Diana's Styles and Titles

[sirhon11234]

For me, I don't feel it necessary to her memory, for I shall always remember her for the humanitarian she was and a Princess I thought very highly of. No royal style is needed for that, imo.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[branchg]

Wasn't there some report that the Queen had offered to give Diana an HRH after she died and Charles Spencer refused? Or was that a tabloid invention?

It was confirmed by the Palace and the Spencers that a discussion took place with Sir Robert Fellowes on the train to Althorp relaying an offer by The Queen to restore the HRH in honour of Diana's memory.

The Earl declined as he felt Diana would not have wanted a change in her title after her death.

 

[branchg]

No, tabloid invention. Apparantly, the Queen offered to let Diana keep her HRH but DIANA refused to. The Queen did ask Diana to reconsider her decision but she said no.

By all accounts, Diana voluntarily relinquished her royal rank in her meeting with The Queen and Sir Robin Janvrin. In return, she received a $26 million lump sum payment, $600,000 annually for her staff, the right to retain her residence in Kensington Palace and all of her jewels.

The Queen reportedly offered her the rank and style of HRH Princess Diana in her own right, but only if she agreed to a much lower financial settlement and an agreement to work with the Palace in her public duties. She declined to accept it.

Sounds like she got a great deal to me.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

And their is a possibility (however slight it may seem) that William may, one day, re-instate the HRH style to his mother's name. Do I think it will happen? Probably not but I'm in no position to rule it out and neither is any other member of this forum.

But that would mean that a fully grown-up or even aged William (depends on the year he becomes king) would view the things the same way as he did as a child when he reportedly told Diana that for him she would "always be" a princess (or HRH, can't remember which).

If it is true, though, what has been stated about the payment discussions and Diana really was offered that title in exchange for a lower sum of money in her divorce settlement, then

1. William is in a perfect position to find out the truth by simply asking his grandmother.
2. is the heir of half of this money that his father is still repaying the queen and surely has his own position towards it.

One should not forget that William is not only Diana's son but at the same time he is Charles' heir, too. If Diana okayed the loss of her title in order to get more money out of Charles, then William is bound to have his own opinion about that. And this opinion will surely take part in any considerations to restore the HRH to Diana, beside the question if he, in case he restores it, is doing harm to the memory of his grandmother and father. Because he must be aware that to some people the restoration of this title means to righten a wrong done to his mother and in his case it's the problem of two loyalities: to his mother or his father/grandmother. Thinking about it merely pragmatically, I tent to think he won't restore the title but let dead dogs be dead before he does anything that might put his own heritage in a bad light.

I once read that when Charles studied history, one of his tutors asked him to write a text about the question if it was right that queen Elizabeth I had queen Mary Stuart executed and the prince accepted to research the topic but refused to pass judgment. Because, as he said, it's not yet up to him to question a decision of a past monarch when he has yet to learn so much about the workings of a souverain. I guess William could be thinking the same...

 

[Madame Royale]

But that would mean that a fully grown-up or even aged William (depends on the year he becomes king) would view the things the same way as he did as a child when he reportedly told Diana that for him she would "always be" a princess (or HRH, can't remember which).

Well, she shall always be a 'Princess', this is fact. And, I'm not so inclined to agree with your statement, Jo

Any possible reinstatement would be a dicision made by an adult, not a child and although he may have made a 'promise' to his mother (I'm not sure what was said which I imagine is the case for many here), it shall not be a child fulfilling that 'promise', rather a King, a man who I would be ceratin is inclined to view a situation with the civility and thought it requires.

Really though, what if he wishes to make good a 'promise' made all those years ago? Does that not say anything for his conviction as a person, as a son? If anything, fulfilling a pledge is an admirable quality, or so I have been brought up to recognise.

And again (if I may), this isn't about a settlement between his mother and father, or indeed the Crown. It is about him (and no doubt in correlation with his brother) on what they wish to do & what they think appropriate.

Please do not think for a moment that I don't 'see' where you, branchg or BeatrixFan are coming from because I definitely do; I just view it differently I guess.

doing harm to the memory of his grandmother and father

Again, I don't agree. Every monarch 'makes changes' and in the big wide picture of things, I don't see this as something that would severly upset the monarchial balance in Britain, let alone cause offence to either his father or grandmother because it is a decision to be made by William (*Harry) and not those who, for reasons mentioned, did not push forward with the proposal (which may I add was extremely gracious of HM).

I enjoy your posts, Jo. I find you witty and very well informed

 

[branchg]

Most of the money Diana received came from The Queen's private fortune. Charles paid for some of it, but the rest was considered to be a settlement from the Sovereign.

I highly doubt William is interested in changing his mother's style after her death. She remained a member of the royal family after the divorce and was considered to be a princess regardless.

 

[branchg]

Well, the staff at David and Wallis's home always called her "Your Royal Highness" etc which pleased him so I guess she had what needed without it being confirmed by the relatives across the Channel.

From what has been written over the years, The Duke was the most insistent on the issue of how Wallis was addressed and treated. She herself stated many times that she didn't care about it and was content to be Your Grace.

 

[Madame Royale]

She remained a member of the royal family after the divorce and was considered to be a princess regardless.

I have made mention in my participation, the reasons why I don't think it necessary, and the above extract of your post also rings true for me.

 

[BeatrixFan]

That isn't true as far as I know. She wasn't a Princess at all and she certainly wasn't considered a member of the Royal Family.

 

[Madame Royale]

That isn't true as far as I know. She wasn't a Princess at all and she certainly wasn't considered a member of the Royal Family.

I'm surprised a person with your interest wasn't aware, BeatrixFan.

Diana was a 'Princess' (title and position beffiting the status) and certainly still an active working member of the Royal Family until her death. This is, for the best part I would have imagined, common knowledge

 

[BeatrixFan]

She was titled Diana, Princess of Wales but she wasn't a Princess was she? Well, it's a piece of common knowledge I didn't know - oh the joy of being ignorant.

 

[sirhon11234]

The Princess, as the mother of Prince William (second in line to the throne), continued to be regarded as a member of the Royal family

I took that off of the royal family's website. She was still considered a member of the royal family after the divorce.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Evidence then if evidence were needed that we need a constitution in this country.

 

[Madame Royale]

She was titled Diana, Princess of Wales but she wasn't a Princess was she? Well, it's a piece of common knowledge I didn't know - oh the joy of being ignorant.

Diana, Princess of Wales...hmm, I would have thought the answer to be in the title.

No longer 'the' Princess of Wales, 'a' Princess of Wales. So its clear to me, that Diana was, and continued to observe, the distinction of a Princess.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The thing is, never having liked the woman, I didn't take a very active interest in the titles she held. It's still quite incorrect of the media to call her Princess Diana though - that much I do know.

 

[politikgirl]

I once read that when Charles studied history, one of his tutors asked him to write a text about the question if it was right that queen Elizabeth I had queen Mary Stuart executed and the prince accepted to research the topic but refused to pass judgment. Because, as he said, it's not yet up to him to question a decision of a past monarch when he has yet to learn so much about the workings of a souverain. I guess William could be thinking the same...

That's really interesting, Jo. Thanks for posting that anecdote. I always wondered what it would be like to be a royal studying the history of your own ancestors in textbooks.

 

[branchg]

That isn't true as far as I know. She wasn't a Princess at all and she certainly wasn't considered a member of the Royal Family.

The Palace confirmed at the time of the divorce that Diana would remain a member of the royal family, continue to be accorded her former precedence on state and national occasions, and would retain her royal privileges, including her residence at Kensington Palace and use of The Queen's Flight.

She was addressed by the Palace as "The Princess" after the divorce and was granted a royal lozenge of a stylized D under a coronet by The Queen.

So, I think it's safe to say she continued to be regarded as a royal princess by the consent of The Sovereign.

 

[branchg]

The thing is, never having liked the woman, I didn't take a very active interest in the titles she held. It's still quite incorrect of the media to call her Princess Diana though - that much I do know.

It was incorrect, but tolerated by The Queen since she was the mother of a future king.

 

[branchg]

Diana, Princess of Wales...hmm, I would have thought the answer to be in the title.

No longer 'the' Princess of Wales, 'a' Princess of Wales. So its clear to me, that Diana was, and continued to observe, the distinction of a Princess.

Technically, Diana was no longer a princess of the UK and lost her rank as HRH with divorce because these were held only as the wife of Prince Charles. They arrived with her marriage and departed with divorce.

As a concession to her position as the mother of a future king, The Queen granted her privileges and status not held by a divorcee. This included being regarded as a princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It was incorrect, but tolerated by The Queen since she was the mother of a future king.

Well I dont think it was that the Queen tolerated it. It's just that we all tolerated it. Nobody pointed it out after the divorce that she wasn't Princess Di anymore. Of course when she died that cemented the nickname.

 

[Madame Royale]

Technically, Diana was no longer a princess of the UK and lost her rank as HRH with divorce because these were held only as the wife of Prince Charles. They arrived with her marriage and departed with divorce.

As a concession to her position as the mother of a future king, The Queen granted her privileges and status not held by a divorcee. This included being regarded as a princess, although downgraded by the loss of HRH.

So again, my observation was correct in that Diana, Princess of Wales was accorded the title (lesser) of a Princess after the desertion of her marriage

 

[rebbevb]

Diana, The Princess of Wales was born - Lady Diana Spencer and she became HRH Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales and when she divoriced she became Diana,The Princess of Wales and I think when HRH Prince William marries Kate Middleton, and when they become TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales his father becomes King. I think Diana, Princess of Wales is going have to be Lady Diana Spencer, The Late Princess of Wales.

 

[branchg]

Well I dont think it was that the Queen tolerated it. It's just that we all tolerated it. Nobody pointed it out after the divorce that she wasn't Princess Di anymore. Of course when she died that cemented the nickname.

Well, the Palace also often referred to her as "Princess Diana" and I believe at one point someone did ask if that was correct and was told by a spokesman that it was acceptable.

 

[branchg]

Diana, The Princess of Wales was born - Lady Diana Spencer and she became HRH Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales and when she divoriced she became Diana,The Princess of Wales and I think when HRH Prince William marries Kate Middleton, and when they become TRH The Prince and Princess of Wales his father becomes King. I think Diana, Princess of Wales is going have to be Lady Diana Spencer, The Late Princess of Wales.

She was Lady Diana Spencer prior to marrying Charles, became HRH The Princess of Wales upon marriage and Diana, Princess of Wales with divorce. "The" Princess of Wales can only be the wife of the current Prince of Wales.

She was never HRH Princess Diana because she was not born a princess, although often referred to this way by the press and public. The Palace took a relaxed view due to her position as the mother of a future king, but it was always incorrect.

After her divorce, she was no longer a princess or HRH, but simply Lady Diana. Her style, similar to a surname, was Princess of Wales, the same as all divorcees in the peerage, but was no longer a title. She retained the use of this style until she remarried.

She died as Diana, Princess of Wales and that's it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Palace never referred to her as Princess Diana. During the marriage she was HRH The Princess of Wales and after, Diana, Princess of Wales - she was never called Princess Diana because she never was.

 

[branchg]

Yes, they did.....on many occasions in fact.

 

[sirhon11234]

She was called Princess Diana by the media and by the public. The palace stated the calling her " Princess Diana" was acceptable.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a second. The Palace makes announcements on behalf of the Queen and they know their own rules. Sorry, but I just don't buy that one.

 

[branchg]

I'm sorry but I don't believe that for a second. The Palace makes announcements on behalf of the Queen and they know their own rules. Sorry, but I just don't buy that one.

They did, in fact, state on more than one occasion it was acceptable to refer to her as Princess Diana. I remember someone made a written inquiry and received the reply that anyone who marries the heir to the throne automatically becomes a princess of the UK in her own right.

Now, of course, we know this is not really true in terms of official protocol, but the Sovereign is fount of honour and can decide what to do. Camilla is styled Duchess of Cornwall even though she is Princess of Wales, Alice was permitted to be Princess Alice, even though she never was created a princess of the UK, and Princess Louise of Wessex is called Lady Louise Windsor.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Buckingham Palace never once referred to Diana as Princess Diana and that's what you claimed. If you can show me a statement from the Palace in which they talk about "Princess Diana" then I'll re-think. Diana was a Princess by marriage and was never made a Princess in her own right AFAIK.