Did Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles persuade Princess Diana to give up the title Her Royal Highness?
No, it was a decision of the Queen's to withdraw the HRH from both her divorced daughters in law. There was a statement put out by Diana during the later divorce negotiations that stated that the Queen insisted that she keep her HRH. That was wishful thinking on Diana's part however, and there was a statement from BP that after the divorce she would no longer be an HRH.
I think that was an incredibly petty move, considering Diana was the mother of an heir to the throne and the spare. She could have kept it until any remarriage IMO, without difficulty. I remember people disapproving at the time of it being done.
There was some controversy but it was not likely, given Diana's behaviour, that the queen was going to be concilatiatory. IF Diana wanted to leave the RF and get a divorce, why should she have continue to be allowed to be HRH? Diana claimed that she had volunteered to give up her HRH..but the truth was that she had very little hope of doing so.. and she then made a last ditch attempt to keep it...
Diana's behavior? Charles behavior I think was the big problem. The New York Times said at the time Charles was the one who talked the Queen into not letting Diana keep the HRH.
Diana would be the mother of a King in future. And probably William would have returned the HRH to Diana after his father passed on (if Charles of course did not outlive William).
Diana had legal advisors. She made no "attempt" at anything. She probably had made herself clear to the lawyers that she wanted the HRH.
The royals can be petty at times. I think this was a bad move on the Queen's part. Wallis was entitled to the HRH upon marriage to HRH the Duke Of Windsor but special orders of the King were made to keep her from getting the HRH.
Quote from: amabel on October 15, 2019, 04:54:25 AM
There was some controversy but it was not likely, given Diana's behaviour, that the queen was going to be concilatiatory. IF Diana wanted to leave the RF and get a divorce, why should she have continue to be allowed to be HRH? Diana claimed that she had volunteered to give up her HRH..but the truth was that she had very little hope of doing so.. and she then made a last ditch attempt to keep it...
The Panorama interview was the last straw IMHO and that prompted the Queen to tell the Wales that it was time for a divorce.
She probably knew that Charles would plan a riposte. Charles interview the year before was quite damaging, he caused the Parker Bowles divorce outing Camilla as his mistress. He also admitted he did not love Diana which also was very damaging.
from memory, i remember diana first announced publicly she didnt want the hrh title, bp confirmed her statement and after that she drew back she wanted the title but courtiers said the queen cant change anything after they confirmed the early diana's statement....
Most of you are more well informed about such matters than I am, but I would think the divorce agreement would have stipulated that she forfeited the HRH. My thinking is that if she received the HRH when she married, she would lose it upon divorcing.
Yes, technically that is so. I think that HM used the template of Wallis S actually in her decision. Not because the situations were similar, they weren't, but because of the POV of the RF in 1936, which was 'What if a next marriage looms into view, we don't hear about it and she enters into another Union as an HRH?'
And she had Sarah in view as well, where one divorce followed another and both women had borne children which were close to the throne and in line of succession. Sarah had lost hers and so Diana followed.
Actually, I was talking about this via email to a friend only half an hour ago, and he stated that early in the negotiations the alternative styling of Duchess of Cornwall was suggested for Diana, as a gesture to her unique position as a divorced mother to heir to the throne. I've never heard of that myself, though I can imagine someone like Robert Fellowes suggesting it as a compromise. However it must have been rejected quite early on by one side or the other.
And Diana WAS in a unique position. The loss of an HRH in Britain definitely signals a loss of status. She probably wouldn't have wanted to join the RF on too many occasions but it would have been nice had she been asked if she had lived. It would have been awkward after 2005, but perhaps both parties would have been remarried and settled by then.
She was asked for Christmas, but would only turn up for the church service.. She did not feel comfortable with the RF...
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2019, 06:45:05 AM
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on October 16, 2019, 04:37:17 AM
Most of you are more well informed about such matters than I am, but I would think the divorce agreement would have stipulated that she forfeited the HRH. My thinking is that if she received the HRH when she married, she would lose it upon divorcing.
Diana made a statement that she would be known as Diana Princess of Wales without the HRH. the queen was angry at this since discussions were still going on, and she didn't want things leaked to the papers. She probably did not intend Di to continue as HRH.. but Di's premature statement was the last straw. And yes as a divorced wife, it was always on the cards that she would lose the HRH.. Diana then did make a last ditch attempt to hold onto the HRH but the queen was by then adamant. and since Diana had said that she wanted out of the RF, did not want to be married to Chalres, why should she retian the style and title of a royal wife? Then stories emerged that "William had said "never mind Mummy I'll give it back to you"..
I think Charles was the one that had a lot of say in the matter.
Quote from: sandy on October 16, 2019, 12:28:15 PM
I think Charles was the one that had a lot of say in the matter.
I agree Charles most likely as heir had plenty of say in the matter as far as Diana was concerned he was done. It is sad the BRF couldn't have handled Diana's title in the classy way the DRF did with Princess Alexandra and Prince Joachim and downgraded the title to HH which was until she remarried. Alexandra was married to the second son but Diana was married to the heir and mother to the next King.
Good point
@Trudie. It's a shame that the Danish divorce had to happen but Joachim and Alexandra were no longer happy together and by that time I believe Alexandra had already begun a relationship with her now ex-husband.
Alexandra was HH (Her Highness) until she remarried when she lost her royals style (HH) and title (Princess) and is now known as Her Excellency (HE) the Countess of Frederiksborg.
Quote from: TLLK on October 16, 2019, 04:08:30 PM
Good point @Trudie. It's a shame that the Danish divorce had to happen but Joachim and Alexandra were no longer happy together and by that time I believe Alexandra had already begun a relationship with her now ex-husband.
Alexandra was HH (Her Highness) until she remarried when she lost her royals style (HH) and title (Princess) and is now known as Her Excellency (HE) the Countess of Frederiksborg.
and Now I believe she is divorced from her second husband....
Quote from: amabel on October 16, 2019, 06:27:17 PM
and Now I believe she is divorced from her second husband....
Yes, she is divorced from her second husband. However, she is still the mother of the eldest grandchildren of Queen Daisy and always will be. At the time of her divorce from Prince Joaqu?n the elder son was a direct heir after his uncle and father, as Christian was not yet born.
Queen Margrethe was very friendly with Alexandra, who was popular in Denmark, and did all she could to ease things for her and her son and the boys. That included being respectful of Alexandra's position as the mother of heirs.
What a decent and civilised way to behave in the wake of a divorce, a new title and a new styling! Very very different to the way Diana, also a mother of direct heirs (and not ones likely to be displaced), was treated.
If someone leaves the RF, I don't see why they would want the same title as if they were in the RF. Diana did not want to be married to Charles nor to be Princess of Wales or queen. She wanted out. But if you go out, you are not going to have the same privileges as if you stayed in. She had a handsome divorce settlement, financially. THe RF was prepared to pay for her to have an office to run her charities from.. and Diana did not do much charity work after her divorce.. but she had the facilities to do so. She was not likely to be allowed to keep the HRH.. but her own behaviour completely negated any possiblitly of a compromise. If she had not leaked to the press... possibly the queen might have been more flexbile.. but she did do this, annoying the queen. Diana was invited to the RF for Chrismas, during her years of separation but she only went ot church and would nto stay even for Lunch.. so I don't quite know what would be the point of many invitations...
Quote from: Curryong on October 17, 2019, 02:05:32 AM
Yes, she is divorced from her second husband. However, she is still the mother of the eldest grandchildren of Queen Daisy and always will be. At the time of her divorce from Prince Joaqu?n the elder son was a direct heir after his uncle and father, as Christian was not yet born.
Queen Margrethe was very friendly with Alexandra, who was popular in Denmark, and did all she could to ease things for her and her son and the boys. That included being respectful of Alexandra's position as the mother of heirs.
What a decent and civilised way to behave in the wake of a divorce, a new title and a new styling! Very very different to the way Diana, also a mother of direct heirs (and not ones likely to be displaced), was treated.
Yes, there were hurts on both sides and in the end, she was not treated well. But compared to the Danish divorce, there was, above all, so much drama in the Wales' situation. I don't think it was ALL caused by themselves - some of it was media coverage making it worse, but it was plenty dramatic on its own. I loved her and still and always will admire her, but in all honesty, Diana was not blameless.
Im not sure that Alexandra is that popular in Denmark now that she has an income and title but has had a second divorce..
and Diana got a very very generous divorce settlement, much better than Fergie's...She was never likely to keep the HRH as its up to the queen and she wasn't happy with her, anyway. But when Diana did her press leaks, that really problaby finished any hope of her being allowed ot keep it..
Quote from: amabel on October 17, 2019, 08:07:15 PM
Im not sure that Alexandra is that popular in Denmark now that she has an income and title but has had a second divorce..
and Diana got a very very generous divorce settlement, much better than Fergie's...She was never likely to keep the HRH as its up to the queen and she wasn't happy with her, anyway. But when Diana did her press leaks, that really problaby finished any hope of her being allowed ot keep it..
Interesting...I would have thought she was not going to be allowed to keep her HRH status just because she was no longer a royal wife. But you may well be right - interviews and leaks may have sealed her fate regarding the HRH.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on October 19, 2019, 07:22:03 PM
Interesting...I would have thought she was not going to be allowed to keep her HRH status just because she was no longer a royal wife. But you may well be right - interviews and leaks may have sealed her fate regarding the HRH.
I don't think she was likely to retain it but whatever chances there were of a compromise.. such as perhaps retaining it till she remarried, were gone when she made an announcement, prematurely.
I think the Queen always intended for her to lose the HRH as did Charles. I doubt they would have had Diana not made any comments. I don't think Diana should be blamed for what was a done deal.
You may be right concerning the Queen's intention. The reason why some are saying otherwise is because of Diana's behavior during the divorce. Looking at it objectively you cannot say she was blameless.
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on October 20, 2019, 05:13:35 AM
You may be right concerning the Queen's intention. The reason why some are saying otherwise is because of Diana's behavior during the divorce. Looking at it objectively you cannot say she was blameless.
Sarah lost her HRH too and no one ever complained about htat, although she was also the mother of 2 of the queen's heirs and grandchildren.... but Sarah lost all popularity during her separation from Andy... I think that it was never on the cards that Di could keep the HRH permanently..but her leaking of the story did annoy the queen and I think it soured relations between Diana nad the rest of the RF. But Diana whiel she did occasionally attend functions with the RF, didn't really want to be there after the separation.. and I don't think that any "kindliness" from the queen would have saved the sitatuion...
Well put, Amabel.
Quote from: amabel on October 20, 2019, 07:12:50 AM
Sarah lost her HRH too and no one ever complained about htat, although she was also the mother of 2 of the queen's heirs and grandchildren.... but Sarah lost all popularity during her separation from Andy... I think that it was never on the cards that Di could keep the HRH permanently..but her leaking of the story did annoy the queen and I think it soured relations between Diana nad the rest of the RF. But Diana whiel she did occasionally attend functions with the RF, didn't really want to be there after the separation.. and I don't think that any "kindliness" from the queen would have saved the sitatuion...
The royals did not treat Diana very well. On the whole. IMO.
Diana of course would not want to be there after the separation. She and Charles and their sons did come together for William's confirmation after the divorce.
Double post auto-merged: October 20, 2019, 11:29:38 PM
Quote from: Princess Cassandra on October 20, 2019, 05:13:35 AM
You may be right concerning the Queen's intention. The reason why some are saying otherwise is because of Diana's behavior during the divorce. Looking at it objectively you cannot say she was blameless.
Charles outed Camilla in 1994. HE forced the PB divorce. That meant a great deal since he did the unprecedented and named his married mistress publicly. Even Edward VIII didn't do that. Wallis's husband took the blame for the divorce and Edward when he became Duke of Windsor only spoke of the woman he loved. Diana on the whole was not treated well by that family. They pushed the marriage knowing Camilla's influence. Charles did not exactly act like a Prince. He certainly had something to do with the Queen's request for a divorce.
Diana should have been allowed to keep her HRH title. She was the mother of the future king after all. What was the benefit of having the mother of a future king being a lady Diana?
Can a HRH title be re instated posthumously? Does anyone know?
Yes she should have IMO.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on November 25, 2019, 06:00:16 PM
Diana should have been allowed to keep her HRH title. She was the mother of the future king after all. What was the benefit of having the mother of a future king being a lady Diana?
Can a HRH title be re instated posthumously? Does anyone know?
I agree with you. I think it should have remained with Diana until remarriage. An HRH is a substantive styling not an actual title, but as George V showed in 1917 the Sovereign can take an HRH away without a divorce in play. And it can also be restored at any time. It's in the Sovereign's hands. In theory William could restore his mother's HRH when he is King. I don't think he will though.
It's Royal Dukedoms (and Earldoms) that require Acts of Parliament to be removed, so Andrew's titles are safe.
The Spencers supposedly refused the posthumous HRH at the time Diana died (I read the Queen made the offer. William may want to go along with the wish of his Spencer relatives.
Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on November 25, 2019, 11:40:14 PM
Could Princess Diana have given up the title Her Royal Highness and been given the title of Her Highness instead?
Not likely. the style "Her highness" has never been used much in the UK.
The style of HH (His/Her Highness) was more or less removed about 100 years ago, though it was not really used that much from what I have read.
Quote from: TLLK on January 01, 2020, 09:48:06 PM
The style of HH (His/Her Highness) was more or less removed about 100 years ago, though it was not really used that much from what I have read.
I think ti was only used for the daughters of princess Helena.. Helena Vic and Marie Louise.. because they gave up their German titles and were just known as Princess HV and Pss ML.. (I may be wrong but I think that was the only instance of HH being used?)
Quote from: sandy on November 25, 2019, 10:44:41 PM
The Spencers supposedly refused the posthumous HRH at the time Diana died (I read the Queen made the offer. William may want to go along with the wish of his Spencer relatives.
Why would they refuse posthumous HRH? What was their reasoning for this?
because it would be foolish. Titles are not for the dead..
I'm new to this so I hope this is not a silly question. But has no one ever bestowed a title or given one back to someone deceased?
@oak_and_cedar - AFAIK not in the 20th or 21st centuries.
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on January 01, 2020, 10:09:03 PM
Why would they refuse posthumous HRH? What was their reasoning for this?
I remember at the time it was said The Spencer family turned it down as Diana would have preferred to be known by her then title Diana Princess of Wales at the time of her death.
From what I've read there was a short rather snappy exchange between Charles Spencer and Robert Fellowes on the train journey to the internment at Althorp. Several royals were on the train and Fellowes (obviously with HM's consent) tentatively put forward the possibility of a posthumous restoring of the HRH then.
However, my own theory is that the noble Earl (ha) was then in full family mode of 'The Spencers claim their own back. We don't need your royal titles now or ever!'
Remember his oration at the funeral included allusions to his sister's 'birth family', to stultifying Royal traditions with regard to his nephews, and Diana 'needing no Royal titles' to be who she was.
I think it was his decision and his alone to knock back any posthumous HRH, IF one was offered. I mean there's really no proof, just various stories that the HRH was going to be restored if the Spencer family wished it. I don't believe Charles S consulted with his mother or sisters but refused it off his own bat.
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
From Wiki, with regard to the two daughters of Princess Helena, Queen Victotia's daughter, and her husband Prince Christian of Scheswig-Holstein-Augustenberg, and their each being given the styling of Her Highness in 1917. They were left with no territorial assignation (ie York, Kent etc) in 1917, as a result of their father having a German title. It was rather awkward as they could not be given a Royal Dukedom, being females, nor could their surviving brother Albert, who was fighting for Imperial Germany and had just inherited a German title from the Empress of Germany's brother, who had been known to Victoria as 'the abominable Gunther'(!) who was head of the S-H-A House in Germany.
From wiki.
It appears that Victoria gave her grandchildren by Helena and Christian the stylings of His/Her Highness from birth rather than have them be known as 'Serene Highness' a German styling for persons of their rank.
Titles, styles, honours and arms Edit
Titles and styles Edit
1870?1917: Her Highness Princess Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein
1917?1948: Her Highness Princess Helena Victoria
As a male-line granddaughter of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Princess Helena Victoria would have been styled Serene Highness (Durchlaucht). In May 1866, Queen Victoria had conferred the higher style of Highness upon any children to be born of the marriage of Princess Helena and Prince Christian, although the children were to remain Prince or Princess of Schleswig-Holstein. In June 1917, a notice appeared in the Court Circular that a Royal Warrant was to be prepared by George V dispensing with his cousins' use of the "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg" part of their titles. However no warrant was issued, nor were they formally granted the titles of Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland nor of the United Kingdom.[5]
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on January 01, 2020, 10:23:09 PM
I'm new to this so I hope this is not a silly question. But has no one ever bestowed a title or given one back to someone deceased?
Not that I know of. Titles are for the living not for the dead. What is the point of putting HRH on a gravestone? I think the Spencers were (if the offer was made, its not clear) reluctant to take it. THey felt that Diana had "no need of a royal title" and that it was too late now to give it to her..
Until the contract for her marriage to King Alfonso XIII of was signed in 1906 Ena Battenberg, the only daughter of Beatrice, the youngest child of Queen Victoria, was a Highness. King Edward VII, who was very pleased with her prospective marriage, then elevated her to an HRH. Ena's two surviving brothers were also Highnesses until 1917. It seems that Victoria issued LPs for the children of her two daughters who had married into minor German Houses into Highnesses as otherwise they would be merely Serene or Illustrious Highnesses (in German fashion) as their fathers had been. (Henry of Battenberg, Beatrice's husband, was made an HRH in 1885, so he could be of equal rank with his new wife.)
Quote from: amabel on January 02, 2020, 08:20:34 AM
Not that I know of. Titles are for the living not for the dead. What is the point of putting HRH on a gravestone? I think the Spencers were (if the offer was made, its not clear) reluctant to take it. THey felt that Diana had "no need of a royal title" and that it was too late now to give it to her..
DIana now has grandchildren. Down the road it might please her descendants to have it restored.
Quote from: sandy on January 02, 2020, 12:30:09 PM
DIana now has grandchildren. Down the road it might please her descendants to have it restored.
Why? Diana has no need of titles.. she is gone.
Quote from: amabel on January 02, 2020, 08:20:34 AM
Not that I know of. Titles are for the living not for the dead. What is the point of putting HRH on a gravestone? I think the Spencers were (if the offer was made, its not clear) reluctant to take it. THey felt that Diana had "no need of a royal title" and that it was too late now to give it to her..
Perhaps too they knew that she believed that she didn't need the style HRH any longer as she already had her Diana, Princess of Wales title in addition to her own.
Quote from: TLLK on January 02, 2020, 01:42:10 PM
Perhaps too they knew that she believed that she didn't need the style HRH any longer as she already had her Diana, Princess of Wales title in addition to her own.
She didn't have any title though. She only had a courtesy title of Lady Diana.. and if she had remarried to a mr Smith, she would have just been known as Lady Diana Smith..I think the Spencers were showing their usual attitude of thumbling their noses at royalty.. and saying "Diana was a Spencer and well known in her own right, she did not need an HRH". Diana DID make a last ditch attempt to keep the HRH before the divorce...
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: Curryong on January 02, 2020, 11:07:42 AM
Until the contract for her marriage to King Alfonso XIII of was signed in 1906 Ena Battenberg, the only daughter of Beatrice, the youngest child of Queen Victoria, was a Highness. King Edward VII, who was very pleased with her prospective marriage, then elevated her to an HRH. Ena's two surviving brothers were also Highnesses until 1917. It seems that Victoria issued LPs for the children of her two daughters who had married into minor German Houses into Highnesses as otherwise they would be merely Serene or Illustrious Highnesses (in German fashion) as their fathers had been. (Henry of Battenberg, Beatrice's husband, was made an HRH in 1885, so he could be of equal rank with his new wife.)
I didn't know about the Battenbergs.. as I recall though they later (the boys) lost their titles and became Lord Lepold and Lord Something Mountbatten, didn't they during WWI?
Well she died young and had no chance to remarry so she was Diana, Princess of Wales when she died. I don't blame the Spencers I think Diana was treated very badly by the royals. Spencer was not speaking for Diana, DIana was dead and did not give her consent for him to speak for her before she died. Diana gave up the idea of getting the HRH. THe divorce went through and I never heard of any "last ditch attempts." I think she would not have remained "Lady DIana" if she remarried. IF she had lived, I think WIlliam would have upgraded her title when he became King.
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 02, 2020, 01:41:37 PM
Why? Diana has no need of titles.. she is gone.
Maybe her grandchildren will not agree with you. SHe's not "gone" to them, they carry her DNA.
Quote from: amabel on January 02, 2020, 01:44:23 PM
She didn't have any title though. She only had a courtesy title of Lady Diana.. and if she had remarried to a mr Smith, she would have just been known as Lady Diana Smith..I think the Spencers were showing their usual attitude of thumbling their noses at royalty.. and saying "Diana was a Spencer and well known in her own right, she did not need an HRH". Diana DID make a last ditch attempt to keep the HRH before the divorce...
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
I didn't know about the Battenbergs.. as I recall though they later (the boys) lost their titles and became Lord Lepold and Lord Something Mountbatten, didn't they during WWI?
Yes, Alexander became the first (and last) Marquess of Carisbrooke in 1917 when George V rearranged things. He had only the one child, a daughter Iris, who led a strange and rather wild life. Lord Leopold was a haemophiliac and died in his twenties after an operation. Like many of the King's relatives the Battenbergs were rather miffed at having the stylings and ancestral titles they'd lived with all their lives, gone in one fell swoop.
This was apparently very much so with Victoria (Battenberg) as she was very upset and angry after the war about George's lack of action in rescuing the Imperial Family in Russia, plus there was of course the humiliation of Louis having been removed as First Sea Lord, because of his German blood when he'd devoted his whole life since boyhood to the Royal Navy. And then the loss of their family name....
Quote from: sandy on January 02, 2020, 04:31:52 PM
Well she died young and had no chance to remarry so she was Diana, Princess of Wales when she died. I don't blame the Spencers I think Diana was treated very badly by the royals. Spencer was not speaking for Diana, DIana was dead and did not give her consent for him to speak for her before she died. Diana gave up the idea of getting the HRH. THe divorce went through and I never heard of any "last ditch attempts." I think she would not have remained "Lady DIana" if she remarried. IF she had lived, I think WIlliam would have upgraded her title when he became King.
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 04:32:49 PM
Maybe her grandchildren will not agree with you. SHe's not "gone" to them, they carry her DNA.
why would they need her to have an HRH? Does ti really matter? She knew that when she went for a divorce that she would never be queen and that she'd probably lose her HRH.. so if it was that important to her she would not have goen for it... and I can't see what it has to do with her grandchildren. are they bothered because their grandmother died as Diana Princess of wales? would they have been upset if she had married a commoner and ended up Lady Diana Smith? really?
Quote
Maybe her grandchildren will not agree with you. SHe's not "gone" to them, they carry her DNA.
However her DNA was not what made her HRH The Princess of Wales and later Diana, Princess of Wales. It was her marriage to the Prince of Wales that gave her the style (HRH) and the title Princess of Wales. After her divorce, she was Diana, Princess of Wales.
Her DNA that may or may not be inherited by her sons and grandchildren will possibly determine things like height, facial structure, hair color, intelligence, athletic ability etc...Their parents will be the ones to discuss their late paternal grandmother with them. Later they can discover more information about her by talking to her surviving siblings, friends, staff and reading about her.
Quote from: TLLK on January 02, 2020, 08:15:45 PM
However her DNA was not what made her HRH The Princess of Wales and later Diana, Princess of Wales. It was her marriage to the Prince of Wales that gave her the style (HRH) and the title Princess of Wales. After her divorce, she was Diana, Princess of Wales.
Her DNA that may or may not be inherited by her sons and grandchildren will possibly determine things like height, facial structure, hair color, intelligence, athletic ability etc...Their parents will be the ones to discuss their late paternal grandmother with them. Later they can discover more information about her by talking to her surviving siblings, friends, staff and reading about her.
I can't see what it matters to her grandchildren.. who did not even know her personally...
Double post auto-merged: January 02, 2020, 08:21:30 PM
Quote from: Curryong on January 02, 2020, 08:01:38 PM
Yes, Alexander became the first (and last) Marquess of Carisbrooke in 1917 when George V rearranged things. He had only the one child, a daughter Iris, who led a strange and rather wild life. Lord Leopold was a haemophiliac and died in his twenties after an operation. Like many of the King's relatives the Battenbergs were rather miffed at having the stylings and ancestral titles they'd lived with all their lives, gone in one fell swoop.
T
there were rumours, I believe that Alexander, Lord Carisbrooke was gay and had only the 1 child with his wife..
She is still their grandmother and I hardly think they would brush her off because they never "met her." JFK JR barely remembered his father but cared so much he helped plan the Kennedy Library and mentioned his father many times. I can see that it would matter to Diana's grandchildren, I doubt they would substitute Camilla for their own Grandmother just because they did not "meet her."
Quote from: sandy on January 03, 2020, 01:07:44 AM
She is still their grandmother and I hardly think they would brush her off because they never "met her." JFK JR barely remembered his father but cared so much he helped plan the Kennedy Library and mentioned his father many times. I can see that it would matter to Diana's grandchildren, I doubt they would substitute Camilla for their own Grandmother just because they did not "meet her."
They never knew her so all they will know of her is what their parents tell them.. And I don't quite see what it has to do with whether she had an HRH or not.. If anyone were to restore it, it would be William and he has never indicated that he would do so... I can't see the point. She is still his mother regardless of her title..
Whether or not he restores it is subject to speculation, he is hardly going to talk about it when his father is next in line, he could have a very long wait. William as a child told Diana he would restore it, he's not going to be talking about it now.
Quote from: sandy on January 04, 2020, 01:39:08 AM
Whether or not he restores it is subject to speculation, he is hardly going to talk about it when his father is next in line, he could have a very long wait. William as a child told Diana he would restore it, he's not going to be talking about it now.
And IMO he isn't going to do it. But whatever he does, I don't quite see how it would matter. Diana is his mother, he didn't love her because she had an HRH but because she was his mother. Her grandchildren will not know her, and it can hardly matter to them whether she had an HRH or not...
I don't see why it would be a bad thing if she did. Her grandchildren will not know her personally but will learn about her from those near and dear to her. Deceased grandparents are not people to be disposable and pushed aside by their descendants. Otherwise people would not care about genealogy.
Quote from: sandy on January 04, 2020, 12:51:03 PM
I don't see why it would be a bad thing if she did. Her grandchildren will not know her personally but will learn about her from those near and dear to her. Deceased grandparents are not people to be disposable and pushed aside by their descendants. Otherwise people would not care about genealogy.
but what difference can it make to her grandchildren (or to anyone) if she ahd an HRH or not.
Only they will know.
Quote from: amabel on January 04, 2020, 12:56:04 PM
but what difference can it make to her grandchildren (or to anyone) if she ahd an HRH or not.
To be honest, I don't believe that it will make a difference. If their fathers are content to leave the matter "as is" then the grandchildren will likely just understand that when people divorced their style/title could change just like with Sarah, Duchess of York.
The way I see the title Diana was HRH almost her entire adult life. All the places she opened bore a plaque opened by HRH The Princess of Wales on such a date. These still remain as do all the biographies written during her tenure as HRH. Diana died only one year after her divorce and loss of the HRH and many people today still refer to her as HRH. Her grandchildren will know Diana as HRH their grandmother as basically as I said her entire adult life she was HRH with a one year loss.
She should have been allowed to keep the HRH if only for being the mother of the future king.
@Trudie-I agree that all of what you say is true, I just don't know if it will truly impact how her grandchildren feel about her.
Quote from: sandy on January 04, 2020, 01:11:40 PM
Only they will know.
I hardly think a few kids, who didn't ever know her, are goig ot have any ideas about whether their grandmother had an HRH or not...
Double post auto-merged: January 04, 2020, 02:11:24 PM
Quote from: oak_and_cedar on January 04, 2020, 01:48:39 PM
She should have been allowed to keep the HRH if only for being the mother of the future king.
The queen did not agree.....
Quote from: amabel on January 04, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
I hardly think a few kids, who didn't ever know her, are goig ot have any ideas about whether their grandmother had an HRH or not...
Double post auto-merged: January 04, 2020, 02:11:24 PM
The queen did not agree.....
No the Queen did not agree. That doesn't mean she was correct in her decision. She is not infallible. She underestimated for instance the amount of love the population held for Diana, only fully realising it when she came down to London from Balmoral. She reportedly said of the mounds of flowers 'They didn't even do that for my father'. In fact things got to such a state that it required a nifty bit of PR by the advisers at BP in the way of a broadcast to the nation before Diana's funeral and bowing her head before the cortege. So she didn't read the mood of the nation right on that occasion.
And, if the reports are correct about Fellowes' discussion with Charles Earl Spencer, Elizabeth may well have re-thought the HRH business as well, but it was taken out of her hands apparently as Charles S turned it down.
There have been plenty of examples during the Queen's reign of her prevaricating, refusing to face up to situations, putting her head in the sand and making bad decisions on behalf of her family, to smash any illusion of the all-seeing, all knowing cool headed monarch. She's just as capable of getting things wrong as anyone else. And IMO the decision to take the HRH away from Diana was one of those times.
Quote from: TLLK on January 04, 2020, 02:07:11 PM
@Trudie-I agree that all of what you say is true, I just don't know if it will truly impact how her grandchildren feel about her.
HRH or not truly will have no real impact on her grandchildren or how they feel about her IMO they will know her through the people who truly mattered to her William, Harry, and their Spencer relations. Although Diana should have been able to retain her HRH as befitting the mother of a future King or Kings as the time of her death I don't believe their feelings about her rest on the HRH when one considers they love their commoner Grandmother Carole Middleton who is certainly not titled.
so what is the problem? It does not impinge on Diana, she's dead. her grandchildren have never known her. Her sons can hardly care whether she is an HRH or not, esp since she is dead...
and the HRH is in the queen's gift.
@ Amabel the problem is Diana should have been styled HRH at the time of her divorce befitting her status as the mother and grandmother of future kings. Diana was responsible not only for securing the line of succession she also made the monarchy more relevant during an unpopular time. Contrary to what you and others may believe dead or alive they care very much about the HRH and William is not currently in a position to do anything about it as he is still second in the line of succession. The royals are very status-conscious as is evidenced by the bows and curtsy family members make to each other and their position although for the public they understand it should be obligatory. While HRH Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra were obligated to curtsy to Diana whether or not Charles was with her now Camilla has to curtsy to the blood Princesses if Charles is not with her get the picture?
that is why Diana wanted to try and keep her HRH. She was bothered about issues like who had to curtsty to whom...
. but its up to the queen and the queen did not see fit to leave it with her. But Diana is dead now and the issues of curtsying don't arise...
Double post auto-merged: January 04, 2020, 08:18:40 PM
Quote from: TLLK on January 04, 2020, 02:07:11 PM
@Trudie-I agree that all of what you say is true, I just don't know if it will truly impact how her grandchildren feel about her.
I cant' see how they will "know Diana as HRH" though. They will hear about her mostly from William and Harry, and they are hardly likely to refer to her by a title.. They'll talk about "your Granny Diana"... If she had remarried before her death she would probably have been Lady Diana something.. and I doubt if that would have affected how her sons or any grandchildren would think of her...
I doubt the "curstying" would have not been strictly enforced. I think the Queen would have given Diana a dispensation regarding courstying to Camilla under the circumstances (though had Diana lived, there probably would have been more of a delay in C and C wedding).
Posthumous honors can be conferred. James I made sure there was a tomb with a sculpture of her to honor his mother (who was executed) Mary Queen of Scots. And she was given a spot of honor in Westminster Abbey. Even though he was separated from her for years, he did this for her. He did care.
Double post auto-merged: January 04, 2020, 11:35:50 PM
Quote from: Trudie on January 04, 2020, 04:30:07 PM
@ Amabel the problem is Diana should have been styled HRH at the time of her divorce befitting her status as the mother and grandmother of future kings. Diana was responsible not only for securing the line of succession she also made the monarchy more relevant during an unpopular time. Contrary to what you and others may believe dead or alive they care very much about the HRH and William is not currently in a position to do anything about it as he is still second in the line of succession. The royals are very status-conscious as is evidenced by the bows and curtsy family members make to each other and their position although for the public they understand it should be obligatory. While HRH Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra were obligated to curtsy to Diana whether or not Charles was with her now Camilla has to curtsy to the blood Princesses if Charles is not with her get the picture?
With the line of succession photos now in the news, all the males are seen. But without Diana there would be no William or George. It takes two parents to have a child.
Double post auto-merged: January 04, 2020, 11:37:16 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 04, 2020, 04:17:12 PM
so what is the problem? It does not impinge on Diana, she's dead. her grandchildren have never known her. Her sons can hardly care whether she is an HRH or not, esp since she is dead...
and the HRH is in the queen's gift.
How her sons feel is subject to speculation. I hope that monument to her happens next year. Her grandchildren I think would be very proud to be related to Princess Diana. Why wouldn't the grandchildren care?
We're not talking about how they feel about Diana. we're talking about the implication that the grandchildren that it would boter them if she was not HRH. why would it?
To a child, it doesn't matter however as adults when they learn of the truth Camilla played in the divorce of their grandparents it may bother them that Diana lost her HRH through no fault really of her own but Camilla was rewarded with it.
Quote from: Trudie on January 05, 2020, 12:59:27 PM
To a child, it doesn't matter however as adults when they learn of the truth Camilla played in the divorce of their grandparents it may bother them that Diana lost her HRH through no fault really of her own but Camilla was rewarded with it.
Camilla is HRH because she is married to the Prince. Diana lost her HRH because she and Charles divorced and she was the one who wanted the divorce...
@ Amabel Wallis Simpson was married to a Prince/ Duke and wasn't an HRH. Diana wanted the divorce because there were three in her marriage and despite what they say it didn't start until 1986 Charles never left Camilla 1986 is the palace official timeline however, it doesn't matter Diana was no Sarah Duchess of York she worked her tail off on behalf of the monarchy as I said she should have kept her HRH as the mother and grandmother of future kings and or queen.
Quote from: amabel on January 05, 2020, 01:16:57 PM
Camilla is HRH because she is married to the Prince. Diana lost her HRH because she and Charles divorced and she was the one who wanted the divorce...
She said she did not want to divorce. DIana should have not lost the HRH. The QUeen ordered the divorce, diana did not and could not.
Double post auto-merged: January 05, 2020, 01:51:59 PM
Quote from: amabel on January 05, 2020, 11:45:00 AM
We're not talking about how they feel about Diana. we're talking about the implication that the grandchildren that it would boter them if she was not HRH. why would it?
Why the assumption they wouldn't care? Their grandmother is not some obscure figure exactly.
Quote from: Trudie on January 05, 2020, 01:30:42 PM
@ Amabel Wallis Simpson was married to a Prince/ Duke and wasn't an HRH. Diana wanted the divorce because there were three in her marriage and despite what they say it didn't start until 1986 Charles never left Camilla 1986 is the palace official timeline however, it doesn't matter Diana was no Sarah Duchess of York she worked her tail off on behalf of the monarchy as I said she should have kept her HRH as the mother and grandmother of future kings and or queen.
Its in the gift of the queen and she did not agree...
As I understand it, when a hereditary titled couple divorce, the protocol/tradition dictates that the spouse loses the style/title that they obtained upon being married. Not surprisingly QEII chose to follow the tradition with her sister and daughters-in-law then.
By the time that the Wales divorced, both the Snowdons and the Yorks were divorced. Princess Margaret was no longer "The Countess of Snowdon" and likewise Sarah was no longer considered to be " HRH The Duchess of York."
Now since then, their European counterparts have either kept to the tradition or made a slight alteration to it. When Denmark's Joachim and Alexandra divorced, she went through a gradual step down in style and title. IMO Denmark's Margrethe knew that what had happened to Diana in the UK was unpopular at the time so she slowly phased out Alexandra's style/title based upon her post divorce marital status. She went from HRH Princess Alexandra to HH Princess Alexandra and ultimately HE The Countess of Frederiksburg upon her remarriage.
Now I seriously doubt that Diana's grandchildren are going to care about a style/title that she once held in relation to any feelings they'll have for her. When they're older they'll be able to understand that there were issues in the Wales' marriage that led to their divorce and read about everyone's behavior during that time.
Quote from: TLLK on January 05, 2020, 02:42:25 PM
As I understand it, when a hereditary titled couple divorce, the protocol/tradition dictates that the spouse loses the style/title that they obtained upon being married. QEII chose to follow the tradition with her sister and daughters-in-law.
By the time that the Wales divorced, Princess Margaret and Earl Snowdon were divorced and she was no longer considered "The Countess Snowdon."
Snowdon's new wife was THE Countess of Snowdon but Marg could stll call herself Margaret Countess of Snowdon.. but as a Princess she had a higher title.. and I don't think sh wanted any reminders of her marriage. Diana was Diana princess of Wales but she lost the HRH...Fergie was Sarah Duchess of York but again lost the HRH.
Double post auto-merged: January 05, 2020, 05:50:18 PM
Quote from: TLLK on January 05, 2020, 02:42:25 PM
As I understand it, when a hereditary titled couple divorce, the protocol/tradition dictates that the spouse loses the style/title that they obtained upon being married. Not surprisingly QEII chose to follow the tradition with her sister and daughters-in-law then.
By the time that the Wales divorced, both the Snowdons and the Yorks were divorced. Princess Margaret was no longer "The Countess of Snowdon" and likewise Sarah was no longer considered to be " HRH The Duchess of York."
Now since then, their European counterparts have either kept to the tradition or made a slight alteration to it. When Denmark's Joachim and Alexandra divorced, she went through a gradual step down in style and title. IMO Denmark's Margrethe knew that what had happened to Diana in the UK was unpopular at the time so she slowly phased out Alexandra's style/title based upon her post divorce marital status. She went from HRH Princess Alexandra to HH Princess Alexandra and ultimately HE The Countess of Frederiksburg upon her remarriage.
Now I seriously doubt that Diana's grandchildren are going to care about a style/title that she once held in relation to any feelings they'll have for her. When they're older they'll be able to understand that there were issues in the Wales' marriage that led to their divorce and read about everyone's behavior during that time.
I think that now, some people in Denmark are a bit peeved that Alexandra has a title and an income, now that she has had a second divorce. I don't know if Q Marg was likely to have been influenced by what had happened with Diana...who wuodl have gone to Lady Diana whatever if she had remarried. But honestly are the grandchildren really going to care if their grandmother was Lady Diana or Di Princess of wales or HRH? They will only know her through their parents and the boys will see her as their mother, not as a Princess...
DIana may well have kept her Princess title. I would not have ruled it out. I don't think she would have reverted to Lady Diana since she would be the mother of the future King.
QuoteI think that now, some people in Denmark are a bit peeved that Alexandra has a title and an income, now that she has had a second divorce. I don't know if Q Marg was likely to have been influenced by what had happened with Diana...who wuodl have gone to Lady Diana whatever if she had remarried. But honestly are the grandchildren really going to care if their grandmother was Lady Diana or Di Princess of wales or HRH? They will only know her through their parents and the boys will see her as their mother, not as a Princess...
Alexandra will be giving up her income from the state with Felix turns 18 this year so that will be coming to an end.
QuoteDIana may well have kept her Princess title
Yes she'd be known as Diana, Princess of Wales because she was the former spouse of the Princess of Wales.
Those women married to the PoW are known by the royal style/title as HRH The Princess of Wales :Jen:. Since Camilla has opted not to use the Princess of Wales title, most likely then next one to use it will be Catherine who is currently known as HRH the Duchess of Cambridge.
But she had lost the HRH..and if she remarried she would go by her husbands surname and title. So odds are if she remarried she wuld have been Lady Diana Surname...
True Kate is probably the next HRH THe Princess of Wales...
It would depend. The royals can change "tradition" at the stroke of a pen. As history as proven. Diana may have had the Princess title had she remarried when William was king, all hypothetical.
Camilla is the Princess of Wales now but uses Style Duchess of Cornwall. She has a long list of titles, when she married Charles she had the option to use all of them.
Quote from: amabel on January 07, 2020, 09:00:45 PM
But she had lost the HRH..and if she remarried she would go by her husbands surname and title. So odds are if she remarried she wuld have been Lady Diana Surname...
True Kate is probably the next HRH THe Princess of Wales...
I agree that had Diana remarried that she'd have returned to the title that she had prior to marrying Charles and would likely be known as Lady Diana (surname).