Princess Diana : Was Diana royalty when she was born??

Was Diana royalty when she was born??

Me and my roommate are arguing about whether Diana was born royalty or if she was only royalty after marrying Charles. Because she does not believe me that Diana was born royalty. Please tell me she was. Sorry if this sounds stupid, I'm not British, so I haven't been educated in this.

Also, my roommate was wondering if Kate would still be royalty if her and William got divorced since she wasn't born royalty. Ok thanks.

TeaForHelen, because everybody should love Helen Magnus. Formerly Airmo.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

OK, thanks, good to know! I was wrong but at least I know now. Thanks for the help.

TeaForHelen, because everybody should love Helen Magnus. Formerly Airmo.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

So why is the news saying Kate is the first "commoner" to ever marry a royal? Diana was a commoner and she married into royalty.

by solesister "get thee to a nunnery!"

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

No, but she was an aristocratic commoner with some royal blood in her veins, just like her fourth cousin Sarah Ferguson, and her eighth cousin Sophie Rhys-Jones, who married Prince Edward, Charles's younger brother, in 1999.

Diana's title Lady Diana Spencer was derived from her stature as the daughter of an Earl, the 5b4 rank of nobleman just below a Marquess and just above that of Viscount. When her father became the earl in 1975, Diana became a titled lady; before that she was the Right Honorable Diana Spencer, or plain Miss Diana Spencer because her father was the Viscount Althorp (or Lord Althorp) before his father died. She became Her Royal Highness Diana, Princess of Wales when she married Charlie at the age of twenty in 1981. She was never officially titled Princess Diana because she was not born royal.

The official pecking order of the British aristocracy is the Royal Family then the non-royal Dukes, the Marquesses, the Earls, the Viscounts, then the Barons, the Baronets, and lastly Knights. All men who are given the titles of baronets and knights are called "Sir" and their wives are called ladies. The daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls are titled ladies, and the daughters of viscounts and barons are merely Honorable Misses. But if you are the wife of a Duke you are a Duchess. If you are the wife of a Marquess or an Earl you are a Marchioness or a Countess. If you are the wife of a Viscount you are a Viscountess and if you are the wife of a Baron you are a Baroness. But all the women below the rank of Duchess are also called Ladies. Thus if you are a Marchioness or a Countess, you are also Lady So-and-So.

Kate Middleton, or Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, as she was formerly known, will now be styled a royal d b68 uchess, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, a rank equivalent to a princess. I expected her to become Princess Catherine of Wales, but William is not yet The Prince of Wales. His father Charles is, and Camilla is the next Queen in all but name. Kate will be a middle-aged Queen at the very least.

This is why Sarah Ferguson was Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York upon her marriage to Prince Andrew while her daughters were born Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. But the children of Kate and William will undoubtedly be princes and princesses. As will the children of Prince Harry when he marries and becomes a father.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

"But the children of Kate and William will undoubtedly be princes and princesses. As will the children of Prince Harry when he marries and becomes a father. "

If William and Kate have children while the Queen and Prince 111c of Wales are still alive, their eldest son will be a prince (as only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales in entitled to), along with Earl of Strathearn, his father's next-down-the-line-title as an honourary title. However, any other children, along with any of Harry's, will be titled merely as Lords and Ladies as children of a Duke.

However, once the queen dies and Prince Charles becomes the King, any male-line grandchildren of a sovereign are entitled to be Princes and Princesses.

If Prince Charles had had any daughters however, their children would have no title, see Princess Anne. All of these inheritance of titles rules will probably change however, now that it has been announced that the next head of state will be selected by gender netural primogenature.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

She wasn't a royal but like others told you she had noble blood her great great grand aunt was Georgiana Spencer, Cavendish when she got married with William the 5th duke of Devonshire.

Those were very well portrayed By Keira Knightley and Ralph Fiennes in the movie the duchess, a very recomendable film.
You will notice a few similarities between Diana and G when you watch the film mostly in their personalities.
In a good way ofCourse.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

She not only wasn't born royal (having distant royal antecedents doesn't count although I understand The Queen was thrilled that she brought direct descent from James II to the Windsor bloodline), she wasn't even "Princess Diana." Upon her marriage, she was styled HRH The Princess of Wales; upon her divorce she became Diana, Princess of Wales (no HRH, no The). Unless created so by a King or Queen Regnant, only those born royal are styled "Prince" or "Princess" followed by their first name. Case in point: even though he's a Greek prince, Philip renounced that title upon his marriage but eventually was styled a proper Prince of the United Kingdom (he even got a "The!") at The Queen's pleasure and thus can be called "Prince Philip." If anything, Diana was "Princess Charles," kind of the equivalent of "Mrs. Prince."

Unless, she were to work some sort of angle, Kate's fate would likely be the same as her late mother-in-law's upon divorce. No HRH, no HM. And no, even though she's an HRH, she's not Princess Kate. If she were widowed, she'd keep her title but as a dowager, e.g. HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

Diana was born DURING the time that her mother, Frances Roche was married to Earl Spencer, however, Diana's "bio" dad is NOT John Spencer; there isn't a drop of "Spencer" blood in her.

However, in the British aristocracy, the male head of household "owns" any children born during the marriage, no matter who the father or mother. Therefore, even though Diana had no "Spencer" blood, she BELONGED to Johnny Spencer, no different than a stick of furniture or a painting. There was no way in the world that Frances could "claim" Diana as hers, since she was born during the time Frances was married to John Spencer. And, that is why Diana had such a MISERABLE childhood.

When Frances left John Spencer, in about 1967, their daughter Sarah was about 11 and daughter Jane was about 9, and they were committed sisters; two peas in a pod; off to boarding school together and bonded. Diana was 6 and lonely. Charles was about 4. Frances took ONLY Diana with her (which makes sense; a little girl alone, and she HAD to leave Charles since he was the only MALE of the line, and was destined to be the next Earl. And the Spencer girls (Sarah and Jane) were each other's company. But, that "ownership" is why Frances had to "bring Diana back" after she left Johnny, and took Diana (but left the other three children with him).

John Spencer had little interest in Diana (since she wasn't his); she was only an expense and an annoyance, and he was going to wash his hands of both his ex-wife Frances, and (her) daughter, Diana, and just allow Frances to keep her. BUT when his friends pointed out that by splitting the children in such an obvious manner, it was going to be an admission that he had been "cheated on" by his wife, so he forced Frances to bring Diana back, so he would have all the children; he could not face the "social stigma" of giving Diana to her mother, and admitting she cheated on him.

Frances was FORCED to bring Diana back, and dropping her off (like a piece of furniture). Diana was basically left "motherless" at the age of about 6. She was stuck in a big house (no, not Althrop, the Spencer seat, but at Park House on the Sandringham Estate, with no one to really care about her. Her older half-sisters were committed to each other, and didn't like Diana much at all. Her younger brother, Charles, was only 4 and a pain in the neck. Diana never learned about how to be a mother, because she never had a mother (or not much of one). One can only imagine what was going on in that household, when Frances was pregnant with Diana. Johnny Spencer had to be broken hearted, that his "wife" would do such a thing. (Her own mother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, spoke AGAINST her in court, and backed Earl Spencer.) Then, to try to "make amends" she became pregnant again (still trying for a boy) and she produced Charles Spencer (Johnny got his precious "heir" but he turned out to be a real stinker of a human being).

When children are not raised in loving homes, they have problems. Both Sarah and Jane had additional support systems, and they had each other. Diana and Charles both turned out to have severe "social" disorders.

Diana was mentally ill and was not able to care for her children. (The pictures you saw were posed; she was really not capable of caring for children, just dressing up and looking nice and taking pictures, then she wanted them to be "perfect" for their nannies (but not love them too much). So the boys were raised by Charles and the nannies, and their teachers, and their body guards, and his parents (the Queen and Prince Philip).

Diana could not produce any relatives to help her raise the boys. Her
"pretend" father, Earl Spencer, didn't care about the boys, and then he died. Her "real" mother, Frances Roche Spencer Shand-Kydd, married again, then after some years, divorced again, but she lived on an 2000 island off the coast of Scotland, and Diana pretty much "cut her" from her circle. Diana also didn't speak to her Spencer "half" siblings. She also hated ALL the Royals. (There wasn't a SINGLE member of Charles family that she was close to, which is remarkable, since there are so many of them.) She had no friends. She also fired almost all of her staff on a regular basis. There were only TWO males whom she kept on; her butler and a driver. The rest were a revolving door. Whenever a nanny got close to the boys, she would notice and fire them in a fit of pique (and jealousy). Then, it would happen again and again. She wanted the boys to be nicely dressed, and quiet, and not rough house, and not get dirty, and not have any pets. IOW, what she "wanted" wasn't healthy for the boys (and she was bulimic; it is not good for children to be around bulimics). So, the job of raising the boys fell to Charles, the Queen, Prince Philip, various nannies (that Charles hired and kept at his homes), and various teachers and body-guards. And, they did a very good job.

Look at what the miserable life of Frances affected her own daughter!

Frances got married, had children, including one by a lover, did not take proper care of them, and then got a divorce.

Diana got married, had children, including one by a lover, did not take proper care of them, and then got a divorce.

TRULY, Diana copied her mother to the letter. THAT is what happens when you divorce when your "baby" is 6 years old, and you leave her alone, without a mother and with a father who is not her real father. It was a TRAGEDY! It is too bad that Charles (and the Queen) had no idea how mentally ill Diana was and what a MISERABLE life she had had to that point, and why her terrible experience rendered her "incapable" of being a mother.

[Please, do not use those "posed pictures" (Diana in a smart suit on the boys first day of school, Diana tousling William's hair, Diana carrying Harry when he was too big to be carried, or those big smiles with back rubs), as "evidence" of her "mothering" skills. Those were a few seconds, that were PLANNED and POSED and mean almost nothing.] There was MUCH MORE that you did not see, and she made certain that you did not see.

Then Princess Elizabeth (now the Queen) was adored and almost worshipped by her parents. Charles too came from an extremely loving home. People worry about his mother being gone for a long time (4 months), but they SPOKE on the phone every single day and he was with his Grandmother and his Aunt Margaret and his nanny! [I didn't mind when my parents went away and I was shifted between the two farms of my maternal grandparents and paternal grandparents, only about 5 miles apart, when my parents were gone; I loved it! Four grandparents and two farms! Are you kidding? It was heaven!] The Queen and Prince Philip adored their son and Princess Anne and they could not imagine a home without love and what that DOES to a child.

Poor little Diana was ALONE in that huge house, except for the servants. Then, they sent her to boarding school, so she was only home on holidays and during the summer. The rest of the time in boarding school. Talk about lonely days and lonely nights. She had NO ONE! And, no one seemed to care. And THAT is why Diana had NO IDEA how to love anyone. She simply had no idea. Bulimia controlled her. She simply could not do the right thing. Charles had NO IDEA how insecure she was. He had no idea that she needed LOVE so badly that she would seek it in bed after bed. He was "going about his business" and his wreck of a wife, was trying to figure out how to "hang on." And, she failed. And, because there was love in their home, they had no idea of what little Diana went through, day after day and night after night. She didn't fit anywhere. She wasn't taught manners. She made SO MANY mistakes and they just chalked it up to "quirkiness" but she really had no clue.

Her mother had been "rich" and wanted to have fun and left the child rearing to the servants. Diana followed the same model.

Diana KNEW the boys belonged to Charles, and the Queen.

Diana KNEW she had no clue as to how to be a mother.

Diana was able to spend money like water, and charge a fortune in clothes, because Charles was generous about his wife's clothing allowance, but she hadn't any money of her own, so she had no economic power.

Her title was by way of the Queen and tradition.

Diana tried to "make her own way" but she could not overpower the "men in black" from the Palace.

The more she tried to "exert" herself, and make her feelings known, the more trouble she got into.

And, try as she might, she couldn't get enough love! She never would be able to; her mother "ruined" her chance at happiness, due to her miserable childhood.

Diana could only control ONE thing; the paparazzi.

She had no idea that the paparazzi she THOUGHT loved her, was not her friend and was only using her. In the long run, they promoted the notion of "Princess Di" and that hurt her very much.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??


Diana was born DURING the time that her mother, Frances Roche was married to Earl Spencer, however, Diana's "bio" dad is NOT John Spencer; there isn't a drop of "Spencer" blood in her.

Interesting how Diana's Harry looks so much like his aunt Sarah Spencer, despite your assertion that "there isn't a drop of "Spencer" blood in [Diana]." Osmosis, maybe?

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??


Diana's "bio" dad is NOT John Spencer; there isn't a drop of "Spencer" blood in her.
OK, I'll bite. In your imagination who is Diana's "bio" dad and what's your evidence? This ought to be good.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

Are you SURE you want to encourage this?

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

I don't want to, but some accusations can't be left alone. In my book Camargue's a jerk, but I would like to hear how he defends his position. Let's see if he ever comes back. Maybe his/her name is Cam and he loves to argue.

I'm just glad this didn't happen some seven years ago when I was obsessed with defending Diana. Now, I take it more calmly. She was all too human just like the rest of us and that means she made mistakes. I like to think that, given the time, she would have done wonderful things for herself and others.

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

Wow! There is a lot to respond to on this board. Obviously, you've taken to heart the Tina Brown snippet in The Diana Chronicles (2007) that Di's biological father was the venture capitalist Sir James Goldsmith instead of Johnny Spencer (not!). If that were truly the case, then how did Diana end up with red hair, which is a definite Spencer trait and one that proliferates throughout the aristocracy? I've seen enough portraits of Johnny's mother, Cynthia, the Countess Spencer, to conclude that the Princess definitely resembled her maternal grandmother, who was a lovely human being, warm and down-to-earth, but who passed away in 1972. Diana inherited many of her personal qualities as well as her beauty.

Far from being ignored, Diana always bragged that she had always been her father's favorite. She certainly was after she married Prince Charlie. Guess who looked so happy when he walked her up that aisle. Why would Johnny have done that if she wasn't his very own?

You are right to come to the conclusion that Diana was so psychologically unstable from her wretched childhood and the subsequent scandalous divorce that she mirrored much of her mother's actions, but while Frances was merely satisfied with Peter Shand-Kydd, both her son, the present earl, as well as her youngest daughter (now dead) became wildly promiscuous. Thankfully, Charles Spencer is happily settled with wife number three the beautiful, purpose-driven Karen Gordon, who wants to rent out Althorp Hall as a upscale bed-and-breakfast to help Honduran orphans. At least, that is what she told N.B.C.

It's too bad that Diana tried to turn her children against their father. She didn't succeed in the long run, although she had better success with the news media and 5b4 the masses.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

I'm going to guess you mean "her paternal grandmother." Your point is well taken, though. And although I'd call her "dirty blonde," Diana's siblings all have red hair, as did her father and as does her younger son (who strongly resembles his aunt Sarah, the eldest Spencer sister). Presumably, Diana's siblings' paternity isn't in question.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Was Diana royalty when she was born??

I did mean to type paternal grandmother, which is what Cynthia, the Countess Spencer was to Diana of Wales. May they both rest in eternal peace.
Top