don't respect him, or any of his family. Not even the dead queen.
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 01:38:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the
author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more
use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an
egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged
truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all,
if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole
institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home.
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal
Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals
are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense
of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful
barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you
haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to
read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited
pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you
want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles
deserves our admiration and respect. I don't respect him, or any of his
family. Not even the dead queen.
I think the problem here is you confuse me with someone who actually
gives a shit about the royals beyond wanting them out of our
constitution.
On 24/09/2026 12:22, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 09:21, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn11b8cfh.2tp.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2026-09-23, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, so >>>>>>> that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that isPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
done, he
doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might
change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from
circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more
attention to it
than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
A person who courts publicity and who is aware of the Streisand effect >>>> might conceivably make deliberate use of it to attract publicity.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
I assume that Mr Rees point, is that in drawing attention to his
own slight misfortune at Earl Spencer's hands, Mr Morgan may thereby
*inwittingly* be increasing the sales of a book written by his sworn
enemy. .
It really wasn't a misfortune. In a lengthy book which sets out in
some detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press
attention (confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it
difficult to locate any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index
to assist you. So when Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says
that the deplorable sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under
a different editor, that is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight
for himself. So that he can be invited onto more panel shows to
discuss the book and to give his expert opinion about our most noble
and patient King and all the King's disloyal critics. A King who has
to put up with unfair criticisms from people who remember all his
faults, all his petty jealousy of his attractive wife, all his black
spider memos. And his yearning to be a tampax up Camilla's fanny.
Those Piers Morgan references:
quotes
They also had privileges that went with their office, and no doubt saw attending the funeral of the lady they had tortured (and whose life, I believed, some of them had helped to end) as one of those ex officio benefits. They realized they were unable to be rude to the brother of
the much-mourned princess and, although clearly highly surprised by my
call, they each agreed not to come. The only one who sounded surly, as opposed to merely confused or embarrassed, was Piers Morgan of the
Mirror, who snarled with annoyance before he hung up. I assumed Morgan
must be feeling particular guilt because, four years earlier, he and his Sunday Mirror counterpart had published photographs taken with hidden
cameras by a gym owner. They were of Diana working out in a leotard.
This was such an intolerable invasion of her privacy that Diana
instructed lawyers to sue the Mirror Group and to block further use of
the images.
[comment: so he "assumed", but his assumption was actually incorrect. It doesn't mean that all his loathing of Morgan was unjustified]
snip
Once, when I told her I had a particularly testing event coming up in my diary, she replied: rCyCount yourself lucky rCo thatrCOs the same day that IrCOve got to have lunch with Piers Morgan rCarCO
snip
Tony BlairrCOs press secretary, Alastair Campbell, recorded in his diary
for that same day before the funeral, 5 September: rCyPiers Morgan called
and asked me to do all that I could to stop Charles Spencer attacking
the press.rCO He was worried about what I might say in my eulogy.
Campbell, who I only got to know several years later, and had not even
met at this stage, did no such thing.
unquote
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In a lengthy book which sets out in some
detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press attention
(confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it difficult to locate
any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index to assist you. So when >>>> Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says that the deplorable
sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under a different editor, that
is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight for himself. So that he can be
invited onto more panel shows to discuss the book and to give his expert >>>> opinion about our most noble and patient King and all the King's disloyal >>>> critics.
He's already got his own regular weekly TV show "Piers Morgan Uncensored" which
is broadcast on Channel 5. Along with a Youtube Channel, for his more devoted
followers.
On 24/09/2026 16:40, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 01:38:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the >>>> author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more >>>> use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an >>>> egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged
truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all, >>>> if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole
institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home.
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal
Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals
are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense >>> of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful
barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you
haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to
read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited
pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you
want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles
deserves our admiration and respect.-a I don't respect him, or any of his >>> family. Not even the dead queen.
I think the problem here is you confuse me with someone who actually
gives a shit about the royals beyond wanting them out of our
constitution.
Is it a problem? You did confuse me, yes, by claiming that the Spencer
book is of value only as a door stop because of one very minor error in it.
I suppose what you meant was that you have no interest in reading about
our King's behaviour or the misery of the young woman he deceived into marrying him, embarking on a token marriage to protect his image. Humiliating her for not being the woman he really wanted.-a If not fake news, then old news. We don't care for history lessons.
But if you have no interest, why comment at all? I have no interest in reading Ulysses by James Joyce, but I wouldn't claim that its only value
is as a door stop.
And if we are to rid ourselves of our parasitical Royals, it must help
in that objective to show the public how selfish and heartless they are. However, the reaction of most Times readers is to declare triumphantly
that Spencer is doing it to make money. And that means it must be an unreliable memoir.
On 24/09/2026 17:40, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 16:40, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 01:38:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the >>>>> author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more >>>>> use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an >>>>> egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged >>>>> truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all, >>>>> if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole >>>>> institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home.
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal >>>> Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals >>>> are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense >>>> of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful
barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you
haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to
read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited >>>> pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you
want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles >>>> deserves our admiration and respect. I don't respect him, or any of his >>>> family. Not even the dead queen.
I think the problem here is you confuse me with someone who actually
gives a shit about the royals beyond wanting them out of our
constitution.
Is it a problem? You did confuse me, yes, by claiming that the Spencer
book is of value only as a door stop because of one very minor error in it. >>
I suppose what you meant was that you have no interest in reading about
our King's behaviour or the misery of the young woman he deceived into
marrying him, embarking on a token marriage to protect his image.
Humiliating her for not being the woman he really wanted. If not fake
news, then old news. We don't care for history lessons.
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that
Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
--
But if you have no interest, why comment at all? I have no interest in
reading Ulysses by James Joyce, but I wouldn't claim that its only value
is as a door stop.
And if we are to rid ourselves of our parasitical Royals, it must help
in that objective to show the public how selfish and heartless they are.
However, the reaction of most Times readers is to declare triumphantly
that Spencer is doing it to make money. And that means it must be an
unreliable memoir.
On 24/09/2026 01:19 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
In a lengthy book which sets out in some
detail how Diana was harassed and made miserable by Press attention
(confirmed of course by Harry's own book) you'd find it difficult to >>>>> locate
any mention of Piers Morgan and there is no index to assist you. So when >>>>> Piers triumphantly namechecks himself and says that the deplorable
sexualised pictures of Diana in the gym were under a different editor, >>>>> that
is a flagrant attempt to claim the limelight for himself. So that he can >>>>> be
invited onto more panel shows to discuss the book and to give his expert >>>>> opinion about our most noble and patient King and all the King's disloyal >>>>> critics.
He's already got his own regular weekly TV show "Piers Morgan Uncensored" >> which
is broadcast on Channel 5. Along with a Youtube Channel, for his more
devoted
followers.
I have sometimes caught his appearances on American TV - news channels are about the only thing that's watchable there, other than movies.
Does he still have a USA outlet? It's a good while back but he interviewed the
front runners among Republican presidential candidates for one of the news providers the election before Donald Trump first stood, so that must have been... 2012? Morgan seemed to be a very respected journalist there.
On 24/09/2026 17:40, The Todal wrote:
On 24/09/2026 16:40, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 01:38:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the >>>>> author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more >>>>> use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an >>>>> egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged >>>>> truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all, >>>>> if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole >>>>> institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home.
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal >>>> Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals >>>> are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense >>>> of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful
barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you
haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to
read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited >>>> pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you
want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles >>>> deserves our admiration and respect. I don't respect him, or any of his >>>> family. Not even the dead queen.
I think the problem here is you confuse me with someone who actually
gives a shit about the royals beyond wanting them out of our
constitution.
Is it a problem? You did confuse me, yes, by claiming that the Spencer book >> is of value only as a door stop because of one very minor error in it.
I suppose what you meant was that you have no interest in reading about our >> King's behaviour or the misery of the young woman he deceived into marrying >> him, embarking on a token marriage to protect his image. Humiliating her for >> not being the woman he really wanted. If not fake news, then old news. We
don't care for history lessons.
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:1195h9v$3fqjg$1@dont-email.me...
On 24/09/2026 17:40, The Todal wrote:Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background,
On 24/09/2026 16:40, Jethro wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 01:38:38 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 12:34, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:Charles Spencer writes very well. His earlier book "A Very Private
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
So you think Spencer's book is Fake Noos?
I think a book which punts a "fact" that 30 seconds on Wikipedia by the >>>>>> author - or any number of people paid to check such things - is of more >>>>>> use as a doorstop than an educational resource.
And that is that.
If I believed in deep state conspiracies, I would suggest that such an >>>>>> egregious error had been slipped into the book to smuggle the allged >>>>>> truths out without them damaging the royal family too much. After all, >>>>>> if a basic fact is wrong, what else can't be trusted.
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole >>>>>> institution.
School" is extremely perceptive and informative about the appalling
abuses that children were subjected to in his own expensive public
school. It's quite a valuable historical work. One would otherwise
assume that rich people have a luxurious life in school and at home. >>>>>
So I value his memoirs, and if they are disrespectful towards the Royal >>>>> Family that's all to the good. Most articles and books about the Royals >>>>> are of the traditional type - fawning over the public service, the sense >>>>> of duty, the stunning beauty of the women, and of course the spiteful >>>>> barbs about those members of the Family who are out of favour. If you >>>>> haven't read the Andrew Morton book about Diana I think you ought to >>>>> read it. It was effectively written by Diana with Morton as her
ghost-writer. And the picture that emerges of Charles is of a conceited >>>>> pampered man who is recognisable in Spenser's latest book. Maybe you >>>>> want to get rid of the monarchy but simultaneously pretend that Charles >>>>> deserves our admiration and respect. I don't respect him, or any of his >>>>> family. Not even the dead queen.
I think the problem here is you confuse me with someone who actually
gives a shit about the royals beyond wanting them out of our
constitution.
Is it a problem? You did confuse me, yes, by claiming that the Spencer book >>> is of value only as a door stop because of one very minor error in it.
I suppose what you meant was that you have no interest in reading about our >>> King's behaviour or the misery of the young woman he deceived into marrying >>> him, embarking on a token marriage to protect his image. Humiliating her for
not being the woman he really wanted. If not fake news, then old news. We >>> don't care for history lessons.
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that Charles >> was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
at least made to walk the plank.
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly preposterous. He'd never been out of the newspapers for years with
a string of girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still active
right up to the day he got married The idea that Diane didn't know
about any of these or didn't know what she was getting herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him"
was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to
failure right from the start.
Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole
institution.
I agree, but with what do we replace it?
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change.
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it >than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1195h9v$3fqjg$1@dont-email.me...
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background,
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that
Charles
was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
at least made to walk the plank.
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly
preposterous. He'd never been out of the-a newspapers for years with
a string of-a girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with married >> mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still active
right up to the day he got married-a The idea that Diane didn't know
about any of these or didn't know what she was getting herself into, is
simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him"
was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to
failure right from the start.
say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when
he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least, intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor nursery.
He told her how much he had missed her while he was away skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal by reminding her
that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice inside her head
told her that she would never become Queen but would have a tough life,
she found herself accepting his offer and telling him repeatedly how
much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement interviews with the media.
unquote
In message <nhiqd4Fks9oU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:16:36 on Wed, 23 Sep >2026, Sir Tim <no_email@invalid.invalid> remarked:
Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 10:36:16 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 23/09/2026 10:03, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
My only interest in the Monarchy is when we will get rid of the whole >>>institution.
I agree, but with what do we replace it?
An elected Head of State, would probably be Tony Blair. Who cost the
public purse more than the Royal Family (if it's the money you are worried >about).
A second order consequence of the author being forced to admit to that particular error is that it then creates reasonable doubt as to the
veracity of the rest of the book. If one passage is provably false, what
of the passages for which no definitive evidence exists?
She married for love. She was just 20 years old.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I have sometimes caught his appearances on American TV - news channels are >> about the only thing that's watchable there, other than movies.
Does he still have a USA outlet? It's a good while back but he interviewed the
front runners among Republican presidential candidates for one of the news >> providers the election before Donald Trump first stood, so that must have
been... 2012? Morgan seemed to be a very respected journalist there.
Morgan got into a scrape when defending Donald Trump on the "Real Time
with Bill Mather Show, on HBO; as a result of which
quote:
"Yes, watching Piers Morgan being told to fuck off on live TV is exactly
as satisfying as I'd always imagined," she wrote, linking her 9.5 million Twitter followers to an online clip of the show.
:unquote
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/11/jk-rowling-piers-morgan-trump-twitter-spat
On 25/09/2026 23:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background,
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that
Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
at least made to walk the plank.
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly
preposterous. He'd never been out of the newspapers for years with
a string of girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with
married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still
active right up to the day he got married The idea that Diane
didn't know about any of these or didn't know what she was getting
herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him"
was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to
failure right from the start.
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may
say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an
accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when
he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least,
intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor
nursery. He told her how much he had missed her while he was away
skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated
his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The
Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal
by reminding her that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice
inside her head told her that she would never become Queen but would
have a tough life, she found herself accepting his offer and telling
him repeatedly how much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he
replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement
interviews with the media.
unquote
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become
Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2026 16:36:14 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
A second order consequence of the author being forced to admit to that
particular error is that it then creates reasonable doubt as to the
veracity of the rest of the book. If one passage is provably false, what
of the passages for which no definitive evidence exists?
Whilst I agree, I note that not all posters here do. Apparently mistakes happen and it's no big deal.
There's also the thrid order consequence that the whole saga will have
been so muddied that anyone can pretty much claim anything and it will
have the ring of credibility. Or not. Depending on your POV.
Cui bono ?
On 26/09/2026 18:00, Jethro wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think it is fair to ask what Charles Spencer was hoping to achieve by publishing his controversial memoir.
On 26/09/2026 19:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2026 04:45 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 25/09/2026 23:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background,
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that >>>>>> Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
at least made to walk the plank.
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly >>>>> preposterous. He'd never been out of the-a newspapers for years with >>>>> a string of-a girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with
married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still
active right up to the day he got married-a The idea that Diane
didn't know about any of these or didn't know what she was getting
herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him" >>>>> was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to >>>>> failure right from the start.
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may
say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an
accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when >>>> he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least,
intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor
nursery. He told her how much he had missed her while he was away
skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated
his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The >>>> Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal >>>> by reminding her that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice
inside her head told her that she would never become Queen but would
have a tough life, she found herself accepting his offer and telling
him repeatedly how much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he
replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement
interviews with the media.
unquote
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become
Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
Unfortunately Diana was superstitious, relying later on charlatans who claimed they could predict the future.-a The "small voice" was probably
said in retrospect when talking to Andrew Morton. She could not actually have "known", only "feared" or "suspected". Unless you believe in her ability to divine the future.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would be
king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the next monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another Abdication
on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry Camilla unless
he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII (the Duke of Windsor).
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
On 26/09/2026 19:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2026 04:45 PM, Max Demian wrote:
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become
Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
Unfortunately Diana was superstitious, relying later on charlatans who claimed they could predict the future. The "small voice" was probably
said in retrospect when talking to Andrew Morton. She could not actually
have "known", only "feared" or "suspected". Unless you believe in her
ability to divine the future.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would be
king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the next monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another Abdication
on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry Camilla unless
he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII (the Duke of Windsor).
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
On 27/09/2026 10:27, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2026 19:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2026 04:45 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 25/09/2026 23:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background, >>>>>> at least made to walk the plank.
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that >>>>>>> Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly >>>>>> preposterous. He'd never been out of the newspapers for years with >>>>>> a string of girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with
married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still >>>>>> active right up to the day he got married The idea that Diane
didn't know about any of these or didn't know what she was getting >>>>>> herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him" >>>>>> was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to >>>>>> failure right from the start.
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may >>>>> say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an >>>>> accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when >>>>> he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least, >>>>> intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor
nursery. He told her how much he had missed her while he was away
skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated
his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The >>>>> Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal >>>>> by reminding her that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice >>>>> inside her head told her that she would never become Queen but would >>>>> have a tough life, she found herself accepting his offer and telling >>>>> him repeatedly how much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he >>>>> replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement >>>>> interviews with the media.
unquote
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become >>>> Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
Unfortunately Diana was superstitious, relying later on charlatans who
claimed they could predict the future. The "small voice" was probably
said in retrospect when talking to Andrew Morton. She could not actually
have "known", only "feared" or "suspected". Unless you believe in her
ability to divine the future.
I'm simply astonished that you're such an expert on Princess Diana. You despise the monarchy, and yet you seem to take an avid interest in it. I
find all the hype about the Royals simply dull and uninteresting, yet
others seem to be fascinated by it. I really don't understand why?
Maybe there should be a TV soap about a dysfunctional family, and we can watch them lurch from minor catastrophe to minor catastrophe, with the occasional major one thrown in for good measure.
--
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would be
king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the next
monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another Abdication
on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry Camilla unless
he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII (the Duke of Windsor). >>
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
On 27/09/2026 10:27, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2026 19:18, JNugent wrote:
On 26/09/2026 04:45 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 25/09/2026 23:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background, >>>>>> at least made to walk the plank.
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that >>>>>>> Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly >>>>>> preposterous. He'd never been out of the-a newspapers for years with >>>>>> a string of-a girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with >>>>>> married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still >>>>>> active right up to the day he got married-a The idea that Diane
didn't know about any of these or didn't know what she was getting >>>>>> herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change >>>>>> him"
was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to >>>>>> failure right from the start.
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may >>>>> say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an >>>>> accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when >>>>> he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least, >>>>> intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor
nursery. He told her how much he had missed her while he was away
skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated
his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The >>>>> Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal >>>>> by reminding her that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice >>>>> inside her head told her that she would never become Queen but would >>>>> have a tough life, she found herself accepting his offer and telling >>>>> him repeatedly how much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he >>>>> replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement >>>>> interviews with the media.
unquote
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become >>>> Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
Unfortunately Diana was superstitious, relying later on charlatans who
claimed they could predict the future.-a The "small voice" was probably
said in retrospect when talking to Andrew Morton. She could not
actually have "known", only "feared" or "suspected". Unless you
believe in her ability to divine the future.
I'm simply astonished that you're such an expert on Princess Diana.
despise the monarchy, and yet you seem to take an avid interest in it.
find all the hype about the Royals simply dull and uninteresting, yet
others seem to be fascinated by it. I really don't understand why?
Maybe there should be a TV soap about a dysfunctional family, and we can watch them lurch from minor catastrophe to minor catastrophe, with the occasional major one thrown in for good measure.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would be
king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the next
monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another
Abdication on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry
Camilla unless he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII
(the Duke of Windsor).
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 18:31:27 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:47:56 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
Morgan says the first edition of Spencer's book should be pulped, soPulping what remains of the first edition that remains in the
that the errors can be corrected in a new print run. If that is done, he >>>> doesn't appear to be after damages for himself, but that might change. >>>>
publisher's hands will not remove the alleged slur from circulation as
the copies already sold will not be pulped.
By making a fuss about the error, Mr Morgan has drawn more attention to it >>than it is likely to have received otherwise.
As a journalist he ought to be aware of the Streisand effect.
In this case, drawing attention to the error is good publicity for Morgan. Had it not been challenged, people might have believed it. As it is, even
the author now admits it was an error. There's no Streisand effect here, all of the publicity generated by his actions is precisely what Morgan wants.
A second order consequence of the author being forced to admit to that particular error is that it then creates reasonable doubt as to the veracity of the rest of the book. If one passage is provably false, what of the passages for which no definitive evidence exists? Morgan is not known to be particularly close to the King or any other member of the Royal Family. But as a journalist and broadcaster operating primarily in the field of tabloid culture, maintaining a good working relationship with Royalty is beneficial to him. And there is no doubt that his actions in undermining Earl Spencer will be appreciated in Buckingham Palace. An exclusive interview, or being a favoured outlet for "sources close to" leaks, would, I'm sure, be a more
than welcome reward.
On 26/09/2026 19:18, JNugent wrote:That's what I thought. So her account *wasn't* accurate, as she modified
On 26/09/2026 04:45 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 25/09/2026 23:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/09/2026 18:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"the young woman he deceived into marrying him"Charles was definitely dragooned; or given Papa's naval background,
Do you have evidence for that. The version I have fallen for is that >>>>>> Charles was dragooned into marrying Diana by an overbearing
at least made to walk the plank.
The idea that Diana was "deceived" into marrying him is quite clearly >>>>> preposterous. He'd never been out of the-a newspapers for years with >>>>> a string of-a girlfriends including Diana's own sister, along with
married mistresses. Two of whom, Dale Tryon, and Camilla were still
active right up to the day he got married-a The idea that Diane
didn't know about any of these or didn't know what she was getting
herself into, is simply not credible.
What she may have thought however, that she could somehow "change him" >>>>> was, as it turned out, and like many such hopes, seemingly doomed to >>>>> failure right from the start.
I don't think you can have read Diana's account of the facts. You may
say that her version is simply not credible, but I believe it was an
accurate account.
She married for love. She was just 20 years old. She assumed that when >>>> he proposed to her it was because he loved her or at the very least,
intended to keep his marriage vows to be faithful to her.
quote
The actual proposal took place late that evening in the Windsor
nursery. He told her how much he had missed her while he was away
skiing and then asked her simply to marry him. At first she treated
his request in a lighthearted way and broke into a fit of giggles. The >>>> Prince was deadly serious, emphasizing the earnestness of his proposal >>>> by reminding her that one day she would be Queen. While a small voice
inside her head told her that she would never become Queen but would
have a tough life, she found herself accepting his offer and telling
him repeatedly how much she loved him. rCyWhatever love means,rCO he
replied, a phrase he was to use again during their formal engagement
interviews with the media.
unquote
"...a small voice inside her head told her that she would never become
Queen but would have a tough life."
So she knew the marriage was doomed.
Unfortunately Diana was superstitious, relying later on charlatans who claimed they could predict the future.-a The "small voice" was probably
said in retrospect when talking to Andrew Morton.
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >news:hrofbldu4knpt39ab021thgsuoq9c6m7iv@4ax.com...
In this case, drawing attention to the error is good publicity for Morgan. >> Had it not been challenged, people might have believed it. As it is, even
the author now admits it was an error. There's no Streisand effect here, all >> of the publicity generated by his actions is precisely what Morgan wants.
So Morgan set out with the express intention of potentailly increasing
the sales of his bitter rivals' book did he ? More especially as he is >demanding it should be pulped, thus increasing the ptential value of "first >editions" which peopel will be rushing to the shops to buy ?
A second order consequence of the author being forced to admit to that
particular error is that it then creates reasonable doubt as to the veracity >> of the rest of the book. If one passage is provably false, what of the
passages for which no definitive evidence exists? Morgan is not known to be >> particularly close to the King or any other member of the Royal Family. But >> as a journalist and broadcaster operating primarily in the field of tabloid >> culture, maintaining a good working relationship with Royalty is beneficial >> to him. And there is no doubt that his actions in undermining Earl Spencer >> will be appreciated in Buckingham Palace. An exclusive interview, or being a >> favoured outlet for "sources close to" leaks, would, I'm sure, be a more
than welcome reward.
A few minutes Googling seems to reveal that in "the War of the Windsors" >Morgan was very much on Diana's side. Which would seem to suggest that
he's probably on record as saying some rather uncomplimentary things
not only about Charles himself, but possibly also about Camilla.
None of which are likely to have been forgotten. Either by Charles, or >Camilla. While with Harry he's seriously blotted his copy book with his >remarks about both Harry himself, and Meghan.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 15:42:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
A few minutes Googling seems to reveal that in "the War of the Windsors"
Morgan was very much on Diana's side. Which would seem to suggest that
he's probably on record as saying some rather uncomplimentary things
not only about Charles himself, but possibly also about Camilla.
None of which are likely to have been forgotten. Either by Charles, or
Camilla. While with Harry he's seriously blotted his copy book with his
remarks about both Harry himself, and Meghan.
That's kind of my point, really. Morgan isn't in any sense close to the
King. So nobody is going to be accusing him of sucking up to his friends in high places. But, on the other hand, the Royal family is nothing if not pragmatic. Morgan my not be a friend, but he may yet be a useful ally.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 15:42:19 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:hrofbldu4knpt39ab021thgsuoq9c6m7iv@4ax.com...
In this case, drawing attention to the error is good publicity for Morgan. >>> (1)So Morgan set out with the express intention of potentailly increasing
Had it not been challenged, people might have believed it. As it is, even >>> the author now admits it was an error. There's no Streisand effect here, all
of the publicity generated by his actions is precisely what Morgan wants. >>
the sales of his bitter rivals' book did he ? More especially as he is >>demanding it should be pulped, thus increasing the ptential value of "first >>editions" which peopel will be rushing to the shops to buy ?
I don't think he cares how many copies are sold.
Indeed, the more that are
sold, the greater will be any damages that Spencer is forced to
pay should the case result in actual legal action.
A second order consequence of the author being forced to admit to that
particular error is that it then creates reasonable doubt as to the veracity
of the rest of the book. If one passage is provably false, what of the
passages for which no definitive evidence exists? Morgan is not known to be >>> particularly close to the King or any other member of the Royal Family. But >>> as a journalist and broadcaster operating primarily in the field of tabloid >>> culture, maintaining a good working relationship with Royalty is beneficial >>> to him. And there is no doubt that his actions in undermining Earl Spencer >>> will be appreciated in Buckingham Palace. An exclusive interview, or being a
favoured outlet for "sources close to" leaks, would, I'm sure, be a more >>> than welcome reward.
A few minutes Googling seems to reveal that in "the War of the Windsors" >>Morgan was very much on Diana's side. Which would seem to suggest that
he's probably on record as saying some rather uncomplimentary things
not only about Charles himself, but possibly also about Camilla.
None of which are likely to have been forgotten. Either by Charles, or >>Camilla. While with Harry he's seriously blotted his copy book with his >>remarks about both Harry himself, and Meghan.
That's kind of my point, really. Morgan isn't in any sense close to the
King. So nobody is going to be accusing him of sucking up to his friends in high places. But, on the other hand, the Royal family is nothing if not pragmatic. Morgan my not be a friend, but he may yet be a useful ally.
My prediction, my reading of the tealeaves and the entrails, is that Piers Morgan won't sue.
What I do find interesting is that the Press has focused on Piers Morgan and King Charles, as if the book was otherwise devoid of any relevant content. The book is a savage attack on the British Press, its editors, its journalists. I don't think the Press wants to draw attention to any of that.
One example - Charles Spencer finds that after his sister became engaged to Prince Charles, the press was determined to hound Diana's brother. He offers this anecdote as just one example.
quote
I became wary about going out in Oxford during my three years at the university, instead retreating to the Falconry, a quirky hunting lodge at the back of Althorp's park built for a seventeenth-century royal visit, that my father allowed me use of. Here trusted friends who knew me from before Diana's
marriage would come to stay in private. I also had use of a bolthole in London. Once, when I was there, two men knocked at the door. They introduced themselves as journalists from, respectively, the Sun and the Daily Mirror, the two largest-circulation tabloids at that time. They insisted on coming in,
saying they had a very important proposal to put to me. They claimed I had to accept that I was always going to be in the papers, and that their editors had
already decided the light in which I would for ever be portrayed. 'You see, it's
like a fairytale,' one of them said. 'Your sister, well, she's the princess, isn't she? The fairytale princess. And you, well, even if you collect stamps and take in abandoned puppies, we aren't going to make you look good. You're always going to be Lady Di's ne'er-do-well brother.' Since that was my lot, they said, how about a deal? Why not work with them? They would run stories I gave them about myself and put a less negative spin on them than would otherwise be the case. I was only twenty years old, not at all used to the ways of the world, but I wanted to cling to what I had been brought up to see as decent values. Being a tabloid informant - even against myself! - was not in the code of conduct that my parents had passed on to me. I found what was being put to me absurd but also insulting. I thanked them for their time, declined their offer, and invited them to leave. As they did so, one of them turned, and eyed me up and down with contempt. 'You, son,' he said, darkly, 'are making the biggest mistake of your fucking life.' Even back then, when coming to terms with such bizarre moments, I realized I was on the receiving end of but an infinitesimal proportion of the appalling treatment that Diana was having to endure.
I'm simply astonished that you're such an expert on Princess Diana.
I think you imply that my interest is some sort of perversion, or eccentricity. What else in life astonishes you? An interest in other
areas of history?
-aYou
despise the monarchy, and yet you seem to take an avid interest in it.
I "despise" Adolf Hitler and the rise to power of the Nazi Party, and I
see nothing strange about taking an "avid" interest in this aspect of history. Or in the history of the English Civil War when Parliament at
last challenged the power of tyrannical King Charles and took a stand
for real democracy.
-aI
find all the hype about the Royals simply dull and uninteresting, yet
others seem to be fascinated by it. I really don't understand why?
Well, it involves the irresponsible power of the press, the dishonesty
of Palace aides, the way that decent people are pilloried in order to
please the rich and powerful. Prince Charles probably condoned or
encouraged the gaslighting of Princess Diana ("who cares?" I think I
hear you say) and in the same way, Donald Trump is allowed to peddle his
own fake news and his blatant disrespect towards other politicians and towards journalists, with the help of his sycophantic staff, and there
is nobody who has the guts to stand up to him properly. At least Trump sometimes submits to interviews on TV. Nobody is allowed to interview
King Charles and to challenge his opinions or behaviour.
Anyway, if you find all this dull and uninteresting, feel free to post
about whatever topics you do have an "avid" interest in - see if you can "astonish" me - and ignore those topics which bore you.
Maybe there should be a TV soap about a dysfunctional family, and we
can watch them lurch from minor catastrophe to minor catastrophe, with
the occasional major one thrown in for good measure.
We had "The Crown". A somewhat fictionalised version of the misdeeds and catastrophes affecting our royal family. Maybe you missed it.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would
be king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the
next monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another
Abdication on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry
Camilla unless he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII
(the Duke of Windsor).
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
On 27/09/2026 15:55, The Todal wrote:
I'm simply astonished that you're such an expert on Princess Diana.
I think you imply that my interest is some sort of perversion, or
eccentricity. What else in life astonishes you? An interest in other
areas of history?
I stand corrected by both you and Roger Hayter. I divided the population into the sort of people who read Hello and OK magazines, and "the rest".
I assumed "the rest" would take zero interest in the Royals and in
Slebs, but I can see that's too broad a generalisation.
-a-aYou
despise the monarchy, and yet you seem to take an avid interest in it.
I "despise" Adolf Hitler and the rise to power of the Nazi Party, and
I see nothing strange about taking an "avid" interest in this aspect
of history. Or in the history of the English Civil War when Parliament
at last challenged the power of tyrannical King Charles and took a
stand for real democracy.
-a-aI
find all the hype about the Royals simply dull and uninteresting, yet
others seem to be fascinated by it. I really don't understand why?
Well, it involves the irresponsible power of the press, the dishonesty
of Palace aides, the way that decent people are pilloried in order to
please the rich and powerful. Prince Charles probably condoned or
encouraged the gaslighting of Princess Diana ("who cares?" I think I
hear you say) and in the same way, Donald Trump is allowed to peddle
his own fake news and his blatant disrespect towards other politicians
and towards journalists, with the help of his sycophantic staff, and
there is nobody who has the guts to stand up to him properly. At least
Trump sometimes submits to interviews on TV. Nobody is allowed to
interview King Charles and to challenge his opinions or behaviour.
Anyway, if you find all this dull and uninteresting, feel free to post
about whatever topics you do have an "avid" interest in - see if you
can "astonish" me - and ignore those topics which bore you.
Maybe there should be a TV soap about a dysfunctional family, and we
can watch them lurch from minor catastrophe to minor catastrophe,
with the occasional major one thrown in for good measure.
We had "The Crown". A somewhat fictionalised version of the misdeeds
and catastrophes affecting our royal family. Maybe you missed it.
I don't pay for TV, and I think The Crown was on one of the paid-for channels, so yes I missed it entirely.
"Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none".
In her Panorama interview she said she didn't believe Charles would
be king or would want to be king, and she said William would be the
next monarch. I think she probably believed that we'd have another
Abdication on the basis that Charles would not be allowed to marry
Camilla unless he abdicated - the same scenario as with Edward VIII
(the Duke of Windsor).
Little did she know (or foresee) that the Queen and the Church would
bend the rules for Charles and let him marry his mistress.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ni1bbgF424U1@mid.individual.net...
.
My prediction, my reading of the tealeaves and the entrails, is that Piers >> Morgan won't sue.
What I do find interesting is that the Press has focused on Piers Morgan and >> King Charles, as if the book was otherwise devoid of any relevant content. >> The book is a savage attack on the British Press, its editors, its
journalists. I don't think the Press wants to draw attention to any of that. >>
One example - Charles Spencer finds that after his sister became engaged to >> Prince Charles, the press was determined to hound Diana's brother. He offers >> this anecdote as just one example.
quote
I became wary about going out in Oxford during my three years at the
university, instead retreating to the Falconry, a quirky hunting lodge at the
back of Althorp's park built for a seventeenth-century royal visit, that my >> father allowed me use of. Here trusted friends who knew me from before Diana's
marriage would come to stay in private. I also had use of a bolthole in
London. Once, when I was there, two men knocked at the door. They introduced >> themselves as journalists from, respectively, the Sun and the Daily Mirror, >> the two largest-circulation tabloids at that time. They insisted on coming in,
saying they had a very important proposal to put to me. They claimed I had to
accept that I was always going to be in the papers, and that their editors had
already decided the light in which I would for ever be portrayed. 'You see, >> it's
like a fairytale,' one of them said. 'Your sister, well, she's the princess, >> isn't she? The fairytale princess. And you, well, even if you collect stamps >> and take in abandoned puppies, we aren't going to make you look good. You're >> always going to be Lady Di's ne'er-do-well brother.' Since that was my lot, >> they said, how about a deal? Why not work with them? They would run stories I
gave them about myself and put a less negative spin on them than would
otherwise be the case. I was only twenty years old, not at all used to the >> ways of the world, but I wanted to cling to what I had been brought up to see
as decent values. Being a tabloid informant - even against myself! - was not >> in the code of conduct that my parents had passed on to me. I found what was >> being put to me absurd but also insulting. I thanked them for their time,
declined their offer, and invited them to leave. As they did so, one of them >> turned, and eyed me up and down with contempt. 'You, son,' he said, darkly, >> 'are making the biggest mistake of your fucking life.' Even back then, when >> coming to terms with such bizarre moments, I realized I was on the receiving >> end of but an infinitesimal proportion of the appalling treatment that Diana >> was having to endure.
Shame he didn't remember either of their names, though.
So that basically after that, he was largely forgotten until making "that speech" at his sister's funeral; and then largely forgotten again after that for the next 30 years.
So you can see his problem, when it comes to filling a 384 page book
in order to pay off his latest divorce settlement.
Meanwhile back in the real world
quote:
By Caroline Davies 22 October 2002 .
Letters reveal brother rejected Diana's plea for a home
Earl Spencer turned down a request from his sister, Diana, Princess of
Wales, for a home on the family's Althorp estate just six months after
her separation from the Prince of Wales, according to private letters
read to a jury yesterday
Three letters found at the home of the Princess's former butler, Paul Burrell, show she was rebuffed by her brother who feared her presence
would cause too much disruption to his family.
The issue caused a rift between the two, leading Lord Spencer to return
one of the princess's letters unopened.
:unquote
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410870/Letters-reveal-brother-rejected-Dianas-plea-for-a-home.html
(it was possible to grab that much just before the subscription box appeared)
We had "The Crown". A somewhat fictionalised version of the misdeeds and
catastrophes affecting our royal family. Maybe you missed it.
I don't pay for TV, and I think The Crown was on one of the paid-for channels,
so yes I missed it entirely.
On 27/09/2026 15:55, The Todal wrote:
I'm simply astonished that you're such an expert on Princess Diana.
I think you imply that my interest is some sort of perversion, or
eccentricity. What else in life astonishes you? An interest in other
areas of history?
I stand corrected by both you and Roger Hayter. I divided the population
into the sort of people who read Hello and OK magazines, and "the rest".
I assumed "the rest" would take zero interest in the Royals and in
Slebs, but I can see that's too broad a generalisation.
On 29/09/2026 10:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ni1bbgF424U1@mid.individual.net...
.
My prediction, my reading of the tealeaves and the entrails, is that Piers >>> Morgan won't sue.
What I do find interesting is that the Press has focused on Piers Morgan and
King Charles, as if the book was otherwise devoid of any relevant content. >>> The book is a savage attack on the British Press, its editors, its
journalists. I don't think the Press wants to draw attention to any of that.
One example - Charles Spencer finds that after his sister became engaged to >>> Prince Charles, the press was determined to hound Diana's brother. He offers
this anecdote as just one example.
quote
I became wary about going out in Oxford during my three years at the
university, instead retreating to the Falconry, a quirky hunting lodge at >>> the
back of Althorp's park built for a seventeenth-century royal visit, that my >>> father allowed me use of. Here trusted friends who knew me from before
Diana's
marriage would come to stay in private. I also had use of a bolthole in
London. Once, when I was there, two men knocked at the door. They introduced
themselves as journalists from, respectively, the Sun and the Daily Mirror, >>> the two largest-circulation tabloids at that time. They insisted on coming >>> in,
saying they had a very important proposal to put to me. They claimed I had >>> to
accept that I was always going to be in the papers, and that their editors >>> had
already decided the light in which I would for ever be portrayed. 'You see, >>> it's
like a fairytale,' one of them said. 'Your sister, well, she's the princess,
isn't she? The fairytale princess. And you, well, even if you collect stamps
and take in abandoned puppies, we aren't going to make you look good. You're
always going to be Lady Di's ne'er-do-well brother.' Since that was my lot, >>> they said, how about a deal? Why not work with them? They would run stories
I
gave them about myself and put a less negative spin on them than would
otherwise be the case. I was only twenty years old, not at all used to the >>> ways of the world, but I wanted to cling to what I had been brought up to >>> see
as decent values. Being a tabloid informant - even against myself! - was not
in the code of conduct that my parents had passed on to me. I found what was
being put to me absurd but also insulting. I thanked them for their time, >>> declined their offer, and invited them to leave. As they did so, one of them
turned, and eyed me up and down with contempt. 'You, son,' he said, darkly, >>> 'are making the biggest mistake of your fucking life.' Even back then, when >>> coming to terms with such bizarre moments, I realized I was on the receiving
end of but an infinitesimal proportion of the appalling treatment that Diana
was having to endure.
Shame he didn't remember either of their names, though.
I don't find that surprising.
So that basically after that, he was largely forgotten until making "that
speech" at his sister's funeral; and then largely forgotten again after that >> for the next 30 years.
So you can see his problem, when it comes to filling a 384 page book
in order to pay off his latest divorce settlement.
He has plenty of other anecdotes about the bad behaviour of our Press.
He truly is the People's Earl. The Earl of Hearts.
Meanwhile back in the real world
quote:
By Caroline Davies 22 October 2002 .
Letters reveal brother rejected Diana's plea for a home
Earl Spencer turned down a request from his sister, Diana, Princess of
Wales, for a home on the family's Althorp estate just six months after
her separation from the Prince of Wales, according to private letters
read to a jury yesterday
Three letters found at the home of the Princess's former butler, Paul
Burrell, show she was rebuffed by her brother who feared her presence
would cause too much disruption to his family.
The issue caused a rift between the two, leading Lord Spencer to return
one of the princess's letters unopened.
:unquote
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410870/Letters-reveal-brother-rejected-Dianas-plea-for-a-home.html
(it was possible to grab that much just before the subscription box appeared)
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:119fv3o$34ka1$1@dont-email.me...
We had "The Crown". A somewhat fictionalised version of the misdeeds and >>> catastrophes affecting our royal family. Maybe you missed it.
I don't pay for TV, and I think The Crown was on one of the paid-for channels,
so yes I missed it entirely.
It's available on DVD; both new and second hand; from the likes of Ebay, Amazon
and charity shops.
For "older viewers" the earlier series (which are usually cheaper) can be a draw as they covers events they will remember from their childhood and youth which they didn't subsequently ever catch up on. Such as Margaret and Townsend etc,
"The Crown" is definitely a keeper. Unlike "Succession" a much raved over
HBO series also subsequently made available on DVD, All production values with new fancy locations in almost every episode and no real plot at all. Just three squabbling siblings from beginning to end.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ni1fqqFpmnU1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/09/2026 10:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ni1bbgF424U1@mid.individual.net...
.
My prediction, my reading of the tealeaves and the entrails, is that Piers >>>> Morgan won't sue.
What I do find interesting is that the Press has focused on Piers Morgan and
King Charles, as if the book was otherwise devoid of any relevant content. >>>> The book is a savage attack on the British Press, its editors, its
journalists. I don't think the Press wants to draw attention to any of that.
One example - Charles Spencer finds that after his sister became engaged to
Prince Charles, the press was determined to hound Diana's brother. He offers
this anecdote as just one example.
quote
I became wary about going out in Oxford during my three years at the
university, instead retreating to the Falconry, a quirky hunting lodge at >>>> the
back of Althorp's park built for a seventeenth-century royal visit, that my
father allowed me use of. Here trusted friends who knew me from before >>>> Diana's
marriage would come to stay in private. I also had use of a bolthole in >>>> London. Once, when I was there, two men knocked at the door. They introduced
themselves as journalists from, respectively, the Sun and the Daily Mirror,
the two largest-circulation tabloids at that time. They insisted on coming >>>> in,
saying they had a very important proposal to put to me. They claimed I had >>>> to
accept that I was always going to be in the papers, and that their editors >>>> had
already decided the light in which I would for ever be portrayed. 'You see,
it's
like a fairytale,' one of them said. 'Your sister, well, she's the princess,
isn't she? The fairytale princess. And you, well, even if you collect stamps
and take in abandoned puppies, we aren't going to make you look good. You're
always going to be Lady Di's ne'er-do-well brother.' Since that was my lot,
they said, how about a deal? Why not work with them? They would run stories
I
gave them about myself and put a less negative spin on them than would >>>> otherwise be the case. I was only twenty years old, not at all used to the >>>> ways of the world, but I wanted to cling to what I had been brought up to >>>> see
as decent values. Being a tabloid informant - even against myself! - was not
in the code of conduct that my parents had passed on to me. I found what was
being put to me absurd but also insulting. I thanked them for their time, >>>> declined their offer, and invited them to leave. As they did so, one of them
turned, and eyed me up and down with contempt. 'You, son,' he said, darkly,
'are making the biggest mistake of your fucking life.' Even back then, when
coming to terms with such bizarre moments, I realized I was on the receiving
end of but an infinitesimal proportion of the appalling treatment that Diana
was having to endure.
Shame he didn't remember either of their names, though.
I don't find that surprising.
So that basically after that, he was largely forgotten until making "that >>> speech" at his sister's funeral; and then largely forgotten again after that
for the next 30 years.
So you can see his problem, when it comes to filling a 384 page book
in order to pay off his latest divorce settlement.
He has plenty of other anecdotes about the bad behaviour of our Press.
He truly is the People's Earl. The Earl of Hearts.
Meanwhile back in the real world
quote:
By Caroline Davies 22 October 2002 .
Letters reveal brother rejected Diana's plea for a home
Earl Spencer turned down a request from his sister, Diana, Princess of
Wales, for a home on the family's Althorp estate just six months after
her separation from the Prince of Wales, according to private letters
read to a jury yesterday
Three letters found at the home of the Princess's former butler, Paul
Burrell, show she was rebuffed by her brother who feared her presence
would cause too much disruption to his family.
The issue caused a rift between the two, leading Lord Spencer to return
one of the princess's letters unopened.
:unquote
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1410870/Letters-reveal-brother-rejected-Dianas-plea-for-a-home.html
(it was possible to grab that much just before the subscription box appeared)
You've read John Crace's condensed "review" in "The Guardian then ?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/sep/23/peoples-earl-charles-spencer-swan-song-diana-my-sister-digested-read-john-crace
As to the public school stuff.* On tne evidence of reading numerous biographies
and
autobigraphies, public schoolboys like schoolboys in general are no respecters
of
rank or priviledge when assessing their peers (sometimes literally); but judge
everyone
on their own terns. So no snitches or teachers pets "My dad's richer or more famous than
your dad" simply won't wash. and they can spot a whinger from a mile off. Along
with
wimps.
bb
* based on your comments
The disagreement between Earl Spencer and Diana about whether she can live at
Althorp is described in detail in the book. I haven't read the Telegraph article but I suppose the lazy journalist didn't want to read the book or to put Earl Spencer's side of the argument, and preferred to have a dig at Earl Spencer to please her editor. Making reference to some letters as if she had doggedly unearthed them herself. Did you want to know what Earl Spencer says about that argument with Diana? You probably don't. It is sufficient to portray him as a liar and a hypocrite and to piss on his parade.
Billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote: |------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .] could present a reasonable case by |
|undermining Morgan's overall reputation. [. . .]|
|[. . .]" | |------------------------------------------------|
Defendants need to plead specifics.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:18:07 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (1,580K bytes) |
| Messages: | 290,958 |