Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ottawa Treaty on landmines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: Re my reversion of this change:
:158.152.12.77 (changed back to 'Accident or Murder'; on polls: sampling method can indeed be qd, but no basis for assuming polls with lower %s for 'murder' are more 'representative')
* You can't possibly believe 'Accident or Murder?' is NPOV, you're just trying to promote the idea that she was in fact murdered. If you don't like 'Conspiracy Theories' then suggest a compromise and lets see if we can go with that, it's a waste of both our time to keep changing it back and forth.
* Re the polls: for now I've removed this para entirely as it seems so contentious. Do you understand what is meant by a 'representative' poll? I tried to explain it in the body of the article (that's the text that you deleted). It means a poll where the participants are 'sampled' (chosen) in such a way that they are representative of the population at large. A phone-in poll, where the participants choose themselves, doesn't in any way represent the opinion of the population at large - just those people who chose to phone in. The other poll (the 25% one) was afaik carried out by a professional polling organisation. But if you have a problem with the other poll, lets just compromise and omit them both... 
--257.47b.9½.-19 14:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

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

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: (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)
thread_title:  Duke of York and the slave trade 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: (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)
thread_title: Degree of involvement

message: 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)
thread_title: Relevance to Diana

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not sure and not convincing. Anyway, what is "Hon." (Honourable? awarded when born?) -Rrjanbiah 06:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Full Name 

message: 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. 
# Text style guides suggest in that context it should be lowercased as queen. (I think the idea nonsense, but they say that.) 
# 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. 
# Saying in that a horrified Queen Elizabeth is also a non-starter. Queen Elizabeth was a term which when used applied to the Queen Mother in Britain. To indicate the reigning monarch, not her mother you use the ordinal, Queen Elizabeth II. 
So to avoid capitalisation problems, anglo-centric language and avoid confusion you need to say office-name-ordinal, ie Queen Elizabeth II. FearÉIREANN 18:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Queen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  D's influence on Landmines legislation - Hansard as primary source 

message: "...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)
thread_title:  High Treason? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  trivia in article. 

message: 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)
replies: text:  These 'oriental sexual techniques' sound fun. I wonder if it's possible to take evening classes?.... --Hic 11:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Issue 2: Had to be a virgin

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New - Issue 3: What's all this about Lord Mountbatten?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Entry Title Alteration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Could someone please explain why this article is in the Gay icon category? I've never heard or read anything associating the Princess of Wales with anything of the sort. Then again, I'm an ignorant little American who read Paul Burrell's book and probably doesn't know any better, but cut me some slack. 青い(Aoi) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Wow, thanks for that very quick response! 青い(Aoi) 09:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon? 

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

message: Have added that Diana lost title of "Princess of Wales" not just the HRH and that this was like divorced peeresses since she ceased being Princess of Wales after her divorce - have done this before but people keep on deleting it.
:I know. Someone deleted it again. I've corrected the terminology yet again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I was wondering, about Diana's titles, if her ultimate title shouldn't be Lady Diana, Princess of Wales.  She never ceased to be the daughter of an Earl, and so after her divorce, she was entitled to be addressed as Lady Diana.  However, I know that this title was rarely used because of the popularity of "Princess Diana."
Yes I think it's true she could've styled herself "Lady Diana, Princess of Wales" but it sounds a bit clumsy ... I don't personally think it should be put in since she was theoretically always Lady Diana, but she wasn't ever called through her marriage "HRH Lady Diana, The Princess of Wales". I think thats because after her marriage she was a spouse and then a divorcee, which were different things to her maiden status, which is probably why she didn't wish to revert to it.
Following her divorce from the Prince of Wales, Diana became Diana, Princess of Wales without the style of Royal Highness. But what I am not clear about is whetever or not she was still a princess. Letter patent issued in 1996 indicated former wives of prince's would cease to be royal highnesses on divorce. It did not specifically states they would be cease to princesses. I believe there is a difference (HRH and title of prince/ess are two seperate entities) as Prince Phillip was originally created a Royal Highness and the Duke of Edinburgh but he was not a created a prince. The Queen recified this latter on when she specifically created him a prince of great britain. Any views or advise on this.
*Diana was never a princess to begin with. She was a "Princess by marriage" as opposed to a "Princess of the blood" (as Princess Margaret was or Princess Anne is). Princess of the blood are the daughters of reigning kings or queens. Diana was only the spouse of a "Prince of the blood", so she technically was The Princess Charles, The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, etc.  For more information on this, check out the Wikipedia article British princess, it will give you more information on the subject. Prsgoddess187 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diana ceasing to be Princess of Wales 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diana vs. Mother Teresa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diana photo problem 

message: Diana's death is universally described as a car accident. That is the neutral terminology used to describe an unplanned event, as opposed to a suicide bid by a driver. The term is used to describe the motivation of the driver of the car, not outside forces that contributed. It does not mean that an accident was accidental (ie that others may not have deliberately caused it), merely that it was unplanned by the occupants of the car. No-one has suggested that the occupants deliberately crashed the car to kill themselves, so the standard terminology used is car accident. Only the most wacky conspiracy theorists have a problem with using standard terminology to describe the event. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wrong. If it was an unintended incident not deliberately caused by the driver then by definition it is an accident. Accidents can be caused deliberately, result from error, through mechanical failure, but they are all defined as road accidents irrespective of the cause once the cause itself is not a deliberate knowing act by the driver. "Vehicular collision" may be used where you come from but it is not widely used as a term internationally, therefore it is totally unsuitable for usage here. Wikipedia policy is to use most common name. The most common name for such incidents is "accident". That is what they are called by police forces worldwide also, and how they are referred to in the media worldwide. Diana's death has been described as being due to a "car accident" in every country on the planet and in every language. Opting for a rarely used, little understood term, in preference to a widely understood one, contradicts the Manual of Style requirements on Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car accident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Motion to refer to death with 'vehicle collision' rather than 'car ''''accident'''' 

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

message: * FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposed

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diana Spencer 

message: I heard somewhere that Diana was an overblown, egotistical, ignorant, self involved, pulicity seeking, uneducated, spoilt, priggish whore who did a little bit of charity work to get her face about and was rewarded with big fucking wads of cash the likes of which you or I shall never see, nevermind the poor AIDS vicitms who she exploited. However, I was saddened to see no mention of this appeared in the article (perhaps it was written by the same person whoc writes the Daily Mail and built her up to the level of saints in the first place). Does anyone have any references to back up my theory? Not on my soul is she the third best Britain who ever did live.--Crestville 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why don't you bother to look for references by your own? perhaps it'd help you to get read of some cursing in your language. -- tasc talkdeeds 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:FAC]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Title after divorce 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Diana Princess of Wales Jewish Maternal Ancestry? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I found some on wikimedia commons and in her children's wikipedia articles. Bobbacon 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last Will and Testament of Diana, Princess of Wales 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Lions gal 4eva]] 

message: "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)
replies: text: Yes, it should. She was certainly never HRH The Princess Diana. -- Jao (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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 Canada t | c 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Title question 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Did she really attend Norland College? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Driver high on "drugs" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Borderline Personality Disorder 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Honourable/Honorable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strange Lack?