Diana's Styles and Titles

[Denville]

Yeps. Unless (let's say for example) she married Hasnat Khan. Then she'd be Mrs. Hasnat Khan and lose the courtesy styling as an ex-wife of a peer.

William's addressing her as "mum" would never change. Ever.

Obviously, his personal way of addressing her wont change.
But if she had married Hasnat Khan or Oliver Hoare or whoever, she woudl be Lady Diana Khan/Hoare or whatever her husband's surname was. Her Lady Diana courtesy title would not disappear and she could still use it if she married an untitled man. of course if she married a peer she would take HIS title.
I think that had she lived, it would have been better to give her a peerage in her own right.. to take away the "Princess" problem if C remarried..
If Diana was say Countess of Brington.. (is that the name of hte village near to her home?) she would have a settled title in her own right. if she remarried and had more children- they would be Lady Mary X or The Hon Christoper X..I think it woudl have satisfied her to have a title that was hers, and not dependent on being Charles' ex wife or William's mother.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] William as the monarch could, with the prerogative of a monarch's will and pleasure, deem to restore his mother's HRH and create her a Princess of the UK in her own right [...]

I think the words "to restore" are not correct. As the wedded spouse to the Prince of Wales Diana could be addressed by the same form of address used for her spouse, being addressed with her spouse's titles and enjoying her spouse's rank and status in society. With the end of said marriage logically the whole situation changed.

Using the word "restoration" implicates to return to Diana what was hers. But the form of address (Her Royal Highness), the titles (Princess of Wales, Duchess of Rothesay, Duchess of Cornwall, etc.) and the rank and status in society Diana once enjoyed were never hers: it was all derived from her marriage to Charles.

Imagine that Diana was still alive. Imagine that in 20 years (= 2036) Prince William will be King. That means that Diana was no HRH and no Princess of the United Kingdom for 40 years. Maybe she was now known as Lady Diana Khan or as Lady Diana Al-Fayed. And then suddenly King William IV would create her a Princess and give her the form of address of a Royal Highness? Most unlikely, if you ask me.

 

[Lumutqueen]

But there was no reason to give her a title of her own.

 

[Osipi]

You're absolutely right and thanks for the correction, She would be Lady Diana, Mrs. Khan or something to that effect. I'm still learning about British titles and styles and this fascinates me.

I don't think, however, she would have ever been considered a candidate for her own peerage. Most peerages that are created now are lifetime peerages for one person's lifetime and isn't passed down. Its by the recommendation and by Parliament as in the case of Margaret Thatcher. Its the Queen's prerogative to create royal dukes and/or create someone a Prince or Princess in their own right and from what we've already witnessed, HM doesn't hand them out like candy. To appease anything people believe or to resolve a princess problem would not really cut it in her book.

Diana, sadly, sealed her own fate on how the monarchy regarded her by her own actions and revelations to the public.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yeps. Unless (let's say for example) she married Hasnat Khan. Then she'd be Mrs. Hasnat Khan and lose the courtesy styling as an ex-wife of a peer. [...]

No, she would haved been Lady Diana Khan. Daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls keep their prefix Lady when the spouse has no higher title outranking it.

Compare it to Lady Melissa van Straubenzee (and not Mrs Thomas van Straubenzee), Lady Sarah McCorquodale (not Mrs Neil McCorquodale), Lady Sarah Chatto (not Mrs Daniel Chatto), Lady Rose Gilman (not Mrs George Gilman), Lady Helen Taylor (not Mrs Timothy Taylor).

Lady Serena Stanhope (at the time of the marriage she was still The Hon. Serena Stanhope) is married with a titled husband and therefore is known with her soupse's style: Viscountess Linley. Would David Linley have had no title, then she would not have been Mrs David Linley but Lady Serena Linley. Same mechanism as the examples mentioned.

 

[Denville]

You're absolutely right and thanks for the correction, Sh

I don't think, however, she would have ever been considered a candidate for her own peerage. M

Diana, sadly, sealed her own fate on how the monarchy regarded her by her own actions and revelations to the public.

Thatcher gave out a few hereditary peerages and I think that whatever diana's faults, she was in many ways an excellent Princess of wales and mgiht have been a great Queen. I think that the queen while I can understand her frustration abut Diana at times, coud have tried to be more generous to her

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Thatcher gave out a few hereditary peerages [...]

What would have been the use to give Lady Diana Khan or Lady Diana Al-Fayed a hereditary peerage? As you might know, titles only pass via the heirs of the male body. And her children already were Princes of the United Kingdom, of course.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for the correction Duc. Using the word restore was the wrong choice. You can't restore to someone something that wasn't theirs in the first place. With being divorced from Charles, Diana lost her HRH address and was styled as a divorced wife of a peer. If she remarried anyone one (lets use Khan), she could be Lady Diana, Mrs. Khan which recognizes her family status and her married status.

William could never restore her HRH that she lost in the divorce but he could create her a HRH Princess Diana if the mood struck him to do so. BTW: I don't think titles and styles and whatever are changed for the deceased so this discussion, while interesting, is moot.

We saw that happen with Edward VIII's abdication. George VI created his brother HRH The Duke of Windsor with the provision that the HRH was for his use alone. Under common law and with peerages, Wallis was entitled to be called The Duchess of Windsor but not entitled to be addressed as HRH.

BTW: we're really veering very off topic unless any of this stuff was, by chance, revealed in Diana's secret tapes played backwards.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] If she remarried anyone one (lets use Khan), she could be Lady Diana, Mrs. Khan which recognizes her family status and her married status.

Lady Diana Khan, she would have been.

We saw that happen with Edward VIII's abdication. George VI created his brother HRH The Duke of Windsor [...]

Correct. But between the divorce in 1996 and an eventual creation of Lady Diana Khan as Princess of the United Kingdom in -let us assume- twenty years time, when William is King (2036), there is a gap of four decades (!). King George VI created his brother HRH The Duke of Windsor after the adbication.

 

[Osipi]

What would have been the use to give Lady Diana Khan or Lady Diana Al-Fayed a hereditary peerage? As you might know, titles only pass via the heirs of the male body. And her children already were Princes of the United Kingdom, of course.

In most cases should be added. There are a few remainders that allow the inheritance to go to the daughter.

We're talking peerages here and from my understanding, most peerages that are suggested to HM and approved by Parliament are lifetime peerages.

Royal peerages as the royal family has and uses and are the prerogative of HM, The Queen are usually steeped in historical meaning. First son and heir... Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall with all the trappings of the entitlement to be met. Duke of York... the second son. It was only with Edward VIII unprecedented abdication that a Duke of York became King. First daughter of a monarch.... Princess Royal.

Unprecedented was what we're witnessing with Edward. Eventually he'll be created Duke of Edinburgh by Charles as King as per the parent's wishes.

Diana would either have to discover a cure for cancer or solve world hunger singlehandedly or something spectacular for her to be considered for a peerage in her own right. To be honest, what she did was good but at the time it was her job. It was what she was expected to do. As a private citizen, Tony Blair could have put her up for the honors list but that never happened.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, as it is within the will and pleasure of the monarch, should he deem it to be, he could create his mother to be if she was still living....

HRH The Lady Diana, Mrs. Khan, Queen of Hearts and Mother to William V, King of the UK (with all his titles following), Grand Queen Mother of Hearts of the Children of HM, King William V (another long string of titles) and forever and always known from here on in as The Queen of Hearts of the People of the UK and the entire world.

Now that's a royal prerogative. Of course there'd be a whole lot of grief headed his way from those that he advises and reigns over and most likely he'd be deemed as mad as George III.

King George anyone?

 

[Denville]

Not so. Thatcher gave hereditary peerages to various politicans, whom iM sure never did anyting spectacular. I think that giving Diana a peerage would have recognised her status as a former royal, who had done her job very well, and had a special place in the hearts of UK citizens. it does not matter that her sons were Princes, this would have beene for her..

 

[Osipi]

I stand very much corrected.

Doing a bit of research, this is what I found. The entire page though is interesting to read if one is wanting to learn about hereditary and life peerages.

"Hereditary peers used all have the right to sit and vote in the Lords, but the number who can do so has now been limited. The hereditary peers themselves vote to select which of them will take seats in the Lords. All life peers can sit and vote.

Life peerages are created all the time - several are created every year. Hereditary peerages more or less stopped being created in the early 1960s, apart from a brief period in Margaret Thatcher's later, odder years when she handed out hereditary peerages to a couple of ex-politicians of her own party. (In fairness to her, much as I dislike being fair to her, she might have offered hereditary peerages to ex-politicians of other parties, and they might have turned them down.)

Since Margaret Thatcher stood down there have been no further hereditary peerages created."

Hereditary vs. Life Peerages in the UK [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

 

[Iluvbertie]

IDuke of York... the second son. It was only with Edward VIII unprecedented abdication that a Duke of York became King. First daughter of a monarch.... Princess Royal.

A number of Dukes of York have become King - Henry VIII, Charles I, James II and George V come to mind along with George VI. The only reason the second son, another Duke of York, of George III didn't become King in 1830 was that he died in 1828 and so died before his brother but he was the heir presumptive for most of George IV's reign. It has actually only been inherited once and that was its first creation back in the middle ages when it finally merged with the Crown when Edward IV seized the Crown during the Wars of the Roses.

If Andrew were to remarry and have a son then the York title would pass to that son of course. It is interesting that when there has been a male heir born to a Duke of York that Duke of York has actually become King.

Back to the topic in hand: Diana's titles were those typical of a woman - from birth they were from her father and then from marriage from her husband. At her death she was styled as the divorced wife of a peer of the realm. She would have lost the right to use that styling had she remarried (a reason why I doubt that she would ever have remarried as she wasn't going to give up the right to use 'Princess of Wales). There would have been no reason to give her a title in her own right and definitely not an hereditary peerage that could pass titles to her children.

 

[duke of poliganc]

There would have been no reason to give her a title in her own right and definitely not an hereditary peerage that could pass titles to her children.

if she had remarried and give up the right to use 'Princess of Wales'
i think it would have been appropriate to gave her a title in her own right as the mother of the king not because she is the ex wife of the heir apparent to the throne

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

if she had remarried and give up the right to use 'Princess of Wales'
i think it would have been appropriate to gave her a title in her own right as the mother of the king not because she is the ex wife of the heir apparent to the throne

All her life long Diana was styled as daughter of Viscount Althorp (Hon. Diana Spencer), as daughter of Earl Spencer (Lady Diana Spencer), as spouse of HRH The Prince of Wales (HRH The Princess of Wales) and as ex-spouse of the Prince of Wales (Diana, Princess of Wales). Was she married to her Beau, Mr Dodi Al-Fayed then she reverted back to her style of an Earl's daughter marrying with someone without title: Lady Diana Al-Fayed.

I am not sure how Lady Diana Al-Fayed could have been made a Countess or something in her own right and what this would have changed. In the married situation she still would be Mr Al-Fayed's wife and be part of his Egyptian family.

 

[Osipi]

if she had remarried and give up the right to use 'Princess of Wales'
i think it would have been appropriate to gave her a title in her own right as the mother of the king not because she is the ex wife of the heir apparent to the throne

Even if she had remarried though, she would still be able to use the styling of Lady as a daughter of an Earl. As it stands now, when she died, her styling of Diana, Princess of Wales denoted that she was at one time a Princess of Wales. Had she remained married to Charles, she would have remained HRH, The Princess of Wales.

Another factor is that should Diana had lived and never remarried and Charles went on to marry Camilla, We could possibly have had Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH, The Princess of Wales (Camilla).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Even if she had remarried though, she would still be able to use the styling of Lady as a daughter of an Earl. As it stands now, when she died, her styling of Diana, Princess of Wales denoted that she was at one time a Princess of Wales. Had she remained married to Charles, she would have remained HRH, The Princess of Wales.

Another factor is that should Diana had lived and never remarried and Charles went on to marry Camilla, We could possibly have had Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH, The Princess of Wales (Camilla).

One can have simultaneous ladies with the same title wandering around. Look at Diana's very own brother:

Victoria, Countess Spencer (1st spouse)
Caroline, Countess Spencer (2nd spouse)
The Countess Spencer (Karen, the current spouse)

The first Countess divorced and remarried 8 years later with Mr Jonathan Aitken. With that she lost her style as an ex-wife to the Earl and simply became Mrs Jonathan Aitken.

 

[duke of poliganc]

i'm just saying that the premises of creating for her a title in her own right is because she will always be the mother of the king whether she remarried or stayed single and
as a mater of fact this is what happened with alexandra countess of frederiksborg even thought here kids will never be kings put she still a mother of two danish princes

 

[Denville]

i'm just saying that the premises of creating for her a title in her own right is because she will always be the mother of the king whether she remarried or stayed single and
as a mater of fact this is what happened with alexandra countess of frederiksborg even thought here kids will never be kings put she still a mother of two danish princes

Exactly. I think as a former royal and a mother of princes, it woudl have been entirely appropriate. of course there are women with similar titles going around, but when they are in the news, as charles' new wife and his ex were liable to be, I think that it would not be a bad idea for Diana to have a differnet title. I dont see that anything she had done was so bad that she should not have had this.. I dont know if she woudl have wanted it, perhaps not, but I think it could have been considered as a possiblity.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

i'm just saying that the premises of creating for her a title in her own right is because she will always be the mother of the king whether she remarried or stayed single and
as a mater of fact this is what happened with alexandra countess of frederiksborg even thought here kids will never be kings put she still a mother of two danish princes

The Grevinde af Fredensborg, formerly Princess Joachim of Denmark, formerly Mrs Martin Jørgensen, née Alexandra Manley is not a very lucky example. After two failed marriages she still wanders around as a "Countess", still living on the expenses of Danish taxpayers and is an achilles' heel for the Danish royal family. On short term it looked a nice solution, on the longer term it became a headache dossier.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, I don't believe it ever was a possibility of happening. Not from HM, The Queen as up until Diana's death, the slurs and innuendos and whatever that Diana had put out in the media was still very fresh in their minds. I think it would also have driven the Duke of Edinburgh in to an apoplectic fit. We have to remember that Diana was only actually divorced from Charles for a short time before her death.

I'd have to look up the sources but if I remember right, the Prime Ministers and the governmental powers that be kind of regarded Diana as a "loose cannon" but once again, most of this was during the years of the separation between Charles and Diana.

Until the divorce became absolute, most of her good works and charity work actually were part and parcel of what she was expected to do as she was still HRH, The Princess of Wales although separated from Charles.

To my knowledge, titles and styles have never been created for a person that has passed on and the period between becoming divorced and her tragic accident was really a very short span of time.

This is, by no means, to make light of what Diana did and worked to achieve in her work as she did wonderfully well among the people. I'm just looking at it from a practical angle here.

 

[duke of poliganc]

if edward viii who nearly brought the monarchy to an end was created duke of windsor and his wife a duchess i don't know why wouldn't diana

The Grevinde af Fredensborg, After two failed marriages she still wanders around as a "Countess", still living on the expenses of Danish taxpayers and is an achilles' heel for the Danish royal family. On short term it looked a nice solution, on the longer term it became a headache dossier.

that's different her son nikolai who will always be a prince will not gonna take anything from the civil list having a title doesn't mean you take official allowance anymore and she doesn't take allowance because of her titles but because The Folketing decided to put her on the civil list for life when she was divorce in 2004 the title was created in 2005

 

[Osipi]

if edward viii who nearly brought the monarchy to an end was created duke of windsor and his wife a duchess i don't know why wouldn't diana

There's been really good discussions about the titles and styles of Edward VIII after the abdication in their own specific thread here.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-windsor-1894-1972-and-1895-1986-a-10245.html

A big difference that stands out for me between David and Diana is that David (Edward VIII) was a a Prince of the blood royal and the King's brother. Diana only became royal through marriage.

 

[duke of poliganc]

A big difference that stands out for me between David and Diana is that David (Edward VIII) was a a Prince of the blood royal and the King's brother. Diana only became royal through marriage.

i know there is a difference but the reason i said this example is for those who say that she damaged the monarchy and only done bad things so she doesn't deserve a title

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] If Diana was say Countess of Brington.. (is that the name of hte village near to her home?) she would have a settled title in her own right. if she remarried and had more children- they would be Lady Mary X or The Hon Christoper X..I think it woudl have satisfied her to have a title that was hers, and not dependent on being Charles' ex wife or William's mother.

Titles are hereditary for "male heirs of the body, lawfully begotten" unless there is a special remainder in or to the Letters Patent. In normal situations the children of the Countess of Brington with Mr Khan are still simply Mr Khan and Miss Khan. No Honourables and no Lords and no Ladies.

In very exceptional circumstances, to extremely meritorious leaders in war, a remainder has been attached to the first Peer because there was no direct male issue, so that a brother or a cousin, or by lack of these a daughter, would become the second holder of that peerage.

An example: Admiral Horatio Nelson - his peerage passed by a special remainder, which included Lord Nelson's father and sisters and their male issue, to Lord Nelson's brother, William Nelson. Later Lord Nelson's brother was created Earl Nelson and Viscount Merton.

An example: Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener - his peerage passed by a special remainder, which included Lord Kitchener' brothers and sisters and their male issue, to Lord Kitchener's elder brother, Henry Kitchener. He became the 2nd Earl Kitchener and Viscount Broome.

An example: Field Marshal Edmund Allenby - his peerage passed by a special remainder, which included Lord Allenby's brothers and their male issue, to Lord Allenby's nephew, Dudley Allenby. He became the 2nd Viscount Allenby.

An example: Air Marshal Charles Portal - the title Viscount Portal became extinct on Lord Portal's death in 1971 as he left no surviving sons. The other title Baron Portal of Hungerford, was succeeded according to a special remainder by his daughter Rosemary. However Baroness Portal of Hungerford died without issue, and so also the barony became extinct on her death.

An example: Rear Admiral Louis Mountbatten - the titles Earl Mountbatten and Baron Romsey were -by special reminder- inheritable by the Earl's daughters Lady Patricia and the male heirs of her body or -by lack of heirs- by the younger daughter Lady Pamela. The son of lady Patricia, the current 8th Baron Brabourne, will inherit all titles.

All these men were war heros and all these titles were bestowed on a male. Giving Diana a hereditary title with a special remainder for her Al-Fayed or Khan children, bypasssing her elder sons from her first marriage, seems very unlikely to me. The named gentlemen were most exceptional and of course the Nineties were not the same as the Victorian, Edwardian or Georgian era...

 

[duke of poliganc]

i think if she was created a peer in her own right it would have been a life peer or without special remainder and the title would passes to william and finally merge with the crown again

 

[Osipi]

Had Diana lived and continued on to make headways into fields like land mines, AIDS, or other charitable causes, its very possible that she could have been nominated for the Honors List in her own right in recognition of her service to the UK. These people are nominated by the Prime Minister and the government of the day and approved by the Queen.

If she, by chance, ever was considered for a title of her own, it most likely would be a lifetime peerage that wouldn't be transferable to anyone and that peerage would end at the time of her death. These are also at the discretion of the Prime Minister and the government with the Queen's approval

Basically though, what we're looking at logically was that the span of time between the divorce and her death was really too short to have her do anything that would merit recognition in her own right.

 

[duke of poliganc]

and maybe it wouldn't have happened in QEII reign maybe in charles or williams reign

 

[Osipi]

and maybe it wouldn't have happened in QEII reign maybe in charles or williams reign

There is one thing that we're overlooking here as far as creating someone a hereditary peerage or a life peerage as, if I'm following this discussion correctly, it is more than just giving someone a title in their own right.

1. For the most part, peerages are created at the request of the government of the day that have been approved by HM, The Queen. Why? Because, although I'm not that well read up on the subject, a peer (either kind) are permitted to sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons and participate in governmental business.

2. The creation of royal dukes are rare and usually only bestowed upon a bloodline prince at the time of his marriage. (Harry would be the next prime example of this as he most probably will be given a dukedom at the time of his marriage). A monarch bestowing the orders of chivalry such as the Garter and the Thistle and the monarch's own personal acknowledgments such as the family orders and such do not carry titles and styles (to my knowledge).

Even if Diana was alive and well and very well respected and admired and worked tirelessly to benefit the people, I don't think she ever would receive anything more than perhaps the government of the day nominating her for one of the honors that come out every year in the Honors list. The highest I believe is the KBE (Knight of the British Empire) and the female version of the title that goes with it would be Dame.

Geesh, this is interesting and I'm learning a lot with this.