SHE never thought to say it. And most of her generation certainly never thought to hear it, at any rate not on BBC Radio 4 just after 9 o'clock in the morning.
But the caller to the Nick Ross phone in on Tuesday morning was eloquent with rage. That she spoke with the passion of an "Ulster royalist" somehow made the condemnation seem more authentic, and altogether more devastating.
Herself, "called after" an earlier royal, had two sisters - Elizabeth and Margaret Rose - and a brother called Charles. As a family they'd been reared to look up to the House of Windsor. Whether or not calendars and other portraits of Queen Elizabeth adorned the mantelpiece was not clear. But the adoration and respect had been unquestioning.
These were people who instinctively understood the importance of the monarchy in defining the British sense of national identity; in providing a focal point in times of trouble, a reminder of a glorious past, and a statement of continuity in a fast changing world.
They were clearly not the sort to pay heed to tabloid tittle tattle. If there were imperfections, if leading royals suffered human frailties just like the rest of us, here were people who almost certainly preferred not to know.
Problem is, they do know. For many, still, the instinct is to blame the media. But the corroboration of the facts - that the fairytale was a fraud and that, for Diana at least, the House of Windsor was a House of Horrors - has been provided by the leading actors in Britain's most celebrated soap. And the effect has been shattering.
Tuesday's caller to Mr Ross was clear cut. She blamed Prince Charles. The heir to the throne had messed up Diana's life and that of their two children; not to mention that of Mr Parker Bowles and the children of that marriage. One of them, she informed us, had actually changed his name to be spared further embarrassment.
Not much comfort there, then, for Charles. Nor in the body of evidence being amassed by Britain's tabloids and broadsheets alike, as the great debate about the monarchy gathers at least the appearance of strength.
The Independent on Sunday launched its campaign for a republic some weeks back with a rehearsal of the "anomalies" - superficial and more deep rooted - attending the monarchy's position.
Of the royals as showbiz, the paper argued that a supposedly dignified part of the constitution "becomes daily more undignified, with its debts, its disreputable lovers, its toe sucking antics and television confessionals."
Where one minister offered monarchy as "a vision of what we should be" the argument ran, it was now associated with greed, extravagance, bad faith and exhibitionism. An instrument for unity had divided the country into parties for the prince and princess while the sense of continuity offered suffered from an increasingly uncertain future, with the paper's poll showing greater numbers of people expecting the monarchy to disappear within the next 50 years than expect it to survive.
More fundamentally, there was the question mark over the monarch's position as head of an established church attended by only a tiny fraction of the population; the queen's position as head of a Commonwealth which many consider a mere diversion from the country's future; and the cost of maintaining a royal family in a country unable to meet the costs of a welfare state.
But the great constitutional issues struggle for an airing in a debate inevitably conducted against the backdrop of the continuing "war of the Waleses".
The Princess of Wales was back in the frame yesterday - visiting a hospital - having retired hurt from the legal battlefield barely a week ago. For the moment Charles and Diana appear to be heeding the queen's insistence that their divorce negotiations be conducted in private, not least for the sake of their children. But the silence will hardly last.
The two, and their respective lawyers, appear to have difficulty agreeing on what they have agreed. According to Diana's side, she has buckled under palace pressure and agreed to drop the title "Her Royal Highness". This would mean that people would no longer be required to bow or curtsy.
But the palace insists it has not asked her to forgo that particular pleasure. Palace sources are less forthcoming, however, about the basis of the financial settlement required to maintain a lifestyle lavish even by royal standards.
The regal sum of £15 million is routinely quoted as the requisite amount. But even if the queen dips into her private coffers to help Charles out, it isn't clear if this would be separate from the question of future residences.
An alternative London pad to Kensington Palace would apparently cost around £5 million. Then there is the vexed question of a Norfolk pile to compensate Diana for the loss of Highgrove, although we always had the impression the countryside was not particularly to Diana's liking.
All this, and the Panorama interview, has been enough to propel the Archdeacon of York's sympathy back to the prince. But he appears to be in a definite minority.
A staggering 33,226 people rang the Sun's hotline on Monday to declare Prince Charles unfit to be king. And yesterday's follow up recorded a three to one verdict in favour of Prince William directly succeeding his grandmother.
An ICM poll for the Guardian, meanwhile, found 59 per cent blaming the prince for his marriage breakdown, and 45 per cent saying he should not succeed if he marries Mrs Parker Bowles.
The Prime Minister, Mr Major, is being urged to rally to the defence of the monarchy, and to lead a debate which separates the institution from the personalities involved. Royalists believe, moreover, that Mr Tony Blair would have no alternative but to back him in that event and stifle Labour's increasingly voluble republican wing.
Mr Blair's reticence, indeed, offers the palace one of the few bright spots on an otherwise bleak horizon. But Mr Tony Benn was quick to point out the contradiction between this and Labour's pledge to abolish the hereditary peerage.
And the debate will not be stilled if Mr Blair does win the next election and proceeds, as promised, to redraw and redesign the constitutional map of Britain.