Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Marriage and requirement of virginity

Under the marriage section it states that Lord Mountbatten advised Prince Charles to marry a virgin, and also that in order to gain approval of family and advisers Charles should preferably marry a virgin. I really think a statement such as this ought to be properly sourced, and as this shows no sign of happening, it ought to be removed. Otherwise, stated so factually, it seems a bit defamatory. Passingtramp 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the Jonathan Dimbleby biography of Charles, but I suspect it may be in there. Deb 12:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently read an excellent biography about Lady Diana and if memory serves me right, there was a section in the book that discussed about why Diana was picked. I will try to retrieve the book from the library. RosePlantagenet 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a source for it, but I vividly remember Lady Di making a pre-nuptial visit to the royal gynecologist to make sure that her hymen was intact. It was followed by what must have been an humiliating press conference. The press kept using the phrase "unspoiled English rose". Ick. Ninquerinquar 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your vivid memory has betrayed you. Diana's visit was purely for procreational purposes: to ensure she could bear children. Everyone knows (or should know) that no medical exam can conclusively prove anything on the score of virginity.FlaviaR 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No sources means removal in this case, SqueakBox 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Passingtramp 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the material was removed in May 2007 and is closed, but I cannot resist making a comment about the supposed visit to the gynecologist "to make sure that her hymen was intact." If it was not, was the gynecologist supposed to stitch her a new one? Further, the presence or the absence of the hymen has nothing to do with virginity. It can be broken through any sort of strenuous activity. The Queen, as an avid horsewoman, probably knows all about that! 130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can happen – I read in a magazine that some women can have surgery for a new hymen to surprise their boyfriends, or something like that. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is disaster

Relate to above comment... there have been so many anonymous edits to this article over the last week and maybe longer, and there are clearly hoaxes with "Arabella FitzYourMum" and perhaps with more, I don't even know where to start. I am not interested in Lady Di, nor do I know enough about her, to clean this up. I've put a disputed tag at the top it's that bad. I hope someone will help edit and correct this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I stumbled across this article by accident and have no real interest in the actual content, but was saddened that a page about someone that many people look up to is constantly vandalised. I want to overhaul and completely clean this page more out of respect than actual interest. The page protection seems to have been denied but I am going to wait until it happens before I do anything.

As it is the 10 year anniversary of her death in 6 months time I think this article should have some sort of priority, but until the endless vandalism is curbed I doubt many serious wikipedians will take it on. Bobbacon 21:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Deb, for reverting it to something sane. By the way, have semi-protected it now. If you look back at the history, there is regular anon vandalism, which should be squelched. I've also added some cite needed tags. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick note of thank you for the sprot to those who requested it/were involved. This article is a constant target of IP vandalism, and it's high time someone protected it. Fvasconcellos 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Diana's Coffin

The photograph which supposedly shows Diana's coffin being carried through the streets looks to me like it has been heavily (and badly) edited. For instance, it can clearly be seen here that the coffin was pulled on a carriage by horses - where is the carriage and where are the horses on the photograph on the article??! Gleysh 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree... a very bad Photoshop edit has been done on this picture. Recommend it be removed until an un-doctored photo can be found substituted. Tom M. 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the photo for my comments. It was my photo and I did the bad editing !. PaddyBriggs 07:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The nickname

Hi. Does anyone know who coined the term "the people's princess"? I've also seen it without the apostrophe, though I don't understand that. Thanks. 151.202.74.135 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair certainly used it in his speech (written by Alastair Campbell). The version without an apostrophe is just illiterate. Deb 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-instatement of Title

Could anyone let me know if it is possible for Prince Charles or Prince William, if and when either succeeds to the throne, to re-instate the HRH title to Diana, Princess of Wales.--Andyuk7 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This point is moot, because Diana was an HRH solely because she married an HRH. It would be completely unprecedented and unecessary for the Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth) to do it, although there was a rumour after Diana died that HM offered posthumous HRH to the Spencer family and they rejected it.NChoules 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory, yes, but a posthumous award of style by letters is completely unprecedented, afaik. DBD 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussion of the article itself, not for general questions about the subject. Try somewhere such as the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup. Charles 19:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not irrelevant, as William has already stated he will do this upon accession to the throne. It would indeed be good to have some background on this, and to add it to the article (albeit briefly - a sentence or two should take care of it) if it can be cited. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? I don't see any reason why he could, why he would, or why he should, and I've heard nothing but speculation about it.--Ibagli (Talk) 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This source [1] claims according to BBC. But the only mention I can find of this claim on BBC is in the h2g2 which is obviously not a reliable source. Potential, whoever wrote the People article didn't quite understand what h2g2 is Nil Einne 09:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I forgot to mention. It is irrelevant. If and when someone does it then we can include it in the article. Perhaps if there are multiple reliable sources which say it is planned then we can also include in in the article. However speculating in this talk page on whether it's possible or likely is irrelevant and OT. Nil Einne 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add a reminder that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As Nil mentioned, if and when it happens, it would be appropriate to mention it, but at this point, it is all speculation, rumor, and a future act that is not predictable by anyone, even Prince William. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CFD ntoice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists had claimed...

Since when is it relevant what conspiracy theorists claim? If there is a good reference that it's actually true (and not just claimed to be true), such claims should be removed. Conspiracy theorists have traditionally claimed all kinds of stuff, mostly without any merit. It is best to ignore such claims. Shinobu 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Claims that are significant and have been reported on a number of sources absolutely deserve to be in here. See, for instnace, the Kennedy assassination theories article. Many conspiracy theories for Diana are listed in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. hbdragon88 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories to be Taken With a Grain of Salt

The so-called "conspiracy theories" need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. First of all, we must understand that Mohammed al-Fayed has a significant financial interest that motivates him to assert the existence of a conspiracy even if there was none. He is the owner of the hotel that hired the driver of the car. If the driver of the car was drunk, and the hotel knew or should have known that, then Mohammed al-Fayed or an entity in which he has an interest would have civil liability for the wrongful death of Diana. We must consider the possibility that his continual bleatings about a conspiracy are merely a ploy to deflect attention away from his hotel's negligent hiring policies.

Further, what motive would the British Royal Family have for killing Diana? It is claimed that the mother of the future King could not be married to Muslim. What difference does that make? Prince William's right to succeed to the Throne would not have been affected by his mother's decision to remarry. Even if Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, that would have no effect on the succession. The succession passes through Prince Charles. Once he and Diana were divorced, nothing Diana did could have any effect on the succession.

So, we come back to the strong possibility that Mohammed al-Fayed is merely seeking to protect his financial interests, and minimize any liability he or his hotel may have for the wrongful death of Diana.

130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.230 (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth edited

I have edited the place of birth for Diana. The reason for this is as follows. I am a resident of a village, which is right next to Sandringham, and through knowledge of my own, I know that 'Park House' is not on the Sandringham Estate, and in fact is in an estate of its own. However, 'Park House' is still in the Village of Sandringham, which is probably why there is some confusion.

Paul Norfolk Dumpling 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Positive

Sounds like a promo piece for her. Xavier cougat 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What would you change? Passingtramp 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd persons opinion: Put in objective references to her popularity, put in criticism of her actions. She was a public figure and in the 90s she really used that. eg She can be criticised as a public figure for the decisions, right or wrong , that she made. How she used the media, how she changed (disrupted?) the monarchy, her public use of emotion.

"the debate on Diana's significance has been stimulated afresh. Many have noticed a greater emotional range across the Royal Family's public appearances and statements, ascribed to Diana's example. Others continue to appreciate the sincerity of her commitment to the underprivileged and the skill of her management of a powerful and beautiful image. "http://www.npg.org.uk/live/greatbritonstrail.asp

If you can get hold of a recording of the BBC tv program Great Britons, about her, that would help. It is a sympathetic view obviously, but refers to critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dress

Diana was buried on 6 September 1997. The Prince of Wales, her sons, her mother, siblings, a close friend, and a clergyman were present. She wore a black long sleeved Catherine Walker dress. She had chosen that particular dress a few weeks before.

I'm a bit confused by this. Does it mean she's chosen the dress for her funeral (obviously she wasn't expecting to need it so soon) or simply that it was a dress she'd purchased a few weeks before to wear for any sombre occasion which came up? Nil Einne 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The latter, I am certain. She would not have occasionally picked out a dress for her funeral at her prime. WinterT 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to assume she wouldn't have picked out a dress. Definitely it would be less common for younger people but I'm sure it happens. No one knows what tomorrow is going to bring and if you're a planner... (not that I'm saying she was much of a planner) Planning your funeral to some extent is no real different from writing your will. Both help to reduce the hassle after you die and also ensure your wishes will be met. It obviously isn't something you do every week but once you have a will and have a funeral plan, they're things you may also update every so often as needs and wants arise. Particularly if your as paranoid about your death as Diana apparently was. However on reconsideration I doubt it would be the case since if she had chosen a dress for her funeral a few weeks before her death the conspiracy theorists would have had a field day and I've never heard of it before Nil Einne 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Royal family certainly does plan for their deaths in advance, and, even tho' she was no longer specifically a Royal, she was still connected to them & knew that her death needed advance planning. It is quite possible she did pick out a dress in which to be buried, but I would like to see some substantial proof of this particular claim.FlaviaR 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Separation/divorce section comment

Overall, I think it is a good article! It is certainly a daunting one. Some sections are better than others. I think perhaps in the separation/divorce part, you might consider summarizing the affairs bit even more. I think it's unnecessary to even mention names of alleged partners which have no foundation other than media rumor. Although you rightly acknowledge as much, even just mentioning some of those names like JFK Jr is not necessary at all, in my opinion, as it says absolutely nothing of who Diana was. But as for the writing and wording, this section is good, because things are well-stated, concise, and factual. All the missing citations need addressing, but besides that, it's a good job. --Ashley Rovira 00:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Devorik

On Fox News' Geraldo Rivera's "Death of Diana: Unanswered Questions", yesterday & today, I heard Roberto Devorik quote her as having said, regarding Muslim friends, Arab friends: "...I have too much white meat in my life,..."

Thank You, [[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While that may be mildly interesting to some, it is hearsay, and not supported by reliable sources. I would personally not give Rivera much credibility, knowing his tendency to sensationalize with regards to getting media attention. Without proper sources, such a statement should not be included in the article. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Necessary pic?

"A message of condolence at Trafalgar Square following her death, containing a typo (should be "in memoriam")" Do we really need a pic with a typo in Diana's bio? it takes part of the attention away from the article.. I would prefer a pic related to her legacy.. not a billboard with a typo.. any thoughts on this?--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

    It is important to educate people on the correct spelling.    NChoules 20:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Birth of her children?

Why doesn't this article discuss the birth of Diana's sons (dates, full names, place of birth, reactions of the public, etc.)? I would have thought that these were two of her most significant life events. The article says that she has two sons but never discusses their birth or her relationship with them while she was living. This appears to be a huge oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.93.236 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are separate entries on Princes William and Harry. NChoules 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing hidden personal comments, moving here

My goal was to merely provide a brief, though precise, synopsis of Diana's life and the continuing public fascination with her death. The main article is the place for proof of arguments and citations. Andrew Parodi can't accurately say that Diana had constant sympathy from the public and that the media focused only on her scandals. Also, how can a pop culture figure be important? That could just be an opinion of Andrew's; but the main article could be used to illustrate Andrew's point in depth. I removed additional material from Andrew's contributions to the synopsis, since the same is already in the main article. I disagree with ArielGold's assessment that my terms and modifiers (such as "very", "loveliness" and "near-mythic") are personal opinions: when the majority of people share certain perceptions, the terms of those perceptions become appropriate terms for an encyclopedic entry. It informs the reader of a contemporary consensus. With this revision, I maintained only the word "loveliness" to suggest that people judged Diana on superficial rather than substantial merits. Use of the word does not reflect my opinion, it's a mere observation of what the majority of people at the time agreed upon--and there are innumerable sources that prove the point, but these should be cited in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vstar3000 (talk • contribs)

Andy Warhol has been referred to as the most important artist of the second half of the 20th century, just behind Pablo Picasso. Andy Warhol was a pop artist and his most famous works dealt with pop culture. Pop culture is THE international culture of the media age. In this realm, Princess Diana was a superstar. -- Andrew Parodi 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would request that you review the guidelines and policies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, of fact. Most especially with biographies, terms like "lovliness" (while to many people true) should not be used in prose, unless quoting a source directly, and then a reference should be cited. Additionally, the entire passage was written more in a tone similar to a fan-site, and not especially neutral. Without removing the entire section, both Andrew and I removed those issues, and you saw fit to remove our revision and re-write it again. While I agree that your intro section is helpful, it did again have a number of issues with neutrality and tone. When writing about something or someone you may have strong feelings about, it is often difficult to remain neutral, to refrain from using the terms that you may wish to use, and indeed, it may even be something not consciously done. If this article is ever to reach "Good Article" status, these issues must be addressed. Among the reasons it was not approved for Good Article status, was the tone. I completely sympathize, as I too admired Diana very much, but I realize the importance of removing myself when adding material to this article, and strive to not allow any personal feelings or emotions into the article, as it ultimately compromises the integrity. Vstar, I admire you for adding the section, and it did improve the introduction, but I think we both felt it just needed to be toned down some. It was not Andrew or my intention to say you did anything wrong, we did not remove it, so I appreciate your understanding and I'd request that you review a bit more about Good Article criteria (The link is at the top of this page). Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: With regard to my edits of the second paragraph in the intro, I performed the job of a copy editor, not a fact checker. The second paragraph was a nightmare of a run-on sentence that defied comprehension. I simply placed proper punctuation where it was needed, thus bringing the paragraph somewhere near the realm of comprehensibility. Please don't hold me accountable for the information itself. I didn't originate the raw material in the paragraph, only attempted to organize it in accord to standard English grammar and punctuation. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 05:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Heheh I know Andrew, I didn't add the information either, I am assuming it was added by Vstar3000, but with regards to who copy-edited it, that was myself and you. No worries! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Par for the course on Wikipedia, I suppose. Unfortunately, with a superstar of the magnitude of Princess Diana, this page is destined to never be stable. So, any attempt to improve it is probably an uphill and futile battle. Take a look, for example, at the article about Madonna. No edit on that page lasts very long, and trying to keep it from reading like a fan site is nearly impossible. Oh well. -- Andrew Parodi 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I would hardly put the two in the same category, lol. Diana is mother of the future King of England, and is thus, a major historical figure, Madonna.... is not. lol. Perhaps part of the problem is the intense feelings Diana evokes, and that's why it is difficult to bring this article to GA status, because of the issues you cited with constant editing. One can always hope, however, that things will change, yes? ^Ariel♥Gold 06:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was only putting them in the same category with regard to the frequency with which their pages will be edited. I wasn't saying the women have anything in common aside from the fact that they are both major popular culture icons. But since you brought it up ... Madonna is the most successful female singer of all time and therefore is likely to make it in to the history books, and because of her marriage to Guy Ritchie, Madonna is now actually a distant relation to Princess Diana. (She's also, because of her mother's French Canadian heritage, a distant relative of Celine Dion. But I digress.)

At any rate, I was merely passing through and thought the second paragraph needed some proper punctuation, and so I supplied it. I had no agenda beyond proper punctuation. So, I wish you good luck with this article. Take care. -- Andrew Parodi 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ariel,

Don't worry, I'm not upset with anything you've done. I am certain you do your utmost to be considerate and polite.

I won't be making any further changes to the entry on Diana because, frankly, I'm not that interested in the subject. After spending ten years of NOT thinking about Diana, I logged onto Wikipedia, to verify the date of her death (I had thought she died at the start of August). I saw that Wikipedia's article on Diana was a sloppy affair, although most of what might be said about the lady is already present (there isn't too much one can say about her). The lengthy article needed an outline at the beginning: a quick description as to what might be notable about the lady. I viewed the writing of a précis for the article as a mere academic exercise, and proceeded on a whim.

Your editing of my second synopsis has resulted in something cleaner than before; even if I don't entirely agree with the reasoning behind your input, the synopsis at least now seems appropriate.

I disagree with you on use of the word "loveliness". That is not my personal thought (I couldn't have cared less if the lady was a flower or a weed). People Magazine (US version) listed her on its annual "World's 50 Most Beautiful People" twice. Other magazines thrust the opinion upon the public, and polls indicated the opinion was widely shared among peoples. No doubt about it: there was a general consensus as to her supposed beauty. The consensus is the fact I noted, not the loveliness. That's why I used the phrase "perceived loveliness", with "perceived" used as an adjective; not, as you erroneously presumed, as a verb. The loveliness was something that was only perceived (or, if you prefer, imagined) by the general public; but that common act of perceiving has now become the fact.

That's why the term "loveliness" is found in other encyclopedic articles concerning legendary beauties. Yes, it is often a judgment based only on superficial merits. Beauty is mutable, and people are fickle. In the 1600's, being fat was the big thing (no pun intended), and what was called beautiful in the 1400's would today be called "dogface-makes-me-want-to-vomit". It's not the purpose of the article on Diana to analyze people's perception of beauty; however, it's important to note the perception was there. It shows future readers that Diana's fame was driven by the perception, and then let them judge the perception as they may. They may even agree with me, that the perception is a worthless value judgment (and apparently one that has not driven the reputation of most other British royals—Diana was certainly a unique one among this bunch).

There's probably a better way of phrasing the matter, so people will understand the observation of the perception is, in fact, a neutral observation.

Or, like you said, just mention it in the main article, with proper citations illustrating the fact. But somebody else will need to find the exact sources, as I won't have the time.

Regarding Diana's life and character, my personal opinion is that, aside from having performed one or two really bold acts in life (and being the mother of a royal heir), the woman was pretty much an airhead and a bimbo.

So, no, I most certainly did not put my personal opinions into the article. That would have been very impolite, passing judgments on someone I did not know. But I find it very amusing, that you and your friend Andrew actually assumed I was an ardent fan. You know what you make when you assume, lol.

However, even if Diana's life is mostly insignificant; I think her work with AIDS sufferers and her protests against the use of land-mines are the two most important things one can say about her. These examples, even if not historically important, should perhaps be mentioned in the synopsis, for they quickly illustrate a spiritual growth in the lady, as well noble qualities that should be noted for all posterity. I think people of the future will always be interested in a person's moral qualities. Just think of what a parent might say to a child in the future: "Be like Diana, who showed kindness to the sick."

Diana ultimately becomes a bit more substantial than today's vacuous beauties.

(Oh, and, incidentally, I have read the Wikipedia guide to editing, many times over before yesterday, thank you very much!)

--vstar3000 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vstar, thanks for understanding, and I agree the term "lovliness" could be used, but I think it would need to be used in context of a reference such as you suggested, as indeed, People had her on a number of covers, and her appeal was undeniable. If the paragraph were worded such to indicate the term came from an outside source, with a reference following, then it would be completely acceptable (in my humble opinion). I also agree that the article needs work, that is evident, and perhaps now that is is semi-protected, some of the issues can be properly addressed. I don't necessarily agree that she was not all that notable, but that is okay as well. And I apologize if by adding links to editing guides you felt I was insulting you or assuming you did not know about them, my intention was to help when I did not know your experience. Thank you for not taking that negatively. I also agree that her charity work was probably one of the most important contributions she made, and should be mentioned in the introduction. I respect your comments, even if I may not agree with your view of her, and I thank you for your understanding of the problems faced with articles such as this. I hope we run into each other again! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

I really believe that section isn't factually accurate nor neutral, read it and have a look for yourself. Learntruck 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I reverted the change by accident; my apologies. Best regards, Liquidfinale 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I take back my apology after having this person vandalise my userpage. My original revert was an accident, a slip of the mouse, and I corrected it barely seconds later. And what do I get? Abuse. Liquidfinale 14:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Learntruck 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Learntruck, please stop replacing "car accident" with "murder" in this article. That is not constructive, nor is it verifiable by any reliable sources. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i think Diana's death was set up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.171.2 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And you are welcome to have your opinion, but it is not a verifiable fact supported by reliable, third party sources. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Submarined?

Diana — unbelted in the back seat- slid forward during the impact and, having been violently thrown around the interior, "submarined" under the seat in front of her.

What the hell does that mean? Jachin 17:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just came on here to check on some facts, noticed the page was severely lacking, and then saw the discussion page where all kinds of lunatic decisions seem to have been upheld. The conspiracy theory stuff gets far too prominent a mention, the typo on the billboard seems to be there for no other reason than to teach people how to spell... I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor by any definition but this article really needs someone to give it at least a quick once-over. J@ffa 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreign pics

Картинка:DianaSpenser.jpg Delwedd:Tywysogesdi.jpg – later years Bild:Diana Angola.jpg – landmine Immagine:Diana coa.png – coat of arms Immagine:Sandro Pertini con i Principi di Galles.jpg – Italian President Sandro Pertini Kép:Princess diana bristol 1987 02.jpg [szerkesztés] (flowers in Bristol) Bilde:Princess Diana Funeral St James Park 1997.jpg – funeral Bilde:Princess Diana, Bristol 1987.jpg – Diana in Bristol ภาพ:Diana-memorial-fountain01.jpg – The Diana, POW Memorial Fountain ภาพ:Floral.JPG – Flowers, palace ภาพ:Mummy.JPG Dicoffin.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.62.78 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

The image, Image:Diana, Princess of Wales.jpg, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion. The nomination can be found by clicking here. All comments welcome. Woody (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The other image was so much better than what we've got now. She really looked like a princess in it. In the current one, she could be almost anyone. I wish the former one could be put back. B626mrk (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord Althorp's rank

I deleted the small reference to the court awarding custody to Lord Althorp because 'of his rank'. This is not neutral and is pure speculation; the wife's affair and the negative testimony of the wife's mother were probably more significant. In the custody case of the children of Lord Lucan, also an Earl, the court did not award custody to Lucan (and he was of the same 'rank' as Lord Althorp). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.235.205 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible change. Deb (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

princess diana

princess diana was a great woman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.229.198 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Structure

This article is a right old mess. Surely her descent should come before her early life? It should not be titled 'Royal descent' since it covers numerous non-royals. And even 'Descent' would be poor as it covers cousins and other relatives. It should be called 'Genealogy'. The education stuff should be included within 'Early life', where there should also be a mention of her job as a nursery nurse or whatever it was - which is in fact what I came to the article to find. It also goes straight from the wedding to 'Problems and separation' in the late 1980s - what about having children and whatever else she did in the early to mid-1980s? Salopian (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

She learned British sign language [2]. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Treason speculation

"Although no charges were considered, [[adultery|adultery]] with the Queen consort or Princess of Wales is considered [[High treason in the United Kingdom|high treason]] for both parties in England under the [[Treason Act 1351|Treason Act 1351]], and they would have both been subject to the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]] if tried and convicted under the laws at the time."

I removed this text, but it has been repeatedly re-inserted. My objections are as follows:

1. "is considered high treason" By whom? It might be that it technically is in law, but I doubt it is generally considered to be such.
2. If "no charges" were even considered, what is the relevance of this factoid? Where are the sources that show some notable discussion of this such that it belongs in a biography? Since this played no part in any real debate, and gives no understanding of the subject's life, it belongs in the field of theoretical legal trivia and historical curiosity not a biography.

--Doc^g 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Experts on the the British Constitution suggested in all seriousness that Mr. Hewitt had committed treason and thus could be hanged, drawn and quartered." It isn't a trivial matter. Whether charges were considered or not. This information has been in the article for a long time without objection. Nor is it speculation. It is coded and enforceable law. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but sources? Please provide sources that indicate that this was a significant issue at the time? And even if sourced, that might belong on a legal article about treason today, you need also to show how it was considered relevant to the life of the subject. At the moment this is unsourced sub-trivia. "Enforcable law"? It is also law that the Queen could dismiss her government, appoint me, and declare war on France, but we don't put that on the article about France.--Doc^g 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and we do put that in the article about the Queen her technical powers and duties even if unutilized. The IHT source and the Treason Act article more clearly refer to the specific legalities and laws. A potentially treasonous act by a member of the Royal family is by definition relevant, and hardly 'trivia'. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...Mr. Hewitt is not a member of the Royal Family, and he is still alive; the provisions of WP:BLP apply to him. We do not include references of the wide range of possible legal charges that would apply to people into biographical information relating to them. There are many times when we don't even include actual legal charges, unless the person has been convicted. I concur with Doc - unnecessary, does not provide any useful information, and inflammatory to both the living and the dead. Risker (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the statement as a rhetorical flight of fancy by a bored journalist. Appeal to ancient laws such as the Treason Act of 1351 (which would be greeted by any circuit judge with a barely stifled yawn) are Original research and not to be encouraged. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed any reference to any living person, and it now discusses Diana particularly. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Please do not restore to this article, or any part of Wikipedia, the ridiculous and false claim that Diana, Princess of Wales "would have been subject to execution if convicted" of adultery. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also weasel wording, "Although she died prior to charges being considered" - implies they would have been considered had she lived. Let's be clear. They were never considered. Would never have been considered. Could never have been considered. Would have been laughed out of court. Now, knock it off.--Doc^g 20:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That is speculation as to whether they would have or not. And irrelevant. Nevertheless I can agree that the first words "she died prior to charges..." could be reworded or removed.

The fact is that she was admittedly guilty of high treason under the Treason Act 1351 which is still the law of the land today, despite anyone's opinion of it being antique and outdated, it is binding law. And the fact is additionally that until passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - which occurred after Diana's death - high treason in the United Kingdom carried a mandatory death penalty.

As to whether or not Diana would actually have been hanged, drawn and quartered we can only speculate. But what we can say definitively is that she was subject to that for the adultery she publicly admitted to. // 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't definitively say anything about this in a Wikipedia article. There is far too much "speculation" involved. This would need a reliable, published, independent source to be included in any way. Do you have such a source you can cite? If not, this is original research and cannot be added to the article. Thanks, Gwernol 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/10/05/royale.php for some mention. There are more, and better, references as well. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A suitable source would be a British constitutional lawyer opining that Diana, Princess of Wales would have been executed if tried and convicted of adultery. Not an overimaginative journalist with an audience to thrill. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Experts on the the British Constitution suggested in all seriousness that Mr. Hewitt had committed treason and thus could be hanged, drawn and quartered. Per the previous source. As I said there are additional, and better sources. But this punishment per the law, if you look at the aforementioned articles on these laws, clearly state that the punishment is applied to both the adulteress Princess of Wales and the man committing the adultery with her. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know the journalist wrote this. Unfortunately it isn't a very credible statement and he neglected to cite any of these supposed experts. This is why I've described him above as "overimaginative" and his statement as "a rhetorical flight of fancy". We need something more concrete. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To add to Anticipation's cultured reply. Let's for a moment assume that these unnamed "experts" are reliable (though until you can name the experts directly, you can't use this as a source for this article). All that source says is that Hewitt had committed treason. Drawing the conclusion that it also applies to Diana is your original research and you cannot use original research to add to articles on Wikipedia. You need at least one direct and reliable source to include this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you could point us to these "better sources" you've mentioned? Thanks, Gwernol 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The source here is the International Herald Tribune, a subsidiary of the New York Times, hardly a sensationalist source. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a better source. He is quoting experts on the the British Constitution. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So why did you say "There are more, and better, references as well. "? Either there are more and better references, or there aren't. This one source at best says Hewitt was guilty of treason so can't possibly justify including anything in this article. Gwernol 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I really have no beef with the International Herald Tribune, but they're journalists and journalists write to entertain. They are not experts on constitutional law, nor infallible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Read High treason in the United Kingdom, Treason Act 1351, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and you will clearly see sourced information that adultery with the King/Queens eldest son's wife is high treason and punishable by death for both the man and the princess. And this punishment was effective until 1998 (the crime is still the same, but since '98 the punishment is life imprisonment for both parties to the crime.)

Anticipation, they are quoting British constitutional experts, not offering there own opinion. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindenting) Jumping from the act to the conclusion that in this specific case, Diana was guilty of treason is your own original research. Please read the original research article. You are synthesizing your own conclusion from sources which is not allowed. Gwernol 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a merry-go-round. I think I'll just wait until either hell freezes over or somebody quotes a known British constitutional expert who opines that, if found guilty of adultery, Diane Princess of Wales would have faced execution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line does remain that Diana, Pricess of Wales committed a capital offense under the laws of the land. Any which way you may slice-and-dice it, that is a serious and indeed notable event. Whether she would or would not have been executed, be it hanging or beheading. Consider, as an example, a notable individual committed a murder in a death penalty jurisdiction, and for whatever reason he could not be charged due, say, to some technicality. And he got away scott free with murder. Would we ignore the incident in his biography? No! Would we ignore the fact that the offense committed was a capital crime? Certainly not! The same situation here applies. 198.77.206.228 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The adultery itself may be a "notable event", as may its admission. What could have happened if something else very unlikely had happened is not an event at all. Deb (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

I'd like a bit more explanation about how this institute is notable enough for it's own section in an article about the person. I see a bunch of sources, a few of them reliable, but I'm still not sure why it's here. --Onorem♠Dil 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the new article, however I doubt I am going to edit it much further. It lacks citations. Can someone who has an interest please improve it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The way above article created shows clear vandalism and no good faith. Why this user takes extra interest to delete the sub section on the article Diana, Princess of Wales where this user has no good faith editing in the past (other than the tad viginity issue). Bermudatriangle (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Instead of having a brief section in a slightly related article, I have created a dedicated article devoted to the Princess Diana Institute of Peace. It is hardly relevant to the Princess Diana article, seeing as it only shares a name with her. If the institute of peace is so important to you, feel free to go to the dedicated article, and help improve it, as at the moment it is highly lacking. Please do not make personal attacks against me, I consider being called a vandal to be a personal attack. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you trying to say that you have no problem with my edit, the problem you have is that I made the edit not someone else? By the way, I have no political interest in that section, so please assume good faith when making comments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have serious doubt over you. You have been critised by another user that you live in Japan but you don't edit anything on Japan. Now suddenly you started with Diana's virginity and now removing things there telling you don't have any political motivation.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good faith please. Where I live is not relevant, my previous edits are not relevant, what is relevant right now, are my edits on this article. Don't assume anything about my political motivation, I am not really interested in politics, especially not politics relating to Sri Lanka..care to check my contribution history and see if I have ever made an edit relating to Sri Lanka or whatever political issues you are talking about? Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do you live is not relevant then why do you highlight Japan, put a Planet Earth icon to indicate where do you live. We have seen enough on wikipedia how people cheat others as they are innocents by their appealing words.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have a userbox that states that my monitor is currently in 1440x900 resolution, is that also relevant? Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[3] and this diff[4], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [5][6] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. If you have concerns over suspected sockpuppetry, take it to the relevant page. I don't see the use of "care to" being sufficient evidence for a case, but either way, it's not what this discussion was started to address. Also, even if they were the same user, it may not be considered abusive sockpuppetry since the accounts aren't being used simultaneously to avoid scrutiny, to create false consensus, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy. I keep seeing bad faith reasons given for the sections removal, but I've yet to see anyone try to justify why it actually belonged here in the first place. "Care to" answer that question? --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Care to offer any proof other than one commonly used share phrase to back up your accusations? Anyone with checkuser rights care to check my IP and see if it matches anyone else? Care to be a little careful with absurd accusations, that cause offence? Care to take it to the sockpuppet page and see them reject it within about 3 seconds? I wanted the article deleted because it was not notable. End of story. Get over it. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooooh I didn't even login, that should make it a little easier for you to confirm where I am from, the user you mentioned is from Nagoya, run a whois. see if I am in Nagoya, or even close.203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I look at Iwazaki and his edits, I can see where the confusion lies... He edited articles relating to Sri Lanka, I edit articles relating to Korea, Japan, Cars and Football. He is rather lacking in his English ability, I speak English fluently, and actually teach English for a living. But I guess we both live in the same country, a country that has 135 million people. Really, take a little care before making unfounded accusations. If I wasn't laughing so much, I would be offended. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. The account that accused me of being a sock, was register today, and it's only contributions were on three talk pages, to complain about me, and accuse me of being a sock. I wonder if that is the same user who got a 24 hour block because of my 3RR report. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging

User:Onorem raised the noatability of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace at 17:50, 28 April 2008 [7] at Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales and then reverted the sub section (which was created nearly a month ago and after the main page has gone nearly 500 edits) at 14:09, 29 April 2008 [8].

The reason User:Onorem was given is, "I see no argument on the talk page for including this section, only bad faith accusations about the motivations behind its removal. Stand alone article is linked to from see also."[9].

This user is expecting within 24 hours other editors should jump into the talk page and should take their dicission of the section which has passed by nearly 100 editors and a bunch of administrators since its creation. The rush this User has shown is either his personal tendency on the issue or not showing good faith on other editors who are continuously contributing to the article Diana, Princess of Wales.

User:Onorem justifies, "...Stand alone article is linked to from see also" on Edit Summary to this ill-formatted article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace. But it has been created poorly by cutting and pasting the content of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" which was in the Diana, Princess of Wales without copying it from the HTML code. The User who has created the above mentioned stand alone article is vigourously campaigning its removal from the Diana, Princess of Wales. The User has taken me for 3RR violation to the right place and even reported to ANI promptly. So it can't be an error this User missed to copy the HTML code and other sourced references to meet the wiki standard.

Wikipedia Merge criteria says,

“ 3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there. ”

Princess Diana Institute Peace was founded in a Third World country Sri Lanka where raising fund is a major draw back. Even the media coverage on internet is very minimal to bring all its activities on-line. These factors with other political set backs and humanitarian violations are very distruptive to carry out its activities on regular basis and meet wikipedia Notability criteria compared to other NGOs in the developed nations.

For the question why it is something to do with the Diana, Princess of Wales is its starting name "Princess Diana" gives more identical with late Diana and the recogdnition in its activities.

My opinion is the article "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" should be merged with the article Diana, Princess of Wales until the page get expanded in a reasonable amount of time.

Though I can revert User:Onorem's revert according to the following merging criteria, I don't want to do it as I could get caught into EditWar.

“ Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. ”

I am leaving this information here for your opinion on Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First point. If you don't like the current state of the new article, don't waste your time here complaining, spend your time improving the new article.

Second point, don't make any assumptions or accusations regarding the reasons behind the lack of quality and/or the cut/paste style of the article. No hidden agendas, it was the first article that I made (feel free to check my logs) and I thought cut/paste would be simple. I did request for other editors to help improve it.

Third point. It seems that your reasons behind wanting the two articles merged are finally becoming clear, the Diana article is very prominent, concerning a very prominent person - many people view it. The institute of peace is certainly not prominent, hardly a mention of it online, I found it hard to improve the article, because there is nothing to say about it. To be honest, the best solution would have been delete the section, and NOT make a new article. But in the spirit of compromise, I made the new article. Don't try to use a prominent article in order to get prominence for the Institute of Peace. It is NOT notable, and I consider it to be damn lucky to have its own article, with a link on the Diana page.

Fourth point. Who are you? You seem to be very new here, but you also seem to be quite aware of how wikipedia works. Have you ever edited here with another account? And if you don't mind, one more question, is the issue of the Institute of Peace something that you have personal interests in? Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you too don't mind, who are you? Have you any personal hate in deleting the article or to defame the Institute of Peace or its members? You said it is the first article you have created, then for what the hell you are messing with Princess Diana Institute of Peace and Diana's virginity.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Sennen Goroshi, this is the one and only account I have used. I have edited a few times with IP, when I forgot to login. Personal Hate? LOL. no of course not, this is wikipedia, AKA not real life. I am sorry, did I have to get your personal permission in order to edit the Princess Diana article? I think not. Now I am wondering why you have such an interest in this issue. Are you English like me, and you are interested in Diana? would you mind answering my questions above on my fourth point? I answered yours, seems only fair... Oh, and let me add one more question. Have you heard of "Dhirrosses" that account was made about the same time as you got blocked. And the only edits they made before they got banned were attacking me. I look forward to your response. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You should post the talk page of the account you are refering, to know who is she or he? You are telling You are English, only God knows who you are? But some of my ancestors are from Nordwestblock region same as Diana, Princess of Wales. This is enough for you. I can't entertain any of your questions hereafter. Leave others to comment on the topic.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Awwww you can't answer any more questions? that's a shame. I was going to ask you one more time....Have you ever edited here with another account?

but it seems that you want to avoid that particular question, for reasons I can only imagine. oh well.. happy editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

enough

This stupid little section has taken more than enough of my time already. Can it just get left alone please?

It is a minor organisation, that barely gets a search result on google. It does not deserve a huge section, or even more than a line or 2.

I don't know what agenda people are trying to push here, but take it elsewhere.

When I see an account, that has been created purely for the purpose of pushing one particular statement, it is fucking hard to keep good faith in that editor.

Go prove me wrong, go edit a load of different articles, and become a great editor, I will happily admit I was wrong.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi is very much politically motivated. This user very freely using the words "fucking" and "asshole" everywhere, then how this user could be a rational person to judge things what is happening on wikipedia is right or wrong.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

and here we all are, back exactly where we were a few days ago.

a blatant single purpose account screwing up the article, in order to push whatever their single purpose agenda is.

I didn't think the institute deserved to be here, but in the spirit of compromise and in a hope of a resolution, I accepted that.

Now the article is exactly the same as before, except the offending non notable crap has moved to another section.

The edit by Jasynnash2 was a perfect example of how to diffuse a situation. The last edit by Bermuda is a perfect example of how to ignite a situation.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

whatever. if the worst someone can do is to make unfounded claims of political bias, and complain about my foul mouth, then I will have an easy life.Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While you are accusing me that I am taking interest over this page, you are taking dubious interest. First you entered removing the issues of her virginity. Then you removed the Institute's details. After it has been included in the "Legacy" section, you suddenly expanded that section. After the creation of the stand alone article most the stuff were shifted there. So that time what Jasynnash2 has included, was sufficient enough. But after the speedy deletion of that stand alone article, I have added a few more info only. Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What I tried to do was to balance the article, the fact that the dedicated article should tell you something.. the institute is NOT notable. It does not have an article anymore, because it is nothing. Do a google search and see how many results you get. You did not add a few more words, you restored it to its previous state, a state which was not acceptable. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced from the refernce available. You are taking extra interest only here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the question made by Bermuda in his edit summary, I dont think there was anything controversial in the previous version, I just don't think it was notable, and it wasn't required. I don't think politics in Sri Lanka are relevant or suitable for this article, perhaps there is an article more relevant to Sri Lanka, where you can add the Institute of Peace in more detail?Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, but we haven't come to a consensus here so far like that.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, Why you created the article if that is nothing[10], what is your actual motive to create that speedy deleted article.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My motivation was compromise, I personally thought that just deleting the section would be the best choice, however I also thought that making a dedicated article and giving it a chance would be a better way to compromise with editors who might want to keep that information.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Then your opinion is changing so quickly over time. Then how can you take rational decisions on issues here.Bermudatriangle (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the Diana, Princess of Wales article. We are getting off topic. Why not take it to my talk page, so we don't bore everyone else with this bullshit Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that the reference to the Institute of Peace is not suitable for wikipedia. Firstly there is COI as the main editor trying to include it, is a sockpuppet of the founder of the institute. Secondly the founder of the institute had his article deleted, as was the Institute's article (because of a lack of notability) therefore the text refering to the institute is also non-notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Rajkumar_Kanagasingam

Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To bottom line is that the subject is not notable for its own article, but it is sourced (self published sources should be ok if they are not promotional) and can be included in this article. It is not being given any more weight than it deserves. --neonwhite user page talk 21:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is citable does not make it notable. If I name my dog, princess diana, and I find one link online stating that I named my dog, princess diana, can that be included here? Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand what notability guidelines are for, they are for articles and which subjects are suitable, they aren't for article content. Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. (WP:NNC) and yes if there was enough verifiable sources about a dog called that then it could be included but would likely be considered trivial which this isn't. --neonwhite user page talk 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's totally irrelevant for a person seeking knowledge about Diana that her name is used by a non-notable organization. This feels like a way to try and get around the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Diana Institute of Peace – that article has even been recreated, as a redirect to this one! If indeed the Institute were notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia although not as a separate article (and nobody made that point in the AFD so it probably isn't), it would be at some place like List of peace institutes or List of Sri Lankan organizations, but certainly not here. -- Jao (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jao about this entirely. An organisation jumping on the Diana bandwagon shouldn't have to be included just because it uses her name. And this does look as though it's an attempt to get around the deletion. I will also say that I don't appreciate the accusations of vandalism being thrown around, including at me. Reverting this may have been WP:Bold but is certainly shouldn't be called vandalism by an editor (who seems to use the word quite a bit). As for notability, not only are we talking about a guideline, 'notability' can't be ignored when considering what is appropriate for an article. Which may be why the heading of the bit in the guideline about articles says 'notability guidelines do not directly limit article content' - the word directly is not, I'm sure, there by accident. I think the para about the photograph should be deleted also, by the way.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

The best source available on this is the 'German Memories in Asia By Rajkumar Kanagasingam' book. --neonwhite user page talk 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We obviously have different opinions regarding what is and isn't trivial. My way of thinking is that on a highly notable article, each section should contain highly notable information. For example, I wouldn't try to include the fact that there is a 7-11 store in Tokyo.

On borderline notable articles, then you have to scrape the barrel a little, and use things which are closer to trivia - An article regarding a small town that has basically nothing in it, you might have to mention the existence of a 7-11 store.

Don't forget that before it got deleted, I made the dedicated article for the institute of peace, I tried damn hard to find something/anything about it online. I found that it was a limited company that changed its name to the Princess Diana, institute of peace. The institute held a dinner, once. The institute was founded by Rajkumar Kanagasingam. On such a high profile article as this one, there are so many high profile things to put in, this is not one of them. It is trivia, the way it is being pushed by some editors (not yourself) is highly dubious.

One question, and I don't even need this answered - just consider it. Do you think including this crap, will actually improve wikipedia? I guess you know my answer to that question, but how about yours? Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The source you mention is a book written by the founder of the Institute, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, who has had his articles deleted for self promotion in the past, and is currently the subject of a sockpuppet report, alleging that he was responsible for the recent edit war, that tried to have the institute of peace included in this article. Highly dubious. Sennen goroshi (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what wikipedia policy suggests. Notability has no bearing whatsoever on article content. The info is directly relevent to the subject, even if only in name, it directly relates to the 'legacy section' (which could concievably contain anything named after her) it isnt indiscriminate information and therefore not really trivia. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context. Sources don't have to be online, a published book is better than an online source. Remember to assume good faith with all editors. A conflict of interest does not mean anything written by a particular editor should be deleted. The author of the book is not important, that fact it has been published is. --neonwhite user page talk 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The book needs checking for reliability as it is a vanity press publication. Regardless we still have a handful of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot agree. I don't consider it to be relevant at all. It is an organisation which is not well known, either it is own nation or worldwide. The citation is not the issue. It is not something that has any impact at all. The same as we don't list every book written about her, or every news report about her. It is something so small and meaningless, it adds nothing to the article. I can understand as a principal you dont want to remove cited information, but I think editors have been reasonable, numerous editors have removed it, because they saw it for what it was - nothing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We are looking at this in different ways, you are looking at the rules/guidelines of wikipedia, I am looking only at the article, not really caring about the guidelines, just wanting the article to be good. Both viewpoints are relevant. At the end of the day, we have to consider which is the most important. We can't get into a silly edit war again. It is not a vote, however so many people have doubted the suitability of that particular item for this article. But whatever, at least it is being discussed, rather than reverted. Sennen goroshi (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why we are even still discussing this topic.

• The Sri Lankan Institute did not exist during Diana's lifetime and formed no part in her life
• The only connection to her is the recently added use of her name
• This Wiki article is only about Diana, her life and death

This Institute topic should NOT be included here in the Diana article and the editors inserting it should cease and desist immediately 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When the institute ws founded is pretty irrelevent and the use of the name has to be official they wouldnt be able to use it if it wasnt official. --neonwhite user page talk 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

The above institute is initiated by Rajkumar Kanagasingam on 31st August, 1997, the day Late Diana, Princess of Wales passed away and entered the initiation of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" in her condolence book for Late Diana, Princess of Wales at Westminster House, Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 03rd September, 1997 and informed officially to His Excellency David Tatham, CMG the High Commissioner from the Court of Saint James to Sri Lanka at Westminster House, the same day.

(The above details are mentioned in the Articles of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace which is formally incorporated as an association in Sri Lanka on 30th June, 1998.)

(The condolence book is currently kept at Kensington Palace.)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam has sent a copy of the articles of the association to OTRS.Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A question for the above editor. I noticed that you had not edited wikipedia for over a year. What prompted you to check this particular article, at this particular time? It seems to be rather good timing, and I wondered if there was anything behind your return. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should get distracted from the main issue, which is that there are many many things using her name, but as several people have said, it simply doesn't belong in the article, which is not about things named after Diana, but about her.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is linked and there is no reason i can see why the article should not contain a list of things named after her. --neonwhite user page talk 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you Rajkumar Kanagasingam. You have just confirmed my statements above:

• The Sri Lankan Institute did not exist during Diana's lifetime and formed no part in her life
• The only connection to her is the recently added use of her name
• This Wiki article is only about Diana, her life and death

This Institute topic should therefore NOT be included here in the Diana article and the editors inserting it should cease and desist immediately 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to add that if something highly notable was named after her, then it might be included, but this should be the exception not the rule. The problem with this article, is that this has been said many times, some people with possible agendas, and some well meaning editors keep on reinstating it. The overwhelming consensus based on previous edits, is that it is not included. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As i have said above, the date of the founing is irrelevant to this discussion. I assume the org. must have some official backing or the name would not be allowed. The next course of action is to verify this. --neonwhite user page talk 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can assume that in order to use someone's name as part of your organisation's name, you need approval. For example, do you think the notable band Gay for Johnny Depp operate with the approval of the actor they are named after?Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}It still wouldn't be relevant here, perhaps in a list of things officially named after her.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure I agree there. Most biographies seem to incorporate this kind of information in the main article, only taking out place names if very numerous. There are certainly exceptions though, such as List of things named after Glenn T. Seaborg. But that's really beside the point; whether we think it should be included is the first question, and if we do, then how to include it – in the main article or in a sub-article – is the second. I'd say that if there's some sort of official acknowledgement of the use of Diana's name here, then it could certainly stay. But then it would also be a notable organization, discussed in independent sources, and should probably never have been deleted in the first place. Some of the people trying to save the article would definitely have made that point if it were true, so I can only assume (against neonwhite's assumption) that it does not have any kind of official backing. I'll gladly switch sides if I'm proven wrong on that assumption. -- Jao (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is that I'm pretty certain that you cannot legally use the name of a member of the royal family for anything unless it is officially sanctioned, whether this applies outside the uk or if in fact this org. has gained permission, i dont know. --neonwhite user page talk 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bio of Rajkumar Kanagasingam was nominated on 17 March 2007 (UTC) and the Princess Diana Institute of Peace was nominated on 19 March 2007 (UTC). The timing shows the foul play. To prove that see this Something quite interesting.. Very interestingly the deletion of the institute first started with User :Lahiru k here.

Most of the editors who voted "delete" for Rajkumar Kanagasingam are voted "delete" for the Princess Diana Institute of Peace also. So the both AFDs are well planned and should not be counted. Rajkumar Kanagasingam is a Tamil and the majority of those who voted "Delete" are pro-nationalists/Sinhalese and the nominator of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace, (User:Utcursch) is from Karnataka, another Indian state where Tamils are in trouble.[11][12].Bermudatriangle (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith. Two related pages being nominated at similar times is not evidence of 'foul play' and as both debates were listed in Sri Lanka-related deletions it's highly likely that similar editors would contribute to the discussions. Some of the comments made during the afd were not really valid reason for deletion but most afds suffer from that, i think the result was borderline no consensus/delete. Remember wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox for political causes. You're ignoring the fact that afds are decided by an admin based on the valid policy points made not on numbers. There were many experienced editors who made valid reason for deletion and this is what the closing admin would have noted. --neonwhite user page talk 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree with you most of the points which you have highlighted, I am bit nervous of your point, "There were many experienced editors who made valid reason for deletion and this is what the closing admin would have noted." When you don't like someone, it is not the experience but the prejudice over-influences anything.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering the number of editors involved on Sri Lanka related issues, I am not sure how many editors are visiting regularly to check what is happening in Sri Lanka-related deletions list. Unless otherwise they are notified on their talk pages, they don't know what is happening around. Even in a well planned afd battle they might be even resent to cast their votes.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only arguments that the closing sdmins (a different admin for each article) would have taken into account would have been those based on notability policy. You however request a deletion review if you are not happy with the decision. You can see in the histories that Princess Diana Institute of Peace was nominated by User:Utcursch, an admin, after contributing to the Rajkumar Kanagasingam i see nothing irregular about this. --neonwhite user page talk 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, I also don't see any irregularity on what he has done by his actions. But that doesn't mean that Admins are born rationals or they do things without prejudice. We can't measure the actual intentions. We have seen enough desysopped admins in the past.Bermudatriangle (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are human and there have been many cases of afds close improperly but that is what deletion reviews are for. In this case two different unrelated admins closed each afd. --neonwhite user page talk 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I too understand they are humans. But Rajkumar Kanagasingam's afd was closed with Keep vote, just two and half months ago by another admin. Those who accussed he canvassed votes should have boycotted from the second afd, but what has happened, is, they showed their utter chauvinism.

And see this comment by User:Dennisthe2 on Princess Diana Institute of Peace.Bermudatriangle (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Significant evidence she is related to King Arthur"

How can that be possible? There is no evidence that King Arthur even existed, so how can there possibly be evidence that Diana was descended from him? That has to be a windup 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was initially interested, then I woke up and realised that it was a blatant joke. Until such time as there is something resembling a citation, I will delete it on sight. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

References to Diana in Contemporary Art, Popular Culture, etc

hello everyone

I added a line about princess diana's references in contemporary art that was erased twice by 2 users

do you think that's irrelevant? if not maybe would be interesting to have a track on diana's references not only in contemporary art but also popular culture, literature, cinema, etc

i found that information fundamental as she has a very strong iconic status as much as when she was alive

bests

Milhouse--88.0.18.24 (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally pointless. It'll become as big as the article itself, and add nothing in the way of understanding. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Worse still, it risks becoming a dumping ground for every non-notable writer and artist looking for publicity. A separate article could be created, but it would have to be very carefully monitored to stop the same thing happening. Deb (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a lot more of this kind of thing, but steering clear of random, meaningless or biased coverage. Diana was primarily a cultural figure, that is most peoples experience of her. For example David Baddiel refers to the frenzy around her death in his book 'whatever love means' (something that Charles said). The question is how to achieve a balanced-as-possible overview to start off with. I find the current 'Diana' page surprisingly dry considering who she was as a person. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened here?

What happened to this article?! Where are the references? Where are "See also", "External links" etc? Why does the article end with ancestry? Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be better now. There was a missing closing tag from a previous edit. --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Style Icon, Media & Poplularity

I think there should be a section on the development of Diana as a fashion Icon. ... this could cover : her early style "mistakes" coming into the public eye as a teenager, wedding dress, more confident & personal style in 80s, glamorous evening wear at special events, use of iconic fashion in throughout period of separation & divorce, what Mario Testino did for her, criticism over weight, popular haircut.

Also there should be more objective reference to her massive poplularity & her ability to sell masses of newspapers & magazines when featured. This effect continued after her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Links on Diana & the Media:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1650830_1650872_1632808,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/diana_one_year_on/reporters_reflections/default.stm journalists reflections on reaction to her death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6961302.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/14/pressandpublishing.themonarchy
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/diana.html 'first celeb activist'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/ & http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/talk/ & http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/royals/readings/

http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/diheadlines_previous2.html 'Diana Effect' people stay in after her death
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Diana-Making-Media-Jeffrey-Richards/dp/1860643884

Questions:
How did the relationship between Diana and the media develop, from her first association with prince Charles to her death?
How did the media use the image of Diana?
How did Diana use the media? ie for example: in her support of charities, & in re-defining the relationship between the public & the royal family
What is the legacy of events between the media & Diana, both on journalism and on the royal family & other celebrities ?
Who was 'the media' that was interested in Diana - geographically?
Are there any statistics available to support the article?

Its funny but I'm getting the impression that this is not a well-covered topic because the blaze of publicity that surrounded her - including many debated on the questions above - came just before there was much internet. She was one of the first people for whom it was really debated over boundaries between public & private lives, and whether you have the right to separate them if you use the media to your own ends, and her position can be seen as a for-runner of the celebrity-based emphasis in the media today - for example, if you have a fashion article, its about what a celebrity wears. She was a very hot topic for a while, especially in the 80s.
--78.86.146.148 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Panorama

I think there should be a section about the panorama interview on either this page, or the panorama page, or a separate page in its own right. It was a very significant point in history in terms of the marriage, Diana personally, as a media event and a cultural event. Micheal Jackson, later, pretty much allowed the interviewer Martin Bashir in because of his involment previously with Diana. This could refer to the prince Charles interview also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.146.148 (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Panorama & also the 'great britons' BBC TV programs should go in the box on the bottom under Popular culture, film, and literature.

Here a couple of links for panorama:

www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/diana/panorama.html Interview transcript
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/freedom-of-information-the-diana-interview-that-changed-bbc-reporting-454114.html report about making of program //news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/november/20/newsid_4407000/4407752.stm public reactions

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572605/Princess-Diana-'regretted'-Panorama-interview.html Dianas feelings

--78.86.146.148 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 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)

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)

In fact, these four blood-lines did not produce only one common blood-line but many common blood-lines. This is a natural fact: In ancient times there where few people on earth, nowadays there are lots of them. As any person now living has four grandparents, eight grand-greatparents sixteen great-great-grands and so on, any person today living must be related to his/her ancestors of ancient times by many blood-lines - there just hadn't been not enough of the old folks, that it could be otherwise.

This is as true for American republicans as it is for British royals. If you have two children, who produce two children and so on, very soon earth will be so crowded by your issue, that the only way they can have sex is by (very relatively so:) incest. And if you still wait long enough, everybody on earth will be descendent from Carles II and from you. --O DM (talk) 20:27, 8 December 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)

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)

Land Mines

North Korea and Pakistan are not directly quoted in the UNICEF source. Thank you. AuricBlofeld (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (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)

If you look back far enough most English people are related to royalty, it's no big deal. Jack forbes (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

that's true i'm english and i'm prince Charles's 15th cousin basically everyone in england is related to the royals but i know because my family was noble only 5 generations ago most americans don't know because know one in america really knows if they were noble englishmen but either way sarah palin is princess diana's 10th cousin it's proven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.33.176 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana had many distant American cousins, seeing as her great-grandmother Frances Work was American. I agree that the Palin connection should be on Sarah Palin's article, not Diana's. Diana was notable enough on her own, she does not need a Sarah Palin kinship to enhance her celebrity. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fernanda Bortoni Navarro

Widely used as a term of endearment, "princess" has also devolved in mostly American usage to mean any woman of exceptional popularity, such as the "princesses" of high school prom courts and beauty pageants. The term can also be used disparagingly to refer to a young woman or girl perceived of as being vain or spoiled. Another variation is "Jewish Princess" which focuses on affluent, free-spending, suburban Jewish women. Yet another take on the rising popularity of being a "princess" is the gentleness and refined composure associated with the title. It often conjures images of elegance and self-control, and among the younger generations, is a depiction of all things feminine and lovely, yet in reality, a real princess is just a title given to one who is part of a royal family and does not necessarily mean that they are always like so. In popular culture, the stereotypically ideal relationship between parents and a daughter consists of the mother and father considering their daughter to be their own "little princess." A fictional princess typically wears a gown and high heels with jewellery and tiaras. The princess would wear princess gowns and princess heels to balls.

All very laudable, but leans heavily towards original research and has absolutely nothing of relevence to this article on Diana, Princess of Wales. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article needs a new section

Didn't anything of import happen to Diana between her wedding day and her marriage problems in 1990? As I recall she gave birth to two sons, made a lot of trips abroad (Australia, India, USA, etc.), and acquired a new sister-in-law! Yet the article makes no mention of these things. There needs to be a new section following her wedding to Charles. It now reads as if time had been suspended from 1981 to 1990!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article can be also enhanced by some more images!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism?

This hysteria from when she died seems to have carried over to this databse of usually credible information, why is the fact she was rather licentious, profligate, whose charitable affairs were always accompanied by a camera crew, it was all for her, she needed the poverty, as "Mother" Teresa, she was a friend of poverty not the poor. Had she not had so much time on her hands she wouldn't have done this and what did she do with all of her own money? And by the way, even after she died, she caused murder and turned Britain into a one party state for the week and people were made in the press and in public to express sympathy for her demise, while of course we should have been celebrating the end of an invasion and attempted monopolisation of the British press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.182.31 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add the section, if you are going to use reliable sources instead of your personal opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

One could easily ask, "Why was she partying in France, while her two sons (then minors) were home (in the UK)?" Like Surtsicna says, if ya got a reliable source, add what ya wish. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with holidaying in France? My parents used to go on holiday in Mexico when I was a minor. In my opinion, Princess Diana was a good mother to her sons. What do you mean by invasion, IP 81.155.182.31? How did Diana invade Britain seeing as she was born in England?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Images of her sons should be included in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Add to Princess Diana Page

Someone should really add to the Princess Diana page if they have legitimate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.11.23 (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There is a discrepancy between Diana's death date on this page and on the Diana (given name) page. This one says it was 1996 but the other page says 1997. I don't know the correct one--Pianoplonkers (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Diana died on 31 August 1997. The Diana (given name) page is obviously incorrect and should be changed ASAP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Public image in the 21st century

Okay, there's been a small edit war over this section. Here is 24.80.247.77 revert of my version. I think my version is a lot better. the IP version sounds slightly hysterical and very unbalanced in calling Diana's "lies and deceits" and "exaggeration of reality" without explaining in detail why that's the case. I wrote the entry based on the listed source that quotes several parts where Diana was presumably crazy (angering royal family, quotes about being a shopaholic). I think we should work from my version and improve from there. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is 24.80.247.77 so I wanted to explain myself but I'll begin by saying that I don't mind part of your version, especially the beginning since it's kinda similar to mine.Okay so here's my explanation to all this, basically what I'm trying to say is that Diana's versions we're a bit distorted. For example and I took this right out of both the articles I had sourced. When she claimed to Morton that she tried to commit suicide by pushing herself down the stairs when she just tripped down two or three steps. She then went on to claim that Charles left and when he came back it was " just dismissal, total dismissal" when in truth according to various source and according to the news clippings I have from that day, published by "The Sun" Charles actually was very concerned and never left. That's what I'm trying to say that because of these exaggerations originally the public felt very sorry for Diana,and put full blame on Charles for everything that went wrong but as the years went on and more and more info came out people started to realize that she also had her faults. That's sort what I also meant when I used the terms "lies and deceit" Maybe if you don't like how that sounds we could use another word. That's why I used the term " Public Opinions in the 21st century" I was merely trying to show that the public now sees her as more of a human being who has faults. I never tried to say everyone hates her now, because in truth so many people very much still adore her and that was shown true with her son's trip down under this week. Nor am I trying to say Diana was insane,no not at all, that was never my intention with this. Like I told you earlier I very much adore Diana and have spent a few years now learning about her and understanding her. "24.80.247.77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh ya I just wanted to also let you know I wasn't the one who reverted it back to my version, I had actually left your version on there last night when I last checked wikipedia since I didn't want to get banned. I wanted to be able to talk to you about it first, so ya whoever reverted it back wasn't me, just wanted to clear that up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see that view. Can you give us the proper citation format (date, author, publisher, title) and quotes and all so that we can check for ourselves and write something out? My primary objection to your version is that it's quite general, but if we put all that in (that the supposed suicide was exaggerated), all citing good sources of course, then I wouldn't object to it. Is the primary source for this Tina Brown's biography of Diana, or are there other sources as well that corroborate these claims? hbdragon88 (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey so that sounds like a great idea, here's my information:

The Diana Chronicles by Tina Brown, published in 2007 page 236, line 31 " there was another blowup that same month during a pheasant at Sandringham when Diana tried to stop Charles going out with the gun. 11 years later, she told Andrew Morton that she threw herself down a stair case afterwards in a suicide attempt,but this was just material from her internal post-marital rewrite desk". The last thing she would ever have done was hurt her unborn child. One of Diana's aides at the time told me that she remembers Diana saying, " very embarassing. I slipped down the stairs and landed at the Queen Mother's feet. I saw the gynecologist but he said, you'll be fine, stop worrying. In the version of the story she gave Andrew Morton , Prince Charles was supposed to have gone straight out riding after the incident and when he came back it was, she told him, "just dissmissal, total dissmissal"....................In the light of this it's hard to know how much credence to give to the other suicide attempts spoke of.

Diana by Sarah Bradford published in 2006 page 104 (same incident as above)

" This was a fabrication, a dramatization of an incident which was purely an accident told to Andrew Morton through a desire to shock...........this misrepresentation was typical of much of Diana's dramatic view of her past distorted by the reality of her position 10 years later."

It is also mentioned in the documentary Diana: story of a princess

I also have the original scans from the Sun's article about it back in December 1981. If you would like me to post that please let me know. The dailymail artiicle I had originally posted as my source included quotes directly from both books including quotes from this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to add one more thing I do have other incidents such as how she told Morton her life was miserable growing up, how she was left on her own by the royals to cope, her tantrums etc but for now we can just use that as prime example to try to show how these sorts of exaggerations led some members of the public to change their minds about Diana, course not that there weren't people in 97 who didn't like her but I think more or less a sort of hysteria fell upon the public when she died and has since sorta balanced in terms of public opinion of course the Inquest didn't exactly help her image either. There is an article about it in the dailymail, (it was posted just after the inquest ended) I was going to post it but I wasn't too sure if it was going too off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should tabloids like The Sun be considered reliable sources? Most people in Britain discredit anything that appears in The Sun, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I would rather see more reputable sources quoted. Anything written in the tabloids should be qualified with words such as "claimed". The fact that the royal family doesn't usually bother to sue them for libel doesn't make them a good source of encyclopaedic material. But obviously it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Deb (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on several talk pages we must become more circumspect about using the descriptor "tabloids" when related to the British press. It was fair enough when only the Sun, Mirror and Sport were printed in the tabloid format and the 'respectable' newpapers appeared in a broadsheet format. Today of course many of the quality papers are also appearing in the tabloid printing format due to paper saving economies. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (sorry no tildes on this US keyboard I am using today)

Well that wasn't really my point I sourced two books, that have been generally very credible in their information so I thought that was probably good enough. When it comes to Diana where do you draw the line in terms of what source to beleive and what source not to beleive. There's always going to be different sides of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would draw the line at newspapers such as The Sun, National Enquirer, and other tabloids of that sort, seeing as veracity generally takes a back seat to sensationalism in those publications.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem here. Maybe we should take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Deb (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well anyways my main source was never the Sun it was always Bradford and Brown's books, I just mentioned because I remembered I had a copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hewitt?

The section "Problems and separation" states "Although her affair with Hewitt was the longest of her affairs, Diana also had relationships with other men. According to some sources, but which Diana vehemently denied, she had an affair that preceded her affair with Hewitt, with her bodyguard, but after leaving the Royal Protection squad he was killed in a motorcycle accident." This is the first mention of a "Hewitt" previously mentioned was James Gilbey, but no Hewitt. Who is he? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right - in all the edits to this page, the details of her affair with Hewitt have somehow fallen by the wayside. I have added a short paragraph containing some basic information. Deb (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a little confused!

In the article it said that diana divorced charles but with the info under her picture says that her spouse, i am not for sure which information is true if that could be fixed that would be greatly apperciated!!!!!

thanks so much!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.162.209.2 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 

omg i need help on this asigment thing im doing pleas someone give me some answes :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.234.168 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculative comment move here

"From the time of her engagement to the Prince of Wales in 1981 until her death in a car accident in 1997, Diana was arguably the most famous woman in the world, the pre-eminent female celebrity of her generation: a fashion icon, an ideal of feminine beauty, admired and emulated for her high-profile involvement in AIDS issues and the international campaign against landmines."

• Which sources claim that Diana was "arguably the most famous woman in the world."?

• Which sources verify that Diana was "the preeminent female celebrity of her generation."?

• Who asserts that Diana was "an ideal of feminine beauty"?

• the terminology "high-profile" is unnecessary...

Why don't you change the wording then? Deb (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate the author of this edit. It removed the kind of peacock content which survives unchallenged on Wikipedia too often. If the deleted content is restored, it needs appropriate sourcing as well as rewording. Viewfinder (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Surname

Footnote #1: "As a titled royal, Diana held no surname, but, when one was used, it was Windsor". Reference #2: "As a titled royal, Diana held no surname, but, when one was used, it was Mountbatten-Windsor". This should probably be fixed. I would do it, but I've no idea which one is correct.—Chowbok ☠ 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

British vs. English/Irish/Welsh/Scottish

A minor point, but doesn't this intro seem a bit odd to you?

Diana Frances Spencer was the youngest daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp ... who was of British descent and Frances Spencer ... who was of English and Irish descent.

It seems odd to say 'English' in one place and 'British' in another... can we expand John Spencer's background and explain which parts of Britain his ancestry is from? --Saforrest (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Death of A Princess

I can get you some crash pics if you want them. Do you want them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

Why is the title of this article Diana, Princess of Wales? Should it not be Lady Diana Spencer? This was her birth name. I noticed that the article on the Queen Mother is titled Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.32 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it should. But this encyclopaedia is a bizarre place where consistency doesn't exist. Professional encyclopaedias and histories refer to consorts by maiden name/maiden title. But this bizarre place doesn't work that way! *sigh* FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't remember the reason for the naming :-) It is a unique title that was custom-made for Diana. She was never a consort, hence the maiden name rule does not apply. If we were to place her at (Lady) Diana Spencer, there would also be a disambiguation issue. Deb (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. Diana was only Princess of Wales because she was married to the Prince of Wales. She was his "consort". She retained the title after divorce as a courtesy from the Queen. She was not a princess in her own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (tQualk) 18:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. She did not "retain" the title. Her title during her marriage was "The Princess of Wales". The title "Diana, Princess of Wales" came into existence only after her divorce. Deb (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I looked it up and Letters Patent were issued naming her Diana, Princess of Wales. The title of the article is correct. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, these Letters Patent had to do with DIana's TITLE, not her name. In the UK names are only changed via Deed Poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.244.190.135 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

All other consorts are listed by their maiden name. There shoud be no exception here. This "encyclopedia" is totally unreliable and useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.228.180 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

SHE - WAS - NOT - A - CONSORT Deb (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The title used should be her name (Diana Spencer). Her title, on the other hand, was Diana, Princess of Wales and this was indeed granted by Letters Patent. Wikipedia is confused between name and title. See the article on the person entitled Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

I came here via clicking on Princess Diana which is a common mistake which should not be in an encyclopedia. Diana Prince or Wonderwoman was Princess Diana86.44.71.5 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

Odd para rmeoved

"Under English law, if a man has sexual relations with the wife of the King or the wife of the heir to the Throne, both he and the woman involved are guilty of high treason and liable to be executed for the crime, as Catherine Howard and Thomas Culpepper discovered during the reign of King Henry VIII. By merely demanding that Charles and Diana divorce, Queen Elizabeth II demonstrated the "progress" that the Nation had made in the intervening 450 years.<ref>PBS Video, "The Windsors: A Royal Family"</ref>>"

Also this unsourced since March 2010 statement "Diana and her advisers negotiated with Charles and his representatives, with Charles reportedly having to liquidate all of his personal holdings, as well as borrowing from the Queen, to meet her financial demands. The Royal Family would have preferred an alimony settlement, which would have provided some degree of control over the erstwhile Princess of Wales."

Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

The article has two different dates for Diana's death

The first two paragraphs list Aug 31, 1996, while the caption under the pic lists Aug 28, 1996.Danleywolfe (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look again you will see that the date of her death is actually 31 August 1997. The date under the photograph is under the heading of SPOUSE (ie to Prince Charles) and shows the date of marriage and the divorce which was 28 August 1996. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Legacy?

The legacy section needs to be elaborated more. Some honest frank discussion is needed. Some have tried to lionize Diana to the point of insisting she was some kind of "hero of the people". However, circumstances aside, others believe that would be a mistake. Even those who lionize her cannot deny her weaknesses and the fact that she was quite ordinary as a person. Although the prince of Wales did not love her but instead loved another who was older, less good-looking, less trendy and therefore less appealing in the media, his reasons do NOT seem superficial at any rate. Rather he seems he truly loved Camilla, his apparent soul-mate, a woman he would eventually marry but could not marry the first time around because she was a divorced Catholic. In this respect, the prince of Wales seems to have a more refined and better aesthetic, better than the aesthetic of the general public. It's for these reasons that Diana's legacy is mixed and I am sorry to say - not durable.TonyMath (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was Camilla's first husband, Col. Parker-Bowles who was Catholic?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about that. Not that any of the above comments about Charles are relevant to the article in any case. Deb (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

With so many lovely pictures taken of these beautiful woman is this the best you can do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.42.65 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Most photographs of Diana are protected by copyright so we cannot use them. The ones in the article are free images.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Blazon of Arms

These arms are incorrectly or inadequately blazoned. The shield is better blazoned: "impaled with a shield quarterly 1st and 4th Argent 2nd and 3rd Gules a fret Or overall a bend Sable charged with three escallops Argent." The use of the term "defaced" implies some sort of dis-honour which it was not. The supporters should be: Dexter: a lion rampant gardant Or crowned with the coronet of the Prince of Wales Proper and gored with a label of three points; Sinister: a griffin Ermine winged Erminois languled and armed Gules and gorged with a coronet composed of crosses patée and fleurs de lis affixed thereto a chain passing between the forelegs and reflexed over the back Or.

I would edit this myself, but do not yet have the skills. Kiltpin (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems I have found some skills. I have corrected the blazon for the impaled shield. Kiltpin (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Poisoned?

Why does this article say that Diana's death was caused by poisoning? Was this the work of some quack conspiracy theorist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.144.42 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any mentioning of a poisoning. But please have respect for others, conspiracy theories whether "quack"ie or not, offer alternative views where the mainstream media fails, like the fall of 3 skyscrapers at freefall speed caused by 2 airplanes and abit of kerosene. An accident where the driver lives and the passengers he carries die, is pretty rare, infact statistically, the Diana accident is the only one of its kind. I hope you understand why some people cannot understand why it is just an "accident". Good luck with your quest, and yes, if you see any uncited content, please use the non-citation tag. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Is it necessary to include the fact that she chose not to circumcise her children. I'm fairly certain we wouldn't include in someone's article that he is or isn't circumcised, so I'm not sure it's appropriate here. Hot Stop (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it would be pretty weird if she had chosen to circumcise them! Deb (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Does this really have anything to do with BLP? You know, since there's no LP? 205.133.172.113 (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Except Wills and Harry, since WP:BLP extends that widely, and to be honest I can't see it being worthy of mention, since the reasons for circumcision vary widely across cultures, and even if reliably sourced, I don't see meaning that much. Hengist Pod (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Rearrange sections

Is it just me, or should the Tribute, funeral, and burial section be listed ahead of the Conspiracy theories and inquest section? Chronologically, it would make more sense.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this article following WP:COMMONNAME?

Why isn't this article following WP:COMMONNAME? The most common name for this article's topic is "Princess Diana", not "Diana, Princess of Wales" which almost no one uses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Diana, Princess of Wales is the agreed upon title bestowed upon her by the British Monarchy following her divorce from Prince Charles if I remember correctly. Miyagawa (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• I understand your point but the Common Name guidelines also state "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". The name 'Princess Diana', whilst by far the most commonly used name, is inaccurate and misleading. Diana was never given that style as she married into the Royal Family, rather than being born into it. --86.173.142.69 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Diana became that because she was married to the Prince of Wales; Middleton will become that also. Nasnema  Chat  20:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well no she didn't, because she was not born a princess. At no point in her life was she ever called Princess Diana (except by the press of countries outside Britain who didn't know better). Neither is the Duchess of Cambridge called Princess Catherine. It does not work like that. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

To actually answer the original question, articles on royals are governed by a different naming convention. WP:COMMONNAME is superseded by topic-specific conventions when the latter exist and have been accepted by the community. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Except for Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, unfortunately. Deb (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles went first!

I believe it is common knowledge that Charles went back to Camilla before Diana ever began a relationship with James Hewitt; in recent years it is even implied that as early as 1984-5 he had rekindled his relationship with her. This article implies that Diana began an adulterous relationship first, and that "in turn" Charles went back to Camilla; this is not the consensus in neither the official or unofficial reading available on the subject. sorry I'm new... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.154.239 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in substance and will take a look at the article to see if any wording needs to be amended. Whilst it is probably true that Diana was the first to have a sexual relationship with a third party, the kind of statements you are referring to would seem to be twisting the situation. Deb (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually..I have to disagree. Virtually all of the accounts of this period in the marriage cite Charles as going back to Camilla emotionally and sexually before Diana ever accepted that it was "over", and therefore then seeking her own relationship. So nit-picky I know :) but the way this article reads paints a different dynamic than what is generally accepted by the majority of authors, royal "experts", etc, and to me could considerably change how one would view Diana and her actions. However, it's true that there is no 100% proof of what actually transpired, so maybe a more neutral statement that just says they both began adulterous affairs in the mid-80's would be more accurate, rather than citing as fact "who went first." Thanks for listening! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.154.239 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of your point. You actually sound like you are agreeing. Deb (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that this quote "During 1986 Diana began an affair with Major James Hewitt and Prince Charles turned to his former girlfriend, Camilla Shand," implies that Diana began an affair first and that, in turn, Charles went back to Camilla. Most experts agree that it is the other way around, and that Charles went back to Camilla before Diana ever entertained the thought. However, since there is no impenetrable evidence of either, I meant that a more accurate depiction would be to simply say that both began affairs around the time, rather than making it sound as if either "went first." Ok I'm finished, I promise! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.154.239 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)