(6 of 7)
By now, the Windsors are pretty much in disarray, even as books about them are becoming more dangerous. The most recent is the Bradford biography of the Queen (Farrar, Straus & Giroux), due out in the U.S. in April but excerpted in the London Times in January. Bradford, the author of several respected books, was considered a trusty by the palace, but once again the royals were wrong. Among her previous subjects is Elizabeth's father, the estimable, dull George VI. From that project she probably got some good sources for the new book. Beating Kitty Kelley, who has been working on a book reportedly centered on the Duke of Edinburgh, she offers speculation on Philip's romances. Her account of the woeful marriage between Princess Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones has moments of perverse comedy. At one point the photographer took to leaving notes where he knew his wife would find them. One read, "You look like a Jewish manicurist."
Amid the burgeoning scandals, the question remains, Does it matter? The British are often tolerant of people's weaknesses and foibles. "The monarchy has not lost the support of public opinion," claims Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford's constitutional expert, and indeed, according to a Gallup poll, support for ending it has held steady at 15% for the past five or six years. Republicanism remains, as author Julian Barnes pointed out in the New Yorker, "a spindly growth." The Guardian, a newspaper that endorses it, ran a poll a year ago that showed support for a republic was in the mid-20% range. The monarchy exists by common law and Britain's unwritten constitution, but it could be abolished by an act of Parliament.
It is indifference to the monarchy that has grown. This is partly because the country is more democratic and informal. But another factor may be that the royal spectacle is often not very edifying.
What irks the likes of Soames and other vocal members of Charles' camp is that Diana's popularity is so far invulnerable. Media carping about her beauty and fitness regimens, her therapist Susie Orbach, her want of formal education, her abbreviated evening frocks, don't seem to have much impact. Nor does it seem to matter when critics fume that the Princess is expert in using the press and television to her own ends (as if Charles' staff and the Buck House operatives weren't trying hard for similar results). The immediate announcement of Charles' promises and the Panorama interview were Diana's brilliant pre-emptive strikes against the family and the palace's attempts to cast events in a light favorable to Charles.
Each time Diana appeals to the public, the distinctions between her following and Charles' become more pronounced. Not only the Establishment but also those who aspire to it favor the Prince. He is, after all, at the top of the social order. The masses identify with Diana. She is the one who doesn't make them feel less than they are.
As the royals and the world have learned, that statement was not quite on the mark. Diana is resourceful and shrewd. But in the short term, she faces a tough time. Estranged from the royals, she could find herself stuck with the media and little else. When Patrick Jephson, her private secretary for eight years, left, she lost perhaps her wisest adviser, and now she appears increasingly isolated.