LONDON, 25 January 2004 — Is 2004 going to be another annus horriblis for the British royal family?

The reopening of the investigation into the car crash that killed Princess Diana threatens to further tarnish the reputation of Britain’s premier family. It could even signal its extinction. The inquests into the deaths of the Princess of Wales, and her companion, Dodi Al-Fayed, are taking place more than six years after the couple died in Paris. The inquests are said to be the only official British inquiries into the car crash in the Pont d’Alma underpass in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997.

The heir apparent, the Prince of Wales, looks certain to generate record column inches in the tabloids when called as a witness by the royal coroner who is overseeing the inquests.

Diana’s ex-butler, Paul Burrell, is the latest nemesis of the royal family. His autobiography, A Royal Duty, has proved to be a best seller with the public’s insatiable appetite for a Diana fix. A letter allegedly written by the princess ten months before her demise has given birth to what is called Dianagate. Diana claimed that an unnamed person was planning to kill her by tampering with her car. Excerpts from the book appeared in The Daily Mirror and the editor Piers Morgan took the unprecedented step of revealing the identity of Diana’s supposed killer based on the supposition that his name would come out in the pending investigation.

Prince Charles may be first in line for the throne, but he enjoys little of the affection and respect afforded to his mother. Queen Elizabeth benefited from an upbringing relatively free from the glare of media in what was a simpler age. Her son was not that lucky. He has been a victim of trial by the media. The latest was the disclosures about his supposed homosexual affair with a male royal aide. Such rumors, however false, hang heavily in the British public’s memory. The firm, as the queen likes to refer to her immediate family, has been forced to employ an ever-increasing retinue of PR advisers to smooth over the cracks in the Windsor’s image.

Britons’ obsession with Diana coupled with their anger at Charles’ love for Camilla Parker Bowles, increasingly stoked by British tabloids, threatens the very foundations of the royal family. Old royal practices such as taking of a mistress (Camilla Parker Bowles in Charles’ case) cut no ice with a media-savvy public. True, the Windsors appear less than willing to conform to the norms set by the media, but the public betrays certain hypocrisy by passing judgments on royal misdemeanors while being less than perfect themselves.

The British can be notoriously fickle. The first editions of the Sunday newspapers on the day of Diana’s death portrayed her as little more than a tart. Second and subsequent editions praised Diana as the “People’s Princess”.

Would the public be willing to abolish the monarchy? Its greatest threat was the Depression years of the 1930s and the labor marches it provoked. Yet the Windsors survived because those unemployed and destitute workers, however radical, had no wish for Britain to become a republic.

The Golden Jubilee in 2003 proved the popularity of the royals. Charles may not be public’s favorite royal but he could stand aside in favor of his tabloid-friendly son, Prince William. Or the future king could benefit from his great-uncle Edward VIII. Here was a king who was adored by the public though he was a womanizer, a snob and a Nazi sympathizer. Charles would do well in learning from his illustrious ancestor’s PR tricks.

(Bader Bin Saud is doing a postgraduate course in journalism in The University of Westminster.)