Diana's Styles and Titles

[Denville]

prinedinburgh 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

No, Lord Lorne was already heir to a peerage...but if he had not had a title, I am sure that Q Vic woudl have insisted on his being given one.

 

[Osipi]

What title in her own right would be better than what she already had then in your book?

BTW: both the cousin's husband that was created an Earl and Diana gained their titles the same way. By marrying into the British Royal Family.

Now, I have a question. How many women, in recent times, have been created a hereditary peer in their own right or would this hypothetical discussion of creating Diana a hereditary peer in her own right set a new precedence? I know there have been a few remainders attached to peerages that allows daughters to inherit the peerage but were any created for a female with all due remainders attached?

 

[Denville]

Osipi the point was that Diana's title was left as "Diana princess of wales" and the odds were that in time, Charles would remarry and his wife woudl then be Princess of Wales. And if Diana remarried, she would lose the Di Princess of Wales, I think, so the idea of a peerage was, as I thought i had explained, to give her some modest status, as a former royal.
I dont really see why her being created an hereditary peer woudl have been so dangerous. I dont know offhand if any women have been given an hereditiary peerage, in latter years, problaby none. But that's hardly the point, Diana was in an unqiue position. Her title would have then reverted to William in due course and it would not have caused any problems.
If it did lead to other women getting a hereditary peerage that is harldy going to do any great harm in the body politic is it? It would only affect a few people... who would have the right to call themselves Lady this or that.. and get a table in a restaurant quicker or have a name for a letterhead.

 

[duke of poliganc]

No, Lord Lorne was already heir to a peerage...but if he had not had a title, I am sure that Q Vic woudl have insisted on his being given one.

his peerage was in scotland queen victoria created another Peerage in United Kingdom the Duke of argyll is one of only five people to hold two different dukedoms

 

[duke of poliganc]

the queen even gave the agha khan the style of HH

 

[Mermaid1962]

Her name after her divorce, Diana Princess of Wales, showed that she had been married to the Prince of Wales. That's still high-status, even without the HRH. A widow also has the same style. For example, her grandmother Ruth, Lady Fermoy.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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

You are overlooking a few circumstances: the others were entering the royal family. Diana was leaving the royal family. She was leaving her position as Princess of Wales, Duchess of Rothesay, Duchess of Cornwall and a whole rambam of other titles. She was not leaving in silence and discretion. No, not only was the War of the Waleses fought out in public, not only has she hung the family's dirty laundry out of the window, she has even axed into the position of the Heir by openly doubting his qualities as future King and with "his" we still are speaking about the very father of the same William and Harry. In these unprecedented and never-seen lows for the royal family (remember the Annus Horribilis remark of the Queen) I doubt there was any "pleasure" left in Her Majesty (or goodwill in the Government) to grant a title to a lady whom, see it from the right or from the left, was running away, defecting, from the royal firm.

Yes. The Queen could have created Diana "something" but the whole circumstances have left a scar in the royal family. One only needs to look to Sarah Ferguson to know that, even when relationships remain cordial, once leaving the royal firm, is forever leaving the royal firm. And as explained: had Diana married Dodi, then she was now Lady Diana Al-Fayed. She remains the daughter of an Earl. She would never have been a plain Mrs anyway.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

the queen even gave the agha khan the style of HH

HH is not a title. It is a form of address, like The Right Honourable, like His Eminence, like Her Grace, like His Excellency. In the case of the Aga Khan the Queen did treat him like a Highness. This is a social norm set by the Queen, not to be confused with a title.

 

[Rudolph]

And remember, until November 11, 1999, hereditary peers sat in the House of Lords. A very important constitutional role. It's what separated commoners, including royals from the nobility. This is why the circumstances around the creation of peers is so tightly controlled by constitutional convention.

What message would the government be sending if it elevated the divorced wife of The Prince of Wales to the peerage?

The public could easily have viewed it as the government 'rewarding' Diana in her battle with Charles.

I have no issues with Diana as a person but it was never going to happen she was created a hereditary peer.

 

[Skippyboo]

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

Tony Armstrong Jones turned down the peerage at the time of his wedding. He only accepted it when Margaret got pregnant so the children - grandchildren of a King would have a title. He only became Earl of Snowdon about a month before David was born. Anne and Mark, Alexandra and Angus got similar offers but turned them down. I have never heard anything about Tim get a peerage so it's more about the kids then the spouse.

Diana's Royal children already had titles from Charles so their wasn't a need to give the kids titles. Plus Tony got the title early in the marriage not when he divorced Margaret.

Also the Queen knew that William could give his mother whatever titles, knighthoods etc, he wanted as King. She didn't have to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

Not sure Diana would've wanted to be given a peerage in her own right.

 

[duke of poliganc]

Tony Armstrong Jones turned down the peerage at the time of his wedding. He only accepted it when Margaret got pregnant so the children - grandchildren of a King would have a title. He only became Earl of Snowdon about a month before David was born. Anne and Mark, Alexandra and Angus got similar offers but turned them down. I have never heard anything about Tim get a peerage so it's more about the kids then the spouse.

i was talking about Angus Ogilvy princess alexandra of kent husband The Queen had offered Ogilvy an earldom on his wedding, which he declined but she wouldn't offered it if she can't do it

 

[Skippyboo]

Every guy marrying a Princess of child bearing age was offered a peerage during the Queen's reign. Only 1 accepted.

The Queen still has to get the okay of the government. There has only been 6 hereditary peerages since 1964. Three are William, Edward and Andrew.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Countessmeout]

What title in her own right would be better than what she already had then in your book?

BTW: both the cousin's husband that was created an Earl and Diana gained their titles the same way. By marrying into the British Royal Family.

Now, I have a question. How many women, in recent times, have been created a hereditary peer in their own right or would this hypothetical discussion of creating Diana a hereditary peer in her own right set a new precedence? I know there have been a few remainders attached to peerages that allows daughters to inherit the peerage but were any created for a female with all due remainders attached?

None.

There have only been 2 hereditary peerages created since 1965 that were not created for a member of the royal family (like William). Those were the Baron Thatcher and Earl of Stockton. The Earl of Stockton was given to the former PM Harold McMillan.

Women have received peerages but they have been life peerages. Note the Thatcher Baronetcy was awarded to Margaret's husband, not her. She was made a baroness in her own right, but it was a life peerage.

Now a life peerage could have been an obvious solution. Considering she didn't need a title to pass on, as her sons had their father's title. Between 1979-1997 361 life peers were created (by Thatcher and Major). Diana and Charles officially divorced in 1996. John Major awarded life peers to 7 women in that year.

There are hereditary peerages which are heirs general, allowing for women to inherit the title. This is different then in the case like Earl Mountbatten of Burma, where a future patten was issued later to allow a daughter to inherit. It is more common in Scotland it seems. The best known (but not only) example would be Lord/Lady Saltoun. The current holder is Flora Fraser, the current 21st Lady Saltoun. She is the 2nd female holder in her own right, the first being the 10th holder of he title. Flora's daughter Kathleeen will succeed her as 22nd Lady Saltoun. Her husband is Alexander of Mar, Princess Patricia's only son. It is male preference so Flora's grandson (who has 2 older sisters) will be 23rd Lord Saltoun one day. They are heads of Clan Fraser.

 

[Skippyboo]

A life peerage would give the person a seat in the House of Lords. Why would the Queen and the government want the ex wife of the Prince of Wales sitting in parliament for the rest of her life? Plus why be a Baroness when you can use Diana, Princess of Wales instead?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

I do think that had Diana lived for say another twenty years, with her children adults and the Queen ageing, the situation regarding a life peerage might have been different. I say might, not would! If she had remarried, been Lady Diana Khan, for instance, the wife of a prominent surgeon, then something might have been done.

We forget though, I think, the very short period of time between the divorce decree being finalised and when she died. Things had been very very rough on both sides, emotions were so raw, the media still in uproar, that I really think that things needed to settle before any decision like giving Diana another title could be taken.

 

[Countessmeout]

A life peerage would give the person a seat in the House of Lords. Why would the Queen and the government want the ex wife of the Prince of Wales sitting in parliament for the rest of her life? Plus why be a Baroness when you can use Diana, Princess of Wales instead?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

For Diana?? Because if she ever remarried she would cease to be Diana, Princess of Wales. She would be simple Mrs X. It was simply a courtesy title continually linking her to her ex, and when Charles remarried, to Camilla. Her own peerage would be something she would not lose, and it would be independent of a bad marriage.

I didn't say she would be. Honestly I don't think even if she lived longer she ever would have been. Simply if they had been about to make her a peer, a life peer was more likely, as only 2 hereditary peers had been made in over 30 years, a former prime minister and the husband of one, both men.

 

[Osipi]

I've just thought of something that kind of tickles my funny bone with the scenario of Diana being made a hereditary peer in her own right and marrying Dodi Al Fayed and having at least one male son.

One person that would be definitely cackling with glee and doing a happy dance would be Mohamed Al Fayed. He tried and tried and tried to squeeze through the doors and be accepted in British high society even to the point of buying a castle in Scotland. It would be quite a coup for him. With a grandson of Al Fayed in the line of succession to Diana's title, I can just see HM's reaction. Probably something along the lines of "Welp.... there goes the peerages!".

But all fanciful thinking put aside, along the lines of a possible knighthood for Diana, I originally went looking for just when and why the government of the day referred to her as a "loose cannon" and came up with this page. Reading through it, had Diana lived and continued her campaign for the eradication of land mines, in the end, I think it would have been very possible for Diana to be nominated for a KBE for service to the UK in this area. She, therefore, could have been Dame Diana (married surname) KBE.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 15 | 1997: Princess Diana sparks landmines row

 

[Ish]

I doubt the Queen would have looked at it that way - after all, in 1996/97, for a future grandchild of Mohammad Al Fayed to inherit Diana's (hypothetical) peerage, it would mean that something had happened to William and Harry, and a child of Sarah Ferguson was likely to become Queen of England.

 

[Osipi]

I doubt the Queen would have looked at it that way - after all, in 1996/97, for a future grandchild of Mohammad Al Fayed to inherit Diana's (hypothetical) peerage, it would mean that something had happened to William and Harry, and a child of Sarah Ferguson was likely to become Queen of England.

I did say it was fanciful.

But still, an Al Fayed son following William and Harry wouldn't necessarily have to inherit the title from Diana to be able to use the courtesy styling of "Lord" or "Honorable" depending, of course, on the peerage itself. That in and of itself would be seen by Grandpa Al Fayed as a step up the ladder methinks.

It all points too to the question that if it would be appropriate to "title" Diana in her own right in case of a remarriage, wouldn't it ring true to do it for Sarah? After all her daughters are of the blood royal.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, but the York princesses aren't in the direct line, are they? I think that if Diana had lived a normal lifespan she might very well have lived to see her son ascend the throne as King William V. That would have made Diana's position unique really.

 

[Denville]

I did say it was fanciful.

It all points too to the question that if it would be appropriate to "title" Diana in her own right in case of a remarriage, wouldn't it ring true to do it for Sarah? After all her daughters are of the blood royal.

It would have ALLOWED the Queen to do it, in the sense that she'd created a precedent. But it would not force her to do it.
I agree that HM would probably not want to encourage someone like Al Fayed, but it is not IMO at all clear that Diana would have married his son. She might never have remarried at all. She might not have wanted a peerage, but I felt at the time of the divorce that it would be a suitable gesture. Diana DID behave stupidly and badly at times, I am not disputing that. But the failure of her marriage was not all her fault. and she did also behave very well at times and had a lot of good to her credit, in her charity work, in her kindness to many people, in rearing her sons, and in bringing the RF a lot of good publicity in her married years. The RF was rather dull in the 70s apart from the "search for Charles' bride" and Diana lifted it up.

If her marriage failed It was also Charles' fault. And she lost her chance of being Queen, thanks to that marital failure. The queen I think did recognise that in giving her a generous financial settlement in the divorce, and allowing her to continue running an office and doing charity works, whereas Sarah got a rather mean settlement and was just cut loose. So why not go the extra mile and give her a title, maybe not immediately after the divorce but in a few years...? It might have become a general "tradition" in due course for a high profile Royal wife who was divorced from a Prince.. but it would still only apply to a very few people...

if Diana had lived a normal lifespan she might very well have lived to see her son ascend the throne as King William V. That would have made Diana's position unique really.

Well assuming she had good health, I think that's very possible.. and I'm sure he would have liked to see his mother with something other than being Diana princess of wales, or Lady Diana Smith...

 

[Countessmeout]

Then it would have been well within his right as king to put her forward for a peerage. Her former mother in law and ex husband are another matter.

But who is to say Diana, after decades as a private citizen, would want a title. If he suppose Charles lives to be as old as his mother, Diana would be 77 years old (older if he lived past 90, and considering the queen is likely to and her mother did, Charles likely will). An 80 year old Diana, likely long remarried and a private citizen, likely wouldn't feel much desire to be a peer.

 

[Denville]

Maybe, Maybe not. she might have grown into a crusty old lady, who was very proper, and wanted a title, just so she could outrank Mrs So and So who went to dinner parites with her. I think that it is fairly harmless "snobbery", that the British "Love a lord" and Diana IS from a titled family where they DO care about such things.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

For Diana?? Because if she ever remarried she would cease to be Diana, Princess of Wales. She would be simple Mrs X. [...]

No she would always be Lady Diana [surname husband] when remarrying with a gentleman without title .

Diana marrying Dodi Al Fayed? She would be Lady Diana Al-Fayed.

Diana marrying Peregrine fforbes-Hamilton? She would be Lady Diana fforbes-Hamilton.

Diana marrying the Duke of Norfolk? She would be Her Grace the Duchess of Norfolk.

Diana would never have been a plain Mrs.

 

[Countessmeout]

But she wouldn't be Lady Diana Al Fayed, Princess of Wales was my point. The poster I responded to said she wouldn't want a peerage, because why would she give up being Diana, princess of Wales, for a minor peerage. My point being, unless she wanted to remain single forever (which she didn't seem inclined to do), she was going to lose Princess of Wales anyways. At least a peerage was a title she would retain no matter what happened. Being Lady Diana Al Fayed, Baroness X is certainly a step up from her courtesy title from her father.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

We will never know if Diana ever wanted a peerage at all. She was such an unique and iconic person that it exceeded any peerage anyway.

 

[Denville]

Agree Countess. I'm not srue if she would have wanted a peerage, but I think it would have pleased her. I'm sure if the queen had done it - it would only be for PR, because I'm sure she wasn't at all happy with Diana, but I think she saw the value of being seen to treat her well because she was very popular then. I think that while Diana wasn't bent out of shape about titles, she was from a noble family and they DO think of such things. She would have probably felt that to be Lady Brington (Viscountess or Baroness) would be better than being Lady Diana Brown.. If she had become a peeress, she would not have used her "Lady Diana" title.. She use the highest ranking title that she had.. and eventually the title would have gone to William, and what would be the harm in it?
If she had married a Mr James Brown, their kids would have been say The Hon Cynthia Brown or the Hon Rupert Brown..
I think she'd have felt that being given a title, was a sign that the RF hadn't completely thrown her out, that they recognised her work for the RF during her marriage, and that the failure of her marriage wasn't all her fault.

 

[Roslyn]

But she wouldn't be Lady Diana Al Fayed, Princess of Wales was my point. The poster I responded to said she wouldn't want a peerage, because why would she give up being Diana, princess of Wales, for a minor peerage. My point being, unless she wanted to remain single forever (which she didn't seem inclined to do), she was going to lose Princess of Wales anyways. At least a peerage was a title she would retain no matter what happened. Being Lady Diana Al Fayed, Baroness X is certainly a step up from her courtesy title from her father.

We can, of course, never be sure, but it would take a lot to convince me that Diana would consider being Baroness X to be a step up from the courtesy title to which she was entitled by dint of being the daughter of an earl, i.e. born into the aristocracy rather than merely marrying into it. It is my understanding that she was rather proud of her Spencer blood.

 

[Denville]

She was of course proud of being a Spencer. but I think she was a bit upset about losing her HRH, all the same and would have possibly felt that a peerage in her own right was some compensation for hte loss of her marital titles. And there are questions of precedence...