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