Some ghosts do not haunt corridors at midnight. They haunt bookstores. They stare out from glossy paper covers resting under bright fluorescent lights, their eyes captured by a photographer decades ago, looking out at a world that refuses to let them go.
Charles Spencer knows this ghost intimately. He lives with the memory of a sister whose shadow stretches across every page he writes, every interview he gives, and every room he enters. When a member of Britain's aristocracy takes pen to paper, the public expects a polite memoir of country estates, ancestral portraits, and quiet privilege. But history rarely stays neatly filed in the family archives. Sometimes, the ink used to write a memoir is mixed with old grievances, long-simmering resentment, and the heavy, unyielding weight of a shared childhood that ended in tragedy. Read more on a connected subject: this related article.
Consider what happens when a man opens the attic of his own family history. Dust rises. Shadows lengthen. The smell of old paper mixes with the sharp scent of ancient reckonings. Charles Spencer’s recent literary efforts, including his memoir A Very Private School and his ongoing reflections on his lineage, are often framed by commentators as an act of settling old scores with the
The Ghost Who Refuses to Stay Buried
celebs
More journalism by The New York Times highlights related perspectives on the subject.
The ink on the page is barely dry, yet the air in the room already feels thin.
We have seen this before. A memoir arrives, heavy with grievances and bound in dark cloth, promising to pull back the curtain on a life lived behind velvet ropes. Earl Spencer has written his book, a volume intended to settle old scores, to right ancient wrongs, to offer his version of a lineage weighed down by stone and expectation. He speaks of his own childhood, the echoes of a fractured estate, the brutal architecture of boarding schools, and the quiet tragedies that unfolded away from the flashbulbs.
Yet, when you open the book, the walls dissolve. The author steps aside. Another presence fills the room, breathing oxygen straight out of the text, leaving him standing in the shadow of his own story.
Diana.
It is a strange and heavy thing to be a brother to a myth. Imagine walking through a gallery where every portrait, no matter who painted it, defaults to a single face. You can point to the crown molding, you can explain the floorboards, you can talk about the weather on the day the foundation was poured, but the observer only looks at her eyes.
For decades, Charles Spencer has tried to construct an identity independent of that global heartbreak. He has restored the family seat at Althorp. He has written histories. He has spoken eloquently about privacy, about the press, about the merciless machinery that chewed up his sister and spat her out onto the front pages of every newspaper on earth. But every time he opens a vein to explain who he is, the public only sees the bloodline. They see the younger brother standing behind a coffin in Westminster Abbey, head bowed, holding back a grief that the entire planet was watching.
That grief is a mortgage that never gets paid off.
Consider what happens when a family becomes public property. The line between private memory and historical artifact blurs until it vanishes entirely. When the Spencer name is invoked, nobody thinks of the sixteenth-century politicians or the agricultural innovations of the eighteenth-century earls. They think of a white dress. They think of a balcony. They think of the car crash in the Alma tunnel that froze a generation in permanent disbelief.
Charles Spencer knows this better than anyone. In his writing, you can feel the exhaustion of a man who is perpetually cast as a secondary character in a tragedy he survived. He wants to talk about his father. He wants to talk about the generational neglect that shaped them both, the cold hallways of English aristocracy where children were delivered to nannies like parcels sent by post. He wants to claim his own suffering.
The reader resists.
We do not want his pain. We want hers. We are vampires of nostalgia, circling the wreckage of a fairy tale that turned into a horror story, hunting for fresh scraps of context. Did she laugh like that in private? Was the loneliness as absolute as it looked from the outside? Did the brother know the depth of the storm before the lightning struck?
These are the unspoken questions hanging over every paragraph. And because the author is human, and because the sister was an icon who redefined the modern emotional landscape, the tension snaps. You can feel the author pushing back against the gravity of her memory, straining against the pull of a black hole that refuses to let any other matter escape its orbit.
There is a particular kind of loneliness in sharing DNA with a legend. It is like trying to whisper a secret inside a hurricane. Your voice is there, your vocal cords are vibrating, but the only sound anyone hears is the wind.
Look at the way the book has been received. The headlines do not dance around the author's personal revelations about his upbringing or his career. They home in on the royal friction, the implied slights, the behind-the-scenes glimpses of a monarchy that treats human beings like porcelain figures meant to be kept in a locked case. The media machinery does what it has always done. It strips away the nuance of the memoir and leaves behind the shiny, radioactive core of Diana adjacent gossip.
It is unfair, of course. To reduce a man’s entire literary endeavor to a footnote about his sister is a form of erasure. Yet, it is also inevitable.
We are obsessed with proximity to greatness and ruin. When someone stands that close to the sun, we assume they must have been scorched in ways we can only imagine. We look to them for the missing pieces of a puzzle that will never be completed. We want the brother to confirm our suspicions, to validate our grief, to tell us that we were right to love her, right to mourn her, right to hold onto her memory twenty-odd years after the flowers outside Kensington Palace turned to mush in the rain.
The tragedy of the book is not just that it fails to fully step out of Diana’s shadow. It is that the shadow is the only reason we are standing in the room at all.
Without her, these are just the grievances of an aging aristocrat cataloging the damp and disillusionment of a privileged English childhood. With her, they become artifacts of a national trauma. The brother knows this. You can sense his reluctant surrender in the cadence of his sentences, the way he circles back to her, again and again, like a moth returning to the bulb even after its wings have been singed.
He can write about his own ghosts. But the public only has room for one.
And so the pages turn. The grievances are aired, the scores are tallied, the history is revisited with a mixture of precision and pain. But when you close the back cover and set the book down on the bedside table, the room is still haunted. The brother has spoken, but the sister has the last word. She always does.
