Discussion:
Who is "the Princess of Wales"
(too old to reply)
Peter Tilman
2004-01-07 11:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Unless one has missed something Prince Charles remains single, having
divorced the late Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, and not as of yet
married his fancy woman.
She was just "Diana, Princess of Wales".
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to
murder "the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Because most of the media are completely ignorant of correct form. The
better media do normally get it right though: I generally watch BBC News and
read The Times, and they both call her Diana, Princess of Wales.

(Don't trust the BBC News website, though - it's awful at getting titles
right.)
Isadore
2004-01-07 13:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Unless one has missed something Prince Charles remains single, having
divorced the late Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, and not as of yet
married his fancy woman.
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to
murder "the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Candide
Enough already! We all know that there is no "The" in the title. But in
all fairness to the media, it makes no sense to say "...a royal plot to
murder Princess of Wales". Bad syntax. Even adding the Diana makes it an
awkward sentence. So "the" fits, under the circumstances.
Gary Holtzman
2004-01-07 15:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isadore
Enough already! We all know that there is no "The" in the title. But in
all fairness to the media, it makes no sense to say "...a royal plot to
murder Princess of Wales". Bad syntax. Even adding the Diana makes it
an awkward sentence. So "the" fits, under the circumstances.
I'm just amazed that Candide heard the media call the lady in question something
other than Princess Diana...
--
Gary Holtzman

-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Candide
2004-01-07 20:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Isadore
Enough already! We all know that there is no "The" in the title.
But in
Post by Gary Holtzman
Post by Isadore
all fairness to the media, it makes no sense to say "...a royal plot to
murder Princess of Wales". Bad syntax. Even adding the Diana makes it
an awkward sentence. So "the" fits, under the circumstances.
Then use the correct form "the late, Diana, Princess of Wales".
Post by Gary Holtzman
I'm just amazed that Candide heard the media call the lady in question something
other than Princess Diana...
?

Candide

"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's
cheaper."
Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999
_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+_+_+_
Please do not include entire "X-No-archive: yes" message in your
response.
Gidzmo
2004-01-15 00:11:19 UTC
Permalink
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to murder
"the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.

Every time I see this in print, it's with the lower-case "the," and no HRH.
Remember, Diana lost the "HRH The" upon her divorce.

The video media where I live tends to use "Princess Diana," which is incorrect
(Diana was an HRH by marriage, not by birth). Properly styled, she was "Diana,
Princess of Wales," until her remarriage.

The best way, I think, for them to handle it grammatically would be to use "the
late Princess of Wales."
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2004-01-15 00:20:43 UTC
Permalink
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to murder
"the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Every time I see this in print, it's with the lower-case "the," and no HRH.
Remember, Diana lost the "HRH The" upon her divorce.
The video media where I live tends to use "Princess Diana," which is incorrect
(Diana was an HRH by marriage, not by birth). Properly styled, she was "Diana,
Princess of Wales," until her remarriage.
HER WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Gidzmo
2004-01-15 23:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
HER WHAT?
I think I did include the word "WAS" in my posting:

"Properly styled, she WAS "Diana, Princess of Wales, until her remarriage."
That WAS, of course, until she died in the car crash.
Gillian White
2004-01-16 00:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
"Properly styled, she WAS "Diana, Princess of Wales, until her
remarriage."
Post by Gidzmo
That WAS, of course, until she died in the car crash.
I think he was concerned about the bit where you said 'her remarriage'.

Gillian
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2004-01-16 12:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Gidzmo
"Properly styled, she WAS "Diana, Princess of Wales, until her
remarriage."
Post by Gidzmo
That WAS, of course, until she died in the car crash.
I think he was concerned about the bit where you said 'her remarriage'.
Gillian
Yes I was and still am -- I believe Gidzmo meant -- That she would be so
styled until her death unless she contracted a marriage. But one never
knows....

-- Stephen
Gidzmo
2004-01-17 00:08:04 UTC
Permalink
That she would be so styled until her death unless she contracted a marriage.
EXACTLY what I meant.
Rick
2004-01-15 15:38:54 UTC
Permalink
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to murder
"the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Every time I see this in print, it's with the lower-case "the," and no HRH.
Remember, Diana lost the "HRH The" upon her divorce.
The video media where I live tends to use "Princess Diana," which is incorrect
(Diana was an HRH by marriage, not by birth). Properly styled, she was "Diana,
Princess of Wales," until her remarriage.
The best way, I think, for them to handle it grammatically would be to use "the
late Princess of Wales."
It can be correct, when speaking of royals (including ex-royals) to use the
title without the HRH, so you would say, 'the princess of Wales', 'The
Prince of Wales', 'The Duke of York', 'the duchess of York', 'The Queen'
'The Earl (of Wessex)', 'The Countess (of Wessex)' {dont say you've never
heard them refered to like this) etc.

In the Herald Sun, which reported on the arriaval of Prince Fredrik and Ms
Donaldson in Sydney for a wedding, there was no mention of a HKH or HRH with
Freds name.
Rick
2004-01-15 15:40:19 UTC
Permalink
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to murder
"the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Every time I see this in print, it's with the lower-case "the," and no HRH.
Remember, Diana lost the "HRH The" upon her divorce.
The video media where I live tends to use "Princess Diana," which is incorrect
(Diana was an HRH by marriage, not by birth). Properly styled, she was "Diana,
Princess of Wales," until her remarriage.
The best way, I think, for them to handle it grammatically would be to use "the
late Princess of Wales."
It can be correct, when speaking of royals (including ex-royals) to use the
title without the HRH, so you would say, 'the princess of Wales', 'The
Prince of Wales', 'The Duke of York', 'the duchess of York', 'The Queen'
'The Earl (of Wessex)', 'The Countess (of Wessex)' {dont say you've never
heard them refered to like this) etc.

In the Herald Sun, which reported on the arriaval of Prince Fredrik and Ms
Donaldson in Sydney for a wedding, there was no mention of a HKH or HRH with
Freds name.
Gidzmo
2004-01-15 23:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
In the Herald Sun, which reported on the arriaval of Prince Fredrik and Ms
Donaldson in Sydney for a wedding, there was no mention of a HKH or HRH with
Freds name.

They are only engaged at this point. She probably won't be HKH until after
their wedding ceremony.
Gillian White
2004-01-16 00:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
They are only engaged at this point. She probably won't be HKH until after
their wedding ceremony.
But he wasn't implying that she should be. Fred is him, not her.

Gillian
Rick
2004-01-16 11:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Post by Rick
In the Herald Sun, which reported on the arriaval of Prince Fredrik and Ms
Donaldson in Sydney for a wedding, there was no mention of a HKH or HRH with
Freds name.
They are only engaged at this point. She probably won't be HKH until after
their wedding ceremony.
I meant Freds title, not any future title of Mary's. Even Fred title was
incomplete, after all he is the Crown Prince, and not just a normal prince.
Gidzmo
2004-01-17 00:06:48 UTC
Permalink
I meant Fred's title, not any future title of Mary's. Even Fred title was
incomplete, after all, he is the Crown Prince, and not just a normal prince.

Very odd for a widely-read publication not to use the appropriate titles.
Wonder if anyone proofread the article before it got published.
Gillian White
2004-01-17 00:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
Very odd for a widely-read publication not to use the appropriate titles.
Wonder if anyone proofread the article before it got published.
You'd be amazed. The BBC has been known to make the odd horrible mistake or
two when it comes to the British RF.

Gillian
Christopher Buyers
2004-01-17 12:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Unless one has missed something Prince Charles remains single, having
divorced the late Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, and not as of yet
married his fancy woman.
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to
murder "the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Candide
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's
cheaper."
Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999
_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+_+_+_
Please do not include entire "X-No-archive: yes" message in your
response.
Let me copy & paste this again to claify the matter. Actually Candide there
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 wife
ceases to be a peeress, although it is accepted that she may continue to use
the title if she does not remarry. In such a case the title is regarded as
a name only, and not denoting rank and status of a peeress. If the husband
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 her
from the new Marchioness of Fulbeck. If she remarries, she adopts the title
of her new husband.
The poistion in Scotland is different. A divorced peeress is regarded as a
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 Baroness"
even if she married Dodi as Charles have a Scottish dukedom, earldom and
barony.
The correct way to address Diana was then still as Princess of Wales. Diana
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
from: The Lord Lyon King of Arms, Garter Principal King of Arms: Ceremonial
Branch, Cabinet Office, Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood: Lord
Buckingham Palace, and the Lord Advocate's Department.
All very well, but is the title of "Prince of Wales" a peerage? It
isn't heritable, so I doubt if the same rules apply.

Besides, did Dianna divorce according to Scottish law, or did she live
in Scotland?

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Rick
2004-01-17 13:45:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Unless one has missed something Prince Charles remains single, having
divorced the late Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, and not as of yet
married his fancy woman.
So how and why does the media keep chuntering on about royal plot to
murder "the Princess of Wales? No such person exists.
Candide
"Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. It's
cheaper."
Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999
_+_+_+_+_+_+__+_+_+_+_
Please do not include entire "X-No-archive: yes" message in your
response.
Let me copy & paste this again to claify the matter. Actually Candide there
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 wife
ceases to be a peeress, although it is accepted that she may continue to use
the title if she does not remarry. In such a case the title is regarded as
a name only, and not denoting rank and status of a peeress. If the husband
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 her
from the new Marchioness of Fulbeck. If she remarries, she adopts the title
of her new husband.
The poistion in Scotland is different. A divorced peeress is regarded as a
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 Baroness"
even if she married Dodi as Charles have a Scottish dukedom, earldom and
barony.
The correct way to address Diana was then still as Princess of Wales.
Diana
Post by Christopher Buyers
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
from: The Lord Lyon King of Arms, Garter Principal King of Arms: Ceremonial
Branch, Cabinet Office, Central Chancery of Orders of Knighthood: Lord
Buckingham Palace, and the Lord Advocate's Department.
All very well, but is the title of "Prince of Wales" a peerage? It
isn't heritable, so I doubt if the same rules apply.
Besides, did Dianna divorce according to Scottish law, or did she live
in Scotland?
Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
The queen has already clarifed the way one should style her ex daughter
inlaws (this was done in 1996 after both decree absoultes were handed down
by the courts), either by title (ie the Princess of Wales) or by first name
preceeding title (ie Sarah, Duchess of York). The style you refer to them
depends of the context of the statement.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2004-01-17 20:13:23 UTC
Permalink
"Christopher Buyers" <***@virgin.net> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

[deletions]
Post by Christopher Buyers
All very well, but is the title of "Prince of Wales" a peerage? It
isn't heritable, so I doubt if the same rules apply.
[deletion]

No, "Prince of Wales" is not a peerage title, but I do believe the
concomitant "Earl of Chester" is. In any case, at least some of Prince
Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick
and Baron Renfrew) are peerages.
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Peter Tilman
2004-01-17 20:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
[deletions]
Post by Christopher Buyers
All very well, but is the title of "Prince of Wales" a peerage? It
isn't heritable, so I doubt if the same rules apply.
[deletion]
No, "Prince of Wales" is not a peerage title, but I do believe the
concomitant "Earl of Chester" is. In any case, at least some of Prince
Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick
and Baron Renfrew) are peerages.
The Renfrew title is "Baron of Renfrew", a Scottish feudal barony, IIRC.

I'm pretty sure Cornwall, Rothesay and Carrick are peerages, but I'm not too
sure about Chester.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2004-01-17 20:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
[deletions]
Post by Christopher Buyers
All very well, but is the title of "Prince of Wales" a peerage? It
isn't heritable, so I doubt if the same rules apply.
[deletion]
No, "Prince of Wales" is not a peerage title, but I do believe the
concomitant "Earl of Chester" is. In any case, at least some of Prince
Charles's other titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of
Carrick
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
and Baron Renfrew) are peerages.
The Renfrew title is "Baron of Renfrew", a Scottish feudal barony, IIRC.
I'm pretty sure Cornwall, Rothesay and Carrick are peerages, but I'm not too
sure about Chester.
I was quoting the Royal Government website for Prince Charles's titles. If
I'm wrong, so is it, which is not impossible.

In any case, the Prince of Wales is a peer and has been since he became heir
apparent.
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Peter Tilman
2004-01-17 14:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Let me copy & paste this again to claify the matter. Actually Candide
there
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
wife
ceases to be a peeress, although it is accepted that she may continue to
use
the title if she does not remarry. In such a case the title is regarded
as
a name only, and not denoting rank and status of a peeress. If the
husband
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
her
from the new Marchioness of Fulbeck. If she remarries, she adopts the
title
of her new husband.
The poistion in Scotland is different. A divorced peeress is regarded as
a
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
Baroness"
even if she married Dodi as Charles have a Scottish dukedom, earldom and
barony.
The correct way to address Diana was then still as Princess of Wales.
Diana
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
Ceremonial
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.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...