"The Royal family - for centuries the embodiment of national pride, identity and unity." Diana "admired the institution of the monarchy. She felt that it was an institution that stood for stability, certain values of honor and chivalry."
July 29, 1981: The wedding of the 20th century - Prince Charles marrying Diana. "I think that is sometimes forgotten that, that wedding in St Paul's in 1981 was the Windsor dynasty best bet for long term survival," Diana's former private secretary reiterated. "Here was a situation which hadn't ever happened before in history, in the sense that the media were everywhere, and here was a fairy story that everybody wanted to work," Diana had said. Prince Charles and Diana did "what after all was their duty constitutionally - which was to stay married."
Between 1993 and until August 1996 when they divorced, the separation of Prince Charles and Diana was regarded "the gravest, most dangerous threat to the long term future of the dynasty" because their separation had "deep constitutional implication." One constitutional expert explained at the time, "If the Queen died tomorrow, Prince Charles would automatically become King...Princess Diana, assuming there has been no divorce, she would automatically have the title of Queen Consort. Nothing could stop that." It was pointed out, a separated Prince Charles and Diana on the throne as King and Queen of England would leave the British monarchy open to ridicule. "It is of course usual, always has been customary for coronation to apply both to the new King and his Queen Consort but it would be very difficult to imagine that happening in case where they have separated. It would look ridiculous and absurb and divisive and it’s hard to imagine it’s occurring."
In 2005, Prince Charles married the Duchess of Cornwall. One Royal watcher remarked, "The fact is she is automatically Queen, that's it. That’s the law of the land here, that if a woman takes on the rights and titles of her husband." Diana's former private secretary made the observation, "I do tend to think that, that Charles' problems are really just beginning by marrying Camilla...The promotion from mistress to wife is notoriously tricky in Royal history. There is a convention that a mistress may not look beyond her post...I don't know whether the marriage is legal or not but I do know that, question has risen over its legality and that is far more significant the fact that it is legally contentious. Even if it is finally resolved, even if, if necessary, a special Act of Parliament is rushed through...It is legally contentious and I'm afraid that’s going to go into the history book and for better or worse, but I fear it maybe for worse, when people look back on this whole episode the fact that it is legally dubious is going to be one of the things that they’re going to notice and don’t like."
It was reported, "For Anglicans in Britain, church is sometimes synonymous with state. The Church of England is considered the mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion." As Queen of England, Her Majesty also assumed the responsibilities of "Supreme Governor" and "Defender of the Faith". These duties (primarily promoting Anglicanism in Britain) were said dated back to 1533 with King Henry VIII’s break with the Pope and Roman Catholicism (the English Reformation).
Constitutional changes were made in 2011 when Commonwealth nations agreed to allow a monarch to marry a Roman Catholic. However "the change will not affect the position of the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, because Catholics will still be barred from the throne. The Church of England will remain as the established church."
It was argued, "The most obvious difficulty in having a Catholic monarch – beyond the purely statutory obstacles – is the Crown’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England." Changes to the laws on the succession (first-born child of the monarch - girl or boy - would now be able to accede to the throne) were agreed shortly after the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
The director of the women's refuge center in England recognized Diana "has an ability to validate people. She has a quality of empathy and shows people that she understands their feelings and their experiences. She’s very caring, very warm person. Nothing like what you'd expect." Diana admitted, "I was very confused by which area I should go into. Then I found myself being more and more involved with people who were rejected by society - with, I'd say, drug addicts, alcoholism, battered this, battered that - and I found an affinity there. And I respected very much the honesty I found on that level with people I met, because in hospices, for instance, when people are dying they're much more open and more vulnerable, and much more real than other people. And I appreciated that."
Diana's private secretary made the point, "Diana attracted a lot of devotion, in fact she earned it in my opinion. Camilla Parker-Bowles is in a very different situation. I think probably she must start by attracting acceptance and maybe in the far distance future affection too. But right now even attracting acceptance is going to be a tough call. It’s going to require a lot of things to go right. And it’s going to require her to come across to the British people and to the wider world as a worthy successor to Diana. Otherwise people will turn their back and find something better to look at, find something more uplifting to think about. That would be a tragedy for the Royal family."
