Enjoy another excerpt from my book-in-progress, The Spritual Mission of a Princess....
..................................................................

Much has been
written about how Diana Spencer fell in love with an “image” of Prince Charles
and not with the man. But she would not be the first person to objectify
another, falling in love with a concept, a persona, an impression “instead of discovering
who is really there,” as spiritual teacher Patricia Albere shared. In her
book, Evolutionary Relationships, Albere wrote about the principles (including
engagement, commitment, truth, trust, openness, intimacy, sensitivity,
influence, and true autonomy) required to deepen any relationship—whether
friend, family member, or lover—into a mutual awakening of beloved souls…into
an “evolutionary relationship.” Then, ‘falling in love’ becomes something else
altogether. “When you enter into an Evolutionary Relationship with a sexual
partner,” explained Albere, “you have the opportunity to discover who your
partner really is and what is possible between you…and what is needed to turn
your relationship into a sacred marriage, a spiritual union.”
Perhaps Diana had
some intuitive, old-soul knowing of this kind of sacred union, but like most
people, she didn’t know what it would take to have it—and especially, how to
prepare for it. It takes emotional maturity, the courage to be transparent, a
heightened level of spiritual awakening, patience—“a sacred connection cannot
be forced,” as Albere wrote.
I was reminded of what Meghan Markle said about
the day she married Diana’s son Prince Harry—her wedding a global
spectacle—with millions of people watching, appreciating, judging. “H and I are
really, really good at finding each other in the chaos. When we find each
other, we reconnect to, like, ‘Oh it’s you. It’s you.’” She added that it
wasn’t as though the rest of it didn’t matter—the royal setting, the elegantly appointed
trappings of the wedding—but “it feels temporary.” In such a spiritual union as
they appear to have, it’s the connection, the love that feels real, feels
eternal. (And those of us watching that lovely celebration of marriage could
feel it as well.) Meghan’s friend Vicky Tsai, after attending the wedding
ceremony, confirmed: “It felt like a moment where the world paused and
celebrated love.”Although Diana
might have yearned for this level of intimate connection with a partner, in the
pretense-riddled ‘arranged marriage’ framework of her Windsor world, such depth
and harmony and spiritual bonding was not possible. Even with her
heart-centered sensibility, all Diana had to go on when she married was her teenage
romance-novel imagination, a wounded child’s neediness, and society’s outdated
notion of the ‘institution’ of marriage. Her frustration and deep
disappointment lashed out toward her husband with anger and blame, privately
and, stunningly (given the ‘never complain, never explain’ mantra of the royal
family), publicly.

In Diana: The
Voice of Change, Stewart Pearce wrote how Princess Diana’s spot-lit
marriage to the heir to the British throne put a spotlight on the archaic
customs associated with marriage as well as on a woman’s autonomy—or lack of it.
“Diana’s feminine force had disowned the negative masculine when she ‘outed’
Charles, calling for a new level of maturity and truth.” Feminist writers
believed that when Diana found a way to speak out about the inauthentic aspects
of their marriage—her bold actions condemned at the time by some as outrageous,
even scandalous—other women were emboldened to find their voice. “This released
the voice of millions of women, who felt that Diana had given them the right to
speak,” Pearce added. He believed you could follow the thread that got
unraveled in her public revelations about ‘men behaving badly’ directly to the
Time’s Up and MeToo movements over two decades later.

As human
consciousness was expanding in the last two decades of the twentieth century, parallel
to Diana’s time in the spotlight, the nature of relationships and structure of
marriage was transforming. In The Seat of Soul, Gary Zukav saw a more
enlightened future when intimate relationships would be “spiritual
partnerships” where both people thrive and the focus is on each other’s
spiritual growth—evolving from the old, less empowering “five-sensory
relationships.” The more consciously
aware “multisensory humans,” in Zukav’s words, naturally gravitate toward
“spiritual partnerships.” (Maybe Diana sought guidance here since this
culture-changing book was published in the late 1980s when her marriage was a
gloomy mess.) Zukav explained that “spiritual partners help one another
recognize parts of their personalities that come from love—such as gratitude,
patience, and caring—and cultivate them by acting on them consciously.” Being
conscious, awake to the subtleties of life, and emotionally courageous were key
here. Zukav continued: “Spiritual partners also help one another recognize
parts of their personalities that come from fear—such as anger, jealousy, and
righteousness—and challenge them by acting from loving parts of their
personalities (such as patience) when frightened parts (such as impatience) are
active.” (Perhaps Diana wasn’t emotionally grounded enough, especially in those
early years of marriage, to practice these principles, but this language, I
believe, would have resonated with her.)
In addition to the
cultural shifts in relationships and marriage at the time, the hard edge of
masculine/feminine identity was also changing as many women were recognizing
their “masculine” traits (speaking up for themselves, becoming leaders) and
some men were acknowledging their “feminine” nature (being more compassionate
and nurturing), shaking up an old societal template for gender. As human beings
were evolving, long-accepted yet limiting ways of being and relating were
dissolving—new guidelines were required for fully satisfying relationships.
“The ‘Till death do us part’ paradigm within marriage,” Pearce wrote, “no
longer could remain a meaningful construct for the bonds of deep relationship.”

Looking back over
the more than two decades since Diana’s death, Stewart Pearce was seeing how
marriages that had been “sustained by the old ways of co-dependency” were
ending and how both women and men were “releasing the obsolete stereotypes” of
marriage so they could have relationships of deep connection of the heart. “At
core, the patriarchy, which had flourished through a malformation of the
masculine, was being transformed on the altar of the newly sacralized
feminine,” Pearce continued with his usual passion. “Love, compassion,
inclusivity, nurturing, and peaceful co-existence are what we yearn for, are
what we seek out in our intimate relationships….” This sounds most ‘natural’
for us now, but at the time and in the environment in which Diana lived, when
she declared these loving aspects missing in her marriage—indeed, in most
marriages she saw in her aristocratic world—it was revolutionary. ~
[Part Two of this section from the chapter "A Woman's Inheritance" will be posted later....]