Had Diana Lived...

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by ysbel

...snipped... I have no idea what the first name of the Duchess of Kent is. ....snipped

Her name is Katherine........maiden name Wolsley (although haven't checked on exact spelling) Sadly am old enough to remember when she married the Duke, caused a bit of a stir at the time as she was a commoner, lol

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Sirhon11234 that was a little hostile especially because I meant no harm or offense. Of course I understand that people aren't going to quit calling Diana Princess Diana because some people don't like it--I don't believe I insinuated that at all, either--but in this forum sometimes it is easy to misinterpret the tone of a post (I have done so myself often)--and never mean to offend

I agree with everyone--it is much easier to type PRincess Diana than it is Diana, Princess of Wales. She has also been referred to as Princess Diana since 1981, so old habits are very, very hard to break. I was simply pointing out that Princess Diana is not her actual title and never was--it was a name coined for her because like we have all agreed it is just easier that way--but she was not born a Princess, so technically she can't be styled as Princess Diana because she isn't--that's a fact. It is also a fact that she is known as Princess Diana and that won't ever change, either. But, because of the way it should be I generally refer to her as Diana or Diana, Princess of Wales, or if I'm really lazy, Diana, PoW (which makes me giggle). I mean, really, has anyone called Princess Michael of Kent "Princess Marie-Christine"? No--because it is not her title--that's all I'm saying.

So we use
Princess ***, if she is Queen or King's daughter. And this title comes with her once she is born, and can not be taken away forever.
***, Princess of wales, this means Princess of wales is a bestowed title, and can be taken away.

Is my understanding correct?

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by anbrida

So we use
Princess ***, if she is Queen or King's daughter. And this title comes with her once she is born, and can not be taken away forever.
***, Princess of wales, this means Princess of wales is a bestowed title, and can be taken away.

Is my understanding correct?

I think so.....wouldn't she have lost the title if she had re-married?

[Elspeth]

So we use
Princess ***, if she is Queen or King's daughter. And this title comes with her once she is born, and can not be taken away forever.
***, Princess of wales, this means Princess of wales is a bestowed title, and can be taken away.

Is my understanding correct?

Pretty much correct. A King's or Queen's daughter is The Princess Herfirstname. A King's or Queen's granddaughter through the male line is Princess Herfirstname. In the UK (unlike some other countries), marriage into the royal family doesn't bestow on a woman the right to style herself Princess Herfirstname (Princess Marina is a bit of an exception because she was already a princess before she was married to the Duke of Kent; however, when she was married, she was styled HRH The Duchess of Kent; she was only known officially as Princess Marina after her husband died and especially after her son married, when there was a new Duchess of Kent). If her husband is HRH The Prince of Something, she becomes HRH The Princess of Something. If her husband is a royal Duke or Earl, then she's HRH the Duchess/Countess of Whatever. If her husband doesn't have a peerage but is HRH (The) Prince Hisfirstname, then she becomes HRH (The) Princess Hisfirstname, not HRH (The) Princess Herfirstname.

After a divorce, she reverts to the usual style for a woman divorced from a peer, which would be Herfirstname, Princess/Duchess/Countess of Whatever.

I'm not sure what Princess Michael of Kent would be called after a divorce, to be honest.

The only time a woman gets to use her own name in her title after marriage into the royal family is if her husband is King. The Queen Mother was Queen Elizabeth, not Queen George.

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by anbrida

So we use
Princess ***, if she is Queen or King's daughter. And this title comes with her once she is born, and can not be taken away forever.
***, Princess of wales, this means Princess of wales is a bestowed title, and can be taken away.

Is my understanding correct?

She was Diana, Princess of Wales, her courtesy title by right of marriage to her husband who is also HRH. After the divorce she was no longer entitled to the HRH as it was not by birth. She was allowed to keep the "Princess of Wales" as a title or style as long as she did not remarry as part of the divorce settlement. I believe that if Diana had remarried she could have reverted to the style "Lady Diana" as a courtesy title as a daughter of an Earl but someone who knows more about that will be able to chime in. I don't think she was ready to give up that title as it carried some weight even without the HRH.

(written before Elspeth posted her better explanation!)

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948

Her name is Katherine........maiden name Wolsley (although haven't checked on exact spelling)

Katharine Lucy Mary Worsley.

[tinkerbell1948]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Katharine Lucy Mary Worsley.

Ahhh thanks Elspeth...........knew the spelling wasn't quite right though knew her first name started with K.

When I was in England went to Yorkminster where they were married and they had the cushions they knelt on displayed

[anbrida]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If her husband doesn't have a peerage but is HRH (The) Prince Hisfirstname, then she becomes HRH (The) Princess Hisfirstname, not HRH (The) Princess Herfirstname.

The only time a woman gets to use her own name in her title after marriage into the royal family is if her husband is King. The Queen Mother was Queen Elizabeth, not Queen George.

That sounds funny. So is it possible Diana being called Princess Charles?

I don't know what is peerage.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by anbrida

That sounds funny. So is it possible Diana being called Princess Charles?

Diana wouldn't have been called Princess Charles because Prince Charles was already Duke of Cornwall when he was a child, so even if he hadn't have been created Prince of Wales, his wife would automatically have been Duchess of Cornwall.

If Prince Andrew and Prince Edward hadn't been created Duke of York and Earl of Wessex, respectively, their wives would have been Princess Andrew and Princess Edward.

Prince Michael of Kent's wife is Princess Michael of Kent, and the present Duchess of Gloucester was Princess Richard of Gloucester from the time she was married to the time her husband inherited the Dukedom. If his elder brother hadn't died but had inherited the Dukedom, the present Duchess would still be Princess Richard.

I don't know what is peerage.

Peerage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jcbcode99]

Diana was not going to marry Dodi--he was just a fling. I really doubt that Diana, Princess of Wales, would have married someone so disrepected by the establishment. She would have thought of William's future position with more care than we are giving her credit for.
Honestly, does anyone think she would have married Dodi?

[branchg]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Let me ask a question here--I thought that Diana's title was "Diana, Princess of Wales" and even when married she was "Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland"---so why is she referred to as Princess Diana? She wasn't born a Princess, so it isn't proper to call her Princess Diana. Like with Princess Michael--her title, if you used Princess first would be PRincess Charles---anyway, just a note--Diana, Princess of Wales not Princess Diana

Her style was HRH The Princess of Wales while married and Diana, Princess of Wales with divorce. She enjoyed the rank and title of a princess of the UK by marriage, not in her own right.

As the mother of a future king, The Queen did not object to the use of "Princess Diana", although it was always incorrect. Since Diana was granted special privileges and precedence as the mother of Prince William, the Palace confirmed her unique position despite the divorce.

With remarriage, she would have lost the use of her style as Princess of Wales and reverted to her birthright style of Lady Diana.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

Her style was HRH The Princess of Wales while married and Diana, Princess of Wales with divorce. She enjoyed the rank and title of a princess of the UK by marriage, not in her own right.

As the mother of a future king, The Queen did not object to the use of "Princess Diana", although it was always incorrect. Since Diana was granted special privileges and precedence as the mother of Prince William, the Palace confirmed her unique position despite the divorce.

With remarriage, she would have lost the use of her style as Princess of Wales and reverted to her birthright style of Lady Diana.

The official announcement by the queen after her sons divorces:
From: Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

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.

Here you find the official documents of the discussion about the title and the becoming of princess for the daughter of an earl which took place when Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married the then HRH The Duke of York. In addition there is discussion about the wife of the prince of Wales which is very interesting re. Diana and Camilla.

HO 144/22945

(London Gazette, issue 54510, Aug 30, 1996, p. 1/11603.)"

[TheTruth]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Diana was not going to marry Dodi--he was just a fling. I really doubt that Diana, Princess of Wales, would have married someone so disrepected by the establishment. She would have thought of William's future position with more care than we are giving her credit for.
Honestly, does anyone think she would have married Dodi?

Well no, but his father did .

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by TheTruth

Well no, but his father did .

And we all know about him

[georgiea]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Honestly, does anyone think she would have married Dodi?

Diana, Princess Of Wales was so unpredictable in love who really knows what she would do. At the time of her death she was just getting around to enjoy her life. She told some of her friends that she never felt so taken care off. So how can we know what would have happen to that budding relationship. Remember Dodi was not his father.

[Mermaid1962]

I think that in a multi-cultural UK and Commonwealth, King William V having half-arab half-siblings would be seen as an asset and not as something awful.

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

IMO, Diana was NOT going to live. Am I a conspiratorial theorist, perhaps.

Let's look at this logically, had she lived and say married Dodi and they had children, a boy and a girl.

At some point, their HALF BROTHER, PRINCE WILLIAM becomes King of the UK, their mother, whom King William would love dearly, would most certainly be given some sort of title and or official recognition, is there any doubt about that? What becomes of HIS HALF ARAB brother and sister, also two children of his beloved mother?

Does anyone, TODAY, seriously believe such a scenario WOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN? SERIOUSLY?

[Skydragon]

^^^I'm with you Mermaid1962^^^

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

At some point, their HALF BROTHER, PRINCE WILLIAM becomes King of the UK, their mother, whom King William would love dearly, would most certainly be given some sort of title and or official recognition, is there any doubt about that? What becomes of HIS HALF ARAB brother and sister, also two children of his beloved mother?Does anyone, TODAY, seriously believe such a scenario WOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN? SERIOUSLY?

It could be 30 - 50 years down the line and Diana might no longer be too concerned about 'recognition'. Diana already had a title, Lady Diana which she would have kept whether she remarried or not. I'm sure William and Harry would have been fond of their half siblings, but why that would impact on anyone is a puzzle. They would not have expected titles, they would not have been in the line of succession, Diana wasn't the royal, Charles is and it is his line that would be important. What would it have mattered if they were half anything?

[Isana]

Had Diana lived, I think the main difference would occur in William and Harry's lives.
I agree with whoever said that the two brothers probably wouldn't be as close as they are now. I could imagine much more sibling rivalry going on than we witness nowadays. But also the relation of the press towards William and Harry would be completely different.
On the one hand I think media frenzy (especially around William) was caused by Diana's death because the press was looking for someone to replace her. Not that William wouldn't have been interesting to the press anyways but probably not to the same extent and not at such a young age. Also William and Harry probably wouldn't constantly be compared to their mother, was she still alive and be recognized more as their own persons. Yet, I think the public image of the Princes would be different, because they'd be seen doing charity work with their mother still around much more often then they currently are. They wouldn't solely make the headlines when they stumble out of nightclubs etc.
On the other hand, because of the "guilt" the media felt for hunting Diana, the press also showed a lot of restraint during William's university time, they surely wouldn't have shown, had Diana not died chased by paparazzi. So William probably wouldn't have been able to live for three years with a grilfriend virtually unobserved by the British media. He might never have had the oppportunity to build up a relationship in private like he had with Kate.
And for Kate (and Chelsy) things would probably have been easier as well they wouldn't have to fill someone elses shoes but be "allowed" to be seen as themselves. Especially Kate would certainly not be compared to death to Diana (especially since there aren't that many similarities, IMO), and in a way been build up as her substitute, had Diana still lived.

[paris97]

we will never know!! if i had to say anything,dodi would have gone when she returned to the uk.i think she would have settled in australia.also i do not think diana would have gone without leaving the royal's something to grit their teeth about again.
diana i miss you.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by paris97

i do not think diana would have gone without leaving the royal's something to grit their teeth about again.

What a legacy!