Disparaging Diana: Charles & Camilla deny approving book

The book, which has triggered a backlash against the prince, claims Diana was responsible for the collapse of her marriage with Charles because she embarked on extra-marital affairs before he did.

In their statement, the Prince and Bowles said: “Penny Junor’s book was not authorised, solicited or approved by the Prince of Wales or Mrs Parker Bowles. The Prince of Wales recognises that there is — and probably will continue to be — a great interest in the events surrounding his marriage.”

“However, he has always been strongly of the view thatprivate and personal details surrounding it should be left private and undisturbed.”

The Daily Telegraph, said “their joint statement conveys to the public that they are not embarrassed by their relationship”.

The popular Sun, responding to a poll which showed that 83 per cent of Britons do not want Camilla to become queen, quoted Charles as saying, “Camilla will never be my queen.”

“Camilla does not want to be queen. They have no plans to marry,” The Sun said, welcoming the fact that “at last Prince Charles is laying his cards on the table”.

It praised “all his good work” in the last 14 months, projecting a more modern, “caring image” of the monarchy.

The paper published a letter from the prince’s personal secretary proving that Charles had refused any personal collaboration with Junor.

However, other papers were more skeptical and noted that Junor must have had the support of the prince in order to interview his closest friends, as she claims to havedone.

“How could he do this to Diana?” wrote The Express, which accused the prince of “betraying his wife’s memory”. Referring to princes William and Harry, the paper said the “young princes must suffer the final insult”.

The Left-leaning Mirror also cast doubt on the prince’s denial. “We didn’t knife Diana,” headlined The Mirror beside a photograph of Charles and Camilla suggesting the contrary.

“The prince may have not actively encouraged any of his friends to cooperate, but he did little to stop them talking,” it said.

The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, though they headlined the prince’s counterattack, focussed more on the content of Junor’s book and particularly on the palace reaction to the death of Diana in a car crash last year in Paris.

Junor claims Queen Elizabeth II at first refused to send a royal plane to bring Diana’s body home. But the queen finally allowed Charles to accompany the body in a royal plane after an aide said:“Would you rather, Ma’am, that she come back in a Harrods van?”

The remark referred to Diana’s companion, Dodi Fayed, also killed in the crash, whose father was Harrods department store owner — Mohammed al Fayed.

Junor’s book also suggests Diana made death threat telephone calls to Parker Bowles, who was having an affair with Charles.

In the book, Junor says Diana told Parker Bowles: “I’ve sent someone to kill you.”

It also claimed that the princess’s affair with one of her bodyguards, personal detective Barry Mannakee, was the reason for the disintegration of her marriage to Charles.

Previously, in a 1995 BBC interview, Diana had admitted adultery with a British army captain but sought to blame the end of the marriage on Charles and Parker Bowles, saying there were always “three in this marriage”.

Junor told The Mail, which is serialising the book, that she wanted “to explain what really happened in that marriage”.

Meanwhile, Sarah Ferguson the ex-wife of Prince Andrew, onSunday condemned what she called a “shameful” attack on Diana.

In a statement, the Duchess of York said: “I deplore the fact that the Princess of Wales, who was loved and respected by so many, is apparently considered to be a legitimate target for this sort of shameful and chilling attack, from which she can no longer defend herself.”

And royal historian Hugo Vickers said he believed some of the claims in the book were untrue. “Having read some of what is in the papers today there are many things there that I know not to be true, although I do not want to go into details,” he said.

“I don’t know whether this book was sanctioned by friends of the prince, but if it was, it would seem rather ill-advised,” he said.