Diana's Styles and Titles

[royal_enthusiast]

Does anyone know what the protocol regarding bowing and curtsying to Diana was following the loss of her HRH. I've seen videos after the divorce where people still bowed and curtsied to her. Is this correct or were they doing this just as a sign of politeness?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does anyone know what the protocol regarding bowing and curtsying to Diana was following the loss of her HRH. I've seen videos after the divorce where people still bowed and curtsied to her. Is this correct or were they doing this just as a sign of politeness?

Nothing is incorrect. I can bow to the shop assistant if I would like. Japaneses bow, Maori's rub noses, etc. All is acceptable at the Court.

 

[JR76]

It's not that long ago that most Europeans curtsied or bowed to anyone their social superior or older than them.

 

[Denville]

It's not that long ago that most Europeans curtsied or bowed to anyone their social superior or older than them.

really? I'd have said that it was at least 70 or 80 years ago, even on the continent.. and longer in the UK...

 

[JR76]

really? I'd have said that it was at least 70 or 80 years ago, even on the continent.. and longer in the UK...

I was brought up to bow to elders for instance in situations such as when receiving a summer gift or a prize from a teacher on the last day at school. Boys did a slight bow and girls did a short bend at the knees. Tapered off once we turned 11 or something. I was born in egalitarian Sweden in 1976 and grew up in a quiet rough inner city neighbourhood.
Only my personal experience of course.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I'm from Germany and born 1962; and we - of course - curtsied to the grown-ups; to Grandma we did not only a bob but a real curtsie with Handkiss and then got a kiss on the forhead

 

[Denville]

Im quite amazed.. I remember one of my great aunts saying... "we're a republic, we bow to no one...."... I doubt if bowing and curtsying, other than iwht the RF, was done in the UK however after the Edwardian age.. From what I've read, some upper class people did try and impose bowing and curtsying on their tenants, even then, but it was dying out..

 

[Valerie Rose]

I remember learning to curtsey, in the 1950s.

These days, if meeting anyone older than myself, I would accord them a respectful inclination of the head.

 

[Countessmeout]

Growing up the only time when you bowed/curtsied, was when you 'took a bow' meaning when you were in a play and took your final bow. Certainly wasn't something you do 'to your elders'. Even my very staunchly traditional British grandmother would never have expected such.

Though she did say we all should learn how to bow-curtsey properly, in case we one day meet the queen. A few members of the family have. My dad's cousin is a news anchor, and he has been MC for events with the queen on a visit to Canada, and got to escort her, so he and his wife got to use the practice.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

After the divorce was Diana allowed to be political or not? I remember just before she died she she gave the Le Monde interview, people were saying that she shouldn't speak about politics. She was divorced from Charles at this point so why couldn't she discuss political issues like any other private citizen can.

 

[Denville]

After the divorce was Diana allowed to be political or not? I remember just before she died she she gave the Le Monde interview, people were saying that she shouldn't speak about politics. She was divorced from Charles at this point so why couldn't she discuss political issues like any other private citizen can.

She wasn't interested in politics.. and since her public work was done on the back of her being a royal, I would say that she would have ben advised to stikck to the rules of "not taking a political stance" on issues, even if she was not technically royal any more...

 

[royal_enthusiast]

As Diana after the divorce was the mother of a future King she continued to be regarded as a member of the royal family, would if Diana had remarried and had more children would those children be regarded as members of the royal family as they would be half-siblings to a future King?

 

[Osipi]

I would think that any children from a future marriage of Diana's would be treated similar to how Camilla's children are treated now. The only difference would be that Diana's younger children would be half sister or half brother to William and Harry rather than being step sister/brother.

They would not be considered royal or part of the royal family or the House of Windsor but as we saw with Camilla's granddaughter being part of William's wedding, they would be considered as "family" for William and Harry with Diana as the matriarch of that side of the family.

 

[Denville]

As Diana after the divorce was the mother of a future King she continued to be regarded as a member of the royal family, would if Diana had remarried and had more children would those children be regarded as members of the royal family as they would be half-siblings to a future King?

no of course they would not be royal. The WIndsors are the RF, Any other children that Diana had would not be royal.....

 

[Somebody]

Peter and Zara's half-sister isn't considered part of the royal family either. And while of course they aren't royal either they are considered members of the family and their younger half-sister correctly isn't.

 

[Denville]

no of course not.

 

[Somebody]

In exactly the same way any other children by Diana (or Sarah for that matter) would be considered royals or members of the royal family.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Could you see William as King inviting his half-siblings to events such as Trooping? I assume as King it would be up to him to decide who stands on the balcony.

 

[Denville]

Non royal relatives would not be on the balcony. they would be WIll's relatives, not royals...

 

[royal_enthusiast]

William could still ask them to be there, no one is going to tell the King what he can and can't do.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William could still ask them to be there, no one is going to tell the King what he can and can't do.

The government of the day tell the monarch what he/she can and can't do all the time. The monarch has less freedom than any other person in the UK - no freedom of speech, very little freedom of movement, no freedom of religion for instance. They have to invite to stay with them whomever the government tells them to invite and they have to visit places the government tells them to go.

If the government of the day objected to someone appearing on the balcony then they wouldn't appear at all - the government is in charge not the monarch.

 

[Osipi]

If Diana remarried, she would lose totally her "Princess of Wales" courtesy styling. The way she was styled as Diana, Princess of Wales denoted that she was a *former* spouse of The Prince of Wales. After her divorce, if I'm not mistaken, she was no longer Princess Charles.

So it is correct to state that Diana wouldn't have any kind of title or styling as "princess" no matter who her second marriage was to (unless he was a prince of course).

 

[Iluvbertie]

If Diana had married a foreign nobleman with a title, she would have his title as the spouse of his rank. Would her title of Princess still be higher than her married title of nobility?

She was never a Princess in her own right but only as the wife of a Prince. As she had divorced that Prince she had stopped being a Princess at the same time so any subsequent marriage wouldn't have affected her title of Princess as she hadn't held such a title since 1996.

After her divorce she was styled as the divorced wife of the Prince of Wales and had she remarried she would have lost that right as well and so only had the titles/styles of her husband and her own birth titles.

e.g. if she had married a Mr John Smith she would have been Lady Diana Smith (correctly Lady John Smith but most people don't get that - they accept a woman taking her husband's titles other than when there is no title to take and then expect her to keep her own name and add his surname ...). 'Lady' because that was he own title as the daughter of an Earl and no one could take that from her. Had she married a Baron she would have become a Baroness etc.

 

[Countessmeout]

Its simply tradition, not law/rule that a women be referred to by her husband's name. The BRF simply keeps to certain traditions. Posters on the other hand realize custom and etiquette have moved on. Some posters of course wish the world wouldn't move past the 50s

Diana was a Lady in her own right. It would have been wrong, even under old etiquette, to refer to her, if she married John Smith, as Lady John Smith. It would be suggesting her husband was Lord John Smith and she gained her title from him. Which is false. Her title was her own courtesy title, because of her birth.

Like Lady Honor Montagu, Lady Catherine Valentine......and many other married daughters of the aristocracy. Even older generations. In practice the Duchess of Northumberland is either The Duchess of Northumberland, or Jane Percy.

 

[Denville]

She
e.g. if she had married a Mr John Smith she would have been Lady Diana Smith (correctly Lady John Smith but most people don't get that - they accept a woman taking her husband's titles other than when there is no title to take and then expect her to keep her own name and add his surname ...). 'Lady' because that was he own title as the daughter of an Earl and no one could take that from her. Had she married a Baron she would have become a Baroness etc.

If Diana married a Mr John Smith, she would correctly be titled Lady Diana Smith.. not Lady John Smith... If she married Lord John Brown, she could kep her own Lady Diana name or she could use his and be Lady John Brown

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Correct. She would have been Lady Diana Al-Fayed or Lady Diana Khan. She was never a Princess in her own right, she could not loose anything. Her only own "title" is the prefix "Lady" as daughter of an Earl.

 

[Denville]

William could still ask them to be there, no one is going to tell the King what he can and can't do.

He would probably invite them to lunch and to be in the Palace.. he would not invite them to be on the balcony because that would be inappropriate... as they are not royal....

 

[royal_enthusiast]

When the palace announced at the time of her divorce that Diana would receive invitations to state and national occasions. Would this have meant that Diana would have been invited to the recent RAF Service?

 

[Denville]

When the palace announced at the time of her divorce that Diana would receive invitations to state and national occasions. Would this have meant that Diana would have been invited to the recent RAF Service?

Very possibly.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

I know this is a random question but is an example that I could think of related to Diana’s status after her divorce. The question is whether Diana after her divorce would still be seated in the front row of the Royal box at Wimbledon if she attended like she was during her marriage to the Prince of Wales?