Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


 * Several weeks ago I decided to add a pic of Diana to the article. But, after spending a frustrating hour searching dozens of sites, I found nothing free of copyright so I gave up. Someone who reads Wikipedia and photographed her, would have to donate their own pic. Annoying, isn't it!
 * Adrian Pingstone 20:28, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * All we need is permission to post it. Do you remember the URL of one of the photos you liked? All you need to do is email them and ask for permission to post it and assure them we'll include copyright info with it. I think the photo is then bound by the GFDL? I'm not sure about this, but someone might be willing to contribute a photo or two. :) &mdash;Frecklefoot 17:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No. Wikipedia cannot carry pictures in the manner you suggest. If it is copyright it cannot be used. In Diana's case, it is unlikely that we will be able to get a copyright image. Because of Diana's iconic value, no photographer is likely to wave copyright on a Diana image. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I discovered some public domain photos issued from the White House during the Reagan era:

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

Just an idea. - 206.156.242.36


 * I don't know if this would work. If the statue was covered by copyright, wouldn't the photo be a derived work?  ( 21:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I looked it up, and it seems that it's ok, at least in the UK. There is an exemption for photographs of buildings, statues, etc., which are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c62) ( 21:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Well then, the photo of the bust wouldn't work. Don't you have to pay to get into Madame Tussard's? If so, I don't think that qualifies as "open to the public." It is open to "paying customers." But IANAL, so I could be wrong... &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:45, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * This act doesn't seem to define "open to the public", but from definitions in other places, it seems that theatres, galleries, etc., are generally included even if a fee is charged. The thing also has to be on "permanent" display, not part of a temporary exhibition.  Also, you would need to check the fine print of the ticket to make sure prohibition on photography was not a condition of entry - this would not lead to a copyright violation, but to potential contract problems.  See also  ( 18:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * There was a loophole in this kind of law in the UK I believe where if you photograph a person holding a picture, or a newspaper with a picture or something, then that would be not be covered. No sure how useful this would be, or the precise legal footing of such a thing, but I know some newspapers in the UK have used this ruse to get around issues like this.
 * It's a kind of fair use thing - the caption would be something like: "Mark Richards pictured here with his copy of 'Diana - a Photographic Study'".
 * Also, what about a sketch? Someone could trace a photo, or sketch her? Mark Richards 18:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

Perhaps it would be best to create an article detailing various conspiracy theories on her death? This article could point to that article and note that they exist, but concentrate on what ever the official reports say. The current structure seems unbalanced to me, it's in chronological order except for the section on conspiracy theories:
 * intro
 * early years
 * meets Charles, marries
 * married life
 * charity work (this follows her marriage, since she suddenly had a high profile she could use to support charities)
 * death
 * conspiracy theories surrounding her death, branching off in several different directions
 * suddenly back to the days before and after her funeral, public mourning
 * her continuing legacy.

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

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

On the up side:

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

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

- As you say, it could make more sense chronologically

On the down side:

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

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

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

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

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

Polls
Re my reversion of this change:


 * You can't possibly believe 'Accident or Murder?' is NPOV, you're just trying to promote the idea that she was in fact murdered. If you don't like 'Conspiracy Theories' then suggest a compromise and lets see if we can go with that, it's a waste of both our time to keep changing it back and forth.


 * Re the polls: for now I've removed this para entirely as it seems so contentious. Do you understand what is meant by a 'representative' poll? I tried to explain it in the body of the article (that's the text that you deleted). It means a poll where the participants are 'sampled' (chosen) in such a way that they are representative of the population at large. A phone-in poll, where the participants choose themselves, doesn't in any way represent the opinion of the population at large - just those people who chose to phone in. The other poll (the 25% one) was afaik carried out by a professional polling organisation. But if you have a problem with the other poll, lets just compromise and omit them both...

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

From 158.152.12.77


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

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

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


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

Best regards, 158.152.12.77

James II -> Diana

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

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

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

Chris Gidlow 15 June 2006

Degree of involvement
From 158.152.12.77

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

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

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

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


 * But, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the above, how is this relevant to this article? fabiform | talk 04:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Only insofar as a guy is mentioned one of her famous ancestors, saying he was king is saying one important thing about him, saying he was a big-time slave-owner (basically running the English slave trade for years) is saying another, equally important.

(158.152.12.77)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Huh? It's in there.  She was born as the Hon. Diana Frances Spencer.  When her father became Earl Spencer in 1975, she became the Lady Diana Frances Spencer.  john 05:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


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

"Making Diana a saint"

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

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


 * Canonizing implies the formal Roman Catholic process. The Church of England has no such scheme.   The idiomatic "making someone a saint" is an acceptable term, even if not theologically accurate; "proving" or "recognizing" are more accurate but confusing & pedantic for a lay discussion    garryq 09:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's confusing as it stands: the fact that there's no analogous C of E process was what made me assume it meant the Catholic process in the first place. If there's no referent to "making X a saint", what were these people actually suggesting should happen? Marnanel 17:44, May 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * This passage is rather questionable. It shouldnt be in the page unsourced in light of the fact that's it not possible to canonise someone who isn't catholic and very unusual for anyone to be suggested so soon after their death.

The bastard descent
nunh-huh

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

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

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


 * Nothing wrong with using "Burke-Roche", assuming that was her mothers maiden name, but she was far better known as Mrs Shand-Kydd(e), so that deserves a mention. As far as Royal descent goes, when Bill Clinton visited Ireland a newspaper reported a new industry in trying to find Irish origins, no matter  how obscure.  Maybe the same with the royal family, as long as it doesn't waste space in the article  garryq 18:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "The modern era", in (British) historical terms, is generally meant to be c. 1650 onwards (IIRC). It's used as a particular common phrase, rather than with 'modern' as an adjective of subjective judgment.
 * Agreed about the Ohio/American thing, though. Is it North American or United-States-ian, though?
 * James F. (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did some tidying up and only just noticed the message saying the article was "protected". Deb 17:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

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


 * It won't be deliberate, just someone editing who doesn't know any better. Feel free to get rid of it. Deb 20:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * They're all now gone except the one in Bill Clinton's speech. I think a [sic] would be a little harsh, though. :) Proteus (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I dunno. ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * That sounds best. I'll change it if there are no objections. Proteus (Talk) 11:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say leave the present one and add a separate paragraph outside the intro. Noting that she made a point of correcting people who said "Princess Diana" - David Gerard 13:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, why say for someone else to do it when I could do it myself. Title stuff is now in a separate section at the end. "Strictly incorrect" for the intro, but just plain "incorrect" for the article. Is this suitable? - David Gerard 13:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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


 * First error: 0:25, and not 0:22
 * Second error: Diana was allegedly bloody. In the pictures no blood and no injuries are to be seen, and the car is damaged only in the front side. The roof of the car was removed only later at 1:15.
 * A few weeks later, rival network CBS showed pictures of the crash taken by the photographers showing an intact rear side and an intact Center section of the Mercedes, including one of a not bloody  Diana crouched on the rear floor of the vehicle with her back to the right passenger seat - the right rear car door is completely opened (!) - See also: German Bild Zeitung, 24. April 2004, page 8 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tod_der_Lady_Diana_Spencer_-_die_nachweisbaren_Fakten


 * Dietmar 11:00, 2004 Jun 20


 * Eyewitness report, Frederick Maillez: "I went to the wreckage to see what was going on inside," says Maillez, who tended to the seriously injured princess after the crash. "I can tell you her face was still beautiful. She didn’t have any injuries, main injury on her face. She was unconscious. She didn’t speak at all.", in: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/48hours/main612794.shtml and in many newspapers, April 21, 2004 (CBS News) But eyewitness Paparazzi Laslo Veres is saying: "She was not unconscious" and eyewitness fireman Carlo Zaglia is saying: "She speak at all".


 * Dietmar 13:40, 24 Jun 2004

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


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


 * Dietmar 8:30, 29 Jun 2004

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


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


 * Dietmar, 17:20, Jun 27, 2004


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


 * Dietmar, 8:30, Jun 29, 2004

The Queen
I've changed back someone's changing of a sentence to read how Diana when she threw herself down the stairs was found by a "horrified Queen." Using Queen is wrong on a number of accounts. So to avoid capitalisation problems, anglo-centric language and avoid confusion you need to say office-name-ordinal, ie Queen Elizabeth II. FearÉIREANN 18:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Text style guides suggest in that context it should be lowercased as queen. (I think the idea nonsense, but they say that.)
 * 2) Saying, as the person who made change did, that who the queen in the sentence is is umbiguously wrong. The Queen to Britain means Elizabeth II, to Danish people, it means Margrethe II, to some Greeks, it means Queen Anne Marie, to Dutch people it means Queen Beatrix, to Belgian people, Paola, to Spaniards, Sofia, etc. Using The Queen is something best avoided in wikipedia because not everyone instinctively thinks of the same person when the see the phrase, while others who don't have english as a first language may not grasp all the nuances and implications in the article and know exactly what you mean. (That's why people refer to the current US president as George W, to avoid any confusion with the other George (H) Bush.) Plus, in strict factual terms, foreign royalty regularly stay at Balmoral. So "a horrified Queen" could in theory be any one of twenty queens visiting, or the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
 * 3) Saying in that a horrified Queen Elizabeth is also a non-starter. Queen Elizabeth was a term which when used applied to the Queen Mother in Britain. To indicate the reigning monarch, not her mother you use the ordinal, Queen Elizabeth II.

That really makes for an ugly sentence.

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

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

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

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

82.43.194.220 10:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

D's influence on Landmines legislation - Hansard as primary source
Hansard is the official record of what's said in the UK houses of parliament.

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

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

82.43.194.220 13:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there's:

In astrology both new and old, eclipses (whether solar or lunar) are thought to be omens of significant events, births, or other important developments that are occuring or about to occur. The course of Diana's life is a remarkable example of a life touched very powerfully by these celestial alignments.

Firstly, a solar eclipse occurred only one day after Princess Diana and Prince Charles were married on 29 July 1981. Next, their firstborn son Prince William, the future King of England, was born slightly over a year later only a few hours after a solar eclipse occurred on 21 June 1982. Ten and a half years later, Princess Diana and Prince Charles were formally seperated on 9 December 1992, the exact day of a lunar eclipse. Finally, Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997, only one day before a solar eclipse occurred.

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

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

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

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

Uh?????

As a future Queen, D. had to be 'Protestant and a virgin'
As this is an issue that's come up before, I thought it was worth mentioning my amendment on the talk page.

Issue 1: Had to be Protestant
I've amended it so it doesn't say she had to be Protestant any more, as I don't think this is correct. She merely had to be a non-Catholic - but I've now omitted this entirely as it didn't seem all that specific to Diana.


 * Anyone who marries a Catholic or converts to Catholicism is excluded from the line of succession. However, Diana could have converted to Catholicism following her marriage, and Charles would have still be in line. john k 02:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * amended to "had to have an aristocratic background, and could not be a Catholic" in light of comments here and below. 82.44.93.140 16:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not accurate, in that it implies that the two requirements are similar. They are not.  Not being Catholic is a statutory requirement.  Another statutory requirement is that the marriage has to be approved by the queen.  Beyond that, there are no statutory requirements.  I guess one might say that the queen was only going to approve someone from an aristocratic background who could be plausibly claimed to be a virgin.  But that's about it. john k 17:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisors, any potential bride had to have an aristocratic background and could not have been previously married - and for Charles to remain in the line of royal succession, he could not marry a Catholic."
 * Hic 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hic 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issue 2: Had to be a virgin
Again, I've deleted this as I don't think it's true. There's certainly no suggestion that anyone would have checked. I think the real issue here is that she couldn't be a divorcee (and as things are turning out with Camilla, it's looking as though this would actually have been possible anyway - although would have certainly raised more conservative eyebrows).82.44.93.140 17:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read media reports that suggest she was checked to determine her virginity. Although I doubt she would have been rejected if she was proven to be less than chaste. Astrotrain 20:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wasn't part of the reason Camilla was regarded as an unsuitable consort because she was "less than chaste"? (Alphaboi867 00:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

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

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

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

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


 * Wasn't Camilla's status as a divorcee the central reason why Charles couldn't marry her, if he wanted to stay in the line of royal succession? (cf Abdication Crisis of Edward VIII). Haven't heard those rumours about Camilla before, expect you're right that if that was the case then it would be a black mark against her, but would be interested to see some sources. 82.44.93.140 16:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This time around. But she wasn't in the 1970s before she married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Charles's hesitancy in asking her to marry her was that, while she was the person he wanted to marry, he wasn't sure if she was the person who would be accepted as queen. She wasn't from the usual royal bride background, and had lived a sex-life that while reflecting the livestyles of many British people in the 1960s and 1970s was not what was perceived acceptable for royal brides, at least not acceptable when it could potentially become public where her ex-lovers were not from a background that would have kept quiet out of loyalty to the throne and the monarchy, as in the past.


 * John Brown was also not thought suitable as a partner for Queen Victoria because of his background and class. Whether he was or was not Victoria's lover is still debated, though increasing primary documents from the period (including that of a reported deathbed conversation with the senior dean who supposed married them given to a senior politician and which is contained in his newly unearthed diaries), suggests that they were probably lovers and possibly secretly married. The refusal of the Royal Archives to allow anyone see the papers on the issue, when almost everything else by Victoria can be read by historians, is seen by historians as deeply suspicious and lends credence to the lover/husband story. Class and sexual past was also the main reason why there was such opposition to Wallace Simpson marrying King Edward. Queen Mary openly claimed she had won her son's heart through "oriental sexual techniques". Her status as a divorceé was the excuse that was seized on to stop the marriage to someone people believed was utterly unsuitable to be queen and a national symbol. But even if she wasn't a divorceé, "this American slut", in the words of one letterwriter, was thought unsuitable as a royal bride. FearÉIREANN  21:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * These 'oriental sexual techniques' sound fun. I wonder if it's possible to take evening classes?.... --Hic 11:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't get too excited, from an unguarded comment by HRH Elizabeth, Queen Mother, she was probably referring to nothing more exotic than oral sex chrisboote 16:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New - Issue 3: What's all this about Lord Mountbatten?
"In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisors, including his great-uncle Lord Mountbatten, "

"Mrs Parker Bowles had been dismissed by Lord Mountbatten as a potential spouse for the heir to throne some years before" Is it true? - any sources for this? --Hic 14:27, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

Who said?
 * Is it which has "His family and Dodi's father, Mohamed al Fayed"?

Who some? Reference for the last sentence?

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

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

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

Arms
Are these really Diana's personel arms? They look like the arms of Earl Spencer, and not Diana. Although I guess Diana would have used the Royal Arms impaled with the Spencer arms as a Queen consort of Charles. After her divorce, I think she used the letter D, crowned. Astrotrain July 3, 2005 19:21 (UTC)
 * A woman uses her fathers arms unless she herself is armigerous. After her divorce she was no longer entitled to impale the royal arms so would have reverted to using her fathers, I don't think she was ever granted arms of her own.  The "letter D"  is simply a mongram, in the same way the the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme uses his PP monogram (http://www.theaward.org/) rather than his coat of arms or badge. garryq 10:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Diana's arms as Princess of Wales were exemplified by the College of Arms and can still be seen here - they were the arms of Spencer impaled with the arms of the Prince of Wales, with a dexter supporter from her husband and a sinister supporter based on her father's, but with a royal crown and chain. A College of Arms ruling of 6 November 1997 says:  "Divorced women should (as hitherto) revert to their paternal arms on a lozenge until remarriage; the use of the mascle to indicate divorce will be optional."  This was duly applied to Diana after her divorce, and her arms are authoritatively displayed by the College of Arms here - (scroll to bottom of page) accordingly:  i.e., a lozenge of the arms of Spencer only, with her two Spencer supporters (dropping the Prince of Wales dexter supporter but retaining the coronets and chains).  As a married woman, she had the coronet of the Prince of Wales, with its single arch; after her divorce, the College of Arms topped her arms with the coronet of a princess of England (compare illustrations at Gutenberg scrolling down to "Crown and Coronet").  But I see that the article now includes no coats of arms at all!  So perhaps the question is now academic.  Chelseaboy 13:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Princess of Wales succession box
I can see why User:Astrotrain might see a problem with a succession box, but some sort of box needs to be to link Diana to those who were POW before. I've reworded the box to
 * refer to the previous princess of wales etc
 * included the dates

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

Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 7 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)


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

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

Gay Icon?
Could someone please explain why this article is in the Gay icon category? I've never heard or read anything associating the Princess of Wales with anything of the sort. Then again, I'm an ignorant little American who read Paul Burrell's book and probably doesn't know any better, but cut me some slack. &#38738;&#12356;(Aoi) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


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


 * Wow, thanks for that very quick response! &#38738;&#12356;(Aoi) 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

New Photo
I look at this article occasionally, but don't have it on my watchlist. I noticed tonight that the photo at the top of the article had been replaced by one which I thought was less suitable. Obviously, that's a subjective judgment. However, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or consensus regarding this, so I hope nobody will mind that I revert back to the one that was there a week ago. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the old one was much nicer (unless there were copyright problems with it) - Adrian Pingstone 07:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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


 * Nice try. What I removed were links, in the External links section, that served no purpose to the article. Or do you propose that every marginal theory about anything should be linked on Wikipedia? Why don't you go add some links to how George W. Bush is in bed with the Saudis, or how the Mossad actually carried out the 9-11 attacks? Let me know how that works out for you.--chris.lawson 11:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't have to. Those theories are already cited in Bush family conspiracy theory and 9/11 conspiracy theories, though I don't personally support either allegation.


 * Note that both pages you just linked include "conspiracy theory" in their titles.


 * When you write a page about "Princess Diana Assassination Conspiracy Theory", you're welcome to include the links there.--chris.lawson 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine (even though "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term). But in all cases, the "main" page will at least mention the *existence* of a controversy or a conspiracy that is dealt with in depth elsewhere. -- James

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

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

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


 * I am not sure about Mary and Letizia. But, in the UK, "Princess Name" implies a princess of the blood, a daughter born to the sovereign or a son of the sovereign. Of the current wave of "princesses", only Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant and her sister-in-law Princess Claire of Belgium are "Princess Name", they were created Princesses in Belgium in their own right prior to their marriages.  Hope that helps, and if I am wrong, please correct me. Prsgoddess187 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Each country is different. For example, in Denmark, wives use their own name, ie. Princess Alexandra of Denmark even during her marriage was NOT Princess Joachim.  Greece follows the system where wives use their husband's names, ie. Prince and Princess Andrew.  I find this a bit weird since the Greek Royal Family is a scion of the Danish Royal House.  You can't just look at one country's practices and ask oh is it the same as other countries?  Obviously not, every country is different.


 * I believe in most countries, it is a matter of tradition. To my personal knowledge, only Greece follows the same practice as the British (Princess Husband's name).  TRH Princesses Mathilde and Claire of Belgium, as well as HRH Princess Maxima of the Netherlands were all granted titles in their own rights, but according to the websites of the Danish, Norwegian, Spanish and Dutch royal families, wifes use the style HRH Princess Name.  Therefore, I believe that it is correctly HRH Crown Princess Mary of Denmark,HRH Crown Princess Mette-Marit, HRH Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, HRH Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, etc. In Spain, however, HRH Letizia, Princess of Asturias does not use the title Infanta, although her husband is HRH Infante Felipe, Prince of Asturias.  I hope that helps.

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


 * I know. Someone deleted it again. I've corrected the terminology yet again. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


 * Diana was never a princess to begin with. She was a "Princess by marriage" as opposed to a "Princess of the blood" (as Princess Margaret was or Princess Anne is). Princess of the blood are the daughters of reigning kings or queens. Diana was only the spouse of a "Prince of the blood", so she technically was The Princess Charles, The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, etc. For more information on this, check out the Wikipedia article British princess, it will give you more information on the subject. Prsgodd e ss187 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course she was a princess. The fact that she was a princess by marriage rather than a princess by birth doesn't mean she wasn't a princess (hence the word "princess" in "princess by marriage"). Proteus (Talk) 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct Proteus, all I was trying to say is she was not entitled to the title of Princess Diana. Prsgodd e ss187 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * The reason I want 'car accident' removed and replaced with 'vehicular collision' or similar, is not because I think the "occupants willingly committed suicide, therefore it was not an accident". I want the 'accident' reference removed because there's always an uncertainty as to whether it was really an accident, and therefore "car accidents" is not a proper way to address 'vehicular collisions'. When a car crashes into something or another car, it is literally "a vehicular collision", not neccesarily a car accident. PatrickA 23:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
 * Wrong. If it was an unintended incident not deliberately caused by the driver then by definition it is an accident. Accidents can be caused deliberately, result from error, through mechanical failure, but they are all defined as road accidents irrespective of the cause once the cause itself is not a deliberate knowing act by the driver. "Vehicular collision" may be used where you come from but it is not widely used as a term internationally, therefore it is totally unsuitable for usage here. Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. The most common name for such incidents is "accident". That is what they are called by police forces worldwide also, and how they are referred to in the media worldwide. Diana's death has been described as being due to a "car accident" in every country on the planet and in every language. Opting for a rarely used, little understood term, in preference to a widely understood one, contradicts the Manual of Style requirements on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Opposed

 * FearÉIREANN [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Diana's death is never described as being as a result of a "vehicle collision". WP uses the standard terminology widely used to describe things. The standard terminological use is to say "car accident". That simply means an unplanned event that was not deliberately perpetrated by the driver (as opposed to a vehicle crash caused by a driver deliberately commiting suicide). It does not rule out the possibility that the accident was caused by outside forces (car accidents are caused by technological failures (breaks or steering), other crashing into them, swerving to avoid another vehicle, etc) just that it was not done by deliberate choice of the driver.
 * Mark1 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) As above.
 * Jezzabr As above. This sort of PC rubbish always adds verbiage which obscures the gist of the article. (If you must, say "car crash" - nobody says "vehicular collision" outside B movies)

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * The rules on divorced peeresses in Scots law wouldn't apply to her, since she didn't live in Scotland: the main deciding factor is residence rather than nature of the title, and as she lived in English it would be English law that determined her title. She was styled "Diana, Princess of Wales", but this was merely a style, and she lost all actual titles on divorce, both Scottish and English. This created the slightly anomalous situation of her style in Scotland changing from "HRH The Duchess of Rothesay" to "Diana, Princess of Wales", but that's just the way these things work. (And the situation in Scots law is at any rate a theoretical one, since in practice divorced peeresses there follow the same rules as English ones, prefixing their Christian names to their titles to form a new style and losing their honorific prefixes.) Proteus (Talk) 15:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Michael David 11:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the accusations of her having suffered from BPD are unreasonable, I would question whether the mere mention of them is inappropriate. There is an article on Borderline personality disorder, which is a recognised condition, and when the suggestion is made as often as it has been made about Diana, there might be good grounds for including a sentence on the subject.


 * While I agree that the Article on Borderline is important, I do not agree that reference to it should be included in an encyclopedic biography of a specific person, unless that person them self has been formally diagnosed with the disorder. “It has been suggested…” is the same as “It has been rumored…” This type of reference is not worthy of Diana. Michael David 12:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Including or excluding things because they are or aren't 'worthy' of the person in question is poor grounds. Alci12 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * The ex-wives of peers usually receive the title of Firstname, Husband's Peerage Title. So Her Grace The Duchess of Wikipedia would become: Jane, Duchess of Wikipedia, with no honorifics. I am sure that since no other Prince of Wales in recent history has been divorced, this is a first for the title, but the format of the title, is the norm. We could link the section to the coutesy title page. Prsgodd e ss187 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry
Where are her arms before and after marriage/divorce?

Kneeslasher.

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

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

can anyone confirm the above is true or untrue?

JJ211219 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Follow the ancestry here . I'll see if I can find more info and then add this to the article Mad Jack 07:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Katherine Scott Forbes was the daughter of John Jakob Forbes [and her] mother was Maria Ruth Rostowski". This is simply not accurate at all. In actuality, Katherine Scott Forbes was the daughter of Theodore Forbes and Eliza Kewark, neither of whom were Jewish, the latter being of Armenian descent. A more authentic rendition of Diana's family tree can be found here if this rather churlish subject is still of interest to you.

"Theodore Forbes (his father)[sic] came from a Scottish family of crypto-Jewish ancestry". Another completely baseless statement. I'm guessing that you have no way to verify this claim, as being "crypto-Jewish" would no doubt preclude any possibility of affirmation. How convenient.

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


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

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

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)

Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for has failed
 * 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. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Was Diana technically a princess following her divorce.
No.NChoules 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 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.
 * 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.**--

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 there''This 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  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)|undefined 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: (talk • 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 &mdash; i.e., by (i) birth, or (ii) by creation.
 * Those who are princesses merely by someone else's status &mdash; 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 . (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 [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\(caint)|undefined 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)

Edits by 68.250.71.178
I have amended these because I found them to be too slanted. That the failed all</I> 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)

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)

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)


 * But the above is still incorrect: it would have been "HRH, Diana, The Princess of Wales, etc." as specifically distinct from (for example "HRH Princess Anne" or "HRH Princess Margaret."FlaviaR (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. As someone who was not entitled to 'Princess' by birth, her correct title was HRH The Princess of Wales, or HRH Princess Charles.  The style HRH Princess Firstname Place is reserved solely for those who are entitled to Princess by birth. HRH Diana, Princess of Wales is possibly technically correct, but you are wrong in asserting that Princess Charles is incorrect. Prince of Canadat 07:00, 1 July 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)

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)

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)

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." The BBC newsdesk clearly believes him: "Mr Hewitt was Diana Princess of Wales's secret lover for five years."  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." 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." 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" 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."  82.40.183.118 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also a BBC 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)

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)

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)

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 DBD'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 \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(function {    if (window.MathJax)        return;    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function  { StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(makeAwesome) });   $("").text(".where-is-my-cursor { display: inline-block; /* width: 1px; height: 1px*/ }" + ".wmd-preview.shrunk {overflow-y: auto; max-height:500px} " + ".wmd-preview.shrunk pre {max-height:350px} " + ".no-max-height, .no-max-height * { max-height: none !important; } " ).appendTo("head");   function makeAwesome(editor, postfix) {        postfix = postfix || "";        var jPreview = $("#wmd-preview" + postfix),            jInput = $("#wmd-input" + postfix);        jPreview.addClass("shrunk not-on-top not-on-bottom");        var converter = editor.getConverter;        var cachedSource, cachedHtml;        function realHtml(markdown) {            if (cachedSource !== markdown) {                cachedHtml = converter.makeHtml(markdown)                cachedSource = markdown;            }            return cachedHtml;        }        function positionForCharacter(charPos) {            var markdown = jInput[0].value || "",                markdownBeforeCursor = markdown.substring(0, charPos),                markdownAfterCursor = markdown.substring(charPos);            var real = realHtml(markdown),                broken = converter.makeHtml(markdownBeforeCursor + ">" + markdownAfterCursor), len = real.length, i, lastTagPos; for (var i = 0; i ", lastTagPos),               tag = real.substring(lastTagPos, tagEnd), // excluding the ">"                htmlAfterTag = real.substring(tagEnd), // including the ">"                html, created = false;            if (/^" + tag;                html = htmlBeforeTag + tag + htmlAfterTag;                created = true;            } else {                html = real.substring(0, i) + "" + real.substring(i);                created = true;            }            $(".no-max-height").remove;            var jClone = $("

").css({               height: 1,                visibility: "hidden",                position: "absolute",                overflowY: jPreview[0].scrollHeight !== jPreview[0].clientHeight ? "scroll" : "hidden" // if the preview has a scrollbar, we need one here as well            }).insertAfter(jPreview).html(html);            jClone.html(html);            jTarget = jClone.find(".where-is-my-cursor");            if (!jTarget.length)                return;            var targetOffset = jTarget.offset,                cloneOffset = jClone.offset;            return {                left: targetOffset.left - cloneOffset.left,                top: targetOffset.top - cloneOffset.top            };        }        function characterFromPosition(x, y) {            var left = 0,                right = (jInput[0].value || "").length,                center, thisPos, distSquared,                best = center, bestDist = 1e20; while (left distSquared) { best = center; bestDist = distSquared; }               if (dy  8) right = center; else if (dx 5) right = center; else // this shouldn't happen return best; }           return best; }       function displayBlock { return $(this).css("display") === "block"; }       function normalizePosition(evt) { var x = evt.pageX - jPreview.offset.left + jPreview.scrollLeft, y = evt.pageY - jPreview.offset.top + jPreview.scrollTop, topLevel; // at this point, x and y are relative to jPreview $(evt.target).parentsUntil(jPreview).andSelf.filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {               topLevel = elem;                var jElem = $(elem);                x += jElem.scrollLeft;                y += jElem.scrollTop;            }); $(topLevel).prevAll.find("*").andSelf.filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {               y += elem.scrollHeight - elem.clientHeight;            }); return { x: x, y: y }; }       function scrollToNormalizedPoint(x, y) { var result; jPreview.find("*").filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {               var jElem = $(elem);                var elemPos = jElem.offset.top - jPreview.offset.top + jPreview.scrollTop;                if (y