home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
090594
/
09059938.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-26
|
5KB
|
110 lines
<text id=94TT1208>
<title>
Sep. 05, 1994: Royals:Sorry, Wrong Number
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Sep. 05, 1994 Ready to Talk Now?:Castro
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
ARTS & MEDIA/ROYALS, Page 79
Sorry, Wrong Number
</hdr>
<body>
<p> A British newspaper reports that police believe the Princess
of Wales made 300 crank phone calls to a married male friend
</p>
<p>By Martha Duffy--Reported by Helen Gibson/ London
</p>
<p> The royal farce continues. Last week the Queen of England's
corgis, gathered at London's Heathrow Airport to welcome her
home after a glum royal tour of Canada, passed the time by terrorizing
a German shepherd employed by the police. The cop dog was rescued.
Meanwhile, the ravening tabloids were already squaring off for
the November confrontation between two royal tell-all books:
Jonathan Dimbleby's on Prince Charles, based on his recent TV
program; and the sequel by Andrew Morton to his 1992 super-best
seller on the Princess of Wales, called Diana: Her New Life.
</p>
<p> But the juiciest news last week appeared in the tabloid News
of the World, which claimed Diana had made some 300 hang-up
calls to a well-connected London art dealer, Oliver Hoare, 48.
Hoare feared the calls were the work of terrorists who knew
his business is in Middle Eastern art. But according to the
tabloid, a police investigation showed they were made from phones
in Kensington Palace, where Diana lives, from pay phones near
the palace, from Diana's car phone and from the home of her
sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale.
</p>
<p> Just as with the Squidgy tapes and Camillagate--already part
of the language--the Waleses were undone by the telephone.
To deny the charges, mysteriously leaked to the paper, Diana
took the unusual step of contacting a rival royals reporter,
the Daily Mail's handsome Richard Kay. Well, she almost denied
them. Kay reported she had been in phone contact with the dashing
Hoare at the time the calls began in September 1992, just before
the Waleses separated. Hoare was an old friend of the couple
and, hoping to save the marriage, tried to negotiate between
them. When Hoare's wife answered, Kay wrote, Diana may have
replaced the receiver--but 300 times? Diana said she was not
a nuisance caller and produced her diary, which shows that she
was sometimes out on appointments when she was supposedly at
home conducting phone war.
</p>
<p> "I don't even know how to use a parking meter, let alone a phone
box," she cried, noting quite shrewdly that "whoever is trying
to destroy me is inevitably damaging the institution of the
monarchy." Diana is in an increasingly vulnerable position.
Since her separation from Charles in December 1992, she has
searched for a private life. The media frenzy has continued
unabated, however, and last December she announced her semiretirement
from public activities. None of it has made much difference.
She is still the most photographed woman in the world.
</p>
<p> Diana, who has a strong will but a fragile temperament, may
really have buckled under the strains that followed her decision
to leave her old, privileged life as Charles' rejected wife.
No new life is open to her, and any attempts to get to know
another man would be met with a furor. Observers of the British
Establishment--a powerful force comprising senior Conservative
politicians, civil servants, heads of financial institutions,
certain members of the intelligentsia and the aristocracy--have noted how it is closing ranks behind Charles. In '92 Diana
was the wronged woman; now she is portrayed as selfish, a spendthrift
and maybe crazy.
</p>
<p> The royals can be vindictive; their campaign against Wallis
Simpson in the '30s and '40s was all-out war. But it may be
time to bury the halberd. For one thing, Diana is the mother
of Charles' heir. For another, both Waleses will probably suffer
from Morton's forthcoming revelations--cooperation will mitigate
the damage. As William Rees-Mogg, a wise columnist for the London
Times, has pointed out, "Both the Prince and the Princess have
some of those lethal friends who believe one can show loyalty
to one partner in a broken marriage by denigrating the other."
He added, "Every time she is put down, that also puts down not
only the immediate heir to the throne but also the ultimate
heirs."
</p>
<p> Rees-Mogg is right: the Crown depends on orderly succession,
and it is threatened more by the media than by any other encroachments
of modern society. Some critics, such as Richard Tomlinson,
author of the tart, knowledgeable Divine Right: The Inglorious
Survival of British Royalty, blame the Windsors for their plight
because the family has used TV skillfully to portray themselves
as a happy superclan. Tomlinson reasons that the royals, having
courted the press, must live with the consequences when journalists
seize on gaffes and topless photos. But the Windsors cannot
be held responsible for all their woes. The media lay waste
to any ground they conquer. It is Charles' bad luck that he
chose a wife who represents the popular ideal for a 21st century
queen: beautiful and outgoing, with a common touch only the
Queen Mother can equal. But as the old rhyme goes, he couldn't
keep her. And the cameras can't let her go.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>