Diana's Styles and Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Well I guess the Princess' jewelry reflected her taste.

Diana was very indecisive during the divorce settlements; but I don't blame her for taking the money rather than the HRH. A title is pretty useless if you don't have a penny to your name.
 
Diana voluntarily relinquished her style and rank of HRH in the February meeting with The Queen, which was in the presence of Robin Janvrin taking notes in the background. This was the basis of the statement from the Palace later denying The Queen or Prince Charles had asked her to relinquish her royal rank and the decision had been Diana's alone.

Burrell stated in his book that The Queen made it clear she felt the style of "Diana, Princess of Wales" would be appropriate after the divorce, but reserved making a decision at that time, stating she would discuss the title issue with Charles. Later, Diana changed her mind about it, deciding she wanted to remain HRH to ensure she wouldn't be treated like Sarah, Duchess of York after a divorce.

Charles reportedly didn't care one way or another about the issue, but Prince Philip was said to be adamantly against allowing Diana to remain HRH. The Queen was willing to let her keep it, but only as "HRH Princess Diana" and not, "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" as Diana wanted. She also wanted Diana to accept the price for remaining a Royal Highness, which was a lower financial settlement and the right of the Palace to determine her public duties. Diana refused on both counts.

So, in the end, Diana made her own decision on the title and settlement, which probably was the best course of action. You can't have it all and she had overplayed her hand.
 
GillW said:
Even wedding gifts to her (especially from foreign royalty) would have been treated - just like other jewels she received later - as a gift to the "position" of Princess of Wales and she would not have been allowed to count them as personal property, although she was allowed their continued use after the divorce (although she had far fewer occasions to wear them). By the precious gifts being treated this way it avoids difficulties like duty on valuables coming into the country.
Click to expand...

Not true. All of her jewels were either from the Royal Collection or wedding gifts from the Saudis, in addition to the pieces Charles gave her during the marriage. She never would have paid duty taxes on those pieces because they were given to her in the UK.

The only royal pieces were the Cambridge Emerald Choker, the Lover's Knot Tiara, a pair of diamond earrings, a couple of brooches and a pearl choker with a diamond centre piece. The Sri Lankan sapphire may have come from The Queen Mother's collection of unset stones that she had been given by Queen Mary, although this was never confirmed.

All of these jewels were covered in her divorce agreement as hers to keep for her lifetime, with the jewels passing to Prince William for his future wife. She was forbidden to sell or lend any jewels she had received from The Queen or The Queen Mother. The rest were her personal property to do as she pleased.

When she died, the royal pieces were all returned to The Queen, with the remaining pieces likely in safekeeping for William and Harry when they marry.
 
jcbcode99 said:
I think that it has been shown multiple times that Diana was impetuous and did not always think things out (as many of us are at times); I'm sure that she felt that threatening to sell her jewels was meant to intimidate the Queen and she implied that would sell the historic gems that she had been given. The Queen Mother gave her several lovely pieces (brooch, PoW feather brooch with emerald drop) and the Queen gave her (well, loaned) the Cambridge Lover's Knot as well as the Emerald Choker. Diana had also received jewels as wedding presents from rulers and dignitaries of other countries and these were considered personal gifts. I imagine what with all the interviews that the Queen was concerned about headlines about Diana having to sell jewels to live because of the mean old firm and their hatred to Diana--which wasn't really case. I think Diana probably threatened to sell those pieces but was trumped by the Queen on the legalaties of actually trying to do so.
Click to expand...

Maybe she was trying to get rid of memories.
 
Presumed Diana would still be alive, when Chales becomes King; would she still be Diana, Princess of Wales? or would her styl be changed?

Same with Sara, Duchess of York; If Andrew became King (I know, he woun't, but..) would her style change?

I just want to understand the system ...

Because .. then (probably) Will & Kate will become The Prince & Princess of Wales.. and if they would divorce.. there would be two BlaBla, Princess of Wales.. mhhh very confusing ;)
 
Diana would be Queen Diana, Sarah would be Queen Sarah.
The title Duke of York would merge with the crown.

The title POW would not merge with the crown, and it is awarded to the heir to the throne should the Sovereign wish it.
 
Nice Nofret said:
Presumed Diana would still be alive, when Chales becomes King; would she still be Diana, Princess of Wales? or would her styl be changed?

Same with Sara, Duchess of York; If Andrew became King (I know, he woun't, but..) would her style change?

I just want to understand the system ...

Because .. then (probably) Will & Kate will become The Prince & Princess of Wales.. and if they would divorce.. there would be two BlaBla, Princess of Wales.. mhhh very confusing ;)
Click to expand...

I think Lumutqueen has misunderstood your question.. you are asking if Diana were alive today and she was still divorced from Prince Charles, correct? And if Andrew were to become king, what would happen with his divorced wife, Sarah.. right?

If Diana were still alive and Charles became king, she would still be Diana, Princess of Wales, assuming she had not remarried. If Charles had still married Camilla in the interim, then Camilla would become Queen (or HRH The Princess Consort, as she intends to be).

Sarah will remain Sarah, Duchess of York, if or until she remarries. If Andrew were to become king, there would be no queen unless he had remarried before that event.

If neither Diana or Sarah ever remarried they would still retain use of the titles..
 
Last edited:
I just realised, I completely misread the post and assume Nice Nofret was discussing if Diana and Sarah were still alive and married.

My apologies.
 
*gg* no, Lumut, that would have been easy, even for me ;) - but thank you for answering
 
scooter said:
Iluvbertie, you believe that Diana stopped people and told them to call her Princess Charles? I have never seen anything regarding this in any book, magazine or paper. May I ask you to provide the link? Many thanks!
Click to expand...
I never said she told them to call her Princess Charles but that she told them that is was wrong to call her Princess Diana.
She didn't do it in the street but I do have a couple of references in magazines etc by people like Richard Kay and others.

Queen Penelope said:
Since Prince Charles had a title, wasn't she just HRH The Princess of Wales?, or was she was Princess Charles, but styled Princess if Wales?
Click to expand...
She was both - The Prince Charles as that was his most basic title but The Princess of Wales as well as that is his most senior title.
She was also The Duchess of Cornwall - Charles' longest held substantive title.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iluvbertie said:
She was both - The Prince Charles as that was his most basic title but The Princess of Wales as well as that is his most senior title.

She was also The Duchess of Cornwall - Charles' longest held substantive title.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification! I knew Princess of Wales was her most senior title, and she held the other titles that Prince Charles holds. I just guessed since she has several titles by virtue of marriage, she would not hold "The Princess Charles" as a title, as that would be the title she would receive upon marriage had Charles had no other titles (ie. Princess Michael). But that make total sense, as he is "The Prince Charles", so she, as well as being The Princess of Wales, was also The Princess Charles!!. :)
 
Queen Penelope said:
Thanks for the clarification! I knew Princess of Wales was her most senior title, and she held the other titles that Prince Charles holds. I just guessed since she has several titles by virtue of marriage, she would not hold "The Princess Charles" as a title, as that would be the title she would receive upon marriage had Charles had no other titles (ie. Princess Michael). But that make total sense, as he is "The Prince Charles", so she, as well as being The Princess of Wales, was also The Princess Charles!!. :)
Click to expand...
Exactly - she took all his titles.

Currently only Princess Micheal uses that form but there are a number who have it - Camilla, (The Princess Charles), Sophie (The Princess Edward), Birgitte (Princess Richard of Gloucester) and Katherine (Princess Edward of Kent). These ladies use other titles but they also have these ones.
 
The Queen issued Letters Patent dated August 21st, 1996 which regulated royal style & titles after divorce. As such, the Princess of Wales & the Duchess of York, lost the style and prefix of Royal Highness.

Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
 
HRHThePrince said:
Since Diana was legally no longer a Royal Highness, if she had lived, would she have been required to curtsy to her daughter in law, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge?
Click to expand...
In all probability, she wouldn't have to. Despite the divorce and the loss of the style of Royal Highness, the Queen made sure Diana (as mother of the future King) was still accorded the same precedence and ranking she had during her marriage to Prince Charles - meaning she was the third lady in the Kingdom after the Queen and the Queen Mother.

Now, had Diana lived, she would have certainly had lower precedence than Camilla (the current wife of the Prince of Wales) but it is likely the Queen would have still accorded her a precedence above that of William and Harry's wives.

I think it would have largely depended on how well Diana's relationship with the Royal Family would be (and there were signs of improvement at the time of her death, at least in regards to Prince Charles), or how popular she remained (and her popularity was on the decline before her death; most articles on Diana immediately preceding her death were highly critical). If she maintained good, cordial relations with the Queen and Prince Charles, I daresay her precedence wouldn't have changed (meaning right now it would be The Queen -> The Duchess of Cornwall -> Diana, Princess of Wales -> The Countess of Wessex -> The Duchess of Cambridge). However, if she became a controversial figure due to her lifestyle or other issues, she would have most probably lost her precedence, mother of the future King or not. Likewise, had Diana re-married, I'm almost certain she would have been accorded a much lower precedence (certainly below Sophie and probably Kate too), or would have none at all.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part' no one can predict how things would have been had Diana lived.
 
I highly doubt Diana would have dropped a curtsey to anyone but The Queen, Prince Philip and The Queen Mother. She was still the mother of a future King regardless of the divorce.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The link above has the Letters Patent regarding former wives and below is the announcement as it appeared in the Gazette for anyone thats interested

Buckingham Palace
The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 21st August 1996, to declare that a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of these Realms, of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 54510, Aug 30, 1996, p. 1/11603.)
 
As you stated: "She was the mother of the future king regardless of her divorce".

Evidently it mattered enough to the Queen, as she was the one that issued the necessary patent to restrict the style. I personally felt she should have kept the Royal Highness title. It just doesn't make sense to me at all-- what's the point in rendering someone's precedence the same, but you take away a key identity to that precedence. I have much respect for the Queen, but I believe the move she played was rather vindictive. And many may argue this, but regardless of Diana's precedence as mother to a future king, she is obliged to curtsy to others who are Royal Highnesse's.

I read years ago that Princess Michael of Kent had written her a letter fustrating her anger at how the Queen stripped (Diana) her of her royal title, unbefitting the mother of a future king. She went onto to say in the letter that "though court protocal obliges you to curtsy to me, don't you dare do it".

People are saying it doesn't matter, however it did. Without the HRH title, Diana no longer received the "Royal Salute" honoured to members of the British Royal Family when entering or exiting royal residences.

TYPO: Sorry for not speaking in the past tense guys!!!!! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well when the George VI denied the Duchess of Windsor the style of Royal Highness, one of the main reasons was because she would never be on the throne as consort, she couldn't hold Royal rank. Maybe HM was thinking the same thing. Because former wives will never be consorts, they can't enjoy the style of Royal Highness?
 
But why should have Diana kept the Royal Highness style? She became a Royal Highness and a British Princess by virtue of her marriage to a British Prince. Once she was no longer the wife of the said Prince, she lost the styles and titles she acquired because of the marriage. It's pretty simple, really.

Precedence is a different matter; Diana maintained her high precedence because she was the mother of the future Monarch - and her divorce didn't change that.

Protocol most certainly did not oblige Diana to bow or curtsey to Royal Highnesses; since she did keep her precedence, she should have curtseyed only to those with higher ranking - the Queen, the Queen Mother and Prince Philip (and Prince Charles but I doubt the latter would have insisted or allowed tat). On the contrary, the Royal Highnesses who had lower precedence than Diana (Princess Michael included) should, in theory, still curtsey to her, although I'm pretty sure some of them - such as Princess Margaret - would sooner break their legs in purpose then do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have your opinion & I have my. My opinion is why take away the Royal Highness title but away, but maintain as mother of a future king, her precedence shall remain. What's the sense in that? Best believe, if Diana had lived to the reign of either Charles or William she would've certainly received her title back. And your argument saying Diana's precedence was accorded due to her being the mother of Prince William was a courtsey from the Queen, not a right just like that of the HRH title. Her precedence remained by the will of the Sovereign & no more. The Queen could have easily removed her precedence as third in the land.

And say what you will, but Diana was no longer a Royal Highness & Princess Michael of Kent was. And like many constitutional scholars have pointed out, theoretically she would be "obliged" to curtsy to her husband and own children. Now, would she in theory? I doubt it. I'm sure Sarah, Duchess of York doesn't curtsy to her daughters in private, but I'm very sure if participating in any kind of state occasion where formality is closely watched & observed, she would.

And the book I was talking about was called The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II, written by Ben Pimlot. In one of the chapters it explicitly talked about Diana's loss of title & how she would no loner would receive certain priviledges accorded to those who hold the prefix of Royal Highness.
 
Most accounts have stated The Queen was willing to allow Diana to remain HRH after the divorce, but Diana decided to relinquish it in favor of a larger financial settlement and the freedom to live her life without constant oversight from the Palace. Others have stated Diana refused to settle for "HRH Princess Diana" and demanded to be "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales", which is technically the style of the wife of The Prince of Wales, and was declined by The Queen.

Either way, she did remain a Princess, although downgraded by the loss of her royal rank.
 
HRHThePrince said:
You have your opinion & I have my. My opinion is why take away the Royal Highness title but away, but maintain as mother of a future king, her precedence shall remain. What's the sense in that? Best believe, if Diana had lived to the reign of either Charles or William she would've certainly received her title back. And your argument saying Diana's precedence was accorded due to her being the mother of Prince William was a courtsey from the Queen, not a right just like that of the HRH title. Her precedence remained by the will of the Sovereign & no more. The Queen could have easily removed her precedence as third in the land.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion and am really interested to hear it.

To me, it is sounds logical that once Diana was no longer married to a British Prince, she lost the styles and titles she had acquired by virtue of that marriage. Since she didn't stop being mother of the future King, she retained her precedence. Of course, the Queen could have at any point altered that precedence or remove it altogether. I do agree it is possible Diana would have received her Royal Highness back during the reigns of either Charles or William had she survived.

And say what you will, but Diana was no longer a Royal Highness & Princess Michael of Kent was. And like many constitutional scholars have pointed out, theoretically she would be "obliged" to curtsy to her husband and own children. Now, would she in theory? I doubt it. I'm sure Sarah, Duchess of York doesn't curtsy to her daughters in private, but I'm very sure if participating in any kind of state occasion where formality is closely watched & observed, she would.
Click to expand...
Now, it has nothing to do with what I say or what scholars think: the fact is Diana was the third lady in the Kingdom and thus in no shape or form obliged to curtsey to those with lower precedence, Royal Highness or not. Zara Phillips is not a Royal Highness but her precedence is higher than, say, that of Princess Michael, which is why you'll never see Zara curtseying to her.

Whatever occasion it was, from State Dinners to Coronation, Diana would not curtsey to those with lower precedence; they, on the other hand, might be obliged to do just that - and that included quite a few Royal Highnesses such as Princess Michael, the Duchess of Gloucester, the Duchess of Kent, Princess Alexandra, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, etc.

And the book I was talking about was called The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II, written by Ben Pimlot. In one of the chapters it explicitly talked about Diana's loss of title & how she would no loner would receive certain priviledges accorded to those who hold the prefix of Royal Highness.
Click to expand...
I do not contest that; Diana certainly lost certain privileges associated with her former titles and style. Then again, do you think it's logical for a former wife to enjoy privileges she had acquired by virtue of her marriage to her former husband? It doesn't make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
When she lost the style of Royal Highness, Diana ceased to hold royal rank. That is one of the reasons why at her death, the Queen insisted that the Spencer Family handle her funeral & not the Royal Family.
 
HRHThePrince said:
When she lost the style of Royal Highness, Diana ceased to hold royal rank. That is one of the reasons why at her death, the Queen insisted that the Spencer Family handle her funeral & not the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

Well, except that she received full royal honours and every aspect of her funeral was handled by the Royal Household and the Government, including a service at Westminster Abbey. Not exactly a low-key family funeral.
 
So you're saying precedence is everything regardless of style & title?

Yeah she received it after a huge cat fight of the Queen's back being pinned against the wall & public opinion turning against her at the same time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Diana were alive, I don't think she would be attending many royal events anyway, so her precedence and any styles/titles wouldn't be an issue IMO.
 
Last edited:
Most likely if the Princess of Wales were still alive, I do think she would've attended some family events. Being that she was the mother to the second in-line to the throne and still a member of the royal family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
Princesses Caroline & Stephanie's Fashion and Style Part 3: January 2024 -
Replies
22
Views
3K
Elly C
Elly C
Misskitty
Hello!
Replies
4
Views
549
Toledo
Toledo
CrownPrincessJava
Princess Beatrix's Fashion and Style Part 2: November 2023 -
Replies
15
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Tatiana Maria
T
iceflower
Queen Sofia's Fashion and Style Part 5: January 2024 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Elly C
Elly C

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom