The Royals Part 27

Then her lawyers started haggling. They began by insisting on a lump sum payment of $75 million. His lawyers protested the amount and the method of payment: Charles wanted to pay less and in yearly installments rather than a lump sum. That way he could withhold money, in case Diana got out of line. But she refused. For her it was all or nothing. When he balked at paying her legal fees, which he said were "excessive," negotiations stalled. Her side reminded his side who wanted the divorce. She threatened to withdraw and force him to wait two more years to get a no-consent divorce decree. Then he would be able to get one automatically because their separation would have met the requisite five years. But, for the Queen, further delay was intolerable. She intervened, and Charles paid his wife's legal bills-$120,000.

After five months of acrimony over almost every issue, the lawyers for both sides produced a doc.u.ment as intricate as a treaty between two warring nations. "The only element missing was a map delineating the deployment of troops," mused a man familiar with the agreement. "Everything else was covered-insignias, t.i.tles, possessions, even boundaries. [Diana was required to seek the Queen's permission to leave the country, unless on private holiday. With the Queen's permission, she could use the Queen's aircraft, but only if accompanied by her children.] Diana is ent.i.tled to keep all gifts of royal jewelry [the value of which is said to exceed $100 million] for her lifetime. She agrees not to lend or sell any jewels given to her by the royal family, including the thirty-carat sapphire brooch that was the Queen Mother's wedding present. Upon Diana's death, the jewelry pa.s.ses to her son, William, for the future Princess of Wales. A codicil to her will nailing this down is attached to the divorce settlement."

The only area not disputed was the children: Charles and Diana agreed to share responsibility for raising their sons, including equal access and custody. Every other aspect of their contentious marriage was bartered down to the last square foot of office s.p.a.ce Diana would be allocated. Charles agreed to pay her about $26 million, including her taxes, over a period of five years. In addition, he will pay $600,000 a year for her office staff, supplies, and equipment.* Diana retained use of her residence at Kensington Palace, until she chooses to move or remarry. Diana retained use of her residence at Kensington Palace, until she chooses to move or remarry.

In the middle of the negotiations, Diana reconsidered her royal status. She said she wanted to keep her t.i.tle "for the sake of the boys." Previously she had joked, "I don't need another t.i.tle-I was born with one." But her friends emphasized that while Lady Diana might get a seat on the bus, Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales could commandeer the bus, the driver, and all the curtsying pa.s.sengers. They said the t.i.tle of HRH gave her protection against being run over.

So important is the designation of royalty in a cla.s.s-bound society that her friends don't want to see Diana curtsying to others. Nor do they want to see her lowered in public esteem like the disgraced Sarah Ferguson, who had been forced to give up her royal style upon divorce. Shorn of her HRH, the poor d.u.c.h.ess became a national punching bag. Frequently derided as greedy and moneygrubbing, she was roundly denounced after her divorce. A union flag raised to mark her thirty-seventh birthday was lowered after four hours when some union members objected; they said she did not deserve the honor. They placed a call to Buckingham Palace, which said the only official day that should be marked was the Queen's birthday. "After all we've heard about Fergie's love life," said one union member, "they'd be better off flying a pair of knickers from the flagpole."

When the d.u.c.h.ess signed a $2.2 million book contract, one newspaper placed the story alongside a cartoon showing two men walking in the park. One man, hanging his head in shame, said: "I lied. I cheated. I betrayed my spouse. My boss. My friends. And my Sovereign. I sullied my reputation.... I'm the lowest of the low...." The other said, "Call Fergie's publisher."

When Sarah sent Princess Margaret an extravagant bouquet on her birthday, the Princess pitched the flowers. Then she fired off a letter to Fergie: "You have done more to bring shame on the family than ever could have been imagined. Not once have you hung your head in embarra.s.sment even for a minute after those disgraceful photographs. Clearly you have never considered the damage you are causing us all. How dare you discredit us like this and how dare you send me those flowers."

After published disclosures from former lovers and former employees, Sarah locked herself in her home for days, weeping inconsolably. Newspapers reported the Queen became so concerned, she placed her under a suicide watch. But the Palace denied the story, implying the Queen couldn't care less what her former daughter-in-law did to herself. The Palace reaction seemed to signal tacit permission to pile on. Days later the Sun Sun ran a poll asking, "Who would you rather date-Fergie or a goat?" The goat won by a ratio of seven to one. ran a poll asking, "Who would you rather date-Fergie or a goat?" The goat won by a ratio of seven to one.*

Seeing what happened to Fergie when she lost her t.i.tle, Diana objected to relinquishing hers. When Charles's lawyers suggested that she trade in HRH the Princess of Wales for the d.u.c.h.ess of Cornwall, she balked. Then they proposed that she be styled HFRH (Her Former Royal Highness). Diana turned to her supporters in the media, who debated the offer, pleading with the Queen to retain Diana's status and keep her within the royal family. They argued that as the mother of the future King she deserved no less. Historian John Grigg wrote, "The reductio ad absurdum reductio ad absurdum is that, if she were to cease to be HRH, she would be obliged to curtsy to Princess Michael of Kent." And to her own sons. is that, if she were to cease to be HRH, she would be obliged to curtsy to Princess Michael of Kent." And to her own sons.

Charles maintained that he did not care one way or the other about his wife's royal status. But he let it be known that his parents cared, particularly his father, who said that Diana was not ent.i.tled to be treated as royalty. In Philip's eyes she had betrayed the Firm, and her indiscretion and disloyalty barred her from any consideration other than bare civility. He was riled by her demand that any future children she might have by another man be given an hereditary t.i.tle. And she pushed too far when she proposed that Clarence House become her official residence upon the death of the Queen Mother. Philip insisted her t.i.tle be lifted, and the Queen agreed.

"At the end of the day, it became clear," said one of Diana's representatives, "that the lamb was going to be fleeced." So Diana was advised to yield what was about to be s.n.a.t.c.hed. Her lawyers tried to save face for her by negotiating a t.i.tle that sounded like the one she had enjoyed during her fifteen-year marriage. They settled on Diana, Princess of Wales. They also inserted a clause into the final agreement that she would be "considered on occasion a member of the royal family." One skeptic familiar with the legal doc.u.ment realistically a.s.sessed such an "occasion" as "when corgis fly."

Diana said she stopped fighting for her t.i.tle after talking to her fourteen-year-old son. She asked Wills if he would mind her not being called Her Royal Highness. "I don't mind what you're called," said the young Prince. "You're Mummy."

Yet by the standards of her world, she had been shorn of what had made her most valuable. Stripped of HRH, she lost her prized standing in society. As Diana, Princess of Wales, she was socially inferior to her own children. No longer royal, she resigned her patronage of more than one hundred charities and gave up her military regiments. Her friends worried about how she would survive such a blow. "I fear for her," wrote historian Paul Johnson, one of her staunchest defenders. "One society matron said to me yesterday: 'If I was publicly cast off like that, I really think I'd be tempted to do away with myself.' "

To the outside world, the thirty-five-year-old Princess still radiated royalty. Her sparkling beauty made her as lyrical as the "glimmering girl" of Yeats's poem who inspired the wandering aengus to pluck the "silver apples of the moon." But within her own world she was no longer a contender: "DI KO'd in Palace Rigged t.i.tle Fight" was one newspaper appraisal. Even antiroyalists, who sneered at social precedence, recognized that she had been flattened. "Throne for a loss," as one man put it. "She has lost something," wrote Stephen Glover in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, "which, according to the standards by which she lives, was infinitely precious." "which, according to the standards by which she lives, was infinitely precious."

The loss showed itself within days. Her once respectful press corps turned snippy. Photographers still showed up in full force to cover her because she remained the most famous woman in the world. But they started acting like hooligans, shouting in a way they would never have dared to do before. When she was royal they groveled: "Please, ma'am, one more shot." When she was no longer royal they were less respectful. One photographer, urging her to smile in his direction, hollered, "Hey, Di, cheat it to the left a little, will ya?" Unflattering photos began popping up: one caught her getting out of a car with mussed hair; another showed her skirt hiked up to her hips. Once adoring, some photographers acted as if she had personally offended them by losing her royal status. In retaliation they subjected her to the same harsh lens they aimed at pop divas and rock stars. Without the protection of her royal nimbus, Diana had been reduced to celebrity camera fodder like Mick, Michael, and Madonna.

Another indignity was inflicted on her while she was shopping in Harvey Nichols, her favorite London department store. A security guard directed a surveillance camera at her bosom and gathered footage of her cleavage. The guard was arrested for theft and taken into court, where the tape was produced. He was accused of video rape, but his female lawyer blamed Diana: "If a member of the public, whether royal or not, is willing to go into public showing a low cleavage, it ill behooves anyone to criticize the taking of a picture."

Weeks later a London tabloid published grainy photographs from a staged video that purported to be Diana in her bra doing a striptease for her former lover, James Hewitt, before jumping on top of him for a horsey-back ride. The photographs were published around the world. But the video was a hoax, and the newspaper apologized on page one. "We were conned by cunning fraudsters," said the editor, "and are sorry for any hurt or offense caused." What went unsaid was that Diana's previous behavior had been such that editors-and readers-were prepared to accept the trick as truth.

The royal divorce became final on August 28, 1996, and the Sun Sun headlined the news triumphantly: "Bye Bye Big Ears." Even Mother Teresa was pleased. "I know I should preach for family love and unity," the eighty-five-year-old nun told a reporter in India, "but n.o.body was happy anyhow." Britain's Prime Minister acted swiftly to rea.s.sure the country that Charles had no "immediate" plans to marry again. Then he briefed the Queen, warning her that remarriage, especially to Camilla Parker Bowles, would be disastrous for the monarchy. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Queen acknowledged the irony: the Church of England had been established precisely because of King Henry VIII's desire to divorce one wife and marry another. headlined the news triumphantly: "Bye Bye Big Ears." Even Mother Teresa was pleased. "I know I should preach for family love and unity," the eighty-five-year-old nun told a reporter in India, "but n.o.body was happy anyhow." Britain's Prime Minister acted swiftly to rea.s.sure the country that Charles had no "immediate" plans to marry again. Then he briefed the Queen, warning her that remarriage, especially to Camilla Parker Bowles, would be disastrous for the monarchy. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Queen acknowledged the irony: the Church of England had been established precisely because of King Henry VIII's desire to divorce one wife and marry another.

Charles had a talent for shooting himself in the foot. He let the press know that he had sent a letter to forty stores where Diana regularly shopped: "With effect from 2 September 1996, any expenditure incurred by or on behalf of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, on or after that date should be invoiced directly to the Princess of Wales's Office, Apartment 7, Kensington Palace, London." Then he announced that he planned "to celebrate" his divorce at Highgrove-with a Champagne party.

The country's sentiment was best expressed by the cartoonist who showed a huckster outside Buckingham Palace hawking royal playing cards. Chomping a cigar, the hustler pushed a deck of cards on a hapless young man who looked perplexed. "It's just like an ordinary pack, son, without the Queen of Hearts."

The monarchy had lost its brightest star, but the Queen was determined that the show go on without her. She instructed the souvenir shops of Balmoral, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace to remove all memorabilia with Diana's likeness-ashtrays, mugs, postcards. She also struck the Princess's name from the official prayers said for the royal family in Parliament. The move appeared "comically vindictive" to Tory MP Jerry Hayes. "To most people," he said, "it looks like they are trying to airbrush the Princess from the establishment in a Stalinist manner."

The Sunday Mail Sunday Mail agreed. "Diana should still be in our prayers," stated an editorial that chastised Parliament for its "mean and vengeful" decision. "They should recall that forgiveness is the first Christian virtue." agreed. "Diana should still be in our prayers," stated an editorial that chastised Parliament for its "mean and vengeful" decision. "They should recall that forgiveness is the first Christian virtue."

The final humiliation came when the Queen ordered the London Gazette London Gazette to publish the Letters Patent: this was Her Majesty's official notice to her government, her emba.s.sies, and her diplomatic missions that both her former daughters-in-law were toast. to publish the Letters Patent: this was Her Majesty's official notice to her government, her emba.s.sies, and her diplomatic missions that both her former daughters-in-law were toast.

"It's Wallis all over again, isn't it?" said the Queen Mother, shaking her head. She had received an advance copy of the notice that deprived Sarah Ferguson and Diana Spencer of their royal status without ever mentioning them by name. The Queen Mother had supported the move to strip "the troublesome girls" of their t.i.tles and was as complicit in the purge as she had been in depriving the d.u.c.h.ess of Windsor of her royal status. Now as then, the courtiers were as slick as seals. They dismissed the dry announcement as a routine matter of protocol: to inform people of the correct form of social address. But most everyone else saw the announcement as tactless and vengeful. They saw the monarch once again using the Letters Patent as a broom.

"First, you cauterize," said one of the Queen's advisers, "and then you heal." The scholarly adviser had written to the Queen, quoting the wisdom of England's sixteenth-century philosopher Francis Bacon, who said, "[He] that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator."

But the seventy-year-old Queen did not feel she needed the advice. After forty-five years on the throne, she had developed her own endgame. Without a shrewd Prime Minister such as Queen Victoria had in Disraeli, Elizabeth relied on her courtiers. They believed, as she did, that she was anointed by G.o.d. With her position divinely ordained, she did not feel a need to respond to the whims of public opinion like a politician. She viewed the monarchy as a sacred destiny, not a popularity contest.

But when her authority was challenged, she showed that she understood the past was prologue. Her grandfather had built the House of Windsor on an act of expediency, which enabled the monarchy to survive during the First World War. By camouflaging his German ancestry and reinventing himself as English, King George V had appeased his Hun-hating subjects. "He knew and understood his people, and the age in which they lived," said former prime minister Clement Atlee, "and progressed with them." The Bavarian n.o.bleman Count Albrecht von Montgelas saw it differently. "The true royal tradition died on that day in 1917, when for a mere war, King George V changed his name."

The Queen understood the price her grandfather had paid to save the monarchy, and she intended to protect his investment. She made her initial concession to survival when she became the first British monarch of the twentieth century to pay taxes. Then she removed most of her family from the Civil List. When her subjects would not pay to finance the restoration of Windsor Castle, she opened Buckingham Palace to the public and charged admission. She even made a gesture toward the largest religious denomination in her country by visiting a Roman Catholic church. This was the first time in four hundred years that a reigning British monarch had done so. By 1996 the Church of England represented only 2 percent of the population, while Roman Catholics represented 43 percent of churchgoing Britons.

Despite the Queen's concessions, the monarchy looked vulnerable as it tottered toward the year 2000. Viewed as a golden coach, the inst.i.tution that represented Britain to the world was tarnished and absurdly grandiose. The cha.s.sis wobbled and the wheels creaked. Shorn of its majesty, it barely limped along.

The Queen knew there would be a resurgence of fervor when the Queen Mother died. But she recognized the ardor would fade soon after the period of national mourning. As pragmatic as she was, she did not want to examine the elaborate plans for her mother's funeral.

"I don't need to address this now, do I?" she said, pushing aside the folder that contained the memorandum code-named Operation Lion. Its five pages outlined the procedures to be followed by the media after the Queen Mother's death. The Queen had determined that her mother would be accorded the grandest funeral since Winston Churchill's. She would lie in state for three days before being eulogized in Westminster Abbey. As a mark of respect, the broadcast networks had planned to suspend commercials. Their coverage of the funeral was to be solemn and stirring, featuring doc.u.mentaries of the royal family during World War II. Historical footage would show King George VI and Queen Elizabeth waving from the balcony of Buckingham Palace with the two little Princesses-"Us Four," as the King had called them.

The services were designed to remind Britain of its glorious past when the country withstood n.a.z.i bombs and the monarchy responded admirably. With full military honors, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother would be laid to rest with the extravagant t.i.tle she had styled for herself after her husband died.

Ordinarily unsentimental, the Queen resisted dealing with the harsh reality of her mother's eventual death, even after the Queen Mother reached her nineties. "My worst fear," the Queen told a friend, "is that Mummy will die, and then Margaret. And I'll be left alone."

Her subjects' worst fear was that the Queen might die and leave them alone with Charles. Resistance to her heir had grown increasingly vocal since his divorce. Polls showed that he did not have the support of his prospective subjects. Most said they did not want him to become King, and the Members of Parliament who represented them did not want to sacrifice their offices for an unpopular heir.

"Charles is unfit to be King," declared the Labor MP Ron Davies on television. "He's an adulterer who does not practice the precepts of the church.... He spends time talking to trees, flowers, and vegetables and... he encourages his young sons to go out into the countryside to kill wild animals and birds just for fun...."

The leader of the Labor Party, Tony Blair, who became Prime Minister in 1997, demanded the MP retract his remarks. So the MP reluctantly apologized for calling the future King a fornicating environmentalist who hugged trees and indulged in blood sports. Throughout his campaign, Blair had reiterated his party's support for continuing the monarchy. He could not afford to jeopardize his lead by threatening the country's natural conservatism with radical proposals. But his party, once firmly monarchist, was no longer unified. And a few rogue MPs, refusing to be silent, suggested eliminating the monarchy by an act of Parliament.

"The view that Charles is not fit to be King is shared by three-quarters of the people in the country," said Paul Flynn, a left-wing MP. "Forget the sycophantic drivel that the royals are somehow superior beings who have stepped out of a fairy tale. That has gone forever."

It looked as though the buzzards were circling the monarchy. Calling it an anachronism, another Labor MP demanded a referendum at the end of the Queen's reign on whether Britain should continue to have a hereditary head of state. The Press a.s.sociation conducted a straw vote of the Labor Party and reported a majority favored an open debate on the future of the monarchy.

"I was threatened with a.s.sa.s.sination when I made that suggestion twenty years ago," said former Labor MP Willie Hamilton, reflecting on the dramatic change in att.i.tude. "I was called a crank and a communist. It was easier to criticize G.o.d in this country than to criticize the monarchy. But no more."

"At such a turning point," asked the Guardian Guardian newspaper in 1996, "is it not also time seriously to consider the mechanisms for constructing the British Republic?" newspaper in 1996, "is it not also time seriously to consider the mechanisms for constructing the British Republic?"

The question seemed preposterous to those who judged the royal family by its entertainment value. "The American answer is simple," said a New York Times New York Times editorial, recommending that Britain retain its monarchy. "Of course they should keep it-for our amus.e.m.e.nt." editorial, recommending that Britain retain its monarchy. "Of course they should keep it-for our amus.e.m.e.nt."

There were no more seasoned actors than the British royal family. Like an old vaudeville troupe, they filed on stage to go through their practiced routines. Looking like rouged curiosities, they performed at weddings and funerals. In costume, they still drew a few regular spectators, but they lost their biggest crowds with the departure of their ingenue Princess. They knew that they were viewed best from afar; up close, their imperfections showed.

They had learned the hard way, and perhaps too late, the wisdom of the eighteenth-century revolutionary Thomas Paine. "Monarchy is something kept behind a curtain," he wrote, "about which there is a great deal of bustle and fuss, and a wonderful air of seeming solemnity. But when, by any accident, the curtain happens to be open, and the company see what it is, they burst into laughter."

The colorful cast was ridiculed when Fergie starred as its vixen. But when she bowed out, she had left behind a prince who finally became charming. Through his failed marriage Andrew had learned to behave with dignity in the face of disgrace. No matter what his former wife did to humiliate him and provoke criticism, he remained blessedly silent, discreet, and steadfast.

His father continued playing his role of leading man, although he had faded slightly as a matinee idol. His handsomeness had disappeared beneath age spots, which emphasized his sharp features under taut skin and made him look like a hawk. Still, at the age of seventy-five, he managed to stir a few hearts when he marched alongside the elderly veterans of World War II. Instead of standing with the royal family during a Remembrance Day ceremony, Philip stood with his shipmates. His n.o.ble gesture brought tears to the eyes of many who remembered the dashing naval officer, kneeling before a young queen at her coronation and promising to be her liegeman for life. After fifty years of marriage (give or take a few mistresses), he was still at her side with his elbow crooked, ready to receive her hand.

Because of his constancy to the Queen, most people tried to overlook his gaffes. But it was difficult, especially when his boorish remarks caused international incidents. In France he infuriated half his wife's subjects by saying, "British women can't cook." During a trip to Holland he observed crossly, "The Dutch are so po'faced." In Canada he snapped at officials, "We don't come here for our health." In Egypt he complained about Cairo's traffic. "The trouble with you Egyptians is that you breed too much," he said. In Peru he was presented with a history of the town of Lima, which he thrust into the hands of an aide, saying: "Here, take this. I'll never read it." In Scotland he asked a driving instructor, "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them to pa.s.s the test?" In Hungary he spotted a British tourist in Budapest. "You can't have been here long," he observed. "You haven't got a pot belly." He warned British students in China, "If you stay here much longer, you'll get slitty eyes."

An avid hunter, Philip publicly criticized England's proposed legislation to crack down on handguns. During a discussion of the ma.s.sacre of sixteen schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, the Duke said guns were no more dangerous than cricket bats. Parents of the slain children were shocked by the comment, and the Queen's husband was taken to task by the nation's press. "Wrong again, Prince Philip," was the headline of the Manchester Evening News Manchester Evening News editorial that criticized him "for shooting his mouth off without regard to the feelings of others." The next day the Palace issued an apology. editorial that criticized him "for shooting his mouth off without regard to the feelings of others." The next day the Palace issued an apology.

But the Queen appeared unruffled by her husband's diplomatic pratfalls. She tolerated his curmudgeonly manner and made no excuses for his off-the-cuff humor. Charles was the one who cringed. He worried most about the family's declining popularity, and he accused the press of making them look like lumpen royalty. He urged his parents to address the future-his future-and consider ways the monarchy could prepare for the twenty-first century.

From the shadows of Balmoral, he let it be known that the royal family was looking ahead. He indicated that he and his parents, his brothers, his sister, and his advisers were meeting twice a year. Their committee was called the Way Ahead Group, and their goal was to renovate the dilapidated House of Windsor. Under discussion were ideas that would radically reform the Crown. The most immediate was the family's intention to get off the public payroll. They agreed to end the annual Civil List payments (approximately $14 million from taxpayers) and suggested restoring to the Crown payments from the Crown Estates. These consist of three hundred thousand acres of prime real estate, whose rents and revenues produce more than $100 million a year. They were surrendered to Parliament by King George III in 1760.

"Devilishly cunning," said a government minister who showed the respect of a pickpocket for a bank robber. He figured the arithmetic (more than $100 million) as a break for the public and a boon for the royal family. "This would spare taxpayers while manifoldly enriching the monarchy; at the same time, it removes the Crown from public scrutiny, which legitimately keeps the press at bay.... How can the media justify invading their privacy when they are no longer supported by public dollars? Doubtful it would pa.s.s Parliament, but the proposal is admirable in its audacity."

Equally creative was the royal family's proposal to end the eleventh-century rule of primogeniture and allow women equal rights to succeed to the throne. They also committed themselves to downsizing: no more HRH aunts, uncles, or cousins. Upon the deaths of certain members of the royal family, the Firm would consist solely of the monarch, the consort, their children, and those grandchildren who are direct heirs to the throne.

The vote around the table at Balmoral was unanimous: Ditch the minor royals like HRH Prince Michael of Kent and his wife. The Kents had contributed their share of bad publicity to the royal family. She had been caught leaving her American lover's house disguised in a wig and sungla.s.ses. He had cashed in on being the Queen's cousin; he appeared on television to hawk the House of Windsor Collection, a mail-order catalog selling ersatz royal trinkets. Within months the marketing scheme became a financial disaster, which caused further embarra.s.sment. "We've got Ali Baba," joked one member of the royal family. "We don't need the Forty Thieves."

Charles recognized that an act of Parliament could deprive him of the throne, especially after he said that he did not want to be Defender of the Faith. Under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, the sovereign must swear to uphold the established Church of England and Church of Scotland. Charles was not in communion with either church. So the Way Ahead Group proposed separating the monarchy from the strictures of religion and dissolving the bonds of church and state.

As sovereign, Charles would have to commit himself to uphold the Protestant succession, which also troubled him. He did not understand why Roman Catholics had to be specifically excluded from succeeding to the throne. He said the rule, which also precluded a sovereign from marrying a Roman Catholic, was inherently unfair and discriminated against the 10 percent of Britain's 60 million people who were Roman Catholic. So he proposed eliminating the 295-year-old ban.

The heir was determined to acquire the throne. Although he had disappointed his future subjects by discarding a young wife and taking up with a weatherbeaten mistress, he would not step aside. Despite growing objections, he soldiered on. "I have dedicated myself to putting the great back into Britain," he said, "and that's what I intend to do." Yet even those who recalled the empire of Great Britain did not think he would become King.

Throughout the country people continued to stand for the loyal toast at formal black-tie dinners. They raised their gla.s.ses to salute the sovereign: "To the Queen," they would say in unison before sitting down. Even respectful republicans stood for the tribute. "No one is recommending a revolution," said Professor Stephen Haseler, chairman of Britain's Republican Society. "For most of us heading into the twenty-first century, the sentiment is: 'G.o.d save the Queen,' and then, 'Save us from her heirs.' "

To the professor, the monarchy looked as if it were ready to be walked to the wall for one last cigarette. He predicted dissension throughout the land if the Prince of Wales ascended to the throne. "King Charles III will split the nation down the middle," he said. "The only solution, short of anarchy, which no one advocates, is an act of Parliament, agreed to by the Queen, that upon her death or abdication, the monarchy would end and a new head of state would be elected."

The republicans were asking the Queen to dissolve her dynasty. The royalists were spluttering. They warned that abandoning the monarchy would traumatize the country and cause great upheaval. They said it would require restructuring the entire system of government and creating a written const.i.tution. And they predicted that the cla.s.s system would disappear and the House of Lords would collapse. The republicans agreed and approved. They argued that the structural moves were necessary to revitalize the country. The national debate had begun, and words once considered treasonous were uttered without rebuke.

Crowded between republicans and royalists, though, was the majority. They wanted to retain the monarchy but bypa.s.s the future monarch. "It's as simple as ABC-Anybody But Charles," said one MP, recommending that the Queen move to make Princess Anne the next monarch. Polls in 1996 showed great support for the idea. Others suggested skipping Charles and going directly to his older son, as Diana had proposed.

"The best hope is to jump a generation and appoint Prince William as the Queen's successor," wrote Paul Johnson in the Spectator. Spectator. "That solution would eliminate the foolish and unpopular Charles and might prove a winner with the public." "That solution would eliminate the foolish and unpopular Charles and might prove a winner with the public."

Americans agreed. For their youth-crazed, celebrity-driven culture, the solution was ideal. People People magazine described the young prince as "a looker just like his mom." magazine described the young prince as "a looker just like his mom." Time Time put him on the cover and asked: "Can This Boy Save the Monarchy?" British commentator Julie Burchill expressed doubts. "I hope for the best for Wills," she said, "but I would be very surprised if he turns out to be normal, because that's the maddest family since the Munsters.... We wouldn't be shocked if he turned out to be a cross-dresser who wanted to marry a corgi...." put him on the cover and asked: "Can This Boy Save the Monarchy?" British commentator Julie Burchill expressed doubts. "I hope for the best for Wills," she said, "but I would be very surprised if he turns out to be normal, because that's the maddest family since the Munsters.... We wouldn't be shocked if he turned out to be a cross-dresser who wanted to marry a corgi...."

Bookmakers began taking bets on whether the monarchy would survive into the next century. The odds soared to one hundred to one in 1994 but tumbled the next year to five to one. a.s.sessing the imponderables in 1996, one London bookmaker from the William Hill firm predicted: "The smart money says Her Majesty steps aside at the age of seventy-five and turns the crown over to Charles. Right now, that's the only way she can ensure her heir succeeds her to the throne. Within the next five years, she works out a deal with the Prime Minister. Whether the government is Tory or Labor makes no difference because both parties have committed to supporting the monarchy. If the Queen makes the request, she won't be refused."

The "if" is operative. Some bookmakers are hedging their bets because they question the maternal instincts of the dutiful monarch. At best they see her as an inattentive parent, who is no longer inclined to give up her crown for her middle-aged son. "She is dedicated to her duty," said one London bookmaker. "She has described her job as a job for life. She'll never abdicate. Based on that, I'd give long odds on the Queen stepping aside before she goes to the angels."

Few criticize the Queen as a monarch. It's the mother who has failed. She has produced three children who are divorced and one who is still floundering. That's a sorry score for people whose only job in life is to live happily ever after. They are not evil, just venal. But being hapless and unheroic, they rubbed the l.u.s.ter off the House of Windsor and left it looking shopworn.

Many years ago, Farouk, the last King of Egypt, had predicted that most monarchies would disappear by the turn of the century. "By then there will be only five kings left in the world," he said. "The king of hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades-and the King of England." He, too, had been beguiled by the mystique of the British monarchy. the King of England." He, too, had been beguiled by the mystique of the British monarchy.

"In its mystery is its life," wrote historian Walter Bagehot more than a hundred years ago. "We must not let daylight in upon magic."

Since then the magic has been harshly exposed. Yet the weight of history favors survival of an inst.i.tution that continues to reinvigorate itself. Even as Britain rea.s.sesses its monarchy, the monarchy retains its genius for adaptability and compromise, almost defying destruction. Rooted mystically in religion and patriotism, it cannot be removed without leaving a gaping hole in the psyche of the country. As durable as the White Cliffs of Dover, the inst.i.tution has existed for 1,200 years among people who have cherished pageantry and treasured mythology. The magic is not completely understood, even by devoted monarchists, who acknowledge that not all kings and queens have been good and n.o.ble and wise. But they have survived because their subjects had a need to believe in them. That yearning to look up to someone or something grand, even grandiose, still exists. Although the G.o.dlike l.u.s.ter has eroded and the inst.i.tution has been diminished, even disgraced, the need for enchantment endures and the hope for renewal remains.

Epilogue.

The death of Diana knocked the wind out of the Windsors. Her death also shook the head of the house, the Queen herself. She was awakened at 3:30 A.M. A.M. on August 31, 1997, at Balmoral by a telephone call from her private secretary. She admitted her first reaction was to think: "At this time of the morning it had better be important." on August 31, 1997, at Balmoral by a telephone call from her private secretary. She admitted her first reaction was to think: "At this time of the morning it had better be important."

Diana met death in Paris. Chased by paparazzi on motorcycles and in cars, the limousine in which she was riding crashed into the side of a roadway tunnel.

Seconds before the crash, French police say, the speedometer froze at 121 miles an hour-triple the speed limit. They also say the driver was drunk and under the influence of prescription drugs for depression and alcoholism. He died instantly.

Diana's companion, Dodi Fayed, riding with her in the back seat, was also killed on impact.

His bodyguard, riding in the front of the black Mercedes-Benz, was the only person wearing a seatbelt. He was severely injured, but he was the only one who survived.

The BBC announcement of the Princess's death punched a hole in people's hearts. "I feel as if the brightest star has been yanked from the sky," said a London woman upon hearing the news. "We're plunged into an awful darkness." The British flag was lowered to half-staff and the national anthem, "G.o.d Save the Queen," was played in Diana's memory. Ironically, Queen Elizabeth had taken that honor from her months before when she stripped the Princess of her royal t.i.tle after her divorce.

Fighting back tears, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to comfort a nation convulsed by grief. "She was the people's princess," he said, "and that's how she will stay, how she will remain, in our hearts and in our memories forever."

Sobbing in the streets, people gathered to mourn Diana. In London, they prayed in churches, stood outside her gym, left flowers in front of her favorite restaurants. They thronged the grounds of Kensington Palace, where she had lived, and heaped bouquets in front of the wrought-iron gates. "Born a lady, became a princess, died a saint," read one card. A hand-lettered sign said: "She now reigns as the Queen of broken hearts."

The President of the United States expressed his country's condolences, as did South Africa's President Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa of Calcutta. (The aged nun, in failing health at the time, died a few days later in India. Her death was treated as little more than a media footnote compared to that of Diana.) In Washington, D.C., Americans treated the departed princess like a queen. Hundreds gathered outside the British emba.s.sy to pay their last respects, standing in line for hours to sign the condolences book. At the U.S. Open in New York City, the tennis star Andre Aga.s.si wore a black ribbon on his shoulder. And in Geneva, the International Red Cross lowered its flag to half-staff in memory of the Princess whose last humanitarian mission had been to Bosnia to campaign against land mines.

Only weeks earlier, British opinion polls showed for the first time that a majority of the country no longer supported the royal family. Disappointment with the badly behaved House of Windsor was widespread, especially among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds, who believed the country would be better off without them. "A hand full of gimme and a pocket full of much obliged," was one a.s.sessment. Within the horde of mourners gathering in front of Buckingham Palace to pay homage to Diana, there was muted criticism of the Queen, who remained secluded in her castle at Balmoral.

"Just once," sobbed a woman kneeling in prayer, "couldn't Her Majesty step down to confront her subjects? It wouldn't impair her dignity.... Just a word, a tear, some kind of gesture-just once-to show she cares." For five days after the tragedy, the Queen remained silent. The media criticized her for failing to appear in public and join in the outpouring of sorrow sweeping the country. "Show Us You Care," shouted a headline in the Daily Express. Daily Express. "Where Is Our Queen? Where Is Her Flag?" cried "Where Is Our Queen? Where Is Her Flag?" cried The Sun. The Sun. Over large photos of stricken mourners, Over large photos of stricken mourners, The Mirror The Mirror pleaded, "Your People Are Suffering. Speak to Us, Ma'am." pleaded, "Your People Are Suffering. Speak to Us, Ma'am."

Concerned, the Prime Minister suggested to the Palace that a few words of sympathy from the Queen might help mollify the animosity. The Queen's courtiers resisted. They felt it was not the monarch's responsibility to minister to mourners. But the politically astute Prime Minister disagreed. He got in touch with the Prince of Wales, who interceded with his mother, telling her that it was "mandatory" the royal family appear responsive. So she agreed to allow the Union Jack to be flown at half-staff over Buckingham Palace on the day of the funeral. This was a historic concession on the Queen's part because the honor is accorded only to monarchs who have died. She later disclosed through a spokesman that she had been "hurt" by the suggestion that she was indifferent to her subjects' sense of loss.

On the eve of the funeral, the Queen agreed to leave Balmoral, return to London, and address the public on television. But even in a scripted speech, which she delivered live against a backdrop of mourners milling around Buckingham Palace, the seventy-one-year-old monarch could not bring herself to say that she had loved Diana. Rather, she praised the Princess as "an exceptional and gifted human being." She said she admired and respected her former daughter-in-law "for her energy and commitment to others, and especially for her devotion to her two boys." She thanked people who had brought flowers, sent messages, and paid their respects by signing the book of condolences. Before addressing the nation, she had resolved to mix with her subjects. But she looked as unyielding as a stiff upper lip.

Dressed in a black dress, hat, and gloves, and carrying a big black purse, she appeared with Prince Philip and moved haltingly among the crowds gathered outside of St. James's Palace. She maintained a certain distance from people in the lines but, despite her discomfort with small talk, those nearby seemed to appreciate her effort.

Obviously affected by his former wife's death, Prince Charles had flown to Paris with her two sisters to bring Diana's body home. Charles looked forlorn at the London airport as he stood next to her coffin, which had been regally draped with the royal family's standard. An honor guard of the Royal Air Force hoisted the box and carried it into the chapel at St. James's Palace, the Prince's private residence in London. Charles left immediately to return to Balmoral to be with his sons, William, fifteen, and twelve-year-old Harry.

Diana's brother, the Earl Spencer, read an impa.s.sioned statement from his home in Capetown, South Africa, and accused the press of killing his sister. He said editors who fed off her image were bounty hunters with blood on their hands.

"I always believed that the press would kill her in the end," he said, "but not even I could imagine that they would take such a direct hand in the death, as seems to be the case."

No public reaction came from Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, who lived alone in Scotland. Sadly, she and Diana had not been speaking. Their fragile relationship had fallen apart months before when Mrs. Shand Kydd, sixty-one years old, gave an interview to h.e.l.lo! h.e.l.lo! magazine. She had talked about Diana's childhood, her eating disorders, and her relationship with Prince Charles. Although she criticized both the Prince and Princess of Wales for their television confessionals, Diana's mother would not take her daughter's side in the breakup of her marriage. Nor would she speak out against the Prince of Wales. In fact, she seemed oddly pleased that Diana had been stripped of her royal t.i.tle in the divorce, saying that liberation from the exalted status was "absolutely wonderful." magazine. She had talked about Diana's childhood, her eating disorders, and her relationship with Prince Charles. Although she criticized both the Prince and Princess of Wales for their television confessionals, Diana's mother would not take her daughter's side in the breakup of her marriage. Nor would she speak out against the Prince of Wales. In fact, she seemed oddly pleased that Diana had been stripped of her royal t.i.tle in the divorce, saying that liberation from the exalted status was "absolutely wonderful."

Diana complained to a friend that she felt betrayed by her mother and expressed "complete shock" to another friend, Richard Kay, the Daily Mail Daily Mail reporter, about the private details revealed. Diana also told him she was "bitterly disappointed and let down" by reporter, about the private details revealed. Diana also told him she was "bitterly disappointed and let down" by h.e.l.lo! h.e.l.lo! magazine, which had not given her advance notice about the story. She said she felt she had a special relationship with the publication since 1994, after it bought-but never published-topless photos of her in Spain. But after the interview with her mother, Diana banned magazine, which had not given her advance notice about the story. She said she felt she had a special relationship with the publication since 1994, after it bought-but never published-topless photos of her in Spain. But after the interview with her mother, Diana banned h.e.l.lo! h.e.l.lo! photographers from covering her next charity appearance. The photographers from covering her next charity appearance. The Daily Mail Daily Mail capsulized her reaction to capsulized her reaction to h.e.l.lo! h.e.l.lo!'s how-do-you-do with this front-page headline on May 28, 1997: "DIANA FURY AT MOTHER'S STORY."

Several weeks later, the Princess again talked to Richard Kay. This time she confided her disgust with the d.u.c.h.ess of York, and on August 2, 1997, the Daily Mail Daily Mail dutifully ran a full-page feature: "THE REAL REASON WHY DIANA REFUSES TO TALK TO FERGIE." The off-and-on friendship between the two women had finally foundered when Fergie claimed in her autobiography that she had contracted foot warts after borrowing a pair of Diana's shoes. dutifully ran a full-page feature: "THE REAL REASON WHY DIANA REFUSES TO TALK TO FERGIE." The off-and-on friendship between the two women had finally foundered when Fergie claimed in her autobiography that she had contracted foot warts after borrowing a pair of Diana's shoes.

"But there is much more than this tasteless revelation behind Diana's animosity," said the newspaper. "Sadly, it has spread to Diana's children, especially fifteen-year-old Prince William." Apparently, the young man felt increasingly uneasy that the d.u.c.h.ess was trying to use his mother's much greater international celebrity for her own ambitions. Diana agreed, and stopped speaking to her former sister-in-law.

A black man mourning Diana's death reflected on her ruptured relationships with her family as he stood in front of Kensington Palace. "She was let down by everyone around her," he said. "Her husband, her lovers, her mother, her sister-in-law-her real family and the royal family.... I think we were the only ones-commoners like me-who truly valued her because she valued us." From a deck of playing cards, he had plucked out the queen of hearts and placed it atop the carpet of flowers.

A young woman in a T-shirt and jeans approached the palace gate in tears and left her offering: a picture of the princess in a tiara pasted above a few lines of poetry by W. H. Auden: [She] was my North, my South, my East and West, [She] was my North, my South, my East and West,My working week and my Sunday rest,My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood;For nothing now can ever come to any good.

In among the flowers and stuffed animals was a smashed camera with a card that read: "This is the murder weapon that killed our beloved princess."

Many people blamed the paparazzi for Diana's death and, like her brother, held the media responsible. The public fury abated slightly after the French police released results of a blood alcohol test showing that the driver, Henri Paul, head of security for the Ritz Hotel, was intoxicated at three times the legal limit.

Some people took comfort from Diana's relationship with the new man in her life, Emad Mohamed al-Fayed, known to friends as Dodi. She had been enjoying the last night of their vacation-their fourth in five weeks-when both of them were killed. Earlier, she had taken a five-day trip to Greece with her friend Rosa Monckton, and, to Diana's delight, Dodi called her constantly. "She was happy, enjoying herself, and liked the feeling of having someone who not only so obviously cared for her, but was not afraid to be seen doing so," Rosa wrote in an article after Diana's death. But she also recalled Diana's irritation when Dodi recited a list of the presents he had purchased for her, including a Cartier pearl-twist bracelet with a pearl-and-diamond dragon clasp and a reversible Jaeger-Le Coultre wrist.w.a.tch.

"That's not what I want, Rosa," she was quoted as saying. "It makes me uneasy. I don't want to be bought. I have everything I want. I just want someone to be there for me, to make me feel safe and secure." She meant, of course, emotionally secure.

The two women spoke by mobile telephone on the afternoon of August 27, four days before Diana's death.

"Just tell me, is it bliss?" asked Rosa.