Today, it is obvious that their wedding was a day that changed the course of history. The wedding of two well intentioned, emotionally needy people who were unable to satisfy each other and turned to others for consolation resulted in one of the longest, most public and messy dissolutions of a marriage in this century. The unrelenting insinuations by the media about the couple not only destroyed any chance of mending the relationship, but it also fueled a steady erosion of respect for the monarchy as each of the Queen's children's marriages crumbled due to the publication of invasive photos or tapped telephone conversations or purloined love letters. As a result, the Queen made concessions that would have been unthinkable a couple of decades earlier: paying income tax, opening the state rooms at Buckingham Palace to pay the bill for the restoration of Windsor Castle after a disastrous fire since the taxpayers made it clear they did not want to pay for it, and trimming down travel expenses by decommissioning the royal yacht, flying via commercial flights instead of chartered planes, and giving up the royal train. All this was to no avail after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, for a shift of seismic proportions took place during that week of mourning when there was no half lowered flag above Buckingham Palace and the family sequestered themselves in Scotland until the day before the funeral. It was thought by many that the family could have been booed or Prince Charles assassinated during the funeral procession, but the Queen's speech the day before the funeral did much to relieve the tension and restore respect toward the family. Yet since Princess Diana's death, there has been more talk of the possibility of Britain becoming a republic after the Queen's death than at any other time this century, and fresh scandals such as the the newspaper sting reporting the Countess of Wessex's indiscreet remarks about the family and using her title to forward her PR business, the taxpayer subsidization of housing for minor members of the royal family, and Prince Philip's alleged remarks that Prince Charles is not fit to be King only increase the popularity of this trend. The only factor that may reverse it is the role of the sons of Charles and Diana, Prince William and Prince Harry. With their charm and unaffected upbringing, they could preside over a modernization of the House of Windsor that would make it more like the “bicycle monarchies” of the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Scandinavian countries in which the monarch is established within the framework of a constitutional government, is much less ceremonial and has much more contact with ordinary people. Or they could be demoralized by the media scrutiny that is sure to follow them as Princess Diana's sons and opt out of it altogether. In either case, it will be many years before the fate of the  monarchy is determined, and it will be very interesting to see if major changes occur in British society, since the aristocracy is likely to have much less influence if there is no longer a monarchy in Britain.

One thing that is certain is that we are unlikely ever to see another royal wedding on the scale of that of Prince Charles and Lady Diana. After three royal marriages that flopped, the taxpayers are unlikely to want to have to foot the bill for another royal wedding extravaganza.  (Indeed, there were suggestions in the press in the 1990s that the Queen should pay back the money that was spent on those three weddings.) They are likely to be smaller, more low-key affairs like the wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999, which was held at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle with only a short procession through the streets and a small release of commemorative souvenirs. Or they could even be as unspectacular as Princess Anne's second marriage in a small Scottish church with only 30 invited guests. So even though the wedding of Charles and Diana occurred only twenty years ago, it somehow seems like it was much longer ago since it has more in common with the traditions of nineteenth century royalty than it does with the royal establishment of the future, if it continues to exist.

It also seems unlikely that any future pair of newlyweds in the House of Windsor will ever receive as many or as lavish wedding presents, since many that were received were either stored for years and then destroyed in the bonfire that consumed anything Princess Diana left behind at Highgrove, or else handled so carelessly that it disappeared, like this gold and silver dhow that was the gift of the sultan of Bahrain and was valued at an estimate of 500,000 pounds. In January 2001, it was discovered in a Chelsea antique store and Harold Brown and later Paul Burrell, both formerly butlers to Prince Charles and Princess Diana were arrested on the charges of stealing it and other valuable items from Kensington Palace after her death. The cases went to trial in the fall of 2002, but the case against Paul Burrell was dismissed when the Queen stated that he had told her shortly after Diana's death that he had some of her belongings for safekeeping.; and the ensuing newspaper hysteria caused the case against Brown to be withdrawn, since it was thought that it would be very unlikely to get a conviction in the wake of the dismissal of Paul Burrell's case despite very strong evidence against Brown.
 

Go back to Stamps, Coins, and Jewelry
Go forward to Sovereign Royal Wedding Postcards
Return to Royal Wedding Exhibition