Diana's Styles and Titles

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is a point by VictoriaB that Sarah also lost her HRH when she divorced the Duke of York. Alike Diana she was mother to two royals, to two grandchildren of the Queen. No one meowed about Sarah loosing her HRH. It is using double standards to meow about the one spouse to a son of the Queen loosing her style and not meow about another spouse of a son of the Queen treated exactly the same. When Sophie would have divorced, she would have lost her HRH as well and becoming Sophie, Countess of Wessex instead of HRH The Countess of Wessex... So in fact the Queen was just consequent here. She made no difference in her former daughters-in-law.

[royal_enthusiast]

When the palace announced that Diana after the divorce would be invited to state and national public occasions would this include events such as the concert this year to celebrate the Queens 92nd Birthday?

[Iluvbertie]

We simply don't know. She wasn't in the position long enough for them to have established clear parametres. In addition other things may have happened to change they way she was perceived e.g. had she remarried or left the UK to live may have changed attitudes.

[royal_enthusiast]

Would it be correct to say that Diana was an ex-Royal at the time of her death?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast

Would it be correct to say that Diana was an ex-Royal at the time of her death?

The Oxford says that a royal is someone having the status of a King or Queen, or is formally related to them ("the royal family"). When Diana died, she had no formal relationship to the King or Queen.

Sarah Ferguson and Mark Phillips are no royals either.

[Osipi]

Just a small correction. Diana was either The Princess of Wales or Diana, Princess of Wales. She never was, at any time, Princess Diana.

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Just a small correction. Diana was either The Princess of Wales or Diana, Princess of Wales. She never was, at any time, Princess Diana.

Osipi, Thank you for this observation. So many times the media referred to her as Princess Diana. The media even referred to her as Princess Diana on her various trips to Spain.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Osipi, Thank you for this observation. So many times the media referred to her as Princess Diana. The media even referred to her as Princess Diana on her various trips to Spain.

This is true. I even thought she was actually Princess Diana until I became a member here. There was, though, one person that would actively correct people on what she was called and that was Diana, herself.

[royal_enthusiast]

Hi, I didn't know where to post this so please move it to the appropriate thread, I was wondering what a re-marriage for Diana would have meant in terms of her divorce settlement, would she have been able to keep her home or have access to Royal Squadron flights?

[CyrilVladisla]

Osipi, By Diana actually correcting people that she was not a born Princess shows that she had some knowledge of royal titles.

[Osipi]

I also think it showed humility too.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The Oxford says that a royal is someone having the status of a King or Queen, or is formally related to them ("the royal family"). When Diana died, she had no formal relationship to the King or Queen.

Sarah Ferguson and Mark Phillips are no royals either.

She had a relation by blood to the future king William, so she surely was Royal, I think.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

She had a relation by blood to the future king William, so she surely was Royal, I think.

William's maternal grandparents all so had a relation by blood to the future king. That didn't make them royal. Zara and Peter are children of the princess royal and grandchildren of the queen (so royal blood) but still they aren't royal. Many king's had illegitimate children. Very much related by blood but not royal... Diana's royal status completely depended on her marriage to Charles. When the marriage dissolved she was no longer a royal highness, so no longer a royal.

[Osipi]

Actually, she was no longer royal after her divorce and that was shown by the stripping of her HRH. Her title then was Diana, Princess of Wales which is the courtesy styling for a divorced wife of a peer. It says that she was once *a* Princess of Wales but no longer *The* Princess of Wales.

If Diana had lived and Charles had still married Camilla and Camilla chose to be known as The Princess of Wales, Diana would still use her courtesy title until she remarried (if she ever did).

Looking at Charles Spencer who has divorced multiple times, his single ex-wives could be known as XXXX, Countess Spencer while his present wife would be knows as The Countess Spencer.

I think I got that right.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Somebody

William's maternal grandparents all so had a relation by blood to the future king. That didn't make them royal. Zara and Peter are children of the princess royal and grandchildren of the queen (so royal blood) but still they aren't royal. Many king's had illegitimate children. Very much related by blood but not royal... Diana's royal status completely depended on her marriage to Charles. When the marriage dissolved she was no longer a royal highness, so no longer a royal.

I think that was a problem Buckingham Palace tried to resolve, but Diana died before they had a fixed solution. There had been a lot of discussions about that. And I think after William was born, her status didn't depend on her marriage to Charles alone. IMHO if Sarah had not had her divorce at about the same time, Diana could have kept her HRH for the fact that she was William's mother.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Actually, she was no longer royal after her divorce and that was shown by the stripping of her HRH. Her title then was Diana, Princess of Wales which is the courtesy styling for a divorced wife of a peer. It says that she was once *a* Princess of Wales but no longer *The* Princess of Wales.

If Diana had lived and Charles had still married Camilla and Camilla chose to be known as The Princess of Wales, Diana would still use her courtesy title until she remarried (if she ever did).

Looking at Charles Spencer who has divorced multiple times, his single ex-wives could be known as XXXX, Countess Spencer while his present wife would be knows as The Countess Spencer.

I think I got that right.

Yes, you got it right.


In times when a death of a husband was the only way a marriage could end, the mother of the next peer could chose to be called "The Dowager (title) (Family name)" like The Dowager Countess of Grantham or the title like they used it for Diana and Sarah and for widows who were not the mother of the next peer: (First name), (Title without "the") (Family name). If the Dowager Countess of Grantham eg felt she was to young to be called a "Dowager", she could have used the name Violet, Lady (or Countess of) Grantham instead.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

I think that was a problem Buckingham Palace tried to resolve, but Diana died before they had a fixed solution. There had been a lot of discussions about that. And I think after William was born, her status didn't depend on her marriage to Charles alone. IMHO if Sarah had not had her divorce at about the same time, Diana could have kept her HRH for the fact that she was William's mother.

Sarah was divorced first and she kept the HRH from her divorce until Diana's in the August.

It was Diana's divorce that forced the Queen to strip Sarah of HRH as well - although that had never been discussed as part of Sarah's divorce settlement.

They had made it very clear - she was not royal but would, at times, be invited to royal events i.e. events involving her sons but otherwise she was not part of the royal family nor was she royal. That was very clear and made clear in the divorce settlement.

[Elan]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

They had made it very clear - she was not royal but would, at times, be invited to royal events i.e. events involving her sons but otherwise she was not part of the royal family nor was she royal. That was very clear and made clear in the divorce settlement.

On the verge of being Queen, with media frenzy paying ransom for photos, interviews, etc. After all that, not royal..

Sarah, I can grasp. But if you achieve icon status all over the place, and news outlets are glued to your every word, well after a divorce, what would that be called then ? Double royal ? But without the official stamp.

[O-H Anglophile]

Diana’s own words and actions were the impetus for stripping her of her HRH. You cannot say your estranged husband should be skipped as the next monarch in favor of your son, among many other things.
Sarah may have done some stupid things over the years but she has never badmouthed the BRF.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Diana’s own words and actions were the impetus for stripping her of her HRH. You cannot say your estranged husband should be skipped as the next monarch in favor of your son, among many other things.
Sarah may have done some stupid things over the years but she has never badmouthed the BRF.

Diana's openly desavouing of the Heir was bordering high treason in Ye Olde Times.

Offences constituting high treason include attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession.