Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Armenian ancestry

Hi please could you add her Armenian ancestry it’s missing reliable sources mention it. It’s from the same person who had Indian and Armenian called Eliza Kewark. 212.108.147.158 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. One person, described as Prince William's great-great-great-great-great-grandmother isn't enough to add ancestry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's already clearly mentioned in one of the sources already in use on the article, so I guess we can add it. Keivan.f^Talk 00:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually she has been 'described' as an Armenian, but that narrative has not been proven. Per the last source that you put here, Lady Colin Campbell claims that "Eliza's true race was therefore expunged from the family tree and she reemerged as an Armenian. This fiction was maintained even when Diana married the Prince of Wales." Note that the DNA test proved that she has Indian ancestry, but did not provide any info on her potential Armenian background. Keivan.f^Talk 00:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Modena-italy-diana-spencer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Drwbookman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Rees-Jones

Trevor Rees-Jones was not Diana's bodyguard, he was Dodi's, working for Mohamed Al-Fayed. 109.150.156.97 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this. Deb (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It's in Trevor's book Deb. I thought it was common knowledge that he was employed by Mohammed Al-Fayed. He was known as "Dodi's man." 86.186.217.66 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Our article on Trevor Rees-Jones (bodyguard) says "Hospital care costs were paid by Dodi's father, Mohamed Al-Fayed, Rees-Jones's employer at the time of the crash", suggesting that our IP editor above is correct. Unfortunately, the source for this paragraph is behind a paywall. (The Independent) But I cannot imagine someone writing that if it wasn't the case. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I found a few references, although the IP should really have supplied them him/herself instead of expecting someone else to do the work. Deb (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. "Common knowledge" doesn't really work as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No paywall for me to The Independent article. The headline is: "In The News: Trevor Rees-Jones: Diana's bodyguard remembers night of the tragedy". Not sure it clearly says who he was working for in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to be so rude, the facts are wrong, I told you it was in the book and you launch an unprovoked attack on me. 86.132.214.218 (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh pardon me, of course I should have bought a copy of the book and read the whole thing to find out which page it was on. And in any case, I was talking about the IP who originally posted, not you. Deb (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That was me, my IP address changed because I was posting from work. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility_warnings 86.132.214.218 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple IP worker, please don't over-react and instead AGF. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what AGF means. 86.132.214.218 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. 86.132.214.218 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to it. Deb (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome Deb... BTW it's the whole book not just one page, it's a very interesting read, you might enjoy it. 109.150.156.124 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New on controversial issues : Converted to Islam, Pregnant at time of Death

As of late there's been a lot of chatter and publications about Diana having converted to Islam and having been pregnant at the time of her death...

Can we all delve into this and do some investigation around this matter, under controversy this should be mentioned. Proven or unproven, it's a topic of great interest.

2A03:2880:31FF:3:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:TABLOID. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo in 3.2:Children

In the second sentence of the first paragraph, "...Diana fell down a staircase at Sandringham, suffering some bruising, and the royal gynaecologist Sir George Pinker was summoned from London; the foetus was uninjured", it says "foetus" (should be "fetus"). The link on that word is not incorrect, though

Foetus is the correct spelling in British English. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-native holder of Princess of Wales

I think it's important to make a distinction in the intro between historical and native holders of the title "Princess of Wales" and the modern non-native use of the title as part of the British monarchy. As such I would suggest simply including the word "non-native" later in the intro paragraph. Please and kindly state an opinion and form a consensus. Thanks.Titus Gold (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The article should reflect and follow usage in reliable sources. If biographers do not typically refer to her in this way, then neither should we. If some reliable sources do refer to her this way then we will need to assess the balance of reliable sources to see whether or not it is important enough to feature in the lead or the first sentence of the article. DrKay (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As the last native one was Gwenllian of Wales, who died in 1337, it seems unlikely that this is a distinction which carries much weight these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flowers for Princess Diana's Funeral.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Picture Change

Hi-

I'd like some opinions if the picture on her page was changed-

To be honest, casually when most people have Princess Diana come to mind she has her usual swept back hair- But in this it is not. Although the picture is one of the newest you can get most people wouldnt recognize her that way because she was most recognized in her younger 80s years than the 90s, anyways, I'd like some opinions on it before I change it, thanks all. Nolan MacLellan (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Please change the word "Paris" without a hyperlink to the word "Paris" that has it.

Diana's death in a car crash in Paris led to extensive public mourning and global media attention. An inquest by the Metropolitan Police returned a verdict of "unlawful killing". Her legacy has had a deep impact on the royal family and British society.[1]

TO:

Diana's death in a car crash in Paris led to extensive public mourning and global media attention. An inquest by the Metropolitan Police returned a verdict of "unlawful killing". Her legacy has had a deep impact on the royal family and British society.[1] Nag-Eedit si Mang Robert (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 10:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022 (2)

Change “She was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales” to “She was the first wife of Charles, King of the United Kingdom” GWNAydenNL (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See similar requests on this page. Charles was prince when they were married and the article already mentions he is now Charles III RudolfRed (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Princess of Wales

So Diana Spencer retained her title of Princess of Wales? It reads: "28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales" in the section #Titles, styles, honours and arm. Oroborvs (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oroborvs: She was not "The" Princess of Wales after divorce. Only the wife of the Prince of Wales can be the Princess of Wales. Once a peer divorces his wife, she keeps her previous title as a courtesy attached to her name. Thus, she was "Diana, Princess of Wales". Same thing happened with her sister-in-law, Sarah. She was "The" Duchess of York. Once she and her husband divorced, she became "Sarah, Duchess of York". Keivan.f^Talk 20:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Thanks for the explanation. So yes, Diana Spencer retained this courtesy title after her divorce, according to #Divorce and courtesy titles in the United Kingdom. She is still "Diana, Princess of Wales" since her death on 31 August 1997, but above is given a date range for this courtesy title. Oroborvs (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Usually, the ranges given for titles in articles on royalty and nobility ends with the final date being the date of their death. One could easily assume that their rank at the end of their life is how they will be referred to as in death. Posthumous titles are rarely included, unless they are common practice, as is the case for Japanese imperial family. Keivan.f^Talk 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: I see nothing to support that she still holds that courtesy title 25 years after her death. Knowing this, why is the article titled "Diana, Princess of Wales" instead of "Diana Spencer"? Queen Elizabeth II is now Elizabeth II on WP; she "was Queen of the United Kingdom", which makes sense. Therefore, the similarity of article titles Catherine, Princess of Wales/Diana, Princess of Wales becomes WP:TECHNICAL or disturbing for the "general reader". I have the same discussion with @GoodDay: on Catherine, Princess of Wales. Oroborvs (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oroborvs: She's still referred to as "Diana, Princess of Wales" by the royal household 1, just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is still Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother 2. People don’t get demoted when they die. It’s like saying Elizabeth II should now be referred to as Princess Elizabeth of York, her title at birth, because she’s technically no longer the Queen of the UK. Keivan.f^Talk 21:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We change the article titles of queen consorts or queen mothers, once they've died. We actually don't have a settled mechanism for what to do with article titles of former (i.e divorced) wives of future monarchs, when they're dead. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, which prompts me to emphasize that Diana is not a royal consort. Her situation is more similar to that of Sarah, Duchess of York (another divorced wife of a peer). Keivan.f^Talk 21:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to them being changed to "Diana Spencer" & "Sarah Ferguson". Though, I'm aware that such RMs would likely fail. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the most recent attempts were last year, and there was a consensus to not move either of them. Keivan.f^Talk 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

change prince charles duke of wales to kind charles MortySome (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Charles, Prince of Wales (later Charles III)", which seems correct. DrKay (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And the jury is still out as to whether he's "kind"! Deb (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Age difference

Blaming (partially) Charles and Diana's age difference; he 32, she 20, for their marital failure seems unlikely to be true. There's millions of successful marriages with age gaps of 10+ years. When they got married, I felt sorry for the kid and I hoped she knew what she was getting into. Turns out she didn't - or she was so self-unaware as to not anticipate what a poor choice it was for her. I suggest that "age difference" be removed as being irrelevant and non-causal. The two were simply incompatible.174.130.71.156 (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course she was unaware - she was 12 years younger and hadn't had any previous affairs like he had. That's why they chose her. Deb (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason of marital failure is usually not age difference. Many couples marry, despite the age difference, because most of them do love and care for each other. After so many years, it is evident that Charles III married Diana, not because he truly loved her, but because he wanted a breeder, a woman who would give him his heir.

Therefore, age difference being the reason of marital failure her in this case, does seem to be true.

Regards,

Meet MMJ TheIndianWikiFreak (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone please be reminded that this is not a forum. This place is for suggestions on how to improve the article. The age difference is universally cited as a major factor by reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

That's true, but it is still only subjective opinion. I don't think either Charles or Diana ever explicitly stated that it was a problem, did they? Deb (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure we are only supposed to report what they explicitly stated. Much of the article is based on friends and family's reports, as most biographies are anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly; it was the opinion of those who observed them. Deb (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The lede

@Davinia Priscilla: You seem rather hell-bent on removing a sentence from the lede, and so far you have attempted to do it six times (last attempt). Your edits have been reverted and you are now in breach of WP:3RR, especially since you ignored my invitation in the edit summaries to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Nevertheless, instead of getting the admins involved, I decided to initiate the discussion myself to see if you have a logical reasoning for what you have been doing over the past six days. Put your arguments forward so that we can determine if there is in fact a consensus for the change you seek to implement. Keivan.f^Talk 07:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the reversions were bad practice, but the wording is, in my opinion, far too subjective. Can we moderate it a little, please? Deb (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deb: Sure, do you have any alternatives in mind? Because that part is meant to point out her marital troubles and her rather ambivalent relationship with the press; they criticized her but adored her, she despised them yet she craved their attention. This is covered in detail in the "legacy" section so it is already a part of the article's body. Keivan.f^Talk 14:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Certainly "she craved their attention" is one of the things that people say about her, but where is the hard evidence? I find it hard to see any justification for attributing that kind of motivation to a person in a Wikipedia article, even if the media themselves say it's the case. You need to hedge any such statements around with caveats, so is it really worth putting a subjective statement like that into the introductory paragraph? Deb (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deb: I simply tried to summarize the whole thing in a nutshell. Obviously it is not my intention to include such strong statements in the lede. The language has to be neutral, but the tough relationship that she had with the press is worth mentioning. Whether that was the press being intrusive or her inviting them into her life herself is a matter of debate, but since that issue is covered in detail elsewhere in the article readers can draw their own conclusions. Keivan.f^Talk 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello I just feel that part for this paragraph is not needed. You already are highlighting about her. I just feel to introduce a person and what they do should be positive Davinia Priscilla (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davinia Priscilla: Not necessarily. This is an encyclopedia article not a fan page, so if there's a negative aspect that needs to be covered, then it should be covered. Not to mention that it is not negative at all; it just says that she was scrutinized by the press, which would make her the victim. Deb has already rephrased that part a little bit and I find it acceptable. I don't think any more alterations would be necessary, but there's always room for change. If other users think it should be reworded, they can share their opinions. There's also the possibility of changing its position within the lede. But remember that removing this or any other parts requires a consensus. Keivan.f^Talk 02:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I know that but I don't feel it's needed as in that section of the page. I think the consensus is it should be kept but in a different part of the page. I'm still unsure why you still have added it on when there's a disagreement. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Davinia Priscilla and Keivan.f - In a way, you are both correct and both incorrect. Removing something that's not well-phrased doesn't require a consensus (WP:BOLD), but it does call for a meaningful edit summary and an attempt to discuss the point on the Talk page. Repeatedly removing something that isn't vandalism is edit warring and that's not acceptable. I'm sure if you got together and talked it through, you could make a lot of improvements to a lot of articles. Deb (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DEB for you input and I don't part coming to a consensus. Davinia Priscilla (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Davinia Priscilla:, I see that you've removed the text once again, despite the fact that we haven't achieved consensus here. And once again you have left a blank edit summary. I strongly suggest you read WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:EDITSUMMARY before editing the article again. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

In summary, Articles says she was married to future King Charles, He has become the King now. Please change it. Alihaider330 (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. He was not king when they were married. RudolfRed (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

Change "future" king to "present". 42.110.138.198 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish a consensus for this before requesting the change. As noted in prior requests for this change, he was not the King when they were married. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Virginity test

Hello,

There is no reference to the virginity test she had to go through.

Why? 88.23.111.157 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because nobody has provided a reliable source that discusses it. Do you have one? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Public life

Omission in the enumeration of foreign visits: The Prince and Princess of Wales made a three-day Official Visit to the then British overseas territory of Hong Kong in 1989. 87.211.109.163 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Lady Diana Spencer or Diana, Princess of Wales

I really think the name of the article should be changed to Lady Diana or something similar. She is deceased, and technically lost the title when she divorced the then Prince of Wales, Charles, in 1992. Also, it's a tad bit disrespectful to HRH Princess Catherine is the actual Princess of Wales, married to the heir apparent. This makes her the likely next Queen of the UK and the Realms, once her husband becomes King of the UK and Realms. I don't understand why the title of this article refers to Lady Spencer as the Princess of Wales because she has not been such since 1992. It is inaccurate and not encyclopedic. --MorphinESTP (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

You've misunderstood how their titles work. Diana, while married, was titled HRH, The Princess of Wales, after her divorce she was officially just Diana, Princess of Wales. Wikipedia is not using official title styles in the article title at all though.

It is still, and always will be, appropriate to call Diana "Princess of Wales" because it was the highest title she ever had and her title upon death. Acknowledging the existence of past title holders is no insult to the current Princess of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.65.254 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Change cause of death from "car accident"

Could "car accident" be changed to "traffic collision" or "car crash". The word "accident" implies nobody is to blame, and there is not enough evidence in this case, or many other traffic collisions to assert there is no blame. (See Wikipedia page on "traffic collision" 240F:69:C842:1:5124:1524:9A27:3E59 (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Diana's HRH

I'm not entirely sure of the accuracy of this statement (despite the source) "Discussions were also held with the Spencer family and the British royal family as to whether Diana's HRH style needed to be restored posthumously, but Diana's family decided that it would be against her wishes and, thus, no formal offer was made.[480]"

I understand that this happened and I understand that this is an accurate reflection of the discussions but it's actually misleading because you can't actually restore a title or style once somebody has died. A posthumous style has not only not been done before, it can't be done (think about Jimmy Savile for example who was (and still is) regarded as a knight during his lifetime. It also mentions that Earl Spencer said that it was sister's wish not to be known as HRH but this isn't true. Diana was not on speaking terms with her Mother when she died because her Mother gave an interview to a magazine saying that Diana was happy to have lost it (which wasn't correct). There are some sources which (although come from credible sources) are simply incorrect and I think Wikipedia needs to work on sifting through some of those types of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.194.217 (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't alter the fact that there were discussions. And, yes, posthumous titles have never been a thing in the UK or Europe but they are pretty common in Asia. We don't know what the outcome of those discussions could have been had they come into fruition so we better not speculate. Additionally, we don't know why Diana was not on speaking terms with her mother. Maybe she was just unhappy that her privacy was being invaded by her own mother. That doesn't make what her brother said invalid. Keivan.f^Talk 20:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

She is William and Harry's mother

In the first paragraph of the article a sentence states "She was the first wife of King Charles III (then Prince of Wales) and mother of Princes William and Harry." It should read "...and is the mother..." Her death does not put her position as their mother in the past tense. 2603:8000:9B01:284E:5958:9234:44CF:CFC7 (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Everything she did or was is in the past tense because she no longer exists. Vabadus91 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles' name in the infobox

I have actually grown quite tired of the constant back and forth on the infobox with regards to how Charles' name should be listed. So we better settle the matter here once and for all. The articles on Princess Margaret of Connaught (Crown Princess of Sweden) and Princess Märtha of Sweden (Crown Princess of Norway) list their husbands with the names they were known with during their marriage while including their regnal names in parentheses. The article on Sophia Dorothea of Celle excludes her husband's regnal name altogether, while the article on Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796–1817) omits her husband's regnal name from the infobox but has her father's regnal name included. So, as there's not an established pattern which we can follow accordingly I strongly suggest that instead of constantly changing the infobox we actually come to a resolution that would solve the issue. I might turn this into an RfC if it doesn't get enough participants as a consensus is desperately needed. I will be looking forward to the feedback. Keivan.f^Talk 23:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be strongly in favour of not introducing an anachronism by including his regnal name in the infobox: he was never known by that name during Diana's lifetime. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think all the articles mentioned above should have the husband's name as they were known at the time of the marriage with the later name in brackets. Other options all run into problems with clarity. Including both (with 'later' as an explanation) is the only one we can be clear on the issue. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with what Celia Homeford suggested. I believe it is necessary for us to point out that their husbands at some point ascended to the throne and their common names changed over time. In 30 years, no one will remember Charles as Charles, Prince of Wales, but rather solely as Charles III. Keivan.f^Talk 05:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the names should be shown in this fashion. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (then Philip Mountbatten) married Elizabeth II (then Princess Elizabeth of York) in 1947. In Philip's infobox, his spouse is "Elizabeth II". However, Diana's situation is complicated by the fact that she wasn't married to Charles when he was king. The closest comparison we have is Wallis Simpson's infobox. She has "Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor" under "spouse", reflecting the fact that they weren't married when Edward was king. Therefore, it makes sense for Diana's infobox to have "Charles, Prince of Wales". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if he won’t be remembered as Charles, Prince of Wales, Diana married him, not Charles III. TheXuitts (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Diana married the individual, not his title. In 50 years, he will be remembered as a King of the UK, not a Prince of Wales, thus the disambiguation is necessary. Keivan.f^Talk 06:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

My only concern is consistency. Choose which way yas want to name the spouse in the infobox & adopt it for all bio pages-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favour of consistently describing spouses in infoboxes by the names/titles they held on marriage, without qualification: first, it is correct and accurate; second, there is no need to include "(later Charles III)" because it looks messy and the link to the Wikipedia entry of "Charles, Prince of Wales" will take the reader to "Charles III" anyway. I would argue the same for the "Spouses" infobox entry on Queen Camilla's article too.Vabadus91 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

In the 'Portrayals' section for Princess Diana, we suggest this addition:

Shanti Fiennes, niece of Oscar nominee Ralph Fiennes, is playing Princess Diana in the upcoming feature film 'Diana In Love'. (Citation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12052913/Shanti-Fiennes-25-transforms-Princess-Diana.html)

Portrayals Actresses who have portrayed Diana include Serena Scott Thomas (in Diana: Her True Story, 1993),[467] Julie Cox (in Princess in Love, 1996),[468] Amy Seccombe (in Diana: A Tribute to the People's Princess, 1998),[469] Michelle Duncan (in Whatever Love Means, 2005),[470] Genevieve O'Reilly (in Diana: Last Days of a Princess, 2007),[471][460] Nathalie Brocker (in The Murder of Princess Diana, 2007),[472] Naomi Watts (in Diana, 2013),[473] Jeanna de Waal (in Diana: The Musical, 2019 & 2021),[474] Emma Corrin and Elizabeth Debicki (in The Crown, 2020 & 2022),[475][476] and Kristen Stewart (in Spencer, 2021).[477] In 2021, Corrin won a Golden Globe Award for her portrayal of the younger Diana Spencer.[478] In 2022, Stewart was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of Diana.[479] That same year, Debicki received a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress, Television for her portrayal of Diana on The Crown.[480] Film Prestige (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use the Mail as a source per WP:DAILYFAIL. DrKay (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Per DrKay. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Marriage problems not reported (in Britain) until the 1992 tour of Korea (so not as early as 1987)

Note that the source saying 1987 is retrospective. They were nicknamed `The Glums' during the stated Korean tour in 1992 (their separation being announced officially mere days later). e.g. Anna Soubry (then a presenter at Central TV in Nottingham) certainly had continued the `hoax' during a TV show called Central Weekend, where the (fooled) studio audience were constantly goaded by Soubry into continually attacking The Press for attempting to wreck a marriage (via constant intrusion etc) which in truth was already over. (A fact that Central TV and Soubry etc clearly knew from what emerged about media knowledge later). That TV show was actually during the Korean tour - i.e. if the studio audience already knew that the marriage was in serious trouble (as the article says was common knowledge) then how come Soubry could manipulate them the way she did? It wasn't common knowledge in Britain amongst the general public.

That is how it unfolded - I've spent decades watching the (manipulative) Soubry and how she operates - and I voted Remain before you ask - but I was never convinced by her re all the post Referendum rows, knowing what I did about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding Spencer to her name?

I think it would be a good idea to name her as "Diana Spencer" in the infobox. It is a common practice, although by no means universal, to list deceased royals by their birth name. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is one example. Векочел (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It is in the infobox already. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean like this:

Diana Spencer
Princess of Wales (more)
Diana in June 1997

I don't think we should group her with Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Yes, for deceased queens, we use their maiden names at the begging of the infobox (Caroline of Ansbach, Alexandra of Denmark, Mary of Teck, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, etc.). It's both informative and less ambiguous than terms such as Queen Caroline, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth considering there were multiple queens with those first names. But for princesses such as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, Katharine, Duchess of Kent, or Sarah, Duchess of York (who got divorced just like Diana), we merely include their first names (or Princess [Name] in the case of Alice because the late Queen granted her the prefix). But let's see if a consensus emerges to use maiden names in the infobox for deceased individuals in general. In that case, Alice's article needs to change as well. Keivan.f^Talk 21:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Alice is quite a special case, she was granted the style of Princess Alice. Wallis Simpson is titled by the surname of the second husband, which was the name she held when she became then Prince Edward's mistress. Векочел (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection tag

The semi-protection tag at the top of the page says that it's there to "promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons". How does this make sense when the subject of the article is dead? 22090912l (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It was changed by a blocked sockpuppet. I have reverted to the original. DrKay (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Diana of Althorp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Diana of Althorp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Diana of Althorp until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

edit request

At the end of the first paragraph of the section Finances please change: "The ownership of Diana's wedding dress was also given to her sons." to "Diana's wedding dress was also given to her sons.", or, even better "Her wedding dress was also given to her sons. Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Keivan.f^Talk 22:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No longer state King Charles as prince of wales in Diana’s infobox

No matter the Princess had died before 2022,the king should be stated as Charles III not Charles prince of wales in the page of the marriage status of the late princess. Him9 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It says in parenthesis what his current title is. Trillfendi (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

makes no sense. Diana married who was then the Prince of Wales, regardless of whether he was later crowned king as Charles III. It is unnecessary information, besides already known. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 4#Charles' name in the infobox for further explanation. Keivan.f^Talk 22:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)