In a recent commentary on the ongoing debate surrounding the events following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, a letter to the editor challenges the unquestioned acceptance of Earl Spencer’s version of those events. The letter, written by William Shawcross, questions the reliability of Earl Spencer’s account, which had been endorsed by historian AN Wilson in a prior commentary.

Shawcross emphasizes the King’s long record of public service and characterizes him as a figure of "unimpeachable integrity and honour." He argues that millions of people, including those beyond the inner circles of royalty, are more likely to place their trust in the King’s narrative than that of Earl Spencer. The author also contests Wilson’s description of the King’s supporters as “royal flunkeys,” calling the term unfortunate.

The exchange highlights a wider debate about the accuracy and interpretation of personal accounts related to a historically significant and emotionally charged period in British royal history. With the passing of Princess Diana continuing to evoke strong public interest and differing perspectives, the veracity of individual testimonies, including those from close family members, remains a subject of scrutiny.

No new evidence has been presented in the letter, but Shawcross’s intervention illustrates the ongoing sensitivity and complexity in interpreting the legacy of the late Princess and the roles played by members of the royal family during that time. The discussion also reflects contrasting views on public trust and the authority of personal testimony in matters involving prominent public figures.