Is it possible to avoid taking sides in the latest skirmish of the forever wars about the late Diana, Princess of Wales? I’d like to hope it is, though I appreciate it might be seen as a bit counter-journalistic to do so.

Suppose the King is a flawed man, but not a monster? Suppose Earl Spencer is also a flawed man, but not a monster?

Suppose the King is a flawed man, but not a monster? Suppose Earl Spencer is also a flawed man, but not a monster?

Suppose the King is a flawed man, but not a monster? Suppose Earl Spencer is also a flawed man, but not a monster? And suppose what we are seeing is two hurt and damaged people revisiting a vicious row between them for the delectation of a public with no interest in the matter but prurience?

The new casus belli is a damaging allegation made in Charles Spencer’s new book about his sister: that in a phone call ahead of her funeral, the then Prince Charles told his brother-in-law: “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.” Earl Spencer has also claimed that in another phone call the prince was “giddily elated” and “like a lottery winner”.

Reasonable people, I think, will recognise that it is impossible for anybody to know exactly what was said, still less the tone of voice taken, in private phone calls between two men in a high state of........

© The Spectator