Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

Archives
February 2003 – August 2006

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Guilty of High Treason

Should it be noted that Lady Di (along with James Hewitt) is guilty of High Treason under the Treason Act of 1351: "... violating the Sovereign's wife, or the Sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or the Sovereign's eldest son's wife..." but was never even procecuted? --Camaeron (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be noted, but the real reason why it was never made mention of in those exact terms is twofold:

1) the reason for the statute in the first place is to make sure no bastards are foisted on the nation. This has most evidently not been done.

2) prosecuting it would have been embarrassing for all concerned, not least the children of the adultress in question. FlaviaR (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"the reason for the statute in the first place is to make sure no bastards are foisted on the nation. This has most evidently not been done."

That is at best debatable. 141.155.11.164 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely the kind of unreasoned and assinine response to which the most suitable rebuttal is "so is your mother". ^† DBD 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at Camaeron's original observation, I see that it is "violating" that is the offence. Being violated presumably does not constitute treason, therefore Diana is innocent. Deb (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the way the law worked, and technically still could, was that both were guily unless it was a rape. See High treason in the United Kingdom. This was what became of two of the six wives of Henry VIII - they were let off with beheading though. Billwilson5060 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a load of bollocks. Let's not waste anymore time discussing it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is BS to suggest they were “traitors”, that they were at risk of being hanged or that if someone rapes a princess the real crime is corrupting the royal lineage. That they were breaking a medieval law has been commented on in reliable sources and is mentioned on the page James Hewitt. Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that anyone would be prosecuted for such an inane 'crime' in a 20th Century democracy, and indeed, it has been proven thus. Any medieval law that would make them criminals has of course been suceeded by modern human rights legislation. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Ancestry

Does Diana have Armenian ancestry??? The Armenian Wikipedia says she does.Just want confirmation.

Doubt it, but the royal famaly originally came from Germany. Wardhog 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

She does have Armenian ancestory, 1/64th, her great grandmother was Eliza Kevorkian (Kewark, angloized version). They were married at the Armenian Apostolic Church in Surat, India. Really its irrevalent seeing as to how she is a English now, but since you asked.

Oh, one more thing, if you wanted to REALLY get details, I am 100% sure the Armenian Apostolic Church has Eliza Kevorkians marridge records somwhere on file. It would take time, but more than likly you can find it if you went and asked around the church.

The article says she is of American ancestry.That sounds ambiguous to me.It could also imply Native American blood.It should be altered.jeanne (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but no. She has 1/64 American Indian ancestry. The keeper of the records has the details somewhere on file. If you would care to look for them....JGC1010 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Descent

Uh, not that I care, but this doesn't sound quite right:

"On her father's side, Diana was a descendant of King Charles II of England through four illegitimate sons"

This is very silly and could do with a quick re-do. Liquidfinale 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it silly if it's the truth?FlaviaR 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Diana is a direct descendent of Charles II through four illegimate sons. All anyone has to do is check her ancestry. I have no clue why that is such an issue. RosePlantagenet (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just out of curiosity...did descendants...or issue...of all four of these illegitimate sons intermarry, thus producing one common - let's call it a four-in-one - bloodline? Would that be how anyone could be the descendant of four brothers..or step-brothers perhaps? I'm just an American (so many of us are), and we're not naturally endowed with knowledge of these intricaciesJGC1010 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana, the comments by His Royal Highness The Prince Philip

His Royal Highness said "Princess Diana" clear in English to the ITV news presenter Trevor McDonald, and the event was captured on film. I am quite sure a Prince of the United Kingdom himself knows the correct titles and styles, and this supersedes anything claimed on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.253.66 (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. We don't take our marching orders from any particular person, not even royalty. They're just as human as the rest of us. -- JackofOz (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the anonymous poster would also agree with Diana saying that she would become the "King Mother" or something to that effect. Charles 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although you people may think you know the rules, the truth is there are no rules on royalty. They can call and style themselves what they please. We have amatuer royal fans thinking they know more than a Prince of Greece and Denmark by birth for goodness sake! It is quite clear that the title Princess Diana was legitimate and recognised. She was a Princess, her name was Diana, hence Princess Diana. If Diana choose to be known as King Mother, then that is what would happen. Who would refuse her the right to that title? Certainly not her beloved son, William of Wales. The wife of the son of a sovereign always receives the title of Princess in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.253.66 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. Titles and styles are the prerogative of the Sovereign, not the sovereign's spouse. 'Princess Diana' as a title was neither granted nor legitimate. Sorry. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more specific about my answer... in the UK, Princesses achieve their titles in one of three ways:

1. ) Inherited
2. ) Created in their own right
3. ) Through marriage to a Prince

Only in the first two cases would a Princess have the right be known as Princess Firstname. In the third case, the Princess is correctly known as Princess Husbandfirstname of Place. Thus we have Princess Anne in the first case, none that I'm aware of in the second case, and e.g. Princess Michael of Kent in the third. Diana would have been correctly addressed (during her marriage) as HRH The Princess of Wales, HRH Princess Charles of Wales, or HRH Diana, The Princess of Wales. At no time in her life would she have ever been entitled to HRH Princess Diana of Wales, as she did not ever hold the title in her own right; she derived it from her husband. I hope that helps. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that William of Wales might give his dead mother some posthumous title when he got to the point in life where doing so was in his power: but I thought he was in on the conspiracy to get rid of her, because he was ashamed of his mother's preference for other-than-white meat.JGC1010 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of uncited assertion that driver had blood CO of 20%

I am not going to get involved in editing, but somebody has to delete the assertion that after her death, her driver, Paul Henri, had a 20% Blood Carbon Dioxide reading. It seems to imply that the accepted explanation that Hernri was drunk is somehow suspect.

The assertion is uncited, and ridiculous on its face. According to the Wiki article on CO poisoning, a disabling dose is 1.28%.

12,800 ppm (1.28%) Unconsciousness after 2-3 breaths[citation needed]. Death in less than three minutes.

The percentage refers to the concentration of CO in the air breathed by the victim, but is seems implausible that breathing air at this concentration would raise the blood CO concentration to 20%.

If you look at blood alcohol concentrations, a concentration of 0.5% would result in unconciousness in almost all cases, so a concentration of 20% CO, a much more toxic substance, seems impossible.

It is unlikely that CO or any gas is sufficiently soluable in water to allow a 20% concentration in the blood.

It's been removed by someone else, but the thing about Wikipedia is that you are asked to WP:Be bold and do the editing yourself. So.. next time you see something that you feel needs to be changed, please do it! Contribute to the project! :) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass removal of "the late" Diana Spencer

Is this really necessary? Any comments? --Cameron* 10:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I daresay any appointments she had expired with her death, so "late" is a bit harsh! ;P ^† DBD 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Public Reaction

I've added some criticism to the section about her funeral. Not everyone was swept away with hysteria then and a lot of people were amazed and, quite frankly, ashamed of the way the British public reacted. This viewpoint needs mention

I've also added a comment about the three people who were jailed for taking toys and flowers from the huge piles of rotting vegetation that were left outside the various palaces. This ridiculous overreaction also requires mention.

The point I'm trying to make is that this particular week in 1997 had a dark side.Steve3742 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

sarah palin, and other folks who claim to be distant relatives

someone attempted to include that sarah palin is diana's relative. ancestry.com a US website recently advertised their finding that sarah palin is a 10th cousin to diana, this seems something that is not fully verified and also it begs the question of whether or not it is worth including, i do not think it is relevant to Diana's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rousseau (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely not. It's not relevant to Palin's, either, unless there's some special significance like, "Taking pride in being a distant relative of Diana, Princess of Wales, Palin often compares herself to the late princess", we could have something like that (if it were true), but 10th-cousinness on its own can never be notable. I'm sure Diana must have hundreds of famous 10th cousins, and this one she probably never even heard of, so how could the fact tell me something about Diana? -- Jao (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Deb (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And me! It'd just fuel more conspiracy theories about how every American president it related to the British monarchy! ;) --Cameron* 12:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana is related to alot of people. Two of her direct ancestors are illigetimate children of Charles II of England, Scotland & Ireland. We (at this discussion)? might likely be related to her. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is correct (and it probably is) and even if it WAS notable (which it isn't) the only place for it would be on Sarah Palin's page, not Diana's. A relationship to Palin adds nothing to Diana's encyclopedia entry. Delete any further such edits on sight 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)