TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 072991 / 0729520.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 11.0 KB | 221 lines

<text id=91TT1703> <title> July 29, 1991: Profile:Princess Diana </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991 July 29, 1991 The World's Sleaziest Bank </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> PROFILE, Page 64 A Royal Star Shines On Her Own </hdr> <body> 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. </body> </article> </text>