Diana's Styles and Titles

[branchg]

Beatrix, why are you so insistent on this point? Does it really matter so much?

Regardless of her title or status, Diana was a member of the royal family after her divorce and she was still treated as a princess since she was the mother of Prince William. That's all that really matters and she is dead.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by 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.

To be indignent wont prove or contribute anything to this discussion, which up until now has avoided a less than amiable exchange amongst those participating. I'm hopeful we can keep it that way

Two members have both stated (as is their right) that they have heard of Diana, Princess of Wales being addressed as Princess Diana by 'BP' etc. Who are you (or I) to question what they, themselves, have read or heard?

Whether you believe what others have to say or not is one thing (and up to you), but until you can come up with a source that prove's them to be incorrect, then you are in no position to say, for definite, that they are.

I hope you all have a good day

[sassie]

If Buckingham Palace ever issued a formal or official statement that referred to Diana as 'Princess Diana' or officially indicated that it was acceptable for the media to refer to her as such, I would like to know the details of that statement. It would have been incorrect form, and BP doesn't make mistakes like that in official statements.

That's not to say, of course, that employees of the Palace may have referred to her, informally, as 'Princess Diana' and been quoted as such. But, an informal quote is not the same as an official statement, and I think that it what Beatrix Fan is referring to. (BF, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by sassie

That's not to say, of course, that employees of the Palace may have referred to her, informally, as 'Princess Diana' and been quoted as such. But, an informal quote is not the same as an official statement, and I think that it what Beatrix Fan is referring to.

Of course, but until BeatrixFan can himself prove this, he cannot dismiss what or what may not have occurred. I'm sure if he comes across any source(s) to support his statements, then he shall aptly apply them where required

This thread (certainly this forum) is (should be) about bringing together the facts and if anything, assisting one another in understanding the circumstances of the subject to the best we can. To enjoy a common interest we all share

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

Of course, but until BeatrixFan can himself prove this, he cannot dismiss what or what may not have occurred. I'm sure if he comes across any source(s) to support is statements, then he shall aptly apply them where required

This thread (certainly this forum) is (should be) about bringing together the facts and if anything, assisting one another in understanding the circumstances of the subject to the best we can. To enjoy a common interest we all share

Of course.

But the claim that BF was debating was that Diana was referred to as "Princess Diana" in official statements released by BP, and he was correct in saying that that never happened. He wasn't arguing that she was never referred to as such informally by Palace staff.

[Madame Royale]

Thanks sassie and to BeatrixFan, no offence or misunderstanding was (or ever is on my behalf) intended

And again, evidence is crucial in any discussion that turns into debate.

[BeatrixFan]

Beatrix, why are you so insistent on this point? Does it really matter so much?

Well, it does when you're claiming something happened that wouldn't. However, reading back the posts, I see there's been a misunderstanding. You wrote that the Palace referred to her in statements as "Princess Diana" which they didn't of course. But they did release a statement saying that if the media wanted to call her Princess Diana it was acceptable for journalistic purposes. So, I was arguing that the Palace didn't ever refer to her officially as Princess Diana - which they didn't. You were arguing that they made it known that the press could call her Princess Diana if they wanted to - which they did. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

And Madame Royale - don't worry hunnie. I'm never offended - I just offend.

[Elspeth]

Not around here you don't, if you know what's good for you.

[BeatrixFan]

Point taken. I was speaking generally.

[Lily97]

I just read here on the forum a copy of her will that I believe was written in 1993 and it has her as Princess Diana (that is it), wouldn't that have been her legal name at that time?

Lily

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by Lily97

I just read here on the forum a copy of her will that I believe was written in 1993 and it has her as Princess Diana (that is it), wouldn't that have been her legal name at that time?
Lily

Late Diana was never a Princess in her own right, not during the marriage and not after the divorce. During the marriage she had all the titles of her husband but she was not a Princess in her own right. She was Diana, Princess of Wales and never Princess Diana of Wales.

[ysbel]

That's true Avalon. Diana was a Princess by marriage, not by birth. But I don't understand what the fuss is. A Princess by marriage can and often does outrank a Princess by birth if the rank of her husband is higher than the rank of the Princess by birth.

Diana always outranked the Princess Royal during her marriage even though Anne was born a Princess.

I'm not sure about Diana's status after the divorce. She lost her royal status but kept her title as Princess and the Queen kept her order in the order of precedence so its possible that she still did outrank the Princesses by birth after her divorce.

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

That's true Avalon. Diana was a Princess by marriage, not by birth. But I don't understand what the fuss is. A Princess by marriage can and often does outrank a Princess by birth if the rank of her husband is higher than the rank of the Princess by birth.

Diana always outranked the Princess Royal during her marriage even though Anne was born a Princess.

I'm not sure about Diana's status after the divorce. She lost her royal status but kept her title as Princess and the Queen kept her order in the order of precedence so its possible that she still did outrank the Princesses by birth after her divorce.

Oh, that's true. The Duke of Edinburgh outranks all men in the Kingdom, including the Prince of Wales. Princess Diana outranked all women in the kingdom (until her divorce), except Her Majesty and The Queen Mother.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by branchg

Beatrix, why are you so insistent on this point? Does it really matter so much?

Regardless of her title or status, Diana was a member of the royal family after her divorce

No, she ceased to be a member of the royal family. Similar to Sarah Ferguson, Mark Phillips and the Earl of Snowdon.

and she was still treated as a princess since she was the mother of Prince William.

That is true, but she did not enjoy the style and rank of a Princess of the United Kingdom. She was styled Diana, Princess of Wales, which is the style used by divorced female spouses of peers and was no title but purely en titre courteoisie. She would have lost that syle upon remarriage.

The Earl Spencer himself stated that his sister Diana was satisfied with the way she was styled after her divorce.

[branchg]

In the end, I doubt Diana really cared. She continued to be treated the same anyway and was accorded appropriate dignity and precedence as the mother of a future king, regardless of her title or rank.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I'm not sure about Diana's status after the divorce. She lost her royal status but kept her title as Princess and the Queen kept her order in the order of precedence so its possible that she still did outrank the Princesses by birth after her divorce.

Diana retained her precedence on state and national occasions, which meant she remained the third lady in the land after The Queen and The Queen Mother on royal occasions.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by branchg

Diana retained her precedence on state and national occasions, which meant she remained the third lady in the land after The Queen and The Queen Mother on royal occasions.

In theory.
There has been no any royal occasion she was invited for, since her divorce.
It would most likely have been the weddings of her two sons, I can think about.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Lily97

I just read here on the forum a copy of her will that I believe was written in 1993 and it has her as Princess Diana (that is it), wouldn't that have been her legal name at that time?

Lily

I'm not sure what location you are reading that at, but the text of her will states "Diana, Princess of Wales".

http://www.thedianaring.com/lastwill.htm

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

In theory.
There has been no any royal occasion she was invited for, since her divorce.
It would most likely have been the weddings of her two sons, I can think about.

You have to remember that after the divorce Diana was too involved with her charity work to attend a royal function. I think the only one that she attended was william's confirmation in June of 1997.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

In theory.
There has been no any royal occasion she was invited for, since her divorce.
It would most likely have been the weddings of her two sons, I can think about.

Well, unfortunately, we'll never know since she died only a year after the divorce. But I would assume that she still would have been invited to things since her relationship with Prince Charles and The Queen was very good at the time of her passing.