Why Charles Spencer’s Account of Princess Diana Is Necessary for the Historical Record

Nearly 30 years after Princess Diana’s death, her brother Charles Spencer is finally telling her story himself. The 9th Earl Spencer will release Swan Song: Diana, My Sister on September 22, 2026. The book will cover their childhood, Diana’s public life and the week of her death in Paris in 1997. Spencer says he wrote it because he was tired of reading inaccurate accounts of his sister and wanted to put his own memories on record.

He says the book will show readers the Diana he knew before fame, royalty and relentless press attention changed everything. It will also mark the first time he has written about her life in this much detail.

And already, some critics are accusing him of profiting from Diana’s memory. That is difficult to take seriously. For decades, journalists, royal commentators and biographers who barely knew Diana have made money writing about her marriage, private life, mental health and death. Yet when her own brother writes about the sister he grew up with, suddenly people question whether he has the right.

If we are going to keep buying books about Diana nearly three decades after her death, I would rather hear from someone who actually knew and loved her than another royal commentator reconstructing her life from the outside.

Spencer said he decided to write the book after being “inundated” with requests for interviews about Diana as the anniversary of her tragic death approaches.

“This has convinced me to write down my own thoughts and memories, once and for all, rather than having the discomfort of again reading the opinions of others, many of which are based on untruths that have become accepted over time,” he said.

People

Why Diana’s Story Cannot Be Left to the Royal Biographers

Princess Diana remains one of the most beloved and recognised figures of the modern royal era. Almost three decades after her death, interest in her life has not faded, and future generations will continue to encounter competing versions of who she was. That makes accounts from people who actually knew her, especially her own family, even more valuable.

For decades, much of Diana’s story has reached the public through royal biographers, palace sources, journalists and dramatists interpreting her life from the outside. Even The Crown, which often portrayed Diana sympathetically, sometimes dramatised disputed versions of events that aligned more closely with later establishment narratives about her choices. For example, the series depicts Diana warning Queen Elizabeth II in advance about her 1995 Panorama interview, although contemporary accounts indicate the interview took the Royal Family by surprise.  

The series rightly emphasises Martin Bashir’s manipulation of Diana. The 2021 Dyson inquiry found that he used deceit, including forged bank statements, to secure access to her. But reducing Diana’s interview entirely to Bashir’s manipulation risks stripping her of agency too. Dyson accepted that she probably would have agreed to an interview even without Bashir’s intervention. Diana wanted to speak publicly about her marriage and her treatment within the institution, even if Bashir obtained her trust through methods the inquiry later condemned.

Diana had already shown that determination to tell her own story. She secretly cooperated with Andrew Morton’s 1992 biography, recording detailed answers that later formed the basis of Diana: Her True Story – In Her Own Words. Her participation matters because it shows that speaking publicly about her marriage and royal life was not an impulse created solely by Bashir.

Why Charles Spencer’s Memories Belong in the Historical Record

That is why Charles Spencer’s account matters. He knew Diana before royal life transformed her into a global figure, before photographers followed her everywhere and before strangers began competing to define her. Diana is also now a historical figure whose life, influence and treatment by the monarchy and media will be studied and debated for generations.

That makes her brother’s firsthand account important to the historical record, particularly as younger generations encounter Diana through biographies, documentaries and dramatisations rather than living memory. Spencer’s recollections will not be the only version of Diana, nor should they be treated as beyond question. But they offer something much of the Diana industry cannot: the perspective of someone who knew the person long before she became the mythology.