BREAKING: ‘Prince Harry and Meghan are colluding with Earl Spencer to weaken King Charles’
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been accused of “colluding” with Earl Spencer ahead of the release of his new book about Princess Diana, as questions continue over how much the couple may have known before publication.
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams claimed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be “absolutely thrilled” by the attention surrounding Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, which contains a series of allegations about King Charles.
Among the most explosive claims, Spencer alleges that Charles sounded “giddily elated” after Diana’s death and compared his tone to that of “a lottery winner”.
He has also claimed that the then-Prince of Wales told him Diana would be “forgotten soon enough” in the days following her death.
Buckingham Palace challenged Spencer’s recollection, saying that “fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory”.
Commentator Claims Sussexes Would Be ‘Thrilled’
Speaking on GB News, Fitzwilliams suggested Harry, 42, and Meghan, 45, would welcome the enormous publicity surrounding Spencer’s book.
He noted that the memoir is being published by Penguin Random House, the same publisher behind Harry’s memoir Spare.
“They will be absolutely thrilled by the fact that this has gone viral,” he claimed, referring to the attention generated by the book and Buckingham Palace’s response.
Fitzwilliams acknowledged that the alleged conversations took place nearly three decades ago and questioned how accurately they could now be remembered.
“One has to bear in mind that this was nearly 30 years ago,” he said.
“Individuals may or may not have said certain things that they look at in a different context now.”
However, he argued there was little doubt that the controversy would generate enormous publicity for Spencer.
“But there’s no question that Earl Spencer is going to get a huge amount of publicity,” he added. “It’s very damaging for the King.”
‘In My Opinion There Was Collusion’
Fitzwilliams went further by suggesting Harry and Meghan may have coordinated in some way with Diana’s brother.
Crucially, he presented the allegation as his own opinion and did not provide evidence that the Sussexes were involved in preparing or promoting the book.
“In my opinion there was collusion between them and Earl Spencer because they’ve been close for a long time,” he said.
He argued that the couple may not have known every detail contained in the memoir but nevertheless described the situation as a coordinated effort.
“I see the two of them as a pincer movement to weaken King Charles and I think that is very dangerous,” Fitzwilliams claimed.
There is nothing in the supplied report establishing that Harry or Meghan worked with Spencer on the book, and neither is quoted responding to the allegation.
Invictus Appearance Raised by Commentator
Fitzwilliams also pointed to members of the Spencer family attending the 10th anniversary commemoration of the Invictus Games.
He described the family presence as an “impressive Spencer turnout” and noted that no members of the Royal Family attended the event.
He used that example to support his broader view that Harry has remained close to his mother’s family.
However, attendance at the event does not itself demonstrate involvement in Spencer’s memoir or knowledge of its contents.
Spencer’s King Charles Claim Sparks Backlash
The most serious controversy centres on Spencer’s account of Charles’s behaviour after Diana’s death.
Fitzwilliams described the “lottery winner” allegation as especially damaging.
“The idea that Prince Charles felt that he’d won the lottery when they spoke after the tragedy,” he said. “That is an especially horrible thing to say.”
He argued that such claims could affect how the public views both Charles and the monarchy.
“This is very damaging,” he said. “I hope it doesn’t impair long-term views of both the monarchy and the King.”
Spencer’s account remains his recollection of private conversations, and Buckingham Palace has disputed the wider portrayal.
Questions Remain Over What Harry Knew
The publication has inevitably raised questions over whether Harry had advance knowledge of the allegations concerning his father.
The source does not establish exactly what Harry or Meghan knew before publication.
Fitzwilliams himself conceded that they may not have known the “finer details” of the book, while continuing to argue that some form of coordination took place.
That distinction remains important.
For now, claims of “collusion” are the opinion of a royal commentator rather than an established fact.
What is clear is that Spencer’s memoir has reopened painful arguments surrounding Diana’s death and created fresh scrutiny for King Charles, Harry and the wider Royal Family.
With the book preparing to reach readers, questions over who knew what — and when — are likely to remain at the centre of the latest royal controversy.
