Diana's Styles and Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
thought i think QEII wouldn't have minded creating diana a peer in her own right after all The Queen had offered the husband of her cousin Sir Angus Ogilvy an earldom on his wedding , which he declined. i wouldn't think she wouldn't do it to the mother of a future king especially if she was alive when charles remarried .

1. For the most part, peerages are created at the request of the government of the day that have been approved by HM, The Queen. Why? Because, although I'm not that well read up on the subject, a peer (either kind) are permitted to sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons and participate in governmental business.

that's for those who are outside the royal family i know that diana after the divorce lost 'HRH' but she was still considered part of the royal family
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think if she was created a peer in her own right it would have been a life peer or without special remainder and the title would passes to william and finally merge with the crown again

A title without special remainder would never pass to William. In Diana's case, being a female holder of the peerage, there must be a special remainder to the Letters Patent to make her title inheritable to her eldest son. (And why would the Queen do that? In due time William will add the titles Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Chester, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland to his current peerages: Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus. And then we are leaving aside the not-automatic title Prince of Wales...).
 
Last edited:
isn't any heredity peer title is created with normal remainder to " the heirs male of his body " and the special remainder is in case the holder doesn't have a male son only daughters like the duchy of fife ?
 
Last edited:
From what I've been reading, other than the hereditary peers that Thatcher had created in a short time span, there haven't really been any hereditary peers created since then and since 1960s before Thatcher, very few so I think we can safely say that other than the monarch creating royal dukes and bestowing titles (which are becoming more and the more the norm of being refused) on family members, we won't be seeing new hereditary peers much at all.
 
From what I've been reading, other than the hereditary peers that Thatcher had created in a short time span, there haven't really been any hereditary peers created since then and since 1960s before Thatcher, very few so I think we can safely say that other than the monarch creating royal dukes and bestowing titles (which are becoming more and the more the norm of being refused) on family members, we won't be seeing new hereditary peers much at all.
probably not, but She would have been a special case... ANd there is nothing to stop the queen doing it. It would not do any harm to anyone, it might have pleased her and the public... why not.
 
isn't any heredity peer title is created with normal remainder to " the heirs male of his body " and the special remainder is in case the holder doesn't have a male son only daughters like the duchy of fife ?

Very rarely a special remainders indeed are issued when the first holder of a created Peerage has no direct issue. But it makes no sense in Diana's case. Imagine that she would get a third child, a son, with Dodi Al-Fayed.

The successors to her peerage are her eldest son William, then her second son Harry and then her third son with Dodi. Her two eldest sons already are Princes of the United Kingdom, with every expectation that the both of them would be created a Duke, an Earl and a Baron -as happened in William's case.

A hereditary peerage with a special reminder in Diana's case was totally useless: it is like carrying water to the sea.
 
Titles are hereditary for "male heirs of the body, lawfully begotten" unless there is a special remainder in or to the Letters Patent. In normal situations the children of the Countess of Brington with Mr Khan are still simply Mr Khan and Miss Khan. No Honourables and no Lords and no Ladies.

A title without special remainder would never pass to William. In Diana's case, being a female holder of the peerage, there must be a special remainder to the Letters Patent to make her title inheritable to her eldest son.

The same courtesy titles apply to the children of a hereditary peer, the children of a hereditary peeress, and children of life peers and peeresses of the same rank. The daughters of Countess Mountbatten (who are not in the line of succession to her peerage) are Lady Joanna Zuckerman and Lady Amanda Ellingworth; as daughters of their father, the late Baron Brabourne, they would have been Honourable.

Sons of a Baron, Baron and Baroness, Titles, Forms Of Address, People of Influence | Debrett's

A peerage created for Diana with the standard remainder would pass to William indeed, because he would be the oldest "heir male of her body, lawfully begotten".

1. For the most part, peerages are created at the request of the government of the day that have been approved by HM, The Queen. Why? Because, although I'm not that well read up on the subject, a peer (either kind) are permitted to sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons and participate in governmental business.

After the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords, but they may still stand for election to one of the 92 seats reserved for them.
 
That is true Tatiana. while I agree that the RF might not have bene keen on the idea, I can't see what harm it would have done. Diana IMO deserved something, I thtink that the queen realised that she had not been wholly responsbile for the failure of her marriaige and that was why she got a very good financial settlement.. and a peerage woudl not have cost anyting or made any great difference to the RF or anyone as a whole. If she had had a title, it woudl have been a bit of help in her chariry work, people like a title, and it would eventually pass to William so it would not be a problem in that respect. And any younger children, of a second marriage would be say "the Hon, X Y" or Lady X Y." Courtesy titles but I think they would have been suitable.
 
After the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary peers lost their automatic right to sit in the House of Lords, but they may still stand for election to one of the 92 seats reserved for them.

I'm always a happy camper when someone steps in and adds to, clarifies and/or corrects something I've said in a post.

Thank you much Tatiana Maria! I love that name.

Denville, while I would agree with you that it might be a nice idea now that we look back on things, up until 1996, HM, The Queen could have bestowed any number of different honors that are her personal gifts on Diana but with the things the way they were with the separation and the period leading up to the divorce, I think if she had done so, it would have made her look hypocritical with her praises as the War of the Wales was still very much ongoing. For the year after the divorce until Diana's death in 1997, they were still very much reeling from the split up of this marriage and as a private citizen between 1996-1997, Diana really hadn't done much to warrant being honored and titled for.

One thing that defines HM's character is that she is very serious and knowledgeable of her role and what is acceptable and what is proper to do. In this respect, I think giving Diana any kind of title in her own right never crossed her mind.
 
Last edited:
Hum, the queen is only a person and IMO has made a few bad mistakes in her time. I don't think she always gets things right. She has allowed Andy far too much leniency IMO..
Previously, royals leaving/giving up their royal status, usually took a title of nobility, just because they had been royal and it wasn't considered fitting for them to become just a mere Mister... so I would have thought that since Diana (while I admit she'd behaved foolishly) had not done anything terribly wrong and was still the mother of royal children, should have been given a title. Diana had been a good hard working princess of Wales, she had raised the profile of the RF, and it wasn't her fault that she had not been able to compete with Cam for Charles' affections. In the year after her divorce, she had not been very active but I don't think the RF really wanted her doing "great things" which would take the attention away from Charles who was very unpopular at the time. But she had done charity work and had become involved in the Landmines campaign. So why not make her a countess?
I don't know fi she would have wanted it, but I think and thought at the time that it woud have been sutiable.
 
if


having a title doesn't mean you take official allowance anymore and she doesn't take allowance because of her titles but because The Folketing decided to put her on the civil list for life when she was divorce in 2004 the title was created in 2005
thank you for this information. I agree, just because you have a title doesn't mean that you DO get money form the tax payer and if Alexandra had her divorce money settlement, meaning that she was going to be on the Civil List for life, that is a separate issue to her having a title.
 
What it all boils down to though that, in the long run, when Diana divorced and then was not actually a member of the royal family (although it was stated that she would still be treated as such because of the royal status of her boys and the same applies to Sarah and her girls) both her and Sarah weren't relegated to the common Miss/Mrs./Ms. category. Both women were able to keep the titles and styles that denote that they had been once married to peers. This is where Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York come into play. Its how things work.

In effect, through the divorce settlement, Diana's style always reflected on her time and status of being The Princess of Wales. She wasn't relegated to using Lady Diana Spencer or something like Diana Wales even. All of Diana's styles came to her from her circumstances in life. Lady Diana Spencer when her father became Earl of Althorp. The Princess of Wales because of her marriage to Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales which is the style denoting she was once upon a time The Princess of Wales because her husband was The Prince of Wales.

I can't recall any examples where there were "royals leaving/giving up their royal status, usually took a title of nobility, just because they had been royal and it wasn't considered fitting for them to become just a mere Mister." If you're by chance thinking of Edward VIIII/Duke of Windsor, that was a totally one of kind situation with no precedence before it. Its explained a lot more in depth in the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread and trust me, there was a lot of heated discussion going on between Parliament, the powers that know about those things and the royal advisors over it too. :D
 
Diana wouldn't have wanted to have a lesser title than the one she had - Diana, Princess of Wales.

It would have been a demotion - from using the highest title in the land other than monarch to something like Countess.

Her precedence was related to her position as William's mother so her precedence didn't need a different title.

She was better off with the divorced style from her husband than anything in her own right.
 
So why not make her a countess?
or even a duchess , let's not forget that she is the mother of a future king it would have been awkward if she was still alive when william become king that a commoner who married a marquess and become a marchioness could outrank the mother of the king

I can't recall any examples where there were "royals leaving/giving up their royal status, usually took a title of nobility, just because they had been royal and it wasn't considered fitting for them to become just a mere Mister." :D
king george v and all his British relatives relinquished their German titles and styles, and adopted British-sounding surnames during WWI . George compensated his male relatives by creating them British peers. His cousin, Prince Louis of Battenberg, who earlier in the war had been forced to resign as First Sea Lord through anti-German feeling, became Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, while Queen Mary's brothers became Adolphus Cambridge, 1st Marquess of Cambridge, and Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm with Iluvbertie on this one. Countess, Duchess, Marchioness or any other title in her own right would be a lesser one than still being referred to as Princess of Wales even with the divorced styling of it using her own first name.

There are lots of Duchesses and Countesses and Marchionesses but in Queen Elizabeth's II reign, there are only two that can use Princess of Wales and whether Diana had lived or not, I think Camilla would still prefer to be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall. Perhaps a third Princess of Wales would be in the picture too as its very possible that Kate would carry the title of The Princess of Wales should William's father invest him as The Prince of Wales. :D

king george v and all his British relatives relinquished their German titles and styles, and adopted British-sounding surnames during WWI . George compensated his male relatives by creating them British peers. His cousin, Prince Louis of Battenberg, who earlier in the war had been forced to resign as First Sea Lord through anti-German feeling, became Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, while Queen Mary's brothers became Adolphus Cambridge, 1st Marquess of Cambridge, and Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone.

Ok. Good points and I stand corrected. I think though that WWI changed the face of a lot of things having to do with monarchies, aristocracies and nobility throughout Europe and King George V took measures to differentiate the British lineages from the European/German ones at the time to make the UK a more united entity with its own British peerages and even changing the royal family's surname to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It brought an end to the definite feel that Queen Victoria was truly the Grandmother of Europe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Osipi the one i was thinking of was actualy quite a long time ago. Prince Albert's mother was divorced for adultery and she I belive took a title like Baroness something. (Now Im thinking Oh God have i got that right? Maybe she MARRIED a baron). Also one of the Austrain Emperor's brothers gave up his royal rights and took a title of COunt of Somewhere.
Yes Di had the titel of "Diana Pss of W" but if she remarried, I think that had she been say Lady Brington.. It would have just been a small "nod" to her as a former royal that she had a title to take into a new marriage and a new life.
I jsut can't see why there seems to be so much hostility to the idea, it would not have harmed anyone/taken anything form anyone else, it would have recognised Di's positon as a former royal and if she had had another child he or she would have had a courtesy title...

As duc of pol has said, there have been many situatons back in the 1900s where "former royals" took a title such as "Marquis of Cambridge" etc..
it would be a one off.. like that.
And sorry not sure who said it, and it is a small point, but diana's father was not earl of Althorp. He was Viscount Althorp while his father was alive and then became Earl Spencer.. (it is quite unusual for an earl not to be Earl Of X..)
 
And sorry not sure who said it, and it is a small point, but diana's father was not earl of Althorp. He was Viscount Althorp while his father was alive and then became Earl Spencer.. (it is quite unusual for an earl not to be Earl Of X..)

Once again, that was me. Thanks for the correction. I should have know that. :flowers:
 
Prince Albert's mother was divorced for adultery and she I belive took a title like Baroness something.
she was divorced because of her husband's infidelities then she secretly married Baron Alexander von Hanstein (later created Count of Pölzig and Beiersdrof) but she was always a Princess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg
 
I thought that Albert's Mother had an affair and was divorced, and then married her lover.
but anyway, i was thinking, taht if Charles had been pushed/decided to give up his rights at that time, married Camilla and perhaps moved abroad for a while, Im sure the queen would have givne him a title, not something like Duke of Windsor but maybe a marquisate.. using a title from some of the RF's properties. And then he and Cam would maybe live abroad for a bit and then divide their time between the UK and a home abroad. I think if that had happened, he woudl still have had a certain limited role in charities, and the queen would want him to have a title, so that he and Cam would not be just Charles Mountbatten WIndsor and his missus.
 
Edward VIII is a one off. The relatives of George V were simply having their German styles replaced with British titles.

If the argument is Diana should have been recognised in some way, the Royal Victorian Order or even the Garter would have been the way to go about it, but the Queen didn't do that.

Diana was treated fair and square. She was a divorced wife and used the style of a divorced wife.

To be made a peer, even a life peer is still a big deal. And given that peers are only created on the advice of government, what message would it have sent?
 
Diana was treated fair and square. She was a divorced wife and used the style of a divorced wife.

To be made a peer, even a life peer is still a big deal. And given that peers are only created on the advice of government, what message would it have sent?
again it's created on the advice of government if it was for someone outside the royal family . and the reason we are saying she would have been made a peer in her own right is not because she was married to the royal family but because she is the mother of the king of the united kingdom if it was Fergie i would doubt that if she remarried that she would have been made a peer but it's different with diana it would have been awkward if her son is the king and she had to courtesy to princess michael of kent
 
Peers have been created on the advice of Government for hundreds of years. It's a far greater dignity than a knighthood. Even a 'lowly' baron outranks a Knight of the Garter. Parliament refused to make Prince Albert a peer and he was the husband of a Queen regnant, so obviously the advice of government is needed.

I'm not making any personal judgements against Diana but I don't think she 'deserved' to be made a peer. An order of chivalry maybe, but not a peer.
 
Peers have been created on the advice of Government for hundreds of years. It's a far greater dignity than a knighthood. Even a 'lowly' baron outranks a Knight of the Garter. Parliament refused to make Prince Albert a peer and he was the husband of a Queen regnant, so obviously the advice of government is needed.

I'm not making any personal judgements against Diana but I don't think she 'deserved' to be made a peer. An order of chivalry maybe, but not a peer.

prince albert didn't needed to be a peer he was a prince consort a title that is equivalent to a queen consort a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony . prince philip was made a duke of edinburgh and queen victoria created her son in law a Duke of Argyll in the Peerage of the United Kingdom . QEII created her brother in law earl snowdon etc and those were all by the queen own choice without the parliament interference
 
Last edited:
Peerages must be created by Letters Patent passed under the great seal, on the advice of government. No where in the constitutional convention does it say 'except members of the royal family'

Now granted, the government isn't going to refuse Prince William a peerage, but the constitution gives it the authority.

The fact remains, Prince Albert required the consent of parliament to be made a peer, consent that wasn't given.

Again with regards to Diana, it's my opinion a peerage wouldn't have been appropriate, even if it was solely The Queen's decision to make.

Make her a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, something that is solely the Queen's decision.
 
Last edited:
again it's created on the advice of government if it was for someone outside the royal family . and the reason we are saying she would have been made a peer in her own right is not because she was married to the royal family but because she is the mother of the king of the united kingdom if it was Fergie i would doubt that if she remarried that she would have been made a peer but it's different with diana it would have been awkward if her son is the king and she had to courtesy to princess michael of kent


A peerage wouldn't have made a divorced Diana outrank Princess Michael in that scenario. The only people that the royals curtesy/bow to are the Queen and Philip. They don't do it to each other. Harry isn't bowing to William each day he sees him.

Every title except Lady from her father was from marrying Charles. After the divorce, it's Name, Title like every other divorced spouse of a peer and if you remarry you lose the previous spouse's titles. Diana would have saw this with her own mother who was Hon Frances Burke-Roche - then Viscountess Althorp, then the Hon Frances, Viscountess Althorp, -then Hon Mrs Peter Shand-Kidd and finally the Hon Mrs Frances Shand-Kidd.

The honorable coming from being a daughter of a baron.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
prince albert didn't needed to be a peer he was a prince consort a title that is equivalent to a queen consort a Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony . prince philip was made a duke of edinburgh and queen victoria created her son in law a Duke of Argyll in the Peerage of the United Kingdom . QEII created her brother in law earl snowdon etc and those were all by the queen own choice without the parliament interference

Both Victoria and Elizabeth had to issue statements about the precedence of their husbands - pre-eminent only to the monarch themselves, except when provided for by law. Why was that necessary? Because being a mere prince they didn't have the automatic precedence that goes with being the Queen Consort.

Relating this back to Diana - giving her a title in her own right would mean that her precedence would be based on that title and thus she would move lower in precedence than she would have as the ex-wife of the Prince of Wales.

As for the mother of the King having to curtsey to Princess Michael - with or without a title once Diana lost the HRH she would have to curtsey to all those with the HRH. It is the HRH that gives a person royal status and non-royals are expected to curtsey to those with it in the family. For you and me that isn't necessary but within the royal family itself it is. Diana would have been expected to curtsey to her sons and Kate by now if she had lived if she ever saw them in a public place e.g. if she had been invited to the recent church service (which all the indications are she would have been) and she arrived before William, Kate and Harry she would have been expected to curtsey. I suspect she would have arrived with them but we will never know on that.
 
[...] QEII created her brother in law earl snowdon etc and those were all by the queen own choice without the parliament interference

There was a long process of advice and counsel with officials and experts and the Government before the Letters Patent were issued. The Queen does nothing without checking on beforehand that it meets approval by the Government (and in its slipstream, the Goverment's majority).
 
A peerage wouldn't have made a divorced Diana outrank Princess Michael in that scenario. The only people that the royals curtesy/bow to are the Queen and Philip. They don't do it to each other. Harry isn't bowing to William each day he sees him.

Every title except Lady from her father was from marrying Charles. After the divorce, it's Name, Title like every other divorced spouse of a peer and if you remarry you lose the previous spouse's titles. Diana would have saw this with her own mother who was Hon Frances Burke-Roche - then Viscountess Althorp, then the Hon Frances, then Viscountess Althorp, -then Hon Mrs Peter Shand-Kidd and finally the Hon Mrs Frances Shand-Kidd.

The honorable coming from being a daughter of a baron.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Diana saw it too with her very own stepmother:

Raine McCorquodale (her maiden name)
Lady Legge (her 1st husband was Lord Gerald Legge)
Viscountess Lewisham (her 1st husband became Viscount Lewisham)
The Countess of Dartmouth (her 1st husband became the Earl of Dartmouth)
Raine, Countess of Dartmouth (she divorced her 1st husband)
The Countess Spencer (her 2nd husband was the Earl Spencer)
The Dowager Countess Spencer (she became the widow of the Earl Spencer)
Comtesse Jean-François Pineton de Chambru (her 3rd spouse was a French Comte)
Raine, Countess Spencer (after divorce she used a style associated with a previous marriage)

:flowers:
 
i think creating the mother of the future king is more acceptable than creating the husband of queen's cousin a heredity earl in his own right
 
i think creating the mother of the future king is more acceptable than creating the husband of queen's cousin a heredity earl in his own right
I would have said that both were appropriate. As the husband of a royal, it was considered proper to give a title to a man who married into the RF. The queen is reputed to have tried to insist that Anne's husband should have a title, so that her grandson was not Just Master Peter Phillips. Ann and Mark didn't want it, but it was on offer and clearly teh queen felt that it should be given. I would have thought that she should have done the same for the mother of her grandsons, and the former wife of her eldest son.
 
Back
Top Bottom