Did Buckingham Palace Just Break One of the Royal Family’s Oldest Rules?

EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS: Buckingham Palace seemingly broke royal tradition to challenge Earl Spencer’s explosive Diana claim.

FOR generations, the British Royal Family has operated according to one remarkably simple principle when faced with criticism: “Never complain, never explain.”

This week, Buckingham Palace did something very different

Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and the younger brother of Princess Diana, makes an explosive allegation in his forthcoming book, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister. He made the sensational claim that during a heated conversation following Diana’s death in August 1997, he argued with the then-Prince Charles about whether Prince William and Harry should walk behind their mother’s coffin. According to Spencer’s account, Charles told him: “Rest assured, we’ll forget her soon enough.”

Buckingham Palace has now responded - and its statement is extraordinary by royal standards, as the firm usually doesn't reply to commercial ventures.

“While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle,” the Palace said in a statement, "King Charles is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss.” 

In other words, the Palace has not simply declined to comment; it has directly challenged Spencer’s recollection, suggesting his grief may have affected his memory of what happened. That is significant, especially as the Palace clearly seems to want to set that boundary. But what happened to ‘never complain, never explain’? The expression has been associated with the Royal Family for decades, particularly with Queen Elizabeth II, although it was never an official palace rule. 

Its origins go much further back, as the phrase is often associated with Victorian-era political thinking and has been attributed to former British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli. A similar philosophy was expressed by Victorian constitutional writer Walter Bagehot, who argued that monarchy depended partly upon maintaining its mystery.

Queen Elizabeth II became particularly associated with that approach during her 70-year reign. Silence could be frustrating, but it also helped preserve the distinction between the monarchy and celebrity culture. The basic principle was straightforward: monarchs should remain above the daily argument. Newspapers could criticise, books could make allegations, commentators could speculate - but the Crown just carried on. 

The royals have never followed the principle absolutely. Charles and Diana themselves departed dramatically from it during the breakdown of their marriage in the 1990s, both taking part in infamous interviews whilst Diana worked covertly with Andrew Morton on a bombshell biography. But this latest intervention feels especially striking because the Palace itself begins by acknowledging the traditional position: “We do not comment on books as a matter of principle.” But then it issued a direct comment on one particular allegation within the pages of the new release.

So why respond now? The Palace has not publicly explained why it chose to answer this allegation in particular, so anything beyond its statement is nothing more than speculation. 

But one possible explanation is the seriousness of the alleged words. This is not a disagreement about royal protocol or an embarrassing anecdote from decades ago; indeed, Earl Spencer is alleging that the future King spoke dismissively about Diana - the mother of his children - within days of her tragic death. 

Princess Diana remains one of the most famous and beloved members of the Royal Family in modern history, even after her passing. Nearly three decades after the Paris car crash, her relationship with Charles and the monarchy continues to fascinate people around the world. Leaving such an allegation unanswered may therefore have been judged more damaging than responding to it. 

There is another important factor: William and Harry. The alleged conversation concerned whether two grieving boys, then just 15 and 12, should walk behind their mother’s coffin in front of the public. That funeral procession became one of the defining images of Diana’s death. Any new account of how that decision was made inevitably reopens questions about one of the most painful episodes in modern royal history. For the Palace, silence may no longer be the safest strategy.

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether “never complain, never explain” can actually survive the modern media world. When Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne in 1952, there was no social media, no 24-hour news cycle and certainly no viral clip capable of reaching millions of people before Buckingham Palace had finished drafting a response. 

Silence operates differently today. Refusing to answer an allegation can preserve dignity - but it can also allow one version of events to dominate the conversation. King Charles may therefore be developing a different philosophy from his mother’s: remain silent most of the time, but intervene when an allegation is considered sufficiently serious. There is a risk, as every time the Palace responds to a story, people naturally ask why it remained silent about another. Once you start explaining, deciding when not to explain becomes considerably more complicated, and that may be the real significance of this remarkable royal statement. 

For decades, silence was one of the monarchy’s greatest defensive weapons. Buckingham Palace has now decided that, at least on this occasion, silence was the greater risk.