Diana's Styles and Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Her position was different in the fact that, as mother of the future king, she retained a place as a member of the Royal Household. This didn't make her a princess. I also have a hard time believing that she stood next to Charles at State functions after the divorce, although I would be happy to be proven wrong as that would make for an interesting scenario.
 
Actually yes. She lost the title "The Princess of Wales". She was no longer a princess at the time of her death. There can be only one "The Princess of Wales" and it is Charles' wife or widow until the time that another Prince of Wales is created and has a wife. It is possible, although not completely accurate, to explain the unique "title" Diana, Princess of Wales using the latter as a form of surname.

Princess of Wales

Actually no, since per your own link:

A divorced duchess continues to use her previous title, preceded by her christian name, but does so as if the title were a name.
She still retained the titles she derived as the wife of Prince Charles. It was the style of HRH that she lost. It was not used as a surname, it was used in the place where a surname would usually go. There is a subtle but important difference.

You keep saying she wasn't a princess after divorce as if, somehow, repeating it will make it true. I'm sorry but that just is not the case.

- Her biography on royal.gov.uk refers to her, post divorce, as "the Princess".
- The New York Times article http://http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EFDF1E39F930A25754C0A960958260 here shows that she retained the title, as well as July 7-13;Her Royal Common-ness - New York Times , which again indicates that she only lost the style of HRH.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. We'll be good when you show me a press release from BP that states that she will legally remain a Princess after the divorce. A princess of what, exactly? Repeatedly saying that she remained a princess doesn't make it true either.
 
"The princess is the mother of a future king and is therefore in a unique position," a palace spokesman said earlier.

Princess of what? Wales. Which would be why she was called "Diana, Princess of Wales", in exactly the same way that Fergie is still the Duchess of York.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree that she was in a unique position. I just don't see where you quote that the "spokesman" declared her to be a Princess of Wales. I also don't see why it is ridiculous to ask for confirmation of something as important as a royal title from the office of the font of all honours.
 
Perhaps because it has been so widely reported that she retained the title of Princess, losing the style of HRH? Perhaps because had that been inaccurate, BP would have issued a very clear clarification?
 
I believe that she lost the title, but was entitled, as a divorced woman to use the style. As you very kindly brought up the former Duchess of York, I will use that example.

She is entitled to the style but not the title. If Andrew were to remarry, his wife would be the Duchess, in title and style, while Sarah would just be entitled to use the style after her name. She is not the Duchess of York any longer. Just as Diana was no longer the Princess of Wales after her divorce.
 
With the spectacle that was the estrangement of Diana and Charles and the divorce that followed and yes, even her death and the controversy around the entire affaire, I believe the rest of the Royal Houses have consulted with their attorneys to draw iron clad pre nups in terms of who takes what and who keeps the titles, the jewelry and the children.
On a smaller scale P Joachim and P Alexandra's divorce, forced Q Margrette's hand and she re drew the pre nup between Mary and Frederick. Even without a Panorama interview and with no one outside the DRF actually having the details, that Danish divorce caused shockwaves.
The current Royal Houses, except for Liechtenstein, were more or less forced to accept unequal brides. Does anyone think the Monarchs did not take appropriate measures to avoid losing more than face if a divorce happenned in their family?
 
IMHO her complete name would have been according to the rules governing the names, titles and styles of the peerage and their families:

Her style: Lady (derived from her father as she was the daughter of an earl)
First Name: Diana Frances
Family Name; Windsor (as Charles was a HRH at the time of the wedding, thus his family name is only Windsor according to HM's decree)
Title (according to the rules for divorced peeresses): Princess of Wales.

Thus she was Lady Diana Frances Windsor, Princess of Wales, in short (as it is custom for divorced peeresses): Diana, Princess of Wales with a right to the Style of My Lady or Ma'am.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

This was the correct form after the divorce. As the wife of a Prince of the UK, Diana enjoyed the style and attribute of HRH and the rank of a Princess. With divorce, she lost these attributes and was no longer a princess, but was allowed to retain her former title as a style until she remarried. This is the same precedent used for divorcees in the Peerage.

However, as the mother of a future king, The Queen granted Diana unique precedence and place, stating she would remain a member of the royal family and be granted her former precedence on all state and national occasions. The idea here being that Diana would not be banished to the back row during these occasions, but allowed appropriate place next to William and Harry as their mother.

After the initial announcement, the Palace clarified Diana would be "considered" a Princess (similar to Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester) with the grace of The Queen, stating the appropriate form of address was "The Princess" or Ma'am in conversation. Again, The Queen was walking a fine line for the sake of her grandsons.

But Diana and Sarah officially lost their status and titles with divorce, as confirmed by the issuance of letters patent in August 1996, stating a former wife of a Prince of the UK would not be entitled to enjoy or hold the attribute of a Royal Highness.
 
Her position was different in the fact that, as mother of the future king, she retained a place as a member of the Royal Household. This didn't make her a princess. I also have a hard time believing that she stood next to Charles at State functions after the divorce, although I would be happy to be proven wrong as that would make for an interesting scenario.

I believe it is more accurate to say that Diana no longer enjoyed the rank of a royal princess (which was derived solely from marriage), but retained unique precedence as the mother of Prince William, including being allowed to retain the dignity and style of a Princess with The Queen's consent.

She was still considered to be a princess, but downgraded by the loss of HRH as a divorcee.
 
Why would she be Lady Diana Frances Windsor, Princess of Wales, shouldnt it have been Lady Diana Frances Spencer, Princess of Wales?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't it actually be Windsor-Mountbatten rather than Windsor?


Close..................

Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960 Order-in-Council, that those male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[28] In practice all of their children, in honour of their father, have used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns for their first marriages.[29]
 
Why would she be Lady Diana Frances Windsor, Princess of Wales, shouldnt it have been Lady Diana Frances Spencer, Princess of Wales?

Correct. As the wife of a Prince of the UK, Diana never used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor because she was a Royal Highness and Princess. She did occasionally use the surname "Wales" when necessary.

With divorce, she was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales.
 
Why would she be Lady Diana Frances Windsor, Princess of Wales, shouldnt it have been Lady Diana Frances Spencer, Princess of Wales?

Why and when should she have reverted back to her maiden name? For her style as a "Lady", you keep that after marriage, but you change your family name and after divorce, normally you keep the family name you took on marriage.

As for the Mountbatten-Windsor: as Charles, from whom Diana took her new family name, was a Royal Highness and a Prince as a male-line descendant of the queen and the DoE, his family name was plain Windsor according to the queen's degree.
 
However, he did have "Mountbatten-Windsor" printed on the marriage registry (as did Anne). Officially, his last name is Windsor but he seems pretty intent on using Mountbatten-Windsor whether he should or not.
 
A few posts concerning Charles and Diana's relationship shortly before her death have been moved here. The Charles & Diana thread is now reopened so you can go on with the discussion there.

Thank you,

TheTruth
British Forum Moderator
 
Why and when should she have reverted back to her maiden name? For her style as a "Lady", you keep that after marriage, but you change your family name and after divorce, normally you keep the family name you took on marriage.

As for the Mountbatten-Windsor: as Charles, from whom Diana took her new family name, was a Royal Highness and a Prince as a male-line descendant of the queen and the DoE, his family name was plain Windsor according to the queen's degree.

The Mountbatten-Windsor surname only applies to those descendants of The Queen and Prince Philip who do not hold and enjoy the style of HRH and Prince/Princess. Royals do not use surnames in most cases because they are titled.

Diana did keep the "family name" of Wales after divorce. Her former title became a style, similar to a surname, until she remarried.
 
Correct. As the wife of a Prince of the UK, Diana never used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor because she was a Royal Highness and Princess. She did occasionally use the surname "Wales" when necessary.

With divorce, she was Lady Diana Spencer, Princess of Wales.

With the 1st part I concur though with the 2nd I beg to differ using the principle of general names after a divorce, Miss Jane Parker marries Mr. John Smith thus becoming Mrs. John Smith, they later divorce and Mrs. John Smith becomes Mrs. Jane Smith, therefore why would Diana readopt Spencer after her divorce, her title was Diana, Princess of Wales. There was no need for the Lady or the Spencer part which she relented on her marriage. The Lady was also eridacated by her elevation to a higher title though had she only married a commoner she would have been The Lady Diana Smith.
 
not sure how it works in the UK but here it's very common for a woman to revert to her maiden name after a divorce. it's also common for a woman to continue to use her maiden name while married....i.e. Jane Parker would continue to be Jane Parker after marrying John Smith.
 
Therefore why would Diana readopt Spencer after her divorce, her title was Diana, Princess of Wales. There was no need for the Lady or the Spencer part which she relented on her marriage. The Lady was also eridacated by her elevation to a higher title though had she only married a commoner she would have been The Lady Diana Smith.

Her style was "Diana, Princess of Wales" with divorce. It was no longer a title because she was no longer the wife of The Prince of Wales.

Legally, she reverted to her birthright title and precedence as the daughter of an Earl, Lady Diana, with the style of "Princess of Wales" as a divorcee. Since this style is technically royal, it was unnecessary for her to use "Lady Diana", especially since she continued to be considered a princess.
 
not sure how it works in the UK but here it's very common for a woman to revert to her maiden name after a divorce. it's also common for a woman to continue to use her maiden name while married....i.e. Jane Parker would continue to be Jane Parker after marrying John Smith.
Exactly the same it is up to the couple involved, but now the 'fashion' is for double, triple or more barreled names, such as, Francesca Smith-Jones-Smyth-Palmer-Parker-Thompson. :whistling::lol:
 
So as I know (from the Press) The Queen offered her the Titel HRH, Princess Diana.The question is whether this is true...but if that is the case..why did she refused?
 
However, he did have "Mountbatten-Windsor" printed on the marriage registry (as did Anne). Officially, his last name is Windsor but he seems pretty intent on using Mountbatten-Windsor whether he should or not.

Once he is king, he can officially change the name of the family to Mountbatten-Windsor or even adopt a different name altogether.
 
I've moved the discussion about the Earl of Wessex possibly assuming the Duke of Edinburgh title at some point in the future to the Questions about Titles thread in the main British forum.

Elspeth
British Royals moderator
 
The alimony would have been lower.

Correct. The title of "HRH Princess Diana" was offered with the understanding she would accept a smaller lump-sum amount, with payment for the rest paid out over her lifetime.

The offer was also contingent on Diana agreeing the Palace would continue to oversee her activities in the public realm, similar to the arrangement while separated. In the end, she decided to forgo the offer in favor of her financial and personal freedom from the royal family.

Earl Spencer said after her death that she was satisfied with her style and title after the divorce.
 
I think Diana, Princess of Wales knew deep down, after her divorce, that she was the Peoples Princess. At least I hope so.

Any woman going through a bad divorce, I beleive, and given the two options of a little yearly money, ties to the BRF and the HRH title would go for the larger lump sum, freedom from the BRF and no HRH.:flowers:
 
Back
Top Bottom