Let me copy & paste this again to claify the matter. Actually Candide
is a "Princess of Wales" jsut not The Princess of Wales.
Taken From "Aspects of Britain: Honours and Titles" printed by HMSO
Page 66: "Divorced Peeresses: If a peer and peeress are divorced, the
ceases to be a peeress, although it is accepted that she may continue to
the title if she does not remarry. In such a case the title is regarded
a name only, and not denoting rank and status of a peeress. If the
remarries, his new wife becomes the peeress and the fomer wife puts her
forename before the title. Thus the former wife of the remarried Marquess
of Fulbeck may call herself Anne Marchioness of Fulbeck - to distinguish
from the new Marchioness of Fulbeck. If she remarries, she adopts the
of her new husband.
The poistion in Scotland is different. A divorced peeress is regarded as
widow, and therefore, by implication, is still a peeress until she
remarries. Thus the former wife of the remarried Duke of Drumour would be
Joan Duchess of Drumour. Even should she remarry, she may continue, under
Scottish custom, to call herslf Joan Duchess of Drumour - as an alias."
Meaning that Diana would always have been a "Duchess, Countess and
even if she married Dodi as Charles have a Scottish dukedom, earldom and
The correct way to address Diana was then still as Princess of Wales.
Princess of Wales would have been used if Charles had remarried.
The same for Sarah. She can still call herself Duchess of York and not
Sarah Duchess of York, because Andrew did not remarry.
This book is issued by HMSO: It was compiled using assistance and input
Branch, Cabinet Office, Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood: Lord
Chancellor's Dapartment, House of Lords: Constitutional Unit, Press
Buckingham Palace, and the Lord Advocate's Department.
This information contradicts what Debrett's Correct Forms says, and I'd be
more inclined to believe Debrett's than HMSO, to be honest. According to
Debrett's, a divorced Peeress immediately puts her name in front of the
title, and judging by the amount of government input in this new book (which
is "cunningly" placed behind all the reputable sources, as if the Blair
government would let the Garter and Lord Lyon Kings of Arms have more say
than them in anything), I am seriously disinclined to believe anything it
says.What is said in Debrett's also matches exactly what Buckingham Palace
said at the time of the divorce: she was Diana, Princess of Wales, and
Charles definitely wasn't remarried.
This book also seems to give what Scottish law says in relation to divorced
Peeresses the force of tradition and correct form, which it doesn't have. No
matter what the law says, divorced Scottish Peeresses do not remain
Peeresses in the eyes of etiquette.