Diana's Styles and Titles

[florawindsor]

when Wills become the king, how should ppl call Diana, the King Mother? Princess Diana? Queen Diana?

 

[cute_girl]

I think she's still and will be called Princess Diana,in their official site you can see this "The Princess of Wales was killed in a car crash on 31 August 1997 in Paris."so she was still a princess at the time of her death though she was divorced.

 

[norwegianne]

After their death royals, and most other people, are referred to by the title they had when they died.

 

[sara1981]

when Diana got divorces from Prince Charles HM Queen gives Diana known as Diana,Princess of Wales or Princess Diana many people still known her as Princess Diana if she in public she would known as Diana,Princess of Wales.

Sara Boyce

 

[Idriel]

when Wills become the king, how should ppl call Diana, the King Mother? Princess Diana? Queen Diana?

Diana will be the King's (late) mother but that's hardly a title. She'll never be Queen. So I say she'll just stay Diana, Princess of Wales.
There is a rumor that William once said the first thing he'll do when he become King will be to give her mother her Royal Highness style back. We will see if that ever happens...

 

[sara1981]

Diana will be the King's (late) mother but that's hardly a title. She'll never be Queen. So I say she'll just stay Diana, Princess of Wales.
There is a rumor that William once said the first thing he'll do when he become King will be to give her mother her Royal Highness style back. We will see if that ever happens...

i agree it!

Sara Boyce

 

[lashinka2002]

Yes,
You can't aquire a new title once your dead so it most surely would be Diana, Princess of Wales.

 

[florawindsor]

thank you. i've also heard what Idriel said. very touching
is there a difference between "Princess Diana" and "Diana, Princess of Wales"? i think they are the same...

 

[Elspeth]

"Princess Diana" is an incorrect title since she was never a princess in her own right. She was Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales while she was married and Diana, Princess of Wales, after her divorce. She'd only have been "Princess Diana" if the Queen had created the title like she did for the widow of the old Duke of Gloucester, who became Princess Alice after her husband died.

 

[florawindsor]

so only princess by blood can use 'princess' before their name...？

according to wiki,

Wife of a son of the Sovereign or male line grandson of the Sovereign- "HRH Princess Husband's Christian Name or "HRH The Duchess/Countess of X."

so Sarah&Sophie can be called Princess Andrew of York? Princess Edward of Wessex? (though they are normally called duchess of york/countess of wessex)

 

[Elspeth]

Only princesses by blood can use "Princess" before their own name. The Princess of Wales would have been correctly called Princess Charles, except that with his other titles it wasn't necessary to call her that. She would not have been correctly called Princess Diana. It was just a convenient label that the press tended to stick on her.

 

[florawindsor]

thank you Elspeth, you are such an expert on titles
gosh i made a lot of mistakes by calling Diana 'Princess Diana' in the past

 

[branchg]

The Queen never actually issued letters patent or a royal warrant allowing HRH Alice, Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, to assume the style "Princess Alice" after the marriage of her son, Prince Richard. It was simply confirmed by the Palace that the Queen had allowed the Dowager Duchess to be known as Princess Alice in honour of her long public service to the nation and to differentiate her from the new Duchess.

Also, "Princess Charles" is not a correct style for the wife of the current Prince of Wales. The wife of the Prince of Wales is always HRH the Princess of Wales and no other style applies. The same applies to any wife of a prince who holds a peerage. They are always HRH "Christian Name", Duchess of Whatever or HRH the Duchess of Whatever. Princess Husband's Name is the correct style for the wife of a British prince who holds no other peerage.

Diana's situation was unique after the divorce despite the relinquishment of her style and title HRH the Princess of Wales (correctly so) as these are only held through marriage to Prince Charles. However, as the mother of a future king, Diana's precedence and status in the royal family remained the same as before the divorce, a point made very clear by the Palace at the time.

As a result, similar to Princess Alice, the Queen and the Palace continued to refer to Diana as "the Princess" and agreed she remained a princess of the UK, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

 

[Elspeth]

It was simply confirmed by the Palace that the Queen had allowed the Dowager Duchess to be known as Princess Alice in honour of her long public service to the nation and to differentiate her from the new Duchess.

Interesting that she'd let her be known as Princess Alice when she wasn't actually Princess Alice, but I suppose it achieves the same end without having to set legal precedents. It's a shame they can't come up with something a bit less dire than "Dowager Duchess of..." for the widowed mother of a new duke.

Also, "Princess Charles" is not a correct style for the wife of the current Prince of Wales. The wife of the Prince of Wales is always HRH the Princess of Wales and no other style applies.

I understand that. The point I was making was that in the absence of other titles, in other words if Prince Charles had just been Prince Charles, Diana would have been correctly known as Princess Charles, not Princess Diana. If she'd married the heir to some of the European thrones, such as the Danish or Norwegian one, or even the younger son of some of the European monarchs, she'd have been created Princess Diana. It doesn't happen when a commoner marries a British prince.

I realise that he never actually was just Prince Charles - even if George VI had lived to a ripe old age and Prince Charles had married during his grandfather's reign I assume he'd have carried the title Earl of Merioneth from his father - what I was saying is that if he hadn't had any other title, so that his wife hadn't become Princess of this or Duchess of that or Countess of the other, she still wouldn't have been Princess Diana.

 

[branchg]

No she would not. However, anyone who marries a prince of the blood royal automatically becomes a princess of the UK. The Queen DID issue letters patent shortly before the decree nisi was issued stating that any former wife of a prince of the UK would not be entitled to hold the style of HRH after a divorce. This was to clarify that the real issue was the prefix "Royal Highness", as it was when the Duke of Windsor married Wallis Simpson, and who is entitled to the rank.

In the case of the Duke, King George VI issued letters patent providing that his wife and descendants, if any, would not hold the style of HRH, effectively announcing the marriage was morganatic. Instead, Wallis held the rank of a duchess as "Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor", rather than a princess of the UK as would normally be the case upon marriage to a prince of the blood royal. However, the Sovereign remains the fount of honour and all titles and styles are held as recognized under the royal perogative.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Diana will be the King's (late) mother but that's hardly a title. She'll never be Queen. So I say she'll just stay Diana, Princess of Wales.
There is a rumor that William once said the first thing he'll do when he become King will be to give her mother her Royal Highness style back. We will see if that ever happens...

I forget where I heard this (maybe it was in another thread in this forum), but people have said that the Queen offered to posthumously restore Diana's HRH after her death, but the Spencer family declined to accept it.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't know if that was ever verified.

 

[Kathryn Mayer]

If this is true, I side with the Spencer family we need to preserve the memory of every charitable act she did while known as Diana, Princess of Wales.....correct???

 

[Reina]

I do hope William restores HRH status to Diana. it would be more touching coming from him.

 

[Elspeth]

In the case of the Duke, King George VI issued letters patent providing that his wife and descendants, if any, would not hold the style of HRH, effectively announcing the marriage was morganatic.

Given that morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law, I'm surprised that was legal. It also seems curious that the King would confer an HRH on his brother, who hadn't renounced his HRH in the first place.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Given that morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law, I'm surprised that was legal. It also seems curious that the King would confer an HRH on his brother, who hadn't renounced his HRH in the first place.

That's true. Morganatic marriage does not exist in British law. That's why there were several non-royal-born Queens/wives in the past (Anne Neville, Elizabeth Woodward, Anne Boleyn, etc.). I guess George VI confered an HRH on his brother because as he was King Edward VIII at the time. I guess was no longer a HRH Prince because he had become the monarch, and the title he renounced was HM The King. Thus maybe George VI had to reinstate Edward's earlier titles of HRH and Prince?

 

[branchg]

Most British constitutional experts later concluded that King George VI erred in his issuance of the letters patent in 1937 and that, in fact, there was no question that Wallis was entitled to be known as HRH the Duchess of Windsor as the wife of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. The key question was whether the Duke lost his right to be a Royal Highness upon abdicating the throne.

There is no argument that Edward, as the son of a royal duke and prince of GB at the time of his birth, was entitled to the style of Highness under letters patent issued by Queen Victoria. When she died a few years later, he then automatically assumed the style of Royal Highness as the grandson of King Edward VII.

The abdication simply stated Edward was relinquishing his status as His Majesty the King. Nothing in the Act stated he would lose his rank as a prince of GB and King George VI quickly confirmed to the Cabinet that his brother remained HRH Prince Edward. Later, he issued letters patent granting him the dukedom of Windsor.

In reality, the matter was entirely political in the aftermath of the Abdication. The King made clear to the Cabinet that he was opposed to Wallis becoming a Royal Highness upon marriage to the Duke and it simply was agreed she would not. The ministers were clear there was reason under the law she should not be a Royal Highness, however, it was acknowledged that King George VI had the right to alter the royal style and title of any member of the family.

After the King's death, the Queen declined to revisit the matter until the mid-60's. At that point, she was willing to grant the style to Wallis in the spirit of reconciliation, however, the Queen Mother was adamantly opposed and the matter was dropped.

 

[branchg]

I don't know if that was ever verified.

It was confirmed by the Palace that the Queen did offer to restore the style of HRH to the Princess. It was declined as the Earl felt Diana would not have wanted any change to her style or title after her death. In any case, this was simply a gesture on the Queen's part since titles cannot be conferred to someone who is no longer living.

The matter is irrelevant as Diana received full royal honours after her death and was granted a state funeral as the mother of a future king. She was royal.

 

[Elspeth]

I thought it wasn't a state funeral. Isn't that why they weren't inviting heads of state to represent their countries at the funeral?

 

[EmpressRouge]

I thought it wasn't a state funeral. Isn't that why they weren't inviting heads of state to represent their countries at the funeral?

Yeah, me too. They were debating about whether to have a state or private funeral, and I think Charles was in favor of a state one.

 

[lashinka2002]

I didn't think she had a state funeral either. As far as I recall she had a funeral tailored for a unique woman.

 

[branchg]

Diana's funeral was characterized as a "semi-state" occasion. While she did not receive the same honours as a queen consort would have, she certainly received as close to one as possible. Governments and royal houses were represented the spouses of heads of state and sovereigns, not to mention the Prime Minister, MP's and the bishops of the Church of England.

It was a unique funeral for a unique person.

 

[Elspeth]

I didn't think she had a state funeral either. As far as I recall she had a funeral tailored for a unique woman.

Yes, that's what I remember, too. This stuff about "a unique funeral for a unique person" was a very typically diplomatic way of avoiding the issue of exactly what sort of funeral it was, if they even knew. From what I remember at the time, the US President's wife went to the funeral representing the President, not the USA.

 

[ElisaR]

In Britain only reigning monarchs have state funerals.
However, two common people had a state funeral: Wellington and Churchill.

 

[selrahc4]

In Britain only reigning monarchs have state funerals.
However, two common people had a state funeral: Wellington and Churchill.

I believe Lord Nelson was also given a state funeral.