Diana's Styles and Titles

[ysbel]

alicky, we must have crossposted. I think I answered your question.

 

[Alicky]

What if Andrew remarried? His new wife would be the Duchess of York right? What would Sarah be bumped to? There wouldn't be two right??

 

[Mapple]

well, how can u explain that she stayed Princess of Wales, while Cam is not- Cam chose very wisely not to get the Royal title of Princess of Wales, it would have caused more and more despice for her person, don't know if u lose the title, but wasn't sarah the Duchess of York even after her divorce from Prince Andrew?

Diana wasn't 'The Princess of Wales' in 1996-1997. She was styled 'Diana, Princess of Wales'--a subtle, but significant distinction. On the contrary, Camilla is 'The Princess of Wales' now, but she doesn't use that title.

 

[Alicky]

OMG we just crossposted again!

 

[Mapple]

What if Andrew remarried? His new wife would be the Duchess of York right? What would Sarah be bumped to? There wouldn't be two right??

The new wife would be 'HRH The Duchess of York', while Sarah would remain 'Sarah, Duchess of York'--no mix-ups for them.

 

[Alicky]

Diana wasn't 'The Princess of Wales' in 1996-1997. She was styled 'Diana, Princess of Wales'--a subtle, but significant distinction. On the contrary, Camilla is 'The Princess of Wales' now, but she doesn't use that title.

So Sarah is Sarah, Duchess of York. If Andrew remarried would she still have that? This is difficult!

 

[Alicky]

OMG I crossposted AGAIN. I have to learn to bite my tongue (hands).

 

[Australian]

I think she wont be able to use the title if Andrew remarries. The new Duchess of York will be entitled to it instead. Or on the other hand, Andrew's new wife might use another of his titles (if he has one??)
Just my opinion

 

[ysbel]

LOL Alicky! This thread is getting some action this morning.

 

[wymanda]

well, I studied Di's Royal lineage, believe me, her blood was far more Royal than QEII and her husband....

That "Bar Sinister" that runs through the Spencer coat of arms really makes the difference though. Dozens of aristocratic british families descend from the bastard children of Charles II

btw, every1 knows that QV was not really the daughter of the duke of kent, who could not concieve, he was ill and elderly, she was a german gentleman's daughter.

This is an unproven rumour based on the fact that the haemophilia made its appearance in Victoria's children. Some recent research shows that it is more than possible that the gene entered the royal family through Victoria's mother as there is considerable evidence in the numerous deaths of infant & young male children to lead experts to believe that haemophilia was the most likely cause of death

 

[Oppie]

Andrew also has the titles of Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. So I guess his wife could use Countess of Inverness but I doubt it. She would be entitled to and should use Duchess of York.

 

[Mapple]

I think she wont be able to use the title if Andrew remarries. The new Duchess of York will be entitled to it instead. Or on the other hand, Andrew's new wife might use another of his titles (if he has one??)
Just my opinion

I think that the rules for the divorcees are approximately the same as for dowager peeresses.

For example, we have the 8th Duke of Soutwell (invented title), who lives in the 19th Century. His wife is the Duchess of Soutwell. The old Duke dies, his son inherits the Dukedom, and the 9th Duke's wife is the new Duchess of Southwell. The Duke's mother becomes the Dowager Duchess of Southwell.

The 9th Duke is erm... unlucky. He dies, and his son is the 10th Duke, and the wife of the new Duke is the new Duchess. The wife of the 9th Duke has to style herself 'Mary, Duchess of Southwell' until her mother-in-law dies, when she becomes the Dowager Duchess of Southwell.

Now, in 21th Century the widows are much more likely to drop 'dowager' and use the second option, which was appropriated by the divorcees too.

Andrew also has the titles of Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. So I guess his wife could use Countess of Inverness but I doubt it. She would be entitled to and should use Duchess of York.

That's right. If Andrew would have a son, 'Earl of Inverness' would be his courtesy title, and the son's wife would be 'Countess of Inverness' (no 'the' for them!)

 

[emily62_1]

The silent gene.

That "Bar Sinister" that runs through the Spencer coat of arms really makes the difference though. Dozens of aristocratic british families descend from the bastard children of Charles II




This is an unproven rumour based on the fact that the haemophilia made its appearance in Victoria's children. Some recent research shows that it is more than possible that the gene entered the royal family through Victoria's mother as there is considerable evidence in the numerous deaths of infant & young male children to lead experts to believe that haemophilia was the most likely cause of death

unproven rumour, have u ever studied Genetics, I have ,in college, QV could not inherit the gene from her mother only, it's not the way it works....... what's more, Lady Di descends 4 times from Charles the II, 6 times from Mary, Queen of Scots, once from James the II, through Arabella Churchill- Charles does not descend directly from the Stuart, nor from Hanover.

 

[Alicky]

Not having studied genetics myself, could there have been a mutation in her father's sperm or in herself?

 

[Idriel]

unproven rumour, have u ever studied Genetics, I have ,in college, QV could not inherit the gene from her mother only, it's not the way it works....... what's more, Lady Di descends 4 times from Charles the II, 6 times from Mary, Queen of Scots, once from James the II, through Arabella Churchill- Charles does not descend directly from the Stuart, nor from Hanover.

I really don't know about Victoria, but at least her husband was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the royal house who gave Kings and Queen to most European thrones. So Charles is cousin to almost every royals in Europe, and descent from very ancient German royal houses through both parents (the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg), and from English and Scottish Kings through his Mum and the Queen mother. I trust you when you say that Diana came from a very royal background, but I still don't think she was more royal that the Queen or Charles (and definitely not more than Philip). The likely thing is that she was rather equal to them.

 

[ysbel]

Many doctors think Victoria received a spontaneous mutation of the key gene that causes hemophilia at birth. The same happened to Robert Massey's wife. He is the author who after finding his son had hemophilia researched the Romanovs and wrote the book 'Nicolas and Alexandra'.

Prince Charles is a direct descendent of Sophie of Hannover who was a grandaughter of James I, the first Stuart king of England. That seems pretty direct to me.

No one was descended from a legitimate heir of Charles II because he had no legitimate heirs. A lot of aristocratic English families are descended from Charles II through his illegitimate children. Charlie the Second was just that kind of guy. Very friendly towards the ladies I hear.

 

[tiaraprin]

well, I studied Di's Royal lineage, believe me, her blood was far more Royal than QEII and her husband.... btw, every1 knows that QV was not really the daughter of the duke of kent, who could not concieve, he was ill and elderly, she was a german gentleman's daughter. Di had had some bulimia episodes, be4e her wed, but Camilla and charles affair drove her to insanity! I can't c why William and Harry never think of this when they hug and are so nice to Camilla and their father, if I were them, i could not help but thinking how those 2s had affected their late mum's serenity and happiness.

What do you mean that Queen Victoria was not Edward, Duke of Kent's daughter?? Where are your sources and proof for that?? I would like to see that!!

Yes Diana had more Royal British blood than Prince Charles. It is just that all the connections, except one, have been "from the wrong side of the blanket" i.e. illegitimate. Diana is also fourth cousins with Sarah, Duchess of York.

William now has more British Royal blood since Queen Anne.

 

[Idriel]

Yes Diana had more Royal British blood than Prince Charles.

Ah if we are talking about British blood, I agree Diana had more than anyone in the family.

 

[iowabelle]

I had never heard that there was a question about Queen Victoria's mother and a German gentleman. I did know there were rumors about Conroy, her private secretary, but it seems pretty unlikely that he was Victoria's father. (My guess is there was a physical relationship between the Duchess of Kent and Conroy after the Duke was dead, based on the way Victoria acted.)

 

[tiaraprin]

it looks QEII and Charles are trying to make Di to be forgotten by ppl, 1 can't even leave flowers in front of Kensington Palace for Diana, that soon police take the flowers away, is it this as Charles doesn't want Cam to be hurt, have u read what happened in Bristol when Cam and Charles went for a visit and there was a huge Di's portrait dated 1987, when she opened something in this college, they had to shove the portrait away, for good, so poor camilla would not be hurt by Diana's portrait......

Diana is the mother of the future King. NOTHING Camilla says or does can change that. That portrait should not have been moved!! If she is "trying" to be sensitive by just being the Duchess of Cornwall, then she can jolly well deal with a portrait!

Just like Diana had to bear her, Camilla is going to have to bear that Diana is forever linked to the Windsors. She better deal with it, and perhaps learn of some of the pain Diana had to cope with?

 

[Mapple]

I had never heard that there was a question about Queen Victoria's mother and a German gentleman. I did know there were rumors about Conroy, her private secretary, but it seems pretty unlikely that he was Victoria's father. (My guess is there was a physical relationship between the Duchess of Kent and Conroy after the Duke was dead, based on the way Victoria acted.)

Again, there were no known cases of haemophilia in the family of Conroy. Most likely it was a 'new' mutation.

 

[emily62_1]

Not having studied genetics myself, could there have been a mutation in her father's sperm or in herself?

a mutation is quite rare, anyway, her father, whoever he was, did pass the silent gene to her, QV, who was not ill, as women are - sane bearers- and passed the gene to her sons, of course, not to all, she passed it only to 1, Leopold- as for mutation, it should have occured in the Duke of Kent, who, witnesses tell this, was not with his wife when she concieved, she was in Prussia, or a country of the modern Germany- I did not want to believe it, but who should be sitting on the throne, now, is Edward George, Duke of Kent, son of that Duke of Kent, George, who married P. Marina of Greece. He died in 1942.

 

[emily62_1]

Diana is the mother of the future King. NOTHING Camilla says or does can change that. That portrait should not have been moved!! If she is "trying" to be sensitive by just being the Duchess of Cornwall, then she can jolly well deal with a portrait!

Just like Diana had to bear her, Camilla is going to have to bear that Diana is forever linked to the Windsors. She better deal with it, and perhaps learn of some of the pain Diana had to cope with?

sure, I agree, she could cope with Diana being Charles' wife for years, could it be she is suffering from a late guilt? I'm joking, she's not the type...... They are cancelling all traces of Diana, only 2 years ago, u could still find items sold in shops with Di's face, now, last month, I asked for a cup, as my daughter's name is Diana, a cup with the name Diana engraved, the shopper told me they were not allowed to sell them anymore -if u visit Kew Gardens, u'll find only a small photo of Di who opened part of it back in '87, and her photo is partially torn......

 

[iowabelle]

a mutation is quite rare, anyway, her father, whoever he was, did pass the silent gene to her, QV, who was not ill, as women are - sane bearers- and passed the gene to her sons, of course, not to all, she passed it only to 1, Leopold- as for mutation, it should have occured in the Duke of Kent, who, witnesses tell this, was not with his wife when she concieved, she was in Prussia, or a country of the modern Germany- I did not want to believe it, but who should be sitting on the throne, now, is Edward George, Duke of Kent, son of that Duke of Kent, George, who married P. Marina of Greece. He died in 1942.

Why would the Duke of Kent be sitting on the throne? If you X out Victoria and look for the closest relative among the descendants of George III, you're going to stumble across our good friend Prince Ernst August of Hanover, husband to Princess Caroline of Monaco. (And, ironically, Ernst August is also a descendant of Queen Victoria.)

 

[Mapple]

a mutation is quite rare, anyway, her father, whoever he was, did pass the silent gene to her, QV, who was not ill, as women are - sane bearers- and passed the gene to her sons, of course, not to all, she passed it only to 1, Leopold- as for mutation, it should have occured in the Duke of Kent, who, witnesses tell this, was not with his wife when she concieved, she was in Prussia, or a country of the modern Germany- I did not want to believe it, but who should be sitting on the throne, now, is Edward George, Duke of Kent, son of that Duke of Kent, George, who married P. Marina of Greece. He died in 1942.

The Duke of Kent and Viktoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld married on 11 July 1818 at Kew Palace. The future Queen was begotten in mid-August. Was the Duchess honeymooning in Germany on her own?

BTW, why the present Duke of Kent?

 

[Elspeth]

Diana is the mother of the future King. NOTHING Camilla says or does can change that. That portrait should not have been moved!! If she is "trying" to be sensitive by just being the Duchess of Cornwall, then she can jolly well deal with a portrait!

Just like Diana had to bear her, Camilla is going to have to bear that Diana is forever linked to the Windsors. She better deal with it, and perhaps learn of some of the pain Diana had to cope with?

Chances are, she would have dealt with the portrait just fine; she must be used to coming across reminders of Diana everywhere. If some misguided official decided to move it in order to try and be considerate to Camilla, then it's his responsibility, not hers. Until we hear from a reliable source that Charles and Camilla require such things to be done, it isn't fair to blame her for an excess of zeal by a local official.

 

[Elspeth]

btw, every1 knows that QV was not really the daughter of the duke of kent, who could not concieve, he was ill and elderly, she was a german gentleman's daughter.

I don't think "everyone" knows anything of the sort. This is just another rumour that's hard to substantiate, just like the rumour that the Duke of Kent had illegitimate children of his own, which contradicts the above rumour that he was infertile.

 

[emily62_1]

The Duke of Kent and Viktoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld married on 11 July 1818 at Kew Palace. The future Queen was begotten in mid-August. Was the Duchess honeymooning in Germany on her own?

BTW, why the present Duke of Kent?

don't think there was a honeymoon, The Duke of Kent was a very ill man, he knew that , after George IV and William the IV's death, there were other possible younger brothers, he had to produce a child.... BTW, not Conroy, her suitor was from Germany, can't remember the name, John Conroy was the Duchess of Kent's lover, after her husband's death. Why Edward George, George V was the King, George, Duke of Kent, was younger than George VI, but I came across a story about George VI, well, forget it, as it could only be a rumour, I'm sure it's only a rumour.

 

[emily62_1]

I don't think "everyone" knows anything of the sort. This is just another rumour that's hard to substantiate, just like the rumour that the Duke of Kent had illegitimate children of his own, which contradicts the above rumour that he was infertile.

illegitimate kids? by him ?

 

[iowabelle]

Chances are, she would have dealt with the portrait just fine; she must be used to coming across reminders of Diana everywhere. If some misguided official decided to move it in order to try and be considerate to Camilla, then it's his responsibility, not hers. Until we hear from a reliable source that Charles and Camilla require such things to be done, it isn't fair to blame her for an excess of zeal by a local official.

I heard that the local government wanted to display some charters or historical documents, and because of regulations they are only allowed to put so many nail holes in their walls and that's why Diana's portrait was moved.

Additionally, it was moved to a location where Charles and Camilla had to walk by it.

(I've seen pictures of that portrait, the one with three views of Diana, and it is breathtaking.)