No she lost her HRH when she got divorced so was no longer Princess Diana
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No, because she isn’t and never was Princess Diana - that was a tabloid construct. The only people who can style themselves Princess before their name are the royal born … so Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie, Charlotte and Lilibet. All Diana (and Kate’s) stylings come from their husband. If Diana or Kate are styled Princess before a forename, the the foreman’s is that of Charles or William (in the same way it’s Princess Michael of Kent).Could she " just" have been styled Princess Diana without any extra title provided she had not remarried?
---
Thank you for this link..I've ordered the mug as a keepsake. May be worth something in a hundred years!corrination
corrination
Yup, Queen Elizabeth actually had to create Philip a Prince of the United Kingdom. He gave up his original title of Prince of Greece and Denmark while George VI made him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh but not a Prince.
The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester asked the Queen if she could be known as Princess Alice, in line with Princess Marina, [Dowager] Duchess of Kent, to which the Queen agreed. Marina, who was born a Princess of Greece and Denmark (and never renounced like her cousin Philip), was rather snide about this and noted that Alice's title was actually Princess Henry. The current Duchess of Gloucester was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester after her marriage until her brother- and father-in-law died.
They aren’t the easiest things in the world to get a handle on - not helped by the fact the tabloids mis-style people as well. Basically if you go with the thought that females who marry in get nothing in their own right and for bloodline females it’s not that much better then you‘re about there.
It's much the same for any married woman - remember the slight hoohah when the Palace announced that Mrs Michael Tindall had had a baby (think it was Lena)? You only get your own first name if you're divorced technically.
The confusion with titles isn't helped by all other royal families making married-in spouses Prince and Princess in their own right - eg, Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia of Sweden, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands and Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Princess Claire of Belgium, Princess Marie of Denmark, Princess Claire of Luxembourg, the various Lichtenstein daughters in law (including Princess Angela, the first black European princess), etc.
Trust the BRF to be stuffier about titles.
I wonder how they will eventually take account of same sex marriages? It’s got to happen somewhere across the various families.
It was immediately obvious not long after Diana died that Earl Spencer was a bit of a cad but I remember the standing ovation he got at Diana's funeral after his soundbite speech.
"She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here Diana on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair.
And beyond that, on behalf of your mother and sisters, I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative and loving way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition, but can sing openly as you planned."
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he never saw them again after that day. It was telling that Harry involved his Mother's sisters in Archie's birth announcement and Christening photos and not her brother.
King Charles III, HMTQ and Prince Philip were all nowhere near equipped to meet the emotional needs of both Diana and Harry but I bet they tried a damn sight harder to do it than he did.
"She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here Diana on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair.
And beyond that, on behalf of your mother and sisters, I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative and loving way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition, but can sing openly as you planned."
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he never saw them again after that day. It was telling that Harry involved his Mother's sisters in Archie's birth announcement and Christening photos and not her brother.
King Charles III, HMTQ and Prince Philip were all nowhere near equipped to meet the emotional needs of both Diana and Harry but I bet they tried a damn sight harder to do it than he did.
The most ridiculous thing about his speech was that The Windsor’s are William and Harry’s blood family too!
Being similar age to H&W I feel so sorry for the hysteria they were exposed to when their Mother died.The most ridiculous thing about his speech was that The Windsor’s are William and Harry’s blood family too!
Earl Spencer did his speech and walked away having nothing to do with his nephews because all he cared about was the attention and ovation he got. The man abandoned his own family, why would he care about his nephews? The eulogy was all about him.
He’s directing that comment to Diana, not William and Harry. So it does make sense. He’s still a giant twit though.The most ridiculous thing about his speech was that The Windsor’s are William and Harry’s blood family too!
Yeah I’m super curious about what will happen here too. Surely it’s happened already in the aristocracy with hereditary titles?
He reminded me of a medieval baron challenging his monarch. He got away with it because the Spencers are a senior aristocratic family with more British royal blood in their veins than the Windsors who hail from a minor German aristocratic family.I have heard that many British aristocrats look down their noses at our German Royal family.
---
I agree though on the day he was perceived by many as a hero which fed his huge ego.
Last edited:
I've wondered this, what if George wants a husband rather than a wife down the line?
I saw some headline saying dukes are put out at not being invited to the coronation as they usually are. Could be a giant duck you from Charles maybe?
His best friend at school was Boris Johnson. Says it all. Peas in a pod. They’ll both say with great conviction whatever sounds best in the moment without any intention of doing any of the work needed to carry it out. I remember being reduced to tears with Earl Spencer’s speech; fortunately I was older and wiser by the time his mate appeared and was never for second taken in that time thankfully.
She could have gone retro and been My Lady the Kings Mother in the style of Margaret Beaufort
That would have been cool! Margaret Beaufort was never a Queen Consort was she? She sounded terrifying to me.She could have gone retro and been My Lady the Kings Mother in the style of Margaret Beaufort
Today's royals are direct decedents of the tudors. Charles is 12x great grandson of Mary Queen of Scots and so 15x great grandson of King Henry 7.
That might confuse Harry, he said Henry 6 was his 6x great granddad
---
No, she was never married to the King. Her son Henry 7th was distantly related to the royals and so when he won at the Battle of Bosworth, he then married the daughter of the previous King Edward 4th to strengthen his claim to the throne.
I always wonder if Margaret Beaufort had something to do with the Princes in the Tower's deaths!
There are so many 'what ifs' in royalty down through the centuries. I'm from the ROI so not a royalist but I still find it all fascinating
- Status