TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/072991/0729520.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 10.6 KB | 213 lines

                                                                                PROFILE, Page 64

A Royal Star Shines On Her Own


Now thirtysomething, facing the 10th anniversary of a troubled
marriage, DIANA, Princess of Wales, navigates a tough passage
with grit and grace

BY MARTHA DUFFY/LONDON


    Black skies, rain squalls, a cutting wind. June in Wales.
On a bald hill outside Cardiff sits the Polytechnic of Wales,
a scruffy institute that aspires to university status. Along
its main drive hundreds of people have gathered -- local
dignitaries, students, faculty, many humbler school employees.
So have several members of the press.

    Presently, a convoy of black cars purrs up, and out of one
appear sensational legs, feet shod in high purple pumps, and a
blur of bright pink cheerful enough to part the clouds. The
tall young woman who alights smiles radiantly, her carriage
plumb line but her head tilted slightly down so that you see the
whites setting off huge blue eyes -- a far more effective beauty
tactic than any cosmetic. Diana, Princess of Wales, the woman
who will be Queen of England and is already the world's reigning
celebrity, has come to Pontypridd.

    Although the official reason for the visit is the
unveiling of a plaque, most of Diana's time is spent on a
walkabout and chitchat with random members of the crowd. As the
student orchestra saws out reverent tunes, she helps a boy with
a speech impediment through the arduous business of telling her
he loves her and hopes to see her soon again. To a handsome
student who sports a box cut despite his straight hair, she
says, "I think we should exchange hairdos." Nice, and just
naughty enough. He and his post-Mod buddies preen like
princelings.

    There are a few disgruntled people around: the press.
"Damn!" bellows a photographer. "The old pink again. I'm not
staying here." The press is as much a part of the princess's
life as her exercise regimen. The vivid dress that seems an
inspired choice for a nasty day has in fact been photographed
many times over at least two years. Has she forgotten how to
play this game?

    "She's wearing her old clothes to try to shift the
spotlight onto him," gripes another cameraman, "and it won't
work." Him, of course, is the problematic Prince Charles, whose
dilatory connubial ways have the brazen British tabloids -- and
increasingly the world press -- in a feeding frenzy.

    Diana's enduring allure has surprised everyone, including
the lady herself. The public obsession with the smallest
details of her smart clothes, her hair, her sons and her chums
has made royal family life far more compelling and financially
exploitable than any TV saga. What did they do without her a
mere 10 years ago -- the media, the publishers, the tourist and
fashion industries, the gewgawmakers? What did the royals
themselves do?

    This hands-on princess loves picking up babies, whether or
not they have AIDS. In her endless hospital rounds, she ignores
the doctors and holds hands with the patients. If she visits a
center for the aged during ballroom-dancing class, she finds an
elderly partner and does a turn on the floor. By way of
contrast, Princess Anne's work with children has been unstinting
and effective, but she will not cuddle on camera.

    All working royals are patrons of British charities, but
how active they are varies greatly. Diana's profile has come
into focus in the past four-odd years. She favors groups that
help the underprivileged and the maimed. In the cutthroat
funding competitions of the charity world, her combination of
regal presence and natural flair is rare, and golden. To
Margaret Jay, director of the National AIDS Trust, Diana's great
contribution is in "influencing attitudes. Her speech saying
AIDS involved everyone, not just marginal groups, was worth
hundreds of millions in ads." Contends Zelda West-Meads of the
marriage counseling group RELATE: "She would be a natural
counselor. She makes people feel that she won't be shocked by
what they say, that she won't think of them as failures because
they've made a mess of their lives."

    Because Diana's approach is so blunt, her personality
comes across in any appearance or photo spread. At 30, "shy Di"
is just a memory. Gone are the public episodes of staring
intently at the ground, nodding off on daises, as well as the
occasional hogging of the spotlight at her husband's expense
when the press is around. Diana has found her role. She is a
thoroughly modern princess who is an ebullient companion to her
boys (there is plenty of help, however, around Kensington
Palace) and a zealous patron of her charities. Though she lives
by the bizarre protocols of a make-believe world, she radiates
accessibility. Most commentators consider her the most effective
member of the royal family, and her popularity in polls zoomed
when she checked into the hospital last month to be near her
injured child, William.

    Still, Diana is not a new sprig in British royalty but
rather a fresh example of something that has allowed the House
of Windsor to endure. The laws of primogeniture may prevail, but
the strength of the dynasty is in its women, not its men. In the
'30s, Edward VIII abdicated after a brief reign to marry Wallis
Simpson; his shy brother George VI handled a tough job well
during World War II, but the strain of ruling contributed to his
death at 56. Prince Charles, 42, is well versed in the public
controversies he relishes, but he remains a remote man and a bit
of a ditherer. It is Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, 90, her
daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, 65, and Diana who dominate this
unlikely and quizzical institution and are capable of making it
seem as much a part of civic life as the post office.

    Last June, when Charles missed the annual Order of the
Garter procession because of his latest bout with back pain, his
place in the line was taken by the ancient Queen Mother, who was
spry and fit. When the teenage Diana Spencer was engaged to her
prince, it was the Queen Mum who stepped in again, coaching her
on the fine points of being a royal.

    The two women have a lot in common. Both have effortless
charm and a popular touch that politicians would kill for. The
camera worships them: Queen Mum in her spun-sugar hat, pastel
coat anchored by a huge, gem-laden brooch and a dusting of
ostrich feathers; Diana in her elegant column of silk or her
inspired off-duty wardrobe (including a Philadelphia Eagles
jacket). These women just don't take a bad picture. Perhaps only
the Pope is as photogenic.

    There are plenty of bad shots of Queen Elizabeth -- dowdy,
frowning or smiling fixedly. There are even snaps where she
simply disappears, as she did while addressing Congress last
May. But in action, she hasn't put a foot wrong in decades. She
has dealt effectively with nine Prime Ministers. Last month,
when some Labour M.P.s tried to promote a bill demanding she pay
taxes on some $80 million annual private income (other family
members do), they couldn't arouse much interest. People think
the Queen works hard.

    Perfect in tact, she keeps her political and architecture
opinions, her thoughts about female clergy, to herself. Her
patience with her large family is limitless. Daughter-in-law
Fergie may be greedy, son Edward flaky. Daughter Anne's
estranged husband hit the headlines this year with stories about
a New Zealand love child. Even her eldest son, and heir, is
making a deplorable mess of his marriage. But the Queen takes
the long view, and it is with her that most British families
identify.

    Will Diana ever be such a paragon? Probably not; she is
too strong willed and emphatic. She also has an acute sense of
what she finds boring. High on that list are theoretical
matters, politics and intellectual pursuits. Charles enjoys
metaphysical speculation and would fit nicely into an Iris
Murdoch novel as a member of her slightly woolly-headed
intelligentsia. Diana prefers a good gossip. She avoids the
staff during her hospital and shelter visits because she is only
interested in concrete things. She is said to be genuinely funny
and loves a kick-off-your-shoes good time.

    Ever since Charles went off to the opera right after Wills
was hospitalized, the tabloids have smelled blood. A favorite
rumor links him with fortyish Camilla Parker-Bowles, a neighbor
in the country whom he courted, and could have married, nearly
20 years ago. When the Waleses did not spend July 1 -- Diana's
30th birthday -- together, the coverage became relentless. The
fact that the princess sported a new gold and mother-of-pearl
bracelet the next day went virtually unreported. The situation
is said to upset the Queen (no one has the least idea what she
thinks about anything). Charles' pals put out the word that he
had offered a grand party, but Diana turned it down on grounds
of excess stuffiness.

    As usual, Charles' tactic was perceived as graceless. It
is his misfortune that Diana's natural p.r. is unbeatable. In
addition to being adorable, she is a devoted and highly visible
mother. Charles is not often photographed with his boys. In
fact, pictures of him with his wife are sparse, according to
photographers, because he is so often making a face or pulling
at his ear. As bad luck would have it, the 10th royal
anniversary is July 29. Again no festivities are scheduled. The
stage is set for a replay of the birthday fiasco.

    Though the strains between the Waleses were all too
evident in July 1991, the couple probably worked out a mutual
accommodation at least three years ago. That's when the loud
rows at private dances stopped (Charles seldom goes anymore) and
when almost all public appearances became solo. It is inevitable
that Diana will upstage him -- he is no Jack to her Jackie --
and separation keeps the prince's evident jealousy in check.

    Diana's mother is known as a bolter: she ran off with a
lover, leaving her four young children. A similar flight is
often predicted for Diana in the next decade. It won't happen.
She might not be able to give her feelings the mystical drum
roll that Charles can manage, but Diana believes in the Crown
fully as much as he does, and works for it tirelessly. Early
this month, the Economist printed a thoughtful story about the
British constitution. Its proposals did not include abolishing
the monarchy. Should it go? According to the Economist, "Common
sense and political prudence chime, No. It makes people happy.
Cromwell made them cross." Diana's achievement in the past 10
years has been to turn up the megawattage on the happy side. She
ought to do just fine in the 21st century.