Diana's Styles and Titles - Page 20

BeatrixFan · #**381** 11-26-2006, 08:45 PM

I can assure you that if he pursue's the avenues he looks set to pursue then Britain will have a President. Sirhon, why do you think Diana should get the HRH back when she rejected it several times during the divorce settlement and after?

sirhon11234 · #**382** 11-26-2006, 08:51 PM

Oh, I don't think Diana should get her HRH back. Diana is gone she has no use of it. But I'am just curious why some people want her to get it back and some don't want her to get it back.

BeatrixFan · #**383** 11-26-2006, 08:54 PM

I find it all very very bizarre. In the New Years Honours List 1980, Joyce Grenfell was going to be made a Dame. She died a few months before the list came out so her name was dropped and she died as Joyce Grenfell OBE. They didn't give her a posthumous Damehood. I was asked to sign a petition at a charity event held in Joyce's memory to get her the Damehood and as far as I know, a letter was sent back saying that the British Honours System did not reward people posthumously. I can only assume it'd be the same for an HRH, otherwise, Wallis would have got hers yonks ago.

Madame Royale · #**384** 11-26-2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I don't know quite what's so hilarious. You think I'm a minority?

Yes, on the issue of reinstating a HRH style to the late Diana, Princess of Wales (which would be largely viewed as a tribute of sorts) I do believe you (myself included) are part of a public minority. That however, is just my opinion

Quote:

I can only assume it'd be the same for an HRH, otherwise, Wallis would have got hers yonks ago.

You are aware though that there were more 'influentia'l powers at play regarding Wallis. Primarily an influence that loved her Dubonnet.lol.

BeatrixFan · #**385** 11-26-2006, 08:57 PM

Well I'd beg to differ but if I'm being honest, those who would go spare at the HRH being re-instated would probably become republicans right out in William V's reign and not bother protesting about just that - they'd scrap the lot.

Quote:

You are aware though that there were more 'influentia'l powers at play regarding Wallis. Primarily an influence that loved her Dubonnet.lol.

Oh yes but then why wasn't it re-instated in 2003? You see the sort of trouble it would cause? Once you start honouring the dead, where does it end?

Madame Royale · #**386** 11-26-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Oh yes but then why wasn't it re-instated in 2003? You see the sort of trouble it would cause? Once you start honouring the dead, where does it end?

Why wasn't it re-instated in 2003? How can you re-instate something that was never given?

Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor was never a Her Royal Highness to begin with, quite different to Diana - Princes of Wales who was afforded the style and titles befitting her husbands position. Wallis was denied the styling of a royal consort as I know you are aware.

With Diana, they would be re-instating something that was once 'hers', that is the difference between their respective situations.

BeatrixFan · #**387** 11-26-2006, 11:39 PM

My error. With Diana they would be re-instating something that WAS hers and that she gave up voluntarily. So what would be the point?

Elspeth · #**388** 11-26-2006, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

I find it all very very bizarre. In the New Years Honours List 1980, Joyce Grenfell was going to be made a Dame. She died a few months before the list came out so her name was dropped and she died as Joyce Grenfell OBE. They didn't give her a posthumous Damehood. I was asked to sign a petition at a charity event held in Joyce's memory to get her the Damehood and as far as I know, a letter was sent back saying that the British Honours System did not reward people posthumously. I can only assume it'd be the same for an HRH, otherwise, Wallis would have got hers yonks ago.

Wallis wasn't going to get anything during the Queen Mother's lifetime. That lady knew how to hold a grudge.

BeatrixFan · #**389** 11-26-2006, 11:46 PM

Well, the staff at David and Wallis's home always called her "Your Royal Highness" etc which pleased him so I guess she had what needed without it being confirmed by the relatives across the Channel.

Madame Royale · #**390** 11-26-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

My error. With Diana they would be re-instating something that WAS hers and that she gave up voluntarily. So what would be the point?

I 'see' where your coming from BeatrixFan, I really do

but it's no longer about what Diana relinquished by choice, rather what her son may or may not wish to do in memory of his mother. And their is a possibility (however slight it may seem) that William may, one day, re-instate the HRH style to his mother's name. Do I think it will happen? Probably not but I'm in no position to rule it out and neither is any other member of this forum.

For me, I don't feel it necessary to her memory, for I shall always remember her for the humanitarian she was and a Princess I thought very highly of. No royal style is needed for that, imo.

sirhon11234 · #**391** 11-27-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

For me, I don't feel it necessary to her memory, for I shall always remember her for the humanitarian she was and a Princess I thought very highly of. No royal style is needed for that, imo.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

branchg · #**392** 11-30-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Wasn't there some report that the Queen had offered to give Diana an HRH after she died and Charles Spencer refused? Or was that a tabloid invention?

It was confirmed by the Palace and the Spencers that a discussion took place with Sir Robert Fellowes on the train to Althorp relaying an offer by The Queen to restore the HRH in honour of Diana's memory.

The Earl declined as he felt Diana would not have wanted a change in her title after her death.

branchg · #**393** 11-30-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

No, tabloid invention. Apparantly, the Queen offered to let Diana keep her HRH but DIANA refused to. The Queen did ask Diana to reconsider her decision but she said no.

By all accounts, Diana voluntarily relinquished her royal rank in her meeting with The Queen and Sir Robin Janvrin. In return, she received a $26 million lump sum payment, $600,000 annually for her staff, the right to retain her residence in Kensington Palace and all of her jewels.

The Queen reportedly offered her the rank and style of HRH Princess Diana in her own right, but only if she agreed to a much lower financial settlement and an agreement to work with the Palace in her public duties. She declined to accept it.

Sounds like she got a great deal to me.

Jo of Palatine · #**394** 11-30-2006, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale

And their is a possibility (however slight it may seem) that William may, one day, re-instate the HRH style to his mother's name. Do I think it will happen? Probably not but I'm in no position to rule it out and neither is any other member of this forum.

But that would mean that a fully grown-up or even aged William (depends on the year he becomes king) would view the things the same way as he did as a child when he reportedly told Diana that for him she would "always be" a princess (or HRH, can't remember which).

If it is true, though, what has been stated about the payment discussions and Diana really was offered that title in exchange for a lower sum of money in her divorce settlement, then

1. William is in a perfect position to find out the truth by simply asking his grandmother.
2. is the heir of half of this money that his father is still repaying the queen and surely has his own position towards it.

One should not forget that William is not only Diana's son but at the same time he is Charles' heir, too. If Diana okayed the loss of her title in order to get more money out of Charles, then William is bound to have his own opinion about that. And this opinion will surely take part in any considerations to restore the HRH to Diana, beside the question if he, in case he restores it, is doing harm to the memory of his grandmother and father. Because he must be aware that to some people the restoration of this title means to righten a wrong done to his mother and in his case it's the problem of two loyalities: to his mother or his father/grandmother. Thinking about it merely pragmatically, I tent to think he won't restore the title but let dead dogs be dead before he does anything that might put his own heritage in a bad light.

I once read that when Charles studied history, one of his tutors asked him to write a text about the question if it was right that queen Elizabeth I had queen Mary Stuart executed and the prince accepted to research the topic but refused to pass judgment. Because, as he said, it's not yet up to him to question a decision of a past monarch when he has yet to learn so much about the workings of a souverain. I guess William could be thinking the same...

Madame Royale · #**395** 11-30-2006, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

But that would mean that a fully grown-up or even aged William (depends on the year he becomes king) would view the things the same way as he did as a child when he reportedly told Diana that for him she would "always be" a princess (or HRH, can't remember which).

Well, she shall always be a 'Princess', this is fact. And, I'm not so inclined to agree with your statement, Jo

Any possible reinstatement would be a dicision made by an adult, not a child and although he may have made a 'promise' to his mother (I'm not sure what was said which I imagine is the case for many here), it shall not be a child fulfilling that 'promise', rather a King, a man who I would be ceratin is inclined to view a situation with the civility and thought it requires.

Really though, what if he wishes to make good a 'promise' made all those years ago? Does that not say anything for his conviction as a person, as a son? If anything, fulfilling a pledge is an admirable quality, or so I have been brought up to recognise.

And again (if I may), this isn't about a settlement between his mother and father, or indeed the Crown. It is about him (and no doubt in correlation with his brother) on what they wish to do & what they think appropriate.

Please do not think for a moment that I don't 'see' where you, branchg or BeatrixFan are coming from because I definitely do; I just view it differently I guess.

Quote:

doing harm to the memory of his grandmother and father

Again, I don't agree. Every monarch 'makes changes' and in the big wide picture of things, I don't see this as something that would severly upset the monarchial balance in Britain, let alone cause offence to either his father or grandmother because it is a decision to be made by William (*Harry) and not those who, for reasons mentioned, did not push forward with the proposal (which may I add was extremely gracious of HM).

I enjoy your posts, Jo. I find you witty and very well informed

branchg · #**396** 11-30-2006, 10:30 AM

Most of the money Diana received came from The Queen's private fortune. Charles paid for some of it, but the rest was considered to be a settlement from the Sovereign.

I highly doubt William is interested in changing his mother's style after her death. She remained a member of the royal family after the divorce and was considered to be a princess regardless.

branchg · #**397** 11-30-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well, the staff at David and Wallis's home always called her "Your Royal Highness" etc which pleased him so I guess she had what needed without it being confirmed by the relatives across the Channel.

From what has been written over the years, The Duke was the most insistent on the issue of how Wallis was addressed and treated. She herself stated many times that she didn't care about it and was content to be Your Grace.

Madame Royale · #**398** 11-30-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

She remained a member of the royal family after the divorce and was considered to be a princess regardless.

I have made mention in my participation, the reasons why I don't think it necessary, and the above extract of your post also rings true for me.

BeatrixFan · #**399** 11-30-2006, 06:41 PM

That isn't true as far as I know. She wasn't a Princess at all and she certainly wasn't considered a member of the Royal Family.

Madame Royale · #**400** 11-30-2006, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

That isn't true as far as I know. She wasn't a Princess at all and she certainly wasn't considered a member of the Royal Family.

I'm surprised a person with your interest wasn't aware, BeatrixFan.

Diana was a 'Princess' (title and position beffiting the status) and certainly still an active working member of the Royal Family until her death. This is, for the best part I would have imagined, common knowledge