Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diana, Princess of Wales article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Diana, Princess of Wales is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives
  1. February 2003 – August 2006

Contents

[edit] Guilty of High Treason

Should it be noted that Lady Di (along with James Hewitt) is guilty of High Treason under the Treason Act of 1351: "... violating the Sovereign's wife, or the Sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the Sovereign's eldest son's wife..." but was never even procecuted? --Camaeron (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ethnic Ancestry

Does Diana have Armenian ancestry??? The Armenian Wikipedia says she does.Just want confirmation.

Doubt it, but the royal famaly originally came from Germany. Wardhog 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
She does have Armenian ancestory, 1/64th, her great grandmother was Eliza Kevorkian (Kewark, angloized version). They were married at the Armenian Apostolic Church in Surat, India. Really its irrevalent seeing as to how she is a English now, but since you asked.
Oh, one more thing, if you wanted to REALLY get details, I am 100% sure the Armenian Apostolic Church has Eliza Kevorkians marridge records somwhere on file. It would take time, but more than likly you can find it if you went and asked around the church.
The article says she is of American ancestry.That sounds ambiguous to me.It could also imply Native American blood.It should be altered.jeanne (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I think more photos would be a good idea; of the car crash, funeral, wedding, children, ect. Right now we have only the torch and the wedding picture in addition to the main photos.

Not likely - getting pictures of recent royals on Wikipedia is not exactly the easiest thing ever... – DBD 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I found some on wikimedia commons and in her children's wikipedia articles. Bobbacon 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you upload a one. I have some in a book at home but my scanner isn't the best Wardhog 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Too bad you can't get more photographs. After all, she is called "the world's most photographed woman". 87.250.113.209 17:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Diana, Princess of Wales has failed, for the following reason:

This article needs a work on its structure. For example, the lead section see WP:LEAD should be only two paragraphs long, the lineage section belongs as a part of her early life, etc. There are also very few references and those used are of secondary quality. I suggest much of the material in the lead be moved to the body of the article and citations from books and other print sources be added. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Will and Testament of Diana, Princess of Wales

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Diana, Princess of Wales Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Diana, Princess of Wales . We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Diana, Princess of Wales Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators {See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Diana, Princess of Wales . Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the link to Diana, Princess of Wales will has been removed. I'm putting it back because I believe it provides a much needed service. 65.35.52.59 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by NChoules 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Diana technically a princess following her divorce.

No.NChoules 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Regardless of what others may have written or believe Diana, Princess of Wales was no longer a royal princess. She only gained the title of a royal princess by marriage and seized to be styled in such a matter at the dissolution of her marraige. Her full style as of being married was: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales.... not Her Royal Higness Diana Princess of Wales. Keep in mind she was not born a british princess and thus her christian name could not be affixed to her title. Only born british princess's could affix there christian name to there titles. Queen Elizabeth's daughter was known as The Princess Anne, Princess Royal. She is entitled to affix her christian name by being a daughter of the sovereign. The same applies for grandchildren except one thing.... the letter definite "The" cannot be affixed.**--

Despite all that below, I don't think she was a princess, but just styled as one. Bearing in mind she would have lost that style should she have remarried AND that if the Prince of Wales had married again his new wife would have been the incumbent Princess of Wales. Also, a similar parallel can be drawn with the former Duchess of York. Although titled Sarah, Duchess of York, she is not entitled to even the style "Your Grace" but simply "Duchess" (which is probably why Diana is addressed as "Princess" on the Monarchy website). The wife of the Prince of Wales is by definition the Princess of Wales, no other. I can see how the denying of HRH is the same in the cases of Diana and the Duchess of Windsor, but Wallis was definitely a Duchess because she was definitely married till death to the Duke of Windsor, but we cannot be sure Diana was still a Princess as she was no longer still married to a prince. Perhaps the letters patent was reinforcing the denial of HRH because it was a form of address which would have definitely implied she was still the Prince of Wales's wife, whereas the christian name format is used all over by divorced peeresses.

Please look the official British Monarchy web Page. In which is very clear that Diana, was still The Princess of Wales at the time of her dead. Look this The Princess of Wales had two sons. Prince William Arthur Philip Louis was born on 21 June 1982 and Prince Henry (Harry) Charles Albert David on 15 September 1984, both at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, in London. The Princess had seventeen godchildren.

In December 1992 it was announced that The Prince and Princess of Wales had agreed to separate. The Princess based her household and her office at Kensington Palace, while The Prince was based at St James's Palace and continued to live at Highgrove.

In November 1995, the Princess gave a television interview during which she spoke of her unhappiness in her personal life and the pressures of her public role. The Prince and Princess were divorced on 28 August 1996.

The Prince and Princess continued to share equal responsibility for the upbringing of their children. The Princess, as mother of Prince William (second in line to the throne), continued to be regarded as a member of the Royal family. The Queen, The Prince and The Princess of Wales agreed that the Princess was to be known after the divorce as Diana, Princess of Wales, without the style of 'Her Royal Highness' (as the Princess was given the style 'HRH' on marriage she would therefore be expected to give it up on divorce). The Princess continued to live at Kensington Palace, with her office based thereThis Part is taken from " http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page156.asp" This is because she got the title "The Princess of Wales" at the time she accepts The Prince of Wales in the ANGLICAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGE and in the United Kingdom you continued to be Married in Religion untill the dead of any of the parners. Another case in which you can see the samething is when Wallis Simpson married the Prince Edward she could not be Known as HRH so she was Known all her life during her marriage unitll her dead as only "WALLIS, DUCHESS OF WINDSOR" with this name she was also buired.

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 whether or not she was still a princess. Letter patent issued in 1996 indicated former wives of princes would cease to be royal highnesses on divorce. It did not specifically state 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 advice 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)

It does not matter whether she was born a Princess or not. Princess Diana was a direct descendent of King Charles II and therefore had royal blood. Her family was also aristcratic and noble, which means they were of royal blood at some point in the past. While she was born without the title, she definitly was not a commoner.

Actually, technically, Diana was a commoner, ie not a royal. If you look at the various marriages of previous British monarchs, ie those who married spouses NOT of by-birth royal blood (as opposed to royal descent, which is another thing entirely -- me being a descendant of Charlemagne doesn't make me any LESS a commoner, sigh), the reaction against the non-royal spouse has always been of one of outrage (more or less) of their being of unequal rank, ie a commoner. See for example Henry VIII's marriage to the Lady Anne Boleyn, who, as a daughter of the recently ennobled Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire, held the same titular rank as Lady Diana Spencer prior to her marriage (yes, i know she was created a marchioness prior to her marriage, but she was still, for a brief period, an earl's daughter like Diana). Mowens35 20:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion of what a commoners. The media usage of commoner tends to refer to someone who does not hold a title. However, the legal definition of commoner is who is not a Monarch or a peer. So, therefore technically The Earl Spencer was NOT a commoner as he was a peer. However, he daughter Lady Diana Spencer 'Lady' being a courtesy title as not a peerage is therefore a commoner.

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

I don't think she was a princess after her divorce. Since her new style was given on precedent of divorced peeresses, had she remarried it would have lapsed. So she would have become Mrs <husband's surname> and had no "princess" in her title. I also read somewhere that a divorced duchess, for example, is not entitled to hold the style "your Grace", because she no longer holds the rank of a duchess. If Diana gave up her HRH on divorce, surely she ceased to be a princess in the same way? Because surely, she could've beeen known as simply "The Princess of Wales" without the Christian name. So although Diana, Princess of Wales was styled as such she did not actually hold the title, or the rank that went with it. However it's confusing that the HRH was removed specifically - surely this would have been automatic? Perhaps this is because it is always explicitly used, where as "your Grace" isn't normally used that often .I don't think the palace themselves know!

I have an idea that "HRH" can only be given or revoked by the Sovereign and, having been specifically given, it was subsequently specifically revoked. - Kittybrewster 14:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana was not a princess after her marriage. She could not have been. Someone is a princess by either

  • birth (daughter of a sovereign, daughter of a prince of the blood, etc)
  • creation.

She was neither. She had the rank of a princess by virtue of her marriage in law to a prince. When they divorced she lost all the marital ranks that flowed from the fact of her marriage. She lost the rank of Princess. She lost her HRH style automatically. (She also lost custody of her children. The custody was granted to the sovereign as is legally required, but in reality the parents had non-custodial equal parenting rights.) The issue of the status of a divorced wife of a prince was explored in the UK when the issue arose over as to King Edward VIII's marriage to Wallis Simpson. Given Mrs Simpson's propensity for dumping husband, they presumed that she would in time divorce Edward too. The legal advice then drawn up (I think it was Walter Monkton who did the informal examining of the legal situation) was that Wallace would lose all status the moment they divorced. They nevertheless presumed that even if no longer entitled to be a HRH she would claim still to be one. So to make doubly sure they denied her that from the start. And to stop her being Princess Edward (which would have been her title, though much as people referred to a mythical "Princess Diana" some no doubt would call her "Princess Wallis") they made sure almost the moment that he had abdicated he would be made a duke, meaning that she would then be called a "duchess" not a "princess". Put bluntly, no Diana was never a princess. She had the rank of a princess for the duration of her marriage to a prince. It started the second they married and ended the second they divorced. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Err I think you're right on all counts there apart from the claim that she was "never a Princess". She was a princess during her marriage - as exemplified by the title "Princess of Wales" (am I correct in thinking this lapsed to a style rather than a title upon divorce). To the best of my knowledge as you rightly said someone is a princess by birth, creation, AND marriage. She was a princess during her marriage, but this ended on the moment of divorce since it was derived purely from her husband's title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Maybe I didn't explain the point I meant. (I think we agree, just are at cross purposes.) The point I was making was that there are two types of princesses:
  • Those who are princesses in a personal capacity — i.e., by (i) birth, or (ii) by creation.
  • Those who are princesses merely by someone else's status — i.e., those whose status is exclusively linked to being married to a prince.
The first type are life-princesses. It is their own personal status. The second are what could be called transient princesses. They have it purely by linkage to someone else. If that status ends (through death and remarriage; through divorce) or is deemed never to have existed (through annulment) they cease to have the status.
It is a matter of English usage whether one regards someone whose status in effect piggybacks on the back of someone else's status, as really a princess at all, or whether they are a full princess for the time of the marriage, whether it is for a lifetime or shorter. One indication might be the titles of various Princesses of Wales. Alexandra of Denmark, when married to the Prince of Wales (Prince Albert Edward, later Edward VII) was described as "Princess Alexandra" but not Princess Alexandra of Wales but Princess Alexandra of Denmark. Similarly Mary of Teck as Princess of Wales was called Princess Mary (or Princess May) but again it was as a princess of Teck, not Princess of Wales. Diana was never Princess Diana and Camilla is not Princess Camilla in contrast. In both cases they were not princesses by birth or creation, merely marriage, and that seems to give one a status as a princess, but not a title as Princess <own name>. (Similarly the HRH is not yours personally, but yours by marriage.)
It is a difficult thing to try and work out. I am sure Lords Chancellor could have great fun with it! My feeling, based on the language usage, is that Diana was never an actual princess, merely a princess-by-marriage. To use a marital example: being a woman's "mother-in-law" doesn't make you her mother. If the woman's marriage to your mother-in-law's son ends in divorce, you lose that status. But it never was a real mother/daughter relationship. In contrast, marital status has no impact whatsoever on a real mother/daughter relationship.
Being a princess is, in broad terms, akin to being a daughter. You have it. It is yours. It doesn't depend on changes in relationships. Being a princess-by-marriage is akind to being a daughter-in-law. It is a technical status that is purely reliant on a legal concept, marriage. In my reading, Diana herself did not have the status of a princess. She had a status of a princess only indirectly by virtue of marriage to a prince. So she was The Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana. But the moment that relationship ended with the divorce, its status, including that of princess, automatically ended. She was back reliant on her own status alone. And her own status did not include that of being a princess in her own right. (Unlike Alexandra of Denmark, or Princess Anne.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Remember that she was quite a stickler when it came to proper usage, ie she was known to correct people (ie reporters, etc) who referred to her as "Princess Diana," which she, in fact, explained she was not. She was Diana, Princess of Wales, or, previously, the Princess of Wales. She knew the distinctions; would that more people editing her article would. Mowens35 13:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I read somewhere that "Princess of Wales" like "Duchess of York" is simply the wife taking her husband's title. So all in all Diana was a princess by virtue of her husband. Though, how come the HRH had to be stated in letters patent? I think a lot of people are still also under the impression that her divorced title of Diana, Princess of Wales still meant she was a princess ... am I right in thinking it was simply a style? How come she didn't revert to Lady Diana Spencer or Lady Diana Windsor?

When Lady Diana Spencer Married the Prince of Wales she formally became Her Royal Highnes The Princess Charles, Princes of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, Countess of Carrick, Baroness Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess and Great Stewardess of Scotland.

When The Prince and Princess of Wales Divorced, the Princess was stripped of her royal titles, that being Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles. The title Prince of Wales is regarded to a certain extent as a peerage, and as such the Princess was styled as the divorcee/widow of a peer: Diana Princess of Wales.

To answer the question above, the Princess of Wales was no longer a Princess upon her divorce to the Prince of Wales.

I would like to add one more point here since we are discussing the titles of Diana, Princess of Wales. Under English law, when the divorcee of a peer remarries she loses the right to style herself with her former spouses title, but this is not the case in under Scottish Law. Therefore, if the Princess of Wales did remarry she would no longer be able to style herself as Diana, Princess of Wales. As the Prince of Wales holds the title Duke of Rothesay in the Peerage of Scotland, Diana would be able to style herself as Diana, Duchess of Rothesay.

She was a Princess but just lost the prefix 'HRH'. That's what I've always heard. And everyone referred to her 'Princess Diana' anyways, so everyone considered her a Princess. If she wasn't being called 'Princess' she'd be called 'Lady'. I've also read that if she remarried then she'd lose the title. But she never remarried so she was always 'Diana, Princess of Wales' No HRH though. Iman S1995 14:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just read the discussion above for the answer! Deb 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


You are incorrect. Under British law (Cowley v. Cowley) a women may continue the usage of her marital title following her name e.g. Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York. I would also point out that even if Diana or Sarah had remarried they would be prefectly within the law and custom to continue to style themselves as Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York - even if they were to marry and divorce 10 times.

Additionally, Diana's status was very different to Sarah's. Per the divorce documents Diana remained a member of the royal family.

Queen Brandissima

The College of Arms seems to have thought she was a Princess after divorce. Her post-divorce arms are authoritatively displayed by the College of Arms here - (scroll to bottom of page). 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"). Chelseaboy (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While the term "Princess Diana" has never been correct, the term "Diana, Princess of Wales" was correct from the date of her marriage. Even though she was no longer deemed to be an HRH by the Queen, as the HRH title may be given or taken back by the sovereign, she continued to be Diana, Princess of Wales. So it seems that while she was neither an HRH nor a Princess of the Blood like Anne or Margaret, the fact that she continued to properly be titled Diana, Princess of Wales infers that she was still a British princess, just not a Princess of the Blood. I know we're getting into minutiae here, but that seems to be the technical truth- she was Princess of Wales and therefore technically a British princess, albeit not a Princess of the Blood. RockStarSheister (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 68.250.71.178

I have amended these because I found them to be too slanted. That the failed all her O-levels twice needs citation. Re the ballerina, I don't think it was necessary to point out that the never trained. Perhaps if she had succeeded in remaining single for longer, she would have done. Re the phone calls, the word harassing is harsh and judgmental. Wikipedia should try to avoid such terms in biographies of living or recently deceased persons. The recipient probably found them harassing, but I do not think the intent to harass is verifiable. Viewfinder 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Her Obiturary in the Guardian <http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,768035,00.html> references the failing of the O-levels twice. Trishm 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:Lions gal 4eva

I reverted this because much of it duplicated information already in or linked to the article, and not all of it meets Wikipedia's verifiablilty standards. But imo some of it is OK and could be incorporated into the article in the appropriate places. Viewfinder 07:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title question

"During her marriage, her full title was Her Royal Highness The Princess Diana, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland."

Shouldn't that read "During her marriage, her full title was HRH The Princess Charles, etc.," seeing how she was not a princess in her own right? StarNeptune 11:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. NChoules 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should. She was certainly never HRH The Princess Diana. -- Jao (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes absolutely it should. She was not a princess by right (unlike, say Princess Anne), and thus takes her husband's name. Therefore should be HRH Princess Charles &c &c, much the same as Princess Michael of Kent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.93.62 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did her title change in 1975 (at the age of about 14)? --Hugh7 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because she was born the daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, and so was entitled to be styled The Hon as the daughter of a viscount. On 9 June 1975, her grandfather, Earl Spencer died, and her father succeeded to his peerages, so Diana was now the daughter of an Earl, thus entitling her the the style of Lady † DBD 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did she really attend Norland College?

There is an urban legend that before marriage to Charles, Diana trained as a nanny at the famous Norland College. Firstly, is it true that she ever trained as a nanny? And if so, where did she train and was it really at Norland College? Any references?SureFire 00:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Untrue - Kittybrewster 07:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Its highly unlikely she attended Norland College and trained as a nanny or nursery nurse, the reason being to be accepted onto an NNEB course (a diploma course) requires 4 "O" levels, Diana had none. When she worked in a nursery (kindergarten) she was simply unqualified help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.116.201 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There were two questions. Which are you saying are untrue? Or both? Do you have a reference to back it up?SureFire 10:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that there is no need to prove a negative. You have to provide sources for either of your contentions :) Alci12 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Driver high on "drugs"

I believe it was prescription drugs - different impression entirely. Someone had replaced the entire page with "LOL" when I had read the page and tried to edit.

David Spooner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.79.158 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

They could tell you anything regarding the drivers blood alcohol and drug intake levels. We would not actually KNOW what state he was in. Judging by the videos he was not falling down drunk. They could tell us that the driver swallowed a purple baby elephant. NitaReads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.98.5 (talk) 21:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Affairs?

I'm sorry, but this article is a whitewash. I understand not wanting to rake up negatively skewed opinions on a tired subject but this article does not reflect Diana's extra-marital affairs, of which there were many:

  • Barry Mannakee - body to body guard
  • David Waterhouse - man in uniform
  • James Gilbey - loyalty gets its reward
  • James Hewitt - Di: "I adored him"
  • Oliver Hoare - paints a nice picture
  • Doctor Hasnar Khan - knew how to care for a woman
  • Will Carling - "a close friend"
  • Bryan Adams - (Everything I Do) I Do It For Di
  • Dodi Fayed - true love at last

Obviously a lot of these are tabloid exagerrations but Diana was not "saintly" - this article does not present any of her personal failings, of which her relationship with Charles - and the way in which she dealt with it, by seeing other men - is a major one.

Most of the 90s up until her death were consumed with news of her extra-marital activities. Some are fluff. Some are fact. Yet this "encyclopaedia" article doesn't mention any. Hewitt at least should get a mention, he is indeed mentioned in the Prince Harry article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToneLa (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Is there any proof? I checked up on some of the men that you said Diana was involved with, and I didn't come up with any info for a few of them. I'll keep looking though... Snowonster 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes But this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, It doesn't need to include all that information. It is too personal. Just beause she's dead doesn't mean you should say everything personal about her.--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

James Hewitt says he was her lover. "Asked whether he regretted anything that had happened, Major Hewitt said he regretted the affair was in the public domain." [1] The BBC newsdesk clearly believes him: "Mr Hewitt was Diana Princess of Wales's secret lover for five years." [2] 82.40.183.118 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC). It is also quite possible that Hewitt is in fact the biological father to Prince Harry.
Teddy Forstmann says he was Diana's lover, in an interview with the New York Times. "And Forstmann acknowledged, for the first time, that he had a brief romantic relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales, which turned into a long-term, non-romantic friendship for many years after." [3] 82.40.183.118 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
When Julia Carling divorced Will Carling in 1996, she leaked to the Daily Mirror that Carling's affair with Diana was the reason. " "I feel so betrayed and let down. Will made me look so stupid," is how the Daily Mirror, quoting "a close friend," reported Julia Carling's feelings. Six months ago, according to the friend, Will abandoned nearly two months of stonewalling concerning his purported involvement with Di to admit to his wife, privately, that he and the 34-year- old princess had had an affair." [4] 82.40.183.118 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Bryan Adams's ex-girlfriend told the Daily Mail: "I knew Diana had an affair with Bryan. ... Ours was a stormy relationship and Bryan's affair with Diana didn't make it easier" [5] 82.40.183.118 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Summary: the relationship with James Hewitt seems to be accepted by reliable news sources as factual. Will Carling also looks very likely. The others, it depends what standard of proof you're looking for... if you believe all the tabloid reports then she wouldn't have had time to eat or sleep, but that doesn't mean that some of them aren't true. Perhaps worth looking at Andrew Morton's book "the pursuit of love" 82.40.183.118 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Diana admitted to an affair with Hewitt, as is stated in the article. None of the others have that standard of evidence behind them. In any case, it depends what you mean by "affair". Most people would interpret that as meaning a sexual relationship, not just a "romance". Deb 12:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on both points (i.e. Hewitt admission, meaning of 'affair'). The question is, what level of evidence is needed?
  • I'm sure most people would agree that an admission by Diana, recorded by a trusted news source, is enough evidence. Why would she lie?
  • Most people would also probably agree that a tabloid allegation (e.g. 'romantically linked with') without anything to back it up, is not enough evidence. There's a clear reason for the tabloid papers to make this stuff up.
Most of these possible lovers fall somewhere in the middle - more evidence than just allegations, but no admission by D. There's every reason why D. would deny these events even if they did take place, so what's the justification for taking an admission by D. as the only acceptable level of evidence? Should a statement by one of her (possible) lovers that they did sleep with her be discounted because she never admitted it? 82.40.183.118 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, but some of the men appear to me to be obvious publicity-seekers, and others' motives are highly questionable. Deb 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, many people involved in this have questionable motives behind their public statements. I'd include Diana in that, certainly at the time of the "War of the Wales's". But the point I'm trying to get at is, what standard of proof would be acceptable? At the moment it seems like D's admission is the only proof that's being accepted - why take her word for it, but not anyone else's? That doesn't seem even-handed. 82.40.183.118 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I don't think there's an answer. I would just say that most people would agree that, if Diana said she had an affair with someone, it carries more weight than if someone else said they had an affair with her, simply because the other person would have had everything to gain by saying it and she had everything to lose by admitting it. If, however, for example, there was a court case where evidence was accepted that someone had seen Diana having sex with someone, that would be acceptable as proof for the purposes of this article. If they just said it in a newspaper, it would not be acceptable as proof. Deb 13:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
James Gilbey was also admitted by Diana, according to the Squidgygate article. I haven't been able to find this admission so far though. 82.40.183.118 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Barry Mannakee: apparently Diana admitted this one on video. I haven't found the actual video yet, best I've got so far is: " On 05.09.2004 a video has been published in which the Princess admitted that she had been the mistress of Barry Mannakee. This relationship is ought to be the first extramarital of Diana. Charles fired him because of that relationship to Diana. Barry Mannakee died in an accident 1987. In the Video Diana says that her lover has been killed." [6] 82.40.183.118 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also a BBC[7] article on this - D says she was "deeply in love". 82.40.183.118 14:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether the Princess actually engaged in one or more extramarital affairs is beyond the certain knowledge of anyone alive today except the parties involved. It would be presumptuous to state as fact that any such affairs are known to have taken place. Sad to say, however, a full treatment of the Princess' life and legacy would have to include at least mention of the rumors that have been widely circulating since the 1990s. Perhaps the article might make brief mention of the news accounts and of the Princess' own veiled admissions as simply what they are: widely circulated rumors and allegations of full-blown extramarital affairs, which the Princess herself hinted might contain an element of truth. Although strongly suggestive, these rumors will probably never be entirely proven or disproven. An example of this might be: "The Princess' name was linked in numerous newspaper accounts with those of X, Y, and Z. The Princess was secretly taped sharing intimate confidences with X, (see "Squidygate") and herself remarked in an interview (date) that she had been "in love" with Y., etc."
Mention what is verifiable, and leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. Ivain 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline Personality Disorder

I edited the part on Sally Bedell Smith's contention that Diana had BPD. She's the only biographer to ever mention it, and it has never been confirmed that Diana suffered from this disorder; Bedell Smith was only hypothesizing. We could add Diana's struggle with bulimia here, which has been confirmed. It's odd that's not mentioned here...What do you think? -

Yeah, it's glaring in its omission. Her eating disorder is well documented yet the BPD thing, totally new to me. I think personally that the whole article needs to be rewritten as it's overly gushing and stuff like her numerous affairs - see above - and bulemia are completely ignored. It reads more like a eulogy than a biography. ToneLa 15:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think it was one of Charles's biographers who put forward the BPD theory, but psychiatrists who knew Diana personally said she definitely didn't have it. Bulimia certainly should be included. Deb 15:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedell Smith is not the only biographer to have suggested that Diana suffered from BPD. Lady Colin Campbell brought up the possibility as well, before Bedell Smith's book was published. Moreover, it is my understanding that another individual who suggested this diagnosis was not a biographer of Charles but rather a royal family friend who described Diana's symptoms to a psychiatrist and asked for his opinion. His necessarily tentative opinion was that it sounded like a classic case of BPD. This story, true or not, has been published in several places. I believe the issue should be addressed, since the statement is not that Diana DID suffer from this illness but rather that it is one view that has been advanced as an explanation for her behaviors. Moreover, Bedell Smith can fairly be regarded as the only serious biographer to date.68.72.83.244 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more of Penny Junor, author of Charles: Victim or Villain? (1998), who certainly popularized the theory even if she didn't start it ref. It was Neville Marks who said, on TV, "My professional opinion is that it would not have been possible for Diana to assume all her responsibilities if she had a serious personality disorder". Deb 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to decide here whether Diana did or did not suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder (although it's worth noting that BPD is perhaps the only mental disorder that would have allowed a sufferer to handle precisely the sorts of duties for which Diana is best known with real success). The issue here is simply the fact that more than one of Diana's "detractors," to use the word currently in the article, has suggested that she suffered from BPD. We're not psychiatrists, we are not biographers with access to archival material and close friends. All we can do is recount the various views.68.72.83.244 05:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true, which is why BPD can only be mentioned as a theory, whereas bulimia can be mentioned as a fact. Deb 12:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no mentions of schizophrenia in any of the biographies, even those from the royal camp. That's way off base, so I've edited it yet again.

Well, in fact, author Howard Hodgson HAS claimed that Diana was schizophrenic. In my view, he doesn't have the faintest idea of what schizophrenia means, and Diana, while probably suffering from mental illness, certainly wasn't THAT sick. However, now that the suggestion has been made in print, I suppose it must be mentioned.68.72.83.217 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily follows. If we included every loony theory that's gone into print, this would be a very long and very uninformative article! Deb 12:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About her death

There is no mention about the paparazzi following the car. Why? Raystorm 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they had nothing to do with the crash. NChoules 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Actually, it's been quite solidly established by many reputable news sources, including BBC in the UK and all three major networks in the US that the paparazzi was in fact involved, as the car in which Diana rode was speeding for the explicit purpose of getting away from the paparazzi. This fact seems to be established common knowledge. RockStarSheister (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The maiden name rule

Does anyone else think there's a case for this article being at "Lady Diana Spencer"? I mean, according to the conventions on past consorts, they should posthumously revert to their maiden name. However, I can't seem to see any clarification as to whether a "consort" to a non-monarch is counted in this... Anyone? – DBD 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that since she was still styled as "Princess Diana" at the time of her death, it would be a good title for the wikipedia article.. She was NOT "Princess Diana" at the time of her death. She was Diana, Princess of Wales. What is it about this you don't understand? NChoules 20:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer Dan's question, yes, lots of people think there's a case for it, but there are many complicating factors. For a start, you're correct in thinking that she doesn't count as a "consort" under the terms of the current convention (see the fairly recent argument over Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha for further discussion of that topic). However, strictly speaking, the "revert to maiden name" rule would result in her ending up at "Diana Spencer", not "Lady Diana Spencer". The article's present title is thought preferable (by me, at lest) because (a) either of the two alternatives mentioned above would result in disambiguation being needed (b) it is not her royal title - it is a special and unique title she was given after her divorce, and (c) it is the highest title she ever held. Are you coming round to my point of view? Deb 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Style, not title. And it wasn't her highest (that would be, hmm, let's see HRH The Princess of Wales...) But yeah, fine... :D – DBD
Of course - I got that bit wrong. Glad we're seeing eye to eye in general, though. Deb 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

? Why is this article titled "The Lady Diana Spencer"? She was not a consort, and even if she had been the artilce would be only "Diana Spencer." All other deceased royals who were not consorts have their titles at the time of death and usually a sentence that says their maiden name and title from birth if any. Diana, Princess of Wales is a not a unique title--at is exactly the format all divorced peeresses go by until they re-marry. Sarah, Duchess of York uses the same format, as do all other divorced wives of peers. When she dies will her wiki article be retitled "Sarah Margaret Ferguson?" The fact that the peerage is unique, being the only princely peerage in the UK, makes no difference. When she and the Prince of Wales divorced, Diana ceased to be a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and also ceased to be Princess of Wales (during her marriage you could say she was a princess two times over). "Princess of Wales" as it used in her style after her divrce is basically just a surname that sounds like a peerage. People called her "Princess" and "ma'am" after her divorce as a courtesy just as people now call Sarah, Duchess of York "Duchess" and "ma'am." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.117.191.14 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is absurd that it is at this name. The maiden name rule is standard in royal biography for one simple reason: royals change titles constantly. So with the exception of monarchs it is normal for deceased consorts of monarchs or princes to be referred to by their maiden name.

To be technically accurate, Diana Princes of Wales should only refer to her from her divorce in 1996 to her death in 1997. There was no such person as Diana, Princess of Wales before her divorce. It is standard to use their first name or first title when referring to them after their death. That is why, though people called her Queen Catherine, we know her as Catherine of Aragon. That is also why though she was known as queen as Queen Mary, history books talk about Mary of Teck. This article should be at Diana Spencer, which was her first name. However on Wikipedia there are a group of Diana groupies who go ballistic every time an effort is made to apply the standard naming rules to this woman.

BTW historically for a very famous royal consort, the change from last royal name to maiden name usually takes place about 10 years after her death. The BBC and others on formal historical programmes have now begun to refer to her as Diana Spencer or Lady Diana Spencer, reserving her later titles for the time when she held those titles, not her entire life. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honourable/Honorable

I've changed the prefix in the early life section to "The Honourable" (from "The Honorable") in congruence with the policies laid down in the Manual of Style.

Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country.

As this article is most certainly not specific to the United States, and deals with the prefix as it is used in and granted by the United Kingdom, it is an entirely appropriate change, and not "nonsense" as has been proposed. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Lack?

Strange, Charles' (the groom) name wasn't mentioned in the 'Marriage' column. There are people who might not know who Diana married. Just a suggestion. Snowonster 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In the ancestry section should also be Mary Boleyn, since Mary is an ancestor of Princess Diana. Iman S1995 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children??

Just curious as to why the side-box refers to Diana's two sons as "Issue Prince William of Wales Prince Harry of Wales". Issue seems a mighty strange way to refer to her children. Is there a reason?? Tom M. 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it ensures that we all know they weren't adopted. Deb 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Deb, I doubt that is the reason. Tom M. 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be important from the point of view of inheritance. Adopted children wouldn't be able to come to the throne, and the same goes for other royal and noble titles. Deb 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Within the field of genealogy, issue is the technical term for "children known to be or widely-believed to born of the marriage between the subject and this particular spouse during the period of said marriage and up to ten months following the death of the husband or the separation of the spouses." Among royalty and the aristocracy, vast amounts of land, property, cash, and titles transfer by inheritance along bloodlines - the bloodlines of the mother as well as of the father. And royalty and the aristocracy have always married, remarried, had children with multiple spouses, as well as fathered or given birth to children out of wedlock. (The latter have been historically termed "illegitimate" or "bastards", but in many times and places, illegitimate children enjoyed some rights of inheritance, as well, but typically not to the extent of those enjoyed by legitimate children.) So special status attaches to the children born of any particular marriage, for they possess a double inheritance - that of the mother as well as the father.
Family squabbles over large amounts of wealth and power will always get the lawyers and other technical experts involved! And with that, comes specialized terminology. Ivain 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I first saw this page 2 days ago and am amazed how often it is vandalised. 14 times since the 25 February- thats 4 days ago. Does anyone else agree for a need to protect this page? I think in an article that has obvious sensitivities involved since a lot of people still get upset thinking about Diana, this is highly appropriate. If there is support I will have it protected. Bobbacon 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should think Semi-protection would do... I'll head over there now. † DBD 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
cool, thanks for getting it organised. Bobbacon 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
hi, did page protection get rejected? I have been away since the first, but I know you put up a tag since I looked in the requests page... I can't find any record of it now... It still unprotected and I see there have been at least 5 further acts of vandalism.
I really want to work on this article, but don't want to spend the first half of every edit time fixing vandalism.Bobbacon 14:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, my request was denied. Can't find any records though, so you'll just have to believe me. † DBD 16:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
May I inquire as to why the protection was lifted? Fvasconcellos 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there (familiar face :) ) . I unprotected it earlier today as one of the editors here, User:Hbdragon88 requested it on WP:RFPP - see here. It's been protected like 3 weeks now & things seemed to be stable. If things get out of hand, post a message to WP:RFPP or to my talk page and I'll re-instate. Thanks! - Alison☺ 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I see you've jumped headfirst into admin territory... :) Thanks for the explanation. Fvasconcellos 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage and requirement of virginity

Under the marriage section it states that Lord Mountbatten advised Prince Charles to marry a virgin, and also that in order to gain approval of family and advisers Charles should preferably marry a virgin. I really think a statement such as this ought to be properly sourced, and as this shows no sign of happening, it ought to be removed. Otherwise, stated so factually, it seems a bit defamatory. Passingtramp 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the Jonathan Dimbleby biography of Charles, but I suspect it may be in there. Deb 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently read an excellent biography about Lady Diana and if memory serves me right, there was a section in the book that discussed about why Diana was picked. I will try to retrieve the book from the library. RosePlantagenet 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a source for it, but I vividly remember Lady Di making a pre-nuptial visit to the royal gynecologist to make sure that her hymen was intact. It was followed by what must have been an humiliating press conference. The press kept using the phrase "unspoiled English rose". Ick. Ninquerinquar 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your vivid memory has betrayed you. Diana's visit was purely for procreational purposes: to ensure she could bear children. Everyone knows (or should know) that no medical exam can conclusively prove anything on the score of virginity.FlaviaR 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No sources means removal in this case, SqueakBox 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Passingtramp 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the material was removed in May 2007 and is closed, but I cannot resist making a comment about the supposed visit to the gynecologist "to make sure that her hymen was intact." If it was not, was the gynecologist supposed to stitch her a new one? Further, the presence or the absence of the hymen has nothing to do with virginity. It can be broken through any sort of strenuous activity. The Queen, as an avid horsewoman, probably knows all about that! 130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can happen – I read in a magazine that some women can have surgery for a new hymen to surprise their boyfriends, or something like that. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This page is disaster

Relate to above comment... there have been so many anonymous edits to this article over the last week and maybe longer, and there are clearly hoaxes with "Arabella FitzYourMum" and perhaps with more, I don't even know where to start. I am not interested in Lady Di, nor do I know enough about her, to clean this up. I've put a disputed tag at the top it's that bad. I hope someone will help edit and correct this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I stumbled across this article by accident and have no real interest in the actual content, but was saddened that a page about someone that many people look up to is constantly vandalised. I want to overhaul and completely clean this page more out of respect than actual interest. The page protection seems to have been denied but I am going to wait until it happens before I do anything.
As it is the 10 year anniversary of her death in 6 months time I think this article should have some sort of priority, but until the endless vandalism is curbed I doubt many serious wikipedians will take it on. Bobbacon 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Deb, for reverting it to something sane. By the way, have semi-protected it now. If you look back at the history, there is regular anon vandalism, which should be squelched. I've also added some cite needed tags. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Quick note of thank you for the sprot to those who requested it/were involved. This article is a constant target of IP vandalism, and it's high time someone protected it. Fvasconcellos 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph of Diana's Coffin

The photograph which supposedly shows Diana's coffin being carried through the streets looks to me like it has been heavily (and badly) edited. For instance, it can clearly be seen here that the coffin was pulled on a carriage by horses - where is the carriage and where are the horses on the photograph on the article??! Gleysh 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree... a very bad Photoshop edit has been done on this picture. Recommend it be removed until an un-doctored photo can be found substituted. Tom M. 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the photo for my comments. It was my photo and I did the bad editing !. PaddyBriggs 07:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The nickname

Hi. Does anyone know who coined the term "the people's princess"? I've also seen it without the apostrophe, though I don't understand that. Thanks. 151.202.74.135 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair certainly used it in his speech (written by Alastair Campbell). The version without an apostrophe is just illiterate. Deb 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-instatement of Title

Could anyone let me know if it is possible for Prince Charles or Prince William, if and when either succeeds to the throne, to re-instate the HRH title to Diana, Princess of Wales.--Andyuk7 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This point is moot, because Diana was an HRH solely because she married an HRH. It would be completely unprecedented and unecessary for the Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth) to do it, although there was a rumour after Diana died that HM offered posthumous HRH to the Spencer family and they rejected it.NChoules 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but a posthumous award of style by letters is completely unprecedented, afaik. † DBD 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussion of the article itself, not for general questions about the subject. Try somewhere such as the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup. Charles 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not irrelevant, as William has already stated he will do this upon accession to the throne. It would indeed be good to have some background on this, and to add it to the article (albeit briefly - a sentence or two should take care of it) if it can be cited. ProhibitOnions (T) 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for that? I don't see any reason why he could, why he would, or why he should, and I've heard nothing but speculation about it.--Ibagli (Talk) 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This source [8] claims according to BBC. But the only mention I can find of this claim on BBC is in the h2g2 which is obviously not a reliable source. Potential, whoever wrote the People article didn't quite understand what h2g2 is Nil Einne 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
BTW I forgot to mention. It is irrelevant. If and when someone does it then we can include it in the article. Perhaps if there are multiple reliable sources which say it is planned then we can also include in in the article. However speculating in this talk page on whether it's possible or likely is irrelevant and OT. Nil Einne 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would add a reminder that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As Nil mentioned, if and when it happens, it would be appropriate to mention it, but at this point, it is all speculation, rumor, and a future act that is not predictable by anyone, even Prince William. Ariel♥Gold 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD ntoice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theorists had claimed...

Since when is it relevant what conspiracy theorists claim? If there is a good reference that it's actually true (and not just claimed to be true), such claims should be removed. Conspiracy theorists have traditionally claimed all kinds of stuff, mostly without any merit. It is best to ignore such claims. Shinobu 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims that are significant and have been reported on a number of sources absolutely deserve to be in here. See, for instnace, the Kennedy assassination theories article. Many conspiracy theories for Diana are listed in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. hbdragon88 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories to be Taken With a Grain of Salt

The so-called "conspiracy theories" need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. First of all, we must understand that Mohammed al-Fayed has a significant financial interest that motivates him to assert the existence of a conspiracy even if there was none. He is the owner of the hotel that hired the driver of the car. If the driver of the car was drunk, and the hotel knew or should have known that, then Mohammed al-Fayed or an entity in which he has an interest would have civil liability for the wrongful death of Diana. We must consider the possibility that his continual bleatings about a conspiracy are merely a ploy to deflect attention away from his hotel's negligent hiring policies.

Further, what motive would the British Royal Family have for killing Diana? It is claimed that the mother of the future King could not be married to Muslim. What difference does that make? Prince William's right to succeed to the Throne would not have been affected by his mother's decision to remarry. Even if Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, that would have no effect on the succession. The succession passes through Prince Charles. Once he and Diana were divorced, nothing Diana did could have any effect on the succession.

So, we come back to the strong possibility that Mohammed al-Fayed is merely seeking to protect his financial interests, and minimize any liability he or his hotel may have for the wrongful death of Diana.

130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth edited

I have edited the place of birth for Diana. The reason for this is as follows. I am a resident of a village, which is right next to Sandringham, and through knowledge of my own, I know that 'Park House' is not on the Sandringham Estate, and in fact is in an estate of its own. However, 'Park House' is still in the Village of Sandringham, which is probably why there is some confusion.

Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Positive

Sounds like a promo piece for her. Xavier cougat 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you change? Passingtramp 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dress

Diana was buried on 6 September 1997. The Prince of Wales, her sons, her mother, siblings, a close friend, and a clergyman were present. She wore a black long sleeved Catherine Walker dress. She had chosen that particular dress a few weeks before.

I'm a bit confused by this. Does it mean she's chosen the dress for her funeral (obviously she wasn't expecting to need it so soon) or simply that it was a dress she'd purchased a few weeks before to wear for any sombre occasion which came up? Nil Einne 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


The latter, I am certain. She would not have occasionally picked out a dress for her funeral at her prime. WinterT 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to assume she wouldn't have picked out a dress. Definitely it would be less common for younger people but I'm sure it happens. No one knows what tomorrow is going to bring and if you're a planner... (not that I'm saying she was much of a planner) Planning your funeral to some extent is no real different from writing your will. Both help to reduce the hassle after you die and also ensure your wishes will be met. It obviously isn't something you do every week but once you have a will and have a funeral plan, they're things you may also update every so often as needs and wants arise. Particularly if your as paranoid about your death as Diana apparently was. However on reconsideration I doubt it would be the case since if she had chosen a dress for her funeral a few weeks before her death the conspiracy theorists would have had a field day and I've never heard of it before Nil Einne 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Royal family certainly does plan for their deaths in advance, and, even tho' she was no longer specifically a Royal, she was still connected to them & knew that her death needed advance planning. It is quite possible she did pick out a dress in which to be buried, but I would like to see some substantial proof of this particular claim.FlaviaR 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DIANA'S DAYS

DIANA frances spencer Subscript text

[edit] Separation/divorce section comment

Overall, I think it is a good article! It is certainly a daunting one. Some sections are better than others. I think perhaps in the separation/divorce part, you might consider summarizing the affairs bit even more. I think it's unnecessary to even mention names of alleged partners which have no foundation other than media rumor. Although you rightly acknowledge as much, even just mentioning some of those names like JFK Jr is not necessary at all, in my opinion, as it says absolutely nothing of who Diana was. But as for the writing and wording, this section is good, because things are well-stated, concise, and factual. All the missing citations need addressing, but besides that, it's a good job. --Ashley Rovira 00:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roberto Devorik

On Fox News' Geraldo Rivera's "Death of Diana: Unanswered Questions", yesterday & today, I heard Roberto Devorik quote her as having said, regarding Muslim friends, Arab friends: "...I have too much white meat in my life,..."

Thank You, [[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While that may be mildly interesting to some, it is hearsay, and not supported by reliable sources. I would personally not give Rivera much credibility, knowing his tendency to sensationalize with regards to getting media attention. Without proper sources, such a statement should not be included in the article. Ariel♥Gold 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary pic?

"A message of condolence at Trafalgar Square following her death, containing a typo (should be "in memoriam")" Do we really need a pic with a typo in Diana's bio? it takes part of the attention away from the article.. I would prefer a pic related to her legacy.. not a billboard with a typo.. any thoughts on this?--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


    It is important to educate people on the correct spelling.    NChoules 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth of her children?

Why doesn't this article discuss the birth of Diana's sons (dates, full names, place of birth, reactions of the public, etc.)? I would have thought that these were two of her most significant life events. The article says that she has two sons but never discusses their birth or her relationship with them while she was living. This appears to be a huge oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.93.236 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are separate entries on Princes William and Harry. NChoules 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descent

Uh, not that I care, but this doesn't sound quite right:

"On her father's side, Diana was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons"

This is very silly and could do with a quick re-do. Liquidfinale 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it silly if it's the truth?FlaviaR 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing hidden personal comments, moving here

My goal was to merely provide a brief, though precise, synopsis of Diana's life and the continuing public fascination with her death. The main article is the place for proof of arguments and citations. Andrew Parodi can't accurately say that Diana had constant sympathy from the public and that the media focused only on her scandals. Also, how can a pop culture figure be important? That could just be an opinion of Andrew's; but the main article could be used to illustrate Andrew's point in depth. I removed additional material from Andrew's contributions to the synopsis, since the same is already in the main article. I disagree with ArielGold's assessment that my terms and modifiers (such as "very", "loveliness" and "near-mythic") are personal opinions: when the majority of people share certain perceptions, the terms of those perceptions become appropriate terms for an encyclopedic entry. It informs the reader of a contemporary consensus. With this revision, I maintained only the word "loveliness" to suggest that people judged Diana on superficial rather than substantial merits. Use of the word does not reflect my opinion, it's a mere observation of what the majority of people at the time agreed upon--and there are innumerable sources that prove the point, but these should be cited in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vstar3000 (talk • contribs)

Andy Warhol has been referred to as the most important artist of the second half of the 20th century, just behind Pablo Picasso. Andy Warhol was a pop artist and his most famous works dealt with pop culture. Pop culture is THE international culture of the media age. In this realm, Princess Diana was a superstar. -- Andrew Parodi 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I would request that you review the guidelines and policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, of fact. Most especially with biographies, terms like "lovliness" (while to many people true) should not be used in prose, unless quoting a source directly, and then a reference should be cited. Additionally, the entire passage was written more in a tone similar to a fan-site, and not especially neutral. Without removing the entire section, both Andrew and I removed those issues, and you saw fit to remove our revision and re-write it again. While I agree that your intro section is helpful, it did again have a number of issues with neutrality and tone. When writing about something or someone you may have strong feelings about, it is often difficult to remain neutral, to refrain from using the terms that you may wish to use, and indeed, it may even be something not consciously done. If this article is ever to reach "Good Article" status, these issues must be addressed. Among the reasons it was not approved for Good Article status, was the tone. I completely sympathize, as I too admired Diana very much, but I realize the importance of removing myself when adding material to this article, and strive to not allow any personal feelings or emotions into the article, as it ultimately compromises the integrity. Vstar, I admire you for adding the section, and it did improve the introduction, but I think we both felt it just needed to be toned down some. It was not Andrew or my intention to say you did anything wrong, we did not remove it, so I appreciate your understanding and I'd request that you review a bit more about Good Article criteria (The link is at the top of this page). Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: With regard to my edits of the second paragraph in the intro, I performed the job of a copy editor, not a fact checker. The second paragraph was a nightmare of a run-on sentence that defied comprehension. I simply placed proper punctuation where it was needed, thus bringing the paragraph somewhere near the realm of comprehensibility. Please don't hold me accountable for the information itself. I didn't originate the raw material in the paragraph, only attempted to organize it in accord to standard English grammar and punctuation. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 05:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heheh I know Andrew, I didn't add the information either, I am assuming it was added by Vstar3000, but with regards to who copy-edited it, that was myself and you. No worries! Ariel♥Gold 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Par for the course on Wikipedia, I suppose. Unfortunately, with a superstar of the magnitude of Princess Diana, this page is destined to never be stable. So, any attempt to improve it is probably an uphill and futile battle. Take a look, for example, at the article about Madonna. No edit on that page lasts very long, and trying to keep it from reading like a fan site is nearly impossible. Oh well. -- Andrew Parodi 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but I would hardly put the two in the same category, lol. Diana is mother of the future King of England, and is thus, a major historical figure, Madonna.... is not. lol. Perhaps part of the problem is the intense feelings Diana evokes, and that's why it is difficult to bring this article to GA status, because of the issues you cited with constant editing. One can always hope, however, that things will change, yes? Ariel♥Gold 06:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was only putting them in the same category with regard to the frequency with which their pages will be edited. I wasn't saying the women have anything in common aside from the fact that they are both major popular culture icons. But since you brought it up ... Madonna is the most successful female singer of all time and therefore is likely to make it in to the history books, and because of her marriage to Guy Ritchie, Madonna is now actually a distant relation to Princess Diana. (She's also, because of her mother's French Canadian heritage, a distant relative of Celine Dion. But I digress.)
At any rate, I was merely passing through and thought the second paragraph needed some proper punctuation, and so I supplied it. I had no agenda beyond proper punctuation. So, I wish you good luck with this article. Take care. -- Andrew Parodi 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ariel,

Don't worry, I'm not upset with anything you've done. I am certain you do your utmost to be considerate and polite.

I won't be making any further changes to the entry on Diana because, frankly, I'm not that interested in the subject. After spending ten years of NOT thinking about Diana, I logged onto Wikipedia, to verify the date of her death (I had thought she died at the start of August). I saw that Wikipedia's article on Diana was a sloppy affair, although most of what might be said about the lady is already present (there isn't too much one can say about her). The lengthy article needed an outline at the beginning: a quick description as to what might be notable about the lady. I viewed the writing of a précis for the article as a mere academic exercise, and proceeded on a whim.

Your editing of my second synopsis has resulted in something cleaner than before; even if I don't entirely agree with the reasoning behind your input, the synopsis at least now seems appropriate.

I disagree with you on use of the word "loveliness". That is not my personal thought (I couldn't have cared less if the lady was a flower or a weed). People Magazine (US version) listed her on its annual "World's 50 Most Beautiful People" twice. Other magazines thrust the opinion upon the public, and polls indicated the opinion was widely shared among peoples. No doubt about it: there was a general consensus as to her supposed beauty. The consensus is the fact I noted, not the loveliness. That's why I used the phrase "perceived loveliness", with "perceived" used as an adjective; not, as you erroneously presumed, as a verb. The loveliness was something that was only perceived (or, if you prefer, imagined) by the general public; but that common act of perceiving has now become the fact.

That's why the term "loveliness" is found in other encyclopedic articles concerning legendary beauties. Yes, it is often a judgment based only on superficial merits. Beauty is mutable, and people are fickle. In the 1600's, being fat was the big thing (no pun intended), and what was called beautiful in the 1400's would today be called "dogface-makes-me-want-to-vomit". It's not the purpose of the article on Diana to analyze people's perception of beauty; however, it's important to note the perception was there. It shows future readers that Diana's fame was driven by the perception, and then let them judge the perception as they may. They may even agree with me, that the perception is a worthless value judgment (and apparently one that has not driven the reputation of most other British royals—Diana was certainly a unique one among this bunch).

There's probably a better way of phrasing the matter, so people will understand the observation of the perception is, in fact, a neutral observation.

Or, like you said, just mention it in the main article, with proper citations illustrating the fact. But somebody else will need to find the exact sources, as I won't have the time.

Regarding Diana's life and character, my personal opinion is that, aside from having performed one or two really bold acts in life (and being the mother of a royal heir), the woman was pretty much an airhead and a bimbo.

So, no, I most certainly did not put my personal opinions into the article. That would have been very impolite, passing judgments on someone I did not know. But I find it very amusing, that you and your friend Andrew actually assumed I was an ardent fan. You know what you make when you assume, lol.

However, even if Diana's life is mostly insignificant; I think her work with AIDS sufferers and her protests against the use of land-mines are the two most important things one can say about her. These examples, even if not historically important, should perhaps be mentioned in the synopsis, for they quickly illustrate a spiritual growth in the lady, as well noble qualities that should be noted for all posterity. I think people of the future will always be interested in a person's moral qualities. Just think of what a parent might say to a child in the future: "Be like Diana, who showed kindness to the sick."

Diana ultimately becomes a bit more substantial than today's vacuous beauties.

(Oh, and, incidentally, I have read the Wikipedia guide to editing, many times over before yesterday, thank you very much!)

--vstar3000 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vstar, thanks for understanding, and I agree the term "lovliness" could be used, but I think it would need to be used in context of a reference such as you suggested, as indeed, People had her on a number of covers, and her appeal was undeniable. If the paragraph were worded such to indicate the term came from an outside source, with a reference following, then it would be completely acceptable (in my humble opinion). I also agree that the article needs work, that is evident, and perhaps now that is is semi-protected, some of the issues can be properly addressed. I don't necessarily agree that she was not all that notable, but that is okay as well. And I apologize if by adding links to editing guides you felt I was insulting you or assuming you did not know about them, my intention was to help when I did not know your experience. Thank you for not taking that negatively. I also agree that her charity work was probably one of the most important contributions she made, and should be mentioned in the introduction. I respect your comments, even if I may not agree with your view of her, and I thank you for your understanding of the problems faced with articles such as this. I hope we run into each other again! Ariel♥Gold 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

I really believe that section isn't factually accurate nor neutral, read it and have a look for yourself. Learntruck 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I reverted the change by accident; my apologies. Best regards, Liquidfinale 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit: I take back my apology after having this person vandalise my userpage. My original revert was an accident, a slip of the mouse, and I corrected it barely seconds later. And what do I get? Abuse. Liquidfinale 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Learntruck 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Learntruck, please stop replacing "car accident" with "murder" in this article. That is not constructive, nor is it verifiable by any reliable sources. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i think Diana's death was set up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.171.2 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And you are welcome to have your opinion, but it is not a verifiable fact supported by reliable, third party sources. Ariel♥Gold 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submarined?

Diana — unbelted in the back seat- slid forward during the impact and, having been violently thrown around the interior, "submarined" under the seat in front of her.

What the hell does that mean? Jachin 17:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I just came on here to check on some facts, noticed the page was severely lacking, and then saw the discussion page where all kinds of lunatic decisions seem to have been upheld. The conspiracy theory stuff gets far too prominent a mention, the typo on the billboard seems to be there for no other reason than to teach people how to spell... I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor by any definition but this article really needs someone to give it at least a quick once-over. J@ffa 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign pics

Картинка:DianaSpenser.jpg Delwedd:Tywysogesdi.jpg – later years Bild:Diana Angola.jpg – landmine Immagine:Diana coa.png – coat of arms Immagine:Sandro Pertini con i Principi di Galles.jpg – Italian President Sandro Pertini Kép:Princess diana bristol 1987 02.jpg [szerkesztés] (flowers in Bristol) Bilde:Princess Diana Funeral St James Park 1997.jpg – funeral Bilde:Princess Diana, Bristol 1987.jpg – Diana in Bristol ภาพ:Diana-memorial-fountain01.jpg – The Diana, POW Memorial Fountain ภาพ:Floral.JPG – Flowers, palace ภาพ:Mummy.JPG Dicoffin.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

The image, Image:Diana, Princess of Wales.jpg, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion. The nomination can be found by clicking here. All comments welcome. Woody (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The other image was so much better than what we've got now. She really looked like a princess in it. In the current one, she could be almost anyone. I wish the former one could be put back. B626mrk (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Althorp's rank

I deleted the small reference to the court awarding custody to Lord Althorp because 'of his rank'. This is not neutral and is pure speculation; the wife's affair and the negative testimony of the wife's mother were probably more significant. In the custody case of the children of Lord Lucan, also an Earl, the court did not award custody to Lucan (and he was of the same 'rank' as Lord Althorp). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.235.205 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible change. Deb (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] princess diana

princess diana was a great woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.229.198 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

This article is a right old mess. Surely her descent should come before her early life? It should not be titled 'Royal descent' since it covers numerous non-royals. And even 'Descent' would be poor as it covers cousins and other relatives. It should be called 'Genealogy'. The education stuff should be included within 'Early life', where there should also be a mention of her job as a nursery nurse or whatever it was - which is in fact what I came to the article to find. It also goes straight from the wedding to 'Problems and separation' in the late 1980s - what about having children and whatever else she did in the early to mid-1980s? Salopian (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She learned British sign language [9]. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treason speculation

"Although no charges were considered, [[adultery|adultery]] with the Queen consort or Princess of Wales is considered [[High treason in the United Kingdom|high treason]] for both parties in England under the [[Treason Act 1351|Treason Act 1351]], and they would have both been subject to the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]] if tried and convicted under the laws at the time."

I removed this text, but it has been repeatedly re-inserted. My objections are as follows:

  1. "is considered high treason" By whom? It might be that it technically is in law, but I doubt it is generally considered to be such.
  2. If "no charges" were even considered, what is the relevance of this factoid? Where are the sources that show some notable discussion of this such that it belongs in a biography? Since this played no part in any real debate, and gives no understanding of the subject's life, it belongs in the field of theoretical legal trivia and historical curiosity not a biography.

--Docg 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Experts on the the British Constitution suggested in all seriousness that Mr. Hewitt had committed treason and thus could be hanged, drawn and quartered." It isn't a trivial matter. Whether charges were considered or not. This information has been in the article for a long time without objection. Nor is it speculation. It is coded and enforceable law. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but sources? Please provide sources that indicate that this was a significant issue at the time? And even if sourced, that might belong on a legal article about treason today, you need also to show how it was considered relevant to the life of the subject. At the moment this is unsourced sub-trivia. "Enforcable law"? It is also law that the Queen could dismiss her government, appoint me, and declare war on France, but we don't put that on the article about France.--Docg 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and we do put that in the article about the Queen her technical powers and duties even if unutilized. The IHT source and the Treason Act article more clearly refer to the specific legalities and laws. A potentially treasonous act by a member of the Royal family is by definition relevant, and hardly 'trivia'. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...Mr. Hewitt is not a member of the Royal Family, and he is still alive; the provisions of WP:BLP apply to him. We do not include references of the wide range of possible legal charges that would apply to people into biographical information relating to them. There are many times when we don't even include actual legal charges, unless the person has been convicted. I concur with Doc - unnecessary, does not provide any useful information, and inflammatory to both the living and the dead. Risker (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the statement as a rhetorical flight of fancy by a bored journalist. Appeal to ancient laws such as the Treason Act of 1351 (which would be greeted by any circuit judge with a barely stifled yawn) are Original research and not to be encouraged. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed any reference to any living person, and it now discusses Diana particularly. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it again. Please do not restore to this article, or any part of Wikipedia, the ridiculous and false claim that Diana, Princess of Wales "would have been subject to execution if convicted" of adultery. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It is also weasel wording, "Although she died prior to charges being considered" - implies they would have been considered had she lived. Let's be clear. They were never considered. Would never have been considered. Could never have been considered. Would have been laughed out of court. Now, knock it off.--Docg 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That is speculation as to whether they would have or not. And irrelevant. Nevertheless I can agree that the first words "she died prior to charges..." could be reworded or removed.
The fact is that she was admittedly guilty of high treason under the Treason Act 1351 which is still the law of the land today, despite anyone's opinion of it being antique and outdated, it is binding law. And the fact is additionally that until passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - which occurred after Diana's death - high treason in the United Kingdom carried a mandatory death penalty.
As to whether or not Diana would actually have been hanged, drawn and quartered we can only speculate. But what we can say definitively is that she was subject to that for the adultery she publicly admitted to. // 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We can't definitively say anything about this in a Wikipedia article. There is far too much "speculation" involved. This would need a reliable, published, independent source to be included in any way. Do you have such a source you can cite? If not, this is original research and cannot be added to the article. Thanks, Gwernol 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/10/05/royale.php for some mention. There are more, and better, references as well. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A suitable source would be a British constitutional lawyer opining that Diana, Princess of Wales would have been executed if tried and convicted of adultery. Not an overimaginative journalist with an audience to thrill. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Experts on the the British Constitution suggested in all seriousness that Mr. Hewitt had committed treason and thus could be hanged, drawn and quartered. Per the previous source. As I said there are additional, and better sources. But this punishment per the law, if you look at the aforementioned articles on these laws, clearly state that the punishment is applied to both the adulteress Princess of Wales and the man committing the adultery with her. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know the journalist wrote this. Unfortunately it isn't a very credible statement and he neglected to cite any of these supposed experts. This is why I've described him above as "overimaginative" and his statement as "a rhetorical flight of fancy". We need something more concrete. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To add to Anticipation's cultured reply. Let's for a moment assume that these unnamed "experts" are reliable (though until you can name the experts directly, you can't use this as a source for this article). All that source says is that Hewitt had committed treason. Drawing the conclusion that it also applies to Diana is your original research and you cannot use original research to add to articles on Wikipedia. You need at least one direct and reliable source to include this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you could point us to these "better sources" you've mentioned? Thanks, Gwernol 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The source here is the International Herald Tribune, a subsidiary of the New York Times, hardly a sensationalist source. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a better source. He is quoting experts on the the British Constitution. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
So why did you say "There are more, and better, references as well. "? Either there are more and better references, or there aren't. This one source at best says Hewitt was guilty of treason so can't possibly justify including anything in this article. Gwernol 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I really have no beef with the International Herald Tribune, but they're journalists and journalists write to entertain. They are not experts on constitutional law, nor infallible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Read High treason in the United Kingdom, Treason Act 1351, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and you will clearly see sourced information that adultery with the King/Queens eldest son's wife is high treason and punishable by death for both the man and the princess. And this punishment was effective until 1998 (the crime is still the same, but since '98 the punishment is life imprisonment for both parties to the crime.)
Anticipation, they are quoting British constitutional experts, not offering there own opinion. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindenting) Jumping from the act to the conclusion that in this specific case, Diana was guilty of treason is your own original research. Please read the original research article. You are synthesizing your own conclusion from sources which is not allowed. Gwernol 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a merry-go-round. I think I'll just wait until either hell freezes over or somebody quotes a known British constitutional expert who opines that, if found guilty of adultery, Diane Princess of Wales would have faced execution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line does remain that Diana, Pricess of Wales committed a capital offense under the laws of the land. Any which way you may slice-and-dice it, that is a serious and indeed notable event. Whether she would or would not have been executed, be it hanging or beheading. Consider, as an example, a notable individual committed a murder in a death penalty jurisdiction, and for whatever reason he could not be charged due, say, to some technicality. And he got away scott free with murder. Would we ignore the incident in his biography? No! Would we ignore the fact that the offense committed was a capital crime? Certainly not! The same situation here applies. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The adultery itself may be a "notable event", as may its admission. What could have happened if something else very unlikely had happened is not an event at all. Deb (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana Institute of Peace

I'd like a bit more explanation about how this institute is notable enough for it's own section in an article about the person. I see a bunch of sources, a few of them reliable, but I'm still not sure why it's here. --Onorem♠Dil 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made the new article, however I doubt I am going to edit it much further. It lacks citations. Can someone who has an interest please improve it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The way above article created shows clear vandalism and no good faith. Why this user takes extra interest to delete the sub section on the article Diana, Princess of Wales where this user has no good faith editing in the past (other than the tad viginity issue). Bermudatriangle (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you joking? Instead of having a brief section in a slightly related article, I have created a dedicated article devoted to the Princess Diana Institute of Peace. It is hardly relevant to the Princess Diana article, seeing as it only shares a name with her. If the institute of peace is so important to you, feel free to go to the dedicated article, and help improve it, as at the moment it is highly lacking. Please do not make personal attacks against me, I consider being called a vandal to be a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


So are you trying to say that you have no problem with my edit, the problem you have is that I made the edit not someone else? By the way, I have no political interest in that section, so please assume good faith when making comments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have serious doubt over you. You have been critised by another user that you live in Japan but you don't edit anything on Japan. Now suddenly you started with Diana's virginity and now removing things there telling you don't have any political motivation.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good faith please. Where I live is not relevant, my previous edits are not relevant, what is relevant right now, are my edits on this article. Don't assume anything about my political motivation, I am not really interested in politics, especially not politics relating to Sri Lanka..care to check my contribution history and see if I have ever made an edit relating to Sri Lanka or whatever political issues you are talking about? Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do you live is not relevant then why do you highlight Japan, put a Planet Earth icon to indicate where do you live. We have seen enough on wikipedia how people cheat others as they are innocents by their appealing words.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I also have a userbox that states that my monitor is currently in 1440x900 resolution, is that also relevant? Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[10] and this diff[11], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.
I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [12][13] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.
I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.
When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. If you have concerns over suspected sockpuppetry, take it to the relevant page. I don't see the use of "care to" being sufficient evidence for a case, but either way, it's not what this discussion was started to address. Also, even if they were the same user, it may not be considered abusive sockpuppetry since the accounts aren't being used simultaneously to avoid scrutiny, to create false consensus, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy. I keep seeing bad faith reasons given for the sections removal, but I've yet to see anyone try to justify why it actually belonged here in the first place. "Care to" answer that question? --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Care to offer any proof other than one commonly used share phrase to back up your accusations? Anyone with checkuser rights care to check my IP and see if it matches anyone else? Care to be a little careful with absurd accusations, that cause offence? Care to take it to the sockpuppet page and see them reject it within about 3 seconds? I wanted the article deleted because it was not notable. End of story. Get over it. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh I didn't even login, that should make it a little easier for you to confirm where I am from, the user you mentioned is from Nagoya, run a whois. see if I am in Nagoya, or even close.203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Now I look at Iwazaki and his edits, I can see where the confusion lies... He edited articles relating to Sri Lanka, I edit articles relating to Korea, Japan, Cars and Football. He is rather lacking in his English ability, I speak English fluently, and actually teach English for a living. But I guess we both live in the same country, a country that has 135 million people. Really, take a little care before making unfounded accusations. If I wasn't laughing so much, I would be offended. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Oh, one more thing. The account that accused me of being a sock, was register today, and it's only contributions were on three talk pages, to complain about me, and accuse me of being a sock. I wonder if that is the same user who got a 24 hour block because of my 3RR report. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

User:Onorem raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 [14] at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 [15].
The reason User:Onorem was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also."[16].
This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article Diana, Princess of Wales.
User:Onorem justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the Diana, Princess of Wales without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the Diana, Princess of Wales. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard.


Wikipedia Merge criteria says,
“ 3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there. ”
Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country Sri Lanka where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations.
For the question why it is something to do with the Diana, Princess of Wales is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities.
My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article Diana, Princess of Wales until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.
Though I can revert User:Onorem's revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar.
“ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. ”
I am leaving this information here for your opinion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
First point. If you don't like the current state of the new article, don't waste your time here complaining, spend your time improving the new article.

Second point, don't make any assumptions or accusations regarding the reasons behind the lack of quality and/or the cut/paste style of the article. No hidden agendas, it was the first article that I made (feel free to check my logs) and I thought cut/paste would be simple. I did request for other editors to help improve it.

Third point. It seems that your reasons behind wanting the two articles merged are finally becoming clear, the Diana article is very prominent, concerning a very prominent person - many people view it. The institute of peace is certainly not prominent, hardly a mention of it online, I found it hard to improve the article, because there is nothing to say about it. To be honest, the best solution would have been delete the section, and NOT make a new article. But in the spirit of compromise, I made the new article. Don't try to use a prominent article in order to get prominence for the Institute of Peace. It is NOT notable, and I consider it to be damn lucky to have its own article, with a link on the Diana page.

Fourth point. Who are you? You seem to be very new here, but you also seem to be quite aware of how wikipedia works. Have you ever edited here with another account? And if you don't mind, one more question, is the issue of the Institute of Peace something that you have personal interests in? Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you too don't mind, who are you? Have you any personal hate in deleting the article or to defame the Institute of Peace or its members? You said it is the first article you have created, then for what the hell you are messing with Princess Diana Institute of Peace and Diana's virginity.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am Sennen Goroshi, this is the one and only account I have used. I have edited a few times with IP, when I forgot to login. Personal Hate? LOL. no of course not, this is wikipedia, AKA not real life. I am sorry, did I have to get your personal permission in order to edit the Princess Diana article? I think not. Now I am wondering why you have such an interest in this issue. Are you English like me, and you are interested in Diana? would you mind answering my questions above on my fourth point? I answered yours, seems only fair... Oh, and let me add one more question. Have you heard of "Dhirrosses" that account was made about the same time as you got blocked. And the only edits they made before they got banned were attacking me. I look forward to your response. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


You should post the talk page of the account you are refering, to know who is she or he? You are telling You are English, only God knows who you are? But some of my ancestors are from Nordwestblock region same as Diana, Princess of Wales. This is enough for you. I can't entertain any of your questions hereafter. Leave others to comment on the topic.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Awwww you can't answer any more questions? that's a shame. I was going to ask you one more time....Have you ever edited here with another account?

but it seems that you want to avoid that particular question, for reasons I can only imagine. oh well.. happy editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] enough

This stupid little section has taken more than enough of my time already. Can it just get left alone please?

It is a minor organisation, that barely gets a search result on google. It does not deserve a huge section, or even more than a line or 2.

I don't know what agenda people are trying to push here, but take it elsewhere.

When I see an account, that has been created purely for the purpose of pushing one particular statement, it is fucking hard to keep good faith in that editor.

Go prove me wrong, go edit a load of different articles, and become a great editor, I will happily admit I was wrong.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi is very much politically motivated. This user very freely using the words "fucking" and "asshole" everywhere, then how this user could be a rational person to judge things what is happening on wikipedia is right or wrong.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


and here we all are, back exactly where we were a few days ago.

a blatant single purpose account screwing up the article, in order to push whatever their single purpose agenda is.

I didn't think the institute deserved to be here, but in the spirit of compromise and in a hope of a resolution, I accepted that.

Now the article is exactly the same as before, except the offending non notable crap has moved to another section.

The edit by Jasynnash2 was a perfect example of how to diffuse a situation. The last edit by Bermuda is a perfect example of how to ignite a situation.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

whatever. if the worst someone can do is to make unfounded claims of political bias, and complain about my foul mouth, then I will have an easy life.Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While you are accusing me that I am taking interest over this page, you are taking dubious interest. First you entered removing the issues of her virginity. Then you removed the Institute's details. After it has been included in the "Legacy" section, you suddenly expanded that section. After the creation of the stand alone article most the stuff were shifted there. So that time what Jasynnash2 has included, was sufficient enough. But after the speedy deletion of that stand alone article, I have added a few more info only. Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What I tried to do was to balance the article, the fact that the dedicated article should tell you something.. the institute is NOT notable. It does not have an article anymore, because it is nothing. Do a google search and see how many results you get. You did not add a few more words, you restored it to its previous state, a state which was not acceptable. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have sourced from the refernce available. You are taking extra interest only here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to the question made by Bermuda in his edit summary, I dont think there was anything controversial in the previous version, I just don't think it was notable, and it wasn't required. I don't think politics in Sri Lanka are relevant or suitable for this article, perhaps there is an article more relevant to Sri Lanka, where you can add the Institute of Peace in more detail?Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion, but we haven't come to a consensus here so far like that.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sennen goroshi, Why you created the article if that is nothing[17], what is your actual motive to create that speedy deleted article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
My motivation was compromise, I personally thought that just deleting the section would be the best choice, however I also thought that making a dedicated article and giving it a chance would be a better way to compromise with editors who might want to keep that information.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Then your opinion is changing so quickly over time. Then how can you take rational decisions on issues here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is to discuss the Diana, Princess of Wales article. We are getting off topic. Why not take it to my talk page, so we don't bore everyone else with this bullshit Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that the reference to the Institute of Peace is not suitable for wikipedia. Firstly there is COI as the main editor trying to include it, is a sockpuppet of the founder of the institute. Secondly the founder of the institute had his article deleted, as was the Institute's article (because of a lack of notability) therefore the text refering to the institute is also non-notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam

Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To bottom line is that the subject is not notable for its own article, but it is sourced (self published sources should be ok if they are not promotional) and can be included in this article. It is not being given any more weight than it deserves. --neonwhite user page talk 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Just because something is citable does not make it notable. If I name my dog, princess diana, and I find one link online stating that I named my dog, princess diana, can that be included here? Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand what notability guidelines are for, they are for articles and which subjects are suitable, they aren't for article content. Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. (WP:NNC) and yes if there was enough verifiable sources about a dog called that then it could be included but would likely be considered trivial which this isn't. --neonwhite user page talk 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's totally irrelevant for a person seeking knowledge about Diana that her name is used by a non-notable organization. This feels like a way to try and get around the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Diana Institute of Peace – that article has even been recreated, as a redirect to this one! If indeed the Institute were notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia although not as a separate article (and nobody made that point in the AFD so it probably isn't), it would be at some place like List of peace institutes or List of Sri Lankan organizations, but certainly not here. -- Jao (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jao about this entirely. An organisation jumping on the Diana bandwagon shouldn't have to be included just because it uses her name. And this does look as though it's an attempt to get around the deletion. I will also say that I don't appreciate the accusations of vandalism being thrown around, including at me. Reverting this may have been WP:Bold but is certainly shouldn't be called vandalism by an editor (who seems to use the word quite a bit). As for notability, not only are we talking about a guideline, 'notability' can't be ignored when considering what is appropriate for an article. Which may be why the heading of the bit in the guideline about articles says 'notability guidelines do not directly limit article content' - the word directly is not, I'm sure, there by accident. I think the para about the photograph should be deleted also, by the way.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

The best source available on this is the 'German Memories in Asia By Rajkumar Kanagasingam' book. --neonwhite user page talk 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We obviously have different opinions regarding what is and isn't trivial. My way of thinking is that on a highly notable article, each section should contain highly notable information. For example, I wouldn't try to include the fact that there is a 7-11 store in Tokyo.
On borderline notable articles, then you have to scrape the barrel a little, and use things which are closer to trivia - An article regarding a small town that has basically nothing in it, you might have to mention the existence of a 7-11 store.
Don't forget that before it got deleted, I made the dedicated article for the institute of peace, I tried damn hard to find something/anything about it online. I found that it was a limited company that changed its name to the Princess Diana, institute of peace. The institute held a dinner, once. The institute was founded by Rajkumar Kanagasingam. On such a high profile article as this one, there are so many high profile things to put in, this is not one of them. It is trivia, the way it is being pushed by some editors (not yourself) is highly dubious.
One question, and I don't even need this answered - just consider it. Do you think including this crap, will actually improve wikipedia? I guess you know my answer to that question, but how about yours? Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


The source you mention is a book written by the founder of the Institute, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, who has had his articles deleted for self promotion in the past, and is currently the subject of a sockpuppet report, alleging that he was responsible for the recent edit war, that tried to have the institute of peace included in this article. Highly dubious. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That isn't what wikipedia policy suggests. Notability has no bearing whatsoever on article content. The info is directly relevent to the subject, even if only in name, it directly relates to the 'legacy section' (which could concievably contain anything named after her) it isnt indiscriminate information and therefore not really trivia. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context. Sources don't have to be online, a published book is better than an online source. Remember to assume good faith with all editors. A conflict of interest does not mean anything written by a particular editor should be deleted. The author of the book is not important, that fact it has been published is. --neonwhite user page talk 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The book needs checking for reliability as it is a vanity press publication. Regardless we still have a handful of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


I am sorry, but I cannot agree. I don't consider it to be relevant at all. It is an organisation which is not well known, either it is own nation or worldwide. The citation is not the issue. It is not something that has any impact at all. The same as we don't list every book written about her, or every news report about her. It is something so small and meaningless, it adds nothing to the article. I can understand as a principal you dont want to remove cited information, but I think editors have been reasonable, numerous editors have removed it, because they saw it for what it was - nothing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


We are looking at this in different ways, you are looking at the rules/guidelines of wikipedia, I am looking only at the article, not really caring about the guidelines, just wanting the article to be good. Both viewpoints are relevant. At the end of the day, we have to consider which is the most important. We can't get into a silly edit war again. It is not a vote, however so many people have doubted the suitability of that particular item for this article. But whatever, at least it is being discussed, rather than reverted. Sennen goroshi (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why we are even still discussing this topic.

  • The Sri Lankan Institute did not exist during Diana's lifetime and formed no part in her life
  • The only connection to her is the recently added use of her name
  • This Wiki article is only about Diana, her life and death

This Institute topic should NOT be included here in the Diana article and the editors inserting it should cease and desist immediately 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When the institute ws founded is pretty irrelevent and the use of the name has to be official they wouldnt be able to use it if it wasnt official. --neonwhite user page talk 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana Institute of Peace

The above institute is initiated by Rajkumar Kanagasingam on 31st August, 1997, the day Late Diana, Princess of Wales passed away and entered the initiation of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" in her condolence book for Late Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster House, Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 03rd September, 1997 and informed officially to His Excellency David Tatham, CMG the High Commissioner from the Court of Saint James to Sri Lanka at Westminster House, the same day.

(The above details are mentioned in the Articles of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which is formally incorporated as an association in Sri Lanka on 30th June, 1998.)

(The condolence book is currently kept at Kensington Palace.)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam has sent a copy of the articles of the association to OTRS.Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


A question for the above editor. I noticed that you had not edited wikipedia for over a year. What prompted you to check this particular article, at this particular time? It seems to be rather good timing, and I wondered if there was anything behind your return. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should get distracted from the main issue, which is that there are many many things using her name, but as several people have said, it simply doesn't belong in the article, which is not about things named after Diana, but about her.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is linked and there is no reason i can see why the article should not contain a list of things named after her. --neonwhite user page talk 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you Rajkumar Kanagasingam. You have just confirmed my statements above:

  • The Sri Lankan Institute did not exist during Diana's lifetime and formed no part in her life
  • The only connection to her is the recently added use of her name
  • This Wiki article is only about Diana, her life and death

This Institute topic should therefore NOT be included here in the Diana article and the editors inserting it should cease and desist immediately 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to add that if something highly notable was named after her, then it might be included, but this should be the exception not the rule. The problem with this article, is that this has been said many times, some people with possible agendas, and some well meaning editors keep on reinstating it. The overwhelming consensus based on previous edits, is that it is not included. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As i have said above, the date of the founing is irrelevant to this discussion. I assume the org. must have some official backing or the name would not be allowed. The next course of action is to verify this. --neonwhite user page talk 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you can assume that in order to use someone's name as part of your organisation's name, you need approval. For example, do you think the notable band Gay for Johnny Depp operate with the approval of the actor they are named after?Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}It still wouldn't be relevant here, perhaps in a list of things officially named after her.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure I agree there. Most biographies seem to incorporate this kind of information in the main article, only taking out place names if very numerous. There are certainly exceptions though, such as List of things named after Glenn T. Seaborg. But that's really beside the point; whether we think it should be included is the first question, and if we do, then how to include it – in the main article or in a sub-article – is the second. I'd say that if there's some sort of official acknowledgement of the use of Diana's name here, then it could certainly stay. But then it would also be a notable organization, discussed in independent sources, and should probably never have been deleted in the first place. Some of the people trying to save the article would definitely have made that point if it were true, so I can only assume (against neonwhite's assumption) that it does not have any kind of official backing. I'll gladly switch sides if I'm proven wrong on that assumption. -- Jao (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is that I'm pretty certain that you cannot legally use the name of a member of the royal family for anything unless it is officially sanctioned, whether this applies outside the uk or if in fact this org. has gained permission, i dont know. --neonwhite user page talk 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Bio of Rajkumar Kanagasingam was nominated on 17 March 2007 (UTC) and the Princess Diana Institute of Peace was nominated on 19 March 2007 (UTC). The timing shows the foul play. To prove that see this Something quite interesting.. Very interestingly the deletion of the institute first started with User :Lahiru k here.
Most of the editors who voted "delete" for Rajkumar Kanagasingam are voted "delete" for the Princess Diana Institute of Peace also. So the both AFDs are well planned and should not be counted. Rajkumar Kanagasingam is a Tamil and the majority of those who voted "Delete" are pro-nationalists/Sinhalese and the nominator of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace, (User:Utcursch) is from Karnataka, another Indian state where Tamils are in trouble.[18][19].Bermudatriangle (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember to assume good faith. Two related pages being nominated at similar times is not evidence of 'foul play' and as both debates were listed in Sri Lanka-related deletions it's highly likely that similar editors would contribute to the discussions. Some of the comments made during the afd were not really valid reason for deletion but most afds suffer from that, i think the result was borderline no consensus/delete. Remember wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox for political causes. You're ignoring the fact that afds are decided by an admin based on the valid policy points made not on numbers. There were many experienced editors who made valid reason for deletion and this is what the closing admin would have noted. --neonwhite user page talk 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Though I agree with you most of the points which you have highlighted, I am bit nervous of your point, "There were many experienced editors who made valid reason for deletion and this is what the closing admin would have noted." When you don't like someone, it is not the experience but the prejudice over-influences anything.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Considering the number of editors involved on Sri Lanka related issues, I am not sure how many editors are visiting regularly to check what is happening in Sri Lanka-related deletions list. Unless otherwise they are notified on their talk pages, they don't know what is happening around. Even in a well planned afd battle they might be even resent to cast their votes.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The only arguments that the closing sdmins (a different admin for each article) would have taken into account would have been those based on notability policy. You however request a deletion review if you are not happy with the decision. You can see in the histories that Princess Diana Institute of Peace was nominated by User:Utcursch, an admin, after contributing to the Rajkumar Kanagasingam i see nothing irregular about this. --neonwhite user page talk 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Neon, I also don't see any irregularity on what he has done by his actions. But that doesn't mean that Admins are born rationals or they do things without prejudice. We can't measure the actual intentions. We have seen enough desysopped admins in the past.Bermudatriangle (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously they are human and there have been many cases of afds close improperly but that is what deletion reviews are for. In this case two different unrelated admins closed each afd. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I too understand they are humans. But Rajkumar Kanagasingam's afd was closed with Keep vote, just two and half months ago by another admin. Those who accussed he canvassed votes should have boycotted from the second afd, but what has happened, is, they showed their utter chauvinism.
And see this comment by User:Dennisthe2 on Princess Diana Institute of Peace.Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Significant evidence she is related to King Arthur"

How can that be possible? There is no evidence that King Arthur even existed, so how can there possibly be evidence that Diana was descended from him? That has to be a windup 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was initially interested, then I woke up and realised that it was a blatant joke. Until such time as there is something resembling a citation, I will delete it on sight. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana, the comments by His Royal Highness The Prince Philip

His Royal Highness said "Princess Diana" clear in English to the ITV news presenter Trevor McDonald, and the event was captured on film. I am quite sure a Prince of the United Kingdom himself knows the correct titles and styles, and this supersedes anything claimed on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.253.66 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. We don't take our marching orders from any particular person, not even royalty. They're just as human as the rest of us. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the anonymous poster would also agree with Diana saying that she would become the "King Mother" or something to that effect. Charles 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although you people may think you know the rules, the truth is there are no rules on royalty. They can call and style themselves what they please. We have amatuer royal fans thinking they know more than a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth for goodness sake! It is quite clear that the title Princess Diana was legitimate and recognised. She was a Princess, her name was Diana, hence Princess Diana. If Diana choose to be known as King Mother, then that is what would happen. Who would refuse her the right to that title? Certainly not her beloved son, William of Wales. The wife of the son of a sovereign always receives the title of Princess in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.253.66 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Titles and styles are the prerogative of the Sovereign, not the sovereign's spouse. 'Princess Diana' as a title was neither granted nor legitimate. Sorry. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
To be more specific about my answer... in the UK, Princesses achieve their titles in one of three ways:
  1. ) Inherited
  2. ) Created in their own right
  3. ) Through marriage to a Prince

Only in the first two cases would a Princess have the right be known as Princess Firstname. In the third case, the Princess is correctly known as Princess Husbandfirstname of Place. Thus we have Princess Anne in the first case, none that I'm aware of in the second case, and e.g. Princess Michael of Kent in the third. Diana would have been correctly addressed (during her marriage) as HRH The Princess of Wales, HRH Princess Charles of Wales, or HRH Diana, The Princess of Wales. At no time in her life would she have ever been entitled to HRH Princess Diana of Wales, as she did not ever hold the title in her own right; she derived it from her husband. I hope that helps. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to Diana in Contemporary Art, Popular Culture, etc

hello everyone

I added a line about princess diana's references in contemporary art that was erased twice by 2 users

do you think that's irrelevant? if not maybe would be interesting to have a track on diana's references not only in contemporary art but also popular culture, literature, cinema, etc

i found that information fundamental as she has a very strong iconic status as much as when she was alive

bests

Milhouse--88.0.18.24 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally pointless. It'll become as big as the article itself, and add nothing in the way of understanding. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Worse still, it risks becoming a dumping ground for every non-notable writer and artist looking for publicity. A separate article could be created, but it would have to be very carefully monitored to stop the same thing happening. Deb (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened here?

What happened to this article?! Where are the references? Where are "See also", "External links" etc? Why does the article end with ancestry? Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be better now. There was a missing closing tag from a previous edit. --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)