Diana's Styles and Titles

[duke of poliganc]

after the divorce the Duke of Edinburgh had warned diana : "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." and her reply was : "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip."
so she definitely was proud and comfortable with having a title and would have been more than happy if was created a peer in her own right

 

[Skippyboo]

after the divorce the Duke of Edinburgh had warned diana : "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." and her reply was : "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip."
so she definitely was proud and comfortable with having a title and would have been more than happy if was created a peer in her own right

Can you site a source for that? It's seems a bit unbelievable. Philip has royal blood through both his mother and fathers lines. The Spencers have Royal bloodline too but it's from illegitimate Royal lines.

Also the Duke of Edinburgh title was first created for the future George III in 1726. George III made John Spencer the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765. So the Edinburgh title is older.

To me, this discussion is just going into a circle because Diana didn't live to remarry or watch William become King.

Giving out hereditary peerages has basically stopped happening since mid 1960s. The only people getting them are royals. In the future Harry and any younger sons of the Cambridges are about it for future hereditary peers. George if Charles lives super long maybe.

The precedence for wives of divorced peers was already set. Why alter it?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

after the divorce the Duke of Edinburgh had warned diana : "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." and her reply was : "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip."
so she definitely was proud and comfortable with having a title and would have been more than happy if was created a peer in her own right

First of all I would like to know name, place, date of that fly on the wall. Secondly your story is technically not possible because Philip could never have warned after the divorce: she exactly lost her style as the married spouse to the Prince of Wales with said divorce...

 

[duke of poliganc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
the source of the story and i think that she meant that prince philip is a prince now only because of a Letters Patent in 1957 issued by the queen

 

[Skippyboo]

And everything is true in book written about royals? ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[duke of poliganc]

And everything is true in book written about royals? ?

no , but i think that Tina Brown is a reliable source she isn't like Lady Colin Campbell or others . In 2000 she was appointed a CBE for her services to overseas journalism and she is much respectable author and journalist

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
the source of the story and i think that she meant that prince philip is a prince now only because of a Letters Patent in 1957 issued by the queen

Prince Philip is born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, from the Royal House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. His grandparents were a King of the Hellenes, a Grand-Duchess of Russia, a Prince von Battenberg and a Princess von Hessen-Darmstadt. He has more royal quarters than the Queen whom has half a noble and not royal pedigree via her mother, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Prince Philip may have been made a Prince of the UK, as a Prince of Denmark he came from Europe's oldest royal house anyway.

 

[Rudolph]

Through the male line alone, Prince Philip is a descendant of Christian I of Denmark, Frederick I of Denmark, Christian III of Denmark, Christian IX of Denmark and George I of Greece.

Eleven counts of Oldenburg, two dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg, five dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck, and one duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

Whether or not the conversation between Diana and Prince Philip took place, Philip trumps Diana in terms of lineage.

 

[duke of poliganc]

yes he has the most royal ancestors in the entire royal house but he can't trumps diana with a title he gave up he is like children of morganatic marriage maybe have the most royal lineage but still it doesn't worth a thing without a title

 

[Skippyboo]

Not to mention descending from Victoria through his maternal side. From Victoria you go back through the Hannovers, Stuarts, Tudors, into the Plantagenets.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

yes he has the most royal ancestors in the entire royal house but he can't trumps diana with a title he gave up he is like children of morganatic marriage maybe have the most royal lineage but still it doesn't worth a thing without a title

Well, He got a new title from King George VI and later made a Prince of the U.K., surely a Royal dukedom trumps the courtesy title from being an earl's daughter.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[duke of poliganc]

Also the Duke of Edinburgh title was first created for the future George III in 1726. George III made John Spencer the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765. So the Edinburgh title is older.

if he inherited it you would be right but it was a New creation if he weren't HRH the duke of norfolk would outrank him

Well, He got a new title from King George VI and later made a Prince of the U.K., surely a Royal dukedom trumps the courtesy title from being an earl's daughter.

and that makes diana right her title which her family holds from the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765 tell now is much older than him been created a duke in 1947 or a prince in 1957

 

[Lumutqueen]

I've attempted to avoid this discussion but citing a piece of Tina Brown fiction as fact, and then stating because she's CBE that means she's reliable is just too much to ignore.

What needs to be known is that Tina Brown chose to publish and release her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, after being offered a lucrative deal to write this "biography". If that doesn't SCREAM I want money then I don't know what does.

Did she ever actually meet Diana?!

Her CBE was for overseas journalism because she's not been in the UK since 1984!

She left The New Yorker, then went on to create her own magazine which halted in 2002, she then went on to TV to host a series of specials for CNBC but eventually left that because of her Diana deal.

Regardless of being made a prince in 1957, in 1947 he was made The Duke of Edinburgh which is a title older than the Spencer clan. If that statement was ever said, which I can honestly believe it never was.

 

[Rudolph]

There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.

 

[Spheno]

There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.

Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts and their mistresses.
Prince Philip is a descendant of the Stuarts and their legal spouses.

 

[Rudolph]

True, although both Henry Fitzroy and and Charles Lennox were made dukes by their father, Charles II.

 

[Spheno]

True, although both Henry Fitzroy and and Charles Lennox were made dukes by their father, Charles II.

And Prince Philip's ancestor created an earldom for Diana's ancestor.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The whole discussion has a starting point that Diana would have bitten to the Duke of Edinburgh that her ancestry would outrank him, which is most unlikely and -if she did- totally laughable as indeed Prince Philip is one of the most blueblooded royal persons walking around.

Fact is that an Earl's daughter married the future King, became the second lady of the country, on her way to become Queen. She divorced and that was it. She left the Royal House, quitted the royal firm. That is all. Then as a bonus being granted a peerage, after all what had happened in the nasty break up, was really not to be expected.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Regardless of being made a prince in 1957, in 1947 he was made The Duke of Edinburgh which is a title older than the Spencer clan. If that statement was ever said, which I can honestly believe it never was.

order of precedence in england is ordered according to the date of creation of the title prince philip duchy was a recreation he didn't inherited it the title became extinct in 1900

 

[Skippyboo]

Well the newest Royal Duke is higher in precedence than the older regular peer. Philip is the highest rank man in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[duke of poliganc]

What needs to be known is that Tina Brown chose to publish and release her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, after being offered a lucrative deal to write this "biography". If that doesn't SCREAM I want money then I don't know what does.

Did she ever actually meet Diana?!

Her CBE was for overseas journalism because she's not been in the UK since 1984!

She left The New Yorker, then went on to create her own magazine which halted in 2002, she then went on to TV to host a series of specials for CNBC but eventually left that because of her Diana deal.

The biography was based on over 250 interviews with men and women - members of Diana's intimate circle, associates in her public life and partners in her philanthropy. if she wanted to write a fictional novel she wouldn't bother with interviewing more than 250 and i didn't find anything that question her credibility releasing her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death doesn't scream I want money if someone released a book on 100th anniversary of WWI it wouldn't scream to me that he chose it only because of the money

Well the newest Royal Duke is higher in precedence than the older regular peer. Philip is the highest rank man in the UK.

i already know that . like i said before without the HRH the duke of norfolk
could outrank the duke of edinburgh
diana's title the spencer family had holded in unbroken line since 1765 so her title is a lot older than philip titles in 1947 and 1957

 

[Countessmeout]

No, her brother's title is older than Philip's. Diana did not have a title, she had a courtesy title only as the daughter of an Earl. The peerage belonged/belongs to her brother.

Yes, if Philip was not a HRH, he would be out ranked by the Duke of Norfolk. But then again every non-royal Duke is. It is the senior non-royal peerage in the UK. But the Spencers may have an older title, but they have a lesser title. In the ranking of peerages, earls come third behind Dukes and Marquis. The highest Earl would still come well after the lowest Duke. The highest earls are the lord steward (Earl Dalhousie) and lord chamberlain (Earl Peel). Followed by the master of horse, Lord Vestey (he is unique in that he is a Baron, but due to his position as master of the horse, he ranks with the earls, and one of top 3 earls, in precedence). Then they go by order of creation. Earl Spencer is number 16 among the earls of Great Britain.

 

[Ish]

yes he has the most royal ancestors in the entire royal house but he can't trumps diana with a title he gave up he is like children of morganatic marriage maybe have the most royal lineage but still it doesn't worth a thing without a title

and that makes diana right her title which her family holds from the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765 tell now is much older than him been created a duke in 1947 or a prince in 1957

i already know that . like i said before without the HRH the duke of norfolk
could outrank the duke of edinburgh
diana's title the spencer family had holded in unbroken line since 1765 so her title is a lot older than philip titles in 1947 and 1957

You've made a few statements here that all get to the same point: Diana's family somehow outranks Philips.

Your whole argument though is hinged on some kind of ludicrous omissions though.

1. The title Duke of Edinburgh was first created in 1726, the title Earl of Spencer was first created in 1765. So actually, Duke of Edinburgh is an older title than Earl Spencer, if we're being technical.

2. The title Duke is higher than the title Earl, so the lowest ranked Duke is higher than the highest ranked Earl (with the exception of the Earl of Wessex). So even if he wasn't an HRH, Philip would have still been higher than the Spencers.

3. Philip was created a British Prince in 1953, but that's not how he became a royal. He was born a royal. He is the only son of the son of a King of Greece, who himself was the son of a King of Denmark. Philip has Royal ancestors on both sides of his family, and they are all very close and recent relatives - including the fact that his grandfather was a king, his uncle was a king, 3 of his cousins were kings, and 1 of his cousins was a queen consort.

4. Philip's marriage is not and has never been morganatic. This is for two reasons; first, morganatic marriage does not exist, nor has it ever existed, within Britain; and second, because at no point was Philip not an equal match to his wife. He gave up his foreign titles sure (although there is no indication that he did so legally), but that didn't make him less a royal.

5. Finally, while being a Prince of Greece may not be an older title than being an Earl of Spencer, Philip is a male-line descendant of Christian IX of Denmark, whose line and title goes a fair ways further back than the Spencers do. The Spencers were mere knights when Christian IX's ancestor, Christian I, ruled Denmark.

 

[Ish]

There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.

While this is true, the DoE (and the Queen) is related to just as many of the Catholic Royal Houses, and the non-Catholics.

Almost every reigning family in Europe is descended from either Queen Victoria or King Christian IX, and every reigning family and most of the non-reigning families have a common ancestor in Johan Willem Friso of Orange, regardless of religion.

And since JWF was born a generation later than Charles II and James II, it means that Philip's relationship is typically closer than Diana's, and is more likely to be through legitimate lines (as Charles had no legitimate children, and James' legitimate children's children had no children themselves).

 

[Countessmeout]

Ish you are right save for one point: Philip's DOE title is not older. The age of the title is based on the point of its most recent creation. Example, Duke of Norfolk: There has been a Duke as early as 1397 but in the order of precedence, it is only dated to the early 1500's due to attainders and forefeitures. The current line has been unbroken since the 2nd Duke of Norfolk who received the title in 1514. His father was the first duke but his titles were forefeit, so the line broke. While it isn't considered a recreation, in that it was inherited eventually by his son, it does mean the dukedom dates from the 2nd duke.

While the first creation of the DOE was in the 1700's it has been recreated. The 1726 merged with the throne with Prince Frederick. The 1764 was created for George III's brother (Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh) and was inherited by his son but his son died without heir, so it went extinct. Then we come to Victoria's son Alfred whose only son committed suicide so it went extinct. Created for Philip. So it only dates back to 1947.

The Earl Spencer has been created only once. It was created in 1765 and had moved unbroken down the family.

But yes, Earl is a much more minor title to Duke (marquis comes between even) which is more important then age.

 

[Iluvbertie]

And since JWF was born a generation later than Charles II and James II, it means that Philip's relationship is typically closer than Diana's, and is more likely to be through legitimate lines (as Charles had no legitimate children, and James' legitimate children's children had no children themselves).

James II's legitmate son had legitimate children. The son didn't inherit the throne because his very birth triggered the 'Glorious Revolution' to drive out the Roman Catholic King and his equally RC son. The Old Pretender however, was most definitely born to parents who were legally married.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Again, the whole starting point is the assumption that Diana has thrown her apparently superior ancestry into da' face of a male agnate of the Kings of Denmark, the oldest ruling Royal House in Europe. Most unlikely Diana would act like that to her father-in-law ánd if she did, she made herself utterly laughable with that claim. Best conclusion: the whole assumption is too ludicrous for words and has never happened.

 

[duke of poliganc]

You've made a few statements here that all get to the same point: Diana's family somehow outranks Philips.

Your whole argument though is hinged on some kind of ludicrous omissions though.

1. The title Duke of Edinburgh was first created in 1726, the title Earl of Spencer was first created in 1765. So actually, Duke of Edinburgh is an older title than Earl Spencer, if we're being technical.

2. The title Duke is higher than the title Earl, so the lowest ranked Duke is higher than the highest ranked Earl (with the exception of the Earl of Wessex). So even if he wasn't an HRH, Philip would have still been higher than the Spencers.

3. Philip was created a British Prince in 1953, but that's not how he became a royal. He was born a royal. He is the only son of the son of a King of Greece, who himself was the son of a King of Denmark. Philip has Royal ancestors on both sides of his family, and they are all very close and recent relatives - including the fact that his grandfather was a king, his uncle was a king, 3 of his cousins were kings, and 1 of his cousins was a queen consort.

4. Philip's marriage is not and has never been morganatic. This is for two reasons; first, morganatic marriage does not exist, nor has it ever existed, within Britain; and second, because at no point was Philip not an equal match to his wife. He gave up his foreign titles sure (although there is no indication that he did so legally), but that didn't make him less a royal.

5. Finally, while being a Prince of Greece may not be an older title than being an Earl of Spencer, Philip is a male-line descendant of Christian IX of Denmark, whose line and title goes a fair ways further back than the Spencers do. The Spencers were mere knights when Christian IX's ancestor, Christian I, ruled Denmark.

no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." that her title which her family hold since 1765 is a lot older than Dukedom created in 1947 or a prince in 1957 there is much difference between having an older title and having a higher title .
and i didn't say that prince philip marriage is morganatic but i said it's like if his parents marriage was morganatic like you know a child of a morganatic marriage may have a lineage of kings and emperors and is from a male line descendants but because his parents marriage was morganatic he doesn't hold titles that reflect that and prince philip gave up his foreign titles and is legally only a British duke and prince

 

[VictoriaB]

no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." that her title which her family hold since 1765 is a lot older than Dukedom created in 1947 or a prince in 1957 there is much difference between having an older title and having a higher title .

Diana held no title. The title was held by her grandfather, her father and her brother.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." [...]

Lady is no title but a form of address connected to her position as daughter of an Earl. Note that the first 14 years of her life Diana was no Lady at all, but Honourable, as daughter of a Viscount.

1961-1975 The Honourable Diana Spencer (as daughter of Viscount Althorp)
1975-1981 Lady Diana Spencer (as daughter of the Earl Spencer)
1981-1996 Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (as spouse of the Heir)
1996-1997 Diana, Princess of Wales (as former spouse of the Heir)

 

[Ish]

James II's legitmate son had legitimate children. The son didn't inherit the throne because his very birth triggered the 'Glorious Revolution' to drive out the Roman Catholic King and his equally RC son. The Old Pretender however, was most definitely born to parents who were legally married.

I didn't say otherwise. I said James's legitimate children's children didn't have children.

James II had 3 legitimate children - Mary, Anne, and James.

Mary had no surviving children and Anne's 1 surviving child died before becoming an adult. James had 2 legitimate children, Charles and Henry.

Henry was a Catholic bishop who had no acknowledged children. Charles (I was wrong, but my point remains), had no legitimate children, but one surviving illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, and it is believed her 3 (also illegitimate) children died without having had children.