Diana's Styles and Titles

[Osipi]

I also think it showed humility too. ?

 

[Kataryn]

The Oxford says that a royal is someone having the status of a King or Queen, or is formally related to them ("the royal family"). When Diana died, she had no formal relationship to the King or Queen.

Sarah Ferguson and Mark Phillips are no royals either.

She had a relation by blood to the future king William, so she surely was Royal, I think.

 

[Somebody]

She had a relation by blood to the future king William, so she surely was Royal, I think.

William's maternal grandparents all so had a relation by blood to the future king. That didn't make them royal. Zara and Peter are children of the princess royal and grandchildren of the queen (so royal blood) but still they aren't royal. Many king's had illegitimate children. Very much related by blood but not royal... Diana's royal status completely depended on her marriage to Charles. When the marriage dissolved she was no longer a royal highness, so no longer a royal.

 

[Osipi]

Actually, she was no longer royal after her divorce and that was shown by the stripping of her HRH. Her title then was Diana, Princess of Wales which is the courtesy styling for a divorced wife of a peer. It says that she was once *a* Princess of Wales but no longer *The* Princess of Wales.

If Diana had lived and Charles had still married Camilla and Camilla chose to be known as The Princess of Wales, Diana would still use her courtesy title until she remarried (if she ever did).

Looking at Charles Spencer who has divorced multiple times, his single ex-wives could be known as XXXX, Countess Spencer while his present wife would be knows as The Countess Spencer.

I think I got that right.

 

[Kataryn]

William's maternal grandparents all so had a relation by blood to the future king. That didn't make them royal. Zara and Peter are children of the princess royal and grandchildren of the queen (so royal blood) but still they aren't royal. Many king's had illegitimate children. Very much related by blood but not royal... Diana's royal status completely depended on her marriage to Charles. When the marriage dissolved she was no longer a royal highness, so no longer a royal.

I think that was a problem Buckingham Palace tried to resolve, but Diana died before they had a fixed solution. There had been a lot of discussions about that. And I think after William was born, her status didn't depend on her marriage to Charles alone. IMHO if Sarah had not had her divorce at about the same time, Diana could have kept her HRH for the fact that she was William's mother.

 

[Kataryn]

Actually, she was no longer royal after her divorce and that was shown by the stripping of her HRH. Her title then was Diana, Princess of Wales which is the courtesy styling for a divorced wife of a peer. It says that she was once *a* Princess of Wales but no longer *The* Princess of Wales.

If Diana had lived and Charles had still married Camilla and Camilla chose to be known as The Princess of Wales, Diana would still use her courtesy title until she remarried (if she ever did).

Looking at Charles Spencer who has divorced multiple times, his single ex-wives could be known as XXXX, Countess Spencer while his present wife would be knows as The Countess Spencer.

I think I got that right.

Yes, you got it right.


In times when a death of a husband was the only way a marriage could end, the mother of the next peer could chose to be called "The Dowager (title) (Family name)" like The Dowager Countess of Grantham or the title like they used it for Diana and Sarah and for widows who were not the mother of the next peer: (First name), (Title without "the") (Family name). If the Dowager Countess of Grantham eg felt she was to young to be called a "Dowager", she could have used the name Violet, Lady (or Countess of) Grantham instead.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that was a problem Buckingham Palace tried to resolve, but Diana died before they had a fixed solution. There had been a lot of discussions about that. And I think after William was born, her status didn't depend on her marriage to Charles alone. IMHO if Sarah had not had her divorce at about the same time, Diana could have kept her HRH for the fact that she was William's mother.

Sarah was divorced first and she kept the HRH from her divorce until Diana's in the August.

It was Diana's divorce that forced the Queen to strip Sarah of HRH as well - although that had never been discussed as part of Sarah's divorce settlement.

They had made it very clear - she was not royal but would, at times, be invited to royal events i.e. events involving her sons but otherwise she was not part of the royal family nor was she royal. That was very clear and made clear in the divorce settlement.

 

[Elan]

They had made it very clear - she was not royal but would, at times, be invited to royal events i.e. events involving her sons but otherwise she was not part of the royal family nor was she royal. That was very clear and made clear in the divorce settlement.

On the verge of being Queen, with media frenzy paying ransom for photos, interviews, etc. After all that, not royal..

Sarah, I can grasp. But if you achieve icon status all over the place, and news outlets are glued to your every word, well after a divorce, what would that be called then ? Double royal ? But without the official stamp.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Diana’s own words and actions were the impetus for stripping her of her HRH. You cannot say your estranged husband should be skipped as the next monarch in favor of your son, among many other things.
Sarah may have done some stupid things over the years but she has never badmouthed the BRF.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Diana’s own words and actions were the impetus for stripping her of her HRH. You cannot say your estranged husband should be skipped as the next monarch in favor of your son, among many other things.
Sarah may have done some stupid things over the years but she has never badmouthed the BRF.

Diana's openly desavouing of the Heir was bordering high treason in Ye Olde Times.

Offences constituting high treason include attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession.

 

[Iluvbertie]

On the verge of being Queen, with media frenzy paying ransom for photos, interviews, etc. After all that, not royal..

Sarah, I can grasp. But if you achieve icon status all over the place, and news outlets are glued to your every word, well after a divorce, what would that be called then ? Double royal ? But without the official stamp.

It is very simple:

She became royal when she married.

She stopped being royal when she divorced.

The Queen's Will is the one that determines who is and who isn't royal and she had decided that Diana was no longer royal once she was divorced.

 

[Elan]

She became royal when she married.

She stopped being royal when she divorced.

The Queen's Will is the one that determines who is and who isn't royal and she had decided that Diana was no longer royal once she was divorced.

I suppose technically that is true, but it ignores pertinent history.

Is there a scholar today(?) who argues whether Alexander was King of Macedon, after learning of vigorous argument from others in line to.. On the father's side he was legitimate, but not on the mother's. Technically, it does not add up to being 'royal'. Yet history devotes little to it today, when the rest of his life is considered.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The UK isn't ancient Macedon and they have clear rules regarding who is and who isn't royal decided by set means and set means only:

1. Letters Patent - mainly the 1917 ones but also the 1996 and 2012 LPs.

2. Royal Warrants - none currently in existence

3. The Queen's Will - which has determined the titles for the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (allowing her to use the style Princess Alice after the death of her husband) and also denying HRH to Louise and James.

How other countries or times determine status is irrelevant, especially when the law of the land recognises the legality of Letters Patent in determining status.

The 1917 Letters Patent made Diana a royal as the wife of The Prince of Wales along with George V's own later interpretation of those LPs that the wives of a Prince were also royal. He made that determination in 1923 when asked if Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons would become royal when she married The Duke of York. Had he decided 'no' at that time then Diana would also not have become royal but as he decided that additional interpretation of the 1917 LPs all subsequent non-royal born wives of UK Princes have become royal (Princess Marina was a Princess born and so would have remained royal on her marriage). Had he not made that determination Alice, Katherine, Birgitte, Marie-Christine, Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Camilla, Catherine and Meghan wouldn't have become royal at all.

The 1997 Letters Patent removed the royal status as the divorced wife of The Prince of Wales.

You can't recognise the legality of one and ignore the legality of the other.

How Diana became a royal was the same way she stopped by royal - by Letters Patent.

 

[Elan]

As fascinating as the tenets are, in some ways they can be seen (here) as an embarassment to the RF. Whatever degree of spite was in the air during the settlement, convincing the Queen to rescind...I recall reading her preference was for keeping the HRH at the time.

Diana clearly had some faults, but whether we approve or not, we are talking about someone whose life rose to near mythical stature. The patents do nothing to change her in that light.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 'Letters Patent' are not embarrassing at all.

They spell out who is and who isn't royal and by what criteria.

That is all they do.

With two ex-wives in the same year a decision had to be made - do they both remain royal or neither of them. The Queen decided on neither of them remaining royal.

It wasn't only about Diana but also Sarah and how they would use that HRH once outside the royal family. By removing it from both women it was made clear that HRH comes with marriage and marriage only - it was clarifying things that weren't clear in 1917 just as the status of the wife wasn't clear at all so George V made The King's Will known in 1923 to give royal status to the wives who didn't have it in their own right.

That is what happens sometimes - further clarification needed. George V didn't deal with the possibility of a divorced ex-wife because that situation wasn't one he could envisage. When it became a possibility the BRF had to make a decision and so The Queen decided that an ex-wife was no longer royal.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

If Diana had re-married, what involvement would the Royal Household have? Would they have announced the engagement? Would Diana have had to ask the Queen for permission to remarry?

 

[Nice Nofret]

Only Persons in line of sucsession ever had to ask for permission to marry! Diana never was on that list.


By the new rule only the first 6 People in line have to ask...


And of course no involvment of Royal Houshold or announcment - she wasn't anylonger a member of the royal family

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?

 

[Osipi]

Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?

HH is not used in Britain any longer to my knowledge. Whatever title or style Diana *could* have had remained solely as at the will and pleasure of HM, The Queen. At the time of the divorce though, I do not believe that the Queen held Diana in the highest of regards.

 

[Iluvbertie]

HH and HSH were official removed as options in the UK in the 1917 Letters Patent of George V.

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked

The wording of the 1917 Letters Patent that covers HH and SH.

 

[Durham]

The 'Letters Patent' are not embarrassing at all.

They spell out who is and who isn't royal and by what criteria.

That is all they do.

With two ex-wives in the same year a decision had to be made - do they both remain royal or neither of them. The Queen decided on neither of them remaining royal.

It wasn't only about Diana but also Sarah and how they would use that HRH once outside the royal family. By removing it from both women it was made clear that HRH comes with marriage and marriage only - it was clarifying things that weren't clear in 1917 just as the status of the wife wasn't clear at all so George V made The King's Will known in 1923 to give royal status to the wives who didn't have it in their own right.

That is what happens sometimes - further clarification needed. George V didn't deal with the possibility of a divorced ex-wife because that situation wasn't one he could envisage. When it became a possibility the BRF had to make a decision and so The Queen decided that an ex-wife was no longer royal.

I think this is also one of the reasons why the Duchess of Windsor was denied HRH status. George VI was concerned that a hypothetical divorced duchess would remain HRH. Wallis had after all been divorced twice before.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

HH and HSH were official removed as options in the UK in the 1917 Letters Patent of George V.

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked

The wording of the 1917 Letters Patent that covers HH and SH.

The wording covers HRH as well ("Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness"), but that was apparently not enough to block subsequent monarchs from conferring the HRH on other individuals (e.g. in 1948 and 2012), despite those conferrals violating the terms of the 1917 letters Patent. Another reason why repeal or amendment of the 1917 Letters Patent is long overdue.

And strictly speaking, the paragraph applies only to descendants of a British Sovereign; it would otherwise have barred wives of princes who married after 1917 from sharing the HRH of their husbands.

 

[Somebody]

The wording covers HRH as well ("Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness"), but that was apparently not enough to block subsequent monarchs from conferring the HRH on other individuals (e.g. in 1948 and 2012), despite those conferrals violating the terms of the 1917 letters Patent. Another reason why repeal or amendment of the 1917 Letters Patent is long overdue.

And strictly speaking, the paragraph applies only to descendants of a British Sovereign; it would otherwise have barred wives of princes who married after 1917 from sharing the HRH of their husbands.

The 'save as aforesaid' is indeed crucial here. Here is the full wording (for those interested):

George the Fifth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come Greeting:

Whereas Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her Letters Patent dated the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Her Reign declare her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned And whereas we deem it expedient that the said Letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared.

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour

And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms

Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of November in the eighth year of Our reign.

Source: Heraldica

So, according to these Letters Patent Charles, Anne, Charlotte and Louis should not have been HRHs; while Louise and James should have been. Maybe the queen leaves it for Charles to write new Letters Patent that represent the current situation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Deleted - where has the 'delete button' gone?

 

[Countessmeout]

The 'save as aforesaid' is indeed crucial here. Here is the full wording (for those interested):

Source: Heraldica

So, according to these Letters Patent Charles, Anne, Charlotte and Louis should not have been HRHs; while Louise and James should have been. Maybe the queen leaves it for Charles to write new Letters Patent that represent the current situation.

LP's are not laws needing amending. They are simply proclamations made by the monarch of how things will be handled. It is in the power of succeeding monarchs to issue their own proclamations.

In 1948 the queen's father saw fit to proclaim:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth. Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal 'Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter

No official proclamation was made for Louise and James. Technically they should be Prince/ss of UK. It was simply stated they would be referred to as the children of an earl.

Like her father Elizabeth saw the need to create new LP when William and Kate had children. Under the old LP's, only William's eldest son would have been a Prince, any daughters or younger sons would have been styled the children of a duke until their grandfather became king. Including if George had been a girl.

Elizabeth issued LP in 2012, prior to George's birth

31 December 2012 The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour. C I P Denyer

Any changes to titles of grandchildren will easily be addressed by Charles in the same way, when he is king.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

"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.

The press reporters often referred to Diana as "Princess Diana". Here in the United States many people just called called her "Princess Diana".
On her wedding day some people did not know she was "Lady Diana" until the reporters began talking about her before the wedding began.

 

[Denville]

yes we know she was not Princess Diana but I've seen Harry on TV recently, where during a speech he refers to her as Pss Diana

 

[muriel]

yes we know she was not Princess Diana but I've seen Harry on TV recently, where during a speech he refers to her as Pss Diana

Whilst married to Charles, Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales, but not Princess Diana.

After the divorce, she was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales. She had no title.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The press reporters often referred to Diana as "Princess Diana". Here in the United States many people just called called her "Princess Diana".
On her wedding day some people did not know she was "Lady Diana" until the reporters began talking about her before the wedding began.

There were a lot of informal media names used like Princess Di,Lady Di ,Lady Diana and the Queen Mum for the late queen mother.

 

[Denville]

Whilst married to Charles, Diana was HRH The Princess of Wales, but not Princess Diana.

After the divorce, she was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales. She had no title.

Yes but if even Harry and for all I know WIlliam refers to her as Pss Diana at times, of course other people are going ot pick up the wrong title.