More than two decades ago, Daniel Finkelstein attended a government inquiry session and penned a reflective piece on the challenges of memory, recalling how difficult it can be to accurately remember past events. He recently revisited these observations in response to Earl Spencer’s newly published memoir, which includes detailed recollections of conversations from nearly 30 years ago involving King Charles.

Finkelstein questions the reliability of such precise long-term memory, noting that even sharp individuals struggle to recall exact details from decades past. He references a landmark study by psychologists Jennifer Talarico and David Rubin, which tracked memory retention among students immediately after 9/11 and in subsequent months. The study found that recall for both significant public events and everyday personal experiences deteriorated similarly over time. While participants remained confident in their memories of 9/11, many accounts were ultimately inaccurate.

This research suggests that Earl Spencer’s confident assertions about conversations years earlier—unless contemporaneously documented—should be viewed with caution. Finkelstein adds that people often unconsciously reshape memories to align with how they wish events had unfolded or to fit their perceptions of the individuals involved. He emphasizes the need for skepticism when personal narratives closely match what the narrators might hope or expect to be true.

Finkelstein applies this reasoning equally to the claims made by Spencer and to King Charles, noting that the king has not publicly offered his own detailed account. While Spencer is the accuser in this context, Finkelstein expresses doubt that either party’s memory is a reliable arbiter of the dispute.

Beyond the question of factual accuracy, Finkelstein reflects on the broader significance of the matter, stating that the king’s personal qualities—while they may influence public perception—are not central to his constitutional role. He characterizes King Charles as dutiful, diligent, and intelligent, though he acknowledges that his view is based on limited personal interaction and more on hope than evidence.

Ultimately, Finkelstein argues that the monarch’s primary function is to serve as a neutral symbol of the nation’s heritage, law, and parliamentary democracy. The office demands dignity, restraint, and a strong sense of duty, but the individual personality or private disputes do not diminish the institution’s importance. Whether or not King Charles is deemed “nice” or recalled conversations accurately, the role and responsibilities of the monarchy remain unchanged.