Throne for Di? Controversy Grows

Controversy grew in Parliament on Thursday over the propriety of Prince Charles and Princess Diana possibly serving as Britain’s king and queen in the wake of their announcement that they will live separately but will not divorce.

The fierce debate occurred as the Princess of Wales revealed that she will not attend the wedding of Princess Anne, her sister-in-law, in Scotland on Saturday. Palace sources said that Diana is not snubbing Anne, whose divorce allows her to marry Navy Cmdr. Tim Laurence. Diana simply does not wish to detract from Anne’s wedding, sources said.

Queen Mother Elizabeth, 92, has changed her mind and decided to attend the private ceremony in a Church of Scotland chapel; she had suggested she might not go because she frowns on remarriage after divorce.

After announcing they would separate, Charles and Diana, ironically, spent the night under the same roof at Kensington Palace in West London.

That arrangement will not last long. Diana reportedly will maintain her London residence at Kensington Palace, where Princess Margaret, the queen’s sister, also lives; Charles will move to Clarence House, the main residence of the Queen Mother. He is expected to spend much of his time at the couple’s country home at Highgrove in Gloucestershire.

Lord Mackay, the lord chancellor, and Nicholas Lyell, the attorney general, told the Cabinet on Thursday that as long as Diana is married to the Prince of Wales, she retains her full rights--and eventually must be crowned.

But that position was attacked by a surprising number of usually loyal Conservative members of Parliament.

Said London Conservative John Bowis, “If it is not possible to have a happy monarch and family, there has to be a coming together or else I think we should skip a generation and wait for William.”

This suggestion, involving the couple’s elder son and heir, William, 10, was supported by many members of Parliament.