Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Surname

Diana NEVER used the convoluted surname Mountbatten-Windsor! The Prince of Wales takes no surname (but if he needs one, he can use Windsor). Mountbatten-Windsor is reserved for descendants of The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh who are not entitled to the style of Royal Highness. --ScottyFLL 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong, both Prince Charles and Princess Anne have used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, and to say, "but if he needs one," is false because unless the monarchy is abolished he never will need one. Mac Domhnaill 02:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

His name, and Diana's surname, according to Buckingham Palace, was Mountbatten-Windsor, not Windsor. I spoke to them about it when I was researching the issue. Charles and Anne both used Mountbatten-Windsor in their banns of marriage first time around.

Technically he could need one if for example, the bar on the Royal Family voting was removed and the standard legal requirment (name and surname) was applied. He could also use it for buying private property to draw a legal distinction between personal property, Duchy of Cornwall property and Crown :property. Up to now he hasn't done so; Highgrove, if I remember correctly, is duchy property. But as he now possesses a larger family (2 children, 2 step-children) he may want to owe private property given that his two step-children aren't members of the Royal Family, for the purpose of private inheritance after his death.

I'd be interested to find out how Diana referred to her two sons in her will. Given that her £17 million was hers (by virtue of her inheritance from her father and her divorce settlement) she may well have chosen to will it to them by name rather than title, ie, William Mountbatten-Windsor and Henry Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales. The danger with using state titles rather than personal names would be that were the crown ever to be abolished, someone might insist that the money was given to them by virtue of state titles and so should be returned to the state. Exiled King Constantine II of Greece learnt this to his cost when the Greek state, in an incredibly mean-spirited act (ok he was/is a plonker, but even plonkers have a right to justice), confiscated his personal property on the basis that it was inherited by him as king. The fact that some documentation at the time of the inheritance used royal titles rather personal names left him open to what was in effect state theft. As a friend of Charles and Diana, 'Tino' might well have advised them to make sure everything personal was referred to by personal name, rather than any title, just to be on the safe side. But that is just speculation. FearÉIREANN\(caint)

The main time that HRH Charles - or any other senior member of the Royal Household - 'needs' a surname is when flying on scheduled airlines, or making hotel bookings
There are a number of 'accepted' pseudonymns used for such purposes. Prince Charles and The Duchess of Cornwall appear to favour Mr & Mrs C C Gardner
A propos, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has used 'Mr Shooter' more than once chrisboote 16:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved page

I moved this page here in accordance with the discussion we had recently on the page about naming conventions (sorry, I can't remember the name of that page now). It is both her correct title, and a name under which she was better known than her maiden name, and which she retained after her marriage. Deb 17:02 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the page being at "Diana, Princess of Wales", although I should point out that it was not actually her name during her marriage (she was then "HRH The Princess of Wales"), but only after her divorce. See the British Royal & Noble Families FAQ at http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-14 -- Oliver P. 17:17 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Photo and Hon.

Princess Diana was one of the most photographed people in history! Surely there's a photo of her somewhere that we can use?

The abberviation "Hon." is used throughout the article. Many people, myself included, are not from England and are unfamiliar with the abbreviation. Does it stand for "Honarable," "Honorary," or something else? Can someone please fill out the full term the first time it is used in the article? —Frecklefoot 15:15, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It means honourable and is written simply as Hon.FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I decided to add a pic of Diana to the article. But, after spending a frustrating hour searching dozens of sites, I found nothing free of copyright so I gave up. Someone who reads Wikipedia and photographed her, would have to donate their own pic. Annoying, isn't it!
Adrian Pingstone 20:28, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
All we need is permission to post it. Do you remember the URL of one of the photos you liked? All you need to do is email them and ask for permission to post it and assure them we'll include copyright info with it. I think the photo is then bound by the GFDL? I'm not sure about this, but someone might be willing to contribute a photo or two. :) —Frecklefoot 17:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia cannot carry pictures in the manner you suggest. If it is copyright it cannot be used. In Diana's case, it is unlikely that we will be able to get a copyright image. Because of Diana's iconic value, no photographer is likely to wave copyright on a Diana image. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I discovered some public domain photos issued from the White House during the Reagan era: [1]

Photo Solution

I *may* have a possible solution to the poto of Di problem. As we already know, nobody who has an image of her will donate such a thing because it could be potentially worth a lot. However, at Madame Tussaud's there is a sutnningly lifelike bust of Diana. Perhaps someone could go there, photograph that bust, and place it here?...

Just an idea. - 206.156.242.36

I don't know if this would work. If the statue was covered by copyright, wouldn't the photo be a derived work? ( 21:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I looked it up, and it seems that it's ok, at least in the UK. There is an exemption for photographs of buildings, statues, etc., which are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c62) ( 21:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well then, the photo of the bust wouldn't work. Don't you have to pay to get into Madame Tussard's? If so, I don't think that qualifies as "open to the public." It is open to "paying customers." But IANAL, so I could be wrong... —Frecklefoot 14:45, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This act doesn't seem to define "open to the public", but from definitions in other places, it seems that theatres, galleries, etc., are generally included even if a fee is charged. The thing also has to be on "permanent" display, not part of a temporary exhibition. Also, you would need to check the fine print of the ticket to make sure prohibition on photography was not a condition of entry - this would not lead to a copyright violation, but to potential contract problems. See also [2] ( 18:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There was a loophole in this kind of law in the UK I believe where if you photograph a person holding a picture, or a newspaper with a picture or something, then that would be not be covered. No sure how useful this would be, or the precise legal footing of such a thing, but I know some newspapers in the UK have used this ruse to get around issues like this.
It's a kind of fair use thing - the caption would be something like: "Mark Richards pictured here with his copy of 'Diana - a Photographic Study'".
Also, what about a sketch? Someone could trace a photo, or sketch her? Mark Richards 18:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Polls continue to suggest that a large majority of people believe the deaths to have been the result of assassination.

'A large majority' seems unlikely to me. Do we have sources to back this up? DJ Clayworth 16:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the reference was to a Daily Express phone poll which found 83% in favour of the conspiracy theories - but this was only a phone poll, ie it wasn't representative of the general population, only those who chose to phone in. More reliable polls give about 25%, so I've amended the reference. --257.47b.9½.-19 13:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ottawa Treaty on landmines

It's a bit confusing... seems to have opened for signature in 1997, entered into force in 1999, ratified by different countries at different dates. Needs its own page really for a full explanation. --257.47b.9½.-19 16:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Motivations which have been advanced for murder include suggestions that Diana intended to divorce Charles, -- eh? She'd already divorced him so that's a rubbish motivation. -- Arwel 13:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to create an article detailing various conspiracy theories on her death? This article could point to that article and note that they exist, but concentrate on what ever the official reports say. The current structure seems unbalanced to me, it's in chronological order except for the section on conspiracy theories:

  • intro
  • early years
  • meets Charles, marries
  • married life
  • charity work (this follows her marriage, since she suddenly had a high profile she could use to support charities)
  • death
  • conspiracy theories surrounding her death, branching off in several different directions
  • suddenly back to the days before and after her funeral, public mourning
  • her continuing legacy.

What do you think? fabiform | talk 13:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fabiform. Sounds to me like maybe that would be a good idea.

On the up side:

- That's what's been done with John F. Kennedy versus John F. Kennedy assassination, and that seems to work well.

- We could go into more detail on the various theories about what could have happened, without making the article seem unbalanced (for a while it seemed like we had more about her death than her life, that's why I've been looking for info about the charity work etc)

- As you say, it could make more sense chronologically

On the down side:

- From the pov of those who support the conspiracy theories, perhaps it gives them too little prominence if they're in a separate article? We would be giving primacy to the official explanation over the alternatives. (Personally I'm ok with this, but that's just me)

- This might mean that the discussion of what could have happened moves into the 'facts about her death' section.

- Some facets of her life just won't go into chronological order, it makes more sense to arrange them thematically (eg the charity work happened both during and after her marriage, at the same time as she was having kids, having affairs, etc]].

On balance I'm in favour of a separate page.

Best, --257.47b.9½.-19 14:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls

Re my reversion of this change:

158.152.12.77 (changed back to 'Accident or Murder'; on polls: sampling method can indeed be qd, but no basis for assuming polls with lower %s for 'murder' are more 'representative')
  • You can't possibly believe 'Accident or Murder?' is NPOV, you're just trying to promote the idea that she was in fact murdered. If you don't like 'Conspiracy Theories' then suggest a compromise and lets see if we can go with that, it's a waste of both our time to keep changing it back and forth.
  • Re the polls: for now I've removed this para entirely as it seems so contentious. Do you understand what is meant by a 'representative' poll? I tried to explain it in the body of the article (that's the text that you deleted). It means a poll where the participants are 'sampled' (chosen) in such a way that they are representative of the population at large. A phone-in poll, where the participants choose themselves, doesn't in any way represent the opinion of the population at large - just those people who chose to phone in. The other poll (the 25% one) was afaik carried out by a professional polling organisation. But if you have a problem with the other poll, lets just compromise and omit them both...

--257.47b.9½.-19 14:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


From 158.152.12.77

  • Sounds as though we disagree about a couple of things, but I *do* think 'accident or murder' is NPOV, and it would be good if you could accept that that's my genuinely held opinion. I mean what else says so clearly what the main difference of opinion regarding the crash is actually about? Either it was an accident, or it was murder. There are those who believe one, there are those who believe the other. I can't quite understand why you think that's a biased statement to make. It's simply the truth. 'Conspiracy theory' puts the onus on those who believe one rather than the other. One might as well put the label of 'Official report accepters' on one camp without putting a label on their opponents. Or use as a title, 'Was the Official Report Full of Lies?' You might justifiably say that *that* sort of approach was non-NPOV! 'Accident or Murder?' surely *is* some sort of compromise.

I do as it happens believe it was murder, but I can't see that saying 'Accident or Murder?' is not NPOV. I think that's precisely what that section, as it stands, is about. I'd oppose putting the murder idea on a separate page, or even breaking it up into different 'theories', as if one has to accept one particular 'theory' in order not to accept the official version. Best I think just to list some alleged holes in the official version (such as the blood test) and some aspects that many believe to be suspicious (such as the alleged disappearance of the car that the Mercedes came into contact with in the tunnel, despite being in the middle of Paris embassyland).

I can't at the moment think of a compromise that you might find acceptable, but would like there to be one. Maybe use 'Accident or Murder?' as title and you could suggest changes to the detail of the body text? Me, I don't like 'conspiracy theories' as a title, nor the idea of referring to Mossad, the IRA, etc., when few actually believe they were responsible. (Probably the proportion of assassinationists who believe the IRA was involved is about as small as the proportion of accidentalists who believe the Windsor family always had Princess Diana's best interests in mind, and wished her all the best in her life after her separation and divorce, whatever life decisions she may have cared to make). Smacks too much of trying to make a widely-held view look ridiculous. I'm pleased though that no-one's tried to mention Elvis :-)

  • I do indeed understand what is meant by sampling, and won't bother demonstrating my knowledge at length by defining random, stratified, quota sampling etc. There have been many polls, some have been straightforwardly self-selecting, some haven't, but frankly there isn't a single one that a reasonable person would insist was 'unbiased'. Most have given more than 50% for 'murder', and the general trend in this percentage has been upwards since the 'Secrets of the Crash' film in 1999. My impression from people I know (I live in the UK) is also that most people believe foul play was involved, although YMMV. I can't prove that it's much much more than 25%, but it is. A poll run by 'Time' magazine recently gave 62%. Not much point in our arguing this one out - suffice it to say that I accept your compromise on the polls issue.

Best regards, 158.152.12.77

James II -> Diana

  1. James II of England (1633-1701) & Arabella Churchill (1647-1714)
  2. Henrietta Fitz James (1667-1730) & Henry Waldegrave (1661-1690)
  3. James Waldegrave (1684-1741) & Mary Webb (d. 1719)
  4. James Waldegrave (1715-1763) & Maria Walpole (1736-1807)
  5. Anne Horatia Waldegrave (1759-1801) & Hugh Seymour (1759-1801)
  6. Sir Horace Beauchamp Seymour (1791-1851) & Elizabeth Malet Palk (1793-1827)
  7. Adelaide Horatia Elizabeth Seymour (1825-1877) & Frederick Spencer (1798-1857)
  8. Charles Robert Spencer (1857-1922) & Margaret Baring (1868-1906)
  9. Albert Edward John Spencer (1892-1975) & Cynthia Elinor Beatrix Hamilton (1897-1972)
  10. Edward John Spencer (1924-1992) & Frances Ruth Burke Roche (b. 1936)
  11. Diana Frances Spencer (1961-1997)

(Since it's been queried, here's the line. A "bastard" descent, but a descent nonetheless. No idea what's up with James II, "slaveholder") - Nunh-huh 00:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could I add that the artcle makes Diana the first English woman to marry the heir to the throne since James D of York and Anne Hyde. Technically, there was no throne at this time. Had there been, I imagine his bride would have been more tightly vetted. I think the last time the heir presumptive married an English woman was when George Duke of Clarence married Isabella Neville. the throne was disputed at that point, so Richard Duke of York marrying Cecily Neville might be better. The last time the Heir apparent married an English woman must surely have been when Edward Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) married Joan, Countess of Kent. Whichever way you look it it, it was a very unconventional choice for Prince Charles.

Chris Gidlow 15 June 2006

Duke of York and the slave trade

Degree of involvement

From 158.152.12.77

If anyone is sceptical about the description of James II as a slave trader, please could they check this out with a simple Google search such as:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22duke+of+york%22+slaves

When he was Duke of York he was head of the Royal African Company, set up in 1660, the year the Stuarts retook the throne, a company which monopolised the English slave trade. His slaves were branded on the forehead with the letters 'DY' for 'Duke of York'. He is a much written-about figure and plenty has been written about his role as a slave-owner.

He also happens to be the person whom the city of New York is named after.

But, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the above, how is this relevant to this article? fabiform | talk 04:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Only insofar as a guy is mentioned one of her famous ancestors, saying he was king is saying one important thing about him, saying he was a big-time slave-owner (basically running the English slave trade for years) is saying another, equally important.

(158.152.12.77)

Saying that he was king identifies who he was. His association with the slave trade is an utterly irrelevant detail in an article about Princess Di. john 18:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, John. First, 'king' is not 'who someone is', it's an office, or what they do. Second, the place where I have now restored the slave ref. is to when he was Duke of York, in which context he is *best known* for his colonial-military-naval and slaving activities - i.e. activities in the New World (Yorktown and New York were both named after him), and running the Royal African Company. (158.152.12.77)

Once again, no. The article is not about James II. The article is about Princess Diana. The one part of the article is meant to describe her descent from British monarchs; the other to describe the fact that she was the first Englishwoman to marry an heir to the throne since Anne Hyde, who married the Duke of York, who was later James II. I don't see why his colonial endeavors are of any interest in this article , while the fact that he was King James II is essential to identifying who he is. If you want to discuss his slave trading, the James II article is the place to do it. Otherwise I could add in details about the glorious revolution, or his Catholicism, or Jacobitism, or anything else about James II. john 00:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, yes. (What do you mean by 'once again, no' by the way?) You say "I don't see why his colonial endeavors are of any interest in this article, while the fact that he was King James II is essential to identifying who he is. If you want to discuss his slave trading, the James II article is the place to do it. Otherwise I could add in details about the glorious revolution, or his Catholicism, or Jacobitism, or anything else about James II."

You imply that all other facts about the 'Duke of York' other than that he became 'king' are equally irrelevant. But in another paragraph, there are references to things done by other ancestors - that one was an heiress, another was a stockbroker, another was an actor, another was a merchant. I cannot see why those who later became recognised as monarchs should be excused from having anything said about what they did. I suggest just inserting 'slave-trader' before 'Duke of York', to tie in with the single-word descriptions of other ancestors' activities. If one ancestor was a stockbroker, why is this relevant, whereas the fact that another was a slave-trader supposedly isn't? (158.152.12.77)

(further note) The ref. is certainly a 'comment' in the given sentence, but there are many others in the article and the information is in keeping with the sort of information given about other ancestors. (I believe I am stating facts here, rather than opinions).

Second, I quite agree that if I want to discuss his slave-trading, the place to do it is in his own entry. There is more information about his slave-trading there, and I'm quite happy with the amount of information included and the way it's presented. But in this article, what I think appropriate is not a discussion, but rather just a single reference to his activity (which, let it be said, was a very big role in the global slave-trade in the 17th century, probably much more impoirtant than the role of the stock-broking ancestor in stock-broking). (158.152.12.77)

The other things are used to give some explanation of the background of Diana's ancestors. That one was a stockbroker, or whatever. The background of James II is that he was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Any details beyond that belong in the article about him. I will continue to revert this ridiculousness. john 21:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are quick to say 'ridiculous' but employ a curious usage of the word 'background', and are not responding to my points except to repeat yourself. You seem to think non-titled people can reasonably have brief references to what they actually did in their lives, but titled people can't. You have not posted any good reason for saying that this individual's major role in the Atlantic slave trade is not a relevant part of his 'background' that can reasonably be referred to very briefly, just as briefly as other people's 'backgrounds' are referred to. Do you perhaps have a 'kings and queens' view of 'history'? This is not in my view what Wikipedia should be about. Reference to his role as a slave-owner is perfectly in keeping with short comments and background included in this article and many others. For example -- see the reference to the 'Queen Mother's' ancestors who were Virginian merchants. Why should this reference be in the Princess Diana article? Do you think it should be included, or do you think it should be removed? Personally I have no problem with it, since it provides a little background. So does the reference to the 'Duke of York's' activities. I will continue to revert too. I suggest that if you want to be consistent, you should do some work and propose the pruning out of everything you consider to be superfluous information. (158.152.12.77)

I don't think this information is relevant here at all. silsor 02:00, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Relevance to Diana

The fact that he was a slave trader is relatively unimportant compared to, say, the fact that he was King of England from 1685-1688, had converted to Catholicism, and was kicked out in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Unless we discuss these latter facts, we have no business talking about the former. john 07:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Please could you compare the James II information with the information I mentioned about other ancestors that is currently included, rather than use an analogy argument referring to information that no-one wants included. To be consistent you should want the Virginian merchants reference excluded - this is only one example, but it's a good example and I would like to hear your reason for having no problem with this reference, but having a problem with the slave-trader reference. At the moment consistency upholds my position - unless of course, as I said, you suggest a number of other excisions. Please also recognise for the sake of accuracy that the 'Duke of York' was not just 'a' slave-trader; he was personally in charge of the entire British slave trade - a fact which led him to be very influential in North America and elsewhere.(158.152.12.77)


Seriously, give it up, you're never going to convince anybody that your ridiculous addition is worthwhile. john 08:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

James, his mother, and sister-in-law were among the many trustees or members of the Royal Adventurer Company. Despite being reorganised it collapsed in 1667 and only in 1672 did the Royal African Company come along. James was a trustee and member because it made money, which is the purpose of monopolies. But the company traded in all goods, not just slaves. References to minor posts in third party articles is irrelevant and may be NPOV And to claim he ran the English slave trade for years shows a definite misunderstanding of 17th century nobility's idea of work. Get the title & position, get the money, then pay someone else to work. garryq 10:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This page has been locked for quite a while now. Are we any closer to consensus on this (embarassingly minor) issue? (By "we" I guess I mean you, User:158.152.12.77, since no one else has spoken up in favor of mentioning James II's arguably-tenuous connection to the slave trade in this wholly unrelated article about Diana.) Saucepan 05:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Can't we just automatically revert, and eventually block the IP address if he keeps doing this? I mean, it's totally bogus trolling. john 07:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Full Name

Recently I have been told that the original and full name of Diana is less known. I have googled a lot, but couldn't find anything. If anyone knows that, you may add that in the article. --Rrjanbiah 04:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? It's in there. She was born as the Hon. Diana Frances Spencer. When her father became Earl Spencer in 1975, she became the Lady Diana Frances Spencer. john 05:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not sure and not convincing. Anyway, what is "Hon." (Honourable? awarded when born?) -Rrjanbiah 06:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styles_and_titles_of_peers#Children_of_Peers for the answer to this question Mintguy (T) 09:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not convincing? What on earth are you talking about. She was "honourable" as the daughter of a courtesy viscount. She became "Lady" as daughter of an Earl. john 09:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Making Diana a saint"

After her death people remain interested in Diana's life. Numerous manufacturers of collectibles continue to produce Diana merchandise. Some suggested making Diana a saint, stirring much controversy.

I think this last sentence should be recast as "Some suggested canonizing Diana, stirring much controversy.", both for the sake of adding the link, and also because "making someone a saint" is an inaccurate description of the process (as is discussed at the linked article). Could someone with edit privs make this change, please? Marnanel 20:00, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Canonizing implies the formal Roman Catholic process. The Church of England has no such scheme. The idiomatic "making someone a saint" is an acceptable term, even if not theologically accurate; "proving" or "recognizing" are more accurate but confusing & pedantic for a lay discussion garryq 09:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it's confusing as it stands: the fact that there's no analogous C of E process was what made me assume it meant the Catholic process in the first place. If there's no referent to "making X a saint", what were these people actually suggesting should happen? Marnanel 17:44, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
This passage is rather questionable. It shouldnt be in the page unsourced in light of the fact that's it not possible to canonise someone who isn't catholic and very unusual for anyone to be suggested so soon after their death.

The bastard descent

nunh-huh

Diana was the youngest daughter of Frances Ruth Burke-Roche (daughter of the fourth Baron Fermoy) and Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, making Diana a descendant of many of the kings of England in the modern era, including Charles I, Charles II, and James II. Of Ohioan and American ancestry as well, she was a great-granddaughter of Frances Ellen Work (the Hon. Mrs James Boothby

Like any Jacobite I'm glad to see the "Kings over the Water" back in the line of succession :) but can this para. be tidied up? There's only need to mention descent from James II, and of course as a Stuart isn't the descent from Kings of Scots is more apparent? garryq 11:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

What is "in the modern era" supposed to mean? I'm not sure I'd describe any of the Charleses or Jameses as "in the modern era", as I'd probably restrict that to the last couple of centuries (during which there have been of course no Kings of England). Also, it's a bit pointless to claim that she has descent from both Charles II and Charles I, as the former was the son of the latter and so it'd be slightly difficult to be descended only from him (and the same goes for James II and Charles I). I'd also stick a "the former" before her mother's name, since she wasn't called that when Diana was born. One more thing: I should think Ohioan ancestry implies American ancestry, as Ohio was in the US the last time I checked. Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using "Burke-Roche", assuming that was her mothers maiden name, but she was far better known as Mrs Shand-Kydd(e), so that deserves a mention. As far as Royal descent goes, when Bill Clinton visited Ireland a newspaper reported a new industry in trying to find Irish origins, no matter how obscure. Maybe the same with the royal family, as long as it doesn't waste space in the article garryq 18:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
"The modern era", in (British) historical terms, is generally meant to be c. 1650 onwards (IIRC). It's used as a particular common phrase, rather than with 'modern' as an adjective of subjective judgment.
Agreed about the Ohio/American thing, though. Is it North American or United-States-ian, though?
James F. (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I did some tidying up and only just noticed the message saying the article was "protected". Deb 17:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Princess Diana"

Is the occasional incorrect use of "Princess Diana" on this page deliberate, or can it be removed? Proteus (Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It won't be deliberate, just someone editing who doesn't know any better. Feel free to get rid of it. Deb 20:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
They're all now gone except the one in Bill Clinton's speech. I think a [sic] would be a little harsh, though. :) Proteus (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. ;-)
James F. (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I'm "dictating English usage". "Colloquial" means, according to the OED, "Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language". Thus "Prince Charles" could be said to be a colloquial form for "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales", but "Princess Diana" isn't appropriate in any form of conversation - it's simply a result of ignorance used by those who don't know any better. And "strictly incorrect" gives the impression that it's tolerated, when it isn't by anyone with any clue about such matters, including Diana herself, who often corrected people when they called her that. "Princess Diana" is utterly and completely incorrect, and it is absolutely necessary for any encyclopaedia to point out that incorrect things are incorrect (unless you want to add "colloquially known as the Queen of England" to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's in extremely common and popular usage, and the fact of its common usage needs to be acknowledged. It may be a point of view you think you can prove incorrect, but it's one that needs mentioning for NPOV - David Gerard 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Colloquially, but incorrectly, known as Princess Diana"? john k 01:15, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 15:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Colloquially' implies just in speech. However, the mass media, including the BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian routinely use it, especially in headlines. The Times's style guide says not to use it but their website routinely does so anyway. This needs mentioning. Morwen - Talk 15:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Commonly, but incorrectly, known as Princess Diana"? john k 16:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That sounds best. I'll change it if there are no objections. Proteus (Talk) 11:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd say leave the present one and add a separate paragraph outside the intro. Noting that she made a point of correcting people who said "Princess Diana" - David Gerard 13:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course, why say for someone else to do it when I could do it myself. Title stuff is now in a separate section at the end. "Strictly incorrect" for the intro, but just plain "incorrect" for the article. Is this suitable? - David Gerard 13:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

revert

I reverted this edit because I really don't like the way it's phrased, particularly the "(!)", the comment and the lack of edit summary... what is it trying to say? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:07, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

First error: 0:25, and not 0:22
Second error: Diana was allegedly bloody. In the pictures no blood and no injuries are to be seen, and the car is damaged only in the front side. The roof of the car was removed only later at 1:15.
A few weeks later, rival network CBS showed pictures of the crash taken by the photographers showing an intact rear side and an intact Center section of the Mercedes, including one of a not bloody Diana crouched on the rear floor of the vehicle with her back to the right passenger seat - the right rear car door is completely opened (!) - See also: German Bild Zeitung, 24. April 2004, page 8 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tod_der_Lady_Diana_Spencer_-_die_nachweisbaren_Fakten
Dietmar 11:00, 2004 Jun 20
Eyewitness report, Frederick Maillez: "I went to the wreckage to see what was going on inside," says Maillez, who tended to the seriously injured princess after the crash. "I can tell you her face was still beautiful. She didn’t have any injuries, main injury on her face. She was unconscious. She didn’t speak at all." , in: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/48hours/main612794.shtml and in many newspapers, April 21, 2004 (CBS News)
But eyewitness Paparazzi Laslo Veres is saying: "She was not unconscious" and eyewitness fireman Carlo Zaglia is saying: "She speak at all".
Dietmar 13:40, 24 Jun 2004

As far as I can see, Maillez is saying that she didn't have any injuries on her face, not that she didn't have any apparent injuries. And I have no idea what "She speak at all" means. john k 16:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eyewitness Carlo Zaglia: She could speak, she could hear, their eyes was open. She looks at me with her large eyes and says: " What´s here the matter? What happened here? Show me, what´s going on !" (see German weblink)
Eyewitness Frederick Maillez: In an interview with "Newsweek," he described what happened next. "I held her hand and spoke to her, took her pulse, put the resuscitation mask on her, assured her that she was safe." Notice: she was assumed unconscious.
The paparazzi at the scene have been quoted as saying that Diana told rescue workers, "Leave me alone" and "My God."; in: http://www.coverups.com/diana/french.htm
Dietmar 8:30, 29 Jun 2004

Primary source

Thanks dietmar, that is what I was looking for. Burgundavia 15:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)


A very new primary source: The last photo of lady Diana Spencer, 20 seconds before crash, sitting in the center in the background, and a photo of James Andanson: "James Andanson, a photo graph with relations with government circles and secret service. Did James Andanson suicide commit? James Andanson was according to secret service reports several days with Diana and Dodi on board of a yacht, and - it is said - he was at the time of the collision in the tunnel. ( Only five hours later, on the early morning, he flew away with the airplane??) In the year 2000 soldiers found his charred corpse on a troop exercise area. Everything pointed on suicide. But its friends doubt the official version. Did the Paparazzo know too much about Dianas death in the tunnel?
in: German television "ZDF", http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/0/0,1872,2122944,00.html
And: "The videos of different monitoring cameras show against it a completely inconspicuous Henri Paul during the relevant period." One can be absolutely safe, he had never an alcohol content of 1,74 parts per thousand, the driver with an excellent centrifuge-course-training for Mercedes cars.
Dietmar, 17:20, Jun 27, 2004


The largest most interesting primary source: 4 photos, taken up only 7 minutes after the accident: http://www.wethepeople.la/alma2.htm


Dietmar, 8:30, Jun 29, 2004

The Queen

I've changed back someone's changing of a sentence to read how Diana when she threw herself down the stairs was found by a "horrified Queen." Using Queen is wrong on a number of accounts.

  1. Text style guides suggest in that context it should be lowercased as queen. (I think the idea nonsense, but they say that.)
  2. Saying, as the person who made change did, that who the queen in the sentence is is umbiguously wrong. The Queen to Britain means Elizabeth II, to Danish people, it means Margrethe II, to some Greeks, it means Queen Anne Marie, to Dutch people it means Queen Beatrix, to Belgian people, Paola, to Spaniards, Sofia, etc. Using The Queen is something best avoided in wikipedia because not everyone instinctively thinks of the same person when the see the phrase, while others who don't have english as a first language may not grasp all the nuances and implications in the article and know exactly what you mean. (That's why people refer to the current US president as George W, to avoid any confusion with the other George (H) Bush.) Plus, in strict factual terms, foreign royalty regularly stay at Balmoral. So "a horrified Queen" could in theory be any one of twenty queens visiting, or the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
  3. Saying in that a horrified Queen Elizabeth is also a non-starter. Queen Elizabeth was a term which when used applied to the Queen Mother in Britain. To indicate the reigning monarch, not her mother you use the ordinal, Queen Elizabeth II.

So to avoid capitalisation problems, anglo-centric language and avoid confusion you need to say office-name-ordinal, ie Queen Elizabeth II. FearÉIREANN 18:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


That really makes for an ugly sentence.

I think the context (an article about the British royal family) makes it completely clear that we're referring to the specific Queen who was Diana's mother-in-law - rather than, say, Queen Beatrix of Holland. Queen Elizabeth II is, in this context, the 'default' Queen, if you will.

Throughout the article, we refer to a number of people by their first names - eg Charles, William, Harry, Dodi, etc. It's ambiguous, but readers can be expected to work it our from the context. By your argument, we shouldn't refer to 'Charles' because readers might think we mean Charles Bronson or Charles De Gaulle.

So anyway, I've changed it to 'horrified mother-in-law' which is specific without being so clunky.

(I agree that 'she was discovered by a horrified queen' is nonsense - it sounds rather Queer Eye for the Straight Guy)

82.43.194.220 10:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

D's influence on Landmines legislation - Hansard as primary source

Hansard is the official record of what's said in the UK houses of parliament.

I've added a link to the Government's introduction of the second reading of the Landmines Bill: [3] which specifically mentions Diana as an influence.

I wasn't sure how best to explain the concept of a second reading though... or maybe there's something we could link to...

82.43.194.220 13:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

High Treason?

"...while the Princess of Wales had become involved with James Gilby. She later confirmed she had also had an affair with her riding instructor, James Hewitt. (Theoretically, such an affair constituted high treason in both parties.)"

Is it actually high treason for the wife of the heir-apparent to commit adultery? The only cites I can find are for Queen-Consorts. Was this issue actually raised when the scandel broke? I think it's highly unlikely that the British gov't would even consider trying to use the Treasons laws against Diana. (Alphaboi867 20:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Yes, I'm afraid it is. Under the Treason Act from the middle ages it is high treason to "violate" the queen, the wife of the heir apparent, or the monarch's oldest unmarried daughter. Apparently this can refer to consensual sex, not just rape. PatGallacher 22:25, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

trivia in article.

There seems to be a lot of peripheral trivia being added, and not in a particularly informed way. For example:

Prior to her marriage, much research was done into Diana's lineage by genealogists. It was discovered that her ancestry included links to such varied persons as romantic novelist Barbara Cartland [6], Hollywood screen legend Humphrey Bogart (who was her 7th cousin), and poet Edmund Spenser, the author of The Faerie Queen [7]. Actor Oliver Platt is reportedly also related fairly closely to Diana.

Surely Diana was not so dim-witted that she required the services of a genealogist to tell her her stepmother was Barbara Cartland's daughter! The other relationships are questionable (Spenser) or unimportant (Bogart & Platt). An entire book was published on just part of this subject (Roberts, Gary Boyd & William Addams Reitwiesner, American Ancestors and Cousins of The Princess of Wales, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, Maryland, 1984): there's no reason to single out these three relatives. And surely we should not be report that X "is related to" Y, but rather what that relationship is, and from which person they share a common descent (in Platt & Diana's case, James Boothby Burke Roche and his wife Frances née Work).

And then there's:

In astrology both new and old, eclipses (whether solar or lunar) are thought to be omens of significant events, births, or other important developments that are occuring or about to occur. The course of Diana's life is a remarkable example of a life touched very powerfully by these celestial alignments. Firstly, a solar eclipse occurred only one day after Princess Diana and Prince Charles were married on 29 July 1981. Next, their firstborn son Prince William, the future King of England, was born slightly over a year later only a few hours after a solar eclipse occurred on 21 June 1982. Ten and a half years later, Princess Diana and Prince Charles were formally seperated on 9 December 1992, the exact day of a lunar eclipse. Finally, Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997, only one day before a solar eclipse occurred.

which has no place in a serious article. Not only is it irrelevant, it plays fast and loose with truth (solar eclipse where? how is that place relevant to the events mentioned? pretense that eclipses are generally considered significant in astrology, etc.)

Just my opinion of course, but if anyone agrees they might consider radical excision. - Nunh-huh 07:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The astrology stuff is bunkum that should be dumped. But the facts about who she was related to is factual stuff and belongs in the article IMHO. FearÉIREANN 08:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stillborn

On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy.

Uh?????


As a future Queen, D. had to be 'Protestant and a virgin'

As this is an issue that's come up before, I thought it was worth mentioning my amendment on the talk page.

Issue 1: Had to be Protestant

I've amended it so it doesn't say she had to be Protestant any more, as I don't think this is correct. She merely had to be a non-Catholic - but I've now omitted this entirely as it didn't seem all that specific to Diana.

Anyone who marries a Catholic or converts to Catholicism is excluded from the line of succession. However, Diana could have converted to Catholicism following her marriage, and Charles would have still be in line. john k 02:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
amended to "had to have an aristocratic background, and could not be a Catholic" in light of comments here and below. 82.44.93.140 16:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is not accurate, in that it implies that the two requirements are similar. They are not. Not being Catholic is a statutory requirement. Another statutory requirement is that the marriage has to be approved by the queen. Beyond that, there are no statutory requirements. I guess one might say that the queen was only going to approve someone from an aristocratic background who could be plausibly claimed to be a virgin. But that's about it. john k 17:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisors, any potential bride had to have an aristocratic background and could not have been previously married - and for Charles to remain in the line of royal succession, he could not marry a Catholic."
 ?
Hic 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issue 2: Had to be a virgin

Again, I've deleted this as I don't think it's true. There's certainly no suggestion that anyone would have checked. I think the real issue here is that she couldn't be a divorcee (and as things are turning out with Camilla, it's looking as though this would actually have been possible anyway - although would have certainly raised more conservative eyebrows).82.44.93.140 17:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • I have read media reports that suggest she was checked to determine her virginity. Although I doubt she would have been rejected if she was proven to be less than chaste. Astrotrain 20:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wasn't part of the reason Camilla was regarded as an unsuitable consort because she was "less than chaste"? (Alphaboi867 00:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

The issue of not being a Roman Catholic was vitally important in the case of Diana, like all royal brides. If she had been a Catholic, the moment Charles had married her he would have been excluded from the succession as I think would th

re- being a virgin. No she didn't have to be. Plenty of royal brides have had plenty of sex before marriage. What they did not want, understandably, was for some former lover of the royal bride to turn up and sell his story to the Sun about 'How Diana was fantasic at sex' - let alone describe her skill with bjs, etc. Being a virgin was a guarantee that there were no other secret lovers willing to sell their story. On a practical level, it meant that she could not be secretly pregnant by someone else when she married Charles. In olden days it wasn't always easy to make sure a royal bride was not already pregnant with someone else's child when she married a royal, and that of course could have raised all sorts of problems. Today there is no problem with that. Pregnancy tests are easy. The key issue is - are there any former lovers out there capable of embarrassing the royal couple later on?

Camilla was not suitable again not because she wasn't a virgin, but because she had not been very discriminating and low-key in her sex life. The Palace couldn't be sure that the National Enquirer or some such "newspaper" (in inverted commas) wouldn't have a fieldday raking over her past, with ex-lovers, or friends of lovers, revealing her saucy secrets. If Camilla had had lovers whom the Palace thought 'one of us' (ie., likely to keep the events secret out of loyalty to the throne) they would probably have accepted her, albeit uneasily. But her lovers had been middle class and not people in royal circles so there was a real fear that 'one of them' would spill the beans for money. And of course the fact that she had a grandmother who had been a mistress was a big black mark. She was, in the snobby world of royal staff, fit to be a mistress but not queenly material.

Diana's father, Johnny Spencer, may have been a violent thug who beat up his first wife and got drunk all the time, and his wife may have been the sort of woman who ran off and dumped her kids, not to mention her grandmother on one side being a right battleaxe and her grandfather on the other being nutter than a cadbury's fruit'n'nut, but because they were of the right class and background they were seen as likely to keep quiet on any dirty linen. (And it has been claimed that Diana most definitely had not been a virgin when she married. But the man rumoured to be her lover refuses point blank to tell the story (even though tabloids over the years have supposedly offered him vast sums of money. But he came from the right background and could be guaranteed never ever to talk about it. If only James Hewitt was as loyal!!!) FearÉIREANN 01:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

    • Wasn't Camilla's status as a divorcee the central reason why Charles couldn't marry her, if he wanted to stay in the line of royal succession? (cf Abdication Crisis of Edward VIII). Haven't heard those rumours about Camilla before, expect you're right that if that was the case then it would be a black mark against her, but would be interested to see some sources. 82.44.93.140 16:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • This time around. But she wasn't in the 1970s before she married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Charles's hesitancy in asking her to marry her was that, while she was the person he wanted to marry, he wasn't sure if she was the person who would be accepted as queen. She wasn't from the usual royal bride background, and had lived a sex-life that while reflecting the livestyles of many British people in the 1960s and 1970s was not what was perceived acceptable for royal brides, at least not acceptable when it could potentially become public where her ex-lovers were not from a background that would have kept quiet out of loyalty to the throne and the monarchy, as in the past.
      • John Brown was also not thought suitable as a partner for Queen Victoria because of his background and class. Whether he was or was not Victoria's lover is still debated, though increasing primary documents from the period (including that of a reported deathbed conversation with the senior dean who supposed married them given to a senior politician and which is contained in his newly unearthed diaries), suggests that they were probably lovers and possibly secretly married. The refusal of the Royal Archives to allow anyone see the papers on the issue, when almost everything else by Victoria can be read by historians, is seen by historians as deeply suspicious and lends credence to the lover/husband story. Class and sexual past was also the main reason why there was such opposition to Wallace Simpson marrying King Edward. Queen Mary openly claimed she had won her son's heart through "oriental sexual techniques". Her status as a divorceé was the excuse that was seized on to stop the marriage to someone people believed was utterly unsuitable to be queen and a national symbol. But even if she wasn't a divorceé, "this American slut", in the words of one letterwriter, was thought unsuitable as a royal bride. FearÉIREANN 21:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These 'oriental sexual techniques' sound fun. I wonder if it's possible to take evening classes?.... --Hic 11:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't get too excited, from an unguarded comment by HRH Elizabeth, Queen Mother, she was probably referring to nothing more exotic than oral sex chrisboote 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New - Issue 3: What's all this about Lord Mountbatten?

"In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisors,
including his great-uncle Lord Mountbatten, "

"Mrs Parker Bowles had been dismissed by Lord Mountbatten as a 
potential spouse for the heir to throne some years before"

Is it true? - any sources for this? --Hic 14:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too would like to sources cited. Especially for the claim of noble birth - would this really have worried Earl Mountbatten of Burma, as the Battenburg family were created from an unequal marriage? garryq 13:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before, but I would have thought it would have had more to do with her character than her birth (if there's any truth in it). For example, if it were generally known that she was not a virgin, that would be a point against her. Deb 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deweaseling

But the samples were also said to contain a level of carbon monoxide sufficiently high as to have prevented him from driving a car (or even from standing up). Some maintain this strongly indicates that the samples were tampered with. No official DNA test has been carried out on the samples, and Henri Paul's family has not been allowed to commission independent tests on them.

Who said?

Is it [4] which has "His family and Dodi's father, Mohamed al Fayed"?

Who some? Reference for the last sentence?

Also I notice several pages of the smoking gun archive is referenced inlined, wouldn't it be better to {{fn|n}} link them to the External link "Keydoc"? -Wikibob | Talk 00:19, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Entry Title Alteration

FYI: If I have read the history of this entry closely enough, a Wiki called Royalpirate has altered the introductory description from "Diana, Princess of Wales" to "Diana, Duchess of Cornwall." I have changed it back to the Wales designation, for obvious reasons. Mowens35 10:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arms

Are these really Diana's personel arms? They look like the arms of Earl Spencer, and not Diana. Although I guess Diana would have used the Royal Arms impaled with the Spencer arms as a Queen consort of Charles. After her divorce, I think she used the letter D, crowned. Astrotrain July 3, 2005 19:21 (UTC)

A woman uses her fathers arms unless she herself is armigerous. After her divorce she was no longer entitled to impale the royal arms so would have reverted to using her fathers, I don't think she was ever granted arms of her own. The "letter D" is simply a mongram, in the same way the the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme uses his PP monogram (http://www.theaward.org/) rather than his coat of arms or badge. garryq 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Diana's arms as Princess of Wales were exemplified by the College of Arms and can still be seen here - they were the arms of Spencer impaled with the arms of the Prince of Wales, with a dexter supporter from her husband and a sinister supporter based on her father's, but with a royal crown and chain. A College of Arms ruling of 6 November 1997 says: "Divorced women should (as hitherto) revert to their paternal arms on a lozenge until remarriage; the use of the mascle to indicate divorce will be optional." This was duly applied to Diana after her divorce, and her arms are authoritatively displayed by the College of Arms here - (scroll to bottom of page) accordingly: i.e., a lozenge of the arms of Spencer only, with her two Spencer supporters (dropping the Prince of Wales dexter supporter but retaining the coronets and chains). As a married woman, she had the coronet of the Prince of Wales, with its single arch; after her divorce, the College of Arms topped her arms with the coronet of a princess of England (compare illustrations at Gutenberg scrolling down to "Crown and Coronet"). But I see that the article now includes no coats of arms at all! So perhaps the question is now academic. Chelseaboy 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Wales succession box

I can see why User:Astrotrain might see a problem with a succession box, but some sort of box needs to be to link Diana to those who were POW before. I've reworded the box to

  • refer to the previous princess of wales etc
  • included the dates

That should mean that it is patiently obvious to everyone that Diana did not inherit her title from someone, merely that Mary of Teck was the last person to be Princess of Wales, and that Camilla was the next person. (Again I've left a note explaining that while she is Princess of Wales, Camilla does not use that title, as per Lord Chancellor's reply to the question in parliament). That should clear up matters.

FearÉIREANNImage:Irish flag.gif\(caint) 7 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Maybe a Princess of Wales template (ie showing all of them) would be more appropiate? Astrotrain July 7, 2005 17:33 (UTC)

Infobox

How come the infobox is not adjusted to the right? I do not know how to adjust it... WhisperToMe 00:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon?

Could someone please explain why this article is in the Gay icon category? I've never heard or read anything associating the Princess of Wales with anything of the sort. Then again, I'm an ignorant little American who read Paul Burrell's book and probably doesn't know any better, but cut me some slack. 青い(Aoi) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilde's persecution has made him something of an icon for the modern gay community. In September 1997, a poll conducted by a gay magazine listed him at number 2 in the top 500 lesbian and gay heroes - curiously, first place went to Diana, Princess of Wales, a person who would never have become a celebrity but for her marriage. [5] Mark1 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for that very quick response! 青い(Aoi) 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

New Photo

I look at this article occasionally, but don't have it on my watchlist. I noticed tonight that the photo at the top of the article had been replaced by one which I thought was less suitable. Obviously, that's a subjective judgment. However, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or consensus regarding this, so I hope nobody will mind that I revert back to the one that was there a week ago. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the old one was much nicer (unless there were copyright problems with it) - Adrian Pingstone 07:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Censorship

User Clawson keeps removing citations of works that allege Diana's assassination. Clawson's standard is that if he thinks something is "crackpot" or "crank," then it is not a reliable source and must be removed. Whether or not we agree with allegations of assassination, regarding Diana or JFK Jr. or whomever, to censor such existing allegations is to whitewash the controversy surrounding the article as it stands. -- James

Nice try. What I removed were links, in the External links section, that served no purpose to the article. Or do you propose that every marginal theory about anything should be linked on Wikipedia? Why don't you go add some links to how George W. Bush is in bed with the Saudis, or how the Mossad actually carried out the 9-11 attacks? Let me know how that works out for you.--chris.lawson 11:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't have to. Those theories are already cited in Bush family conspiracy theory and 9/11 conspiracy theories, though I don't personally support either allegation.
Note that both pages you just linked include "conspiracy theory" in their titles.
When you write a page about "Princess Diana Assassination Conspiracy Theory", you're welcome to include the links there.--chris.lawson 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine (even though "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term). But in all cases, the "main" page will at least mention the *existence* of a controversy or a conspiracy that is dealt with in depth elsewhere. -- James

Which this article already does, in a sensible and neutral way. What's your issue with it?--chris.lawson 03:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Relationships

Just wanted to get opinion on a couple of minor points before making any changes: "and, lastly, heart surgeon Hasnat Khan" - shouldn't the lastly be removed, as Dodi Fayed would surely be the last person she was involved with? Also, I think if James Gilbey is mentioned it would only be accurate to also mention Will Carling in the same "possibly" category - nothing was ever publicly admitted, but there was a huge fuss made at the time, with photographs of Diana and Carling together, then Carling's divorce.

Princess ? Diana?

If Diana was not "Princess Diana", does the same not apply to the current wave of European "princesses" for example Mary Donaldson and Laetizia Ortiz ? and was Grace Kelly not, in fact, Princess Rainier ?

I am not sure about Mary and Letizia. But, in the UK, "Princess Name" implies a princess of the blood, a daughter born to the sovereign or a son of the sovereign. Of the current wave of "princesses", only Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant and her sister-in-law Princess Claire of Belgium are "Princess Name", they were created Princesses in Belgium in their own right prior to their marriages. Hope that helps, and if I am wrong, please correct me. Prsgoddess187 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Each country is different. For example, in Denmark, wives use their own name, ie. Princess Alexandra of Denmark even during her marriage was NOT Princess Joachim. Greece follows the system where wives use their husband's names, ie. Prince and Princess Andrew. I find this a bit weird since the Greek Royal Family is a scion of the Danish Royal House. You can't just look at one country's practices and ask oh is it the same as other countries? Obviously not, every country is different.
I believe in most countries, it is a matter of tradition. To my personal knowledge, only Greece follows the same practice as the British (Princess Husband's name). TRH Princesses Mathilde and Claire of Belgium, as well as HRH Princess Maxima of the Netherlands were all granted titles in their own rights, but according to the websites of the Danish, Norwegian, Spanish and Dutch royal families, wifes use the style HRH Princess Name. Therefore, I believe that it is correctly HRH Crown Princess Mary of Denmark,HRH Crown Princess Mette-Marit, HRH Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, HRH Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, etc. In Spain, however, HRH Letizia, Princess of Asturias does not use the title Infanta, although her husband is HRH Infante Felipe, Prince of Asturias. I hope that helps.

Diana ceasing to be Princess of Wales

Have added that Diana lost title of "Princess of Wales" not just the HRH and that this was like divorced peeresses since she ceased being Princess of Wales after her divorce - have done this before but people keep on deleting it.

I know. Someone deleted it again. I've corrected the terminology yet again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,,1409833,00.html she kept part of her title, she was diana, princess of wales, legaly untill her death--Happyhaydn 13:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we know; hence the article title... That doesn't mean she was Princess of Wales, merely that she was called "Diana, Princess of Wales". Proteus (Talk) 14:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Diana, Princess of Wales wasn't actually retaining any part of her original title because her original title was HRH The Princess of Wales which was a royal title, whereas after divorce she lost all royal titles and adopted a non-royal (i.e. legal) one (which I'm assuming was the same status as a Mr or Mrs) That isn't to say of course HRH The Princess of Wales wasn't a legal title, but just trying to differentiate between royal and non-royal titles. Also, I'm not quite sure what "Diana, Princess of Wales" acted as - the word title is used here but does it just mean title in the sense of name etc (same as Mr, Mrs, Miss, Surnames) or was she just styled "Diana, Princess of Wales" and actually legally reverted back to her maiden name "Lady Diana Spencer", or was she "Lady Diana Windsor" retaining her marriage surname. Did "Princess of Wales" in the "Diana, Princess of Wales" act as her legal surname? If it wasn't a legal surname, what was it - just a style? Was she also, consequentially, "Diana, Duchess of Cornwall etc". Also, why did the present Duchess of Cornwall retain her marriage name after she'd divorce? What is the difference between "Mrs Andrew Parker Bowles" and "Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles" - surely if she was divorced she wouldn't be a "Mrs". Finally, am I correct in thinking Diana ceased to be any type of princess or have any royal status/title after her divorce?

I was wondering, about Diana's titles, if her ultimate title shouldn't be Lady Diana, Princess of Wales. She never ceased to be the daughter of an Earl, and so after her divorce, she was entitled to be addressed as Lady Diana. However, I know that this title was rarely used because of the popularity of "Princess Diana."

Yes I think it's true she could've styled herself "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but it sounds a bit clumsy ... I don't personally think it should be put in since she was theoretically always Lady Diana, but she wasn't ever called through her marriage "HRH Lady Diana, The Princess of Wales". I think thats because after her marriage she was a spouse and then a divorcee, which were different things to her maiden status, which is probably why she didn't wish to revert to it.

Following her divorce from the Prince of Wales, Diana became Diana, Princess of Wales without the style of Royal Highness. But what I am not clear about is whetever or not she was still a princess. Letter patent issued in 1996 indicated former wives of prince's would cease to be royal highnesses on divorce. It did not specifically states they would be cease to princesses. I believe there is a difference (HRH and title of prince/ess are two seperate entities) as Prince Phillip was originally created a Royal Highness and the Duke of Edinburgh but he was not a created a prince. The Queen recified this latter on when she specifically created him a prince of great britain. Any views or advise on this.

  • Diana was never a princess to begin with. She was a "Princess by marriage" as opposed to a "Princess of the blood" (as Princess Margaret was or Princess Anne is). Princess of the blood are the daughters of reigning kings or queens. Diana was only the spouse of a "Prince of the blood", so she technically was The Princess Charles, The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, etc. For more information on this, check out the Wikipedia article British princess, it will give you more information on the subject. Prsgoddess187 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course she was a princess. The fact that she was a princess by marriage rather than a princess by birth doesn't mean she wasn't a princess (hence the word "princess" in "princess by marriage"). Proteus (Talk) 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


You are correct Proteus, all I was trying to say is she was not entitled to the title of Princess Diana. Prsgoddess187 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have established that during she a Princess albeit by marriage. However, following her divorce from the Prince of Wales was still technically a Princess. Letter Patent issued in 1996 clearly removed the style of royal highness but as for the rank of Princess it seems to be unclear. From reading various literate its seems that style of royal highness and the title of prince or princess seem to separate entities i.e. someone could be a royal highness but not prince or princess (as was the case of the Duke of Edinburgh who was created a duke with the style of royal highness but was not a prince. Separate Letters patent issued by the Queen later on elevated him to the rank of prince

Diana vs. Mother Teresa

I'm sure I'm not the only one who was a bit disgusted by extreme amount of attention given to Diana following her death in comparison to Mother Teresa both of who died at about the same time. Anyone have a reference, since I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere or who can think of a way to phrase this? Nil Einne 17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Diana photo problem

This has been discussed above but I'll bring it down here so someone will notice. Is there really no crown copyright image available from the UK (or maybe even NZ, Australia etc). I appreciate she wasn't the most popular with the royal family after the affairs and the divorce and all that but surely there must be some crown copyright image that they will provided if someone pushes hard enough? Nil Einne 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Car accident

Diana's death is universally described as a car accident. That is the neutral terminology used to describe an unplanned event, as opposed to a suicide bid by a driver. The term is used to describe the motivation of the driver of the car, not outside forces that contributed. It does not mean that an accident was accidental (ie that others may not have deliberately caused it), merely that it was unplanned by the occupants of the car. No-one has suggested that the occupants deliberately crashed the car to kill themselves, so the standard terminology used is car accident. Only the most wacky conspiracy theorists have a problem with using standard terminology to describe the event. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I want 'car accident' removed and replaced with 'vehicular collision' or similar, is not because I think the "occupants willingly committed suicide, therefore it was not an accident". I want the 'accident' reference removed because there's always an uncertainty as to whether it was really an accident, and therefore "car accidents" is not a proper way to address 'vehicular collisions'. When a car crashes into something or another car, it is literally "a vehicular collision", not neccesarily a car accident. PatrickA 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
Wrong. If it was an unintended incident not deliberately caused by the driver then by definition it is an accident. Accidents can be caused deliberately, result from error, through mechanical failure, but they are all defined as road accidents irrespective of the cause once the cause itself is not a deliberate knowing act by the driver. "Vehicular collision" may be used where you come from but it is not widely used as a term internationally, therefore it is totally unsuitable for usage here. Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. The most common name for such incidents is "accident". That is what they are called by police forces worldwide also, and how they are referred to in the media worldwide. Diana's death has been described as being due to a "car accident" in every country on the planet and in every language. Opting for a rarely used, little understood term, in preference to a widely understood one, contradicts the Manual of Style requirements on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to refer to death with 'vehicle collision' rather than 'car 'accident'

I move to remove reference to Diana's death as a 'car accident'. Though this is the generally used term for any vehicle collision, it has become itself contradictory because many collisions (including Diana's) have either been confirmed to not be an accident, or have been under suspicion as not being an accident. 'Car accidents' are more and more being referred to as 'vehicle collisions' or otherwise by the media, due to the very fact I stated. All incidents whereas vehicles collide with objects and/or other vehicles are called vehicular collisions. All of these 'vehicular collisions' are not neccesarily car accidents, therefore it is inappropriate to refer to them as accidents as a whole. I already tried replacing references to 'accident' on this page with 'vehicle collision', but some people protested so I move for a vote. All in favor of replacing references to Diana's death as a 'car accident', and replacing thus with 'vehicle collision' or similar, please vote. PatrickA 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Support

  • I am in support of the change. PatrickA 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Opposed

  • FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Diana's death is never described as being as a result of a "vehicle collision". WP uses the standard terminology widely used to describe things. The standard terminological use is to say "car accident". That simply means an unplanned event that was not deliberately perpetrated by the driver (as opposed to a vehicle crash caused by a driver deliberately commiting suicide). It does not rule out the possibility that the accident was caused by outside forces (car accidents are caused by technological failures (breaks or steering), other crashing into them, swerving to avoid another vehicle, etc) just that it was not done by deliberate choice of the driver.
  • Mark1 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) As above.
  • Jezzabr As above. This sort of PC rubbish always adds verbiage which obscures the gist of the article. (If you must, say "car crash" - nobody says "vehicular collision" outside B movies)

Confusion over titles and brief querie (Princess Charles, the Duchess of Rothesay - Princess Diana, the Duchess of Rothesay)

If Diana was treated as a widow in Scotland and was permitted to retain the title of Duchess of Rothesay, then surely she would be permitted to retain the title of Princess of Scotland (and perhaps but not neccessarily) the title of HRH. I say that the title HRH is irrelevant as it is a title in the Royal family of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and not Scotland alone and in any event it is in effect a style and not a marital title. Effectively Diana could have been known as The Princess of Scotland or HRH The Princess of Scotland. Perhaps, she could have even been known as 'HRH Princess Charles, the Duchess of Rothesay' or the 'Princess Diana, Duchess of Rothesay (in order to distinguish between her and the future wife of the Prince of Wales - as the title Princess of Scotland was her's by right until she remarried). One of the latter titles in my opinion would have been very suitable. The reason I say this, is because when the Prince of Wales remarried, that wife could have been known as HRH The Princess of Wales (with the subsidiary title of Princess of Scotland and Duchess of Rothesay - as befitting the new wife of the Prince of Wales) and then there would have been no disputation about titles being cheated from certain individuals. As Diana would legally have been entitled to use these titles in accordance with the law of Scotland as if she were a widow, then why should it not have been so.

That is a good point, but she definitely wasn't an HRH after divorce by any standards as the Queen made it very clear she was to lose that title by letters patent (which covered all of the UK and was effective everywhere). Although as for the other Scottish titles I think you're probably right - although she would have had to style herself "Her Grace".

That would have been most appropriate in my opinion - As she would have been retaining Scottish titles of nobility, it would have been fitting for her to retain a Scottish style also. All Royals in the peerage of Scotland were styled His/Her Grace until the passing of the Act of Union in 1702. As peerages can still be retained in the peerage of Scotland and not neccessarily that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (As was evident with the 14th Earl and Countess of Strathmore and Kinghorne), then there was no reason to suggest that Diana could not have been known legally as Her Grace Princess Diana, The Duchess of Rothesay. I wonder why that was never considered in the negotiations as would have seemed logical for the mother of a future monarch. In fact legally (if my facts are right), that is what she was and could have legally been entitled to use if she so wished.

She couldn't have styled herself "Princess Diana" though, since she wasn't ever Princess Diana as she wasn't a princess by birth, she was I think (a) The Princess Charles [legally at least](b) The Princess of Wales and (c)? The Princess of Scotland [although theres ambiguity on what Prince/ess of Scotland serves to the heir to throne]. But weren't the Scottish peerages be invalidated aas receiving widow treatment for divorcees because the divorce was effective throughout the whole of the UK? Also, since the dukedom of Rothesay and the other Scottish titles are non-hereditary (only held by heir apparent to the throne if/when he exists) I'm not sure she could have been treated as a widow as they wouldn't have followed precedent as with other hereditary peerages (although I don't know). She would have styled herself Her Grace anyhow since she was forbidden to use HRH, and of course she wasn't royal anymore.

I don't know. it's really difficult to distinguish what she would have been called. The title Her Grace would have been due to her as being the Duchess of Rothesay surely? I only said Princess Diana as it could have been used as Princess Alice uses it (by permission of the Queen), to distinguish between the next wife of the Prince of Wales, and also because she would be using the title Princess of Scotland. She could have so easily been known as Her Grace (because of it's connection to the Dukedom of Rothesay) The Princess of Scotland. So, Camilla would have been known as HRH The Princess of Wales and Diana could have been known as Her Grace The Princess of Scotland. It could have also been used as a moral booster within Great Britain whereby each and every nation within the UK could have been formally recognized with The Princesses of Wales, Scotland and of The United Kingdom (each being Camilla, Diana and Anne). I wonder why this was never a preffered proposal. Of course, Diana would have lost these priveleges on marriage becoming simply Mrs (husbands christian name) (husbands surname).

How does the Scottish system work? Diana divorced, right? Lost all English titles (Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of Chester etc) but kept the Scottish ones? How does that work? Did that mean through the Scottish titles she still held Royal rank? Or did it just mean she was allowed to style herself (but not be) identical to a Royal Duchess? I'm not sure she was The Princess of Scotland since it was clear she wasn't any princess after divorce (that title included?) otherwise as Diana, Princess of Wales she could've styled herself "Princess Diana" after divorce to distinguish herself from any new Princess of Wales. I'm not sure the Queen would have extended her this courtesy though, since she didn't extend her the simpler courtesy of HRH. I don't think she would've been allowed (although it may have been possible) to use the title The Princess of Scotland because it's a very disused title, it always comes last in the list of the Prince of Wales's titles plus it's confusing because people would associate it with the whole of Scotland rather than the smaller historic principality it was named after (the lands in Renfrewshire) and it would therefore encourage separatism as it would imply that Scotland as a principality (not a "kingdom", or ex-kingdom) as opposed to historic kingdom like England. Plus, Diana being titled The Princess of Scotland would have meant the Scots rallying round her and she would have been a focus of an independent movement - since the new Princess of Wales and Princess Anne would have been part of the Royal family therefore associated with England etc whereas Diana cut-off from the royal family might have encouraged Scottish people not to be loyal to the crown but rather to her (she would have become exclusively Scottish royalty). Finally, she would have had to be entitled Diana, Princess of Scotland (or Dowager Princess of Scotland??) rather than The Princess of Scotland after Charles remarried since Camilla would have been the new Princess of Scotland, Duchess of Rothesay etc, by which point she may as well have been using Diana, Princess of Wales. So it would seem her Scottish titles would only have affected what she was called between divorce and Charles's remarriage.
The question is what status she had with her Scottish titles after divorce. I know Scots law treats divorcees the same as widows, but what does that mean? She could style herself the same (The Duchess of Rothesay) - but surely because she was divorced in any case this would just be a style, not a title, since the title Duchess of Rothesay would only go to the wife of the Duke of Rothesay, which she no longer was. I'm guessing she wasn't a princess, duchess, countess etc after divorce because she got all of those from her husband (she wasn't entitled to the Prince of Wales's feathers, badge etc), just styled identical to one. But I really couldn't say any of this for certain since I don't figure how it works. E.g. disregarding any HRH or "Her Grace": the wife of the Duke of Rothesay divorces from him. She stays single, her ex-husband the duke remarries. His new wife is The Duchess of Rothesay (de-facto) - is there truly no difference between the two styles? Does the ex-wife keep on being The Duchess of Rothesay after her ex-husbands remarriage or does she restyle herself Diana, Duchess of Rothesay? (by which point she may as well have done that in the first place, but she didn't because of Scots law....) She no longer is the Duchess of Rothesay (--or IS she? Is she any duchess? Does she carry the rank of a duchess, eg entitled to use coronet etc or not? [would a normal dowager?] If so, why is she styled as such?) So in the end you have The Duchess of Rothesay (divorcee) and The Duchess of Rothesay (new wife), distinguished only by Her Grace and HRH prefixes respectively?
I'm completely confused! Could someone tell me how this would work?
The rules on divorced peeresses in Scots law wouldn't apply to her, since she didn't live in Scotland: the main deciding factor is residence rather than nature of the title, and as she lived in English it would be English law that determined her title. She was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales", but this was merely a style, and she lost all actual titles on divorce, both Scottish and English. This created the slightly anomalous situation of her style in Scotland changing from "HRH The Duchess of Rothesay" to "Diana, Princess of Wales", but that's just the way these things work. (And the situation in Scots law is at any rate a theoretical one, since in practice divorced peeresses there follow the same rules as English ones, prefixing their Christian names to their titles to form a new style and losing their honorific prefixes.) Proteus (Talk) 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Move

Are we sure this page should be moved to her maiden name? I'm not sure what the rule is here on royal consorts - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon may be sorted out but what about Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester? I.e. WHICH consorts get reverted? Just queen consorts or royal ones in general?

Diana Spencer

someone changed the intor to read The Lady Diana Frances Spencer, she was NOT a consort and therfore does not revert to her maiden name. Mac Domhnaill 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

She was the consort of the Prince of Wales and so does. The BBC increasingly uses that version, for example. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Factual error. The pages states that "In November 2003, Christian Martinez and Fabrice Chassery, the photographers who took photos of the casualties after the crash, and Jacques Langevin, who took photos as the couple left the Ritz Hotel, were cleared of breaching French privacy laws [6]" However the below link suggests that they were fined, not cleared http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/22/diana.france.ap/index.html

Cartoon: Queen's reaction

If anyone can find it, I might suggest posting a certain cartoon by Mike Peters from shortly after her death, detailing the many emotions of the Queen; angry, happy, sad, scared, etc. all look the same. I remember it appeared in the first Newsweek published after Diana's death.

References

I heard somewhere that Diana was an overblown, egotistical, ignorant, self involved, pulicity seeking, uneducated, spoilt, priggish whore who did a little bit of charity work to get her face about and was rewarded with big fucking wads of cash the likes of which you or I shall never see, nevermind the poor AIDS vicitms who she exploited. However, I was saddened to see no mention of this appeared in the article (perhaps it was written by the same person whoc writes the Daily Mail and built her up to the level of saints in the first place). Does anyone have any references to back up my theory? Not on my soul is she the third best Britain who ever did live.--Crestville 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

why don't you bother to look for references by your own? perhaps it'd help you to get read of some cursing in your language. -- tasc talkdeeds 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt that.--Crestville 17:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC

This article has been FAC'd twice before. It looks pretty good to me - time for a third go? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of Place Info

"Liz Sutherland Thomas is Princess Diana's faviourite [sic] neice." could be found at the top of "Early Years." It has absolutely nothing to do with her early years and it is clearly spammed in there (it's at the very top and there are at least 3 line spaces in between that and the body--obviously planted in there), so I am deleting it.

Borderline Personality Disorder!?!

"It has also been suggested that she suffered from borderline personality disorder, although that has never been substantiated or evidenced."

I removed this. This is tabloid stuff, not worthy of an encyclopedia.

Michael David 11:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree that the accusations of her having suffered from BPD are unreasonable, I would question whether the mere mention of them is inappropriate. There is an article on Borderline personality disorder, which is a recognised condition, and when the suggestion is made as often as it has been made about Diana, there might be good grounds for including a sentence on the subject.
While I agree that the Article on Borderline is important, I do not agree that reference to it should be included in an encyclopedic biography of a specific person, unless that person them self has been formally diagnosed with the disorder. “It has been suggested…” is the same as “It has been rumored…” This type of reference is not worthy of Diana. Michael David 12:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Including or excluding things because they are or aren't 'worthy' of the person in question is poor grounds. Alci12 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Title after divorce

The introduction currently reads, "She received the title normally used by the ex-wives of peers, Diana, Princess of Wales". I doubt if any ex-wives have received this title. I would have changed it to style of title but I don't think that improves it any. Can someone put some context into this sentence please. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is how Buckingham Palace described it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The ex-wives of peers usually receive the title of Firstname, Husband's Peerage Title. So Her Grace The Duchess of Wikipedia would become: Jane, Duchess of Wikipedia, with no honorifics. I am sure that since no other Prince of Wales in recent history has been divorced, this is a first for the title, but the format of the title, is the norm. We could link the section to the coutesy title page. Prsgoddess187 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry

Where are her arms before and after marriage/divorce?

Kneeslasher.

Diana Princess of Wales Jewish Maternal Ancestry?

Diana Princess of Wales Jewish Maternal Ancestry

Princess Diana is descended in her direct female line from Ruth (baptismal name Maria)Jacob the daughter of Jacob Frank the Jewish mystic who became a Catholic with his followers in the 18th century.

Lady Diana Frances Spencer was the daughter of Lady Frances Ruth Burke Roche of Fermoy. Lady Frances was the daughter of Lady Ruth Sylvia Gill (b.1908) daughter of Ruth LittleJohn (b.1879). Ruth Littlejohn was the daughter of Jane Crombie (b.1843)and David Littlejohn (b.1841). Jane Crombie was the daughter of James Crombie and Katherine Scott Forbes. Katherine Scott Forbes was the daughter of John Jakob Forbes whose parents Theodore Forbes (his father) came from a Scottish family of crypto-Jewish ancestry and Eliza Kewark (his mother) was an Armenian Jewess born in India. Katherine Scott Forbes' mother was Maria Ruth Rostowski of Poland whose father was Stanislas Rostowski and her mother Ruth Jacob (baptised Maria)the daughter of Jacob Leibowitz Frank the founder of the Frankist movement in the Catholic Church.

can anyone confirm the above is true or untrue?

JJ211219 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Follow the ancestry here [6]. I'll see if I can find more info and then add this to the article Mad Jack 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

I don't know if anyone noticed, but back in April a whole section was removed from this article without (from what I can see) any discussion. Should this be restored? Craigy (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was transferred, see Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, linked to main Diana page. Viewfinder 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. Craigy (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/a/Talk%7EDiana%2C_Princess_of_Wales_Archive_1_a145.html"