Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

Template:Facfailed

An event mentioned in this article is an August 31 selected anniversary.

Moved page

I moved this page here in accordance with the discussion we had recently on the page about naming conventions (sorry, I can't remember the name of that page now). It is both her correct title, and a name under which she was better known than her maiden name, and which she retained after her marriage. Deb 17:02 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the page being at "Diana, Princess of Wales", although I should point out that it was not actually her name during her marriage (she was then "HRH The Princess of Wales"), but only after her divorce. See the British Royal & Noble Families FAQ at http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-14 -- Oliver P. 17:17 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Photo and Hon.

Princess Diana was one of the most photographed people in history! Surely there's a photo of her somewhere that we can use?

The abberviation "Hon." is used throughout the article. Many people, myself included, are not from England and are unfamiliar with the abbreviation. Does it stand for "Honarable," "Honorary," or something else? Can someone please fill out the full term the first time it is used in the article? —Frecklefoot 15:15, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It means honourable and is written simply as Hon.FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I decided to add a pic of Diana to the article. But, after spending a frustrating hour searching dozens of sites, I found nothing free of copyright so I gave up. Someone who reads Wikipedia and photographed her, would have to donate their own pic. Annoying, isn't it!

Adrian Pingstone 20:28, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All we need is permission to post it. Do you remember the URL of one of the photos you liked? All you need to do is email them and ask for permission to post it and assure them we'll include copyright info with it. I think the photo is then bound by the GFDL? I'm not sure about this, but someone might be willing to contribute a photo or two. :) —Frecklefoot 17:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia cannot carry pictures in the manner you suggest. If it is copyright it cannot be used. In Diana's case, it is unlikely that we will be able to get a copyright image. Because of Diana's iconic value, no photographer is likely to wave copyright on a Diana image. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Photo Solution

I *may* have a possible solution to the poto of Di problem. As we already know, nobody who has an image of her will donate such a thing because it could be potentially worth a lot. However, at Madame Tussaud's there is a sutnningly lifelike bust of Diana. Perhaps someone could go there, photograph that bust, and place it here?...

Just an idea. - 206.156.242.36

I don't know if this would work. If the statue was covered by copyright, wouldn't the photo be a derived work? ( 21:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I looked it up, and it seems that it's ok, at least in the UK. There is an exemption for photographs of buildings, statues, etc., which are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c62) (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv62) ( 21:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well then, the photo of the bust wouldn't work. Don't you have to pay to get into Madame Tussard's? If so, I don't think that qualifies as "open to the public." It is open to "paying customers." But IANAL, so I could be wrong... —Frecklefoot 14:45, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This act doesn't seem to define "open to the public", but from definitions in other places, it seems that theatres, galleries, etc., are generally included even if a fee is charged. The thing also has to be on "permanent" display, not part of a temporary exhibition. Also, you would need to check the fine print of the ticket to make sure prohibition on photography was not a condition of entry - this would not lead to a copyright violation, but to potential contract problems. See also [1] (http://www.epuk.org/resources/abcd/otherpermittedacts.html) ( 18:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There was a loophole in this kind of law in the UK I believe where if you photograph a person holding a picture, or a newspaper with a picture or something, then that would be not be covered. No sure how useful this would be, or the precise legal footing of such a thing, but I know some newspapers in the UK have used this ruse to get around issues like this.

It's a kind of fair use thing - the caption would be something like: "Mark Richards pictured here with his copy of 'Diana - a Photographic Study'".

Also, what about a sketch? Someone could trace a photo, or sketch her? Mark Richards 18:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Polls continue to suggest that a large majority of people believe the deaths to have been the result of assassination.

'A large majority' seems unlikely to me. Do we have sources to back this up? DJ Clayworth 16:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the reference was to a Daily Express phone poll which found 83% in favour of the conspiracy theories - but this was only a phone poll, ie it wasn't representative of the general population, only those who chose to phone in. More reliable polls give about 25%, so I've amended the reference. --257.47b.9½.-19 13:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ottawa Treaty on landmines

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)

Conspiracy theories

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)

Perhaps it would be best to create an article detailing various conspiracy theories on her death? This article could point to that article and note that they exist, but concentrate on what ever the official reports say. The current structure seems unbalanced to me, it's in chronological order except for the section on conspiracy theories:

• intro
• early years
• meets Charles, marries
• married life
• charity work (this follows her marriage, since she suddenly had a high profile she could use to support charities)
• death
• conspiracy theories surrounding her death, branching off in several different directions
• suddenly back to the days before and after her funeral, public mourning
• her continuing legacy.

What do you think? fabiform | talk 13:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fabiform. Sounds to me like maybe that would be a good idea.

On the up side:

- That's what's been done with John F. Kennedy versus John F. Kennedy assassination, and that seems to work well.

- We could go into more detail on the various theories about what could have happened, without making the article seem unbalanced (for a while it seemed like we had more about her death than her life, that's why I've been looking for info about the charity work etc)

- As you say, it could make more sense chronologically

On the down side:

- From the pov of those who support the conspiracy theories, perhaps it gives them too little prominence if they're in a separate article? We would be giving primacy to the official explanation over the alternatives. (Personally I'm ok with this, but that's just me)

- This might mean that the discussion of what could have happened moves into the 'facts about her death' section.

- Some facets of her life just won't go into chronological order, it makes more sense to arrange them thematically (eg the charity work happened both during and after her marriage, at the same time as she was having kids, having affairs, etc]].

On balance I'm in favour of a separate page.

Best, --257.47b.9½.-19 14:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls

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)

From 158.152.12.77

• Sounds as though we disagree about a couple of things, but I *do* think 'accident or murder' is NPOV, and it would be good if you could accept that that's my genuinely held opinion. I mean what else says so clearly what the main difference of opinion regarding the crash is actually about? Either it was an accident, or it was murder. There are those who believe one, there are those who believe the other. I can't quite understand why you think that's a biased statement to make. It's simply the truth. 'Conspiracy theory' puts the onus on those who believe one rather than the other. One might as well put the label of 'Official report accepters' on one camp without putting a label on their opponents. Or use as a title, 'Was the Official Report Full of Lies?' You might justifiably say that *that* sort of approach was non-NPOV! 'Accident or Murder?' surely *is* some sort of compromise.

I do as it happens believe it was murder, but I can't see that saying 'Accident or Murder?' is not NPOV. I think that's precisely what that section, as it stands, is about. I'd oppose putting the murder idea on a separate page, or even breaking it up into different 'theories', as if one has to accept one particular 'theory' in order not to accept the official version. Best I think just to list some alleged holes in the official version (such as the blood test) and some aspects that many believe to be suspicious (such as the alleged disappearance of the car that the Mercedes came into contact with in the tunnel, despite being in the middle of Paris embassyland).

I can't at the moment think of a compromise that you might find acceptable, but would like there to be one. Maybe use 'Accident or Murder?' as title and you could suggest changes to the detail of the body text? Me, I don't like 'conspiracy theories' as a title, nor the idea of referring to Mossad, the IRA, etc., when few actually believe they were responsible. (Probably the proportion of assassinationists who believe the IRA was involved is about as small as the proportion of accidentalists who believe the Windsor family always had Princess Diana's best interests in mind, and wished her all the best in her life after her separation and divorce, whatever life decisions she may have cared to make). Smacks too much of trying to make a widely-held view look ridiculous. I'm pleased though that no-one's tried to mention Elvis :-)

• I do indeed understand what is meant by sampling, and won't bother demonstrating my knowledge at length by defining random, stratified, quota sampling etc. There have been many polls, some have been straightforwardly self-selecting, some haven't, but frankly there isn't a single one that a reasonable person would insist was 'unbiased'. Most have given more than 50% for 'murder', and the general trend in this percentage has been upwards since the 'Secrets of the Crash' film in 1999. My impression from people I know (I live in the UK) is also that most people believe foul play was involved, although YMMV. I can't prove that it's much much more than 25%, but it is. A poll run by 'Time' magazine recently gave 62%. Not much point in our arguing this one out - suffice it to say that I accept your compromise on the polls issue.

Best regards, 158.152.12.77

James II -> Diana

1. James II of England (1633-1701) & Arabella Churchill (1647-1714)
2. Henrietta Fitz James (1667-1730) & Henry Waldegrave (1661-1690)
3. James Waldegrave (1684-1741) & Mary Webb (d. 1719)
4. James Waldegrave (1715-1763) & Maria Walpole (1736-1807)
5. Anne Horatia Waldegrave (1759-1801) & Hugh Seymour (1759-1801)
6. Sir Horace Beauchamp Seymour (1791-1851) & Elizabeth Malet Palk (1793-1827)
7. Adelaide Horatia Elizabeth Seymour (1825-1877) & Frederick Spencer (1798-1857)
8. Charles Robert Spencer (1857-1922) & Margaret Baring (1868-1906)
9. Albert Edward John Spencer (1892-1975) & Cynthia Elinor Beatrix Hamilton (1897-1972)
10. Edward John Spencer (1924-1992) & Frances Ruth Burke Roche (b. 1936)
11. 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)

Duke of York and the slave trade

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)

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)

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)

Once again, yes. (What do you mean by 'once again, no' by the way?) You say "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."

You imply that all other facts about the 'Duke of York' other than that he became 'king' are equally irrelevant. But in another paragraph, there are references to things done by other ancestors - that one was an heiress, another was a stockbroker, another was an actor, another was a merchant. I cannot see why those who later became recognised as monarchs should be excused from having anything said about what they did. I suggest just inserting 'slave-trader' before 'Duke of York', to tie in with the single-word descriptions of other ancestors' activities. If one ancestor was a stockbroker, why is this relevant, whereas the fact that another was a slave-trader supposedly isn't? (158.152.12.77)

(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)

You are quick to say 'ridiculous' but employ a curious usage of the word 'background', and are not responding to my points except to repeat yourself. You seem to think non-titled people can reasonably have brief references to what they actually did in their lives, but titled people can't. You have not posted any good reason for saying that this individual's major role in the Atlantic slave trade is not a relevant part of his 'background' that can reasonably be referred to very briefly, just as briefly as other people's 'backgrounds' are referred to. Do you perhaps have a 'kings and queens' view of 'history'? This is not in my view what Wikipedia should be about. Reference to his role as a slave-owner is perfectly in keeping with short comments and background included in this article and many others. For example -- see the reference to the 'Queen Mother's' ancestors who were Virginian merchants. Why should this reference be in the Princess Diana article? Do you think it should be included, or do you think it should be removed? Personally I have no problem with it, since it provides a little background. So does the reference to the 'Duke of York's' activities. I will continue to revert too. I suggest that if you want to be consistent, you should do some work and propose the pruning out of everything you consider to be superfluous information. (158.152.12.77)

I don't think this information is relevant here at all. silsor 02:00, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Relevance to Diana

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)

Please could you compare the James II information with the information I mentioned about other ancestors that is currently included, rather than use an analogy argument referring to information that no-one wants included. To be consistent you should want the Virginian merchants reference excluded - this is only one example, but it's a good example and I would like to hear your reason for having no problem with this reference, but having a problem with the slave-trader reference. At the moment consistency upholds my position - unless of course, as I said, you suggest a number of other excisions. Please also recognise for the sake of accuracy that the 'Duke of York' was not just 'a' slave-trader; he was personally in charge of the entire British slave trade - a fact which led him to be very influential in North America and elsewhere.(158.152.12.77)

Seriously, give it up, you're never going to convince anybody that your ridiculous addition is worthwhile. john 08:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

James, his mother, and sister-in-law were among the many trustees or members of the Royal Adventurer Company. Despite being reorganised it collapsed in 1667 and only in 1672 did the Royal African Company come along. James was a trustee and member because it made money, which is the purpose of monopolies. But the company traded in all goods, not just slaves. References to minor posts in third party articles is irrelevant and may be NPOV And to claim he ran the English slave trade for years shows a definite misunderstanding of 17th century nobility's idea of work. Get the title & position, get the money, then pay someone else to work. garryq 10:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

This page has been locked for quite a while now. Are we any closer to consensus on this (embarassingly minor) issue? (By "we" I guess I mean you, User:158.152.12.77, since no one else has spoken up in favor of mentioning James II's arguably-tenuous connection to the slave trade in this wholly unrelated article about Diana.) Saucepan 05:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Can't we just automatically revert, and eventually block the IP address if he keeps doing this? I mean, it's totally bogus trolling. john 07:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Full Name

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"Making Diana a saint"

After her death people remain interested in Diana's life. Numerous manufacturers of collectibles continue to produce Diana merchandise. Some suggested making Diana a saint, stirring much controversy.

I think this last sentence should be recast as "Some suggested canonizing Diana, stirring much controversy.", both for the sake of adding the link, and also because "making someone a saint" is an inaccurate description of the process (as is discussed at the linked article). Could someone with edit privs make this change, please? Marnanel 20:00, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Canonizing implies the formal Roman Catholic process. The Church of England has no such scheme. The idiomatic "making someone a saint" is an acceptable term, even if not theologically accurate; "proving" or "recognizing" are more accurate but confusing & pedantic for a lay discussion garryq 09:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it's confusing as it stands: the fact that there's no analogous C of E process was what made me assume it meant the Catholic process in the first place. If there's no referent to "making X a saint", what were these people actually suggesting should happen? Marnanel 17:44, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

The bastard descent

nunh-huh

Diana was the youngest daughter of Frances Ruth Burke-Roche (daughter of the fourth Baron Fermoy) and Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, making Diana a descendant of many of the kings of England in the modern era, including Charles I, Charles II, and James II. Of Ohioan and American ancestry as well, she was a great-granddaughter of Frances Ellen Work (the Hon. Mrs James Boothby

Like any Jacobite I'm glad to see the "Kings over the Water" back in the line of succession :) but can this para. be tidied up? There's only need to mention descent from James II, and of course as a Stuart isn't the descent from Kings of Scots is more apparent? garryq 11:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

What is "in the modern era" supposed to mean? I'm not sure I'd describe any of the Charleses or Jameses as "in the modern era", as I'd probably restrict that to the last couple of centuries (during which there have been of course no Kings of England). Also, it's a bit pointless to claim that she has descent from both Charles II and Charles I, as the former was the son of the latter and so it'd be slightly difficult to be descended only from him (and the same goes for James II and Charles I). I'd also stick a "the former" before her mother's name, since she wasn't called that when Diana was born. One more thing: I should think Ohioan ancestry implies American ancestry, as Ohio was in the US the last time I checked. Proteus (Talk) 16:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using "Burke-Roche", assuming that was her mothers maiden name, but she was far better known as Mrs Shand-Kydd(e), so that deserves a mention. As far as Royal descent goes, when Bill Clinton visited Ireland a newspaper reported a new industry in trying to find Irish origins, no matter how obscure. Maybe the same with the royal family, as long as it doesn't waste space in the article garryq 18:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"The modern era", in (British) historical terms, is generally meant to be c. 1650 onwards (IIRC). It's used as a particular common phrase, rather than with 'modern' as an adjective of subjective judgment.

Agreed about the Ohio/American thing, though. Is it North American or United-States-ian, though?

James F. (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I did some tidying up and only just noticed the message saying the article was "protected". Deb 17:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Princess Diana"

Is the occasional incorrect use of "Princess Diana" on this page deliberate, or can it be removed? Proteus (Talk) 21:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It won't be deliberate, just someone editing who doesn't know any better. Feel free to get rid of it. Deb 20:51, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

They're all now gone except the one in Bill Clinton's speech. I think a [sic] would be a little harsh, though. :) Proteus (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. ;-)

James F. (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I resent the implication that I'm "dictating English usage". "Colloquial" means, according to the OED, "Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language". Thus "Prince Charles" could be said to be a colloquial form for "His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales", but "Princess Diana" isn't appropriate in any form of conversation - it's simply a result of ignorance used by those who don't know any better. And "strictly incorrect" gives the impression that it's tolerated, when it isn't by anyone with any clue about such matters, including Diana herself, who often corrected people when they called her that. "Princess Diana" is utterly and completely incorrect, and it is absolutely necessary for any encyclopaedia to point out that incorrect things are incorrect (unless you want to add "colloquially known as the Queen of England" to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom). Proteus (Talk) 22:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's in extremely common and popular usage, and the fact of its common usage needs to be acknowledged. It may be a point of view you think you can prove incorrect, but it's one that needs mentioning for NPOV - David Gerard 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Colloquially, but incorrectly, known as Princess Diana"? john k 01:15, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable to me. Proteus (Talk) 15:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'Colloquially' implies just in speech. However, the mass media, including the BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian routinely use it, especially in headlines. The Times's style guide says not to use it but their website routinely does so anyway. This needs mentioning. Morwen - Talk 15:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Commonly, but incorrectly, known as Princess Diana"? john k 16:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That sounds best. I'll change it if there are no objections. Proteus (Talk) 11:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave the present one and add a separate paragraph outside the intro. Noting that she made a point of correcting people who said "Princess Diana" - David Gerard 13:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course, why say for someone else to do it when I could do it myself. Title stuff is now in a separate section at the end. "Strictly incorrect" for the intro, but just plain "incorrect" for the article. Is this suitable? - David Gerard 13:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

revert

I reverted this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales&diff=4180594&oldid=4180548) because I really don't like the way it's phrased, particularly the "(!)", the comment and the lack of edit summary... what is it trying to say? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 10:07, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

First error: 0:25, and not 0:22

Second error: Diana was allegedly bloody. In the pictures no blood and no injuries are to be seen, and the car is damaged only in the front side. The roof of the car was removed only later at 1:15.

A few weeks later, rival network CBS showed pictures of the crash taken by the photographers showing an intact rear side and an intact Center section of the Mercedes, including one of a not bloody Diana crouched on the rear floor of the vehicle with her back to the right passenger seat - the right rear car door is completely opened (!) - See also: German Bild Zeitung, 24. April 2004, page 8 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tod_der_Lady_Diana_Spencer_-_die_nachweisbaren_Fakten

Dietmar 11:00, 2004 Jun 20

Eyewitness report, Frederick Maillez: "I went to the wreckage to see what was going on inside," says Maillez, who tended to the seriously injured princess after the crash. "I can tell you her face was still beautiful. She didn’t have any injuries, main injury on her face. She was unconscious. She didn’t speak at all." , in: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/48hours/main612794.shtml and in many newspapers, April 21, 2004 (CBS News)
But eyewitness Paparazzi Laslo Veres is saying: "She was not unconscious" and eyewitness fireman Carlo Zaglia is saying: "She speak at all".

Dietmar 13:40, 24 Jun 2004

As far as I can see, Maillez is saying that she didn't have any injuries on her face, not that she didn't have any apparent injuries. And I have no idea what "She speak at all" means. john k 16:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eyewitness Carlo Zaglia: She could speak, she could hear, their eyes was open. She looks at me with her large eyes and says: " What´s here the matter? What happened here? Show me, what´s going on !" (see German weblink)
Eyewitness Frederick Maillez: In an interview with "Newsweek," he described what happened next. "I held her hand and spoke to her, took her pulse, put the resuscitation mask on her, assured her that she was safe." Notice: she was assumed unconscious.
The paparazzi at the scene have been quoted as saying that Diana told rescue workers, "Leave me alone" and "My God."; in: http://www.coverups.com/diana/french.htm

Dietmar 8:30, 29 Jun 2004

Primary source

Thanks dietmar, that is what I was looking for. Burgundavia 15:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

A very new primary source: The last photo of lady Diana Spencer, 20 seconds before crash, sitting in the center in the background, and a photo of James Andanson: "James Andanson, a photo graph with relations with government circles and secret service. Did James Andanson suicide commit? James Andanson was according to secret service reports several days with Diana and Dodi on board of a yacht, and - it is said - he was at the time of the collision in the tunnel. ( Only five hours later, on the early morning, he flew away with the airplane??) In the year 2000 soldiers found his charred corpse on a troop exercise area. Everything pointed on suicide. But its friends doubt the official version. Did the Paparazzo know too much about Dianas death in the tunnel?
in: German television "ZDF", http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/0/0,1872,2122944,00.html
And: "The videos of different monitoring cameras show against it a completely inconspicuous Henri Paul during the relevant period." One can be absolutely safe, he had never an alcohol content of 1,74 parts per thousand, the driver with an excellent centrifuge-course-training for Mercedes cars.

Dietmar, 17:20, Jun 27, 2004

The largest most interesting primary source: 4 photos, taken up only 7 minutes after the accident: http://www.wethepeople.la/alma2.htm

Dietmar, 8:30, Jun 29, 2004

The Queen

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.

1. Text style guides suggest in that context it should be lowercased as queen. (I think the idea nonsense, but they say that.)
2. 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.
3. 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)

That really makes for an ugly sentence.

I think the context (an article about the British royal family) makes it completely clear that we're referring to the specific Queen who was Diana's mother-in-law - rather than, say, Queen Beatrix of Holland. Queen Elizabeth II is, in this context, the 'default' Queen, if you will.

Throughout the article, we refer to a number of people by their first names - eg Charles, William, Harry, Dodi, etc. It's ambiguous, but readers can be expected to work it our from the context. By your argument, we shouldn't refer to 'Charles' because readers might think we mean Charles Bronson or Charles De Gaulle.

So anyway, I've changed it to 'horrified mother-in-law' which is specific without being so clunky.

(I agree that 'she was discovered by a horrified queen' is nonsense - it sounds rather Queer Eye for the Straight Guy)

82.43.194.220 10:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

D's influence on Landmines legislation - Hansard as primary source

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: [2] (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980710/debtext/80710-01.htm#80710-01_head0) 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)

High Treason?

"...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))

Yes, I'm afraid it is. Under the Treason Act from the middle ages it is high treason to "violate" the queen, the wife of the heir apparent, or the monarch's oldest unmarried daughter. Apparently this can refer to consensual sex, not just rape. PatGallacher 22:25, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

trivia in article.

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)

The astrology stuff is bunkum that should be dumped. But the facts about who she was related to is factual stuff and belongs in the article IMHO. FearÉIREANN 08:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stillborn

On the same day as Prince Harry was born, the Princess gave birth to a stillborn baby girl, which led to the speculation that Prince Charles wanted a baby girl rather than a boy.

Uh?????

As a future Queen, D. had to be 'Protestant and a virgin'

As this is an issue that's come up before, I thought it was worth mentioning my amendment on the talk page.

Issue 1: Had to be Protestant

I've amended it so it doesn't say she had to be Protestant any more, as I don't think this is correct. She merely had to be a non-Catholic - but I've now omitted this entirely as it didn't seem all that specific to Diana.

Anyone who marries a Catholic or converts to Catholicism is excluded from the line of succession. However, Diana could have converted to Catholicism following her marriage, and Charles would have still be in line. john k 02:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

amended to "had to have an aristocratic background, and could not be a Catholic" in light of comments here and below. 82.44.93.140 16:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not accurate, in that it implies that the two requirements are similar. They are not. Not being Catholic is a statutory requirement. Another statutory requirement is that the marriage has to be approved by the queen. Beyond that, there are no statutory requirements. I guess one might say that the queen was only going to approve someone from an aristocratic background who could be plausibly claimed to be a virgin. But that's about it. john k 17:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"In order to gain the approval of his family and their advisors, any potential bride had to have an aristocratic background and could not have been previously married - and for Charles to remain in the line of royal succession, he could not marry a Catholic."

 ?

Hic 11:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Issue 2: Had to be a virgin

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)

• I have read media reports that suggest she was checked to determine her virginity. Although I doubt she would have been rejected if she was proven to be less than chaste. Astrotrain 20:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Wasn't part of the reason Camilla was regarded as an unsuitable consort because she was "less than chaste"? (Alphaboi867 00:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC))

The issue of not being a Roman Catholic was vitally important in the case of Diana, like all royal brides. If she had been a Catholic, the moment Charles had married her he would have been excluded from the succession as I think would th

re- being a virgin. No she didn't have to be. Plenty of royal brides have had plenty of sex before marriage. What they did not want, understandably, was for some former lover of the royal bride to turn up and sell his story to the Sun about 'How Diana was fantasic at sex' - let alone describe her skill with bjs, etc. Being a virgin was a guarantee that there were no other secret lovers willing to sell their story. On a practical level, it meant that she could not be secretly pregnant by someone else when she married Charles. In olden days it wasn't always easy to make sure a royal bride was not already pregnant with someone else's child when she married a royal, and that of course could have raised all sorts of problems. Today there is no problem with that. Pregnancy tests are easy. The key issue is - are there any former lovers out there capable of embarrassing the royal couple later on?

Camilla was not suitable again not because she wasn't a virgin, but because she had not been very discriminating and low-key in her sex life. The Palace couldn't be sure that the National Enquirer or some such "newspaper" (in inverted commas) wouldn't have a fieldday raking over her past, with ex-lovers, or friends of lovers, revealing her saucy secrets. If Camilla had had lovers whom the Palace thought 'one of us' (ie., likely to keep the events secret out of loyalty to the throne) they would probably have accepted her, albeit uneasily. But her lovers had been middle class and not people in royal circles so there was a real fear that 'one of them' would spill the beans for money. And of course the fact that she had a grandmother who had been a mistress was a big black mark. She was, in the snobby world of royal staff, fit to be a mistress but not queenly material.

Diana's father, Johnny Spencer, may have been a violent thug who beat up his first wife and got drunk all the time, and his wife may have been the sort of woman who ran off and dumped her kids, not to mention her grandmother on one side being a right battleaxe and her grandfather on the other being nutter than a cadbury's fruit'n'nut, but because they were of the right class and background they were seen as likely to keep quiet on any dirty linen. (And it has been claimed that Diana most definitely had not been a virgin when she married. But the man rumoured to be her lover refuses point blank to tell the story (even though tabloids over the years have supposedly offered him vast sums of money. But he came from the right background and could be guaranteed never ever to talk about it. If only James Hewitt was as loyal!!!) FearÉIREANN 01:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Wasn't Camilla's status as a divorcee the central reason why Charles couldn't marry her, if he wanted to stay in the line of royal succession? (cf Abdication Crisis of Edward VIII). Haven't heard those rumours about Camilla before, expect you're right that if that was the case then it would be a black mark against her, but would be interested to see some sources. 82.44.93.140 16:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • This time around. But she wasn't in the 1970s before she married Andrew Parker-Bowles. Charles's hesitancy in asking her to marry her was that, while she was the person he wanted to marry, he wasn't sure if she was the person who would be accepted as queen. She wasn't from the usual royal bride background, and had lived a sex-life that while reflecting the livestyles of many British people in the 1960s and 1970s was not what was perceived acceptable for royal brides, at least not acceptable when it could potentially become public where her ex-lovers were not from a background that would have kept quiet out of loyalty to the throne and the monarchy, as in the past.

• • • John Brown was also not thought suitable as a partner for Queen Victoria because of his background and class. Whether he was or was not Victoria's lover is still debated, though increasing primary documents from the period (including that of a reported deathbed conversation with the senior dean who supposed married them given to a senior politician and which is contained in his newly unearthed diaries), suggests that they were probably lovers and possibly secretly married. The refusal of the Royal Archives to allow anyone see the papers on the issue, when almost everything else by Victoria can be read by historians, is seen by historians as deeply suspicious and lends credence to the lover/husband story. Class and sexual past was also the main reason why there was such opposition to Wallace Simpson marrying King Edward. Queen Mary openly claimed she had won her son's heart through "oriental sexual techniques". Her status as a divorceé was the excuse that was seized on to stop the marriage to someone people believed was utterly unsuitable to be queen and a national symbol. But even if she wasn't a divorceé, "this American slut", in the words of one letterwriter, was thought unsuitable as a royal bride. FearÉIREANN 21:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"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"

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)