Diana's Styles and Titles

[sunshine_93]

I think Diana aways will be a ,,Princess of People's hearts'' but I think that her title is only Princess Diana.

 

[Warren]

Her correct title (or form of address) after the divorce was 'Diana, Princess of Wales', but she was commonly referred to as 'Princess Diana'.

 

[georgiea]

I think Diana aways will be a ,,Princess of People's hearts'' but I think that her title is only Princess Diana.

I was corrected on the forum- Her offical title Diana, Princess of Wales after the divorce. Just like Sarah, Duchess of York. Princess Diana is just used because I believe it is easy to read and write.

 

[jcbcode99]

Diana's Title

{thread starter material deleted - Elspeth} I was thinking earlier today about how Diana had wanted to retain her title of HRH The Princess of Wales, but in the end became simply Diana, Princess of Wales.

Specifically, I was thinking about William and Harry. Let's just for a moment forget all the other "stuff" and just focus on the aspects of the title.

With HRH Princess Alexandra of Denmark, when she and Prince Joachim divorced she did lose the HRH but was given the title:
Her Highness Princess Alexandra of Denmark, Countess of Fredericksborg

I think that George V changed a law that kept a title such as "Her Highness" was being able to be used, so "Her Highness" for Diana would not have been feasible. But, why not an alternate title? Regardless of how she and Charles ended their marriage (and we all know how many threads that has caused to erupt into mayhem) as the mother of the future King perhaps she should have been given a new title so that the whole furor over a new wife using the PoW title wouldn't have occurred.

Because of her position as William's mother, why not create her a Princess of the UK in her own right, give her a title of Countess or Baroness and refer to her as "Princess Diana, Countess of ??" in a title that would not be hereditary, as her sons would inherit titles through the Crown.

Was this a topic that was ever generated during the divorce proceedings?

 

[COUNTESS]

She had a title. Lady Diana Spencer. When she married she was styled as her husband. All divorced women are accorded their married names after the divorce, so had she been Mrs. Charles Windsor, she would have become Diana Windsor. In essence that is what happened, she became Diana, Princess of Wales. Had she lived, I doubt that there would have been a second "Mrs. Windsor", unless she, of course, remarried and even then it would have been touchy.

 

[sirhon11234]

The Princess was offered to be a Princess of the U.K. but with a lower alimony. She refused.

 

[jcbcode99]

The Princess was offered to be a Princess of the U.K. but with a lower alimony. She refused.

That's what I wanted to know--thank you, Sirhon!

 

[jcbcode99]

She had a title. Lady Diana Spencer. When she married she was styled as her husband. All divorced women are accorded their married names after the divorce, so had she been Mrs. Charles Windsor, she would have become Diana Windsor. In essence that is what happened, she became Diana, Princess of Wales. Had she lived, I doubt that there would have been a second "Mrs. Windsor", unless she, of course, remarried and even then it would have been touchy.

I understand all of that, that she did indeed have a title--but I wondered if she had been given the title of Princess of the UK and then Countess after her name if that would have been something she would have been interested in accepting.

 

[COUNTESS]

Obviously, not. I guess, "show me the money" won over "a showy title".

 

[jcbcode99]

Obviously, not. I guess, "show me the money" won over "a showy title".

Oh Countess! You are hilarious!
I suppose her whole identity was tied up in being the Pow--I mean, she never had the opportunity to advance educationally and she had been married at 20--a time when most young women are still finding themselves. I can't say that I blame her for not wanting to give up what she had in a sense done--which was create an identity based around the title. But, hearing that she really just wanted a larger settlement kinda solidifies my feelings about her anyway. I think it would have been nice to be a Princess of the UK in her own right with a nice little title as frosting.
But, as she did have a hereditary title of her own, Lady Diana Spencer, and had she accepted the title of Princess of the UK, what would have her title--Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of the United Kingdom? Or would the Lady Diana have been dropped?
Titles can become so confusing so quickly!

 

[kimebear]

If she had accepted the title in her own right, it would have obligated her to continue to work for The Firm and live by their restrictions. That is something I believe she did not want to do anymore.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Oh Countess! You are hilarious!
I suppose her whole identity was tied up in being the Pow--I mean, she never had the opportunity to advance educationally and she had been married at 20--a time when most young women are still finding themselves. I can't say that I blame her for not wanting to give up what she had in a sense done--which was create an identity based around the title. But, hearing that she really just wanted a larger settlement kinda solidifies my feelings about her anyway. I think it would have been nice to be a Princess of the UK in her own right with a nice little title as frosting.
But, as she did have a hereditary title of her own, Lady Diana Spencer, and had she accepted the title of Princess of the UK, what would have her title--Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of the United Kingdom? Or would the Lady Diana have been dropped?
Titles can become so confusing so quickly!

Had she accepted the offer of a Princess of the UK in her own right she would have been HRH Princess Diana (a title she never held).

As for the comment about her education "I mean, she never had the opportunity to advance educationally" she had more of a chance than many other young people in the sense that her father sent her to good schools etc but she simply failed at all formal education tests (for whatever they are worth) but she certainly didn't qualify for anything beyond a basic Secondary School education as her exam results indicate.

 

[jcbcode99]

Good point, Bertie. I suppose you are correct--she choose to not advance herself educationally or perhaps was not able to do so. She did not seem to have much success academically.

Would she have been an HRH had she accepted the title of Princess of the UK? I thought you could only be born with it or marry into it.

 

[wbenson]

She would have been an HRH if she was made an HRH in her own right, as Philip was (under different circumstances) in 1947. (If Philip and Elizabeth were to divorce, as unlikely as that is, his title would not change at all.)

 

[GillW]

The Princess was offered to be a Princess of the U.K. but with a lower alimony. She refused.

That's not something I've ever heard about - can you give a source for that information please? I did a huge amount of reading at the time, and since, but don't recall that option ever being mentioned, so I'd be very interested.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

That's not something I've ever heard about - can you give a source for that information please? I did a huge amount of reading at the time, and since, but don't recall that option ever being mentioned, so I'd be very interested.

Tina Brown's book "Diana Chronicles" has several pages about the divorce negociations.Starting on page 484, "On February 15, when Diana had still not agreed to a divorce, the Queen invited her to the Palace to seed things along...." The information given is footnoted, with sources from Paul Burrell, Robert Lacey, Andrew Morton to CNN and newspapers like The Times and the Telegraph. There is only one "anonymous source" in this part of the book, which gives the information that an unnamed "executive of the Royal ballet" suddenly understood why Diana changed dates for her luncheon at the Royal Ballet in order to be available for the press when the news broke on August 28, 1996 that the divorce was legalized. All other information given is sourced.

Brown explains that Diana used the title discussion in the media to get a better settlement. p. 487: "It was a useful feint, gearing up the Palace for a fight about the title - when the real fight was going to be about money.".

"Diana's team had taken additional counsel, which confirmed that for her settlement Diana could look through Charles's personal wealth from the Duchy of Cornwall to the considerable Windsor wealth beyond. Who knew how far her demands might escalate? The Spencer gel was in danger of walking off with the Crown Jewels".
P.488. "In May, Diana went to the Queen and told her that unless her terms were met, she would withdraw her consent to the divorce. Without it, Charles would have to wait another two years until the obligatory five had been reached for an unconsenting divorce. If she ran out of money, she would sell her jewels in order to live and that would be a great embarrassment."

A.s.o. Interesting stuff and as I said: all information from somewhat reliable sources.

 

[Menarue]

Very interesting Jo, and at least in my case, except for the threat about the jewels, not that unexpected. Clever lawyers those and Diana may not have passed her High school exams but she was very astute.

 

[muriel]

JoP - I accept that Tina had sourced a lot of materialin her book, but she as far as I understand, she has never been considered very reliable.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

JoP - I accept that Tina had sourced a lot of materialin her book, but she as far as I understand, she has never been considered very reliable.

Bradford has basically the same facts:

1.) The Queen at first tended to let Diana keep HRH as signal that she was still considered a part of the Royal family as mother of William and Harry, but that her name should become HRH Diana, Princess of Wales. It was Diana who was ambivalent about that, because keeping the title of HRH would have ment to follow the Palace's lead even after the divorce. without it, she would have more freedom. She seemed to have spontanously decided that she wanted freedom more that status quite early during the negociations.

2.) Diana in fact went public with her side of the sitation before the negociations were truly finished and used her media influence, namely Richard Kay, to try to find more (public) support for her position, when she realised that a press statement by her had backfired: in it, she herself had claimed that she would be known as Diana, princess of Wales without the HRH, while the Queen thought they were still negociating, as a follow-up statement by the Palace to the media told (as reported in the Times of 29.2.1996): "The Queen was most interested to hear that the Princess of Wales has agreed to the divorce... All the details on these matters including titles remain to be discussed and settled." After that, Diana let Richard Kay write, that the Queen and Charles had pressured her into giving up her title. (Brown: p.486, Bradford: p.305.) Bradford writes that the Queen was infuriated and had her press secretary issue a statement that "teh decision to drop the title is the Princess's and the Princess's alone". It is wrong that the Queen or the Prince asked her. I am saying categorically that this is not true. The Palace does not say something specific on a point like this unless we are absolutely sure of the facts."

After that, both Bradford and Brown (and obviously Lacey, as Brown names his book as source) write that Diana had thus lost the support of the Queen.

While Brown interprets these facts as Diana's planned way to get more money, Bradford tends more to think that it was Diana's mishandling of the situation on bringing the media in and following her lawyer Julius' advice on asking for her share of the whole Windsor wealth which offended the Queen personally. Bradford: "Diana had thrown down the gauntlet to her royal in-laws. Ill-tempered divorce discussions dragged on until July when Charles presented her with his final settlement offer. (...) Diana's resistance and, no doubt, the unarguable fact that she had moral right on her side, paid off. Charles' offer - underwritten by the Queen, was a generous one."

I personally doubt that Diana "had moral right on her side" because she had as much sinned against her marriage vows as Charles did, but that's what Bradford writes.

Bradford then details the settlement. It's interesting to note that Diana could keep her status in all details except when it came to the HRH: she "would be regarded as a member of the Royal family", she would be invited to national and state occasions and would be treated there as if she still had the precedence of a HRH. She had access to royal flights and could use the state appartments at St. James' Palace for entertaining. She could keep her "royal" jewellery which should eventually pass to William and Harry's wives. Bradford writes about the giving up of the HRH-title: "The Palace later insisted that dropping the title was Diana's idea, a statement she hotly contested but one that was probably true at that time. Diana may have acted hastily in offering to give it up and then regretted it, not realizing , perhaps, the significance of the title to the Queen as implying membership of the Royal family."

So as Diana still was considered to be a member of the family, the Letters Patent of 30.August 1996 can only mean that Diana had angered the Queen so much that she wanted to state it in written that Diana (and Fergie) were not longer HRH after the divorce. IMHO that's why no other title or even a peerage in her own right with reminder to heirs male (which would have made William Diana's heir and so this peereage would have merged with the Crown one day) was even considered by the Queen.

 

[muriel]

Great post, JoP. Interesting how Diana's own changing thought process through the process of agreeing terms of the divorce may have changed, and how the Queen may have reacted to the provocations from Diana.

 

[georgiea]

After that, both Bradford and Brown (and obviously Lacey, as Brown names his book as source) write that Diana had thus lost the support of the Queen.

While Brown interprets these facts as Diana's planned way to get more money, Bradford tends more to think that it was Diana's mishandling of the situation on bringing the media in and following her lawyer Julius' advice on asking for her share of the whole Windsor wealth which offended the Queen personally. Bradford: "Diana had thrown down the gauntlet to her royal in-laws. Ill-tempered divorce discussions dragged on until July when Charles presented her with his final settlement offer. (...) Diana's resistance and, no doubt, the unarguable fact that she had moral right on her side, paid off. Charles' offer - underwritten by the Queen, was a generous one."

I have always felt that most of Brown's book was taken from other sources. I think the biography by Bradford is probably the more accurate view on what happen in the divorce procedings.

 

[GillW]

Tina Brown's book "Diana Chronicles" has several pages about the divorce negociations.Starting on page 484, "On February 15, when Diana had still not agreed to a divorce, the Queen invited her to the Palace to seed things along...." The information given is footnoted, with sources from Paul Burrell, Robert Lacey, Andrew Morton to CNN and newspapers like The Times and the Telegraph. There is only one "anonymous source" in this part of the book, which gives the information that an unnamed "executive of the Royal ballet" suddenly understood why Diana changed dates for her luncheon at the Royal Ballet in order to be available for the press when the news broke on August 28, 1996 that the divorce was legalized. All other information given is sourced.

Brown explains that Diana used the title discussion in the media to get a better settlement. p. 487: "It was a useful feint, gearing up the Palace for a fight about the title - when the real fight was going to be about money.".

"Diana's team had taken additional counsel, which confirmed that for her settlement Diana could look through Charles's personal wealth from the Duchy of Cornwall to the considerable Windsor wealth beyond. Who knew how far her demands might escalate? The Spencer gel was in danger of walking off with the Crown Jewels".
P.488. "In May, Diana went to the Queen and told her that unless her terms were met, she would withdraw her consent to the divorce. Without it, Charles would have to wait another two years until the obligatory five had been reached for an unconsenting divorce. If she ran out of money, she would sell her jewels in order to live and that would be a great embarrassment."

A.s.o. Interesting stuff and as I said: all information from somewhat reliable sources.

However, the supposed threat to sell the jewels cannot be true as hardly anything actually belonged to Diana so were not hers to sell. The royal-provenance jewels still belonged to the Queen and were on loan only. Most of her others were Spencer jewels and on loan from the Earl. Therefore anything she might sell was of little consequence anyway.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

However, the supposed threat to sell the jewels cannot be true as hardly anything actually belonged to Diana so were not hers to sell. The royal-provenance jewels still belonged to the Queen and were on loan only. Most of her others were Spencer jewels and on loan from the Earl. Therefore anything she might sell was of little consequence anyway.

Brown quotes The Times as her source here, which is a quite reliable source. Still: did it really happen that way, how high is the probability? I personally wouldn't put it past Diana to try to "threaten" the Queen that way. She had done some equally "childish" stunts already and even if she had not much jewelery she still had her clothes and other stuff people were interested in. Maybe that was where the original idea to auction off clothes came from, or she had thought about that for a time but then for charity purposes, she had seen how Raine sold items from the Spencer-estate and made quite a fortune with it, she knew that she would really hurt/embarrass the Windsors on doing that... Oh, IMHO it really sounds like an idea Diana could have come across and thought it might lead to her goals. What do you think?

 

[jcbcode99]

I think that it has been shown multiple times that Diana was impetuous and did not always think things out (as many of us are at times); I'm sure that she felt that threatening to sell her jewels was meant to intimidate the Queen and she implied that would sell the historic gems that she had been given. The Queen Mother gave her several lovely pieces (brooch, PoW feather brooch with emerald drop) and the Queen gave her (well, loaned) the Cambridge Lover's Knot as well as the Emerald Choker. Diana had also received jewels as wedding presents from rulers and dignitaries of other countries and these were considered personal gifts. I imagine what with all the interviews that the Queen was concerned about headlines about Diana having to sell jewels to live because of the mean old firm and their hatred to Diana--which wasn't really case. I think Diana probably threatened to sell those pieces but was trumped by the Queen on the legalaties of actually trying to do so.

 

[kimebear]

Actually, Diana was personally given some jewels of royal provenance. Pieces such as the Lover's Knot tiara were "on loan" but I'm fairly certain that other pieces such as the duck egg sapphire from the Queen Mother were hers to keep. Regardless, if she had sold a cheap pair of earrings and said that it was because she was broke, not only would she have made a ton of money for them, but she would have embarrassed the RF greatly in the process.

 

[jcbcode99]

Actually, Diana was personally given some jewels of royal provenance. Pieces such as the Lover's Knot tiara were "on loan" but I'm fairly certain that other pieces such as the duck egg sapphire from the Queen Mother were hers to keep. Regardless, if she had sold a cheap pair of earrings and said that it was because she was broke, not only would she have made a ton of money for them, but she would have embarrassed the RF greatly in the process.

Quite true!

 

[georgiea]

Diana had also received jewels as wedding presents from rulers and dignitaries of other countries and these were considered personal gifts.

Princess Diana was given sapphires pieces from the Saudi royal family. I think I have seen The Duchess of Cornwall wear the sapphire cocker. But let me get back to topic.

Actually, Diana was personally given some jewels of royal provenance. Pieces such as the Lover's Knot tiara were "on loan" but I'm fairly certain that other pieces such as the duck egg sapphire from the Queen Mother were hers to keep. Regardless, if she had sold a cheap pair of earrings and said that it was because she was broke, not only would she have made a ton of money for them, but she would have embarrassed the RF greatly in the process.

Any jewelry of Diana, Princess of Wales would have sold ans sold big. Everything since her death has be up for sale even her reputation.

 

[jcbcode99]

Princess Diana was given sapphires pieces from the Saudi royal family. I think I have seen The Duchess of Cornwall wear the sapphire cocker. But let me get back to topic.

No, I'm sure you've not seen the Duchess of Cornwal wearing Diana's sapphire jewels. She wouldn't do that. The "Jewel Police" on these forums would have seen that!

 

[GillW]

Even wedding gifts to her (especially from foreign royalty) would have been treated - just like other jewels she received later - as a gift to the "position" of Princess of Wales and she would not have been allowed to count them as personal property, although she was allowed their continued use after the divorce (although she had far fewer occasions to wear them). By the precious gifts being treated this way it avoids difficulties like duty on valuables coming into the country.

Although just one brooch - the feathers with an emerald drop - is one which many people think is the same piece when worn by Camilla or Diana, it is simply another copy of the same style (as shown in many discussions such as this one) Camilla has more sense than to put herself into that particular direct line of fire. And why should she?? - she is amassing a stunning collection of jewels to rival any that Diana ever had....

 

[jcbcode99]

Not meaning to get off subject here, but I have often wondered what we might have seen on Diana had she not gotten bad headaches because of tiaras and if she had liked brooches.
I completely agree-there is not any need for Camilla to go pilfering through Diana's jewel box; Camilla had a beautiful collection of jewels before she married Charles and now look at what she has worn in just the few short years since her marriage. I just can't see her asking to wear Diana's pieces. It doesn't suit the type of person she is.