DIANA

"Diana reached out to the people on the margin of society and fed on their response to her compassion," it was said. Hence "Diana's death changed the world landscape." Diana was a Princess in a democratic age, "I think the British people need someone in public life to give affection, to make them feel important, to support them, to give them light in their dark tunnels . . . I sit here with hope because there's a future ahead." 

Back in 1953, Senator Margaret C. Smith reminded citizens, "Each of us has his own individual concept of what democracy is and what it means to him . . . It is not too hard to define democracy as a form of government. It is a government by majority rule, either by election of representatives or by direct individual participation in decisions of the government. Democracy in the elected representative form of government is technically called 'republic'. That is what (the United States) is – what our form of democracy is." 

In February 1992, Diana was photographed sitting alone in front of the Taj Mahal during a Royal tour of India. The former Royal Press Secretary, Dickie Arbiter revealed, "I actually set that picture up. I think everybody remember the pose of Diana in front of the Taj Mahal. Two people can only do so much, so the game plan is we split them. The Prince of Wales has already been to the Taj Mahal, Diana hasn't and it makes sense that she went there and the Prince of Wales went to address a business conference that was likely to lead to millions of pound worth of export and he went and did that in Bangalore." 

In July 1992, the Andrew Morton's book, 'Diana: Her True Story' disclosed, "In her desperation she consulted Penny Thornton, an astrologer introduced to her by Sarah Ferguson . . . 'One day you will be allowed out but you will be allowed out as opposed to divorcing,' Penny told her, confirming Diana's existing opinion that she would never become Queen." 

Of the Andrew Morton's book, Lord Peter Palumbo made known, "Well, she said it was a great mistake but it's easy to be wise in hindsight. Perhaps if she has, well she couldn’t of, I mean she wouldn’t have asked advice, you see, because this instinct, this destiny in which she was firmly in control, told her that this was the way to go." Richard Kay added, "She appears to be going in a certain direction which I don't think St James Palace, courtiers of the Prince of Wales or those at Buckingham Palace were totally happy."    

In December 1992, John Major informed the House of Commons, "It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathize with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Their constitutional positions are unaffected. The decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it . . . And there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course." 

Former Royal Navy officer Patrick Jephson remembered, "There was a brief period after the formal separation when I think a lot of us felt rather optimistic about how this strange arrangement might work. A lot of the practical issues around 2 separate households (St James Palace and Kensington Palace) have been pretty happily resolved and it seemed the public shared our sense of relief that this slow motion train wreck of a marriage had finally reached a point where we can finally at least talk openly about how best to manage the mess."

Under British law, a couple must be separated for 5 years before they could proceed with a divorce without the consent of both parties. However the couple would be eligible for a no-fault divorce as long as they had lived apart by mutual consent for at least 2 years. Lord St John of Fawsley had stated, "A divorce does not affect the constitutional position of Charles in any way." Vernon Bogdanor also voiced, "As long as they are not divorced she (Diana) would become Queen as soon as Charles becomes King." But with Prince Charles and Diana divorced, should he be crowned King of England, the Prince of Wales must also assume the role of supreme governor of the Church of England. As a remarried divorcee, Charles' role as the temporal head of the Church could pose a problem.

Margaret Smith made the point, "To me, democracy is a way of life that gives each one of us the right to participate in decisions that affect our daily lives. It is a way of life that emphasizes the accountability of the elected representatives to the people they represent . . . It is majority rule but with protection of the rights of minorities. It is living, wholesome respect for the many 'freedoms' that our leaders have epitomized. It is the equal treatment and status for everyone to learn, earn and save, regardless of race, creed, sex or how much money your parents have. Democracy gives us the right to make our own decisions in many ways other than the popular concept of voting. It guarantees the right of collective bargaining, the right of joining with others to form organizations that will espouse our ideas – such as the respective political parties, the churches, the schools, the social clubs." 

Patrick confessed, "The years following the separation were a great time to be working for the Princess. The success she had here in New York was mirrored almost wherever she went in the world. It seems that she really has found a formula to be the thing she wanted to be: an ambassador for Britain and a worldwide force for good." 

In December 1995, Diana was in New York to accept the United Cerebral Palsy's Humanitarian Award. It was noted Diana charmed VIPs (very important person) with her diplomatic skills. Lord Palumbo told the press, "The Princess of Wales felt that she has a contribution to make . . . She was talented. She has a wonderful sense of communication which she undoubtedly did, one of the great communicators after all." 

Ed Mathews organized the fund-raising annual dinner event. He recounted, "Now, that particular night, the grand ball room at the Hilton was set up for a desk (or long table) which ran from one side of the room to the other. The people sitting on the end of the desk couldn't be in the light, they're actually out by the door. We have donors of ours offering more than $100,000, by one particular person in this case, if we could guarantee them that they could have a seat on the desk next to the Princess." Diana was sat next to Henry Kissinger. 

On reflection, Dickie Arbiter remarked, "Press campaign is always a grey area. There's always an element of facts and fantasy. It's really left up to the people who are reading what is been produced to decide for themselves. Unfortunately the myth do tend to become fact after a time." Of truth, "Truth doesn't always fit agendas."   

In November 1995, J.D. Reed reported, "Diana gathered critical kudos and public sympathy by coming clean in a way that made worldwide headlines and sent a disturbing message to the Palace - by arranging her own television interview on the critically acclaimed BBC news program 'Panorama' . . . For a member of the Royal family - albeit an estranged one - the appearance was a shocking departure, unparalleled in its frankness and intimacy. Compared to the uproar it caused, wrote 'The Times', 'the 1936 abdication was a garden party.'" 

Patrick made the comment, "The trouble was it was only ever going to be a kind of armistice. It was a ceasefire not a peace treaty and so what follow was 4 years (1993-1996) of guerrilla warfare, I suppose." Dickie also mentioned, "The reaction when she did the 'Panorama' interview was one of shock. We had no idea it was happening until it happened. The principals - the Royal family - probably felt let down."  Lord Palumbo believed, "All these things should remain private if humanly possible. But it was not possible because things get out of hand. Once the lorry start to roll downhill without any brakes, there's no stopping it."