For all to discuss The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer/Lady Diana Spencer/HRH Diana, The Princess of Wales/HRH The Duchess of Rothesay/HRH Countess of Chester/ Diana, Princess of Wales
:hug: :hug: :hug:
LA, the third title should include "The" in front of Princess of Wales, as she was still married to Charles at the time.
Cindy
Lady Adams, :goodpost:
Easier way to remember them and some are not so common , BUT they were all of the titles that Camilla has now, well HRH, Diana, Princess of Wales had until LE DIVORCE.
CPB is , HRH, Camilla, Princess of Wales...Cindycinrit said The goes before. Fine.
Camila has and Diana had, about a dozen titles. Goggle the titles of Camilla.
I think , really when LDS died and after the divorce, she was really , Lady Diana Spencer , to be technical about it.
Common titles for PD after the divorce and after death was still Princess Diana, which ,I think is not how it was formally styled before the divorce. Agreed w/ Cindycinrit about The etc.
Ms. Sarah Ferguson , to be technical, I think is now Ms. Sarah Ferguson. :loco:
Aftger divorce, she surely cannot be HRH, Sarah , Duchess of York etc. etc.and the half dozen or titles she had before divorce.
If PAndrew marries tomorrow, the new wife will be all.
Of course , we know he won't be getting married because PPhillip is still alive.
Of course , there won't be a new wife because the new wife one day will be the old wife. :teehee:
I think Sarah will be HRH, Sarah ,Duchess of York, etc. etc. when PPhillip dies. Yeah, then she and HRH, PAndrew can remarry and life their old life happily ever after. :love6:
Titles and styles
1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
in Scotland: 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay
28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales
While married
Diana's title and style in full: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester.
In the other thread you are all nitpicking. Diana was technically a royal when she died as she was the Mother of the heir to the thrones children and the heirs wife as far as the Church of England went. For those of you who refer to Charles her widower when it is convenient, how Diana did lack the HRH and THE in her title but was titled Diana Princess of Wales that is a title not a surname in case some of you forget the Surname of the Royal family is Windsor so if Diana was no longer a family member as a divorced member her name and Style would have been Lady Diana Windsor or Lady Diana Mountbatten Windsor to be precise.
Quote from: cinrit on August 21, 2014, 10:29:59 PM
LA, the third title should include "The" in front of Princess of Wales, as she was still married to Charles at the time.
Cindy
Thanks, Cindy. I've modified my original post to have the correct title. :computer:
Thanks wannabe :goodpost: and Trudie. :goodpost:
Interesting though someone can be a widower when divorced? How does that work? :hmm:
Oh yes, PC and C fans and media vs. PD fans and media....different.
Anyoen else, after divorce and if there is death of of the ex-spouses, there are no widows and widowers. .
Welcome.
The following announcement has been issued by the press secretary to the Queen:
STATUS AND ROLE OF THE PRINCESS OF WALES
The Princess of Wales, as the mother of Prince William, will be regarded by The Queen and The Prince of Wales as being a member of the Royal Family.
It has been agreed that her style and title will be Diana,
Princess of Wales. She may retain any orders, insignia and other
titles, consistent with her being known as Diana, Princess of Wales.
As she will be regarded as a member of the Royal Family, The
Princess will from time to time receive invitations to State and
national public occasions, as for any other member of the Royal
Family, at the invitation of The Sovereign or the Government. On
these occasions The Princess will be accorded the precedence she
enjoys at present.
Being regarded as a member of the Royal Family, The Princess
will continue to live at Kensington Palace with The Queen's
agreement. Kensington Palace will in this way continue to provide a
central and secure home for The Princess and the children.
The Princess's public role will essentially be for her to
decide. However, as for any other member of the Royal Family, any
representational duty, whether Royal or national, at home or abroad,
will only be undertaken at the request of The Sovereign, acting where
necessary on the advice of Ministers. As for any other member of the
Royal Family, any visits by The Princess overseas (other than private
holidays) will be undertaken in consultation with the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and with the permission of The Sovereign.
The Princess has asked The Queen if she may relinquish all her service appointments and The Queen has agreed.
The Princess will continue to have access to 32 (The Royal) Squadron and to the State Apartments at St. James's Palace for entertaining on the same basis as all other members of the Royal Family, namely with the permission of The Sovereign.
The Princess will maintain a private office in Kensington Palace, the size of which will depend on the nature and extent of the public role she undertakes.
As for any other member of the Royal Family, any activity of The Princess which involves the use of public funds will be undertaken only with the permission of The Sovereign acting where necessary on the advice of Ministers.
SOURCE Buckingham Palace
THANK YOU wannabe!!!! :goodpost: I did NOT KNOW that.
I thought , after, she was to be technical...LDS.
The part there you put in BOLD...AS MOTHER OF.....
MOTHER TRUMPS all.
sandy , :goodpost: from your other post, I did NOT KNOW QEII wanted PD at Frogmore.
She should have been buried there . It is awful that PD was buried at Altrophe in a money making shrine for Althrope and
if the burial place is not kept now....maybe it is true. It seems likely.
Sorry amable, from your other post, no . PD burial there at Althrope WAS NOT befitting for her status, role and place AS MOTHER TO PW AND PH.
Can I say Fatty Spencer here one more time?!?!?! The greed of the Fat :mil5: Boy is why PD is where she is and will be. Will be untill King William, if King William does anything or not? Of course , it cost King W and PH some big money to give to Pillsbury Dough Boy Spencer.
Although regarded by the Queen and the Prince of Wales as a member of the BRF as the mother of Prince William, Diana, Princess of Wales was herself not royal after Aug 30, 1996 -
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.
Princess of Peace what part of this are you having a hard time grasping? Diana at her divorce was not entitled to the style, any longer of HRH however she was still considered a royal and was to enjoy the precedence at all state and national occasions to which she was invited to that she held during her marriage in addition to retaining her order, insignias and other titles consistent with Diana Princess of Wales. Diana was and continued to be a royal after her divorce by the virtue of being The Mother of Prince William The Future King. It was Her blood and DNA that ensured her royal status as Mother. If Camilla were to divorce Charles she would most likely hold her title Duchess of Cornwall without the HRH but she would cease to be a royal as she never bore any children to the blood royal.
YES, PofP, that was the sticking point then during the divorce or something major she was to lose was the but HRH.
Now, we see the word, a word for us, but a title piece, The , was also impt . Major.
Titles, they are confusing for me. I thought she was less that and really styled Diana, P ofW. I see losting The was a critical piece of titling.
I understand all the common terms used by people and the media for PD, CPB,Kate, all of them are not the actual correct titles.
My only point to stress is THAT SHE WAS MOTHER. MOTHER TRUMPS all. MOTHER to a future K and PH , excluded her from being casted out like the garbage.
Per that statement, she had to be considered part of the BRF , but I take it as not all the time. Just when her kids were concerned, then she was part of the BRF and with no HRH.
It was very interesting then and since we are posting about now, really was was her name and role to be being divorced. There had never been such a thing.
Ohhhhh, maybe 500-600 yrs. ago with King Herny the 8th, but that does not count because PC could not have her declared an adultress, or say the marriage was never pure and legal and the kids were that ugly word that starts with a b, LOL and send her to the tower to get her head chopped off. :lol:
Being "regarded as a member of the Royal Family" (the exact wording), and actually being a Royal are not the same thing.
Cindy
Diana was royal by marriage. She became HRH on the day of her wedding and after her divorce she was no longer HRH and thus not royal.
She was a royal through and through. She had royal children unlike Camilla. All the hair splitting and semantics do not change that Diana died a royal and if the Queen did not consider her that she would not have offered Frogmore as her burial place.
The courtesies afforded Diana after her divorce were done for William's sake and for the sake of public opinion. The Queen is what is known as the 'font of honour' in Britain. It is an ancient term but what it means is she alone decides the matter of who is and who isn't royal. No one else but the sovereign has this prerogative.
Its part of her royal prerogative and she made her will and pleasure known that a former wife of a Prince of the Realm was no longer entitled to the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness. Rightly so because Diana was not royal before her marriage.
Had she wanted Diana to remain 'Royal' she could have made her an exemption to the 1996 Letters Patent but didn't.
Like it or not you are correct PoP. The same thing happened with Sarah.
William said he would give back Diana's HRH--he said this to his mother.
Had she lived and when he became King he would have returned the title because he could.
Fergie was and is not the mother of a future monarch. Diana was. Big difference.
I agree with Sandy.
However, I would like to ask the Question - What is a "Royal" So I have created this thread :
What Is a "Royal" & What's the Point Of Them? (http://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=71531.msg1298390#msg1298390)
Please discuss :happy17: :love6:
If Diana was not considered a Royal at the time of her death then why was her body flown back from Paris in a royal standard and not the union jack ditto for her funeral?
^^^I understood that was Charles' personal standard and that he made the decision to have it draped on her coffin. I don't believe that she could use the one she had during her tenure as PoW after the divorce.
Doesn't matter whether it was Charles or Diana's standard it was still a royal standard and not a union jack and HM had to approve Diana's status to use it.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on August 22, 2014, 12:14:32 PM
The courtesies afforded Diana after her divorce were done for William's sake and for the sake of public opinion. The Queen is what is known as the 'font of honour' in Britain. It is an ancient term but what it means is she alone decides the matter of who is and who isn't royal. No one else but the sovereign has this prerogative.
Its part of her royal prerogative and she made her will and pleasure known that a former wife of a Prince of the Realm was no longer entitled to the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness. Rightly so because Diana was not royal before her marriage.
Had she wanted Diana to remain 'Royal' she could have made her an exemption to the 1996 Letters Patent but didn't.
Exactly. She knew that there had been some disputing about removing the HRH, but she did that because (a) It was technically correct because Di was now divorced and (b) because she was too annoyed iwht Diana to be more generous. But she allowed Di to be "considered Royal" in a few aspects, because she knew that some people felt that it had been ungenerous to remove her HRH and that when she died, a lot of the population were very grieved and wanted Di to be treated as a Royal in death. Left to herself I think she would have let DI be buried privately with no public service and left to the Spencer family, and she and the RF would have had no invovlemtn. But the public mood was such that she had to reconsider...
The Queen would have been wildly unpopular if she had done that. It was not just public opinion it was common decency for the Queen not to treat her grandsons' mother with total contempt. The Queen does not operate in a vacuum. The royals will always be tied to and involved with Diana since Diana will appear in genealogy of future monarchs and is a future monarch's mother.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Charles's behaviour during the marriage I think he was absolutely correct to argue, after Diana's death, that she should be treated as a royal.
I believe it was the Queen's view that Diana should have a private funeral and that the Spencer family should make the arrangements. It was to Charles's credit that he argued against this and that, in the end, his view prevailed. He went to Paris to collect her body on a Queen's Flight plane with Diana's sisters. (I believe it would have been kind, by the way, to have allowed Frances Shand Kydd to have come to, but that's another issue.) He also arranged that she lay in a royal chapel before her funeral.
It was due to Charles really, that Diana wasn't buried quietly without giving the public a chance to mourn.
Charles rightly so was worried that he would be blamed. And he was the surviving parent and represented their sons. I was disappointed that Diana's mother could not be more involved in this.
Charles problem was that he did not follow up on the kindness and less than a year later he was using William to promote the Camilla Campaign. And he never truly made the mother of his sons non-negotiable so there were some hatchet jobs on her from his own relatives and sympathizers. And yes, he could have discouraged the trashing by making it clear Diana was non-negotiable.
Frances Shand Kydd apparently did not think Charles so benevolent and put it into her will that he not go to her funeral.
I think Diana's sons should not be overlooked. I think they were the key people--from what I read they spoke up for their mother. Charles was not the sole voice of this.
I think the boys, especially Harry who was so young, were probably numb with grief and just wanted their mother. I honestly can't see them sitting in on the arrangements to bring Diana home, or indeed with Palace officials on the funeral ceremony. I know that William was in two minds as to whether to walk in the funeral procession but was persuaded by his grandfather.
I believe it's certainly true that in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Charles fought for her much harder than he had ever done in her lifetime.
I think he was upset, Charles, shocked by Di's suddne and horrible death, and wanted to do the best he could, and he had tio make decisions for the boys who were too young. and he knew that while they might not greatly like a public funeral, the public wanted it and it was the right thing to do to give the people a chance to say goodbye to Diana.
Quote from: Curryong on August 23, 2014, 02:55:36 AM
I think the boys, especially Harry who was so young, were probably numb with grief and just wanted their mother. I honestly can't see them sitting in on the arrangements to bring Diana home, or indeed with Palace officials on the funeral ceremony. I know that William was in two minds as to whether to walk in the funeral procession but was persuaded by his grandfather.
I believe it's certainly true that in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Charles fought for her much harder than he had ever done in her lifetime.
From what I read William put in his two cents as well. And certainly Harry could have too.
That's the problem I have with Charles, he could have fought for her in her lifetime. He was in the midst of pushing Camilla in a big PR campaign when Diana died. Also, he just sat back and did not make his late ex non-negotiable and still does not. I don't see him as heroic I think he was afraid he would be blamed for it all.
Quote from: Curryong on August 23, 2014, 02:55:36 AM
I think the boys, especially Harry who was so young, were prob.
I believe it's certainly true that in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Charles fought for her much harder than he had ever done in her lifetime.
I agree about the boys,. I thin that the RF tried to keep them away from remdiners of Di's death, keeping them out walking and not watching TV or upsetting them by talking about what had happened.so I cant imagine them being involved in funeral discusosns,.
I don't really see about his "fighting for Diana" during her lifetime. I think he tried ot support her at first when he realised that she was in poor mental and physical condition, but he did not probably keep that up for long. he took her on sunny holidays, stayed home with her and the babies, but I think that he felt he was doing his best and she wasn't responding, . so gradually hel gave up. and she grew away from him and gradually became hostile to him and did not want to fit in with the way the RF did things... so hes hardly likely to "fight for her", if she's fighting against him. by the later years of her marriage, Di was using the boys against him, briefing journalists, authorising a book to put him down. Why would he "fight for her"? The RF were justifiably angry with her over this and naturally Charles was too.
^^I suppose what I meant by that statement in my previous post 'Charles fought for her in death as he never had in life', amabel, was that Diana was never 'non-negotiable' to Charles in the way that Camilla was to be. (I'm not talking so much about the years when it was all going downhill fast but in the early years of the marriage.) She never felt secure in his heart, I feel, as most young brides feel.
It might well have been the result of her great neediness, and I'm sure Charles tried to reassure her, but I think she knew in her heart that she was never number one, always a distant number two.
It was a bad marriage, they had little in common and Charles was only 50 percent to blame for the failure of the marriage. In my view his greatest mistake was in listening to others, not his own heart, and marrying Diana when he didn't love her. It was there that he let Diana down and ultimately himself
Quote from: amabel on August 25, 2014, 08:43:17 AM
Quote from: Curryong on August 23, 2014, 02:55:36 AM
I think the boys, especially Harry who was so young, were prob.
I believe it's certainly true that in the immediate aftermath of Diana's death, Charles fought for her much harder than he had ever done in her lifetime.
I agree about the boys,. I thin that the RF tried to keep them away from remdiners of Di's death, keeping them out walking and not watching TV or upsetting them by talking about what had happened.so I cant imagine them being involved in funeral discusosns,.
I don't really see about his "fighting for Diana" during her lifetime. I think he tried ot support her at first when he realised that she was in poor mental and physical condition, but he did not probably keep that up for long. he took her on sunny holidays, stayed home with her and the babies, but I think that he felt he was doing his best and she wasn't responding, . so gradually hel gave up. and she grew away from him and gradually became hostile to him and did not want to fit in with the way the RF did things... so hes hardly likely to "fight for her", if she's fighting against him. by the later years of her marriage, Di was using the boys against him, briefing journalists, authorising a book to put him down. Why would he "fight for her"? The RF were justifiably angry with her over this and naturally Charles was too.
:goodpost:
:goodpost: I agree. The fact does remain he entered this marriage with his brain and not his heart as a future King and not a besotted husband...
Quote from: Curryong on August 25, 2014, 09:25:34 AM
^^I suppose what I meant by that statement in my previous post 'Charles fought for her in death as he never had in life', amabel, was that Diana was never 'non-negotiable' to Charles in the way that Camilla was to be. (I'm not talking so much about the years when it was all going downhill fast but in the early years of the marriage.) She never felt secure in his heart, I feel, as most young brides feel.
It might well have been the result of her great neediness, and I'm sure Charles tried to reassure her, but I think she knew in her heart that she was never number one, always a distant number two.
It was a bad marriage, they had little in common and Charles was only 50 percent to blame for the failure of the marriage. In my view his greatest mistake was in listening to others, not his own heart, and marrying Diana when he didn't love her. It was there that he let Diana down and ultimately himself
Charles never publicly said he held any responsibility for the breakup of the marriage. Diana spoke for herself.
Charles had great neediness IMO. He needed a wife to have his heirs and he needed to have something on the side for his ego and for his hormones. I don't know why Diana is the only one "credited" with neediness. Her neediness came from not wanting to have to share Charles' affections with another woman. I don't blame her.
Charles and Diana should have gotten marriage counseling. Charles whining to Camilla and his pals did not help matters.
I think Charles was so self entitled he did not have to listen to his heart he thought Diana would play ball and cooperate and be civilized like APB and so did apparently Camilla.
:goodpost: I agree curryong.
Quote from: Curryong on August 25, 2014, 09:25:34 AM
^^I suppose what I meant by that statement in my previous post 'Charles fought for her in death as he never had in life', amabel, was that Diana was never 'non-negotiable' to Charles in the way that Camilla was to be. (I'm not talking so much about the years when it was all going downhill fast but in the early years of the marriage.) She never felt secure in his heart, I feel, as most young brides feel.
It might well have been the result of her great neediness, and I'm sure Charles tried to reassure her, but I think she knew in her heart that she was never number one, always a distant number two.
Charles' words about Cam being non negotiable are form much later though. When his relationship with Camilla was a settled part of his life and he wanted to keep her, even thought there were problems about the divorce situation and wehtehr he could marry her or not. I think that he always loved her, and probably felt that even if he loved Di, in the Early years of the marriage, Cam was still very important to him and he wanted to keep up some kind of friendship with her. but Di must have been aware of his relationship with Cam, because it had re started according to Charles, and other accounts not too long after the birth of Laura in 1979 so it was going on just fairly soon before he started courting Di. and she didn't seem to mind, that he had been this woman's lover - a married woman - soon before he started to court her. So if she had a problem with Charles having feelings for Cam or keeping up a warm friendship with her, that was the time to worry about it.. but she does not seem to have. I don't believe that Charles was always in touch with Cam, he may have kept up some phone calls and so on, in the early years of the marriage, but i don't think that he saw her except at the odd social function... but I think that Di could not be reassured.. and often someone being jealous all the time DOES lead to their partner finally ending up being unfaithful.
I agree that probably Di DID feel that she was always a second best, but given that everyone knew that Charles had special feelings for Cam, the time to worry about that, about whether she was Charles's "big love" or a second best love, were before she got engaged and married.
I think that the patterns of Di's love life, later on show a need for a lot of reassurance. I think that when she embarked on a love affair, she would usually NOT see any obstacles and plunge into it, but then she was needy and wanted someone who was there for her 24/7. she wanted the same kind of full time love from Hasnat Khan a busy surgeon.. and with Ol Hoare, she seems to have wanted him to leave his wife, for her, to have been jealous when he went to see his daughter,...and possibly the attraction of Dodi Fayed was that he was not busy at any job, and could devote himself to her, al the time.
Once Charles outed Camilla in 1994 via Dimbleby and the revelation of Charles secretary that the other woman was Camilla and forced the APB divorce I think he was obligated. Her father got angry at him.
Charles had no business trying to have a "friendship" with the married mistress. He knew darn well they could not stay friends. No wife likes another woman as the husband's "friend."
Diana felt Camilla and Charles were "over." Diana was not in Charles circle being a lot younger and I doubt she knew Charles was bedding Camilla as late as 1979-80. She may have thought they were "over" in the early seventies. Charles passed her off as his safe married friend. I doubt that Diana would have been so trusting as to hang around with Camilla if she knew she only recently left Charles' bed.
Diana did not "drive" Charles back to Camilla. This is exactly what Penny Junor claims and she is very sympathetic to Charles. It is the oldest story in the book and excuse for straying hubbies to say the wife "made him" cheat.
Charles proposed to Diana, why is he absolved and Diana "asked for it" by saying yes to him.
Dodi and Diana were dating. Why read all this psychological stuff into it.
I think Charles shows he needed a lot of reassurance, a mistress and a wife were needed by the Great Man.
Again, more free passes for Charles and Camilla.