Diana's Styles and Titles

[Elspeth]

I'm also quite sure that Camilla will end up being Queen Consort.

However, I think people can be reasonably forgiven for reading that statement and assuming that "intended" means what it says on the surface. The definition of "intended" as "it will never happen" is one of the more marginal ones, to put it mildly.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but the point is the matter was exhaustively investigated and Parliament, the Cabinet, the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor were all in agreement that the 1953 Act superseded the 1836 Act and applied to the royal family as well.

However, I think the point being made here is mostly that there were some questions raised at the time, they were legitimate questions, and the resolution in favour of the legality of civil marriage for royals was not (in purely legal terms) a foregone conclusion. After all, in 1937 it was claimed that it was perfectly legal to deprive the Duchess of Windsor of the HRH title, and that's been shown to have been a dubious legal claim that was made more for the sake of expediency at the time than for any general reason. I think there are some people who, rightly or wrongly, are seeing the same standard applied here.

 

[branchg]

However, I think the point being made here is mostly that there were some questions raised at the time, they were legitimate questions, and the resolution in favour of the legality of civil marriage for royals was not (in purely legal terms) a foregone conclusion. After all, in 1937 it was claimed that it was perfectly legal to deprive the Duchess of Windsor of the HRH title, and that's been shown to have been a dubious legal claim that was made more for the sake of expediency at the time than for any general reason. I think there are some people who, rightly or wrongly, are seeing the same standard applied here.

I understand your point and, of course, given the unwritten constitution of the UK and the use of legal precedents to determine the law, these things can always be argued in constitutional theory. However, I do not think the question of a civil marriage for Charles and Camilla was unclear, given the existing acts and the right of the Sovereign under the Royal Marriages Act to approve any marriage of a member of the royal family. Given the position of the Crown, as advised by the Government, there can be no question that an affirmative consent of the Sovereign is definitive in these matters.

Comparisons to the HRH issue of Wallis is not valid. Firstly, the King issued letters patent, obviously with the consent of the Prime Minister, specifically depriving her of the style. While the legal validity was clearly shaky, we must remember there is no question the Sovereign, as the fount of honour, can deprive or confer any titles and honours since such things represent the Crown.

Although it was clear the Duke was HRH Prince Edward under all letters patent, the King had the right to issue new letters patent depriving him of all titles and styles or issuing a new title. This was his right as Sovereign. However, since the King had clearly permitted his brother to remain a prince of the UK with the style of HRH, his letters patent "reconferring" the style of HRH to him, but not to Wallis or his descendants, was invalid.

The Duke was already HRH by right and his wife was entitled to share his rank, unless the King issued letters patent depriving HIM of the style and title. However, it is also clear that the King DID deny Wallis the rank of HRH and princess of the UK in his letters patent, which he could certainly do as the Sovereign.

 

[dianafan]

To be there in United Kingdom still real fans of princess Diana or is them already forget????

 

[tiaraprin]

Don't worry Dianafan, I am here in the USA, and I won't forget and I am sure many others won't either.

 

[HerRoyalHighness]

Diana's Title

She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

How could anyone - any queen or king - change the title of a DEAD person? At best she would be a «post mortem» princess of her own and that would be a bit ridiculous.

 

[branchg]

She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.

Titles cannot be conferred on the deceased and this will never happen. She died as "Diana, Princess of Wales" and nothing else.

 

[tiaraprin]

She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.

That is what I believe will happen when William ascends the throne.

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

Don't worry Dianafan, I am here in the USA, and I won't forget and I am sure many others won't either.

I second the whole statement!

 

[tiaraprin]

Titles cannot be conferred on the deceased and this will never happen. She died as "Diana, Princess of Wales" and nothing else.

It is possible through letters of patent branchg. A reigning monarch can confer and reinstate titles to the deceased. Her Majesty was going to reinstate Diana at the time of her death but the Spencer's declined the honor on Diana's behalf.

 

[tiaraprin]

I second the whole statement!

I am glad I am not alone Moonlight!!!

 

[branchg]

It is possible through letters of patent branchg. A reigning monarch can confer and reinstate titles to the deceased. Her Majesty was going to reinstate Diana at the time of her death but the Spencer's declined the honor on Diana's behalf.

The Queen was going to restore a prefix of dignity "Her Royal Highness" to Diana as the mother of a future king after her death. A prefix is not a title, but a recognition of a person's status under the Crown as the fount of honour.

Changing Diana's style as "Diana, Princess of Wales" (it was no longer a title after divorce) is not permitted because laws only apply to the living, not the dead. Letters patent are the rule of law and do not apply after someone dies.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I still call her Princess Diana. I think it was mean for the Queen to do what she did to Diana. The actions Queen Elizabeth took, concerning Princess Diana, lowered my opinion of her. After the divorce the queen showed her true colours, like stipping Diana of her title, not allowing Diana's name to be spoken around her, not wanting a royal funeral, all of that stuff.

 

[Alicky]

She will most likely be known as Diana, Princess of Wales unless when William becomes king and makes her a princess in her own right then she will be called HRH The Princess Diana.

I read that you can only be Princess _________ if you are a princess through birthright, even though we all called her Princess Diana. Technically I guess, Princess Diana is not a real title that she had, just the Princess of Wales.

 

[ysbel]

Stripping Diana of Her Royal Highness after the divorce wasn't necessarily vindictive. Other royal families do the same with divorced in-laws even they are very fond of them.

For example, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, who became HH Princess Alexandra and not HKH. In Britain, however, there is only HRH. There was not a precedent for Diana to become a mere HH so it wasn't considered.

If the Queen starts playing too fast and loose with the titles and styles they become meaningless and that undermines the monarchy even further.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I understand, but Princess Diana is the mother to the future king of England. How is that meaningless, or to loose.

 

[Alicky]

I agree. That's just how it's done, and she got her lump sum.

 

[Alicky]

I understand, but Princess Diana is the mother to the future king of England. How is that meaningless, or to loose.

'
Yes, but there are no laws, rules or protocol saying that warrants a specific title. She wasn't technically owed a title.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

oh, the queen still didn't have to be so mean. I think there should be a rule about that..it is the most important part of the monarcy.

 

[Alicky]

What is the most important part of the monarchy? I don't understand what you meant. Again, I don't see the Queen's actions as mean, I see them as practical and to the book. The funeral situation though, that's a little different......

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

The most important part of a monarcy is the creation of a future king or queen.

 

[delineate]

I still call her Princess Diana. I think it was mean for the Queen to do what she did to Diana. The actions Queen Elizabeth took, concerning Princess Diana, lowered my opinion of her. After the divorce the queen showed her true colours, like stipping Diana of her title, not allowing Diana's name to be spoken around her, not wanting a royal funeral, all of that stuff.

I think it makes perfect sense for somebody to lose a title they weren't born with in the event of a divorce.

 

[Alicky]

The most important part of a monarcy is the creation of a future king or queen.

That still doesn't entitle one to a title.

I think it makes perfect sense for somebody to lose a title they weren't born with in the event of a divorce.

I totally agree.

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I think it makes perfect sense for somebody to lose a title they weren't born with in the event of a divorce.

I agree, but I think that if the person gives birth to the future king or queen the title should be permanent.

 

[Alicky]

Like a Queen Mum type of title?

 

[branchg]

I agree, but I think that if the person gives birth to the future king or queen the title should be permanent.

Diana held the style and title through marriage to Prince Charles. It arrived with her marriage and departed with divorce.

The only way she could have remained "Princess Diana" was for the Queen to issue letters patent granting her the style and title in her own right as the mother of a future king. The Queen reportedly considered doing so, but this foundered during the negotiations when Diana insisted on "Princess of Wales" and refused to work with the Household in setting her public duties. Given these demands, the Queen would not allow her to remain a Royal Highness.

I believe, however, that if Diana were still alive today, she would in fact have been granted the style of Royal Highness and princess of the UK in her own right by the Queen. Her return to public duties on behalf of the UK was inevitable and in the works when she died.

 

[Alicky]

What was going on when she died?

 

[tiaraprin]

There are conflicting reports about Diana's loss of HRH. Personally, I feel she was confused about it herself. One minute she did not want it so she could be free of the ties of being Royal, but then would realize she was the mother of a future king and how much more she could accomplish with the honorific and title.

IF she tied the Queen's hands on the subject, than the Queen may not have had any choice knowing Charles inclination and plans for Camilla. However, with all the good she did for England, she deserved that honorific and some sort of title as HRH Princess Diana of Wales. Anyone who put up with what she did deserves it!

 

[branchg]

What was going on when she died?

Diana had undertaken a high profile role for the British Red Cross on behalf of land mine bans. In accordance with her divorce agreement, she could not have assumed this role without the approval of the Queen and the Government, so she was definately moving up in her duties.

Diana had also met with Tony Blair and was invited several times for weekends with the boys at Chequers. Reportedly, the Prime Minister was very much in favor of her returning to official duties and was ready to advise the Queen it was time to do so. Since Diana's relationships with both the Queen and Prince Charles had dramatically improved, it seems highly likely she would have been granted appropriate status by the Queen once her public role was defined.