THE WINDSOR WARS

By Jeffery C. Rubin

THE PRINCESS OF WALES FLEW off to Barbuda last week and, for the brief duration of a winter break, left behind her sons William and Harry, her estranged husband Charles, his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles--and the stormy issue of royal divorce. In the Caribbean, perhaps, she set her sights on the "clarity" she recently told a TV audience she so desperately wants.

Clarity is the goal of everyone involved in the war of the Windsors. But clear-sightedness is trammeled up in the net of Britain's constitution. Back-room negotiations are now taking place between palace and Parliament. Will there be a King William to bypass Charles? A rival royal court for Diana? A Queen Camilla?

Divorcing should be rather simple. Any British couple separated for at least two years can easily end their marriage. But Charles and Diana are not any British couple. And in matters relating to the succession, the Queen herself must petition for advice and permission from the Prime Minister. Thus in 1967, when the Queen first allowed a member of the royal family to remarry (the Earl of Harewood, the Queen's first cousin), she did so upon the advice of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Therefore her recent instruction to Charles, 47, and Diana, 32, to divorce was a veritable act of state. For this is the worst-case scenario: Elizabeth suddenly dies, Charles becomes King--and an estranged but undivorced Diana, Queen. Their rival courts would then so conspire against each other that the fabric of the British monarchy might rip beyond repair.

Still, a divorcing of the Waleses would have several gray areas--apart from the spectacle of the perpetual Windsors of discontent. Diana, for one, will always be the mother of William, presumably the next King but one. By tradition, a postdivorce Diana would retain the title Princess of Wales unless she remarried. The Queen might even allow her, as a courtesy, to remain "Her Royal Highness," a title reserved for those who are heir to the throne or married to the heir. Financial support and access to the children have probably already been worked out. But Diana's aspiration to become "queen of people's hearts," or a kind of roving ambassador, will be difficult to define. Last week Prime Minister John Major said Diana would have a public role--no matter the fate of her marriage.

Charles' future is constrained by two pieces of 18th century legislation: the 1701 Act of Settlement, which requires the heir not to be or to marry a Roman Catholic (no problem, since Parker-Bowles is not, though she was married to one), and the 1772 Royal Marriages Act, which allows the heir to marry only with permission of the sovereign, or, if the heir is older than 25, to declare his intention to marry and go ahead only if both houses of Parliament have not objected after 12 months.

In which case, could Camilla be Queen? "These things depend upon public feeling," says Oxford University's Vernon Bogdanor, an expert on the constitutional monarchy. "It would never occur to Charles to marry anyone against the advice of his ministers." Those ministers might well decide that Camilla is unsuited to be Queen. The Prince's sense of duty, too, makes it unlikely he will give up the throne for the woman he loves. To do so would not only require the approval of Parliament but also upset the Commonwealth, requiring 15 other nations that have the British sovereign as head of state to consent to an abdication. Stay tuned to As the World Turns--the Windsor Series.

--Reported by Barry Hillenbrand/London

With reporting by Barry Hillenbrand/London