TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/122192/12219935.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 6KB | 129 lines

                                                                                BRITAIN, Page 50

THE NEW ROYAL WATCH: Waiting for Wills


Charles and Diana separate officially, but the announcement
raises more problems than it solves

By MARTHA DUFFY -- With reporting by Helen Gibson/London


    Princess Diana broke the news to her sons at Highgrove,
the hated country house she visited for the last time to remove
her possessions. Prince Charles sought out the boys at their
boarding school to reassure them about his separation from
their mother. Then, last Wednesday, British Prime Minister John
Major announced the split in the House of Commons in a move
timed to get the worst of the press coverage over with before
the little princes' Christmas break.

    The Prince and Princess of Wales acted wisely on behalf of
their sons, because the media coverage was extraordinary. Every
paper, broadsheet and tabloid was lying in wait with exhaustive
stories. The next morning, the Sun devoted 26 pages to the
split. To judge by reaction in the streets, it was a sad day.
The fairy-tale marriage was finally over after 11 years, and
people were sorry to see the last gleaming gossamer fade into
cobweb.

    But regret and human sympathy were quickly outdistanced by
more practical doubts. Exactly what did the separation
announcement, released by the palace, accomplish? "Their Royal
Highnesses," it intoned, "would like to stress first and
foremost that this decision is amicable . . . There have been
no third parties involved, on either side." Well, fine, but the
pair have scarcely been able to look at each other, never mind
speak, in public, and each has been caught in indiscreet
phonefests with a "confidant."


    The real boggler was the statement that "there is no
reason why Her Royal Highness should not become Queen." That
message caused gasps in Parliament. The reaction reflects in
part the fact that few believe the Waleses' assurance that they
have no plans to divorce. Royal credibility is low on such
matters. When Princess Margaret and Princess Anne ended their
marriages, the announcements were similar, but divorce followed.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York released a joint
statement that the breakup does not affect Charles' future
position as head of the Church of England. But that church
frowns on divorce. As to remarriage, the stricture is so firm
that Princess Anne went to Scotland last Saturday to wed
Commander Timothy Laurence.

    Tory M.P. John Bowis spoke for many when he said, "It
would be absurd to think of two royal processions coming from
different directions to the Abbey for a coronation. If it is not
possible to have a happy monarch and family, I think we should
skip a generation and wait for William." The succession issue
lies at the heart of the monarchy; for the institution to
survive, it must be stable. If the Waleses pursue other romantic
interests, as is likely, the Windsors may reel into even
thornier problems than they faced in 1992.

    Even the timing of the separation statement was ridiculed.
Major canceled a meeting with Jacques Delors, President of the
European Commission, just before the Edinburgh summit. Says
London University constitutional expert Peter Hennessy: "Royal
issues still override all other issues." Anthony Holden, a
biographer of Prince Charles, remarks of the announcement, "It
just may be that Major is dumb enough to think that the
Edinburgh conference would bury it, and the royal family is dumb
enough to think that Princess Anne's marriage would obscure it."

    The notion that this move will give either Charles or
Diana any more private freedom is strictly wishful thinking. If
anything, the press will be more relentless. Charles will find
a national stakeout on himself and his friend Camilla
Parker-Bowles, and tabloid writers are sure to be bolder.

    The separation announcement confirms that the tabs were
right, a tough fact for the royal family to face. The palace
clings to the one thing Charles and Diana undoubtedly have in
their favor: both conduct their public lives energetically and
responsibly. Now, despite official denials, there will be
separate "courts" of competing loyal cadres. But it would be a
mistake to think that the estrangement will turn into another
Woody-Mia fracas. The couple have great vested interests in
common: the throne must be secure for their son.

    Diana looks to be the victor in the separation
negotiations. Care of the children will be shared, but Diana
gets a reported $1.55 million a year, the Kensington Palace
apartments, a staff that is mostly her own, continuance of her
status as a senior member of the royal family and a life free
from Charles' glower. She may have insisted on Major's
underscoring her right to be Queen. With the clamor in
Parliament, this may be an unrealistic notion. But Diana should
not be counted out; her friends say the public has not seen the
extent of her portfolio. More and more, she moves center-stage.
Quips Holden: "If she manages to pull down the monarchy by
mistake, she will be elected the first President of the People's
Republic of Britain."

    No one is pushing Charles' candidacy for this hypothetical
job. In instant TV polls, he was the clear loser in the blame
game. He is said to be humiliated by the revelation of the
raunchy, so-called Camillagate tapes. His whole life has gone
into preparing to ascend a throne that now seems as remote as
Camelot.

    If the Windsors can weather the next several years, their
prospects may improve. Charles and Diana are due for a rough
passage; but as their new lives take shape, the direction of the
Crown may also become clear. In the meantime, Queen Elizabeth
II, 66, must hang in there, as she has for 40 years; her family
has not allowed her an easeful old age. Prince William of Wales
may be the savior of the monarchy, but he is only 10.