What Spencer Got Wrong About Princess Diana's Story

When Diana Spencer entered the royal purview in the late 1970s, she instantaneously captured everyone's attention. "Shy Di" was just a teenager, but her stunning features and sweet demeanor made her the shining star of the royal romance. By the time she and Prince Charles got married in 1981, Princess Diana was a bona fide star, followed by the United Kingdom's paparazzi at all hours of the day. Of course, Diana and Charles' romance was doomed from the start, and the princess suffered from a number of heartbreaking experiences along the way. And while she emerged as a strong, independent woman following her divorce in 1996, her life was tragically cut short after suffering fatal injuries in a car accident just a year later.

Since that fateful day, Diana's legacy has only continued to grow, turning her into something of a legend. As such, her story has been embodied by a number of different film and television adaptations, but no era of Diana biopics has rivaled the 2020s. From Emma Corrin's portrayal of the princess in "The Crown" to Kristen Stewart's riveting performance in "Spencer," Diana's story has played out on both the small and big screens. But was the latter adaptation accurate? Here's what "Spencer" got wrong about Princess Diana's story.

Set over a Christmas weekend in 1991 (via Vanity Fair), "Spencer" is not a film that characterizes Diana's entire life, but rather is a closely focused portrayal of just a few days in one of the last years of her time as a royal. But as noted by NPR, the weekend in question is an "imagining" rather than a recreation of actual events — calling into question the accuracy of the film. 

Firstly, in the dramatic biopic, Diana is separated from Charles, but is not yet divorced. While the film depicts the separated couple and their two young sons, History noted that the couple didn't actually separate until December 1992, a year after the film's time frame. Secondly, throughout the film, Diana "realizes the depth of her own despair and decides to pursue her freedom," as characterized by NPR. But in actuality, a number of different events in 1992, not 1991, forced Diana and Charles to go their separate ways. As noted by Biography, events including the release of Andrew Morton's 1992 biography about Diana, as well as the "Camillagate" phone call scandal, eventually put the couple in a fractured situation that they couldn't avoid any longer.

Diana Spencer had a complicated and often tense relationship with Prince Charles — many of us already know this — but what was her relationship with Queen Elizabeth like? As far as the film "Spencer" is concerned, the relationship was fraught with heartbreaking conversations. As noted by History vs Hollywood, one scene in the film depicts Diana and Queen Elizabeth having breakfast together. The queen comments on how many photos are taken of the budding princess, before saying, "The only portrait that matters is the one they put on the 10-pound note. When they take that one, my dear, you understand that all you really are is currency." 

Such a comment was devastating to say the least, but the outlet was quick to point out that this very scene goes to show that the film "is not historically accurate." Rather, Diana's real relationship with Queen Elizabeth was far more distant, as characterized by Andrew Morton in his 1992 biography, "Diana: Her True Story," via Tatler. The relationship between the two women was "formal," and Diana more or less "kept her distance," suggesting that such a conversation could've never happened between the two of them like it did in the film.

It's no secret that Diana Spencer was controlled in a number of ways by the royal family and its structures. As noted by History, the princess was reportedly very nervous that "The Firm" was trying to control her every move — in part because of Prince Charles' ongoing relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles — and at one point in time, the princess even thought that the palace was trying to "sedate" her. But unlike the film "Spencer," real-life Diana didn't have a specific member of the staff watching every little thing she did. Meanwhile, Kristen Stewart's Diana had Major Alistair Gregory (played by Timothy Spall) watching over her like a hawk. 

As noted by History vs Hollywood, the character of Major Gregory served as a barrier between Diana and the press, but also occupied a helicopter-type guardian role, keeping the princess "on a short leash" throughout the holiday weekend depicted on-screen. While it's true that other royal employees "monitored" Diana's behavior, Major Gregory was an entirely made-up character, who served no actual ties to a person that the real Diana ever interacted with. While Diana certainly felt as though she was being watched and closely monitored (via History), it was not at the hands of a specific royal employee like Spall's character.

Trigger warning: self-harm and cutting. 

While it's true that Diana Spencer suffered from a number of tragic experiences, her history of self-harm is rather chilling. Although incorporated into the film "Spencer," the princess' self-harm was exaggerated, according to History vs Hollywood. In the film, Kristen Stewart's Diana is seen "ravaging her arm with wire cutters" while staying with the royal family over Christmas weekend in 1991. Described as "gut-wrenchingly intense" by The U.S. Sun, the scene is made even more tragic given that a young Prince William begged his mother through the locked bathroom door to join him for dinner. "Mummy, mummy ... mummy, you said to tell you if you are being really silly. You are being really silly," the young William says in the film. 

Of the scene, History vs Hollywood characterizes it as "over-the-top Hollywood embellishment," and royal biographer Penny Junor told The U.S. Sun that it was "unnecessarily gratuitous." "Poor old William is all I can say. And let's leave Diana with a shred of respect and dignity," Junor said. "I know William was there when she was unhappy but it sounds to me the movie is factually incorrect."

If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health, please contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741, call the National Alliance on Mental Illness helpline at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264), or visit the National Institute of Mental Health website.

The Diana that we see in "Spencer" is not the Diana that the early 1990s truly saw. While 1991 was tough, the year was also intermixed by personal growth — Diana's marriage would go on to dissolve in December 1992, only furthering her ability to grow outside of the royal family. But in "Spencer," the Diana on-screen is desperate, if not hysterical, to get out of her environment at the Sandringham House — so much so, that she goes to desperate lengths to escape. 

As noted by History vs Hollywood, Kristen Stewart's Diana attempts to leave Sandringham for her childhood home, Park House, which is located close by. In the film, the princess is seen "desperately" climbing Park House's fence — the house, meanwhile, is shown boarded up, having seemingly been empty for some time. First and foremost, some of the details of Park House in the film were wrong. The property was shown to have a moat, while there was no such detail in real life. Secondly, Diana didn't try to escape to her childhood home at all. History vs Hollywood reported that the entire sequence was a "fictional component" of the film, meant to symbolize Diana's "desire to escape the confines of the Royal Family and her deteriorated marriage."

Diana Spencer is known for a number of aspects, including her sense of style. She is still hailed as one of the most influential fashion figures — her style seemingly tied to her development as a royal, and then as a royal rule-breaker. While a hairstyle might seem to be one of the lesser details of Diana's story, it was a component that "Spencer" got drastically wrong — as it turns out, this was more symbolic than it seems. 

As noted by The Telegraph, Diana traded her "1980s romance" hair for a "short, power haircut" in 1990. It was the era of supermodels, according to her hairdresser, Sam McKnight, and the two opted for an edgier, more sophisticated cut than what the princess was previously known for. However, in "Spencer," Diana is shown with a far more relaxed, 1980s-era hairstyle — and this may have been on purpose. According to the paper, Diana's short hair that she embraced in 1990 (a year before "Spencer" is set) "encapsulated her transition into a more independent new chapter." Meanwhile, the hairstyle present in the film is far more indicative of Diana's style when she was in the most miserable throes of her marriage and eating disorder, among other hardships.

For all of the film and television adaptations that have brought Diana Spencer into the 21st century on-screen, we must ask ourselves at some point what the woman herself would've thought about it all. While Diana herself can't tell us about her story and if a film like "Spencer" got it right, her close friends and confidants can — and luckily for us, they did. 

Makeup artist Mary Greenwell, a close friend of the late princess, told The Telegraph that the aura and mystery surrounding the late princess now is misplaced. "She's now seen as this kind of martyr, which I think is wrong. She did amazing things, but she's misunderstood," Greenwell said. "All I'd say is that the portrayals you see now are not the best way to understand her. She wouldn't want to be on this pedestal with all this glory and fame." 

Indeed, the testimonies from her friends and close allies allow for the conclusion that not one piece of film or television will ever get Diana 100% right. She was, without doubt, a singularly stunning human being whose subtle cocktail of courage, vogue, insecurity, and dedication makes it impossible for an actress to fully embody her.