"We're critics on newspaper arts pages," said Philippa Page from the Daily Mule, "So we're past masters at writing hundreds of words of drivel about sod all. But even we're in awe of Charles Spencer's ability to write a whole book based entirely on two pissy little afterthoughts about the Diana saga."
"Spencer has spent years getting paid for churning out bitchy columns for us here at the Torygraph," said fellow critic Ivor Cushy-Job. "So he knows he's onto a winner when he writes that King Charles sounded like a lottery winner after Diana's death and that he said she'd be quickly forgotten. There's no evidence for any of that, but it can't actually be disproved. And Spencer is betting the King will never sue him for libel."
Earl Spencer explained to the BBC last week that he was going to tell the world about this stuff 29 years ago, when it was meant to have happened, but that the allegations were too boring because Charles wasn't king yet.
"That's other reason why Lord Spencer is a brilliant journalist," gushed Philippa Page. "He can rake over the coals of a story three decades on and still make a big pile of dosh out of it."
Spencer's spit-and-tell memoir has been nominated for journalism's prestigious Pulltheotherone Prize. Meanwhile, Britain is divided about who comes out of this episode looking the more despicable: Charles, Earl Spencer or Charles, King of England.
Why not join our WhatsApp channel, NewsBiscuit Daily Posts? You can access the latest output from NewsBiscuit and share posts easily with friends, family and colleagues using WhatsApp. Get some biscuits in your pocket (sorry about the crumbs, though) by clicking here
