Diana's Styles and Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
When Diana got divorced did the Queen allow Diana to live in Kensington Palace for the rest of her life or was it just until her boys became of age?

That was part of the divorce settlement but I believe there was an understanding that she would move out if she remarried. However she would have a home there as long as she remained single even after the princes became adults.
 
I don’t think he could have simply given her whatever title he wanted to, simply that he could have given her a title. Some titles have rules about them - actually, a lot of titles do.

He couldn’t, for example, have made her HRH Princess of Wales again, or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, as those are titles associated with rules (both belonging to the wife of the man who fits the rules associated with them).

He also couldn’t have made her Queen Mother, as that one has rules too - a Dowager Queen who is the mother of the current monarch. Diana wouldn’t be a Dowager Queen, so she couldn’t be Queen Mother.

I suspect that if she had been given a title, they would have pulled out the title The King’s Mother, last used in the reign of Henry VII, and created specifically for the purpose of titling a woman who held no other titles, but was the King’s mother.

“Whatever title he wanted” is a figure of speech. Of course he couldn’t give her a title that is already held by someone else and I had already agreed she could not be a queen when she had never been the wife or widow of a king. What I meant is that William could make her a duchess, or a countess, or even a princess and an HRH if he wanted to. PIt is within the royal prerogative to do so.
 
Last edited:
“Whatever title he wanted” is a figure of speech. Of course he couldn’t give her a title that is already held by someone else and I had already agreed she could not be a queen when she had never been the wife or widow of a king. What I meant is that William could make her a duchess, or a countess, or even a princess and an HRH if he wanted to. PIt is within the royal prerogative to do so.

I don’t believe a woman can be Duchess in her own right in UK. He could definitely make her a princess in her own right and give her HRH status though.
 
Wasn't Alexandra, the elder daughter of Louise (daughter of Edward VII) and the Duke of Fife, Duchess of Fife in her own right after her father's death?
 
Duchesses in there own right, of course there where and there is nothing to prevent one new.

It is the prerogative of the crown ....
 
Wasn't Alexandra, the elder daughter of Louise (daughter of Edward VII) and the Duke of Fife, Duchess of Fife in her own right after her father's death?

Yes because when it became clear that Princess Louise wasn't going to have another child and thus the Fife Dukedom wouldn't pass on new LPs were issued to allow for the daughters to inherit - and then heirs male.
 
I don't remember anything in the divorce agreement about Diana having to leave Kensington Palace once the boys reached the age of majority.
t
No... I think that as she had to have a certain protection, htough she refused to have RPOs, it was considered easier and cheaper to let her keep the London apartment which was already guarded and secure. But if she remarried I don't know if the arrangement might be re considered....

I don’t believe a woman can be Duchess in her own right in UK. He could definitely make her a princess in her own right and give her HRH status though.

Yes of course there can be a woman Duchess in her own right. But I think it is unlikely that William would give Diana any title whether nobility or HRH.. Princess...If she was given a title of nobility it would be a lower level thatn a duchy...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that Diana living in Kensington Palace would have been cheaper from a security point of view. If Diana decided to buy a house let’s say in the country would that have meant her house would have had to be guarded 24/7 by the police?
 
Let us say that Diana is now for ages Lady Diana Al-Fayed (or Lady Diana Khan) and is mother to two step-siblings of William and Harry. Let us say that in 20 years time William will be King. Would he suddenly change Lady Diana Al-Fayed (Lady Diana Khan) into HRH Princess Diana, Mrs Dodi Al Fayed / Mrs Hasnat Khan, to overrule a style she probably will have held for 30+ years? I tend to believe Diana would be the last one to change it all again and would prefer to be left in peace. After all it is the surname of her husband and her eventual youngest children.
 
Last edited:
Let us say that Diana is now for ages Lady Diana Al-Fayed (or Lady Diana Khan) and is mother to two step-siblings of William and Harry. Let us say that in 20 years time William will be King. Would he suddenly change Lady Diana Al-Fayed (Lady Diana Khan) into HRH Princess Diana, Mrs Dodi Al Fayed / Mrs Hasnat Khan, to overrule a style she probably will have held for 30+ years? I tend to believe Diana would be the last one to change it all again and would prefer to be left in peace. After all it is the surname of her husband and her eventual youngest children.

What if Diana had never remarried and , like Sarah, Duchess of York, remained Diana, Princess of Wales for the rest of her life ? The probability of her HRH status being reinstated by King William V would be much higher then. Remarrying would have of course cast her out of the RF for good in my opinion.
 
What if Diana had never remarried and , like Sarah, Duchess of York, remained Diana, Princess of Wales for the rest of her life ? The probability of her HRH status being reinstated by King William V would be much higher then. Remarrying would have of course cast her out of the RF for good in my opinion.

Why would WIlliam restore the HRH? She was out of the RF, once she divorced Charles.. essentially.
 
Why would WIlliam restore the HRH? She was out of the RF, once she divorced Charles.. essentially.


First because she would be the King's mother. Second, because William could feel that Diana having been stripped of the HRH after she divorced was unfair. As you may recall, that was not a preexisting, automatic rule, but rather a decision the Queen made after Sarah's and Diana's divorces.


If I am not mistaken, Alexandra Manley in Denmark kept her HH after she divorced and only lost it when she remarried. There is a case to be made therefore that the divorce per se does not constitute sufficient reason to lose HRH status, provided that there is no remarriage. It is not inconceivable that William would come to that conclusion too, especially when his mother is the person in question.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because as a young teenager he promised his mother he would restore the HRH for her when he was King? It would probably have remained on his mind if she'd lived, and he may well have kept his word.
 
I'd say there is a case.. Diana was not Royal after she and Charles were divorced... and if she did not want to be his wife, why would she want to keep a royal style or title?

I understand that Diana living in Kensington Palace would have been cheaper from a security point of view. If Diana decided to buy a house let’s say in the country would that have meant her house would have had to be guarded 24/7 by the police?

Diana didn't want a house in the country, and she didn't want RPOs...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First because she would be the King's mother. Second, because William could feel that Diana having been stripped of the HRH after she divorced was unfair. As you may recall, that was not a preexisting, automatic rule, but rather a decision the Queen made after Sarah's and Diana's divorces.


If I am not mistaken, Alexandra Manley in Denmark kept her HH after she divorced and only lost it when she remarried. There is a case to be made therefore that the divorce per se does not constitute sufficient reason to lose HRH status, provided that there is no remarriage. It is not inconceivable that William would come to that conclusion too, especially when his mother is the person in question.

Alexandra was downgraded from royal highness to a highness upon divorce. As it seems thst there doesn't exist a mere highness in the UK, Diana being downgraded meant that she became Diana, princess of Wales but without being a royal highness as she was no longer a member of the royal family.

I fully agree with Denville that there would have been no good reason to reinstate her style, however, out of personal motives might indeed have given his mother a style just because he could and wanted to.
 
Last edited:
First because she would be the King's mother. Second, because William could feel that Diana having been stripped of the HRH after she divorced was unfair. As you may recall, that was not a preexisting, automatic rule, but rather a decision the Queen made after Sarah's and Diana's divorces.


If I am not mistaken, Alexandra Manley in Denmark kept her HH after she divorced and only lost it when she remarried. There is a case to be made therefore that the divorce per se does not constitute sufficient reason to lose HRH status, provided that there is no remarriage. It is not inconceivable that William would come to that conclusion too, especially when his mother is the person in question.

Working on that theory it is arguable that that when William becomes King he would wish recreate Sarah as an HRH. I cannot see that happening btw - and I do realise there is an argument to be made that there is a difference between Diana as mother of the King and Sarah as aunt of the King.
 
I think the arrangements for Alexandra to remain an HH on her divorce were largely because at the time of the divorce from Prince Joachim in April 2005 she was still the mother to the two direct heirs to the throne, Nicholai and Felix. Prince Christian wasn't born until October of that year.

(I think she was also given generous terms because she was popular in Denmark and had done a sterling job with her engagements, as did Diana.) However, in my view I think it was civilised to allow Alexandra to be an HH until remarriage and petty to strip Diana of her styling. She was mother to the two heirs to the throne, just as Alexandra was, but one ex was treated very fairly and the other IMO, less so.
 
Working on that theory it is arguable that that when William becomes King he would wish recreate Sarah as an HRH. I cannot see that happening btw - and I do realise there is an argument to be made that there is a difference between Diana as mother of the King and Sarah as aunt of the King.

I was a bit unsure what you meant, but I think you are syang that if WIlliam was ready to restore Di's HRH, he should or would also be willing to restore Sarahs? I see your point, but I suppose it is possible that he MIGHT want to honour his mother.. whereas the truth is that nobody was bothered about Sarah's losing her HRH.. she wasn't popular and nobody felt it was unfair or unkind or whatever for her to lose it.
There was some feeling about Diana's losing hers.
I tink that William might have said something as a kid about restoring the HRH to her and that she wuodl be the Kings ' mother..but I would feel that by the time Will became King, Di would have been out of the RF for a long time.. and his feelings on the subject mgitht have changed.. and Diana would not really care by then...

Alexandra was downgraded from royal highness to a highness upon divorce. As it seems thst there doesn't exist a mere highness in the UK, Diana being downgraded meant that she became Diana, princess of Wales but without being a royal highness as she was no longer a member of the royal family.

I fully agree with Denville that there would have been no good reason to reinstate her style, however, out of personal motives might indeed have given his mother a style just because he could and wanted to.

I think that while it may seem a little hard, it was fair. Diana had left the RF and she had gone in a fairly negative way, showing that she disliked the whole atmosphere and she had annoyed the queen by her leaking stuff to the press which I think pushed the queen to feel that she did not want to be generous to her daughter in law as she felt she was unreliable.. so to say "she doesn't want to be married to P Charles, she doesn't like the RF or want to be part of it..so why should she retaian a royal title?" was not unfair.
I think that the queen felt she had some grievances but that she had been given a generous financial settlement, was allowed to live in KP and was given an office paid for by the RF, to do her public work.. and that was generous enough...

ALexandra was downgraded to HH.. and when she remarried, she lost the HH altogether...I think that they let her keep HH, because she was the mother of 2 sons who were heirs, but it was likely that Frederik would produce heirs of his own in due course and that once she remarried, she would not be considered a royal any more...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we know if William even had a clue of what he could or couldn't do as far as titles go while king? I would never hold a child (even a teenager) to a promise made to a parent under stressful times such as a divorce. We know William was a source of comfort for Diana during those difficult times and that she leaned on him for support. That's commendable and shows a closeness between mother and son but I wouldn't take any statement he made to her at that time as a serious consideration of what he would do in the far off future as a reigning king.

I'm sure too that if Diana had lived, both William and Harry would have continued to love and support their mother as well as loving and supporting their father. Maturity affords children of divorce the ability to see beyond the "sides" of the divorce and come to terms of just why it happened, how necessary it may have been and should Diana have found love and happiness in a second marriage, the boys would have supported her in that as much as they support the marriage of Charles and Camilla.

I was lucky in this respect as my children all love and respect their father and I and our choices in second marriages. The step parents are considered as "Mom" and "Dad" too. Sometimes the best way to love someone is to let them go and find happiness. I've always taught my kids that. Peace is so much better than war. :D
 
well of course one wouldn't expect him to be hled to a promise (if he did make it) made when he was a kid. But Im sure that at the age of 14 or so, he did know that as King, he could give out titles and priobably that he could if he wished restore Diana's HRH.
However if he did say it, he was still a kid and shouldn't be hled to it. I am sure that over time, he was well aware that his parents' marriage was very unhappy and that it was porbalby for the best that It ended In divorce, however sad that was.. and that while he loved Diana, she was the one who had chosen to quit the RF, so it wasn't unfair that she should lose her HRH..

I think that if he had had the chance, he could have given her a title of nobility, in honour of her charity work and her role as the King's mother..
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Would it be correct to say that Diana was an ex-Royal at the time of her death?
 
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.
 
Just a small correction. Diana was either The Princess of Wales or Diana, Princess of Wales. She never was, at any time, Princess Diana. 😄
 
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, 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. 😄
 
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?
 
Osipi, By Diana actually correcting people that she was not a born Princess shows that she had some knowledge of royal titles.
 
Back
Top Bottom