The verdict this week at the inquest in London of Diana, princess of Wales, should bring to an end the painful and protracted royal saga that has tested the patience of the British public and threatened the very foundation of Britain’s constitutional monarchy.

Ten years, two inquests, two police investigations, and at least $40 million in taxpayers’ money since Diana’s death, nine of the 11 jurors confirmed what most of us concluded on the morning she died: that she was “unlawfully killed” by Henri Paul, the drunken chauffeur provided by the Ritz Hotel in Paris who crashed in a high speed attempt to shake off a pack of paparazzi in hot pursuit of the world’s most sought after celebrity.

The judgment is unlikely to satisfy Mohammed al Fayed, the proprietor of the Ritz and father of Dodi al Fayed, the princess’s companion on that fateful night. From the moment Diana floated into his orbit, Mr. Fayed conjured grandiose and unrealistic ambitions for his son and the princess.

Without reference to Diana, who, according to her friends, considered Dodi little more than a summer squeeze, the owner of Harrod’s indulged in flights of fancy about how his playboy son would marry the world’s most beautiful woman. To this end Mr. Fayed prepared for them the chilly Paris chateau the exiled Duke and Duchess of Windsor called home, an act that showed how out of touch he was with the sensibilities of the Queen, who deems that her uncle’s abdication led to the premature death of her father.

After Diana and Dodi died, Mr. Fayed concocted a far-fetched theory that the Duke of Edinburgh had urged MI6 and the French secret service to kill Diana so she would not give birth to a Muslim child. The plot was patently absurd, as if Lyndon Johnson, Fidel Castro, and Sam Giancana had together commissioned Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy.

For the last 10 years, Mr. Fayed has trumpeted his suspicions to anyone who would listen. However, when given the chance at the inquest to substantiate his claims with hard evidence, he demurred. That was the moment to convince the rest of us of his suspicions. His failure to do so has left him a diminished and delusional figure.

It is hard, however, not to feel sorry for Mr. Fayed, who lost his beloved son because of his employee’s drunkenness. A genuine lover of Britain, who has done so much to integrate himself into British life, Mr. Fayed has been shunned by his adopted country and repeatedly denied the British citizenship he craves. (He did not help his cause by bribing MPs to ask questions in the Commons.) It is to be hoped that the verdict of the inquest, delivered under English law by a jury of disinterested Britons, will cause Mr. Fayed to pause before resuming his vendetta against the royal family.

Those who knew Diana can be forgiven for suspecting that the troubled princess would have enjoyed the embarrassment her death has caused her former husband and her in-laws these last 10 years. Yet at the heart of the Diana fairy tale was her failure to agree to the terms implicit in becoming the wife of the heir to the throne.

Diana failed to grasp that the royal family is a business and that the members of the family perform their public duties with a deep seriousness. She appears to have married Charles in the mistaken belief that she would be allowed a charmed life of endless luxury and indulgence.

Instead, even from her first night in Buckingham Palace, she discovered she had entered a world of duty, discipline, public service, hard work, and sophistication way beyond her understanding. Above all, she failed to grasp that she had volunteered to become the personification of a key element in Britain’s unique system of government: the mother of a future monarch. Had she never read about the plight of Henry VIII’s wives?

Diana’s response to the rigors and obligations of royal life was to mount petty rebellions. Her self induced illnesses and her attempts on her life were contrived to humiliate those whom she believed had failed to grant her permission to behave as she pleased. She was a mystery to Charles, a complex, anxious, and earnest character who could not connect with a young beauty whose interests seemed to be high fashion and pop music.

Her revenge was to traduce him at every turn. While she complained to the royal family about the way the press dogged her, she became the principal source of gossip about herself, her husband’s private life, and, ultimately, both her and his marital infidelity. Each new Fleet Street editor was summoned to her lunch table and regaled with juicy details of her unhappy life behind palace doors. Rarely has the general perception of a public personality been so out of kilter with reality.

The inquest provides the final chapter in the tragic life of Diana. Like the Highland stag who startles Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II in the movie “The Queen,” Diana was a force of nature who challenged the essence of the royal family with a romantic and defiant display of independence. Now is the time for that mythical vision to be laid to rest.

nwapshott@nysun.com